HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017-08-30 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: August 30, 2017
Council Chambers
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.Presentation from Santa Clara County and Discussion Regarding Initial Traffic Study
Findings Related to the Stanford General Use Permit (GUP) 2018 Application
(Continued From July 26, 2017)
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: Recommendation to the City Council Repealing Chapter 9.17
(Personal Cultivation of Marijuana) of Title 9 (Public Peace, Morals and Safety) of the
Palo Alto Municipal Code; Repealing Ordinance No. 4422; and Adoption of an
Ordinance Amending Chapters 18.04 (Definitions) and 18.42 (Standards for Special
Uses) of Title 18 (Zoning) to Prohibit Medical Cannabis Dispensaries and Prohibit
Commercial Cannabis Activities, Except for Deliveries. The Proposed Ordinance is
Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in Accordance with
CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3).
_______________________
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.
4.PUBLIC HEARING Planning and Transportation Commission Review and
Recommendation Regarding the June 30, 2017 Draft of the Comprehensive Plan
Update, with a Focus on the Draft Transportation and Land Use Elements
Approval of Minutes
Public Comment is Permitted. Five (5) minutes per speaker.1,3
5.July 26, 2017 Draft Planning & Transportation Commission Meeting Minutes
6.August 9, 2017 Draft Planning & Transportation Commission Meeting Minutes
Committee Items
Commissioner Questions, Comments or Announcements
Adjournment
July 26, 2017 Draft
Meeting Minutes
August 9, 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 # 7771)
Report Type: City Official Reports Meeting Date: 8/30/2017
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: August 30, 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 Alcheck, 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
August 18, 2017 Draft-All Dates and Topics Subject to Change
The Following Items are Tentative and Subject to Change:
Meeting Dates Topics
September 13 Comp Plan: Land Use and Transportation
101 Bike Bridge
September 27 Comp Plan Update: Final Recommendation
North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan Scoping
October 11 Title 18 Code Clean-up
Downtown Parking Management #2
October 25 PTC Annual Report to Council
350 Sherman PF Zone Standards Amendment
November
TMA Discussion
Comp Plan Implementing Ordinance #1
Fry’s Coordinated Area Plan
Transportation 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 # 8205)
Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 8/30/2017
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
(650) 329-2442
Summary Title: Ordinance Prohibiting Commercial Cannabis Activities Except
for Deliveries
Title: PUBLIC HEARING: Recommendation to the City Council
Repealing Chapter 9.17 (Personal Cultivation of Marijuana) of
Title 9 (Public Peace, Morals and Safety) of the Palo Alto
Municipal Code; Repealing Ordinance No. 4422; and Adoption
of an Ordinance Amending Chapters 18.04 (Definitions) and
18.42 (Standards for Special Uses) of Title 18 (Zoning) to
Prohibit Medical Cannabis Dispensaries and Prohibit
Commercial Cannabis Activities, Except for Deliveries. The
Proposed Ordinance is Exempt from the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in Accordance with CEQA
Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3).
From: Hillary Gitelman
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Planning and Transportation Commission take the following actions:
1. Recommend approval of the proposed ordinance (Attachment A) prohibiting medical
cannabis dispensaries and prohibiting commercial cannabis activities in the City of Palo
Alto except for deliveries. The ordinance would also repeal the temporary ban on
outdoor cultivation due to new State law that regulates outdoor cultivation for personal
use.
2. Recommend that the City Council find the proposed ordinance exempt from the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in accordance with CEQA Guidelines
Section 15061(b)(3).
Executive Summary
Commercial cannabis activities, including commercial cultivation and retailing, will soon be
permitted in California under the Medicinal and Adult Use Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2
(MAUCRSA). Municipalities have the option to allow or prohibit some or all of such activities,
including: commercial cultivation, retail sales, delivery services, distribution, manufacturing of
cannabis-containing products, and testing businesses.1
If the City Council wishes to prohibit some or all commercial cannabis activities in the City of
Palo Alto, it must enact an ordinance that is effective before January 1, 2018. On that date, the
state is required to begin issuing licenses for commercial cannabis activities under the
MAUCRSA, but the State will not issue a license if such commercial activity is banned by the
City.
Presently, the City has two ordinances that regulate cannabis. The first bans medical cannabis
dispensaries and was enacted in 1997 in response to the voter-approved legalization of medical
cannabis. The second bans the outdoor cultivation of cannabis and was enacted in 2016 in
anticipation of the passage of Proposition 64. The City’s ban on outdoor cultivation will sunset
in November 2017.
By prohibiting most commercial uses, the proposed ordinance (Attachment A) will preserve the
City’s right to regulate commercial cannabis activities permitted under the MAUCRSA, including
commercial cultivation (indoors and outdoors), manufacturing facilities, retailers, and
warehouses. The only permitted commercial activity under this ordinance is the delivery of
cannabis. The proposed ordinance will also codify the existing prohibition of medical cannabis
dispensaries. These measures will give the City more time to consider which, if any, commercial
activities should be permitted in the City, and whether to adopt alternative regulations.
The proposed ordinance will also repeal the City’s outdoor cultivation ban to defer to state law
standards for personal cultivation, which requires personal cultivation to occur indoors or
within a locked space not visible from a public space.
Background
Cannabis has been decriminalized in phases in California.2 Medical cannabis was first legalized
by the voters in 1996 upon the passage of Proposition 215.
In response, the City passed an ordinance in 1997 prohibiting medical cannabis dispensaries.
While dispensaries were not allowed under the City’s zoning code under the principles of
permissive zoning provisions, the City passed the ordinance to make the prohibition clear.3
1 The MAUCRSA also permits personal use activities, including smoking of cannabis by adults 21 years or older and
growing of up to six cannabis plants for personal use.
2 Cannabis remains a Schedule I drug under the federal Controlled Substances Act.
3 See Ordinance 5399, Section 1 for more analysis of the zoning issues and presumptions regarding cannabis.
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 3
In 2015, the Governor approved AB 266, known as the Medical Cannabis Regulation and Safety
Act (MCRSA). The Act created a new licensing system for medical cannabis-related businesses
and imposed regulations on medical cannabis.
In November 2016, California voters passed Proposition 64, also known as the Adult Use of
Marijuana Act (AUMA), which legalized cannabis under state law for recreational (non-medical)
and commercial uses.
In June 2017, the state legislature passed SB 94, known as the Medicinal and Adult Use
Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act (MAUCRSA), which consolidated the MCRSA and the AUMA,
largely by eliminating the MCRSA and expanding the scope of the AUMA to include medicinal
cannabis. The following is a summary of some of the major provisions of the MAUCRSA:
Recreational possession, use, and personal growing permitted, subject to local regulations.
The MAUCRSA allows adult (21 years or older) smoking and consumption of cannabis.4 Adults
are allowed to grow up to six plants per residence and possess 28.5 grams of cannabis in
public.5 Outdoor cultivation for personal use must occur in a locked space and out of sight from
public spaces.6 Cannabis grown at home cannot be sold, but can be gifted.7 Smoking is not
allowed in any place where tobacco smoking is already banned or near schools, and driving
while smoking is also illegal.8 The City can enact reasonable regulations that govern personal
cultivation that do not conflict with state law.9
Personal use regulations are not included in this ordinance and can be addressed by the Council
in the future. Staff recommends discussing commercial activities first, as any local ordinance
prohibiting commercial activities should be in place before the issuance of state licenses, which
is expected to start on January 1, 2018.
Commercial activities permitted, subject to local prohibitions.
The MAUCRSA allows for several types of commercial cannabis activities, but all require a state-
issued license. The MAUCRSA envisions at least three types of state-issued licenses: a license to
cultivate commercially, a license to retail or distribute (which also allows delivery), and a license
to test or manufacture.
Cities have the option to prohibit one or more types of these state-licensed commercial
activities.10 The City Council may adopt an ordinance that identifies which activities are
4 H&S §11362.1.
5 H&S §11362.2
6 Id.
7 H&S §11362.1(a)(2).
8 H&S §11362.3.
9 H&S §11362.2(b).
10 Business and Professions Code (BPC) §26200.
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 4
prohibited within the City. If the City prohibits any commercial cannabis activity, the state shall
not grant a license for such activity within the City.11
Conversely, cities that wish to allow all state-licensed commercial activity do not have to pass
an ordinance affirming their intent; it is already state law. For commercial activities that are
allowed, cities can create their own regulations, such as business license requirements and
zoning and land use requirements, among others.12
Should the City be interested in allowing commercial activities, it can look to neighboring cities
for examples of regulations. San Jose has already developed regulations as to medical cannabis
which would likely be extended to all commercial cannabis activities. These regulations are
largely time, place, and manner regulations that set minimum standards for safety and security,
as well as create a permit system for delivery vehicles and drivers. The San Jose City Council
has delegated regulatory authority to its City Manager. The City should be also be cognizant of
the state’s emergency regulations for commercial, medicinal, and adult-use cannabis that may
preempt the need for the City to develop its own regulations. The State’s proposed regulations
are due to be released in Fall 2017.
Taxes on Cannabis Sales
Taxation of cannabis depends on whether it is for recreational or medicinal use. Recreational
cannabis is subject to traditional state and local sales taxes, but medicinal cannabis is exempt.13
Both recreational and medicinal cannabis are subject to a new state Cannabis Excise Tax, which
is 15%.14 There is also a new state Cultivation Tax, which is imposed on flowers at the rate of
$9.25 per ounce and on leaves at $2.75 per ounce.15 Cannabis cultivated for personal use is
exempt from the state Cultivation Tax.16
The Policy and Services Committee (“Committee”) discussed the issue of cannabis regulation in
June 2017. The Committee voted to send an earlier version of the proposed ordinance to the
Planning and Transportation Commission (Attachment B). The Committee had concerns about
the earlier version’s provision prohibiting open growing, and the potential for state law to
clarify standards for outdoor cultivation per personal use. The ordinance attached for the
Commission’s review in Attachment A does not include that provision in order to address the
Policy and Services Committee’s concern and to defer to state law standards on cultivation for
personal use, which currently mandate that such cultivation occur either indoors or upon the
grounds of a private residence in a locked space that is not visible from a public place.17
11 BPC §26055(d).
12 BPC §26200.
13 Rev. & Tax. §34011(c) and (f).
14 Rev. & Tax. §34011(a).
15 Rev. & Tax. §34012(a).
16 Rev. & Tax. §34012(j).
17 H&S §11362.2(a)(2).
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 5
Due to the unsettled nature of state cannabis laws and regulations, the City may have to revisit
this issue in response to ongoing state legislative and rulemaking activities.
Discussion - Recommended City Actions under the Proposed Ordinance
Repeal the Outdoor Cultivation Prohibition and Defer to State Law’s Personal Cultivation
Standards
The City currently has a temporary ban on outdoor cannabis cultivation that will sunset in
November 2017. But state law now allows outdoor cultivation for personal use if it is within a
locked space and not visible by normal unaided vision from a public place.18 The attached
ordinance would repeal the existing outdoor cultivation for personal use prohibition to defer to
state law standards.
The City has the option to require that outdoor personal cultivation occur inside an accessory
structure to a private residence, located upon the grounds of a private residence that is fully
enclosed and secure.19
Outdoor cultivation for commercial purposes would continue to be prohibited, however, under
the ordinance’s provision prohibiting commercial activities. (See below).
Codify the Existing Prohibition on Medical Cannabis Dispensaries
The City Council passed an uncodified urgency ordinance in 1997 to prohibit medical cannabis
dispensaries. To avoid confusion and to ensure that no state licenses for medical cannabis
dispensaries are issued, staff recommends adopting and codifying a prohibition on medical
cannabis dispensaries.
Prohibit Commercial Cannabis Activities Except for Deliveries
Under principles of permissive zoning, commercial cannabis activities for both medical and
recreational use are presumptively prohibited in Palo Alto because they are not listed as
permitted activities in the City’s zoning code. But the MAUCRSA seems to anticipate that cities
will adopt ordinances prohibiting the activities they wish to keep out. To avoid confusion and
preserve local control, staff recommends adding an express prohibition of all commercial
cannabis activities except for deliveries.
Timeline
The City Council must pass an ordinance with an effective date no later than January 1, 2018 if
it wishes to prohibit some or all commercial cannabis activities. Otherwise, the state can issue
licenses for commercial cannabis activities that occur within the City. Staff anticipates bringing
the draft ordinance to Council with the Commission’s recommendation in October.
In addition, for any commercial activity that is allowed, the City has the option to create local
regulations that do not conflict with state law. Examples of possible regulations include local
18 H&S 11362.2.
19 Id.
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 6
permit or registration requirements, zoning requirements, and operational requirements such
as security, staffing, and hours of operation. The state is currently in the process of developing
state-level regulations, which must be completed before the City can develop its own local
regulations. Should the City wish to regulate personal uses of cannabis, including smoking and
personal cultivation, staff recommends that regulations or laws be developed after the State
issues its regulations. In other words, the recommended ordinance is a first step in several
possible steps towards regulating commercial and personal use of cannabis in Palo Alto.
Resource Impact
Staff does not anticipate a resource impact associated with this proposed ordinance. Any
future efforts to develop additional regulations for commercial cannabis businesses or personal
cultivation would require staff time and could result in zoning or licensing provisions requiring
additional staff resources. Future regulations may require additional law enforcement or code
enforcement resources.
Environmental Review
This proposed ordinance is not a “project” within the meaning of section 15378 of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines because it has no potential for resulting
in physical change in the environment, either directly or ultimately. In the event that this
Ordinance is found to be a project under CEQA, it is subject to the CEQA exemption contained
in CEQA Guidelines section 15061(b)(3) because it can be seen with certainty to have no
possibility of a significant effect on the environment.
Attachments:
Attachment A - Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Repealing Chapter 9.17
(Personal Cultivation of Marijuana) of Title 9 (Public Peace, Morals and Safety) of the
Palo Alto Municipal Code (PDF)
Attachment B - Proposed Ordinance Before the Policy and Services Committee (PDF)
Attachment C - League of Cities: Frequently Asked Questions, Adult Use of Marijuana
Act (January, 2017) (PDF)
NOT YET APPROVED
170503 th TS/ORD Amending 9.17
Ordinance No. _____
Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Repealing Chapter 9.17
(Personal Cultivation of Marijuana) of Title 9 (Public Peace, Morals and Safety) of
the Palo Alto Municipal Code; Repealing Ordinance No. 4422; and Amending
Chapters 18.04 (Definitions) and 18.42 (Standards for Special Uses) of Title 18
(Zoning) to Prohibit Medical Cannabis Dispensaries and Prohibit Commercial
Cannabis Activities, Except for Deliveries.
The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows:
SECTION 1: The Council of the City of Palo Alto finds and declares as follows:
A. On June 9, 1997, the Palo Alto City Council adopted uncodified urgency
Ordinance No. 4422 declaring the establishment and operation of medical cannabis
dispensaries to be a prohibited use under the City’s zoning ordinance.
B. On October 24, 2016, the Palo Alto City Council adopted Ordinance No. 5399,
prohibiting the outdoor cultivation of cannabis. That ordinance had a sunset date of one year
from the date the ordinance took effect.
C. On November 8, 2016, California voters passed Proposition 64, known as the
Adult Use of Marijuana Act (AUMA), which legalized the use, sale, and consumption of
recreational cannabis by persons 21 years of age and older.
D. In June 2017, the California Legislature passed SB 94, which consolidated the
state regulation of medical and recreational cannabis into the Medicinal and Adult Use
Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act (MAUCRSA), taking the place of the Medical Cannabis
Regulation and Safety Act and the AUMA.
E. The MAUCRSA regulates the cultivation of cannabis for personal use. The
MAUCRSA requires that outdoor cultivation for personal use must occur within a locked space
and out of vision from public places. (See Health and Safety Code section 11362.2).
F. The MAUCRSA permits commercial cannabis activities subject to state licensure,
but preserves local governments’ authority to regulate or ban commercial cannabis activities.
(See, e.g., Business and Professions Code section 26200).
G. Medical cannabis dispensaries and commercial cannabis activities are not listed
in the City’s zoning code as permitted or conditionally‐permitted land uses, making them
prohibited under the principles of permissive zoning provisions. (City of Corona v. Naulls (2008)
166 Cal.App.4th 418). Nevertheless, the state may not necessarily recognize the application of
permissive zoning principles as to cannabis‐related uses.
H. In order to protect the public health, safety, and welfare, the Palo Alto City
Council desires to replace the existing uncodified prohibition of medical cannabis dispensaries
NOT YET APPROVED
170503 th TS/ORD Amending 9.17
in Ordinance No. 4422 with new Code section 18.42.150 to prohibit medical cannabis
dispensaries and prohibit commercial cannabis activities, with the exception of deliveries. The
Palo Alto City Council also desires to repeal Ordinance No. 5399, codified at Chapter 9.17 of
Title 9 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, in recognition of new state law standards regulating
cultivation for personal use.
SECTION 2. Chapter 9.17 of Title 9 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby repealed.
SECTION 3. Ordinance No. 4422 of the City of Palo Alto is hereby repealed.
SECTION 4. Chapter 18.04 of Title 18 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby
amended to add new subsection 18.04.030(a)(94.5) to read as follows:
(94.5) “Cannabis” means all parts of the plant Cannabis sativa L., Cannabis indica, Cannabis
ruderalis, and hybrid strains derived thereof, whether growing or not; the seeds thereof; the
resin extracted from any part of the plant; and every compound, manufacture, salt, derivative,
mixture, or preparation of the plant, its seeds, or resin extracted from the plant.
(A) “Commercial cannabis activity” means any activity, whether for medicinal use or not,
related to cultivation, possession, manufacture, distribution, processing, storing, laboratory
testing, labeling, transportation, distribution, delivery or sale of cannabis or products containing
cannabis. “Commercial cannabis activity” does not include personal uses allowed by Health and
Safety Code sections 11362.1 and 11362.2 or personal medicinal uses allowed by sections
11362.765 and 11362.77, as amended from time to time.
(B) “Cultivation” means any activity involving the planting, growing, harvesting, drying,
curing, grading, or trimming of cannabis for any purpose.
(C) “Medical cannabis dispensary” is a facility where cannabis is made available for medical
purposes in accordance with any provision of state law that authorizes the use of cannabis for
medicinal purposes.
SECTION 5. Chapter 18.42 of Title 18 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby
amended to add new section 18.42.150 to read as follows:
18.42.150 Cannabis Cultivation and Commercial Activities
(a) Prohibition of commercial activities.
Commercial cannabis activity is not permitted.
(b) Exception for qualified delivery services.
Notwithstanding the prohibition in section 18.42.150(a), delivery of cannabis is permitted
subject to California Business and Professions Code section 26090, as amended from time to
time. This section does not permit any temporary, persistent, or fixed physical presence used
NOT YET APPROVED
170503 th TS/ORD Amending 9.17
for commercial cannabis activities besides delivery vehicles in the active state of making a
delivery.
(d) Prohibition of medical cannabis dispensaries.
Medical cannabis dispensaries are not permitted.
(e) Regulations.
The City Manager is authorized to approve regulations consistent with this section.
(f) Enforcement.
The City may enforce this section and its regulations in any manner permitted by law and is
entitled to recover all costs, including attorneys fees, related to enforcement. The violation of
this section is hereby declared to be a public nuisance and shall, at the discretion of the city,
create a cause of action for injunctive relief.
SECTION 6. 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 7. CEQA. The City Council finds and determines that this Ordinance is not a
“project” within the meaning of section 15378 of the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) Guidelines because it has no potential for resulting in physical change in the
environment, either directly or ultimately. In the event that this Ordinance is found to be a
project under CEQA, it is subject to the CEQA exemption contained in CEQA Guidelines section
15061(b)(3) because it can be seen with certainty to have no possibility of a significant effect on
the environment.
SECTION 8. Effective Date. This ordinance shall be effective on the thirty‐first date after
the date of its adoption.
INTRODUCED:
PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTENTIONS:
ABSENT:
ATTEST: APPROVED:
NOT YET APPROVED
170503 th TS/ORD Amending 9.17
______________________________ ____________________________
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: ____________________________
City Manager
______________________________
Deputy City Attorney
NOTYETAPPROVED
170503thTS/ORDAmending9.17
OrdinanceNo._____
OrdinanceoftheCounciloftheCityofPaloAltoRepealingChapter9.17
(PersonalCultivationofMarijuana)ofTitle9(PublicPeace,MoralsandSafety)of
thePaloAltoMunicipalCode;RepealingOrdinanceNo.4422;andAmending
Chapters18.04(Definitions)and18.42(StandardsforSpecialUses)ofTitle18
(Zoning)toProhibitOutdoorCultivationofMarijuana,ProhibitMedical
MarijuanaDispensaries,andProhibitCommercialMarijuanaActivities,Exceptfor
Deliveries.
TheCounciloftheCityofPaloAltodoesORDAINasfollows:
SECTION1:TheCounciloftheCityofPaloAltofindsanddeclaresasfollows:
A. OnJune9,1997,thePaloAltoCityCounciladopteduncodifiedurgency
OrdinanceNo.4422declaringtheestablishmentandoperationofmedicalmarijuana
dispensariestobeprohibiteduseundertheCity’szoningordinance.
B. OnOctober24,2016,thePaloAltoCityCounciladoptedOrdinanceNo.5399,
prohibitingtheoutdoorcultivationofmarijuana.Thatordinancehadasunsetdateofoneyear
fromthedatetheordinancetookeffect.
C. OnNovember8,2016,CaliforniavoterspassedProposition64,knownasthe
AdultUseofMarijuanaAct(AUMA),whichlegalizedtheuse,sale,andconsumptionof
recreationalmarijuanabypersons21yearsofageandolder.
D. TheAUMAalsopermitscommercialmarijuanaactivitiessubjecttostate
licensure,butpreserveslocalgovernments’authoritytoregulateandbansomeorall
commercialmarijuanaactivities.(See,e.g.,BusinessandProfessionsCodesection26200).
E. Outdoormarijuanacultivation;medicalmarijuanadispensaries,andcommercial
marijuanaactivitiesarenotlistedintheCity’szoningcodeaspermittedorconditionallyͲ
permittedlanduses,makingthemprohibitedundertheprinciplesofpermissivezoning
provisions.(CityofCoronav.Naulls(2008)166Cal.App.4th418).Nevertheless,thestatemay
notexpresslyrecognizetheapplicationofpermissivezoningprinciplesastomarijuanaͲrelated
uses.
F. Inordertoprotectthepublichealth,safety,andwelfare,theCityCouncildesires
toreplacetheexistingtemporarybanonoutdoorcultivationatChapter9.17andthe
uncodifiedprohibitionofmedicalmarijuanadispensariesinOrdinanceNo.4422withnewCode
section18.42.150toprohibit,inexpressterms:(1)theoutdoorcultivationofmarijuana;(2)
medicalmarijuanadispensaries;and(3)commercialmarijuanaactivities,withtheexceptionof
deliveries.
SECTION2.Chapter9.17ofTitle9ofthePaloAltoMunicipalCodeisherebyrepealed.
NOTYETAPPROVED
170503thTS/ORDAmending9.17
SECTION3.OrdinanceNo.4422oftheCityofPaloAltoisherebyrepealed.
SECTION4.Chapter18.04ofTitle18ofthePaloAltoMunicipalCodeishereby
amendedtoaddnewsubsection18.04.030(a)(94.5)toreadasfollows:
(94.5)“Marijuana”meansallpartsoftheplantCannabissativaL.,Cannabisindica,Cannabis
ruderalis,andhybridstrainsderivedthereof,whethergrowingornot;theseedsthereof;the
resinextractedfromanypartoftheplant;andeverycompound,manufacture,salt,derivative,
mixture,orpreparationoftheplant,itsseedsorresin.
(A)“Commercialmarijuanaactivity”meansanyactivityrelatedtocultivation,possession,
manufacture,distribution,processing,storing,laboratorytesting,labeling,transportation,
distribution,deliveryorsaleofmarijuanaorproductscontainingmarijuana.“Commercial
marijuanaactivity”doesnotincludepersonalrecreationalusesallowedbyHealthandSafety
Codesections11362.1and11362.2orpersonalmedicalusesallowedbysections11362.765
and11362.77,asamendedfromtimetotime.
(B)“Cultivation”meansanyactivityinvolvingtheplanting,growing,harvesting,drying,
curing,grading,ortrimmingofmarijuanaforanypurpose.
(C)“Medicalmarijuanadispensary”isafacilitywheremarijuanaismadeavailablefor
medicalpurposesinaccordancewithHealthandSafetyCodesection11362.5etseq.orany
otherprovisionofstatelawthatauthorizestheuseofmarijuanaformedicalpurposes.
SECTION5.Chapter18.42ofTitle18ofthePaloAltoMunicipalCodeishereby
amendedtoaddnewsection18.42.150toreadasfollows:
18.42.150MarijuanaCultivationandCommercialActivities
(a)Prohibitionofopencultivation.
Openmarijuanacultivationisnotpermitted.PersonalcultivationpermittedunderHealthand
SafetyCodesection11362.2,asamendedfromtimetotime,mustoccurwithinalocked
structurenotvisiblebynormalunaidedvisionfromanypublicplace.
(b)Prohibitionofcommercialactivities.
Commercialmarijuanaactivityisnotpermitted.
(c)Exceptionforqualifieddeliveryservices.
Notwithstandingtheprohibitioninsection18.42.150(b),deliveryofmarijuanaispermitted
pursuanttolawsoftheStateofCalifornia.Thissectiondoesnotpermitanytemporary,
persistent,orfixedphysicalpresenceusedforcommercialmarijuanaactivities(includingbut
notlimitedtomedicalmarijuanadispensaries,collectives,cooperatives,oranyotherretail
outlets)besidesdeliveryvehiclesintheactivestateofmakingadelivery.
(d)Prohibitionofmedicalmarijuanadispensaries.
NOTYETAPPROVED
170503thTS/ORDAmending9.17
Medicalmarijuanadispensariesarenotpermitted.
(e)Regulations.
TheCityManagerisauthorizedtoapproveregulationsconsistentwiththissection.
(f)Enforcement.
TheCitymayenforcethissectionanditsregulationsinanymannerpermittedbylawandis
entitledtorecoverallcosts,includingattorneysfees,relatedtoenforcement.Theviolationof
thissectionisherebydeclaredtobeapublicnuisanceandshall,atthediscretionofthecity,
createacauseofactionforinjunctiverelief.
SECTION5.Severability.Ifanyprovision,clause,sentenceorparagraphofthis
ordinance,ortheapplicationtoanypersonorcircumstances,shallbeheldinvalid,such
invalidityshallnotaffecttheotherprovisionsofthisordinancewhichcanbegiveneffect
withouttheinvalidprovisionorapplicationand,tothisend,theprovisionsofthisordinanceare
herebydeclaredtobeseverable.
SECTION6.CEQA.TheCityCouncilfindsanddeterminesthatthisOrdinanceisnota
“project”withinthemeaningofsection15378oftheCaliforniaEnvironmentalQualityAct
(CEQA)Guidelinesbecauseithasnopotentialforresultinginphysicalchangeinthe
environment,eitherdirectlyorultimately.IntheeventthatthisOrdinanceisfoundtobea
projectunderCEQA,itissubjecttotheCEQAexemptioncontainedinCEQAGuidelinessection
15061(b)(3)becauseitcanbeseenwithcertaintytohavenopossibilityofasignificanteffecton
theenvironment.
SECTION7.EffectiveDate.ThisordinanceshallbeeffectiveonthethirtyͲfirstdateafter
thedateofitsadoption.
INTRODUCED:
PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTENTIONS:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:APPROVED:
______________________________ ____________________________
CityClerkMayor
NOTYETAPPROVED
170503thTS/ORDAmending9.17
APPROVEDASTOFORM:____________________________
CityManager
______________________________
PrincipalCityAttorney
1
January 9, 2017
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
Adult Use of Marijuana Act1
Proposition 64
Question#1:When does the AUMA take effect?
Answer:The AUMA took effect November 9, 2016, the day after the election. But note,
the AUMA requires a state license to engage in commercial nonmedical marijuana
activity. Licensing authorities are required to begin issuing licenses by January 1, 2018
and the League anticipates that the issuance of licenses will not occur much in advance of
January 1, 2018. Thus, the AUMA provisions legalizing commercial nonmedical
marijuana activity will not become operational until the state begins issuing licenses
(likely in late-2017). The AUMA provisions legalizing personal use and cultivation of
nonmedical marijuana took effect November 9, 2016.
Question #2:Can private individuals cultivate nonmedical marijuana at home beginning
November 9, 2016?
Answer:Yes, within a private residence by a person 21 years and older for personal use.
