HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021-07-14 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 ten (10) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that
the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
Planning & Transportation Commission
Regular Meeting Agenda: July 14, 2021
Virtual Meeting
6:00 PM
https://zoom.us/join Meeting ID: 916 4155 9499 Phone number: 1 669 900 6833
****BY VIRTUAL TELECONFERENCE ONLY***
Pursuant to the provisions of California Governor’s Executive Order N-29-20,
issued on March 17, 2020, to prevent the spread of COVID-19, this meeting will be
held by virtual teleconference only, with no physical location. The meeting will be
broadcast live on Cable TV and through Channel 26 of the Midpen Media Center
at https://midpenmedia.org/local-tv/watch-now/.
Members of the public may comment by sending an email to
planning.commission@cityofpaloalto.org or by attending the Zoom virtual
meeting to give live comments. Instructions for the Zoom meeting can be found
on the last page of this agenda.
TIME ESTIMATES
Listed times are estimates only and are subject to change at any time, including while the
meeting is in progress. The Commission reserves the right to use more or less time on any item,
to change the order of items and/or to continue items to another meeting. Particular items may
be heard before or after the time estimated on the agenda. This may occur in order to best
manage the time at a meeting or to adapt to the participation of the public
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.
_______________________
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 ten (10) 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 Official Reports 6:00 PM-6:15 PM
1. Directors Report, Meeting Schedule and Assignments
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
6:15 PM-7:45 PM
2. South Palo Alto Bikeways Phase 1 Community Feedback and Concept Plan
Alternatives
Approval of Minutes
Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker.1,3
7:45 PM-7:50 PM
3. June 9, 2021 Draft PTC Meeting Minutes
Committee Items
Commissioner Questions, Comments, Announcements or Future Agenda Items
Adjournment
_______________________
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 ten (10) 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 Bart Hechtman
Vice Chair Giselle Roohparvar
Commissioner Michael Alcheck
Commissioner Bryna Chang
Commissioner Ed Lauing
Commissioner Doria Summa
Commissioner Carolyn Templeton
Get Informed and Be Engaged!
View online: http://midpenmedia.org/category/government/city-of-palo-alto/ or on Channel
26.
Public comment is encouraged. Email the PTC at: Planning.Commission@CityofPaloAlto.org.
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.
_______________________
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 ten (10) 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.
Public Comment Instructions
Members of the Public may provide public comments to teleconference meetings via email,
teleconference, or by phone.
1. Written public comments may be submitted by email to
planning.commission@CityofPaloAlto.org
2. Spoken public comments using a computer will be accepted through the
teleconference meeting. To address the Board, click on the link below for the
appropriate meeting to access a Zoom-based meeting. Please read the following
instructions carefully.
A. You may download the Zoom client or connect to the meeting in-browser. If
using your browser, make sure you are using a current, up-to-date browser:
Chrome 30+, Firefox 27+, Microsoft Edge 12+, Safari 7+. Certain functionality
may be disabled in older browsers including Internet Explorer.
B. You will be asked to enter an email address and name. We request that you
identify yourself by name as this will be visible online and will be used to notify
you that it is your turn to speak.
C. When you wish to speak on an agenda item, click on “raise hand”. The
moderator will activate and unmute attendees in turn. Speakers will be notified
shortly before they are called to speak. The Zoom application will prompt you to
unmute your microphone when it is your turn to speak.
D. When called, please limit your remarks to the time limit allotted.
E. A timer will be shown on the computer to help keep track of your comments.
3. Spoken public comments using a smart phone will be accepted through the
teleconference meeting. To address the Council, download the Zoom application onto
your phone from the Apple App Store or Google Play Store and enter the Meeting ID
below. Please follow instructions B-E above.
4. Spoken public comments using a phone use the telephone number listed below. When
you wish to speak on an agenda item hit *9 on your phone so we know that you wish to
speak. You will be asked to provide your first and last name before addressing the
Board. You will be advised how long you have to speak. When called please limit your
remarks to the agenda item and time limit allotted.
https://zoom.us/join
Meeting ID: 916 4155 9499 Phone number: 1 669 900 6833 (you may need to exclude the
initial “1” depending on your phone service)
Planning & Transportation Commission
Staff Report (ID # 13417)
Report Type: City Official Reports Meeting Date: 7/14/2021
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Development Services
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
(650) 329-2442
Summary Title: City Official Report
Title: Directors Report, Meeting Schedule and Assignments
From: Jonathan Lait
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 Vinh Nguyen (Vinhloc.Nguyen@CityofPaloAlto.org)
of any planned absences one month in advance, if possible, to ensure availability of a PTC
quorum.
PTC Representative to City Council is a rotational assignment where the designated
commissioner represents the PTC’s affirmative and dissenting perspectives to Council for quasi-
judicial and legislative matters. Representatives are encouraged to review the City Council
agendas (http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/agendas/council.asp) for the months of their
respective assignments to verify if attendance is needed or contact staff. Prior PTC meetings are
available online at http://midpenmedia.org/category/government/city-of-palo-alto/boards-
and-commissions/planning-and-transportation-commission.
The Tentative Future Agenda provides a summary of upcoming projects or discussion items.