The AUMA provides that local governments can reasonably regulate, but cannot ban the
personal indoor cultivation of up to six nonmedical marijuana plants per private
residence. This includes cultivation in a greenhouse that is on the property of the
residence but not physically part of the home, as long as it is fully enclosed, secure, and
not visible from a public space. Because this activity is not subject to state licensing
requirements, individuals may engage in personal indoor cultivation beginning November
9, 2016, unless a city enacts an ordinance imposing a reasonable regulatory scheme that
would preclude them from doing so before complying with the city’s regulatory
requirements.
Local governments may regulate or ban all personal outdoor cultivation. However, the
AUMA includes language purporting to repeal any ordinance that bans personal outdoor
1 Please consult your City Attorney before taking action to implement the AUMA. The answers to these FAQs may
be different in your city based upon your municipal code, regulations, and policies. The answers do not constitute
legal advice from the League of California Cities®.
2
cultivation upon the California Attorney General’s determination that nonmedical use of
marijuana is lawful under federal law.
Question #3:Is there a limitation on the number of marijuana plants that can be cultivated
within a single residence?
Answer:Yes. Not more than six living plants may be planted, cultivated, harvested,
dried, or processed within a single private residence, or upon the grounds of that private
residence, at one time. A “residence” is defined as a house, an apartment unit, a mobile
home, or other similar dwelling. No matter how many persons over 21 years of age are
living in a “residence,” only 6 living plants may be cultivated at one time. (Health &
Safety § 11362.2(b)(3).)
Question #4:Can a landlord ban the cultivation/smoking of marijuana on his or her property?
Answer:Yes. An individual or private entity may prohibit or restrict personal
possession, smoking, and cultivation of marijuana on the individual’s or entity’s privately
owned property. A state or local government agency also may prohibit or restrict such
activities on property owned, leased, or occupied by the state or local government.
(Health & Safety §§ 11362.45(g) and (h).)
Question # 5: Can a city ban personal indoor cultivation in all leased or multi-unit residences
within the city?
Answer:No. A city cannot prohibit personal indoor cultivation of marijuana in all leased
or multi-unit residences within the city. However, because cities may reasonably regulate
personal indoor cultivation, a city might be able to condition permit approval for personal
indoor cultivation in a leased residence on the applicant receiving permission from his or
her landlord.
Question # 6:Does a city’s ban on commercial cultivation, personal outdoor cultivation, or retail
sales of marijuana or marijuana products make it ineligible for state grant monies for law
enforcement, fire protection, or other local programs addressing public health and safety
associated with the implementation of Prop 64?
Answer:Yes. If a city bans commercial cultivation, or personal outdoor cultivation, or
retail sales of marijuana or marijuana products, it is ineligible to receive state grant
monies funded through the new state excise taxes that take effect on January 1, 2018.
(Revenue and Taxation Code § 34019(e)(3)(D).)
Question #7: What does the AUMA say about possession, transporting, purchasing or giving
away of non-medical marijuana?
Answer: A person 21 years of age or older may possess, process, transport, purchase or
give away to persons 21 years of age or older not more than 28.5 grams of marijuana in
the non-concentrated form and not more than 8 grams of marijuana in a concentrated
3
form including marijuana products. If the AUMA passes, these activities will be lawful
under state law and cannot be prohibited under local law.
Question #8:Do cities that ban or regulate medical marijuana businesses need to update their
ordinances to include nonmedical marijuana?
Answer:Yes. The AUMA prohibits state licensing authorities from issuing a license to a
commercial nonmedical marijuana business if operation of the business violates a local
ordinance of the jurisdiction in which the business will operate. This means that a city
wishing to adopt business or land use regulations prohibiting or regulating commercial
nonmedical marijuana businesses must adopt an ordinance prior to the date the state
begins issuing licenses, which the League anticipates will be in late 2017.2
Question #9:Can cities be confident that a permissive zoning code, by itself, provides sufficient
protection against nonmedical marijuana businesses setting up shop without local approval?
Answer:No. It is unlikely that cities will succeed in arguing that nonmedical marijuana
land uses are prohibited by permissive zoning codes under the AUMA, because the
AUMA does not contain the same protective language as the MMRSA with respect to
permissive zoning. Therefore, cities that wish to ban all or some nonmedical marijuana
activities should adopt express prohibitions, even if they operate under a permissive
zoning code.
Question #10:Are cities at risk of losing the opportunity to impose bans on personal outdoor
cultivation if they don’t act until after the November election?
Answer:No. A city may adopt an ordinance banning or regulating personal outdoor
cultivation at any time.
Question #11:Are cities at risk of losing the opportunity to impose bans on nonmedical
marijuana businesses, if they don’t act until after the November election?
Answer:No. However, if a city does not adopt an ordinance expressly banning or
regulating nonmedical marijuana businesses before the state begins issuing state licenses
nonmedical businesses, a state-licensed nonmedical marijuana business will be able to
operate within its jurisdiction without local permission or permitting. This is due to a
provision in the AUMA that provides that state licenses cannot be issued where the
activity would violate a local ordinance. If a jurisdiction has no ordinance regulating
nonmedical marijuana businesses, then the local regulatory scheme is silent on that type
of activity, and the state can unilaterally issue a license under terms fully compliant with
the AUMA. Cities may adopt an ordinance expressly banning or regulating such
operations after the state begins to issue licenses, but it will be difficult to terminate the
state licensee’s operations until the state license is up for renewal. Therefore, the best
practice is to adopt an ordinance before the state begins issuing state licenses.
2 Please see Question #8 regarding the use of public roads for transportation and delivery.
4
Question #12:Can cities ban deliveries under the AUMA?
Answer:Yes. Cities can ban deliveries within their territorial limits. However, cities
cannot prevent the use of public roads for the delivery of marijuana. For example, if a
licensed delivery company located in City A must travel on public roads through City B
to make an authorized delivery in City C, City B cannot prohibit the licensed delivery
company from travelling on public roads in City B to get to City C. In addition, cities
may not prevent the use of public roads within its jurisdiction to transport nonmedical
marijuana.
Question #13:What is the best way for cities to notify the state licensing agencies of their local
ordinances that regulate and/or prohibit commercial non-medical marijuana activities within their
jurisdictions?
Answer:Unless the state licensing agencies indicate otherwise, cities should mail copies
of their local ordinances that regulate or prohibit commercial nonmedical marijuana
activities within their jurisdictions to the Department of Consumer Affairs, the
Department of Food and Agriculture, and the Department of Public Health. Cities should
regularly check each Department’s website to ensure that this practice complies with any
regulations the Departments may pass regarding notice of local ordinances. In addition,
Cities should ensure that any updates or amendments to local ordinances that regulate or
prohibit commercial nonmedical marijuana activities are promptly submitted to each
Department.
Question #14:What are the rules regarding taxation under the AUMA? Is it true that marijuana
can no longer be subject to sales tax?
Answer:Under the AUMA, there is a 15% state excise tax on recreational marijuana,
but medical marijuana is exempt from state and local sales tax altogether. The rationale
is that marijuana consumed for truly medical purposes is no different from conventional
pharmaceuticals, which are also exempt from federal, state, and local sales tax. However,
other forms of excise tax may be levied on all marijuana, whether medical or
recreational. For example, a cultivation tax, a manufacturing tax, or the most common, a
business license tax may still be levied at the local level on any commercial marijuana
activity. But note, because the AUMA levies a state excise tax of 15% on recreational
marijuana, all local governments have reason to be concerned about the cumulative tax
rate when local tax levies are added to that. For that reason, locals are encouraged to
look at existing local taxes and to assess what marijuana-related revenue streams may be
derived from those sources before levying additional taxes that are specific to marijuana.
Planning & Transportation Commission
Staff Report (ID # 8098)
Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 8/30/2017
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
(650) 329-2442
Summary Title: Comp Plan Update: Transportation and Land Use & Community
Design Elements
Title: PUBLIC HEARING Planning and Transportation Commission
Review and Recommendation Regarding the June 30, 2017
Draft of the Comprehensive Plan Update, with a Focus 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 consolidated list of the July 12 and August 9, 2017 PTC comments on the
Transportation Element and the Transportation Section of the Implementation Plan
Table of the June 30, 2017 Draft Comprehensive Plan Update (See Attachment A) and
(a) recommend changes or additions to this list; and (b) recommend that the revised list
be included in the PTC report to the City Council on the Draft Comprehensive Plan
Update.
2. Review the consolidated list of August 9, 2017 PTC comments on the Land Use and
Community Design Element Goals L-1 to L-4 (See Attachment B) and recommend
changes or additions to this list.
3. Review the Land Use and Community Design Element Goals L-5 to L-10, and provide
comments and recommendations regarding policies and programs supporting these six
goals.
Report Summary
At the August 30 meeting, Commissioners will be asked to complete their review of the
Transportation Element by confirming the list of comments (See Attachment A) that should be
transmitted to the City Council. For the Land Use Element, the Commission will confirm its list
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2
of comments for Goals L-1 to L-4 (See Attachment B) and begin its review of Goals L-5 to L-10.
As the PTC discussed at the August 9 meeting, there will be an additional opportunity in
September for the PTC to decide how they want to present their comments on both of these
Elements to the City Council.
The same PTC discussion process that was used at the July 26 and August 9 meetings will be
used on August 30 for the initial review of Land Use Element Goals L-5 to L-10. Commissioners
will be asked to provide comments and recommended changes to Goals L-5 to L-10 of the Land
Use & Community Design Element while the staff and consultants take notes. The staff will
organize those comments, identify areas of consensus and return at the next PTC meeting with
a synthesized list of comments for the commission’s review.
Background
This is the fourth PTC public hearing on the Comprehensive Plan Update. At the beginning of
July, the PTC was sent a bound copy of the June 30, 2017 draft of the Comp Plan, which is being
used throughout the PTC’s review (available at http://www.paloaltocompplan.org/wp-
content/uploads/2017/07/PACompPlan_June30_PTC_webreduced.pdf). The PTC is focusing its
review on the Transportation and Land Use Elements. At the July 12 PTC meeting, the PTC
received a staff report that included an overview of the Comprehensive Plan Update legal
requirements and an overview of key issues in the Land Use and Transportation Elements. This
is a link to that report: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/58650.
At the July 12th meeting, the schedule shown below was established by the Commission.
Table 1. Proposed PTC Comprehensive Plan Review Schedule (Revised 8.10.17)
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
Review Transportation Goals T-1 to T-8 and the
Transportation Section of the Implementation Plan Table
August
Aug. 9
8/ 9 PTC Hearing
Transportation (2 of 3): Review PTC comments on Transportation
Goals T-1 to T-8 and continue discussion to 8.30.17
Land Use: (1 of 3) Review Goals L-1 to L-4
Aug. 30 8/30 PTC Hearing
Transportation (3 of 3): Confirm PTC comments on Transportation
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 3
Month/Date Topic
Element Goals T-1 to T-8 and recommend transmittal to the City
Council
Land Use (2 of 3): Review PTC comments on Goals L-1 to L-4 and
start the Review of Land Use Goals L-5 to L-10
September
+ Sept. 1 Final EIR Transmitted to the Commission
Sept. 13
9/13 PTC Hearing
Land Use (3 of 3): Confirm PTC comments on Land Use Goals L-5 to L-
10. Recommend transmittal to the City Council of the PTC comments
on all the Land Use Goals.
Review the 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 27, 2017
At the July 26, 2017 meeting, the PTC started its review of the Transportation Element. PTC
members provided comments and suggestions on the draft Transportation Element. The list of
comments from that discussion is shown in Attachment A. This list combines comments that
were similar, organizes them by Transportation Element goal numbers and notes where the
staff and consultants believe there was consensus among PTC members.
At the August 9 meeting, the PTC made a few additions and corrections to the list of comments
on the Transportation Element. These are included in the consolidated list. The Commission
decided, however, to defer a more detailed review of its Transportation Element comments
until the August 30 PTC meeting. PTC members wanted to be able to review the July 26
minutes before they took action to confirm their list of comments on the Transportation
Element. The draft July 26 PTC minutes are attached (see Attachment C).
At the August 9 meeting, the PTC also began its review of the Land Use Element with a
discussion of Goals L-1 through L-4. Draft minutes of that meeting are attached (see
Attachment D). These four goals contain some of the most significant issues and updates in the
Comprehensive Plan Update. The staff organized the PTC comments by Land Use Element goal,
combined comments that were similar, and identified areas where there were different points
of view on the same topic. Only a few areas of consensus were identified by the staff. This is
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 4
the most controversial part of the Comp Plan Update. There may be more PTC consensus on
the next six Land Use Element Goals.
There was a request by a Commissioner at the August 9 meeting to provide a copy of the CAC
recommendations for Development Requirements and Community Indicators that the CAC had
recommended to the City Council in September 2016. At their January 30, 2017 meeting, the
City Council eliminated these Development Requirements and Community Indicators from the
Comp Plan and directed staff to consider a Community Indicator Program as part of the next
iteration of the Annual Performance Report for another ongoing monitoring effort. The CAC
language on Development Requirements and Community Indicators is available at this link:
http://www.paloaltocompplan.org/wp-
content/uploads/2016/09/A_CompPlanLandUseElement_v20160920_clean.pdf (pages L-33 to
L-39). The City Council Motion eliminating the Development Requirements and Community
Indicators is available on page 8 of the Council Action Minutes at this link:
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/56153.
What to Expect at the August 30 PTC Meeting
At the August 30 meeting, the PTC will review and confirm the attached consolidated lists of
PTC comments on Transportation Element Goals T-1 to T-8 (See Attachment A) and the Land
Use and Community Design Element Goals L-1 to L-4 (See Attachment B). At the August 30
meeting, the PTC is being asked to review these lists, identify any changes or additions, and
confirm that these lists capture the Commission’s comment. The PTC is being asked to
recommend transmittal of the list of comments on the Transportation Element Goals as part of
the PTC report to the City Council. Staff suggests that the PTC defer taking action on
transmitting its comments on the first four Land Use Goals until the PTC has completed its
review of the entire Land Use Element which is scheduled for September 13, 2017.
As the PTC discussed at the August 9 meeting, there will be an additional opportunity in
September for the PTC to decide how it wants to present its comments on these Elements to
the City Council. The entire transcript from all the PTC meetings will also be transmitted to the
City Council, so the City Council will have the more detailed comments by individual
Commissioners.
At the August 30 meeting, the PTC will continue its review of the Land Use Element with a
discussion of Goals L-5 through L-10. The process for PTC review will be the same one that was
used at the July 26 and August 9 meetings. Commissioners will be asked to provide comments
and suggestions on Goals L-5 to L-10 of the Land Use & Community Design Element while the
staff and consultants take notes. The staff will organize those comments, identify areas of
consensus and return at the next PTC meeting with a synthesized list of comments for the
commission’s review.
Discussion: Major Policy Issues and Updates in the Land Use Element Goals L-5 to L-10
The major changes to goals, policies and programs related to Growth Management and Housing
are in the Land Use Element’s first four goals. Attachment E includes the summary of major
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 5
Policy Issues and Updates on Goals L-1 through L-4, excerpted from the August 9, 2017 PTC
staff report. The Land Use Element’s last six Elements, while not as controversial as the first
four goals – address significant issues as summarized below.
A. Goal L-4 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 page L-36).
B. Goal L-5 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 page L-
38).
C. Goal L-6 Urban Design
Promote compatibility and avoid abrupt changes in scale and density (Goal L-6, Policy L-6.7
page L- 38).
D. Goal L-7 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 page L- 41 to L-43)
E. Goal L-8 Civic Uses
Support community and cultural 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 page L- 44)
F. Goal L-9 Public Streets and Spaces
Create and enhance publicly accessible outdoor gathering spaces and streets. (Goal L-9, Policies
L-9.1 to 9.6 page L- 46) Recognize the contribution of the urban forest. (Goal L-9, Policy L-9.8 to
9.10 page L-47)
G. Goal L-10 Palo Alto Airport
The policies on the airport are included in the Land Use Element in this draft Update. These
policies minimize environmental impacts associated with airport operations, including noise
and bayland protection and enhancement (Goal L-10, Policies L -10.3 to 10.6 page L-48 and L-
49).
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 6
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: PTC Transportation Element Comments & Suggestions (PDF)
Attachment B: PTC Land Use Element Comments & Suggestions (PDF)
Attachment C: July 26, 2017 PTC Excerpt Minutes (PDF)
Attachment D: August 9, 2017 PTC Excerpt Minutes (PDF)
Attachment E: Summary of Issues and Updates Land Use goals L-1 to L-4 (PDF)
1 Emails may be sent directly to the PTC using the following address: planning.commission@cityofpaloalto.org
PTC Comments and Suggestions on Transportation Element
(July 26 and August 9, 2017)
PTC Comment Consensus
Overall comments
There is some redundancy in the draft Element. For example,
first/last mile policies are good but are located in too many
places.
The draft Element places too much emphasis on the future and
not enough weight to solving neighborhood congestion and
parking problems of today, including construction issues.
Some policies seem like they would work better at the regional
scale, not being implemented unilaterally at a local scale.
Palo Alto relies on effective regional transportation. Align
projects with regional transportation investments and track
what we can do as connectivity improves.
Differing viewpoints on the role of technology: Some PTC
members expressed that Palo Alto is the technology center of
the world and we can come up with solutions to these
problems. Other members felt the draft Element relies too
much on aspirational future technology that may never exist.
The Element should not assume that future Caltrain capacity
after electrification will solve our problems.
Don’t build the Plan around specific technologies. The ultimate
consequences of new or emerging trends such as transportation
network companies (TNCs – e.g. Lyft, Uber) or autonomous
vehicles may be positive or negative and cannot be predicted.
Consensus
Transportation Infrastructure Investments
Geng Road improvement is too specific for the Comp Plan. Re-
state more broadly as and improvement or a policy to reduce
traffic on East Bayshore.”
Consensus
Support for Caltrain grade separation. Consensus
Add a policy to support BART under El Camino Real.
List a possible bike route along Sterling Canal as a potential
infrastructure improvement.
Consider relocating Downtown transit center. Existing location
could be better location for housing and retail.
Goal T-1: Sustainable Transportation
The PTC had a number of comments on new policies and programs
requiring Transportation Demand Management (TDM) and
supporting the Transportation Management Association (TMA).
Program T1.2.2: Add language to further protect and expand
the TMA. To the second bullet, add “…such as TMA”.
Program T1.2.2: Add reference to stable, sustained funding
for the TMA, but don’t be proscriptive or limit the City’s
options for funding.
Consensus
PTC members had different views on the offering incentives
for TDM achievements. Some suggested lowering parking
requirements for projects with successful TDM programs;
other felt that permanent parking reductions are not
appropriate for uncertain future trip reductions.
Program T1.2.2: One PTC member expressed discomfort
with the specific percent reductions in single-occupant
vehicle trips as infeasible.
Program T1.2.3: Revise to state that the PTC should evaluate
the TMA annually.
Programs under Policy T-1.4 regarding electric vehicles: Add
“e-bikes or related electrical modes of transport.”
Policy T-1.13: PTC members expressed different views on
how aggressively the draft Element should encourage
transportation network companies (TNCs – e.g. Lyft, Uber),
also called ridesharing companies in the Comp Plan, as part
of first/last mile solutions.
o Some PTC members suggested that the City should
collaborate with these private companies, including
exploring ways to offer discounted rates for pick-ups
and drop-offs in Downtown.
o Others expressed concern that ridesharing
companies increase congestion and reduce transit
use.
Structure the Palo Alto shuttle service so it does not
compete with VTA service, e.g. along El Camino or
Middlefield.
Add specific goals for ridership and frequency for the Palo
Alto shuttle program, similar to the specific quantitative
goals for SOV trip reduction.
Require companies located in Palo Alto to create a joint
TMA for all companies or open buses to other companies.
Have a policy to open routes along creeks to pedestrians
and bikers, if routes are safe, in addition to other possible
routes.
Explore opening bus stops for private operators to use for a
fee.
Add a policy to require all bike routes to be aligned with
sidewalks. (Not in the middle of the street.)
Goal T-2: Traffic Delay and Congestion
Goal T-2: Unclear. What is the message? Consider clarifying.
Policy T-2.3 and Program T2.3.1: PTC members expressed
differences of opinion on using both LOS and VMT metrics.
o Some said that both are important because they
measure different aspects of traffic conditions. LOS
measures quality of life and local user experience.
VMT measures regional impacts.
o The CAC and Council expressed support for retaining
both LOS and VMT.
o Others said the Plan should not contradict CEQA
changes that eliminate LOS and should include a
sunset provision for LOS as a metric.
o If LOS is continued, consider referencing only
seconds of delay or increases in delay, not letter
grades.
o If LOS is continued, be more explicit about possible
unintended consequences on pedestrians and
cyclists.
Goal T-3: Streets
No comments
Goal T-4: Neighborhood Impacts
Different viewpoints on Policy T-4.2:
o Some PTC members felt that the language about
prioritizing traffic calming over congestion could be
problematic because it gives more weight to safety
over congestion management, and these needs
should be balanced.
o Others felt that the idea of safe neighborhood
streets should be retained.
Policy T4.1: Policy should recognize that residential
arterials, along with local and collector streets, are also
school commute corridors. Policy should state that safety
on residential arterials is also important.
Consensus
Goal T-5: Motor Vehicle and Bicycle Parking
PTC members expressed different viewpoints on parking
requirements: Some suggested that the City require projects
to be fully self-parked, while others were concerned that
this creates underutilized parking.
Although each project should be self-parked on-site, shared
parking is acceptable. Parking construction could potentially
be funded by public or private investment, not borne only
by the owner, and/or funds could be recouped by renting
parking spaces for revenue.
Add a statement of principles about parking (may be
separate from policies and programs).
o Recognize the costs to parking.
o Eliminate incentives for providing more parking than
is necessary.
o Where possible, have shared parking resources to
minimize unused parking inventory.
Encourage technology that helps people find and/or share
parking. Add a Program to put together a community group
to examine innovations in parking technology.
Allow non-traditional concrete parking structures to enable
future flexibility in repurposing the land.
Allow mechanical parking.
Unbundled parking should be allowed; allow or require
project owners/tenants to pay separately for parking.
Instead of paying to construct parking spots, allow
applicants to
o Put money instead in in-lieu fees that could build
central shared parking by zone, with some parking
on site; and/or
o Provide transit passes, free bikes, etc for
residents/tenants.
Goal T-6: Road Safety
Policy T-6.6: Policy and related programs discuss education
for bicyclists. Language should be updated to reflect that
pedestrian safety is also included. Consensus
Goal T-7: Transit-Dependent Community
No comments
Goal T-8: Regional Collaboration and Coordination
Goals T-1 and T-8 seem redundant.
Tighten up policies under Goal T-8 to reduce redundancy.
Under Goal T-8 – consider policies supporting exploration of
re-starting rail service across Dumbarton Bridge.
Recognize 280 and 101 as transit links. Have a stop at 280
and Page Mill Road where passengers can move from bus to
shuttle. Embarcadero/Oregon should be reviewed. Work
together with adjacent cities.
Support for reinstating or investigating future Dumbarton
Rail service.
Consider adding a policy statement about a potential future
High Speed Rail station and/or other aspects of High Speed
Rail.
Transportation Implementation Plan table
There are a lot of Programs. Staff should review for
redundancy and remove any already covered elsewhere.
Fewer programs are more likely to be accomplished.
Maps
Map T-1, Regional Transit Connections – include
Commercial Centers (as on Map T-2)
PTC Comments and Suggestions on Land Use Element (August 9, 2017)
PTC Comment Consensus
OVERALL
• Goals L-1 through L-4 are unclear and are not easy for a layperson to interpret.
• Look at anything that is prohibitive and consider if it is too restrictive.
• Consider hiring an area plan specialist for the Fry’s site or other area plans.
• Include stronger emphasis on taking on responsibility for dramatically increasing housing
supply in Palo Alto. Both BMR housing and “housing that is affordable,” including housing for
the middle class.
• As the number of electric vehicles increases, GHG emissions from long commutes will be less of
a concern.
• The Element should place more emphasis on creating neighborhoods, not just building housing
units.
Consensus
• Need commercial centers within walking distance of neighborhoods for local-serving goods and
services that can’t pay the same rents as office uses, e.g. vacuum cleaner repair, music lessons.
• Goals L-3 and L-4 are important. In order to achieve these goals, may have ripple effects into
Goals L-1 and L-2. The goals sound reasonable, but it’s hard to tell if the policies and programs
will result in a desirable urban form and adequate space for smaller retail and service uses that
residents need.
• Goals, policies, and programs throughout should be clear and actionable, and the City should
be able to track progress toward achievement.
Consensus
• Need consistent goals that don’t conflict among elements.
• We want diversification of housing and need to take action to get it.
• The City should do more to ensure that affordable housing goes to people from lower income
brackets.
• During the CAC process, many participants felt that first priorities for housing should be for
most needy – subsidized housing and those with disabilities. Broadening the definition to
“housing that is affordable” to the middle class would not help the most needy households.
• Element should do more to balance need for infill with protection of community character.
• There should be a policy about street design. Define the street as the space between building
facades. This creates public space. Buildings on opposite sides of the street should relate to
each other.
Goal L-1: Growth Management
• Some PTC members felt that the Citywide growth cap on office/R&D development and annual
limit on office/R&D development (enacted as a separate ordinance) were appropriate growth
management tools. Others expressed that the consensus at the 2015 Our Palo Alto Summit
was that a Citywide growth cap is not the right tool, and policies should manage the impacts of
office/R&D growth (such as traffic) rather than setting a cap on square footage.
• Several PTC members requested clarification or rewording of Policy L-1.10 and objected to
“high quality” development as too ambiguous to provide clear direction.
• Stanford Research Park is a major contributor to SOV trips and congestion and should not be
exempt from growth caps.
• Growth management must include not only capping jobs but also building more housing.
• The office/R&D annual limit should be below 50,000 sf, possibly as low as zero.
• Some PTC members expressed a desire to maintain the Downtown office cap rather than
eliminating it; others felt the best way to manage development Downtown is through an area
plan, in combination with other tools, such as the TMA.
• Add more language about “quality of life” and neighborhood preservation.
• Some PTC members expressed support for Coordinated Area Plans for Downtown, California
Avenue, and the Fry’s site.
• Strengthen Policy L-1.3 about infill development to indicate not just that infill should be
compatible but that “infill development should be preferred or promoted.”
• Two recommendations for strengthening Program L1.3.1 regarding removing barriers to infill
development of affordable housing: 1) delete “remove barriers as appropriate” so that the
program is more strongly worded. 2) “work with neighbors” is too passive; split the two
sentences into two programs, one about removing barriers and the second about identifying
sites.
• Turn Policy L-1.4 regarding the land use definitions into a more affirmative statement of the
City’s objective to “use land use definitions in this plan to guide land use decision-making.”
• Add something to Policy L-1.8 regarding participation in regional strategies about protecting
Palo Alto interests.
• In Policy L-1.9 and Program L1.9.1 regarding the Citywide office/R&D cap, clarify the criteria
and intent of re-evaluating the cap amount as square footage approaches the cap.
Put the Community Indicators that were developed by the CAC back into the Land Use Element.
They help maintain quality of life.
Put the Development Requirements that were developed by the CAC back into the Land Use
Element.
Goal L-2: A Sustainable Community
• In general, language regarding housing should be stronger. Important to go beyond BMR. Do
what we can to make cost and rent affordable.
• Some PTC members would support identifying specific locations where heights above the 50-
foot height limit (which is a separate ordinance, not in the Comp Plan) could be exceeded,
particularly to enable construction of housing that is affordable and/or BMR units. However,
others were not comfortable exceeding the 50-foot height limit, even for affordable or
subsidized housing.
• Policy L-2.3, Policy L-2.6, and Program L2.4.5 are all similar – review and revise if needed to
make them independent and clear.
• Strengthen Policy L-2.4 from “use” a variety of strategies to “Proactively stimulate housing with
a variety of strategies…” or similar wording.
• In Program L2.4.1 – eliminate housing sites along San Antonio Road – wants to learn more
about intention. Recent approval of 5-story hotel on ECR next to International Market store.
Eliminating housing doesn’t help us scale up across the street from the hotel. Either ARB
should stop approval or we should allow San Antonio Road other side to be tall housing.
• Revise Program L2.4.2 regarding housing on Stanford lands to specify that “vibrant” retail
should be retained. Retail is changing and preserving retail square footage at the Stanford
Shopping Center may become less of a community priority over the life of this Plan than is
providing additional housing.
Several PTC members had comments on Program L2.4.4 regarding conversion of non-residential
development potential FAR to residential FAR:
• Revise Program L2.4.4 so it does not prohibit housing as a potential future use at Town &
Country Village. This may become a feasible or desired use over the life of the Plan.
• Revise Program L2.4.4 to be more proactive. Set a specific goal of convert FAR in order to allow
construction of up to a certain number of units.
• Remove Program L2.4.4. Commerce and more office development are important to the
community.
• L2.4.5 – strengthen mix of retail and residential uses. “Zoning changes that give priority to a
mix.” Prohibiting office is too restrictive. Eliminate or soften.
• L-2.4.6, TDRs – define the areas within the town where we can spur growth on receiver sites
and identify sending sites where we want density to stay low.
• New program – similar to TDRs – allow property owners to trade daylight for cash or other
privileges. System in Great Britain, works well.
• Strengthen Policy L-2.5 and Policy L-2.7 regarding housing for middle to lower income by
clarifying what “support” means. Delete “as feasible” from Policy L-2.5.
• Revise the wording of Policy L-2.13 to explicitly connect additional infill housing with reduction
of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and greenhouse gases (GHG), and thereby part of the City’s
response to climate change and sea level rise.
• Preserving retail – lip service only – L-2.9: Not a single program to support policy. Wants a
program to be flexible to respond to trends away from brick and mortar. Restaurant imbalance
will continue to grow. Look at what other cities are doing to actually have retail. Otherwise
market will dictate and we will lose retail space. Maybe this policy should be linked with the
retail programs in Goal 4.
• Add a policy or program to restrict consolidation of lots under single ownership.
• Add a new policy regarding limiting development east of 101 and to reduce heights in this area
to 35 feet. Taller heights are not compatible with recreational/office character.
• Add program to direct staff in implementation of Policy L-2.10 which talks about facilitating the
reuse of existing buildings.
Goal L-3: Distinct Neighborhoods
• Program L3.2.1 is redundant with Policy L-3.2 regarding preserving residential uses from
conversion.
• Regarding Policy L-3.5 about avoiding the negative impacts of basements: consider counting
basements as FAR to deter basements.
Goal L-4: Commercial Centers & Hotels
• Goal L-4 is awkwardly phrased. “Pedestrian-scaled centers” may not make sense to the lay
reader.
• L4.1.2 is all about retail. Similar to L-2.9 – redundant? Or move to put them together?
•
• Program L4.4.1 to explore increasing hotel FAR should be deleted, especially in the absence of
any analysis of need.
• Policy L-4.6 re supporting bike use and bike racks – add a program that requires regular
servicing and surveying the need for racks. Some go unused while others are overflowing. Need
consistent evaluation and adjustment.
• Remove reference to “the Fry’s site” and replace name in Program L4.8.1and elsewhere. The
tenant is likely to change over the life of this Comp Plan.
• Policy L-4.10 is similar to L2.4.4; both may not be necessary.
• Policy L-4.16 should be clear that housing could be an allowed use in Midtown Shopping Center
or other neighborhood centers as part of mixed use development.
• Maintain the attractiveness of all shopping centers; Add a policy for Charleston similar to Policy
L-4.16 about Midtown.
• Differentiate between California Avenue and other districts. Consider a policy or program that
would identify a district in Palo Alto for craftspeople to rent space and sell their goods and/or
to create small kiosks where people can sell goods.
• L4.11 and 4.12 are both about urban greening and other physical improvements to Town &
Country and should be combined.
_______________________
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 1
Excerpt Minutes 2
July 26, 2017 3
Council Conference Room 4
250 Hamilton Avenue 5
6:00 PM 6
7
5. Comprehensive Plan Update: Review of and Recommendation on Draft 8
Transportation and Land Use Elements 9
10
Acting Chair Waldfogel: Ok, let's move on to Item Number 4, no, I’m sorry, Item Number 5. We 11
just finished Item Number 4. Item Number 5, Comprehensive Plan update, Transportation and 12
Land Use Elements, please. 13
14
Elaine Costello, : My name is Elaine Costello and I've been working with the City on the Comp 15
Plan update and tonight as you decided at your July 12th meeting we shifted around and we're 16
going to work on Transportation tonight with the idea that that will give us so that will give us 17
three meetings to work on Land Use which has some more complicated issues. So that was a 18
decision of Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) at the last meeting so we'll work 19
tonight on the Transportation Element and its implementation table. And then on August 9th 20
we'll work on Goals 1 through 4. We’re actually going to someone asked at the 12th that we 21
advertise Goals 1 through 5 in case you really get very efficient and want to be ahead of the 22
game, but I think Goals 1 through 4 have some of the most complex issues and on growths 23
_______________________
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.
management and housing so I think they will end up taking that meeting. We’ll then finish up 1
the rest of the goals at the August 30th meeting and if we need, if we you feel that we need an 2
additional meeting we are kind of tentatively you mentioned at the last meeting kind of 3
tentatively hold August 23rd in case that's needed. And then at the September 13th meeting 4
we'll do the Land Use anything that's left over in Land Use and the Land Use section 5
implementation table and then on the 27th we’ll do the final review and add the report to the 6
Council on Land Use and Transportation and the final Environmental Impact Report (EIR). You 7
will get the final EIR at the beginning of September so that you have a couple of weeks to [do 8
just] that document. 9
10
And what the goal of the PTC is really given this opportunity to look at the end of multi-year 11
process to look at these two elements, Land Use and Transportation starting with 12
Transportation tonight at a really high level and look at the is it really doing a good job of 13
addressing the policy issues. And also and identify any changes that would make it more usable 14
to the PTC because you'll be using, you will be major users of this document. So things that 15
make it more usable to you are very important. 16
17
We've talked we had a meeting the pre-meeting yesterday about the logistics for tonight and 18
what we have is Elena Lee, I forgot to introduce the rest of the staff. Elena Lee from the 19
planning staff is here and of course Hillary and Rafael Prius… 20
_______________________
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.
1
Rafael Rius, : Rius. 2
3
Ms. Costello: Ok, is here from the engineering staff. He's the Traffic Engineering Lead so that if 4
he can give us more background on some of the technical issues in tonight's items. So Elena 5
will take notes as you have a discussion of the Transportation Element and the issues and 6
concerns that you may have and then we will take a break, organize those, and what we talked 7
about yesterday was that you will then go through them and discover where there’s broad 8
consensus amongst all of you and where there's differences of opinion and forward the intent is 9
to forward that as a report all of your comments organized in that fashion as a report to the 10
City Council. And we will also be sending the entire record of tonight's hearing so that the 11
Council has the benefit of everything that’s said. So even if they will have everything. 12
13
So one of the things about this update is it's real it's an update of the 1998 plan and we have on 14
Pages 221 to 224 of your report for tonight a list of issues that we identified at a staff level 15
[where we're] the really major issues and major concerns were and updates as the Citizen 16
Advisory Committee (CAC) and the Council worked on the Transportation Element. And there's 17
just a sort of summary of that list up here. If you look at the bottom I think of Page 221 or 18
220… you'll see it. It starts with I think it starts with the list of… infrastructure improvements. 19
And that was a way that we tried to help you kind of look at what changed in this Element that 20
_______________________
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.
you would want to consider and what are the big issues? I would say just a couple to give you a 1
couple of highlights. 2
3
One of the big changes since the 1998 Element is this idea that the 1998 Element did talk about 4
reducing the number of Single Occupancy Vehicles (SOV). This update has a much more well 5
developed and robust approach. It note, it notes that you have to involve existing and new 6
residents and existing and new businesses. It has a formalized, calls for a formalized 7
Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program with specific percentage reductions such 8
as 50 percent reductions in peak hour trips Downtown. It has much more on alternative fuel 9
vehicles, shuttles, mobility as a service; trying to bring in all the changes it's interesting to read 10
the 1998 because it starts talking about encouraging deliveries to home to reduce trips. I don't 11
think we need to do that anymore. There's been a lot of change and there you can see this one 12
of the big things in this update was to catch up with the technological changes that have been 13
taking place in transportation since 1998. 14
15
But also it tries to also make sure that the it was important to not lose what may have been 16
that what has proven to many the members of the CAC and the Council to be valuable in what 17
Palo Alto’s been doing for years like looking at Level of Service (LOS) when it looks at the 18
impacts on new traffic. And the Element adds Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) because one of the 19
things that overlays all of this work is much more focus on sustainability and reducing 20
_______________________
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.
greenhouse gases. So both are incorporated into this Element and that's kind of parking is 1
another example where we at a staff level kind of called it poised for change where the 2
approach in parking is for example for new development to ask that new development continue 3
to meet the standards that are currently in the City's ordinances without using any on street 4
parking. That was kept in there. There's also language that says though as there's evidence 5
that the need for parking is going down those that approach to parking can be changed. So 6
there's this idea that as change has demonstrated that it's effective there is a willingness in the 7
Comp Plan to change the traditional approaches, but it… we didn't just jump in and change 8
them right now. So there's this phased approach to reducing parking requirements over time. 9
And there's also language in there about pricing and charging for parking. That's a big change 10
from 1998 and other big change is a focus on the transit dependent community. That was not 11
in the 1998 version. There was some discussion of people with special needs, but that was 12
really important to the CAC and the Council that the whole transit dependent community needs 13
be looked at and that there be policies to meet those needs. 14
15
So that kind of that list is in the staff report and I hope that it helps you figure out what are the 16
kinds of issues that are in the Transportation Element and what was the approach to the 17
update to that Element. And again I know there was a question earlier we did provide some 18
information in the staff report, some additional information that had been requested about the 19
extension of Geng Road and the VMT versus LOS if Council, if you as members of the PTC have 20
_______________________
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.
questions and issues you want to make sure we cover in Land Use let us know at the end of the 1
meeting and we'll make sure there's some time for that and because we will be back. Our goal 2
is to finish transportation tonight and to start on Land Use at the next meeting. We did want to 3
add one thing. We are supposed to, we are asking you if you have any comments on the 4
implementation table as it applies to Transportation that you also bring those up tonight. So 5
that completes the staff report. 6
7
Acting Chair Waldfogel: Great, so just to clarify the process we will discuss items, staff will take 8
notes, we'll take a short break, and then we'll just try to develop we’ll see whether we have 9
consensus, agreement/disagreement about each of the items so we're not trying to negotiate 10
to (interrupted) 11
12
Ms. Costello: That’s right. 13
14
Acting Chair Waldfogel: We're not trying to negotiate to a single unified point of view tonight. 15
We're just trying to communicate general sentiment. We do have one speaker card before we 16
move into the Commissioner discussion, Mr. Hitchings. 17
18
Hamilton Hitchings: Thank you; my name is Hamilton Hitchings. I was a member of the CAC, 19
but these comments are my own and the focus of these comments is on the Transportation 20
_______________________
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.
Element and the challenges and opportunities for transportation that face our City. The 1
Transportation Element was approved by all members of the CAC which was a major 2
accomplishment. At a high level it was not controversial. Getting 20 people in Palo Alto to 3
agree on anything is a small miracle. 4
5
One of the major challenges with Palo Alto is we have fairly constrained corridors in and out of 6
the City. For example, University Ave. between 101 and Downtown is not getting any wider. 7
Caltrain is the primary way to improve commuters in and out, but the reality is there’re just not 8
that many good opportunities to move commuters in and out of the City. That's why 9
continuing to focus on prioritizing housing for local workers remains import. Besides Caltrains 10
there's another major opportunity that would immensely benefit Stanford Research Park (SRP) 11
which is has a particularly high SOV rate. That is adding a high occupancy lane to Page Mill for 12
carpoolers and busses. You'll get significantly higher number of SRP workers carpooling and 13
taking the bus if you reduce their commute time relative to driving alone. 14
15
While I think improvements to Downtown parking such as a new garage, way finding, and 16
elimination of zones are great improvements to parking I do not support two hour paid parking 17
as it will negatively impact retail businesses especially for short errands such as dropping off 18
and picking up. And also it is inconvenient to residents. In general the Transportation Element 19
_______________________
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.
had a lot of thought put into it, was well written and represents broad community support. 1
Thank you. 2
3
Acting Chair Waldfogel: Great, thank you very much. So Gwen just one other point; you in our 4
pre-meeting you had pointed to one of the tables at the back of the packet as a focal point for 5
some of the discussions. Do you want to just say anything about that maybe I hope I didn't miss 6
that when your introductory comments. 7
8
Ms. Costello [Unless there is someone named Gwen in the room I am not aware of]: Let me 9
just… sometimes it’s helpful to show. It is what on pages it’s those, the list that starts here at 10
the bottom of Page 222 which is the major issues and updates that were undertaken by the 11
CAC and the Council on transportation. And that may… we put that in there to help guide you 12
to help facilitate your thinking about the transportation issues and what has changed and kind 13
of the conceptual basis for the Element. 14
15
Acting Chair Waldfogel: Great, I'm not suggesting that that's what… that that needs to be the 16
focus of our discussion, but this does at least give some key issues to discuss. So let me just 17
open this up now to Commissioner comments. Commissioner Gardias do you want to kick off? 18
19
_______________________
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.
Commissioner Gardias: Sure. Thank you very much for presentation and for coming to work 1
with us. Just before I start the I thought that we were going to just do it differently that we're 2
going to go through each policy and program point by point. So I understand that there is the 3
proposal that was proposed already, but I didn't believe that this was a consensus from our side 4
to do it differently. So it's just from the formal side. I can do it either way. It doesn't matter for 5
me, but I thought that systematically we can go from the top to bottom. 6
7
Acting Chair Waldfogel: I think it's up to you how you want to tackle this. 8
9
Commissioner Gardias: Well here my proposal would be just to go through all the policies and 10
programs and if somebody could moderate and just to verify if there is a position or some 11
proposal to change if there is none then we can just move on and focus on those that have 12
some comments from the Commissioners. At least this is how I approach it, but I can speak 13
either way. 14
15
Ms. Costello: I think it's entirely up to the Commission how you would like to organize 16
yourselves. 17
18
Hillary Gitelman, Planning Director: Yeah, if I can just add I think it is up to you. Our thought 19
was that the CAC and the Council both have already labored on this. That the as Elaine 20
_______________________
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.
indicated the Commission is going to use this document that you might want to focus on kind of 1
high level issues, what's most important to you as you review projects and ordinances that 2
come to the Commission. If it makes sense for you to go goal by goal, ok and Goal Number 1 3
does anybody have any issues? You can do that, but we'll leave it up to you. We do want to try 4
and keep this at a higher level and not get into wordsmithing policies and programs. 5
6
Commissioner Gardias: Very good. Let me just then kick it off. If we need to change we’ll 7
change, right? I don't mind. So, but so I would like to just take your attention to Policy L-1.8 on 8
the booklet on the Comprehensive Plan draft it’s Page L28 that's a Policy again L-1.8 which says 9
“participate in original strategies to address the interaction of jobs/housing balance and 10
transportation issues.” It's a new policy. 11
12
Ms. Costello: Excuse me; you know we're working on Transportation tonight which is T. 13
14
Commissioner Gardias: Oh, yes. I'm sorry. 15
16
Ms. Costello: Yeah. 17
18
Commissioner Gardias: I'm sorry. Yes, you're right. I opened on the wrong page. It's a big loss 19
because this was interesting comment. Yeah so let me just maybe let me start with the least of 20
_______________________
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.
the improvements because from perspective of the Transportation Element it's at the 1
beginning of the document so it talks about different improvements… Oh yeah, it's Page T-12. 2
There is a list of proposed projects which are here and one of those caught my attention and I 3
was hoping that you could clarify this for me. I already gave you a head’s up that I will ask this 4
question. It's about pretty much extending Geng Road to extend to Laura Lane where Post 5
Office currently has its facilities I would like to understand how this would be possible. 6
7
Ms. Costello: I’m going to ask Rafael to answer that question. Can we put that overhead up? 8
Thank you. If you just give us a second. Thanks so much Elena. Oh, I need to do it? Ok. 9
10
Rafael Ruiz, Traffic Engineering Lead: Hi, I’m Rafael Ruiz. I’m Traffic Engineering Lead and just 11
to give a little background on this particular improvement how it would actually be done would 12
need to be analyzed in more detail, but the idea stemmed from mainly the intersection of East 13
Bayshore and Embarcadero Road is one of the most congested in the City and there's limited 14
room for widening and expansion and mitigation even though we've tried to look into various 15
mitigation options for that intersection. A lot of the congestion occurs for various reasons 16
including East Bayshore being one of the main entry gateways for East Palo Alto. So there's a 17
lot of traffic coming from the northbound 101 ramp trying to shift over to the left lane and 18
make a quick left onto East Bayshore oftentimes blocking Embarcadero Road. And then also 19
from the other direction there's a lot of traffic coming from some of the office areas east of East 20
_______________________
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.
Bayshore trying to get to the Dumbarton Bridge or alternative ways parallel to 101. And this 1
was an idea that came up we thought of it at a very high level of a way of maybe eliminating the 2
complicated weave from the freeway ramp to the left turn lane and trying to provide an 3
alternative route to get to East Bayshore with destinations to East Palo Alto or Dumbarton 4
Bridge just being really constrained and limited to the amount of mitigation or the possible 5
mitigations for that intersection. 6
7
Commissioner Gardias: I’m sorry. I understand, but how would you practically do it? I mean 8
the idea may be interesting to discuss, but pretty much there is a United States Postal Service 9
facility over there the so I don't know how you plan to deal with that with them. That's number 10
one. And number two is that that Geng Road pretty much leads to the recreational facilities 11
which I don't attend myself during the working hours, but there may be some events or some 12
use that may be training over there. So pretty much it’s bringing traffic to that area which is 13
pretty much a which is the space of gathering of some sporting teams, of dads and sons that 14
play baseball, and runners, you name it. So from my perspective if you were going just to 15
introduce this bypass you would maybe address some trucking congestion which I'm not really 16
sure if you really would, but you would risk pretty much intrusion to this to the sporting area. 17
18
Ms. Gitelman: If I can respond to that? I think we tried to make this clear in the staff report this 19
we included this on the list as an idea, but it clearly needs more analysis and it would require 20
_______________________
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.
right away acquisition. I mean there are a lot of issues that we would have to resolve to pursue 1
this as a real proposal. As you know one of the primary uses of the Comprehensive Plan is your 2
review of the Capital Improvement Project (CIP), the capital improvements, every time every 3
year in the budget. And so we wanted to at least have a placeholder for this improvement in 4
case the intersection at East Bayshore just someday gets so bad that we put the time and 5
energy in to analyze this and come up with a solution that looks like this in some way, but I 6
completely take your point. It would need a lot more work. One thing you could recommend, 7
you could include in your recommendation is a policy in the Element that goes along with this 8
just to outline what some of the constraints and issues are that would have to be resolved to 9
pursue this investment. That might be one way to handle your I don't know, your anxiety that 10
that there's still a lot of issues to resolve here. 11
12
Commissioner Gardias: Sure. I mean I think that pretty much I was looking into this from a 13
different perspective that it just looks so unreal and it's distractive in its form and pretty much 14
it just takes away our energy into asking question about something that may not be real to 15
deliver based on the land ownership and then some other zoning that we have in this area. I’d 16
rather just focus on some other wins just to focus our energy somewhere else. 17
18
Ms. Gitelman: Well in terms of our note keeping why don't we put on our list your comment 19
that you would recommend removing this from the list of investments and maybe an 20
_______________________
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.
alternative which would be to leave it on the list, but include a policy that has some discussion 1
of all that would be needed to be resolved before this could be implemented. 2
3
Commissioner Gardias: Yeah, I understand that you're trying to resolve the problem of the 4
traffic congestion at this particular intersection. I totally agree with this because I was stuck 5
there for a half an hour just to make it there and then I had it's a real problem. 6
7
So let me now just go to other pages. I'd like to just talk about some other bigger items that 8
should be recognized on this plan and I'm going to direct you to Page T-4 where and actually to 9
the map which is on the Page T-5 which is has, which is not numbered. So when you look at 10
this conceptually and I would like to just spend a few minutes on this that the backbone 11
Transportation backbone today it's pretty much is it's Caltrain and El Camino. And then of 12
course there are two other backbones, but this those are pretty much the freeways that are 13
outside of the traffic that's going through the town. So in terms of this diagram and just larger 14
thinking about Transportation Element I would like to propose that we recognize 280 and 101 15
as perspective trans… public transportation lines or public transportation routes and then we 16
also recognize that the Page Mill Road from Oregon that extends to through to Page Mill Road 17
pretty much connects those two proposed backbones as a tie that would allow the commuters 18
that would allow to bring commuters from one side of the town to the other side of the town. 19
20
_______________________
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.
So and I can tell you the reason behind this. So the reason is behind is that today there is no 1
public transportation along 280 and 101. It's a private transportation. So if we somehow 2
discuss with the higher authority of allowing public or some other forms of busses to commute 3
and then bring passengers and commuters to some areas like intersection with Page Mill Road 4
or intersection with El Camino then we pretty much what we can do we can relieve the areas 5
that are between those two from some other public transportation. We can pretty much add 6
two more public transportation routes on the boundaries of not only our City, but also other 7
cities. So that's a major proposal that I have on that on the table. So with this I have bunch of 8
other ones, but I'd like to just as an opening just allow my colleagues to speak further. Thank 9
you. 10
11
Acting Chair Waldfogel: Great, thank you very much. You have more for later? 12
13
Commissioner Gardias: I have more, but I have to respect your time too so. 14
15
Acting Chair Waldfogel: Oh, well thank you. Ok, Commissioner Monk. 16
17
Commissioner Monk: What I have done was basically review the Comp Plan and come up with 18
several key issues that I just wanted to discuss. The first one would be referring to Page T-28 19
and that is the policy regarding shuttle service, ride sharing, first and last mile connections. I 20
_______________________
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.
think a new policy needs to be developed that would support the introduction of 1
Transportation Network Companies (TNC) such as Lyft, Uber, Waze, CarPal, etc. We can refer 2
to a Policy T-1.5 to come up with some language such as collaborating with or striving to create 3
innovative partnerships that enhance transportation opportunities for first and last mile 4
connections with the goal of reducing traffic demand or rather parking demand and costs to 5
access University Ave and Cal Ave, something along those lines. So such a program that would 6
support that is included in T-1 13.1 and I would just say that I would support having discounted 7
rates when people are getting dropped off in commercial centers such as University Avenue or 8
near transit. I really like the idea of subsidizing those types of TNC type programs. 9
10
Next issue is looking at Page T-33 and Goal T-2. This one is not really clear to me. I felt the way 11
that this goal was drafted either needs to be more specific or higher level. The way it's written 12
it’s just not completely clear to me. So just wanted to have you reconsider how it's what the 13
message is of this goal. 14
15
Looking at the following Policy T-2.1 we're talking about the Cities Association for San Mateo 16
County. Why isn't Santa Clara County Cities Association included? Does it need to be? That's 17
our County. Oh, outside our county? 18
19
_______________________
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.
Elena Lee, : Just to clarify that Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) is our 1
congestion management association so that's our alternative of, that’s our version of the San 2
Mateo. Thank you. 3
4
Commissioner Monk: So you feel like it’s covered? Ok. I saw it written differently in other 5
places so I wasn’t sure if it was covered. And then in regards to the policy to support Goal T-2 6
decreasing delaying congestion and the VMT all of that, that still confuses me. Looking at a 7
Policy T-2.3 I’m imaging this one might lead to some debate here tonight. I understand that 8
LOS is what's familiar and a metric that Council wanted us to preserve, but I think the policy 9
needs to be a little bit more fluid to allow for new trends and the new legislation that's evolving 10
away from the traditional LOS metric and moving more towards the motile the more towards 11
the VMT which it's also discussed on Page T-17. I would recommend that this new policy 12
acknowledge that we're in a transition period and to include some sort of a sunset provision for 13
LOS after staff works to apply this new threshold. 14
15
Following up on that looking at the next page on Policy T-2 3.1 which talks about California 16
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) thresholds it looks to me that the plan is attempting to kind 17
of circumvent those thresholds by advocating using LOS alongside VMT. According to CEQA 18
LOS is no longer considered a environmental impact so I would recommend removing that 19
program or otherwise modifying it. 20
_______________________
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.
1
Ms. Gitelman: Yeah, just to clarify our intention there was not to circumvent the law. I think we 2
all understand that SB 743 means that in CEQA, in the CEQA context we're going to have to 3
transition to VMT and the Council will have to adopt CEQA significance standards by resolution. 4
We're just saying that when they do that we think they should could also set some policy or 5
parameter about LOS. It wouldn’t be for CEQA purposes, it would be for consistency with this 6
program. But I take your point we could make this more clear. 7
8
Commissioner Monk: Ok, thank you. Looking at goal… actually just looking at Goal T-1 and Goal 9
T-8 they look a little bit redundant to me when you just read the goals themselves. They're 10
both trying to create sustainable transportation systems aimed at reducing emissions. I know 11
one is… I know they're slightly different focus, but I would just request looking at those for 12
redundancies. And specifically with regard to Goal T-8 there are just too many policies there. I 13
would recommend that staff take a look at it and see if it can be tightened up or if any policies 14
can be removed that they find redundant or otherwise inapplicable. Specifically also in that 15
section on Policy 8.1 has there been any discussion about possibly reactivation of the 16
Dumbarton rail bridge? And or is that something that we could advocate to include? 17
18
Ms. Gitelman: I'm looking to see if it's I thought it was in here somewhere. I know there's 19
(interrupted) 20
_______________________
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.
1
Commissioner Monk: It talks about the Dumbarton Express Service so I just would like to 2
(interrupted) 3
4
Ms. Gitelman: I think it’s T-8.8. 5
6
Commissioner Monk: It’s on Page T-8.1 where we talk about Dumbarton Express Service. So I 7
think a lot of the congestion and parking issues here are because of employees coming in from 8
the East Bay and we're not having sufficient transportation so if it's possible to look at 9
expanding rail service. 10
11
Ms. Gitelman: Yeah. I think I would direct your attention to Policy T-8.8 on Page T-50. This also 12
gets to the (interrupted) 13
14
Commissioner Monk: The Dumbarton Bridge, ok. 15
16
Ms. Gitelman: Issue that Commissioner Gardias raised about transit on the freeways. This 17
policy talks about high-occupancy toll lanes (HOT lane). That’s kind of this idea of making lanes 18
on the freeways usable for transit. 19
20
_______________________
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.
Commissioner Monk: And I appreciated what Commissioner Gardias spoke to on that. If there's 1
a way to move that forward with setting up appropriate meetings or discussions down the road 2
I would absolutely love to get that going. 3
4
Ms. Gitelman: Ok, well let us make sure that that's reflected on our list of comments here that 5
you want to look at the Dumbarton Bridge from a rail perspective. 6
7
Commissioner Monk: Great. I just want to talk a couple seconds here about the Transportation 8
Management Association (TMA) and I see that it's listed up front on Goal 1 on Page T-33. 9
Perhaps it’s sufficiently covered and I know that they just received funding which is terrific. I 10
just wanted to perhaps propose some language that would further protect and expand our 11
TMA. So looking at Page T-30… where am I at? T-23. So looking at Program T-1 2.2 on Page T-12
23 at the very bottom it talks about allowing property owners to achieve reductions by 13
contributing to shuttles and programs. I'd like to see after the word programs “such as TMA” if 14
that's something that sounds amenable just to consider that. And then also looking at Page T-15
24 kind of similar, along those similar lines it's in the same program that's quite a long program. 16
There's a lot of carrots in that program. It's actually the longest program that I've seen. I don't 17
know if organizationally you want to keep it that way, but in any event it talks about fees 18
collected could be used for capital improvements. So is TMA considered a capital 19
_______________________
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.
improvement? I don't know if that's… And I know capital improvements would include shuttles 1
and things of that nature already. 2
3
Ms. Gitelman: Yeah, just for clarification this program grew out of a mitigation measure in the 4
draft EIR. The idea is to require new developments to reduce their trips through programmatic 5
measures. So TDM plans, contributions to the TMA and the shuttle and the like, and then to 6
require that they pay a fee, an impact fee for any trips that they can't reduce through those 7
programmatic means. And the fee would have to be used for capital improvements which are 8
not (interrupted) 9
10
Commissioner Monk: Ok, so we can't assign it to anything other than capital improvements? 11
12
Ms. Gitelman: That’s right. 13
14
Commissioner Monk: Ok. Thanks for letting me know. Not sure if this is the appropriate time 15
to bring it up, but if our TMA turns out to prove results that are successful I would like to see it 16
expanded to Cal Ave. like it is already mentioned in here perhaps regionally or to other cities as 17
a model might be something to consider with each city bearing its own costs. Now I just have a 18
couple of minor things on Page T-25 that policy talks about Electric Vehicle (EV) charging 19
infrastructure. Perhaps this isn't necessary, but it's talking about on the two programs that 20
_______________________
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.
follow on 4.1 and 4.2 about EV infrastructure requirements I was going to suggest maybe 1
adding electric bicycles (eBikes) or related electric modes of transport, something along those 2
lines. Something with also [following] plug in vehicle infrastructure. It might not be necessary, 3
but it looks like there's a policy set forth that covers it, but then the programs are just limited to 4
vehicles that are electric. Might not really make a difference, but just wanted to point that out. 5
6
So just big picture comment; I understand a lot of programs are routine and some are in 7
progress and so, but even taking those off the table there's still a lot of programs in here. So if 8
staff could take a look to see if there are any programs that are redundant or otherwise 9
addressed I would recommend that they do that. I prefer to set this document up for us for 10
staff to succeed in achieving the programs and I think if there's less programs or make it more 11
directed that they’ll be more likely that we’ll get them accomplished. So what I would propose 12
is that staff might pull out some programs that they think don't need to be that are already 13
covered elsewhere or don't need to be in here, present this to us and when we revisit this in 14
December and then we can decide if we want to remove them. So just as a proposal measure. 15
16
Kind of related if a program is completed do we have any processes in place to acknowledge 17
having successfully completed the programs? I think having something like that would be nice 18
to roll out in some capacity. If there's accomplishments that are achieved by completing a 19
program it’d be nice. 20
_______________________
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.