Attachments:
• Attachment A: July 14, 2021 PTC Meeting Schedule and Assignments (DOCX)
1
Packet Pg. 5
Planning & Transportation Commission
2021 Meeting Schedule & Assignments
2021 Schedule
Meeting Dates Time Location Status Absences/Notes
1/13/2021 6:00 PM Virtual Meeting Regular
1/27/2021 6:00 PM Virtual Meeting Regular
2/10/2021 6:00 PM Virtual Meeting Regular Roohparvar
2/24/2021 6:00 PM Virtual Meeting Regular Roohparvar
3/10/2021 6:00 PM Virtual Meeting Regular
3/31/2021 6:00 PM Virtual Meeting Regular
4/14/2021 6:00 PM Virtual Meeting Regular
4/28/2021 6:00 PM Virtual Meeting Regular
5/12/2021 6:00 PM Virtual Meeting Regular
5/26/2021 6:00 PM Virtual Meeting Regular Roohparvar
6/9/2021 6:00 PM Virtual Meeting Regular Chang
6/30/2021 6:00 PM Virtual Meeting Regular Alcheck, Roohparvar
7/14/2021 6:00 PM Virtual Meeting Regular
7/28/2021 6:00 PM Cancelled Cancelled
8/11/2021 6:00 PM Cancelled Cancelled
8/25/2021 6:00 PM Virtual Meeting Regular
9/8/2021 6:00 PM TBD Regular
9/29/2021 6:00 PM TBD Regular
10/13/2021 6:00 PM TBD Regular
10/27/2021 6:00 PM TBD Regular
11/10/2021 6:00 PM TBD Regular
11/24/2021 6:00 PM Cancelled Cancelled Day Before Thanksgiving
12/8/2021 6:00 PM TBD Regular
12/29/2021 6:00 PM Cancelled Cancelled 2 Days Before NYE
2021 Assignments - Council Representation (primary/backup)
January February March April May June
Doria Summa Giselle Roohparvar Michael Alcheck Ed Lauing Cari Templeton Giselle Roohparvar
Michael Alcheck Cari Templeton Bart Hechtman Giselle Roohparvar Doria Summa Bart Hechtman
July August September October November December
Bryna Chang Doria Summa Bart Hechtman Michael Alcheck Cari Templeton Ed Lauing
Ed Lauing Michael Alcheck Bryna Chang Ed Lauing Bryna Chang Giselle Roohparvar
1.a
Packet Pg. 6
Planning & Transportation Commission
2021 Tentative Future Agenda
The Following Items are Tentative and Subject to Change:
Meeting Dates Topics
August 25, 2021 • TBD
Upcoming items:
Topics
• Study Session: Ordinance Amending 18.42.110 (Wireless Communication Facilities)
• Castilleja School
• University Avenue In-Lieu Parking Program
1.a
Packet Pg. 7
Planning & Transportation Commission
Staff Report (ID # 12248)
Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 7/14/2021
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Development Services
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
(650) 329-2442
Summary Title: South Palo Alto Bikeways
Title: South Palo Alto Bikeways Phase 1 Community Feedback and
Concept Plan Alternatives
From: Philip Kamhi
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC):
1. Receive a presentation on the South Palo Alto Bikeways project phase 1 community
engagement summary and initial concept plan alternatives;
2. Review, discuss, and recommend to City Council the preferred concept plan for the
following project segments:
a. Waverely Multi-Use Path Alternative 2 Widen Towards Either Side
b. Fabian Way – Protected bicycle lanes on both sides
c. E. Meadow Drive Segment 1 between E. Meadow Circle and Fabian Way –
Standard bicycle lanes on both sides
d. E. Meadow Drive Segment 2 between Alma Street and Waverley Street –
Protected bicycle lanes on both sides
e. E. Meadow Drive Segment 3 between Waverley Street and Middlefield Road –
Protected bicycle lane on one side with buffered bicycle lane on the other side
f. E. Meadow Drive Segment 4 between Middlefield Road and E. Meadow Circle –
Buffered bicycle lanes on both sides
Executive Summary
The purpose of the report and discussion tonight is to summarize the initial community
engagement phase of the South Palo Alto Bikeways Project and receive feedback on whether
the project should be continued. If PTC recommends further pursuit of this project, staff
request PTC to recommend the preferred concept identified by the community engagement
process to Council.
The South Palo Alto Bikeways project proposes bicycle facility improvements for the Waverley
Multi-Use Path on Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD) land, Fabian Way, and East
2
Packet Pg. 8
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Development Services Department Page 2
Meadow Drive. This project invests in the city’s bicycle network to provide safer infrastructure
for students commuting to school via bicycle and encourages mode shift to reduce greenhouse
gas (GHG) emissions. The project was awarded federal funds for construction and must receive
all Caltrans approval to initiate the construction phase by January 2023. Staff re-engaged
Council and PTC on this project in January 2021 about the community engagement approach.
Subsequently, staff brought on-board the City’s on-call consultant to begin the first phase of
engagement.
The original grant scope committed the City to delivery of protected bikeways along Fabian
Way and E. Meadow Drive. After conversations with the Santa Clara Valley Transportation
Authority (VTA), the City must deliver at a minimum a protected bikeway along Fabian Way or
E. Meadow Drive and must deliver a scope as close as possible to protected bikeways along any
corridor without a continuous protected bikeway. A main goal of the first phase of community
engagement was to assess community support for protected bikeways.