1
Ms. Gitelman: Yeah, I think our (interrupted) 2
3
Commissioner Monk: The community to be aware of it. 4
5
Ms. Gitelman: Thought is that every December the Commission would review the plan and the 6
implementation programs and that's the point at which you could say hey, these have been 7
completed and these need to be reprioritized, these are no longer relevant. That would be 8
your opportunity each year. 9
10
Commissioner Monk: It looks like I have one more issue. One, this one's a little bit minor as 11
well so Page T-38 this has to do with Goal T-24 that's protecting our local streets. So looking at 12
Policy T-4.4 it says that we should prioritize traffic calming measures for safety over congestion 13
management. And I'm just a little concerned about how that language can be interpreted by 14
staff. I think it could be problematic. It could lead to a lot of interpretations that might hold 15
staff up on decision making and I think that roads are inherently unsafe and so of course we're 16
going to prioritize safety anyway. I don't know that it needs to be set forth in here because 17
what it’s essentially doing is giving more weight to safety over congestion management. So I 18
would just advise that there be a balance or that staff would work in partnership with safety 19
and congestion management together. That's it for now thank you. 20
_______________________
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.
1
Acting Chair Waldfogel: Great, thank you. Commissioner Summa. 2
3
Commissioner Summa: So thank you to staff and thank you Hamilton for coming. And I agree 4
with Hamilton that this was sort of it's it was very important Element for everyone in the 5
Comprehensive Plan, but it was one where we had a lot of consensus so that was very nice. So I 6
was very happy with the version that we forwarded to Council and would so I think would have 7
been great if they just had adopted it, but I do think there's some merit… I do think there is 8
some redundancy having read it over and I think it is about shuttle programs and last mile stuff. 9
And all of that stuff is really important and good, but I think it exists in like too many places 10
maybe. So I would agree with that. 11
12
And then at a high level my disappointment which is not like I said I think it's a pretty good 13
document, but at a high level in reading it again I thought there was too much emphasis on the 14
future and not solving the problems we have presently and not enough weight was given to 15
solving neighborhood parking congestion and neighborhood parking problems and current 16
traffic problems including current construction problems which traffic construction issues which 17
I find frustrating. So I wish there had been more of an emphasis on some of those things and I 18
maybe think that the as a whole it relies too much and emphasizes too much future 19
technologies. I mean honestly we have other than electric cars we have no idea what's coming 20
_______________________
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.
down the pipe. Could be hyper loops, could be and now I hear today giant air what do they call 1
like…? No, dirigibles. Giant I forget what it's called his, Elon Musk's newest thing, but anyway 2
oh no, Sergei… Anyway, I think we all know about it, but they're like giant dirigibles, but this 3
one is massive. So we really don't know how what's coming down the pikes other than electric 4
cars so I wouldn't want to rely too much on aspirational technology that may never materialize. 5
6
And once again I think there's too much hope that the capacity of Caltrain once it’s electrified 7
will be able to solve a lot of problems. Once again I don't think Caltrain has come up very 8
clearly with statements about the capacity increase with electrification and it seems pretty 9
minimal to me. And once and if high speed rail comes it’ll also be a diminishment of that any 10
increase because of the blended system. And so I'll leave that at that and then I'll comment on 11
some of my colleagues comments thus far. 12
13
So I also I think the Geng Road thing it's not very clear to me how it would be achieved right 14
now. And I think we have a lot more things that I would prioritize a lot higher than that. I think 15
the idea of trying to use have public transportation on State highways is kind of interesting. 16
That being said 280 is a recognized scenic highways so I'm not sure what the possibilities are 17
there. I have great hopes for Dumbarton rail. Let's see, as for discounted rates for Uber and 18
Lyft drivers I'm not sure about that and I hope my husband's not watching, but since he works 19
at Uber, but and the reason is because they're still putting cars on the road there's a lot of 20
_______________________
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.
evidence that Uber in San Francisco has increased congestion because more people are opting 1
for single occupancy Ubers and Lyfts. I don't mean to pick on Uber, but any what are they 2
called? Share… TNCs. Any of those people are opting for those rather than public 3
transportation and when public transportation isn't used public transportation agencies tend to 4
want to cut the lines. So it's kind of a self-defeating process I think. 5
6
Let’s see… I think we've got very clear, clear message to retain LOS both at the CAC and by 7
Council. So I wouldn't want to question that. Let’s see… that’s that. Dumbarton rail... I would 8
like to see the TMA be successful and I think for the TMA to be successful we're going to need a 9
lot more financial support probably from corporations and so I would approve of any 10
development kind of fees to support it. And I think we need to monitor it, it's kind of gotten a 11
slow start unfortunately I think. And as to the T-2.4 the neighborhood stuff I think it's really 12
important to retain a notion of having neighborhood streets that are safe and pleasant for 13
children and pets and residents so I'm in support of that. I'll leave it at that for now. 14
15
Acting Chair Waldfogel: Great, thank you. Commissioner Rosenblum. 16
17
Commissioner Rosenblum: Thanks for preparing this. It’s exciting to dig into the Comp Plan. 18
It’s my first of these meetings so thank you. 19
20
_______________________
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.
So I'm going to just also go down the list first in the transportation infrastructure investments I 1
think Geng Road to Laura Lane just isn't like the others meaning this is a Comp Plan, it's a bit 2
weird to have a specific road improvement plan as a like a special point of emphasis. In the 3
Council's report to us I mean the way this should be stated if you're trying to achieve the goal is 4
to reduce traffic on East Bayshore and that this is one of the things that may be considered of 5
course there may be other ways to do that, but it's a bit weird that we have a top line item that 6
is a what appears to be a 700 meter cut through behind a baseball field. It just doesn't feel like 7
it's a Comp Plan item. 8
9
I had a question around one of these items which is the full grade separations. So I see for 10
Caltrain crossings and so this is under Policy T-3.15 I think. Pursue grade separations of all rail 11
crossings along the rail corridor as a City priority. So what does this entail? This could be 12
trenching or this could be elevating, but that the City policy is going to be that all Caltrain 13
crossings should be grade separated. Is that correct? [So I] understand this. Ok. And so that 14
the Program T-3.15.1 is that studies will begin to for each of these projects. Is that right? Ok. 15
16
The next section around SOV use, I like the goals that are already established by area. So I do 17
think the key goals are SOV rate by sections so I appreciate that being in the plan. The shuttle 18
program though I'm sorry to jump from SOV to shuttle because in the same area in supporting a 19
reduction in SOVs. I just think should also be subject to specific goals of ridership and 20
_______________________
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.
frequency. I think it’s an area that lends itself well to this. There's a lot of transportation 1
studies that were brought to us when the shuttle program came forward around at what level 2
of frequency do people start to see a shuttle as a reliable option. And so I'm not expert in this 3
area, but there are a lot of cities are cited. The Big Blue Bus in Santa Monica is often cited that 4
at some point the frequency of buses reached a tipping point where if you live in Santa Monica 5
it's an obvious thing to jump on the Big Blue Bus. And we're just not there. It's something that 6
is seems to be relevant for school kids and people who have no other option, but it's not 7
something that most people think of as the way to get around Palo Alto and so I think it would 8
be good to have goals in both ridership and frequency as part of the Comp Plan similar to what 9
you've done with the SOV goals. 10
11
TDM requirements and goals; so I think there's a couple things that should be around the TMA 12
and TDM. I echo Commissioner Summa’s note on we should include a goal for a stable funding 13
source for the TMA. As far as the sources for that funding I'm in favor of everything from 14
development fees to having the fees from our parking programs be fall into that, but I don't 15
think right now is the time to be prescriptive on this. But I do think that not having mention of 16
the funding sources in our Comp Plan is a mistake and we could tonight if people want to talk 17
about the preferred funding sources I suppose that's up for discussion, but I'm just more 18
concerned that the only thing that is mentioned is that it's a nonprofit. It makes it feel like it's 19
not the City's business, someone else will take care of it, and I want it to be clear that this 20
_______________________
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.
should really be the City's business. We need to find and help fund this program if it's 1
important. 2
3
On TDM we talk about so Program T-1.2.2 formalize TDM requirements by ordinance and 4
require new developments above a certain size threshold to repair and implement a TDM plan 5
to meet performance standards. I agree with this language and I think it's important; however, 6
I also think that we should include a quid pro quo on TDM. I think that developers who do in 7
good faith offer aggressive TDM programs should be subject to lower parking requirements and 8
I would like to see that be part of our Comprehensive Plan. It suggests in other parts of the 9
Comprehensive Plan for example that the CAC recognize that over time parking requirements 10
may change and so there's language in there about periodically evaluating parking needs, but I 11
would like to see this linked to successful TDM implementation on a building level. 12
13
In terms of the discussion on VMT and LOS one thing I would like to see I agree with 14
Commissioner Summa that we're not abandoning LOS, but like to see some the negative 15
consequences of LOS diminished. And I sent around an article that was sent around to the PTC 16
about the unintended consequences of LOS and what it's happened in terms of making every 17
city just try to maximize car throughput. I would like to see us get rid of the grades A through F 18
and we get people here during every meeting that look at LOS and say now it's an F. Like how 19
could we be happy with an F? We’re Palo Alto, we don't get F's. Our kids don't get F’s. This is 20
_______________________
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.
unacceptable. And the A through F is fairly arbitrary. It's linked to a number of seconds delay 1
per car and I think that if we have the number of seconds delay per car that is sufficient. If 2
people feel like a 10 second delay is unacceptable then so be it, but I don't think it should be 3
subject to an arbitrary grade that we then link to school performance. 4
5
For parking this is more a general comment. I think this is one of those areas and we had 6
discussed this in the pre-meeting, I'll bring it up now, that lends itself well to a statement of 7
goals. And in general I think the Transportation Element could benefit from a good statement 8
of goals. Here's what we're trying to achieve as a city and here are the changes that we are 9
adopting versus our last Comp Plan. But this one in particular I think really does lend itself so I 10
would suggest that we as a city recognize that there is a cost to parking. That as a free good be 11
it to a two hour free parking or others we are incentivizing people to over use that asset. 12
Second, that as a city we want to eliminate incentives for over parking so buildings that built 13
too much parking and that many cities are now having parking maximums to eliminate 14
incentives or eliminate possibility that we will invest more in parking than other useful things 15
for our city. And third that where possible we want to have liquidity for parking, meaning 16
pockets of parking are now we force every building to park itself. Ideally we have central 17
resources that can be shared by many buildings and many other cities and our neighbors have 18
adopted this approach where you have a large shared parking garage. Palo Alto seems to have 19
more than other cities, hodgepodges of bits and pieces, sometimes undersized garages, 20
_______________________
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.
sometimes scale garages, lots of little garages under buildings that are underused because no 1
one else can use them. No one else can access them. So as a principle three I would say 2
liquidity. We want to make it so that we don't have pockets of unused inventory; that we use 3
this valuable asset appropriately. 4
5
So I’m bringing this up I realize it's somewhat outside of individual policies and programs, but I 6
think in general it's easy for people to engage with the principle if these are the principles that 7
we have then people can accept them or resist them, but at least we have some principles that 8
can be linked to the specific policies. Those are all of my items on the Transportation Element 9
and so at the end maybe if we want talk about land use and what we're proposing for the next 10
meeting I'm happy to discuss that at a second round. 11
12
Acting Chair Waldfogel: Thank you. Let me just weigh in with a couple of comments and then 13
we’ll… should, do we have other comments you want to make before we take the break or… 14
yeah. And we have a speaker card. Ok, let me make my comments first and then I will invite 15
Ms. Ellson to come speak. 16
17
So the word that comes to my mind as I review this is Sisyphean. I mean that's the effort that 18
we're taking on on transportation and it’s endless and I'm not sure we're going to get there. 19
But my concern with all this is that we’re a small village with less than one percent of the 20
_______________________
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.
regional population pretending we can have an effective standalone transportation policy. And 1
some of the discussions that I've heard tonight, some of the discussions that are in the policy or 2
they’re in the packet would make sense if they were regional policies, but some of these are 3
just unilateral disarmament. If we do them and the rest of the region doesn't I mean like some 4
a discussion about parking. We're in a region that relies on cars. I mean unfortunately we have 5
a giant probably a $100 billion deficit in regional transit spending to catch up to have an actual 6
reasonably good regional transit grid. And I think what's also lost here is this is Silicon Valley. 7
We all change jobs every couple years in Silicon Valley. I mean I've lived in the same town for 8
25 years and over the course of that time I've worked in just about every town from San Jose to 9
Belmont. I mean if I’m more ambitious I might go all the way to San Francisco, but that 10
commute looks to me has looked untenable. So I think it's really, really hard to build out on the 11
local plan especially for such a small town in the middle of such a big region that effectively 12
aligns housing and job locations. I just think it's a difficult lift. I mean it’s something you can do 13
on a transitory basis, but it's not something that you can really… you can't really get to a long 14
term stable equilibrium on that just because of this pattern of people changing jobs and people 15
basically don't want to move every time they change jobs. They don't want to yank their kids 16
out of school and it's just the way that people live their lives. 17
18
We do need effective regional transportation. I don't know how to capture that here because 19
most of those most of that spending most of that investment is upstream from us. But without 20
_______________________
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.
that a lot of these goals turn us into this little island that may or may not be able to function in 1
a self-sufficient way. So I think we should align our a lot of our goals with regional transit 2
investments that as a regional transit improves I know that Caltrain electrification is part of this, 3
but I think that that's just a drop in the bucket. We don't have very good lateral east/west 4
connections. Caltrain takes you to a part of San Francisco when someday when they build out a 5
little more transit in San Francisco it may take you to other parts but, I mean from experience if 6
I need to get to any other part of San Francisco than what served by Caltrain it’s a giant project. 7
I mean the connectivity isn't very good. Connectivity to the East Bay is not very good and we 8
just have to be cognizant that that is something that won't change, but we should build our 9
plan out around tracking what we can do as that connectivity improves. And honestly I don't 10
think it will improve very much between now and 2030. I mean just haven't seen the funding 11
lined up, but hey, I’d love to be wrong on that one. 12
13
I also think that we need to be very rigorous on the Transportation Element about capturing 14
quality of life and user experience. I think LOS is a tool that I mean I somewhat agree that the A 15
through F ratings are not as meaningful as they could be. I mean I've heard other people say 16
that delay variances are more significant than absolute delays. So I'm sure there are quality 17
metrics out there, but we do have to capture quality from a local user experience perspective. 18
I'm not sure VMT captures local user experience at all. So I think it's a useful tool for other 19
_______________________
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.
objectives, but it's not a useful tool for how we as citizens perceive our interaction with or how 1
we perceive our movement through the transportation network. 2
3
You know VMT actually has some other issues. It's interesting I mean I did a little bit of 4
searching on this. I mean there’s actually some evidence that TNCs are increasing VMT rather 5
than reducing it. We're actually tackling greenhouse gases principally through electrification. 6
That's a trend that is here. It's moving along pretty fast, but that said I will agree with 7
Commissioner Summa we probably shouldn't build policies around specific technologies 8
because they move so fast. I mean in 1998 hybrids were the hot deal, electric cars were dead. 9
This is the… what it is the Chevy EV1 or something? You know who killed the electric car? 10
Electric cars are hot now, but I mean in 2030 who knows what'll be hot. It could be fuel cells 11
will be hot. TNCs could be hot. We have no way of knowing today if TNCs will kill private car 12
ownership or if they'll kill transit systems. I've heard people say both and I think all we can do is 13
really pay attention and figure this out. No one really knows the adoption pace for 14
autonomous and when it comes if it comes when it comes there is no way to know as of today 15
whether that'll shorten or lengthen average commutes. I've seen some studies that say that 16
when autonomous comes people will commute farther because it's no effort to get in your 17
handy autonomous car and work while you're driving in from Merced or something, some really 18
long distance. So again we these are just things that we just don't know so we have to build out 19
_______________________
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.
a plan that is somewhat agnostic about technologies that some that somewhat abstract about 1
technologies. 2
3
The other point I would make is that if we're going to reduce parking requirements on buildings 4
around TMA investment or around other commitments I completely support that as long as it 5
comes with durable long term support for those programs. I mean by durable I mean like 35 to 6
50 year durations. Because giving somebody a concession in 2020 because they do see and 7
that will survive until 2070 just because they're doing something because they're putting a little 8
bit of money into a program and in 2019-2020 just doesn't seem like a good trade off. So we 9
need to find programs that match the timeframe of the concession to the financial 10
commitments that are being made. Again, we need to track what the trends are and over time 11
it may be that we need more parking, it may be that we need less parking, these are somewhat 12
unknowable from where we sit today. 13
14
To pile onto the Geng Road observation I think that several people I mean Commissioner 15
Rosenblum has made this point, several of my colleagues have made the point, but I think that 16
the real principle here is somehow we need to do something at the Embarcadero/101 17
intersection. And whether we frame that up as reducing traffic or increasing LOS or something 18
like that that seems like a reasonable policy goal, but sort of taking it down to the level of this 19
particular thing might be a little too specific. If somebody came up with a couple hundred 20
_______________________
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.
million dollars to build a bridge connector from Embarcadero out into out to the Dumbarton 1
we'd probably accept that and I think we'd say that's consistent with the policy, but again I 2
don't see anybody with a checkbook in hand for that one today. So anyhow those are my high 3
level comments on this Element. 4
5
Commissioner Gardias: Thank you; excellent comments. And also same comment to all my 6
colleagues; I think that all the comments are brilliant and very interesting. And so just so I'm 7
saying this because I don't really see that this is the way of reviewing Comprehensive Plan. I 8
believe that each of these topics that they mentioned is very important and should be a subject 9
of a separate discussion for this reason the discussion should be structured otherwise some 10
value that was offered here by Commissioner Summa, Rosenblum, and others may be lost. And 11
then or some other value that maybe it's not recognized by others maybe put in some report, 12
but would not be agreed upon by the colleagues. So I still would like to maybe change the tone 13
of discussion just either focus on some topic and then pretty much extract the knowledge from 14
this minds and then have comprehensive picture on variety of items that we were discussing. 15
So that's I’m just after this exchange I'm just getting to this conclusion that we should really just 16
have this discussion structured a different way. 17
18
And so let me go back to some comments that I started with. So when I was making a 19
suggestion of recognizing 280 and 101 as the transportation lanes I didn't envision the policy 20
_______________________
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.
that is on Page T-58, T-8.8. What I envision I envisioned a route that has stops and then pretty 1
much it allows to transport the commuters from point A to point B and that point B would be 2
intersection of 280 and Page Mill Road. And then there should be a bus stop there that would 3
allow commuters to change into a shuttle that would be crossing that, that would be passing 4
over 280 on the bridge of Page Mill Road. That’s my perspective and for this reason I would 5
argue that the transportation not of the of Embarcadero and Oregon should be rebuilt because 6
first of all it's a loss of land and then pretty much it would allow to open a bus stop on the other 7
side on 101 side. And then if we had I know that this is something not of the short term value, 8
but if we had something like a policy of the sort that would maybe steer some ideas at adjacent 9
municipalities. We all take 280/101 and we know that others may benefit from the same stops 10
because some municipalities like Redwood City they have similar situation when there is an 11
overpass of one highway like for example 92 over 280 which is a perfect place for having a bus 12
stop and then transporting population from Redwood City to Palo Alto to San Jose. So with 13
saying this, so this was the proposal number one. 14
15
Then also we have other opportunities of course of long term of a transportation routes which 16
is the tunneling of the Caltrain which I think should be in this document. Again, I know this is 17
not the short term win, but also we should recognize probably in the document a policy that we 18
would support Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) under El Camino. I strongly believe that there 19
_______________________
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.
should be BART under El Camino. So with this I'm going to just go through the to the through 1
my idea of just pretty much going from top to bottom. Yes please. 2
3
Acting Chair Waldfogel: Let me do this before we get going on another item. I mean we have a 4
speaker of card. 5
6
Commissioner Gardias: Sure, of course. Yes. 7
8
Acting Chair Waldfogel: Let me invite Ms. Ellson to come speak and then let's maybe just caucus 9
on how we should move through this next round and how that aligns with what we can do 10
effectively over the next hour or so. 11
12
Penny Ellson: Thank you and good evening. My name's Penny Ellson and I'm speaking as an 13
individual tonight. So I just had a couple of comments on some of the goals. Goal T-4 talks 14
about protecting neighborhood streets and does it specifically, but it what it doesn't it sort of 15
excludes the residential arterials almost specifically and in fact some of those residential 16
arterials are school commute corridors as we well know. These are sensitive areas and it's 17
when it talks about slowing traffic it really kind of limits that to residential neighborhoods and 18
in fact we have some areas on our residential corridors that are heavily used by school 19
commuting children and the police are unable to enforce for speeds because the 85th 20
_______________________
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.
percentile speeds are way too high for them to do that. That is a problem we need to solve and 1
I hope we can get some language and Goal T-4 and Policy T-4.2 that would address the des… 2
the City of Palo Alto designated school commute corridors. We might draw some of that 3
language from the school commute corridors policy that City Council approved on October 27, 4
2003. 5
6
And then secondly in program T-662 it talks about continuing to provide bicycle education. In 7
fact there's sort of there is kind of a lot of people misunderstand that Safe Routes to School is 8
just about bikes. We are all about getting people into all kinds of alternative modes of 9
transportation and that is a big part of our education program. We start in kindergarten 10
through second grade with pedestrian safety skills and we start working on bike skills in third 11
grade. So really this should read “continue to provide bike and pedestrian traffic safety skills 12
education for adults and children in the public schools, parks and rec programs, and the 13
juvenile traffic diversion program. We need to specifically call out pedestrian skills because 14
that's very important and I don't want to lose that first part of our program that lasts for three 15
years. 16
17
And finally I just want to comment really briefly in my interactions with VTA in the last year I 18
would say that our transit vision is more ambitious than we are ever likely to see happen. We 19
are about to see South Palo Alto transit significantly cut and I hope that the maps in the new 20
_______________________
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.
Comp Plan will reflect that. It's probably not going to be implemented till spring, but we should 1
probably put that in there. Anyway, thank you very much for your time and I've heard some 2
interesting comments this evening. Nice work. 3
4
Acting Chair Waldfogel: Thank you very much, appreciate the comments. Ok, so let's just check 5
now what we want to do next. I mean I think there's a couple things we could do. We could I 6
think that Commissioner Gardias still has some pending comments on the Plan. I think we 7
should allow time for that. Do other people have additional comments or responses or sort of 8
what do we want to do next? Yeah, go ahead. 9
10
Commissioner Rosenblum: So I'd like with you as Acting Chair to make the proposal. And 11
yesterday we had a pre-commission meeting, talked about basically this round going forward 12
and each person listing their hot button items. Staff was going to take the opportunity to note 13
those items and consolidate. And then we were going take a break and then we’re going to 14
come back and see if there is consensus among the Commissioners around those items. Which 15
ones do we have consensus that yes we'd like to see this done and which ones we’re split and if 16
there are any things that we left out. I'm still in favor that approach. So we already did round 17
one. I think staff would then come back with the full list so I think this does answer 18
Commissioner Gardias’ request to make sure we don't lose any of this because we will get to 19
see the list and see if it matches your expectation. So I'm personally still in favor of this 20
_______________________
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.
approach, but again I would just defer to the Chair [Note-Acting Chair]. Whatever you want to 1
do is (interrupted) 2
3
Acting Chair Waldfogel: So the only nuance I have here is that I think some of us said most of 4
what we wanted to say in round one. I think that some of us deferred it and I want to just 5
make sure we get everything, we want to get all the round one comments on the table before 6
we take a couple minute break. So if you have additional comments that you want for round 7
one or anybody who has them just raise your hand right now so that we can get those in. Yes. 8
9
Commissioner Rosenblum: I'm fully in agreement with all of the last speaker's comments 10
around I hope that I could repeat all of them so they make it on to the record, but in order not 11
to repeat them if they were, if there's already a record then I am in favor of basically every 12
comment. And if you don't have them I'm happy to repeat point by point. 13
14
Acting Chair Waldfogel: Yes, Commissioner Summa. 15
16
Commissioner Summa: Well, I do want to hear the rest of what Commissioner Gardias wants to 17
share and I also appreciated Ms. Ellson’s comments and I also very much appreciated some of 18
Acting Chair Waldfogel’s comments especially since they kind of coincided with mine, but which 19
were much more eloquently put. So and I would be happy for there not to be I don't think for 20
_______________________
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.
what gets transmitted to Council we have to say oh, there was a majority of us who agreed with 1
something or didn't agree. I think they could just, it could just be a list. I don't see why the 2
majority is necessarily relevant and I'll leave it at that for now. 3
4
Acting Chair Waldfogel: Great, thank you. Commissioner Gardias, please continue. 5
6
Commissioner Gardias: Yeah, I mean actually I haven't started my comments yet. I just want to 7
make it clear, right, that I just pretty much expressed the overall perspective of this how the 8
transportation should look like in Palo Alto. But so I will get to my comments, but then the end 9
goal is not clear to me because we're talking about the list that would be presented to the 10
Council. I believe that we're going to present the updated draft so pretty much the changes 11
that we agree upon of programs and policies would be by our vote would be included in this 12
document. Isn't that right? 13
14
Ms. Gitelman: Thank you for the opportunity to clarify. We're not proposing to do another 15
version of this document. The idea is to transmit a list of your recommended changes and the 16
issues that you identified to the Council. 17
18
Acting Chair Waldfogel: Just as a point of clarification and I may ask for some legal backup on 19
this, but my understanding is that our responsibility is if we choose to transmit a report to the 20
_______________________
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.
City Council the contents of the report are not defined by the code, we have no statutory 1
obligation to explicitly review or to transmit an alternate version of the Comp Plan, but is that 2
an accurate summary of where we are? 3
4
[Albert Yang, Senior Deputy City Attorney]: Yes, I think that's fair. 5
6
Commissioner Gardias: No, I have this understanding. I’m just not sure pretty much what... I 7
just don't see how this how without the specific resolutions how this would be converted into 8
action. Because if Council receives the list of our proposals which will be lengthy and very rich I 9
don't see the Council to debate each point by point, each policy by policy, and program by 10
program. I just simply don't see it practically. So I'm not really sure about the value. I mean I 11
understand if that is pretty much the direction I can participate in this, but I don't really believe 12
that the value we would be proposing would be of some significance. 13
14
Ms. Gitelman: I guess we'll leave it to the Commission about whether you want to take the time 15
to hammer through the list of ideas that you come up with and offer of the Council specific 16
Motions. That's entirely up to you. If you think that would be the most effective way to 17
communicate what your views on this work product are or as the Acting Chair indicated just 18
simply the list of ideas that have been discussed here and the transcript of your meeting. It’s 19
up to you. 20
_______________________
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.
1
Commissioner Gardias: Right. 2
3
Acting Chair Waldfogel: Let me just again my understanding is that we have a series of meetings 4
agendized for the or where this agenda is over a series of meetings. As far as I know nothing 5
we do tonight needs to be definitive in the recommendation. I think that tonight we collect 6
information. I think if we choose to there may be a point in this process where we submit some 7
language for a report. I'm not sure tonight needs to be that night. So I don’t think you should 8
feel like this is your last chance to weigh in on specific language if you believe that needs to be 9
proposed. 10
11
Commissioner Gardias: Right and I understand this, but I we had already this discussion that 12
pretty much was we had like what two months ago about where we also spoke about the 13
length of the review which we was limited to the 90 days. But and we know that the Council 14
wants to implement the plan and we know that pretty much the Council this is the Council led 15
plan as opposed to Commission led plan. That's how it ended up; however, just if we commit 16
still this 90 days to the input to the… I would see the more concrete input to the Council as 17
opposed to list, even prioritized list. I probably would be looking for some agreement on 18
maybe on the top items that where the consensus would emerge where we would pretty much 19
say this policy, specific policy would have to change. So then the Council would pretty much 20
_______________________
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.
just go through the list of the policies would say yes or no. So but nevertheless let me just go 1
through my comments. 2
3
So I'm going to go through the top, top to bottom, and maybe I will just stop to give other a 4
chance to speak. So I'm going to go through from Page T-22 which is the first Goal T-1. What I 5
am proposing to include in the in this language phrase of encouraging small business and home 6
business and that is something that we discussed with Jonathan at some certain point when we 7
were discussing the Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU). And it may be controversial today where 8
pretty much we have a pure residential neighborhoods that by policy are not tainted with home 9
offices. And I'm not talking about this that practitioners that pretty much like bookkeepers that 10
do their books and nobody just visits them. I think that at one point of time there may be a 11
need maybe in some neighborhoods that are ripe for this opening to allow for to allow to some 12
to conduct a home business that would allow for visitors coming to the residence. And that this 13
from the why this would be in the Transportation Element because it would be one of those 14
polices that would reduce traffic because those practitioners would not need to commute to 15
the offices, seek for office space, and so forth. So that's one of the proposals. 16
17
When I go to the next one is policy on Page T-23, Policy T-1.1 which I don't really understand 18
this policy so pretty much and there are some others that are bracketed as new and I'm just 19
giving this as an example. Some of those policies they don't they are not very actionable. So I 20
_______________________
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.
don't understand pretty much a what we would do underneath. So this is just an example of 1
those polices that I don't understand what we pretty much should be doing in response to it. 2
3
In terms of the TDM which is that program T-1.2.2 on Page T-24 there is a list of the reduction 4
of the percentage reduction in the certain areas. And I think that I remember what was that 5
behind this there was a top level of 30 percent reduction, overall reduction by TDM. We had 6
this discussion like two years ago. I wasn't or maybe this was about TMA. I don't remember 7
specifically, but the idea behind this percentages was that pretty much they were not they were 8
there was no scientific calculation behind those reductions. So for this reason I was questioning 9
those percentages and specifically I remember TMA that was cited by Mayor Pat Burt in the 10
press as one of the goals. Today we know that there will be no 30 percent reduction as of TMA. 11
So I’m just question this goals because if there is no dollars there is no budget. There is no 12
program to reach those reductions. They pretty much they mean nothing and TMA example 13
was clear that 30 percent reduction that just came to us they put it on the slides and then it's 14
been a year and a half or two years I think that that reduction is zero. 15
16
Ms. Gitelman: Can I just offer (interrupted) 17
18
Commissioner Gardias: Sure. 19
20
_______________________
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.
Ms. Gitelman: Some comments on that? First this policy that you're citing with the numeric 1
values and on Page T-24 those are goals that we're suggesting would be applied to private 2
developers who come in and propose new development of a certain size. And these numbers 3
were set in consultation with our traffic engineering team and purposely set to be aggressive, 4
but achievable for the different districts that were shown. This is in their best judgment, but 5
knowing what they know about the land uses and the ability to achieve reductions associated 6
with various techniques. So that's where this derives from and it's not related to the TMA. 7
8
Then with regard to the TMA I think it's not accurate to say that they haven’t achieved any 9
reductions. They have some pilot programs that are showing very good results. I don't 10
remember offhand whether they're at 8 percent or they're not at 30 percent yet, but they're 11
only really just beginning their work and just getting the kind of funding they're going to need 12
to make a real reduction. I think in the budget for this coming for this fiscal year the Council 13
allocated enough that they project they can get to a 14 percent reduction, so almost halfway to 14
the 30 percent goal. And think the attention of the CAC and the Council in these policies about 15
the TMA and then it’s kind of highlighting the TMA in this section was really to elevate that as 16
an important program that the City supports and will continue to support in an effort to achieve 17
the goal that they've articulated. 18
19
_______________________
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.
Commissioner Gardias: I understand, but it was and of course those goals are very noble, but if 1
there will be if they are not achievable I'd rather not have them on paper. Because then pretty 2
much this is not becoming then is then this document is becoming unattainable and that is a 3
problem. So I'd rather just have this goals somewhere in the subsequent plan where they could 4
be revised, but not at this level. If there is truly nothing of the science behind those numbers. I 5
haven't seen the calculations if the if this truly manual of the transportation, if the Institute of 6
Transportation Engineers (ITE) provides the basis for the 50 percent reduction in the Downtown 7
district I'd like to pretty much see to receive that is substantiated. If not I'd like to just pretty 8
much remove them or somehow put them underneath so it's not at the policy level. 9
10
In on Program T-1.23 I think that this Commission it's a new program and now we're talking 11
about TMA. This Commission needs to evaluate really TMA annually. We haven't seen TMA 12
groups since at least year and a half if I remember correctly. 13
14
Going to the reducing greenhouse gas emissions this is T-25. There are some policies about 15
new programs about for example Program T-1.3.1 to develop EV and EV promotion program. 16
That is I'd like to understand how this differs from the building code? What are we doing and 17
then I think that 2016 California Building Code went into effect on January the 1st if I remember 18
correctly. So what are we doing more than it is required in the in the code? 19
20
_______________________
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.
Ms. Gitelman: This is a program that would call on the City to develop additional programs or 1
strategies to try and get an increase in electric vehicle usage. So it doesn't specify exactly what 2
those programs would be, but I could imagine they could be anything from financial incentives 3
to requirements on existing multi-family housing, any number of other strategies that are not 4
currently in the building code. 5
6
Commissioner Gardias: Right, but my question is what would what additional value above 7
California Building Code this program would provide? If this program would provide not 8
incremental value I just I’m not really sure if that is of value all together. I think that pretty the 9
California regulations are becoming very are coming at a fast pace and they are very restrictive 10
and then we may be in the catch up mode after the California Building Codes not in the 11
forefront with this program. 12
13
Acting Chair Waldfogel: Can I ask a point of clarification? Is this binding on the Utilities 14
Department too, the Comp Plan? 15
16
Ms. Gitelman: Like all of the implementation programs I mean this is something that we hope 17
could be accomplished in the 15 year life of the plan. This one in particular is saying to examine 18
the barriers and opportunities to expand EV use in town. 19
20
_______________________
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.
Acting Chair Waldfogel: But might that, might the Utilities Department take this up as a call to 1
action? 2
3
Ms. Gitelman: I mean I think they're already doing. I mean I think all departments are already 4
looking at this. 5
6
Commissioner Gardias: So specifically there is a California Green Building Standards a section of 7
California. And then in terms of this if we're going to have this program I'd like to see the note 8
that would allow the private infrastructure to invest in this in the vehicle charging stations. This 9
talks only about the City and I'd like to see the program that would allow private entities to 10
invest in this charging station. 11
12
The same I'm going to the transit use on Page T-26. If you and program I'd like to direct you to 13
Program T-1.6.2 that talks about working with Caltrain, Amtrak, and public bus operators to 14
expand bicycle storage and public transit vehicles and so forth. So before we had before Bay 15
Area had started public transportation program if you remember there was a network of the 16
privately operated railroads and bus routes as well. So I would like to include in this language 17
word private to see if we can accommodate any private bus operators. 18
19
Acting Chair Waldfogel: Do you have many more pages of comments? 20
_______________________
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.
1
Commissioner Gardias: Yes. 2
3
Acting Chair Waldfogel: What is the most efficient way to transmit all this. I mean in terms of 4
process I just wanted to check what is the best process because I think this is more specific than 5
we necessarily will be able to develop general opinions on. I mean would it would transmitting 6
all these as an e-mail or memo be a format that we could take on or continue the topic? I mean 7
transmit it and then continue the topic? I mean it’s just that I think going through these one by 8
one I want to make sure all these issues get raised. I want to make sure we do it in a productive 9
way. 10
11
Ms. Costello: We don’t… we can obviously take them as a written product, but we're not sure 12
whether some issues would be raised that are of interest and we can transmit those to the 13
Council and they would go as comments that's fine. That's enough. All these are options for all 14
of you. I think the downside of that the upside it's more efficient which is desirable. The 15
downside is there may be things that are brought up that are of interest to the entire 16
Commission that (interrupted) 17
18
Acting Chair Waldfogel: What if we were to say that we would open this up for these written 19
transmittals that can then get redistributed and if we were to hold this topic open and we 20
_______________________
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.
continue it to the next meeting to just finalize if there's any other discussion. So that way we 1
have both a process to feed all this in and a process as a Commission to discuss those 2
comments. I’m just looking for a format that gets all the issues on the table, ensures that we 3
have that we all have a chance to comment on it, but doesn't necessarily get us doesn't 4
necessarily keep us here until midnight. 5
6
Ms. Gitelman: We could certainly do that. The only thing I’ll note for the Commission is the 7
next meeting we're going to talk about the big sections in Land Use that all that some of you 8
have expressed a deep interest in like all the growth management policies in Goal L-1. So we 9
can certainly do that if Commissioner Gardias wanted to send us a written list we could send it 10
back out to the Commission in your packet for the next meeting and then you could quickly 11
review it and identify any that are of concern (interrupted) 12
13
Acting Chair Waldfogel: Let me just take people’s temperature on this whether we’d rather go 14
through this or we'd rather just whether we’d rather just get these transmitted in some other 15
form. No comments? 16
17
Commissioner Rosenblum: I'm personally a little torn on this. I don't think this is going in a 18
great direction because I think what we're going to end up with is a mismatch of a very long list 19
of Commissioner Gardias’ specific items matched against some philosophical or a more high 20
_______________________
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.
level points that were raised by most other Commissioners and I think that it's going to be hard 1
to match them. And so if the intention was to get it all out then to have a reconciliation process 2
where we go and try to see if there's consensus around individual items I don't think that that's 3
going to happen by this process. But I also recognize that Commissioner Gardias should have all 4
of his input properly recorded so I don't know what the right format is for that. 5
6
Acting Chair Waldfogel: Yeah and that's exactly I mean I want to make sure we capture all this. 7
I want to make sure that as a body we have an opportunity to comment and deliberate on it, 8
but I'm not sure that I mean if it's another five minutes I think great. But if it’s, if there's a lot of 9
this tonight the question is will we be able to effectively deliberate on it tonight? 10
11
Commissioner Rosenblum: I will… if I could add just one quick thing? So Commissioner Gardias 12
my observation is that you're mixing up two things which is you're listing your points, but also 13
having a dialogue back and forth with staff trying to convince them of your points. And the 14
listing of your points is like five percent of the… EV’s, should they, should you have the ability 15
for charging stations to have private enterprise invest in them? That's a five second statement 16
verses the couple minutes that follows it about the justification and what staff thinks, etcetera. 17
And so my belief is that actually you could get through your list quite efficiently, but you're 18
mixing kind of staff discussion, validation, arguments for with the list. So that's my personal 19
observation is that there could be a more efficient way of doing it. 20
_______________________
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.
1
Commissioner Gardias: Yeah so let me think how I can adjust. I totally understand it, right? I 2
prepared it in a different way because I was thinking that at the end of the day Council will get 3
our specific recommendations and I was concerned with this review to be done at the top level 4
because then we would just burden Council with if they accept list of our observations with 5
rewriting this code if they choose to accept them, those comments. That was so I'd rather just 6
pretty much go through specific policies like this one that you proposed which I really like was 7
about the shareablity of the parking structure which I think that there should be a separate 8
policy added which is not in the parking section that would speak that parking infrastructure 9
the new developments, new and existing development of parking infrastructure would be 10
sharable with the public and cross city parking shareable program, right? So that would be 11
specific policy I'd like to see being added to this. 12
13
So let me at I will think how to capture the comments. Let me add couple of other ones that I 14
was thinking of. So first of all I would like to just question the need for the transportation 15
center. That we have next to the Cal Station. This is the future location of the University 29 16
and then I think that there is opportunity to relieve that area of the transportation of the bus 17
parking and loading and offloading and then commit this area to the housing and retail in the 18
future. And then relocate the transportation transit center somewhere else. So I will probably 19
convey the other comments in writing or a… 20
_______________________
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.
1
Commissioner Monk: I'd like to add on to what you were just referring to in regards to parking. 2
I agree with your wanting to make a policy there and when Commissioner Rosenblum plan put 3
forth the idea of liquidity of parking I agree that there's probably a lot of parking out there 4
that's not utilized because we don't have access as you mentioned. I don't know about legal 5
issues in regards to this, but I would like to see some encouragement of technology. I believe 6
there's apps that are the Airbnb for parking. So that's what I'm referring to when I talk about 7
legality and policies and that nature, but this community talks about congestion and parking all 8
the time next to jobs/housing ratio. It's like those three things all the time and what are we 9
doing really about parking? 10
11
I don't know if it's within the purview of the TMA or not. If it's not maybe we should consider 12
adding it otherwise I would propose a program could be to put together a community group 13
that could examine innovations in parking solutions and technology. I think some of the apps 14
are called Spot or JustPark things like that. I'd also look to nontraditional concrete parking 15
structures this is a 20 year plan. We don't know what's happening in the future and what 16
developments we’re going have with regard to public transportation and otherwise and 17
needing to have some flexibility in repurposing the land so things like automated mechanical 18
parking systems that can maximize parking efficiency that are also a cost savings to the City and 19
_______________________
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.
help also reduce environmental impacts are the types of things that I'd like to see a real 1
emphasis put on. Like a real group put together real policy behind it. 2
3
Commissioner Gardias: Yeah, so if I may add to this, right? Because it's interesting thought and 4
I was hoping that we can have some discussion because Commissioner Rosenblum had when he 5
spoke about this he also had vision that during the that in the proximity of the transportation 6
centers if there is TDM program, successful program, implemented then there should be the 7
owner of the property should be given the bonus of the parking reduction. So I was having 8
opposite thought and this was based on the reason, but because the public transportation is 9
not picking up after the growth rates of the jobs and housing the at this moment we really 10
cannot afford to provide the bonuses for the parking. Because we would deplete ourselves 11
with the space for parking cars that is truly desirable even if there is a mitigation of TDM 12
parking. What I would be proposing was to require fully parked facilities, either housing or 13
offices being built, but then decouple the ownership of the housing from the ownership of the 14
parking and thus pretty much change that opened those structures underneath to the public 15
and then allow to pretty much to take profits to take private organizations to profit from either 16
renting or selling those parking spaces. But this would be detached from the parking ownership 17
of the inhabitants of this building. 18
19
Acting Chair Waldfogel: Yes, Doria. 20
_______________________
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.
1
Commissioner Summa: So I think what you guys are all talking about is in the event that there 2
are under parked residential structures that if they chose to do so obviously it would have to be 3
at the buildings, the building would have to be interested in this, that they would be able to let 4
businesses use them. Which I think is a great idea, but it's also already happening. The 5
Epiphany Hotel valet parks in is it called Lytton House? The retirement house? Lytton Gardens. 6
So these things are already happening and because a lot of times necessity is one step ahead of 7
planning so it could be that we need to identify the correct agency to have a little outreach 8
program to see if there's other opportunities like this. So I don't know if it would be TMA or a 9
city staff person. It's just probably that people haven't thought about it. So I think that's a fine 10
idea. Why waste parking? 11
12
Commissioner Rosenblum: And again I think we're kind of out of line with the original process, 13
but the things I brought up have been mentioned a couple of times so I want to clarify. I 14
actually think that the parking plan that the City has pursued for the last couple of years is quite 15
intelligent. So almost they there's a three legged stool around parking supply, parking 16
wayfinding, and residential protections, etcetera that I think are quite logical. So I actually think 17
the City's made a lot of progress in this regard. 18
19
_______________________
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.
The thing that I object to is a structural issue. Because we are concerned with buildings “under 1
parking” we force each of them to fully park and as a result what we end up with is this 2
hodgepodge of subscale parking garages that even if you were to unbundle them which I agree 3
with. I agree with Commissioner Gardias. They should be unbundled. You should be able to 4
have ownership of parking space be separate from the unit or an office and those offices should 5
have to pay for their parking spaces individually. And if a person doesn't have a car they 6
shouldn't be burdened with the price of a parking space. If I have two cars I buy a second one 7
in the apartment building, but that should be my cost to bear. 8
9
However, what we do as a result of all this is the subscale parking garages even if unbundled 10
are really inefficient so imagine again that there's been studies of traffic patterns in downtown 11
areas and a lot of it are people just circling around looking for parking. And when you have 12
these is what you find is I go into one building that is built for 30 spaces and hope that 1 or 2 13
are unoccupied and I come out go to the next one and the next one and so even if you 14
unbundle like one thing would be to have a vendor with valet parkers that know where all the 15
buildings are, but again I think that that is a non-obvious solution. The obvious solution is I 16
think to prioritize more liquid parking which is to put the money in in lieu fees around scale 17
parking garages that are usable by many companies where possible and not to prioritize each 18
building having their own private walled garden parking lot. So I think that's a more intelligent 19
thing. And not only that it’s not some fantasy. We see this in Redwood City, we see this in all 20
_______________________
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.
of our neighbors. It's not unusual to have a combination of paid parking by zone, full scale 1
parking garages, unbundled parking in buildings, and parking that allows the right ratio that is 2
on site. There certainly has to be some parking onsite. 3
4
My second point though around reduction for TDM we tend to make contradictory statements 5
up here. We talk about not having enough funding for TDM programs. And so my suggestion is 6
where does the funding come from? Well, building parking spaces is incredibly expensive. So 7
every space in Palo Alto we estimate is $60,000. That several projects have come before us and 8
have offered that instead of building 2 extra spaces or instead of building 10 extra spaces they 9
could supply thirty years to Commissioner Waldfogel’s [Note-Acting Chair] point of Caltrain Go 10
Passes to every man, woman, and child in the building. So in perpetuity and they still come out 11
ahead. And so then we can add to our wish list. What else do we want them to give? If they 12
give a bike every resident they’d still come out ahead. If they gave free bike repairs for life to 13
every resident they still come out ahead. All of their Amazon Fresh orders paid for they still 14
come out ahead. Like the fact is building parking spaces is incredibly expensive and you can 15
come up with a package of things that compensate for not building those spaces. 16
17
So my point for Commissioner Gardias is that when you are in the appropriate place in 18
exchange for aggressive TDM measures that actually achieve the 30 percent reduction that 19
you're skeptical of, but many buildings have achieved this, that they should be rewarded by 20
_______________________
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.
basically having the money available to make those aggressive TDM measures real. Otherwise 1
there's no incentive for them to do anything. They just fully parked the building. We're just 2
going to make them pay more money for parking and that money could have gone to 3
something good for the City which is getting rid of our cars. So anyway I wanted to explain a 4
couple of my comments and why I care about this. 5
6
Commissioner Gardias: For the record we’re just starting. May I? Ok, so no. I mean I didn't I 7
mean I totally support that pretty much if there is an aggressive measure of TDM 8
implementation that building owners should be rewarded with implementing this. So for this 9
reason I envision that the separation of the either ownership or sub-ownership of the 10
underground parking garage so pretty much that would allow for separation of the cost and 11
revenue, separation of the profits, that would pretty much allow for separate cost and profit 12
valuation of the building that would be without the parking cost and garages separately. That 13
would also allow us to truly assess demands and supply of the parking stalls because if there 14
would be a separate ownership of those or some separate management that would pretty 15
much that would allow us to understand where what is true cost of the parking? Is the demand 16
met or it's still there. 17
18
Acting Chair Waldfogel: I think that there are good points on this. I'm not sure going to resolve 19
this tonight. The question is what do… do we want to capture that there's some disagreement 20
_______________________
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.
about parking policy? I think that Commissioner Monk had a did you still have a comment that 1
you want to make before we take a quick break? 2
3
Commissioner Monk: Yeah, I don’t think we’re looking to solve it here and now. I think what 4
we're trying to do is ask Council to approve a policy that would enable us to really examine this 5
issue and address it in a meaningful way because I don't know that that's happening. I think 6
that we’re counter to with all due respect Vice-Chair’s comments about us being a small village. 7
Compared to Manhattan we are, but Palo Alto’s a world renown city and we’re the technology 8
capital of the world. We can come up with a solution to this problem. There’s a lot of 9
brainpower here and innovation and I think if there's a team that's dedicated to really looking 10
at we can come up with something that will alleviate our parking issues. So I propose to leave it 11
at that for now. 12
13
Acting Chair Waldfogel: Great. Before I stop for a few minutes so that staff can catch their 14
breaths, just one question for you; does the Comp Plan need to touch on any high speed rail 15
related issues? I'm not sure they're in here. Like for example, does the Comp Plan, should the 16
Comp Plan reflect on whether we would want a Caltrain, I mean a high speed rail stop if Cal, if 17
high speed rail is built? I mean are these elements that should be captured or are captured? 18
Just any comments on that? 19
20
_______________________
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.
Ms. Gitelman: The plan certainly could include a specific policy or a position on high speed rail. 1
I think there's something about it in here and (interrupted) 2
3
Acting Chair Waldfogel: I'm not an advocate; I'm just asking whether that's been part of the 4
dialogue up till now. 5
6
Ms. Costello: It has been part of the dialogue. It hasn't got to the level of specificity of whether 7
there should be a Cal a rail a station here in Palo Alto, but there has been and there are policies 8
primarily focused on things like collaboration and minimizing any negative impacts. 9
10
Acting Chair Waldfogel: It's just that they're the Council may need to decide whether you need 11
to advocate for that or whether they need to advocate for that to be elsewhere. Anyway I 12
don't want to discuss that right now. I just I wanted to ask the question. Why don't we take a 13
few minutes, regroup. Yeah and then we'll…. and then we'll continue after that. 14
15
Commissioner Monk: I had one minor addition that I omitted initially, very short. Just referring 16
to the Map T-1 that has to do with the regional transit connections; we also need to include the 17
relationship to the commercial centers because that's not listed. 18
19
Acting Chair Waldfogel: Ok, 10 minutes. 20
_______________________
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.
1
[The Commission took a break] 2
3
Acting Chair Waldfogel: We just had a discussion. Do you want to just outline the alternative? 4
5
Ms. Costello: Very graciously. Commissioner Waldfogel [Note-Acting Chair] realized that trying 6
to take all the really good comments that have been made and make them into a nice 7
condensed list right now on the fly might be beyond the skill level of the staff and consultants, 8
but so really to kind of pull this together in a useful way here's what we're thinking of doing. 9
We will take the comments from tonight and we will we are we will create a list. We will try 10
and identify the areas that we thought we heard consensus on and we will bring that list back 11
at the next meeting. 12
13
Now in order to make the next meeting because we see a real advantage to having this come 14
back to you quickly while you remember, not that you wouldn't remember it a month from 15
now, but while it's fresher in your memory we need to just take what you gave us tonight and 16
put that together and not try and get more from you. Not individual written comments or 17
anything. We won't be able to add those and get a staff report out to you for the next meeting, 18
but we will come back at the next meeting. We'll keep the hearing open and we'll continue the 19
item so that you can take a look at the list and you can say yeah, those that captures our 20
_______________________
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.
comments or not. We’ll be modest. You know we might have missed something. And that 1
captures… yeah we had, we do feel like we have consensus on the areas or we don’t and we 2
can go on from there. And then if there are written individual comments that people want to 3
write I'm not discouraging you from doing that, but they won't get included in this list. You can 4
do that, but it'll be attached because we won't we have to turn this around and get it out on 5
Friday or get it drafted on Friday and into production. So that's, but feel free to send additional 6
comments. They can be brought up next at the next meeting. They just won't be incorporated 7
in this list. Does that captures what we? 8
9
Acting Chair Waldfogel: I think it does and I think that it's essentially what we discussed before 10
with the exception that we're just deferring the collection and production to give everybody a 11
little more time to do a good job on that. Do we have any I mean are there any…? Yes. 12
13
Commissioner Summa: So I think that Commissioner Gardias had a lot more comments so I'm 14
just trying to understand the process. So the we're going to continue this, we're going have a 15
list, and then we're going to have another meeting on transportation so that additional 16
comments could bear have equal weight. Is that? 17
18
Ms. Costello: Well, what I'm saying is if Commissioner Gardias or any other Commissioner 19
wants to submit written comments, that's fine. We will send them out. We will what we're 20
_______________________
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.
going to use in terms of creating the list where we think there's consensus and where the 1
comments that we already have something that's… that's going to be of what was discussed 2
tonight. So then when it comes back at the next meeting you all can take a look at the written 3
comments and say well, I want to add these two. And every comment that everyone makes the 4
transcript will be transmitted to the Council and any written comments will be transmitted to 5
the Council. So we don't discourage written comments. That's fine to do it. It's just that what 6
we're going to try and do I think Commissioner Waldfogel [Note-Acting Chair] said it, we're 7
going to do what we promised to, what we set out to do. We’re just not going to try to do it on 8
the fly tonight. We're going to take what happened tonight and create a set of comments and 9
then they'll be an additional meeting where transportation will be one of the topics. 10
11
Commissioner Summa: Ok, so then the final whatever go whatever is referred to Council finally 12
will won't be the list from this evening because we haven't completed, but will be the list from 13
the second transportation meeting? 14
15
Ms. Costello: Right, right. 16
17
Commissioner Summa: Meaning if… ok. 18
19
Ms. Costello: Right. 20
_______________________
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.
1
Acting Chair Waldfogel: And just to that point I mean I still encourage… I mean we still have 2
time. The mikes are open. If there are additional issues that anyone would like raise tonight to 3
get onto the list I think we can (interrupted) 4
5
Ms. Costello: Yes. 6
7
Acting Chair Waldfogel: We can do that. 8
9
Ms. Gitelman: And I, I’d just add one thing, I’m sorry. 10
11
Acting Chair Waldfogel: Yes, please. 12
13
Ms. Gitelman: I think we do want to preserve the opportunity to go on to Land Use at the next 14
meeting so our hope would be that we could talk about the list that we prepare on 15
Transportation, the areas where there are consensus, then any written comments we receive. 16
If the Commission wants to give us direction on simply attaching those or merging them 17
somehow and then have an opportunity to move on to the first set of Land Use issues which 18
are big issues. 19
20
_______________________
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.
Acting Chair Waldfogel: Right and I think with all due respect I mean we may end up keeping 1
these items open continuing them so that we can keep coming back to them. I think as we go 2
through this they'll be some iteration as we understand more. So we'll kind of see how that 3
process works. It's a discovery. 4
5
Ms. Gitelman: Well and just going into this with our eyes wide open one of the outcomes of 6
continuing this Transportation discussion is that your colleagues who were not able to be here 7
this evening will have an opportunity to add their comments and so this is going to elongate a 8
little what we had thought would be accomplished in one evening. It may be a little more 9
involved and that's fine. 10
11
Acting Chair Waldfogel: Yeah, I think we're learning as we go. 12
13
Commissioner Monk: I'm just curious is there reason why you couldn't just send us the lists and 14
ask us to confirm whether or not it's inclusive or if it's missing anything rather than…? 15
16
Ms. Costello: Yeah, that’s what we’re going to do. 17
18
Commissioner Monk: But in advance? 19
20
_______________________
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.
Ms. Costello: It's just the production of it. It's better than spend it all out at the same time. 1
2
Commissioner Monk: You mean with our next packet? 3
4
Ms. Costello: Yeah. In the next packet. 5
6
Mr. Yang: And that’s it’s more it’s also for Brown Act reasons to have the Commission’s 7
business be done in the meeting in public and so we can prepare the materials for you to 8
consider, but the actual input from the Commissioners as a group would need to come in a 9
meeting like this. 10
11
Ms. Costello: Right. 12
13
Commissioner Monk: I've been getting my packets on Friday afternoons. If there's pieces of it I 14
know you like to get them all to us at once, but I think… are we doing other things other than 15
the Land Use at the next meeting? 16
17
Ms. Gitelman: There is another item on the agenda (interrupted) 18
19
Commissioner Monk: If there’s anything you’ve prepared in advance if you can (interrupted) 20
_______________________
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.