Overall, the community wishes to see the Waverley Multi-Use Path widened towards either
side of the existing path. There is general support for protected bikeways along Fabian Way, E.
Meadow Drive between Alma Street and Waverley Street, and E. Meadow Drive between
Waverley Street and Middlefield Road.
Based on community feedback, staff identified challenges and additional considerations for E.
Meadow Drive. Specifically, concerns were raised about reduced parking for residents along E.
Meadow Drive east of Middlefield Road. A few community suggestions implied that the existing
conditions be retained here, with parking on both sides of the street. However, existing right-
of-way does not allow for buffered/protected bikeways and retention of parking on both sides
of the street. Preserving the existing conditions along E. Meadow Drive east of Middlefield Road
will exclude any protection or separation from vehicle lanes.
VTA staff welcomes discussion and collaboration to work out the complexities for this segment
but emphasize that retaining the existing conditions along E. Meadow Drive beyond Middlefield
Road considerably diverges from the original grant scope. Negotiating this level of change in the
grant scope with VTA and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) staff may
significantly delay the project progress and exceed Federal deadlines. If Council does not
support the reduction of one parking lane east of Middlefield Road on E. Meadow Drive to
provide upgraded bicycle facilities, the project may need to be discontinued.
Background
The South Palo Alto Bikeways project proposes bicycle facility improvements for the Waverley
Multi-Use Path on Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD) land between East Meadow Drive
and East Charleston Road, Fabian Way from E. Meadow Drive to E. Charleston Road, and East
Meadow Drive from Alma Street to Fabian Way. The project was awarded federal funds from
the Vehicle Emissions Reductions Based at Schools (VERBS) program, a subprogram of the One
2
Packet Pg. 9
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Development Services Department Page 3
Bay Area Grant 2 (OBAG 2) program for construction, and the project must receive all Caltrans
approval to initiate the construction phase by January 2023.
Image 1: Project Map
Since the grant award, planning for this project was on hold because of challenges with staffing
resources. Earlier this year in January, staff reengaged Council and PTC on this project. Staff
shared details about the community engagement approach and requested funding to move
forward with the first phase of community engagement. The staff report for Council Action on
January 25, 2021 can be found here: CMR 11757,
<https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/agendas-minutes-reports/reports/city-
manager-reports-cmrs/2021/id-11757.pdf>.
In March 2021, staff brought on-board the City’s on-call consultant, Fehr & Peers, to begin work
for this project. A summary of tasks included:
• Collecting new peak hour turning movement counts and new 48-hour automated tube
counts at selected roadway segments.
• Developing initial concept plan alternatives for all three corridors to aid in soliciting
feedback.
• Creating marketing and social media materials including translation into Spanish and
Chinese.
• Leading and presenting at 7 events including, 4 webinars with simultaneous translation
into Spanish, 2 meetings with standing advisory committees, and 1 meeting with school
communities.
• Revising initial concept plan alternatives into a preferred concept plan based on public
comments.
2
Packet Pg. 10
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Development Services Department Page 4
Reflecting on lessons learned from the Neighborhood Transportation Safety and Bicycle
Boulevards (NTSBB) project, the goals of the first phase of community engagement included:
• Informing the community about grant-required project components
• Educating the community on different types of bicycle facilities and especially how
buffered and protected bikeways could operate along Fabian Way and E. Meadow Drive
• Consulting on design ideas along the Waverley Multi-Use Path
• Developing initial concept plan alternatives to depict potential improvements and solicit
feedback
• Returning to Council with a preferred concept plan
The pandemic has highlighted digital methods for engaging large numbers of people. It has also
underscored the need to reach out to and support those who are on the other side of the digital
divide, who may not speak or read English, or whose jobs make it difficult for them to
participate in meetings or events. As such, based on pandemic restrictions and budget realities,
a variety of methods were used to expand the project’s reach. More details on the first phase of
community engagement can be found in the Stakeholder Engagement section below.
Discussion
The South Palo Alto Bikeways project reduces risk to growing numbers of student bicyclists and
aligns with City policies regarding climate change and sustainability. The project proposes
improvements to three corridors: the Waverley Multi-Use Path, Fabian Way, and E. Meadow
Drive. This project will improve the bicycle facilities adjacent to the new Highway 101
Pedestrian and Bike Bridge and Adobe Creek Reach Trail, parks, housing, public schools, private
pre-schools, the Oshman Family Jewish Community Center (JCC), and Kehillah High School. The
project will reduce risks to the users of these facilities by increasing the distance between
bicycle riders and moving or parked vehicles via protected or buffered bicycle lanes.
By adding protected or buffered bicycle lanes adjacent to the South Palo Alto destinations
mentioned above, this project furthers Council-approved plans and sustainability goals. It builds
out part of the 2012 Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan and aligns with the
Comprehensive Plan and adopted sustainability and climate action goals by encouraging mode
shift via improved infrastructure to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Separated Bicycle Facility Considerations
It must be noted that buffered or protected bicycle lanes require more room than standard
bicycle lanes. Given Palo Alto’s street widths, reapportionment of street space is required if staff
are to carry out the City’s adopted transportation plans and meet Council environmental goals.