1
Ms. Gitelman: So there are going to be two items on your agenda next time. They'll be this 2
discussion of Transportation and Land Use we hope and then there's an item on rail. 3
4
Acting Chair Waldfogel: Ok, well I mean I think that this is we're learning as we go. So why 5
don't we continue with the discussions for with the comments. Commissioner Gardias, do you 6
have more comments that you’d like to add? 7
8
Commissioner Gardias: Yes, please. So yeah I tried to just convey to you the bigger ticket items 9
just to focus on those larger items. So a couple of weeks ago at one of our meetings we talked 10
about Sterling Canal as a possible bike route and this is under the public ground so opening this 11
route to the bikers would be desirable in connection to the bridge that we approved a couple of 12
weeks ago over 101. So I would like to add this to the either infrastructure to the list of the 13
most future improvements and I think that this would be very, very cheap investment that 14
would require more energy as opposed to dollars spent because there is only one bridge that 15
needs to be built over one of the creeks; Sterling Canal opening for a bike route. 16
17
Yes, ok. So next item that I would like to just add to this list is pretty much and we talk about 18
this on the at the time when we discuss connector, cross-town connector that failed because of 19
different reasons and then we didn't utilize million and a half that was granted to us by I think 20
_______________________
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.
that this was Federal or State grant. I think that what we should have a policy to open to 1
pedestrians and to bikers routes along the creeks in Palo Alto. We have we have three creeks 2
plus one overflow which makes four of them. Probably opening all of them would not be 3
possible because they are right behind the private properties and then people may not feel 4
secure if suddenly there would be pedestrian or bicycle traffic behind their fences. But then 5
there are some of them that go through commercial or they’re adjacent to the commercial 6
properties and I think that Adobe Creek if I remember correctly meets this definition. This is 7
the closest one to Mountain View so some of these routes maybe pretty much ready to be 8
opened after the discussions with the Santa Clara Water District and pretty much make it 9
available to the public, to the bikers, and it would pretty much create one additional 10
accessibility route. So that is I would propose that this would become a policy. Because this 11
way we would engage with the Santa Clara Water District in negotiation to open those routes 12
and I think this is that it's the time is to follow the footsteps of other municipalities and make it 13
available to the public where it's really feasible. 14
15
Another item that I would like to include in this policies would be pretty much requirements of 16
the companies located in Palo Alto to jointly to open their buses to all or to either create a joint 17
TMA program for all the companies in Palo Alto or open their buses to other companies. I think 18
that there may be I think that Mountain View has a program like this where companies they 19
have their shuttles that are open to others, to other companies. If not we should require or at 20
_______________________
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.
least recommend companies located here to share their the transportation that they use for 1
their employees. There may be some liability element because they may have a different legal 2
protections over their employees, but then if there are unutilized buses of Hewlett Packard or 3
some other corporations then they may be open to another VMware or some other company 4
that's located here that takes the same route. 5
6
And then also another comment I would like to see the program our Palo Alto Shuttle program 7
being restructured this way so it does not compete with VTA. I don't really know how we 8
effected change of the VTA routes that happened just during the last year, but they were not 9
profitable as they should have been and when we were adding a line just like a year ago or year 10
and a half ago that was partially going along El Camino. I had concerns that it may affect VTA. 11
The I think that there are two important transportation corridors for the VTA which is 12
Middlefield and also El Camino. And then I think that we by having our buses running along 13
those two routes we affect profitability of VTA. I don't really know anybody, I don't know many 14
that would be taking to the Bus 35 which would I think would become a different number very 15
soon because our buses our shuttles are so readily available and you don't have to pay two 16
dollars. So I think that we should restructure the program that so no we don't compete with 17
VTA. 18
19
_______________________
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.
And also I don't know whose ownership it would be, but I spoke about some private 1
transportation which I don't know if how possible it would be to support, but we should 2
consider to open bus stops to for private operators to utilize them. Today I believe that they 3
are exclusively utilized by VTA. Sometimes I see there are buses that stop at VTA bus stops that 4
are maybe not licensed. If you recall there was a discussion in San Francisco because bus 5
operators of Google mainly and Facebook they were using public bus stops for their purpose 6
and I believe that this ended up with just sending a bill to those two companies. The I think 7
that there is some opportunity to explore if this would allow some to operate and not operate 8
buses that would not be funded by City of Palo Alto. So those were the bigger ticket items that 9
I would recommend. Thank you. 10
11
Acting Chair Waldfogel: Great, thank you. Additional comments? Anyone else have anything 12
they'd like to add at this point? Is the process as we've just outlined, is this acceptable to the 13
group? 14
15
Ms. Gitelman: Well, I wanted to thank the Commissioners. These were really, really good 16
comments. I thought we got off to a good start and we will bring these back to you in a 17
somewhat organized way and identify those where we believe there is consensus for your 18
consideration at the next meeting. 19
20
_______________________
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.
Acting Chair Waldfogel: Ok, great and then just formally do we need a Motion to continue? 1
2
Mr. Yang: No, I don’t think we do. 3
4
Acting Chair Waldfogel: We’re just leaving it open with no action taken tonight? Ok, I just want 5
to be sure we're doing the parliamentary right thing. Thank you. Ok, so now I have to find my 6
agenda I think there's… Thank you everybody for the thoughtful comments and the patience. 7
How late is it? 8
9
Commissioner Gardias: One more. 10
11
Acting Chair Waldfogel: Just one more. 12
13
Commissioner Gardias: I'm sorry. We're still in session? 14
15
Acting Chair Waldfogel: It was just like Steve Jobs, it’s just one more thing. 16
17
Commissioner Gardias: One more. No, but I remember… I remember. No, sorry guys. I have 18
no iPhone to review, but I remember when we talked about policy to align bike routes with as a 19
policy, at the policy level with the sidewalks. And if you remember we had different designs of 20
_______________________
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.
different streets where bike routes were proposed in the middle of the street like it is in San 1
Francisco. So we had a discussion and [Adrian] agreed with me that pretty much we should not 2
pursue this design that San Francisco has because it just there it creates risk of collision of the 3
bicyclists and the cars. So as a matter of the policy there should be a policy that would require 4
that all bike routes are aligned with the sidewalks. And maybe in the future would like for 5
example, in Netherlands they would be incorporated into a sidewalk where bikes are separated 6
with a curb or some other hard element like by Jordan from the traffic. Thank you. 7
8
Acting Chair Waldfogel: Feel free to submit more in writing. Because this we're leaving this 9
open. 10
11
Committee Items 12
Commissioner Questions, Comments or Announcements 13
Adjournment-9:35pm 14
15
16
_______________________
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 1
Commissioner Biographies, Present and Archived Agendas and Reports are available online: 2
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/boards/ptc/default.asp. The PTC Commission members are: 3
4
Chair Michael Alcheck 5
Vice Chair Asher Waldfogel 6
Commissioner Przemek Gardias 7
Commissioner Ed Lauing 8
Commissioner Susan Monk 9
Commissioner Eric Rosenblum 10
Commissioner Doria Summa 11
12
Get Informed and Be Engaged! 13
View online: http://midpenmedia.org/category/government/city-of-palo-alto or on Channel 26. 14
15
Show up and speak. Public comment is encouraged. Please complete a speaker request card 16
located on the table at the entrance to the Council Chambers and deliver it to the Commission 17
Secretary prior to discussion of the item. 18
19
Write to us. Email the PTC at: Planning.Commission@CityofPaloAlto.org. Letters can be 20
delivered to the Planning & Community Environment Department, 5th floor, City Hall, 250 21
Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301. Comments received by 2:00 PM two Tuesdays preceding 22
the meeting date will be included in the agenda packet. Comments received afterward through 23
2:00 PM the day of the meeting will be presented to the Commission at the dais. 24
25
Material related to an item on this agenda submitted to the PTC after distribution of the 26
agenda packet is available for public inspection at the address above. 27
Americans with Disability Act (ADA) 28
It is the policy of the City of Palo Alto to offer its public programs, services and meetings in a 29
manner that is readily accessible to all. Persons with disabilities who require materials in an 30
appropriate alternative format or who require auxiliary aids to access City meetings, programs, 31
or services may contact the City’s ADA Coordinator at (650) 329-2550 (voice) or by emailing 32
ada@cityofpaloalto.org. Requests for assistance or accommodations must be submitted at least 33
24 hours in advance of the meeting, program, or service. 34
_______________________
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 1
Excerpt Minutes 2
August 9, 2017 3
Council Chambers 4
250 Hamilton Avenue 5
6:00 PM 6
7
8
3. PUBLIC HEARING. Planning and Transportation Commission Review and 9
Recommendation Regarding the June 30, 2017 Draft of the Comprehensive Plan 10
Update, With a Focus on the Draft Transportation and Land Use Elements 11
12
Chair Alcheck: [starts in progress] you know a little summary or informative sheet on our 13
modified version of our rules of order so that all of us can sort of get, can brush up on our 14
parliamentary procedure so that in case there's any opportunities there to improve this 15
process. Ok, with that I'd like to start, I’d like to invite staff to begin the next item. 16
17
Elaine Costello, Management Partners: My name is Elaine Costello, I've been working on the 18
Comp Plan and we have with us tonight Joanna Jansen from Placeworks who's also worked on 19
the project, Elena Lee, Josh Mello is here to help us out with the Transportation section. He 20
agreed to stick around. Thank you, Josh. 21
22
And this is our third meeting on the Planning Commission review of the Comp Plan. And 23
tonight we're going to do is complete the Transportation goals. You have, had in your packet 24
_______________________
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.
we what we did was we took your comments from the last meeting, we consolidated them, we 1
tried to identify some areas of consensus that we thought it's going to be up to you whether 2
you agree with us or not, but we were just trying to pick up where we thought there was some 3
consensus around some of the issues. And the goal is tonight in terms of those Transportation 4
goals it's not this is not a recommendation in terms of trying to decide exactly what you would 5
change and how, it's a recommendation and what we're asking of you tonight is that you 6
recommend that this list be transmitted to the City Council as a list of your comments that 7
captures the essence of what you said about the Transportation Element and that also captures 8
where there was consensus. So if there are things that we missed please let us know. If there 9
are areas, other areas of consensus that we missed please let us know. And if we mark 10
something as consensus where there wasn't consensus that's why you have it as a draft. So 11
that's the first item of business tonight is to talk about that finish up that Transportation 12
Element. 13
14
And then the second is to begin the first of we have three meetings scheduled on the Land Use 15
Element and we are heavily weighted to the most significant and time consuming issues in the 16
entire Comp Plan are in the first four goals of Land Use. And that's what we're starting with and 17
we will use the same process we. We will be taking notes tonight. We will do the same thing, 18
consolidate them and bring them back with areas of consensus identified at the next meeting 19
for your consideration. 20
_______________________
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.
1
So with that I’m going to move to the first. So the first goal these jumped right into the 2
heaviest issues. No wasting a lot of time here. The big issues in these first four goals were that 3
the major change and the major updates that were made to the Comp Plan were to limit office 4
Research and Development (R&D) moving forward. To change the way growth management 5
has been done and it’s to focus it on office R&D and not retail and other non-residential uses. 6
So that retail now will not be limited in terms of how much retail there can be. That would be 7
the in… that's what's proposed in the plan. And the other major issues were to increase the 8
housing supply and preserve existing housing that is affordable. Not just what meets federal 9
guidelines for affordable housing like Below Market Rate (BMR) units, but that is at the lower 10
ends of the cost of housing and finally to minimize displacement of existing residents. Those 11
were some of the key most talked about issues in the entire Comp Plan and they're before you 12
tonight. 13
14
So I wanted to start with goal, the first goal so we organize them by goal because it's a lot to 15
think about. And the first goal was that non-residential development. It keeps the cap at 1.7 16
million square feet (sf) of office R&D development, but remember now it's only office R&D and 17
it exempts the Stanford University Medical Center. The second was to address the annual limit 18
separately and the third thing was to eliminate the Downtown cap. 19
20
_______________________
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.
The second goal deals with sustainable community and housing. And again as I said it's to 1
provide housing that is affordable primarily by more locations for housing, smaller units or 2
other ideas for making housing more affordable and preserving the existing housing that is 3
affordable and minimizing displacement of existing residents are the key updates in Goal 3. In 4
Goal 3 is distinct neighborhoods and some of the language about compatibility and the 5
preserving the quality of existing neighborhoods has not changed from the it's very consistent 6
with what was in the 1998 plan. The biggest update was to avoid the negative impacts of single 7
family home basement construction. This again was a major issue and a major update and a 8
major change in the Comp Plan. And the final goal that you'll be looking at tonight is 9
commercial centers and hotels and focusing again what was the biggest issue, what do we 10
spend the most time on, and what's the major change? It's suitable hotel locations and 11
particularly explore increasing hotel Floor Area Ratio (FAR). 12
13
And with that that's kind of an overview of the issues that are before you tonight. There will be 14
as I said this is the beginning of the land use discussion and you will have two more meetings on 15
it, but you are launching right into the some of the hardest parts. Thank you. 16
17
Chair Alcheck: Ok, thank you for that summary. I am going to suggest that the Commissioners 18
take an opportunity to provide some feedback on this table that begins on Page 237 of your 19
packet. Because at the conclusion of this item I would like us to be able to move that the 20
_______________________
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.
summary here is an accurate reflection of the discussion that took place. So I’ll say that one 1
more time; if there is if anybody would like to add a comment that they feel should be added or 2
wasn't properly noted from the last meeting or if they feel that consensus wasn't reached on an 3
item that says consensus or and vice versa there's a good time for us to make those points so 4
that at the conclusion of this staff has an accurate reflection of the discussion that took place 5
around the Transportation Element. 6
7
Commissioner Lauing: Can I just ask a procedural point? 8
9
Chair Alcheck: Yeah. 10
11
Commissioner Lauing: So given that two of us were not present for any of this and no minutes 12
are out that really means that neither of us can vote on whether there was consensus or really 13
comment on these items. So it means four people sitting here will have to be voting on 14
consensus representing a seven person Commission. So for that reason I would like to suggest 15
that whatever you want to do with the review of this we should wait for any sort of 16
transmission of comments on consensus items from four people so that maybe later in the 17
process reviewing minutes, going into more of the elements and so on it would be more 18
meaningful because then all seven of us would have time to kind of get up to speed on the on 19
that particular issue. 20
_______________________
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.
1
Chair Alcheck: I understand his concern. I think that's fine. 2
3
Hillary Gitelman, Planning Director: I think it be fine if you want to put this off to a later meeting 4
and when the minutes are available we can put it back on the calendar. 5
6
Chair Alcheck: Yeah, I can understand why. I understand that. 7
8
Ms. Gitelman: I just wanted to remind the Chair that you do have a public speaker. 9
10
Chair Alcheck: Oh, that’s right. Hold on. Ok, we do have a member of the public who wishes to 11
speak. I would, I’d like to invite Robert Moss to address this item. You have five minutes to 12
speak. 13
14
Robert Moss: Thank you, Chair Alcheck and Commissioners. Land use and planning never 15
seems to go away in Palo Alto. I can remember the time we created the first modern 16
Comprehensive Plan in 1978 and it was interesting doing that took a lot less time and amending 17
the existing plan has taken. So just a few comments. 18
19
_______________________
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.
First of all on parking there are some generic statements made about how we have to have 1
adequate parking and then not too long ago the City Council allowed the construction of granny 2
units without requiring that the granny have onsite parking which means that almost certainly 3
they're going to have to park on the street. And this is going to create some major impacts in a 4
lot of neighborhoods. So when you talk about parking requirements I'd like to see that 5
emphasized that every residential unit shall provide adequate onsite parking and not allow 6
developments which require parking to be on the street. 7
8
And on the shuttle I doubt that any of you are aware of the fact that 40-50 years ago Palo Alto 9
had its own shuttle system and it ran buses down residential streets. There was a Palo Alto bus 10
line that ran down Greer as an example. And Palo Alto then merged with the Santa Clara Valley 11
Transportation Authority (VTA) and VTA promised that they would maintain the bus system. 12
And they did it for almost six months and then they started cutting and it’s been cut ever since. 13
Now we have a Palo Alto shuttle system which is serving a little bit of the City, but not nearly 14
enough. So when you talk about shuttle service I'd like to see comments made about 15
expanding it to serve more residential neighborhoods so if the residents don't have to drive 16
they can take the shuttle to go shopping or go to work. Restore the shuttle service that we had 17
40-45 years ago. 18
19
_______________________
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.
And on neighborhood impacts I don't think that the language is strong enough in preserving 1
existing neighborhoods. And when you talk about only preserving affordable housing we 2
should be preserving all existing housing. Don't just limit it to affordable. We don't have 3
enough housing. If we allow the housing we have to be replaced with something else because 4
we consider it's not “affordable” we're going to be losing even more. So let's take out the 5
requirement that the housing that we want to stabilize is affordable. Let's just say reaching our 6
existing housing and our housing infrastructure. And on the neighborhood streets I certainly 7
agree the neighborhoods streets should be retained as safe and safe for not only cars, but 8
pedestrians and cyclists; safe for everybody. 9
10
On the motor vehicle and bicycle parking where you're allowing people to put in new 11
developments and you're allowing them to for various reasons not put in adequate parking 12
you're creating a basic problem. Now some of that supposedly is going to be taken care of by 13
requiring that they provide transit passes, but it's very difficult to enforce that. And it's even 14
more difficult even if they give a free pass to every occupant of the property to make that 15
occupant actually use the pass. So make sure that the traffic and parking requirements reflect 16
reality. Every single family home generates 9 or 10 trips per day. Multi-family six to seven trips 17
per day. And when the developer comes in and says I'm going to put in transit systems which 18
are going to take that down don't believe them. One of the things that could be done is they 19
have a fine which is automatically assessed. If the traffic from a development exceeds what 20
_______________________
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.
they was allowed to provide, but we have to have a way of enforcing the requirements that we 1
put on the developers. I could give you dozens of examples of developments which are violated 2
the agreements that they made with the City. Planned Community (PC) zone which is a classic 3
example and they never had to pay a cent. That's wrong. We need to have a traffic and 4
transportation system that serves and protects the entire community and so it's important that 5
we have that. Thank you. 6
7
Chair Alcheck: Ok. So let me just reiterate I think that the notion of deferring sort of the making 8
of moving to that this is an accurate reflection of the comments we can wait till all the 9
Commissioners present are familiar with the meeting. I think that's a fair comment. So at this 10
time I'd like to invite Commissioners to add to the comments they made at our last meeting or 11
didn't have an opportunity to make on this item. And then at the conclusion of those 12
comments we’ll move on to our review of the Land Use Element. 13
14
Ms. Gitelman: Could I suggest we just move on to land use and then when the minutes are 15
available and everybody’s had a chance to review them the Commissioners will know the full 16
scope of what was raised at the last meeting and (interrupted) 17
18
Chair Alcheck: Yeah, look that's fine. So before we do that I just want to make sure that if 19
anybody feels like this table somehow inaccurately reflects the meeting I just I don't we can 20
_______________________
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.
wait three weeks and someone might not have… they may think that I just want to make get 1
out of the way now. I don't so if anybody wants to make a few comments about this let's do it 2
now. Would you like to begin? 3
4
Commissioner Gardias: Sure, thank you. So I like to just add a couple of comments to the 5
schedule that was created after our last meeting. So those are the comments they missed at 6
the last meetings. That one number one is the policy to pretty much provide the crossings to 7
make 101 bike and pedestrian crossings underground. And also the second item which I think 8
that maybe I discussed already, but I just want to make sure that this is on paper that there 9
would be Alma crossings that would be Alma crossings pedestrian and bike crossings along the 10
creeks. We talk about this at one point of time so, but I want to just make sure that this would 11
become a policy or at least proposed as a policy. 12
13
I'd like to comment on one goal that is on Page 240. This is the first bullet point under Goal T-5 14
and I wish that Eric was here with us so he could have just present his perspective, but I believe 15
that this was this bullet point represented misrepresented the discussion that we both had. 16
This is page packet Page 240 and this is the first goal under first bullet point under Goal T-5 17
motor vehicle and bicycle parking. And Mike you weren't here, but I just want to just reiterate 18
the discussion that we had with Eric. So Eric proposed that there would be a shareable system 19
of the parking throughout the City which I welcome proposal because it would just pretty much 20
_______________________
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.
open the inventor to those that are in needs if there is an empty parking stall or if it's 1
temporary or permanent because of various reasons. But when I recognize his proposal I 2
wanted to expand it in this way that I proposed that all the development would be fully parked. 3
Will be would be there will be at least a maybe one or two stories of the underground parking. 4
And the reason was that pretty much this would if there is a development this would create 5
automatic build of the two-story underground parking and all the buildings would be fully 6
parked. 7
8
Now the caveat is and then we discussed this afterward and, but it wasn't captured here that 9
pretty much I was not proposing this to have as a burden on the developer because developer 10
is or the owner of the of the building is entitled to have a reduction in the parking capacity in 11
exchange of the transit buses. What I was proposing that this additional parking that would 12
create this fully under parked facilities would be coming from would be coming out from other 13
sources. It could be either the City budget or it could be some other private investment that we 14
would allow to eventually detach underground parking from the building and then just 15
recognize it as a separate investment. This would be partially invested, partially funded by the 16
development and partially funded by some other sources either private or public sources. The 17
reason is just to make sure that if there is a capacity and somebody is digging a hole in the 18
ground that if there is a construction going on that I thought that it would be just a smaller 19
incremental expense to build additional I don't know 20 or 30 stalls and then either rent those 20
_______________________
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.
stalls or make those stalls available to other that need to park their cars. And that would add to 1
the proposal that Eric had of shareable parking spaces. That was the reason and I think that 2
pretty much this bullet point doesn't represent that discussion so I just wanted to make it clear. 3
Thank you. 4
5
Chair Alcheck: Would anybody else care to… please Commissioner Summa. 6
7
Commissioner Summa: There were just two bullet points on packet Page 240 and 241. They're 8
both the second from the bottom that are were listed as consensus and I didn't think that was 9
the case that there was consensus. Just on those two. So it's an unbundled parking comment 10
and then the under Transportation Implementation Plan table about the programs. 11
12
Chair Alcheck: Ok, well I wasn't here. I did follow the meeting and I want to say two things 13
about it. I think the comments were really, really amazing. I want to commend everybody who 14
participated in the meeting. I just thought you guys had an amazing discussion and I'm hoping 15
that we can continue having that discussion and I hope to follow the model that was you used 16
in the last meeting. I'm going to ask staff real quick instead of I did prepare my hot points as we 17
referred… would you be comfortable if I simply e-mailed you the areas that I felt there was 18
agreement with instead of listing them tonight and that would help you in your view to 19
_______________________
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.
understand if there was maybe greater consensus on certain things? Like for example 1
comments about Level of Service (LOS), comments about (interrupted) 2
3
Ms. Costello: Oh, ok. 4
5
Chair Alcheck: Parking. I don't know that it's particularly useful for me to spend 10 minutes 6
right now talking about all those elements. Would it be more appropriate if I wrote it in an 7
email and I just told you here's how I felt about this, this, this, and this and maybe my 8
additional comment creates a consensus or it doesn't and you guys can figure that out. 9
10
Ms. Costello: Right, right. I think that's helpful. 11
12
Chair Alcheck: Ok, alright. Well I would invite Commissioner Lauing to do the same if you had 13
any input on those policy on those goals that were discussed and if there are no other 14
comments about this… 15
16
Commissioner Monk: Yeah, I have a comment. 17
18
Chair Alcheck: Ok if after this comment assuming there are no other comments let's begin the 19
discussion on the Land Use. 20
_______________________
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.
1
Commissioner Monk: On page 237 it doesn't say whether there’s consensus or not, but I just I 2
don't recall the discussion in regards to consider relocating the Downtown Transit Center and 3
that the existing location could be better location for housing and retail. I think that the Transit 4
Center and connections to Stanford should be enhanced in its current place and that it should 5
be made a destination not only for the travelers, but also for our residents. I just wasn’t sure 6
where that language came from. 7
8
And I had one other regarding the bike routes being aligned with sidewalks on Page 239 I don't 9
know that there was consensus on that. I think whatever's the most safe is where bike routes 10
should be determined. That's at the top of Page 239. Also… I think it was probably that you 11
said some and others when it could have just been one and one other, but thank you for 12
putting that in there because on some of these points it was really just one and one as an 13
opinion. So should we maybe just also weigh in when we review? 14
15
Ms. Gitelman: Yeah, I mean we really tried to group comments where multiple Commissioners 16
had made the same comment, but a lot, some of these were made by a single Commissioner 17
and we only noted consensus where it seemed like all of the Commissioners who were present 18
were in agreement. And as Commissioner Summa noted we may have been overzealous on a 19
couple of those cases. 20
_______________________
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.
1
Commissioner Monk: Would it help if we each just gave you a yes or no to each of these and no 2
you don't (interrupted) 3
4
Chair Alcheck: No, I don't think so actually because I think one of the things that you guys 5
developed at the last go meeting was this notion that at the conclusion of this we'll be able to 6
forward this “unanimously” as a succinct and correct articulation of the discussion that we had 7
and I don't know that we really want to go through any straw poll process or at least that's 8
what I gathered from the discussion that took place. And I so let's unless there's any other 9
comments on this… Commissioner Gardias (interrupted) 10
11
Commissioner Gardias: Yeah, I’d like to chime in. I mean both comments are coming from me, 12
right? So this that proposal to pretty much to eliminate the transportation center I proposed 13
that and then this pretty much would expand University and 29 potential site for other housing 14
and for some other needs. And then the comment about alignment of the bikes and sidewalks 15
there was a consensus which I stated clearly. The consensus was between me and Adrian Fine 16
and we talk about this at the at one of our meetings in the past when we talk about the 17
Embarcadero and El Camino bike traffic that's going to happen at some point of time, but then I 18
would like to just agree with Commissioner Monk that pretty much there was no discussion 19
among us. So if she disagrees with this what I proposed, right, this is her right and then I'm not 20
_______________________
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.
saying that this what I put into here should be presented to staff as well as other points. 1
Because everything what we did it was just a mind dump on the paper, but it doesn't represent, 2
it has no representation of our actual understanding of all this items. So I doubt the process 3
maybe worked well because there were so many proposals, but in terms of some consensus 4
building I’d rather just to see the discussion on those and maybe just reduce this list, remove 5
those that have no support. I know that it would take more time, but at least the document 6
that we're going to present to the Council or staff on behalf of us will have some power. 7
8
Chair Alcheck: I'm glad you mentioned that. At the during my meeting with staff we could 9
begin to discuss how the commentary would be consolidated into our what we pass on to 10
Council. And we, I don't know that we've made any decisions and I don't know that we, I would 11
make the decision in absence of the Commission’s sort of input, but one of the ideas and I think 12
when we get to the end of this process we'll have the discussion that you're raising now. But 13
one of the ideas is to consolidate all the items that receive consensus into the into one section 14
and then have an appendix or something that included all the other comments that were made 15
so that that Council could have… 16
17
But again this is a strategy on how we present what we've done and I'm not going to make that 18
decision in a vacuum. I think at the conclusion of this process we can entertain some ideas of 19
how we'd like to best communicate what we did. I'm just suggesting to you now that we have 20
_______________________
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.
begun to think through it and I would encourage you to think through it also what strategy, 1
how we break these down, do we separate things that didn't get consensus or do we appendix 2
them and do we consolidate the items that got consensus so that City Council could read a 3
document and see all the areas that we have consensus? Let’s I don't let's not spend too much 4
time now thinking about it, but I want you to know that we will discuss it because as some 5
point we have to draft this piece and I think this the notion that the Commissioners would want 6
to weigh in on that design is appropriate. So unless anybody has anything else to say? 7
8
Commissioner Gardias: Yeah, I just want to say that pretty much right if I welcome your 9
openness to do this and, but it will take at least one the meeting or two to pretty much to go 10
through this list. 11
12
Chair Alcheck: I don't I'm not suggesting (interrupted) 13
14
Commissioner Gardias: And then discuss it, right? 15
16
Chair Alcheck: Yeah, (interrupted) 17
18
Commissioner Gardias: Because people will have different perspectives. They would be 19
changing their mind and this is a normal process, right? So (interrupted) 20
_______________________
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.
1
Chair Alcheck: Yeah, yeah, ok. Hold on. So let me just clarify. I am not suggesting that we go 2
through the list item by item and determine when there was consensus. What I'm hoping is 3
that staff was able to garner, gather where there was consensus if there is a concern that 4
consensus wasn't reached on an item I encourage us to notify them which could include 5
reviewing the minutes very carefully to determine if there was an inappropriate decision about 6
consensus. But I do not want to return to this list at the conclusion of everything and try to 7
figure out where there was consensus. The idea isn't so much that we're going to tell Council 8
on each item how many people agreed or disagreed. I think the idea is here were the 9
comments that were made, here is where there was consensus, here is where there wasn't and 10
pass that on. I don't know that we will get (interrupted) 11
12
Commissioner Gardias: Yeah, but this is not practical, right, because consensus is an outcome of 13
a discussion. There was no discussion so pretty much just stating that there was a consensus 14
it's very artificial and just basically just basing this verbiage on the observation of the meeting 15
minutes it may turn out to be false at the end. So I just want to warn against this. 16
17
Chair Alcheck: Ok. 18
19
_______________________
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.
Commissioner Gardias: And I think that I appreciate that we gain certain efficiency here at this 1
Commission by just pretty much going from left to right, but we lost some element of the 2
discussion and thinking through certain items. So we just pretty much expense one value for 3
another and certain things may be lost. So that's a risk. 4
5
Chair Alcheck: I fully appreciate what you're saying. I think that the Commission moved at the 6
beginning of this process to participate in a very high level review that did not include a result 7
that communicated specifically up and down how they felt about every goal and so… But again 8
I think that there will probably be an opportunity to discuss this at the conclusion of the 9
process. So with that I would like to continue our review if there aren’t any more comments 10
specifically about the Transportation review and the summary that staff put together. Is 11
everybody comfortable with us moving on to the Land Use Element? 12
13
Vice-Chair Waldfogel: Are we going to go to the bitter end? I mean it’s 9:30 right now. Because 14
I mean I wanted to do a time check. It’s 9:30 now. If we have a long discussion this could go for 15
two hours. 16
17
Chair Alcheck: Yeah, well we (interrupted) 18
19
Vice-Chair Waldfogel: Is that our intent or is our intent to bound it tonight and continue? 20
_______________________
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.
1
Chair Alcheck: What I would well, no. We don’t, I don't intend us to complete the Land Use 2
Element tonight. It's broken up potentially over two or three meetings, but I'd like to get as 3
much as we possibly can and at least give it a good hour. So would staff please begin? Are you 4
presenting on the Land Use Element? 5
6
Ms. Costello: We actually did a really brief presentation of the first four goals. 7
8
Chair Alcheck: Yes. 9
10
Ms. Costello: At the beginning and that's what we were talking about tonight was those first 11
four goals. Now the (interrupted) 12
13
Chair Alcheck: Ok, alright. 14
15
Ms. Costello: Commission could do all four at once or since a couple of them are really big 16
issues you might want to do like growth management or whichever. It's your pleasure, but we 17
did break up this conversation. We did break up the Land Use Element because we knew it's a 18
lot to talk about. 19
20
_______________________
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.
Chair Alcheck: Right, what I would like to do is invite the Commission to participate the same 1
way we did at the last meeting which is to invite the Commissioners to do several rounds of a 2
discussion limited to L-1 to L-4 we won't if there is still conversation that needs to take place we 3
will continue that conversation L-1 to L-4 at our next meeting when we discuss the remaining 4
elements which will we can include. So (interrupted) 5
6
Commissioner Lauing: You want us to talk about all four of those in the (interrupted) 7
8
Chair Alcheck: I’d like you to talk about whatever you’d like to talk about as it relates to L-1 and 9
L-4. I don't think that you should if you feel like there's something to be said let's say it. And 10
the more meetings we have on this we'll be able to get back to it. 11
12
Commissioner Lauing: Yeah, I was just trying to follow up on Vice-Chair Waldfogel’s questions. 13
If we're going to go for an hour or do we want to try to just do the first two and make sure we 14
get through those before we move on? 15
16
Vice-Chair Waldfogel: Let’s just get going. 17
18
_______________________
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.
Chair Alcheck: Yeah, let’s just get going. I have a feeling we'll end up focusing on L-1 and L-2 1
more than L-3 and L-4, but I don't want to exclude a comment. Would anybody like to kick us 2
off? Ok, please Commissioner Summa kick us off. 3
4
Commissioner Summa: Ok, so I kept it at kind of a high level since we don't want to rewrite this 5
thing and so I just made comments on the controversial aspects of them. So I'll just kind of go 6
through it. So Goal 1 I felt that most of it was ok so except I do believe so yes, maintain the 7
existing citywide cap on nonresidential development. Yes to a permanent ordinance to develop 8
to limit office development. I as I stated before I honestly think that 50,000 might still be too 9
high. I don't know why we need a lot more office at all. I think people might want to rebuild 10
and maintain existing square footage. So I would advise that 50,000 may, should be lower or 11
maybe it should be 0. I think we should maintain the Downtown office cap. I guess that's the 12
famous L-8. 13
14
And then Policy one point… L-1.10 about the policy and programs that refer to specific 15
development requirements I would recommend putting those back in for more clarity and 16
specificity. And then with regards to the community indicators I'm not sure everybody knows 17
that the community indicators arose in the Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC) process out of the 18
fact that some several CAC members didn't want to use any term such as quality of life. So the 19
community indicators were put in to basically measure quality of life things without using that 20
_______________________
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.
term. And taking them out leaves I think a hole in the Land Use in the Comp Plan by not then 1
having language about preserving residential character and quality of life and that sort of thing. 2
So I would recommend the Council instead of just taking those out I would recommend that the 3
Council add something back in in place of them rather than just leaving them out. 4
5
Commissioner Lauing: Where was it? If it's gone we can't find it. 6
7
Commissioner Summa: The community indicators I have an old version here, I can find it. 8
9
Ms. Costello: We, I'm sorry, we have the that was one problem when things were taken out 10
completely by the Council, but we do have linkages in attachment and I'm trying to find them 11
really fast here. 12
13
Ms. Gitelman: And just to clarify these are not things that are in the current Comp Plan. 14
15
Ms. Costello: No. 16
17
Ms. Gitelman: So they were added by the CAC and then taken out by the Council. 18
19
_______________________
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.
Ms. Costello: But we do have we tried to keep this a little cleaner the staff report this time and 1
have fewer links, but we did add an attachment that gives you the links and gives you the 2
topics. And if you give me one minute because I realize now trying to thrash around here I’m 3
not going to find it real fast (interrupted) 4
5
Commissioner Lauing: Well Commissioner Summa since you were on CAC do you know what 6
sections It was addressing here? 7
8
Commissioner Summa: Yeah it was in the preamble to the… So the idea was that we didn't 9
want to use quality of life as a term anywhere, ok? Some people. So I and you guys help me if 10
you remember this being this way, the community I think they were called community 11
performance measures originally. They were in there to measure how well our growth and 12
development was maintaining basically community quality of life. I don't have a problem with 13
that term so I'll use it. And on the August this is so wonky, but on the August 16th version 2016 14
of the Comp Plan there on Page 9. 15
16
Ms. Costello: And if you look at attach… There's so much background here. 17
18
Commissioner Summa: Yeah. 19
20
_______________________
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.
Ms. Costello: But if you look at Attachment D, packet Page 264 and 265 you can find linkages to 1
several discussions of what these performance indicators were in the July 26th and August 16th 2
CAC staff reports. And I think the Council removed them in the January 30th staff report. So 3
they're all linked in there. The Council in removing the community indicators said that there 4
are a number of other efforts under way to measure the quality of life or the livability that 5
terms were debated in Palo Alto. That they weren't rejecting the concept of that, they were 6
just saying we've got a whole bunch of other things that we're doing in in order to do this. 7
Some of the sustainability efforts are doing it, there are surveys that are done, and they didn't 8
want yet another set of measurements that they would have to do every year. So this is the 9
kind of thing if you want to see them we can bring them back the next time that it’s discussed, 10
but you can find them in the links. And they were, but they weren't removed as if they were a 11
bad idea. They were removed because there were other efforts we’re going to be measuring, 12
those kinds of things. 13
14
Commissioner Summa: Yeah and so I felt that removing them there was a little bit of a hole in 15
the commitment to maintaining as we grow and change maintaining neighborhood quality of 16
life and residential quality of life. So that's my point there. So on housing Goal 2 kind of the 17
idea that there's a difference between housing is affordable rather than narrow the focus on 18
affordable housing was not something I ever felt there was consensus on in the CAC. And I felt 19
that a lot of CAC members and very many members of the public came and spoke at CAC 20
_______________________
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.
meetings really, really had a strong emphasis on building the primary the first priority in 1
housing would be for subsidized housing or housing for persons with disabilities, the most 2
needy. So I don't know I don't think that was captured as strong as it could be in the housing 3
section. 4
5
I also am not very comfortable with the idea that we would just without any evidence based 6
reasoning just arbitrarily say we should have we should not respect the 50 foot height limit for 7
affordable or subsidized housing. Goal 3, L-3.5 I think it might be wise to point out there this is 8
about considering the best way to avoid the negative impacts of single family home basements 9
and I think we should specify there we should that I think the Council should consider whether 10
we want to start counting that as Floor Area Ratio (FAR). Because I think that would be a 11
deterrent and a lot of people have come forward over the last two years also a huge group at 12
CAC meetings were people concerned about the effects of residential basements, so. 13
14
And then Goal 4 with regards to hotels so the as I recall the increase in hotel FAR to 2.0 was 15
because there was a shortage of hotels in Palo Alto so it was to incentivize hotel growth. I don't 16
see any reason to raise the FAR to 3.0 and 2.5 respectively especially in the absence of any 17
analysis of our needs for more hotel capacity. That’s it. 18
19
_______________________
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.
Commissioner Monk: In reviewing Goals 1 through 4 I found this section overall to be less clear 1
and less instructive than in reviewing the Transportation Element. So I'd like to stay high level, 2
but I do have a lot of feedback on various aspects of what I've read in both the policies and the 3
programs. I found many of them to be either too vague as in I don't even know what they're 4
trying to tell us to do or they actually had two to three different competing items lumped into 5
one and I'd like to see those ferreted out. So what I'd propose is that I meet separately with 6
staff to go over some of the questions that I have as to the format on how certain policies and 7
programs are presented just to make it more clear and a more effective document. I will go 8
into a couple of them tonight, but I know it's late and we don't want to go into these little 9
details. But this is a document that is supposed to be for our future generations and for all 10
people to be able to reference. And it's been put together by folks who've been very deeply 11
involved in it for a long period of time and so I think they might not be looking at this with fresh 12
eyes that I bring to the table. And I'm just letting you know that there are things written here 13
that are not that easy to interpret. So just having an opportunity to weigh in would be great. 14
15
In general I would say to staff if you could just look over it prospectively and remove anything 16
that is just prohibitive. Some examples of really specific programs or policies you can look at in 17
that regard are L-1.4, L-4.3.4. I’m I'm not saying to take those out. I'm just going to look at 18
them and see if they're too prospective or too restrictive in what they're asking you to do. 19
20
_______________________
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.
I don't know if we have an area plan specialist on staff. I don't know what that person would be 1
called, but maybe consider hiring someone perhaps for the Fry site or for other areas that we 2
want to develop. And then in regards to the affordability I think it is important to go beyond 3
just the BMR housing and do what we can to reduce the cost of building new projects so that 4
we can enable the prices and rents to be as low as feasible. 5
6
In regards to the height limit I think we should support exceptions in certain areas. I think we 7
got a letter from Steve Levy who suggested that if a builder could add a floor or two extra floors 8
one of which could be all BMR units then that project is something that should be considered 9
especially if it's an area that's next to services, shopping, and transit, so just being amenable to 10
making exceptions for the benefit of housing development. And I think that an area plan 11
priority for Downtown is the best way to tie together the office cap permanent ordinance and 12
that would include with the Transit Center planning, housing, and retaining the Downtown 13
Transportation Management Association (TMA). That was also alluded to in Steve's letter to us. 14
On the growth caps I think there was a majority that had stated a preference to not have 15
growth caps, but if we are going to have it then it doesn't make sense to exempt Stanford 16
Research Park (SRP) especially because they have the highest single-occupancy vehicle (SOV) 17
and a major source of traffic and congestion, but they're not included in the cap. 18
19
_______________________
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.
I also wanted to reference an email I think that was sent from Commissioner Rosenblum who 1
couldn't be here tonight on what he wanted to address tonight. And he wanted to so if it's ok I 2
just want to read that into the record. He wanted to… what did I just do? 3
4
Chair Alcheck: Before she does that real quick do we have is that email included in the record? 5
6
Ms. Costello: It’s in your packet. 7
8
Chair Alcheck: Ok just (interrupted) 9
10
Commissioner Monk: I don’t know that I saw… is that in the packet? Where it says to have 11
(interrupted) 12
13
Chair Alcheck: It should be a part of the… 14
15
Commissioner Monk: I didn’t see this one about zoning changes to encourage the missing 16
middle housing and denser housing around Downtown corridors, tradeoffs between 17
Transportation Demand Management (TDM) measures and parking requirements. 18
19
Ms. Gitelman: It’s on packet Page 266. 20
_______________________
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.
1
Chair Alcheck: I think if you'd like to reiterate any of his comments you should do that. I'm not 2
suggesting you not do it. I just want you know that it’s there too. 3
4
Commissioner Monk: No, I just didn’t realize it was in here. On page 266. Oh, hey it’s hidden. 5
That was in a tricky spot. I did not see it in the packet. So yeah, the main thing I would 6
emphasize is the coordinated area plans for the key sites such as University Avenue, 7
Downtown, Cal Ave. Downtown, and the Fry's site. And then a specific plan for University 8
Avenue Transit Center. Those are the points I would want to emphasize from that. 9
10
As far as my nit-picky items one of them was in regards to Policy L-1.10 that's on Page L-29 And 11
also on Page 3 of the staff report it says that Council directed staff to maintain the policy 12
requiring the highest quality development with the least impacts. I read that and it makes no 13
sense to me so I don't really know what that means. If you're trying to say something there 14
maybe say it more clearly or take it out. That's what I mean by things being vague. That might 15
mean something to Planning folks or CAC members, but just as a general consumer of this sort 16
of material it doesn't mean anything to me. 17
18
Looking at Page L-33, Policy L-3.2, the policy talks about conversion to office. The program talks 19
about retail to office so I don't know if those two line up with each other. Also it seems kind of 20
_______________________
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.
the program seems redundant of the policy. So I would think it should be a little bit, the 1
program should be a bit more instructive than just repeating the policy. 2
3
On Policy L-2.10 on Page L-32 it says facilitate reuse of existing buildings. I'd like to see a 4
program added to give a little bit more direction to staff. I notice that there's a lot more 5
policies here than programs as compared to our Transportation Element. 6
7
As far as redundancies go looking at Policy L-2.6 on Page L-31 it says to create opportunities for 8
new mixed-use development consisting of housing and retail. Pretty sure similar language is 9
found in 2.3 and also 2.4.5 so if staff could just take a look at those three collectively and 10
eliminate any redundancies and make those all independent and clear concepts that would be 11
great. 12
13
This is just something that I would recommend. It is wordsmithing so I apologize in advance, 14
but on Page L-30, Policy L-2.4 it says to use a variety of strategies to stimulate housing. I'd 15
prefer to see stronger language. I’d prefer to see something along the lines of proactively 16
stimulate housing with a variety of strategies or something like that. I don't think the language 17
regarding the housing is as strong as it could be and needs to be given the situation that we're 18
in here. Just in general at the high level Goal L-4 is kind of awkwardly phrased to me. And I 19
_______________________
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.
don't know what pedestrian scale centers are. Maybe everyone else does, but I don't. So 1
maybe explain what that goal is trying to get at. 2
3
On L-37 under Town & Country Village Policy L-4.10 it looked really similar to L-2.4.4 on Page L-4
30. So just take a look to see if there's any redundancy there. In regards to Program… I don't 5
know where to put this, but basically under Policy L-4.6 that talks about supporting bicycle use 6
and bicycle racks I don't know where else bicycle racks are discussed, but I think we need to add 7
some sort of a program that requires regular servicing and surveying the need for additional 8
bike racks. I've noticed that a lot of racks go unused, but while others are overflowing with 9
bicycles. So I think there needs to be some consistent evaluation of the bike rack situation and 10
adjustments to be made. And that's it for now. Thank you. 11
12
Chair Alcheck: Ok, I know it's late. I'm going to share a little enthusiasm with you all, help 13
invigorate. I just want to say that I'm this is I’m delighted to participate in this process and I 14
want you guys to know that. This is by far and away I think the... I'm so happy to be involved in 15
this process and I would like to suggest that I’ve reviewed the CAC’s effort and I reviewed the 16
current Comp Plan and if I don't share the same perspective as the membership of the CAC 17
that's not because I fail to appreciate all the hard work they put into it. It's just that I approach 18
this with a different perspective. And I hope that in my opportunity to sort of communicate 19
now that perspective to the City Council it can be a part of their collective input from the 20
_______________________
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.
community and so I do this with the really the greatest respect for the efforts that have been 1
put forth. 2
3
I'm going to start, I'm going to try to stay high level. I'm going to start in the middle and then 4
sort of start and then go back to the beginning and go through it. Policy L-213 says ensure that 5
future development addresses potential risks from climate change and sea level rise. I don't 6
have a problem with the wording of this policy, but I want to suggest that from my perspective 7
this Land Use Element doesn't go far enough to explicitly connect our region's failure to develop 8
infill housing with this problem. And I know that we have the inconvenient, what is it? The 9
Inconvenient Sequel or whatever is now you hear you may have heard. A lot of my personal 10
and I would like to suggest educated perspective on the need to encourage infill housing in the 11
Bay Area stems from the notion that every unit that we add in the peninsula could theoretically 12
reduce a greenhouse gas emission because it could take a car not necessarily off the road, but 13
off the road for more time than it otherwise would. And if as a community we don't place a 14
tremendous amount of value on building housing then we are by default by inaction 15
encouraging that development all along the 680 for example. And unfortunately the jobs aren't 16
all along the 680, they're here. 17
18
And so when we talk about the jobs/housing imbalance you'll see in this these goals this it 19
begins with this notion that the solution is capping jobs. I don't want to suggest that someone 20
_______________________
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.
would be a fool to support that. I think there are very, very rational arguments for capping 1
jobs. I'm not persuaded by them. I don't believe that the solution to our problems is simply 2
inhibiting the growth of industry. I think the solution to our problems includes a tremendous 3
emphasis on developing housing in house. In fill housing in our City. 4
5
So I mentioned this policy because it's on our radar: traffic, LOS at intersections, parking 6
requirements and we were discussing that throughout our review of this Comp Plan. But really 7
this is a regional effort. There's a regional problem and that stems in part to our risks to climate 8
change. It has to do with the very nature of the way we look at our communities, how we 9
house the people that work in our communities, and so I want to go through the rest of this 10
these goals with that in mind. This notion that I don't think there's enough emphasis and I 11
would encourage City Council to think about including a stronger emphasis on taking on some 12
responsibility for dramatically increasing the housing supply in Palo Alto. 13
14
I want to start now by acknowledging that I think the focus on affordability is the right focus. 15
And I’ll be specific as opposed to the notion of affordable housing and I am a very big 16
proponent of affordable housing. And I would like to see our City create very strong incentives 17
for building what you would call BMR housing or affordable housing, but I also think that we 18
should continue to use this term of general affordability so that we can capture what I believe a 19
_______________________
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.
our community member Stephen Levy suggested in his letter to us was this middle class who is 1
also searching for housing. 2
3
Ok, so starting with L-1 I think that the growth cap is not the right tool. So I would encourage 4
Council to reconsider it. I've heard other Commissioners reference this in the past, but the Our 5
Palo Alto citizen input event there was an overwhelming opinion by the members in attendance 6
that to not have a growth cap. I only mention that because I want… to reflect that there is a 7
mixed opinion here. And so to the extent that that's relevant to City Council in their review I 8
think it should be shared. The require, the notion of requiring offsets for traffic impacts was 9
the preferred mechanism in that event in that Our Palo Alto event. And so I would suggest that 10
Council revisit this. I don't anticipate they will, but I want to register that that's where I stand 11
on the issue. 12
13
I think that my perspective my understanding was that there was support among CAC members 14
and you know what? I don't want to suggest that because there was support by CAC members 15
for a specific thing that that suddenly makes it more justifiable. I don't necessarily think that if 16
the CAC agreed or disagreed with something that that means that that was the only option 17
that's correct, but I will acknowledge that there was CAC support, some CAC support, for raising 18
the height limit. And even though the Council ultimately decided to support keeping the height 19
limit I think that should be reconsidered. I think there are places where we should go taller. 20
_______________________
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.
And the key word there is places, specific places. I think as a part of our there the... so let me 1
let me move forward and then come back to the point. 2
3
I want to suggest that program in there's a program on Page L-30, Program L-242 which says 4
allow housing on El Camino Real frontage of SRP and at Stanford Shopping Center provided that 5
adequate parking and vibrant retail is maintained and no reduction of retail square footage 6
results from the new housing. I don't imagine that the Stanford Shopping Center will ever bring 7
forward a plan that reduces their retail footprint. But what I want to suggest here and this is a 8
bigger topic is the idea that vibrant retail that's important and you've used that qualifier vibrant 9
retail as if to suggest that not all retail, but that vibrant retail be maintained. And I would like 10
to suggest that I think that we should not be approaching this from the standpoint of no 11
reduction of retail, but if we're going to qualify retail as vibrant we may want to qualify the no 12
reduction to minimal reduction. And I say that because if the goal here is housing which I 13
believe it should be, I believe that every issue should be reviewed through the lens of how are 14
we going to impact housing. Then we should make the other important items slightly flexible. 15
They should bend when it's about housing. I think retail is incredibly important. I think Council 16
is very much interested in protecting retail. It's a source of revenue. That's a source of 17
vibrancy, but at what cost? If a minimal reduction in retail presence is the result of adding a 18
significant amount of housing I think we should pursue that. So again I'm not trying to 19
wordsmith this. I'm trying to stay high level. The notion is when you discuss housing we should 20
_______________________
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.
not allow the other items to create roadblocks that are so insurmountable. We should create 1
flexibility in our Comp Plan. 2
3
I think that there's a statement in the next program, two programs down that this is L-244. 4
That conversion to residential capacity should not be considered in the Town & Country Village. 5
I don't know if this has its origins in the CAC or not. I wasn’t able to figure that out. I don't 6
know if this is supposed to mean that you would be supportive of housing at Town & Country as 7
long as it didn't result in a conversion of existing retail, but again it's the same philosophy. I 8
don't believe you should take off the table in a Comp Plan that should last a decade the notion 9
that Town & Country could be a suitable place for mixed-use. So I would encourage City 10
Council to consider Town & Country as a potential mixed-use site. I happen to love Town & 11
Country. And I understand that their, that Council may have been clear about how they feel 12
about it. I just want them to know that it's one thing to really like the way something is right 13
now; it's another thing to suggest that a change can never be positive. There may be a proposal 14
one day that they would be amenable to that included housing at that site and that they felt 15
was equally wonderful. And I think that this language somehow closes a door on anybody even 16
suggesting it. And I want to reiterate I think housing is the trump card. I hate, I hate to use that 17
word. But housing is so important that when it suggested it shouldn't be considered off the 18
table by default. 19
20
_______________________
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.
Ok, moving on I mentioned the part about not going far enough for L-213. There is a so L-48 1
California Avenue I very strongly believe that we should be encouraging the development and 2
adoption of specific area plans particularly for California Avenue Downtown and what I would 3
like to suggest right now is that you define the Fry site differently. I don't believe that Fry’s will 4
outlast this version of the Comp Plan. And so this is a small personal request that we refer to 5
that site not by its current retail tenant, but maybe by an area defined by streets. I think that 6
would help because when we develop that specific area plan it would be helpful to know if 7
there is a boundary by which you anticipate it limits. And I think that Council providing that 8
direction now as opposed to being vague and calling it the Fry’s site I just don't… it’s not the 9
Fry’s site. It's an address and I think we should be a little more specific, but that I apologize for 10
nit-picking it. 11
12
There is a goal about neighborhood centers, maintain midtown shopping centers this is Policy L-13
416 as attractive pedestrian oriented one to two-story neighborhood centers with diverse local 14
serving uses and adequate parking. Here's an example of specific language that suggests that 15
exceeding one to two stories isn't permissible. We want to maintain them as one to two-story 16
neighborhood centers. I will again suggest that I think when it comes to housing we should be 17
open to the notion of adding a story to these neighborhood centers in order to create a place 18
for additional housing. I continue to believe that mixed-use housing is a model that works and 19
_______________________
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.
so in this neighborhood centers area I think it's yet again an opportunity for us to demonstrate 1
our commitment to being inclusive of additional housing development. 2
3
Ok, I'll make one more comment that I think Stephen Levy made earlier which is I don't 4
anticipate that there will be tremendous support for creating it, for removing the restriction on 5
height limits in specific areas. I don't and I want to acknowledge that. So I would also like to 6
separately suggest as a separate bullet point that may receive some consensus that they 7
consider slight increases in height in exchange for housing. So Stephen Levy’s letter suggested 8
that you allow developments to go to 65 feet if they build a whole entire floor of BMR housing 9
in that space. In with that increase that they and I believe there is I believe we will get to a 10
place one day where it will be State mandated that there has to be a menu that you can't 11
restrict that you’ll have to give up something and this may be one of those things, but I would 12
rather us create that avenue then be in a position where it was forced upon us. 13
14
I want us to demonstrate that we acknowledge that housing is so important that even the rules 15
that are so dear to our heart we’re willing to break because we understand that greenhouse gas 16
causes climate change. And we understand that people who have to drive three hours to bus a 17
table should be unacceptable. And we understand that 90 percent of our service staff are living 18
likely in conditions four to a bedroom. And that we don't adequately house that community so 19
again that's the premise. I hope that you can incorporate some of those sort of high level 20
_______________________
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.
themes. I apologize for getting really specific, but I wanted to do it, address sort of a broader 1
approach and again I really appreciate being able to share these views. 2
3
Vice-Chair Waldfogel: Ok, 10:00 p.m. Let me just say a couple things. I saw in response to a 4
couple Chair Alcheck’s comments and then I’ll launch into some things that I've been thinking 5
about. One was just a reminder that on a state policy level the principal transportation 6
response to greenhouse gas is electrification. So the point about that transportation causes 7
greenhouse gases is suspect based on established state policy. The other point is we talk about 8
housing a lot, but what I care about are neighborhoods. So the question is what kind of 9
develop, what kind of neighborhoods are we creating as we build housing. I mean I think that's 10
really the important question we have to answer. That just sort of dropping bedrooms in places 11
where we're not creating neighborhoods is probably not what Palo Alto is about. So we have to 12
always be mindful that. 13
14
And to that point I think that the L-3 and L-4 policies goals are really important ones about 15
neighborhoods and about commercial centers. And I think that in my mind anything goes in L-16
1/L-2 as long as we don't break what's going on in L-3 and L-4. And so what I wanted to 17
propose as a way to think about this is I can't really tell by reading these kind of reasonable 18
sounding goals in each section if we’ll end up with a city that has sufficient supply of spaces to 19
accommodate all the various commercial uses that adhere to neighborhoods. I mean from the 20
_______________________
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.
Assistant Directors Report tonight on the First Baptist Church we know that we're challenged in 1
finding appropriate spaces for therapists, girls’ choirs, music schools and so we've apparently 2
done a bad job of accommodating those in our commercial centers. We just don't have enough 3
commercial center space or warehouse space or whatever kind of space appropriately priced 4
space for things like that to happen. 5
6
And you could say oh ok, well that's something we could accommodate through in R-1, but if 7
you broaden this out and you say I mean I’m just going to give you a long list of examples: 8
doctors, dentists, accountants, financial, legal services, veterinarians, independent schools, 9
auto repair shops including auto body and paint shops, music clubs like Yoshi's in Oakland, 10
appliance stores, dance studios, repair shops like a vacuum cleaner repair shop. I mean these 11
are all the kinds of amenities and services that you find in a city that are adjacent to 12
neighborhoods so if we have this hypothesis that our neighborhoods are all attractive 13
residential neighborhoods within walking distance of shopping, services, schools, and other 14
public gathering places we have to have commercial centers that are within walking distance of 15
whatever neighborhoods we're creating that can accommodate all these city uses. I mean 16
these are legitimate city uses. My favorite auto repair shop moved last year from Park Avenue 17
to San Jose. So it's I transitioned from something I could walk to to something that I have to it 18
takes a half day to drop off and pick up a car. Way less convenient. 19
20
_______________________
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.