Parking removal and lane reductions will be at the core of project decision-making if Council
desires future installations of buffered or protected facilities in pursuit of Council’s climate
action targets.
2
Packet Pg. 11
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Development Services Department Page 5
The original grant scope committed the City to delivery of protected bikeways along both
Fabian Way and E. Meadow Drive. After conversations with the Santa Clara Valley
Transportation Authority (VTA), the City must deliver at a minimum a protected bikeway along
Fabian Way or E. Meadow Drive but must deliver a scope as close as possible to protected
bikeways along any corridor without a continuous protected bikeway. A goal of the first phase
of community engagement was to share initial concept plan alternatives that reflect how
buffered and protected bikeways could operate along Fabian Way and E. Meadow Drive.
Recent School Bicycling Trends
The City’s transportation plan implementation efforts are bearing fruit, showing that
transportation programs and infrastructure changes are supporting increased bicycling. With
consistent investments in the bicycle network and collaboration of the Safe Routes to School
(SRTS) Partnership, the City has seen recent student biking numbers grow at around 1% per year
across the district, with 2019 counts showing that over half of all PAUSD middle and high school
students commuted to school via bicycle.
The student catchment areas for Fairmeadow and Hoover Elementary Schools, JLS Middle
School, and Gunn High School are served by this project. Table 1 shows Fall 2019 bicycle parking
counts for these and all PAUSD middle and high schools. Images 2 and 3 below display historic
bicycle counts at PAUSD middle schools and high schools. These data do not include students
who arrive at school on foot. Most schools in the U.S. see single-digit rates for walking and biking
combined.1
Table 1: Selected 2019 Bicycle Parking Counts
School Name Parked Bikes School Enrollment % Biking
Project-Adjacent Elementary Schools
Fairmeadow 102 437 23%
Hoover 28 391 7%
All Middle Schools
JLS 760 1,084 70%
Greene 637 952 67%
Fletcher 277 638 43%
Total 1,674 2,674 63%
All High Schools
Gunn 982 1,981 50%
Paly 1,120 2,163 52%
Total 2,102 4,144 51%
All PAUSD Schools
All Schools 4,535 11,586 39%
Source: Data gathered by PTA volunteers in Fall 2019 and compiled by City of Palo Alto SRTS staff.
1 Everett Jones S, Sliwa S. School Factors Associated With the Percentage of Students Who Walk or Bike to School,
School Health Policies and Practices Study, 2014. Prev Chronic Dis 2016;13:150573. DOI:
http://dx.doi.org/10.5888/pcd13.150573 .
2
Packet Pg. 12
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Development Services Department Page 6
Image 2: PAUSD Middle School Historic Bike Counts (%), 1985 - 2019
Source: Data gathered by PTA volunteers and compiled by City of Palo Alto SRTS staff.
Image 3: PAUSD High School Historic Bike Counts (%), 1985 - 2019
Source: Data gathered by PTA volunteers and compiled by City of Palo Alto SRTS staff.
2
Packet Pg. 13
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Development Services Department Page 7
Even higher biking and walking rates among students may occur this fall and beyond as late-start
bell times for middle school (8:30 am) and high school (9:00 am) may no longer align with the
schedules of parents driving to work. Investing in appropriately sized infrastructure that provides
more separation between those on bicycles and moving or parked vehicles will be key to
accommodating and safeguarding larger peak bicycle flows and helping more families and
residents choose bicycling for school and other trips in Palo Alto.
Sustainability and Climate Action Considerations
In addition to the City’s high student bicycle mode share, City data and studies by others point to
the need for the kinds of separated bicycle facilities that this project proposes. The City is
currently updating its Sustainability & Climate Action Plan (S/CAP). The analysis from this effort
reveals that the transportation sector represents the City of Palo Alto’s largest source of
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Image 4 is a graphical representation of the City’s GHG
emission profile. In order to shrink the transportation sector’s contributions to climate change,
the City will need to find ways to decrease resident and visitor reliance on internal combustion
engines.
Image 4: Palo Alto 2019 GHG Emissions by Sector
Source: Palo Alto 2019 GHG Inventory, AECOM.
Worldwide, cities seeking to reduce greenhouse gas emissions via mode shift are planning for
separated facilities such as buffered or protected bike lanes (and protected intersections) as
these facilities attract more riders who would otherwise view biking as too dangerous.
2
Packet Pg. 14
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Development Services Department Page 8
Significantly, strategies to convert vehicle trips to active forms of travel, such as bicycling or
walking (also known as mode shift), are relatively low-cost, efficient, and equitable compared to
strategies aimed at electrification of vehicle trips.2 The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC) has highlighted the provision of separate cycling facilities along heavily traveled
roads and intersections, including traffic calming of residential neighborhoods as key approaches
to increase bicycle mode share.3
Adding more support for separate facilities, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
Separated Bike Lane Planning and Design Guide states:
Separated bike lanes can appeal to a broad range of people and in doing so contribute
to increases in bicycling volumes and rates. A June 2014 National Institute for
Transportation and Communities report entitled "Lessons from the Green Lanes:
Evaluating Protected Bike Lanes in the U.S.." observed that ridership on all facilities
increased after the installation of separated facilities. Survey data showed that 10% of
current riders switched from other modes and that over a quarter of riders are
bicycling more in general because of the separated bike lanes. This report is available
at: http://trec.pdx.edu/research/project/583
<https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/exit.cfm?link=http://trec.pdx.edu/research/project/583>.
As part of a connected bicycle network, separated bike lanes can:
• Provide a more comfortable experience for less-skilled riders;
• Improve access to destinations such as schools, jobs, health care facilities, and
essential services;
• Enhance access to public transportation, for example by helping to solve the
first/last mile challenge;
• Improve access to employment opportunities, especially for those without [or
with limited] access to a private automobile; and
• Provide a linkage between regional trail systems.
Finally, separated facilities support the safety of pedestrians by reducing crossing distances and
reducing the number of sidewalk riders.
2 Litman, Todd, Win-Win Transportation Emission Reduction Strategies: Smart Transportation Strategies Can
Reduce Pollution and Provide Other Important Economic, Social and Environmental Benefits, Victoria Transport
Policy Institute, 22 April 2021
3 Sims R., R. Schaeffer, F. Creutzig, X. Cruz-Núñez, M. D’Agosto, D. Dimitriu, M.J. Figueroa Meza, L. Fulton, S.
Kobayashi, O. Lah, A. McKinnon, P. Newman, M. Ouyang, J.J. Schauer, D. Sperling, and G. Tiwari, 2014: Transport.
In: Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment
Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Edenhofer, O., R. Pichs-Madruga, Y. Sokona, E.
Farahani, S. Kadner, K. Seyboth, A. Adler, I. Baum, S. Brunner, P. Eickemeier, B. Kriemann, J. Savolainen, S.
Schlömer, C. von Stechow, T. Zwickel and J.C. Minx (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United
Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.
2
Packet Pg. 15
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Development Services Department Page 9
Project Segment Considerations
Improvements to the Waverley Multi-Use Path will include widening the path where feasible to
accommodate high flows and varying speeds of bicyclists and pedestrians. Repaving and
regrading will also be considered to help mitigate uneven surfaces. Improvements to the
Waverley Multi-Use Path are limited by available right-of-way as well as by existing elements
surrounding the path such as fire hydrants and protected trees. Another goal of the first phase
of community engagement was to present potential design ideas for this path that proposed
little to no physical impacts to surrounding elements. Staff is conducting continuous
conversations on construction feasibility with PAUSD, the Fire Department, and arborists to
determine if path bottlenecks at fire hydrants and selected tree locations can be addressed.
To enhance bicyclist visibility and safety and respond to the grant requirements and community
feedback, potential changes along Fabian Way may require reconfiguration of travel lanes while
standardizing bicycle and parking lane widths. This project proposes travel lane reduction to
provide protected bike lanes on Fabian, which has the highest observed speeds of the on-road
segments of this project.
Community feedback documented that the existing condition on E. Meadow Drive is sub-optimal
for the peak flows of cyclists and pedestrians using the street. The parking lanes on E. Meadow
Drive are of non-standard width, so parked vehicles either extend onto the sidewalks via rolled
curbs or into the bike lanes, where opening car doors pose further risk to those on bikes. This
project proposes removing a parking lane on E. Meadow Drive in order to right-size the
remaining parking lane and bicycle facilities, prioritizing the safety of everyone who uses the
street.
School Circulation Considerations on E. Meadow
Near JLS Middle School, Fairmeadow Elementary School, and Mitchell Park, the concept plan
alternative would install a buffered bike lane on E. Meadow Dr. on the residential side of the
street (preserving curb parking adjacent to housing) and create a protected bikeway along the
school/park side by removing approximately 34 parking spaces between Waverley St. and
Mitchell Park driveway. The 19 angled parking spaces along the Fairmeadow school frontage
would remain accessible to both Fairmeadow and JLS users as the 15-minute offset between
the schools’ bell times will be preserved, with Fairmeadow commencing at 8:15am and JLS
starting at 8:30am. Both schools have loading zones for students arriving by car, with Mitchell
Park serving as the sanctioned historical overflow loading zone for all three schools adjacent to
the park. Bike parking on the JLS campus accommodates over 800 students, and the City's Safe
Routes to School staff partner with PAUSD staff to increase campus bike parking as the number
of students who bike continues to grow.
1. Preferred Concept Plan and Next Steps
To provide transparency into how the bikeway concepts evolved into the proposed preferred
concept plan, initial concept plan alternative drawings are available in Attachment C.
2
Packet Pg. 16
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Development Services Department Page 10
Based on community feedback, staff developed a Preferred Concept Plan that minimizes
parking removal and responds to the grant scope requirement of protect bikeways. The full
Preferred Concept Plan drawing is available in Attachment E. Below are brief descriptions of key
elements proposed for each corridor and next action steps.