So I think we have to be mindful that these policies don't stand alone and that in order to 1
achieve the objectives in L-3 and L-4 that some of these may ripple back into what we allow in 2
in L-1 and L-2. And what I'd actually like to see is I mean to some extent we probably need to 3
build out a map or we need to build out some kind of more visual hypothesis that says look, if 4
these are where all the neighborhoods are here is where the commercial center that served the 5
walkable commercial center that serves this neighborhood. I mean if you look at the this Map 6 6
huge swaths of town are not walkable to a commercial center with this model. Let’s see if I can 7
find the right page. It’s the map, is it Map T-6? No. I'm sorry everybody shuffling through that. 8
And if you back your way into this what do you need in order for these things to happen? I 9
mean you need districts where these kind of commercial uses aren't competing with $10.00 a 10
foot office uses. We know that a music school can't compete with a $10.00 a foot user. We 11
know this and so we have to be really clear that we've created enough space enough district 12
space for that to happen. And I'm not convinced from what I see in front of me that we've 13
done that. I mean I just don't see that happening and what I see on the ground is that it's not 14
happening. So I think that from that standpoint this plan is somewhat flawed because it 15
doesn't do enough to actually… it doesn't do enough to reinforce what's in L-3 and L-4. 16
17
And I think Commissioner Monk and I had a little conversation at the last meeting about 18
whether Palo Alto is a city or not. And I think that if you go with the hypothesis that we are full 19
service city then we have to have all these things. I mean we can't just say hey, auto repair 20
_______________________
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.
that's in San Jose because they have cheap space and we don't. I mean if we go with that 1
hypothesis we've admitted we're not a full service city. And once we admit that, if we admit 2
that then we have to go back and question a lot of assumptions here, a lot of city building 3
assumptions. So as I read this I get to a point where I just say look, the principles are hard for 4
me. It's hard for me to discern whether the principles are leading us to land uses that we want. 5
And so I'm really troubled by the way that this is written and by the way it doesn't given a 6
priority and weight to this idea to bolster the idea of neighborhoods and to reinforce the idea 7
that housing is really a component of neighborhoods, alright? It's not just this thing you drop 8
out there and just sort of hope that it works. I mean that's the way to create transiency, to 9
create political instability, I mean that’s you don't want to do it that way. That’s not the Palo 10
Alto way. So that's what troubles me about this is that it just it's impossible to tell if this plan 11
will lead to the form of the town that we want. So that's where I am with this. 12
13
Commissioner Lauing: Ok, the in these five elements, sorry, these five goals here I think it’s 14
important to really have goals that are specifically quantified. I know you can't get too 15
prescriptive for a 20 year plan, but they're quantified so that we really know what the goal line 16
looks like and we can really get there. That's kind of thematically one thing I just want to chat 17
about. And then secondly that they’re obviously consistent goals that don't conflict among the 18
various elements which is I guess something that Vice-Chair Waldfogel just addressed around 19
neighborhoods. 20
_______________________
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.
1
So I'm going to start with all these references to housing including the beginning, the preamble, 2
the kind of commitment to diversification in Palo Alto because these things start with and end 3
with all Palo Alto values. So the diversification of housing that's required and that we want 4
because we don't want what shall I say? Homogenous. We want the opposite of homogenous. 5
And we have to take some real action to make that happen. So there's there is definitely a 6
consistency of perception that we need more housing than we do and affordable housing. But 7
a couple of things about that and I'm looking at Policy L-2.5. It says things like support the 8
creation of affordable housing units for middle to lower income level earners such as school 9
district employees as feasible. So there's all kinds of things that that phrase raises for me. One 10
is support the creation. Does that mean fund it? Does that mean proactively set a goal for how 11
many we're going to have? Does that mean just support it as developers come to Planning? 12
We specifically call out City and School District employees which is great because it speaks to 13
the type of housing that they can afford and then we can to put an out clause in the end and 14
say well as feasible. A little bit further down it says support efforts to retain housing that’s 15
more affordable in neighborhoods, etcetera. Again is that fund? I mean what are we going to 16
do there? 17
18
On the previous page at the program level convert non-retail commercial FAR to residential FAR 19
where appropriate. So why don't on some of these things we say proactively convert 20
_______________________
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.
commercial FAR to residential FAR over the next 10 years so that we get X square feet of FAR of 1
residential. Something like that. So that we can really know that we've got a goal we can take, 2
we can create programs to do that and then back a little bit further if I can find it quickly yeah, 3
on Program L-1.3.1 this is at a program level where we start talking about BMR housing and 4
affordable, more affordable market rate housing. Seems to me like if we're going to be doing 5
affordable housing for people who need it then BMR has to be at the policy level, but again it's 6
just sort of there. Again, I understand that we don't want to be prescriptive in detail, but we 7
have to have enough of our specific goals so that we know we have a chance of really making a 8
dent on this problem. And I think it needs to be here not just in ordinances or in development 9
plans. 10
11
And then there's wording throughout here about the difference between housing that's 12
affordable and affordable housing. Maybe we need to spend some more time on that, but 13
affordable housing is to me housing that people can get into with lower incomes. And it seems 14
to me that even these smaller units that are going up for rental or for purchase are going to be 15
quite affordable to Google engineers. So we have to somehow make a decision that we're 16
going to legislate to use a strong word that we can get folks in there that are in whatever 17
$50,000 or $100,000 or whatever. So there's just to me it's lacking sort of specific goals that we 18
can all get behind and proactively know we're getting there over the next 10 years. 19
20
_______________________
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.
A couple of specifics on the office R&D and a couple of these are questions, Policy L-1.9 the cap 1
of 1.7 says require annual monitoring to assess the effectiveness of development. So I'd be 2
interested in what the criteria are for that annually that you have to look at. And secondly 3
whether the cap and the development requirements should be adjusted so there and Program 4
L-19.1 says reevaluate the cumulative cap. It’s almost sounding like well we want a cap, but 5
until we need more building. And so if that's the intent that's the intent, but the calculations 6
are that when it gets to 67 percent we've already heard from the Director that we're already 7
committed to 1.3 million which is actually 76 percent. So we're kind of already there and at the 8
time that we're creating the plan what's our real intent there. 9
10
So I don't want to duplicate what others have said, but this kind of all about building feelings of 11
community it does relate to neighborhoods. It relates to diversity and is this thing really 12
hanging together consistently where we can talk to folks that want to move here and tell them 13
that there's opportunity for them to have very close neighborhoods with vibrant retail and get 14
housing and not complete density. We can't take housing to the Nth degree and do infill of 15
every square foot that’s there, we have to have balance there. So we can't just keep going, 16
going, going. And I don't know if I quite see the balance yet in the read that I’ve had here. So 17
for now that's it. Thanks. 18
19
_______________________
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.
Commissioner Gardias: I guess it's my turn. So just make a quick comment looks like staff looks 1
tired. We just started, but just want make sure that we are aware about your condition. So 2
and by the way that repair shop that moved out are you talking about the repair shop that’s 3
next to Groupon? They moved out two years ago. I recommend Akin shop. They are quite 4
good too. Yes. 5
6
Ok, so let's just go through this. Policy Page L-28, Policy L-1.8 it talks about participation and 7
the regional strategies to address interaction of jobs/housing and so forth. There should be an 8
addition to this policy that this address needs to be cohesive with Palo Alto in their actions. I 9
just want to make sure that pretty much that the Palo Alto interest is preserved when the when 10
we are addressing regional strategies. Sometimes they may be pretty much going against the 11
values of this town. 12
13
In the next Page L-29, Policy L-1.10 I totally agree with the comment that Commissioner Monk 14
made about this policy. I just simply don't understand what does it mean to achieve the highest 15
quality development with the least impacts. It may sound nice on the paper, but it's truly not 16
actionable and it's totally vague. It's once I was I we were working on one project and 17
somebody was trying just to write a building specification just suggesting that if there are two 18
solutions that developer or builder needs to explore the one of the higher quality should be 19
chosen. That's not the language that should be used in architecture or urban planning. I just 20
_______________________
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.
pretty much find this policy vague. I recommend to remove it. Some also some other policies I 1
found as well not actionable. So I think that all these documents should be vetted by vetted 2
through just from the perspective of cost and actionability of those policies. Because if it's 3
going to cost us millions to pretty much implement them it may not be reasonable to have 4
them at all. 5
6
I want to make a comment to this what Commissioner Monk was talking about. I don’t 7
remember the policy number, but this was about the pedestrian scale. Pedestrian scale is 8
actually it's a common urban planner language and actually towns and cities are designed to 9
the urban scale and pretty much it’s the scale that you that a pedestrian covers the distance in 10
the city not noticing and making an effort and it does the definition of the urban scale. It pretty 11
much it means that it's designed with a certain granularity so that pretty much when you’re 12
walking then pretty much on its way you just you can hit shops, you can stop at the grocery 13
store, you can have a you can sit at the bench. It pretty much it makes no effort to walk 14
through a city as such. That's called pedestrian scale. 15
16
On Page L-30, Program L-2.4.1 it talks about a eliminating housing sites along San Antonio Road 17
and increasing densities in Downtown California Avenue. I'd like to learn more about intention 18
of this program because it goes against the recent Architectural Review Board (ARB) approval of 19
the five story hotel on the El Camino side next to the international market store, by the way it's 20
_______________________
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.
a great store if anybody wants to go there I recommend. They have very good beer, but if 1
we're going to build a hotel on one side of San Antonio and then pretty much eliminate housing 2
sites on the other side it somehow doesn't scale up. On the one side we've pretty much we 3
build up on the other side we scale down so I just my understand I don't understand the 4
intention of this policy. I would either recommend to either ARB to just to stop approval of the 5
of those tall buildings if we going to just follow this policy or pretty much follow ARB leadership 6
and then pretty much allow San Antonio Road to be another site of the housing sites. 7
8
If I go to Page L-31 there is a Policy L-2.7. I'd like to see this enhanced and I'm sorry I may be 9
giving you a wrong reference, but pretty much would be on this page I'd like to see a policy or a 10
program that would put restriction on consolidation of lots under a single ownership. And I talk 11
about this at the time of the recent discussion on the [Steinberg] rental housing that that [Mr. 12
Steinberg] presented to us. I believe that there should be there… it’s in the interest of this 13
town to have to keep competition and diversity by pretty much allowing dispersed ownership. 14
15
In terms of the program on the same Page L-2.4.6 that talks about changing that Transfer 16
Development Rights (TDR) I'd like to see definition of the receiving and sending areas. I think 17
that first of all I would I believe that this that TDR is not applicable to California Avenue. I'd like 18
to just have it have TDR being applicable to California Avenue. I think it's not currently 19
applicable to that area. I don’t know Director Gitelman if you can confirm this, but I think that I 20
_______________________
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.
recall that this is the case. But I also would like to just define the areas within the town where 1
we would like to pretty much have where we can spur the growth by exchange of the 2
development rights from other areas. So we would need to pretty much define those areas 3
where we're there is an interest of having lower density, preserving neighborhoods, and 4
transferring the development rights to those areas of some other growth. 5
6
And then by the way I have it probably on some other page, but I believe that we should 7
identify on the zoning map a some areas of the strategy growth where we would allow a 8
development going over 50 feet high. I would like to see a PC ordinance being restored and 9
that would allow us to pretty much extract value from the developers in exchange for the BMR 10
units, but in the specific areas only. I don't believe and we had this discussion two years ago 11
and the decision of this body in a different shape was just to pretty much to apply PC zones to 12
all the areas of the town. I disagreed with this and I'd like to raise it again. I think that we 13
should establish some strategic areas of growth like for example along El Camino and some 14
others, define them clearly, and then pretty much say that PC would apply to those areas only. 15
16
On Page L-32 I’d like to see actually a policy new policy that would go the other way. I believe 17
that development East of 101 should be limited. And the commercial buildings that we have 18
currently and if you guys recall the discussion about the BM… actually it was Mercedes Benz 19
dealership that was allowed to go to 50 feet I'd like to see this development or the height being 20
_______________________
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.
reduced to 35 feet in this area. And the reason is that I just believe that this height is not 1
compatible truly with the recreational area and the nature of this recreational/some office 2
neighborhood pretty much and I think that height, allowable height should be reduced. 3
4
And If I go to Page L-33 Commissioner Summa talked about how to restrict impact of the 5
basement construction. I believe that I agree with her that maybe adding basement to the FAR 6
it may be one of the solutions, but I also believe that currently exclusion from of the basement 7
from FAR also excludes this from the tax I believe. So can you confirm this or I? It does not. It 8
does not. But it excludes it from the fees at least. I think that if you if somebody builds a house 9
with a basement underneath then certain fees are not applicable like school fees. I believe so. 10
So I don't recall specific at this moment, but I believe that there should be some measure to put 11
some form of tax on the in terms of the zoning tax like FAR or some other fees that would be 12
applicable to those that build the basements. That would maybe one of the mechanisms to 13
pretty much either reduce or just if somebody wants to truly build it then probably should pay. 14
15
There also I think that there should be a policy that would talk about street design as a space. I 16
don't recall we have it, but we had a discussion about this what is a street. And I think that the 17
street at least from the times when I was doing the urban planning on the paper it was always a 18
space between building facades, but it's not the same understanding of a street that we had in 19
one of the documents that I remember where we referenced to in terms of the street design. 20
_______________________
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.
So there should be a policy that talks about the street design as the space between pretty much 1
building facades and this creates a public space. And if you want if you defined this space in 2
this way then pretty much you should you would influence relationship between of the 3
relationship of the buildings on the opposite sides of the street which I believe currently is not 4
looked at from any other angle. 5
6
In terms of the commercial centers there should be neighborhood centers and there should be 7
a policy of maintaining Charleston at par with mid-town shopping center. I don't believe that 8
I’ve seen this anywhere except of the Policy L-4.14. There should be also I think that the 9
attractiveness of this shopping centers should be increased in some way because from the 10
perspective of the neighborhoods this is the closest I think that let me rephrase it. This 11
shopping center serves probably so many Palo Altoans like no any other shopping center. 12
Because we when you look on the map within the radius of this shopping center there is so 13
many residential and multi-family buildings like no in any other area of Palo Alto. Those are my 14
comments. Thank you. 15
16
Chair Alcheck: Thank you. Ok, I would like to suggest that I have additional comments, but I 17
don't mind spending time at our follow up meeting getting into depth there. I know we’ll have 18
Commissioner Rosenblum who I’m sure will have comments on L-1 through 4 as well. And so 19
that said if anybody would like to I'm only sharing that with you so that you know that it is I 20
_______________________
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.
think should be our intent to continue the conversation to the next meeting, but if anybody 1
would like to make additional comments tonight I’m happy to entertain them. Commissioner 2
Gardias. 3
4
Commissioner Gardias: There were many statements today and I think that we, my colleagues 5
were using this space and time to pretty much to express their credo. I was trying just to be 6
more practical and I wanted to go through the policies themselves, but I appreciate their 7
perspectives like each one of them expressed because it's valuable. It just puts perspective on 8
everybody's mechanical changes to the policies that they recommend farther down. So I would 9
like to also make one statement about this how I see this. Typically if when policies are written 10
there is a higher statement of some vision. That's at least how it is done in a corporate world so 11
there is also there is a cascading of the values. There is there is a corporate goal and then there 12
are there is some vision and then pretty much later on there is a strategy and policies and so 13
forth. So that's pretty much how’s the hierarchy of the values kept in a corporate world where 14
I work at. 15
16
In the civic in the municipal worlds I think that specifically in Palo Alto there are a few items 17
that make this town different from any other and I believe that when this policies are written 18
there should always make reference to the higher level understanding of this what this town is. 19
So when I think about Palo Alto there are certain values like I think it's a family town. So 20
_______________________
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.
because of this reason we have lots of kids. We have great schools. We have parents that 1
support those skills and the kids in the school and then also this value makes residential 2
neighborhoods. So when I think about Palo Alto I think that this natural trait should be 3
enforced and then we should just build more housing that allows families to thrive and then 4
maybe people from other areas to advance and move to Palo Alto and to raise their kids, send 5
them to Palo Alto schools as opposed to build smaller units and maybe rental units. That's my 6
perspective because I think that this way we would enforce the natural value of this town. 7
8
There are also some other the aspects: innovation, Stanford University, I always was a 9
proponent that there should be some that University should influence this town and we should 10
expect this from the University to do so. And just say it clearly and don't allow University for 11
the developments as they did along El Camino that pretty much are not at the par of the 12
greatness of this University. When David Sonig was on the ARB I don't know if you ever met 13
David, but he wrote a very small letter to one of the local newspapers when he pretty much 14
criticized the development that they did. It was like maybe five or six years ago pretty much 15
stating clearly that University of this greatness should not be building architecture of such a 16
questionable quality. So I think that we should just to work closely with University encouraging 17
University to truly build grand architecture and space as it deserves. And as a side comment 18
this University I believe 20 twenty years ago had architecture department that was dissolved 19
many years ago. And then so I just wanted to say this that pretty much that if those values 20
_______________________
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.
natural values of this town were recognize they would create a natural vision and then all this 1
policies should somehow relate to those higher statements and not and force them naturally. 2
Thank you. 3
4
Ms. Gitelman: Mr. Chair if I can make a recommendation I mean I know we've gone long this 5
evening. Maybe we can take the input we've gotten from you tonight and try and put it in a 6
succinct form, reproduce the Transportation items, and give you a full packet with 7
Transportation a list of topics, the minutes, a list of these Land Use comments, and also tee up 8
the next goals in Land Use. So you’ll have a full packet for your next meeting and we’ll get 9
through as much as we can. 10
11
Chair Alcheck: Ok. I accept that suggestion. I have one light. I’m going to entertain this 12
comment and then (interrupted) 13
14
Commissioner Monk: My only concern is that if I meet with you off record and I have something 15
that's more substantive that it doesn't make it to the record so you might not be able to act on 16
it. So I identified about four or five policies that I do want to address on the record and if we 17
want to do that at the next meeting that's fine or I can get through them really quickly. 18
19
Chair Alcheck: Is an email an alternative? 20
_______________________
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.
1
Commissioner Monk: I can talk really fast. 2
3
Ms. Gitelman: Why don't we do it now if you can do it quickly? 4
5
Commissioner Monk: So on Page L-27 looking at Policy L-1.3 I just wanted to see stronger 6
language around that policy and that program. So again this is wordsmithing, but infill 7
development in the urban area should be preferred or promoted something like that could just 8
make it stronger just in the policy itself. And then under the program it just says to work with 9
neighbors. To me that's pretty passive so if you can put some language in there to strengthen 10
that. The second half of that, work with the same stakeholders to identify sites, that seems like 11
a different program so maybe consider fleshing it out separately if you want to keep it together 12
it’s fine. 13
14
Moving on to the next Page L-28 at the top Policy L-1.4 I thought that this might be a little 15
difficult to enforce. I just see some problems with it. So I just had an edit to that I could 16
suggest for you to consider. And maybe so delete the first several words and then the policy 17
could read use land use definitions in this element and map to guide land use decision making. 18
That would be my proposed language to avoid any problems with interpretation of the original 19
policy. 20
_______________________
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.
1
Skipping ahead to Page L-30 on Program L-2.4.4 Chair Alcheck did allude to Town & Country and 2
he made a good point in that we're looking at this as to what's in existence now and also what 3
decisions were made by our current Council. So I would recommend taking out that last 4
sentence conversion to residential should not be considered. And I know that was already 5
addressed because we don't know what it's going to be down the future and I think that's a 6
type of restrictive language that shouldn't be in the Comp Plan. 7
8
To the next Program on L-24.5 top of the next page on L-31 again I want to strengthen the mix 9
of retail and residential uses so I would suggest some language around including zoning 10
changes that give priority to a mix of retail and residential uses. But no office uses seems like 11
again very strong language. I wouldn't have that in a Comp Plan if you have to have it I would 12
just consider putting it in less directive format. I just think it's restrictive the way it's written. 13
14
The next Page L-32 and this is really the biggest one for me. This is about retail and preserving 15
retail and that comes up a lot and we talk about it and we give it lip service, but I'm not seeing 16
where we're actually putting some policies or programs in place to really make a difference. 17
And I won't get on my soapbox because I said I would go fast here, but looking at Policy L-2.9 18
preserving ground floor retail, expand retail. I don't see a single policy or program there. I 19
want to see a program there that can be flexible with the changing trends of what's happening 20
_______________________
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.
with the lack of retail businesses coming here and the trend away from brick and mortar 1
facilities. There's a huge imbalance of restaurants that are outweighing retail and it's going to 2
continue to grow. And I think we need to be very proactive and very aggressive and look at 3
what other cities are doing to truly have retail because we all want it, we all talk about it, but I 4
don't know what we're actually doing as a city to make it happen. So I really want to see a 5
program attached to that policy and put some meat behind it. If something isn't done I think 6
the market is going to dictate and it will go away and you look at what happened at that 7
laundromat on Lytton. Apparently it just disappeared because they couldn't find anyone to 8
take it over as a retail space and now it's converted the zoning. So that's going to start 9
happening and we need to prevent that from happening. 10
11
Flash forward to Page L-34 a similar thing Program L-4.1.2 that's all about retail as well. So 12
those two programs are kind of similar; just pointing that out or maybe that's the program that 13
needs to be moved under that policy that I just talked about. I don't know, just pointing that 14
out. 15
16
And then I'm on to my last one which is on Page L-37 so Policy L-4.11 and L-4.12 both talk about 17
kind of urban greening and plants. So I just thought we can get rid of L-4.11 by just adding in to 18
the Policy L-4.12 in Town & Country Village, encourage a vibrant retail environment, 19
improvement of pedestrian and then you have the rest of it there. That way it's combined 20
_______________________
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.
otherwise I don't know why you have greening in both of those. It's a little confusing. Thank 1
you for entertaining that and also I just want to acknowledge Vice-Chair’s point about creating 2
neighborhoods and being sensitive to that and I couldn’t agree more and that it's not a matter 3
of just putting a bunch of bedrooms scattered throughout the City so finding that balance is 4
really crucial and I support that. Thank you. 5
6
Chair Alcheck: Ok, thank you very much. At this time what I'd like… Commissioner Gardias. 7
8
Commissioner Gardias: Thank you. Won’t take long. So Program L-2.4.4 I disagree with the 9
notion of this of the conversion non-retail commercial FAR to residential FAR in some of these 10
areas. And I believe that new Comprehensive Plan has already strong push for housing. The 11
reason is that I just don't want to see it as part of a specific conversion in those CC, CS, and CD, 12
and CN areas it is because I believe that commerce is a backbone of a town. And then pretty 13
much it just it creates interaction of the of inhabitants and I just don't want to lose it. I think 14
that we can just overdo the push for housing by just having program like this. So I would 15
suggest to remove this from consideration altogether. 16
17
A couple of other items; as part of that… as part of the TDR, the transferrable development 18
rights I would like to see transferability of the daylight. We talk about this like over a year ago. 19
I think that lot owners should be allowed to trade their daylights if they wish so. This is the 20
_______________________
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.
system that's in the Great Britain and works quite well and provides diversity to the towns and 1
if somebody wants to build housing and add some space just taking away daylight from the 2
neighbor if the neighbor just trades this light to the other neighbor for cash or for some other 3
privileges they should be allowed to do so. We just creates towns more vibrant and interesting. 4
5
Also in terms of the retail I argued and I think that there should be a differentiation between 6
California shopping California district and some other districts. There should be a policy that 7
would require a to segment retail space on many smaller stores. If you go to San Mateo you’re 8
going to see that retail space is plentiful and it's cheap over there. They even have a store 9
where they sell beads that you would never guess that retail like this can survive in the Bay 10
Area, but just go to San Mateo and see that crafts, arts and crafts are being sold on the on their 11
main street and these people can support themselves very easily. I would be nice to have at 12
least one district in Palo Alto that allows tradesman, craftsman, and others to for the small 13
money to pretty much to rent space and sell their goods. 14
15
I also I believe that there should be a program somewhere and maybe it's part it should be part 16
of the commercial centers policy. We should have a policy where we would allow entrance to 17
the commercial market to gain their foot in Palo Alto market by pretty much either creating 18
some kiosks or infrastructure for a kiosk where people can start selling their goods. Santa Cruz 19
has infrastructure like this and it thrives very well, has very small either coffee stores or some 20
_______________________
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.
other very small stores where pretty much those that are that want to start small business and 1
start selling they should be allowed to sell. And so I think that pretty much we should have a 2
specific program that would create the infrastructure for small commercial kiosks and also 3
allowed some merchants to sell in Palo Alto in some other designated areas without having a 4
need to spend for upscaled commercial space. Thank you. 5
6
Chair Alcheck: Ok. Thank you everyone. I know this was a long meeting and it was tough, but 7
we knew going into this we're going to have some long nights. So I really appreciate everybody 8
staying with it and staff’s involvement. 9
10
Committee Items 11
Commissioner Questions, Comments or Announcements 12
Adjournment-10:51 13
_______________________
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 1
Commissioner Biographies, Present and Archived Agendas and Reports are available online: 2
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/boards/ptc/default.asp. The PTC Commission members are: 3
4
Chair Michael Alcheck 5
Vice Chair Asher Waldfogel 6
Commissioner Przemek Gardias 7
Commissioner Ed Lauing 8
Commissioner Susan Monk 9
Commissioner Eric Rosenblum 10
Commissioner Doria Summa 11
12
Get Informed and Be Engaged! 13
View online: http://midpenmedia.org/category/government/city-of-palo-alto or on Channel 26. 14
15
Show up and speak. Public comment is encouraged. Please complete a speaker request card 16
located on the table at the entrance to the Council Chambers and deliver it to the Commission 17
Secretary prior to discussion of the item. 18
19
Write to us. Email the PTC at: Planning.Commission@CityofPaloAlto.org. Letters can be 20
delivered to the Planning & Community Environment Department, 5th floor, City Hall, 250 21
Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301. Comments received by 2:00 PM two Tuesdays preceding 22
the meeting date will be included in the agenda packet. Comments received afterward through 23
2:00 PM the day of the meeting will be presented to the Commission at the dais. 24
25
Material related to an item on this agenda submitted to the PTC after distribution of the 26
agenda packet is available for public inspection at the address above. 27
Americans with Disability Act (ADA) 28
It is the policy of the City of Palo Alto to offer its public programs, services and meetings in a 29
manner that is readily accessible to all. Persons with disabilities who require materials in an 30
appropriate alternative format or who require auxiliary aids to access City meetings, programs, 31
or services may contact the City’s ADA Coordinator at (650) 329-2550 (voice) or by emailing 32
ada@cityofpaloalto.org. Requests for assistance or accommodations must be submitted at least 33
24 hours in advance of the meeting, program, or service. 34
Summary of Major Issues and Updates in Land Use Elements Goals L‐1 through L‐4
Excerpted from the August 9.2017 PTC Staff Report
A major emphasis during the Land Use Element Update was limiting the amount of office/R&D
development and seeking to increase the supply of housing. Changes to the current
Comprehensive Plan’s Policy L‐8 which established a cap on non‐residential development was a
major update focus. The June 30, 2107 draft Comp Plan Update maintains the existing citywide
(cumulative) cap on non‐residential development, recognizing that 1.7 million new square feet
are remaining. This update focuses the cap on office/R&D development only, rather than
including retail and other non‐residential uses. Also, the Downtown Cap on non‐residential
development is eliminated.
The draft Land Use Element supports 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.
Preserving existing housing that is affordable and minimizing displacement of existing residents
is also supported by the policies in the draft Land Use Element.
A. Goal L‐1. Non‐residential Growth Management
The CAC and Council both spent considerable time addressing non‐residential development,
especially the amount of future office and R&D space. 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. There is
also 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.
Beginning on November 28, 2016, the City Council reviewed the draft Land Use Element that
the CAC unanimously recommended at its September 2016 meeting, including the growth
management options. Ultimately, on January 30, 2017, 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 page L‐20 of the
June 30 draft Land Use Element )
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
Maintain the policy requiring the highest quality development with the least impacts,
(see Goal L‐1, Policy L‐1.10 page L‐20 of the June 30 draft Land Use Element) 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.
B. Goal L‐2‐ 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 page L‐27 , Program L2.5.1 page L‐31 , Policy L‐2.7 page L‐
31). 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 page L‐31)
A range of different ideas were considered 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 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 page L‐30 and
L‐31 in the June 30 draft was the result. The draft Element includes policies to allow and
encourage a mix of housing types and sizes for greater affordability and lays out strategies to
increase housing supply, includes 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 page
L‐30 and L‐31).
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 CAC
staff report in Attachment D (page 6‐7) for that discussion).
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 in their
January 30,2017 motion ( See Attachment D on page 5 of that motion) that they do not see a
strong need to change the existing 50‐foot height limit.
C. Goal L‐3 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 (See Attachment
D on page 8 of that July 19 staff report), August 16, 2016 (See Attachment D on page 16 of that
staff report ), and September 20, 2016 (See Attachment D on page 5 of that staff report ).
These efforts resulted in a draft policy to avoid the negative impacts of basement construction
(Goal L‐3, Policy L‐3.5 page L‐33), 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. Goal L‐4 Hotels
Identify suitable hotel locations and explore increasing Hotel FAR (Goal L‐4, Policy L‐4.4 page L‐
35). This policy was added by the Council.