1.1. Waverley Multi-Use Path Preferred Alternative – Alternative 2 Widen Towards Either
Side:
• Widen the path towards the tree-lined grassy strip and/or school buildings where
feasible and replace the existing fence with other types of separations (e.g. concrete
curbs, bollards, lower fences, or artistic fences aligned with the school setting)
• Next steps:
o Perform focused community engagement around the desired types of
separation
o Coordinate with PAUSD and the Fire Department to closely examine
locations for widening that would address bottlenecks due to existing trees
and fire hydrants
Image: View of Waverley Multi-Use Path Alternative 2
with concrete curbs looking towards E. Charleston
Road
1.2. Fabian Way Preferred Alternative – Alternative 2 Protected Bicycle Lanes on Both Sides:
• 6’ protected bicycle lane in both directions with 3’ separation (e.g. concrete curbs or
bollards) from parked and moving vehicles
• Existing parking on the east side (JCC side) will be preserved and will serve as a
barrier between the vehicle lane and bicycle lane
• 1 existing vehicle lane in each direction will be removed with a new two-way left-
turn lane will be added
• Next steps:
o Conduct detailed traffic and parking studies
o Perform focused community engagement around on-street parking provision
and the need to accommodate safe passage for young/novice bicyclists.
o Consider removal of the substandard midblock crossing on Fabian Way
between E. Charleston Road and Federation Way
2
Packet Pg. 17
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Development Services Department Page 11
o Explore design options to provide safer left-turns for bicyclists on Fabian Way
into the Oshman Family Jewish Community Center and onto E. Meadow
Drive
o Implement temporary treatments as appropriate
Image: Section view of Fabian Way Alternative 2
looking towards W. Bayshore Road
1.3. E. Meadow Drive Preferred Alternative:
Given the different widths and purposes in different blocks along E. Meadow Drive, E.
Meadow Drive has been separated into segments.
Image 5: E. Meadow Drive Segments
1.3.1. Segment 1 between E. Meadow Circle and Fabian Way – Alternative 2 Standard
Bicycle Lanes on Both Sides:
• 6’ standard bicycle lane in both directions with no separation
• Existing parking lane on the north side (W. Bayshore Road side) will be preserved
• Next steps:
o Explore design options to provide safer left-turns for bicyclists on E. Meadow
Drive onto the Adobe Creek Reach Trail
o Implement temporary treatments as appropriate
2
Packet Pg. 18
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Development Services Department Page 12
Image: Section view of E. Meadow Drive Segment 1
looking towards E. Meadow Circle
1.3.2. Segment 2 between Alma Street and Waverley Street – Protected Bicycle Lanes on
Both Sides:
• 6’ protected bicycle lane in both directions with 3’ physical separation (e.g.
concrete curbs or bollards) from parked and moving vehicles
• Existing parking on the north side (residential side) will be removed
• Existing parking on the south side (school side) will be preserved and will serve
as a barrier between the vehicle lane and bicycle lane
• 1 new left-turn lane in each direction onto Waverley Street will be added
Image: Section view of E. Meadow Drive Segment 2
looking towards W. Bayshore Road
1.3.3. Segment 3 between Waverley Street and Middlefield Road – Protected Bicycle
Lane on One Side with Buffered Bicycle Lane on the Other Side:
• 6’ buffered bicycle lane on the north side (residential side) with 3’ painted buffer
between vehicle lane and bicycle lane
• 6’ protected bicycle lane on the south side (school side) with 3’ physical
separation (e.g. concrete curbs or bollards) from moving vehicles
• Existing parking on the north side will be preserved
• Existing parking (approximately 39 spaces) on the south side will be removed
• 1 new left-turn lane in each direction onto Waverley Street will be added
2
Packet Pg. 19
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Development Services Department Page 13
Image: Section view of E. Meadow Drive Segment 3
looking towards W. Bayshore Road
1.4. Segment 4 between Middlefield Road and E. Meadow Circle – Buffered Bicycle Lane on
Both Sides:
• 6’ buffered bicycle lane in both directions with 3’ painted buffer between vehicle and
bicycle lanes
• Existing parking on the north side (residential side) will be preserved
• Existing parking (approximately 80 spaces) on the south side (park side) will be
removed
Image: Section view of E. Meadow Drive Segment 4
looking towards W. Bayshore. Road
2. Fabian Way Gap Closure
The Fabian Way project corridor will close an infrastructure gap for bicyclists connecting
between E. Charleston Road and Fabian Way. The addition of these bicycle facilities will
complement the development of the Charleston Arastradero project. If Council decides to
terminate the South Palo Alto Bikeways project, staff plans on returning with a
recommendation to provide safer bicycle facilities around the intersection of E. Charleston
Road and Fabian Way.
3. E. Meadow Drive Challenges and Considerations
Community feedback gathered so far indicates that some stakeholders oppose the parking lane
removal on E. Meadow Drive, particularly east of Middlefield Road. If the City cannot provide
buffered or protected bike lanes to fulfill the terms of the grant, the City may need to consider
discontinuing the project.
Based on community feedback through the online survey, 53% of the participants indicated a
preference for protected bikeways, 24% for buffered bicycle lanes, and 23% either didn’t
express a preference or a preference for an option not presented. Protected bikeways were
more desired between Alma Street and Middlefield Road compared to Middlefield Road and E.
Meadow Circle.
While survey results reflect general support for protected bikeways, there are concerns for the
loss of parking, particularly between Middlefield Road and E. Meadow Circle. A few community
2
Packet Pg. 20
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Development Services Department Page 14
suggestions implied that the existing conditions be retained here, which excludes any
protection or separation from vehicle lanes.
The original grant scope committed the City to deliver protected bikeways along Fabian Way
and E. Meadow Drive. Staff presented to VTA the community’s desire to maintain existing
conditions between Middlefield Road and E. Meadow Circle. VTA staff understood that a
continuous protected bikeway along E. Meadow Drive is challenging. VTA requested the City
deliver a scope as close as possible to protected bikeways on E. Meadow Drive but maintained
that retaining the existing conditions between Middlefield Road and E. Meadow Circle
considerably diverges from the original grant scope and could put the grant funding in
jeopardy.
While VTA welcomes conversation and collaboration to work out the complexities for this
segment, which would likely yield a scope change of the grant, the scope change process
involving VTA and MTC will also significantly delay the project progress and may cause the
project to exceed Federal deadlines. Alternatively, VTA proposed that the City could consider
rescinding the grant and apply for the upcoming OBAG 3 program in FY 22.
4. Qualitative Traffic Evaluation
A Qualitative Traffic Evaluation was performed to understand existing traffic conditions and
land use context. If the project moves forward, more detailed traffic analysis will be performed
on the preferred concept plan. A robust Traffic Impact Analysis is not neceesary during this
preliminary phase because the Waverley Multi-Use Path is an off-street facility and vehicle lane
removals are not proposed along E. Meadow Drive.
One of the initial concept alternatives for Fabian Way does propose removal of one existing
vehicle lane in each direction with addition of a new two-way left-turn vehicle lane. However,
as part of the Charleston-Arastradero Road Corridor project, the planned elimination of the
dual right turns from E. Charleston Road traveling west onto Fabian Way suggests that there is
likely little need for two northbound lanes on Fabian Way. The capacity needed southbound on
Fabian Way is mainly at the intersection turning onto E. Charleston Road, which will be
maintained. Since there were limited historic data on the three project segments, daily
weekday vehicle speed and volume counts, as well as weekday AM and PM peak-period
intersection turning movement counts were collected in April 2021. Note that this data was
collected during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. The Qualitative Traffic Evaluation
Memorandum is available in Attachment A.
Daily weekday vehicle speed and volume from 48-hour counts were collected at the following
locations:
1. Meadow Drive between Alma Street and Waverley Street
2. Meadow Drive between Waverley Street and Middlefield Road
3. Meadow Drive between Middlefield Road and Ross Road
4. Meadow Drive between Ross Road and East Meadow Circle
2
Packet Pg. 21
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Development Services Department Page 15
5. Fabian Way between East Meadow Drive and Federation Way
6. Fabian Way between Federation Way and East Charleston Road
Weekday AM and PM peak-period intersection turning movement counts were collected at the
following locations:
1. Waverley Street / East Meadow Drive
2. Middlefield Road / East Meadow Drive
3. East Meadow Circle / East Meadow Drive
4. Fabian Way / East Meadow Drive
4.1. Waverley Multi-Use Path:
• Existing Conditions: The Waverley Multi-Use Path on PAUSD property is currently
situated between a tree-lined grassy strip and vehicle access lanes and parking lots
beside Hoover Elementary School and Jane Lathrop Stanford Middle School. The
path paved section is approximately 8’ wide as measured from edge of the
pavement to the chain-link fence. Class 1 pathway standards recommend a 12’
minimum path width free of vertical obstructions.
Additionally, there are three fire hydrants along the path which create pinchpoints
on the path. The existing chain-link fence is at handlebar height which causes safety
concerns if bicyclists are riding too close to the fence. Replacing the existing chain-
link fence with something shorter will greatly improve bicyclists’ experience.
• Existing Trees: According to the Preliminary Arborist Report completed by PAUSD’s
arborists, there are 28 trees along the path, and rouly 15 would potentially be
significantly impacted due to construction disturbances associated with replacing
the pavement. The Prelimnary Arborist Report is available in Attachment B.
The existing path is bumpy with uneven surfaces due to cracking and tree root
intrusion. Along with obstacles such as overgrown vegetation and chain-link fence
interfering with bicycle handle bars, falls and collisions for students bicycling here
are common.
Photo: View of existing Waverley Multi-Use Path and
broken chain-link fence
Photo: View of existing Waverley Multi-Use Path and
outgrown vegetation
2
Packet Pg. 22
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Development Services Department Page 16
4.2. Fabian Way:
• Existing Conditions: Fabian Way currently has two vehicle lanes in each direction
with a bicycle lane heading southbound toward E. Charleston Road, and a shared
bicycle/parking lane northbound toward W. Bayshore Road. The shared northbound
facility causes dooring exposure for bicyclists, and large vehicles parked along Fabian
Way also result in relatively little space available for bicyclists.
• April 2021 Roadway Volumes: Average weekday daily traffic volumes are
approximately 5,500 vehicles per day (vpd) between E. Charleston Road and
Federation Way, and 4,000 vpd between Federation Way and E. Meadow Drive.
• April 2021 Intersection Volumes: Observations indicate that peak period demand for
vehicles turning from Fabian onto E. Charleston Road is high, resulting in queuing
and delays. Vehicles turning left from Fabian Way into driveways also cause backups
due to blockages of the left lane.
• April 2021 Vehicle Speeds: The 85th percentile vehicle speed along the study corridor
is between 38 mph and 42 mph, exceeding the 35 mph posted speed limit. Image 6
shows the relationship between vehicle travel speeds and pedestrian injuries.
Image 6: Vehicle Travel Speeds and Pedestrian Injuries
Source: SFMTA Vision Zero Action Plan.
• May 2021 Bicycle and Pedestiran Activities: Staff conducted peak hour bicycle and
pedestrian counts on Fabian Way at the end of May. An average of 31 bicyclists and
pedestrians were counted during the AM peak and an average of 20 bicyclists and
pedestrians were counted during the PM peak at Fabian Way adjacent to the mid-
block crossing nearest to Charleston Road. The number of bicyclists was generally
2
Packet Pg. 23
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Development Services Department Page 17
half the number of pedestrians counted. Anecdotal reports indicate that parents
generally discourage students’ use of Fabian Way for walking or biking trips due to
roadway widths, traffic volumes, and vehicle speeds.
• Bicycle and Pedestrian Collisions: According to data extracted between 2015 to 2020
from the Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS), there were 5 collisions
involving bicycles and 1 collision involving pedestrians along Fabian Way. Of these 6
collisions, there were 4 with visible injuries and 2 with complaint of pain.
• On-Street Parking: On-street parking is used by a mix of residential, office, and
school users at different times of the day. Large vehicles also park along Fabian Way
at times and package/freight delivery services have been observed using the parking
lane as loading/unloading space.
Photo: View of Fabian Way southbound bicycle lane
Photo: View of Fabian Way northbound shared
bicycle/parking lane
4.3. E. Meadow Drive:
• Existing Conditions: E. Meadow Drive currently has one vehicular travel lane and one
bicycle lane in each direction with parking on each side. The parking lane abuts on
the bicycle lane and causes dooring exposure for bicyclists, and large vehicles parked
along E. Meadow Drive also result in relatively little space available for bicyclists.
Rolled curb parking along a non-standard-width parking lane on E. Meadow Drive
presents a significant challenge for pedestirans and bicyclists. It often causes
crowding which forces bicyclists to steer into the vehicle lane or onto the sidewalk.
Additionally, vehicles maneuvering around left turning vehicles swerve into the
bicycle lanes during peak student bicycling traffic hours. This driving behavior causes
major concerns for student safety.
• April 2021 Roadway Volumes: Average weekday daily traffic volumes vary along the
corridor with approximately 5,000 vehicles per day (vpd) between Alma Street and
Middlefield Road and 700 vpd between Ross Road and E. Meadow Circle. Historic
2
Packet Pg. 24
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Development Services Department Page 18
2016 daily traffic volumes were approximately 7,100 vpd between Alma Street and
Middlefield Road, and 3,100 vpd between Louis Road and Fabian Way.
• April 2021 Intersection Volumes: Observations indicate that major intersections
along the corridor operate without lengthy delays or queuing outside of the busiest
portions of weekday peak periods. Historic 2018 intersection volumes were notably
higher, with overall peak period entering volumes as much as double those in April
2021.
• April 2021 Vehicle Speeds: The 85th percentile vehicle speed along the study corridor
is between 30 mph and 35 mph, exceeding the 25 mph posted speed limit.
• April 2021 Bicycle and Pedestiran Activities: Approximately 20 bicycles and
pedestrians were counted during the AM peak and 32 during the PM peak at E.
Meadow Drive and Waverley Street, 7 during the AM peak and 22 during the PM
peak at E. Meadow Drive and Middlefield Road, and 1 during the AM peak and 3
during the PM peak at E. Meadow Drive and E. Meadow Circle. Historic 2018
intersection counts at E. Meadow Drive and Middlefield Road indicate that active
transportation volumes were notably higher, with hundreds of bicyclists traveling
along E. Meadow Drive during school peaks.
• Bicycle and Pedestrian Collisions: According to data extracted between 2015 to 2020
from TIMS, there were 13 collisions involving bicycles and 3 collisions involving
pedestrians along E. Meadow Drive. Of these 16 collisions, there was 1 serverely
injuried, 10 with visible injuries, and 5 with complaint of pain.
• On-Street Parking: On-street parking is freqently occupied adjacent to residences,
schools, and parks that directly front E. Meadow Drive. On-street parking is less
frequently occupied between Alma Street and Waverley Street where most
properties front cross streets. Non-standard parking lane widths cause parked
vehicles to encroach upon the sidewalks or the bicycle lanes.
2
Packet Pg. 25
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Development Services Department Page 19
Photo: View of E. Meadow Drive parking, bicycle,
and vehicle lanes
Photo: View of a large vehicle parked at a rolled curb
along E. Meadow Drive
5. Community Feedback on Initial Concept Plan Alternatives
5.1. Outreach Methods
The various outreach methods used had different participation rates. Together, the efforts
reached a variety of stakeholders who provided input to the project and helped refine the
concepts.
A main goal of the first phase of community engagement was to assess community support
for protected bikeways. Community engagement methods used for this project, detailed in
the Stakeholder Engagement section of this report, included a project website, online
survey, email blasts, doorhangers, mailers, posters, flyers, webinars held in English and
Spanish, and online meetings with school stakeholders, the City/School Transportation
Safety Committee (CSTSC), and the Pedestrian and Bicycle Advisory Committee (PABAC).
Printed materials were presented in English, Spanish, and Chinese. The City’s social media
channels (Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, NextDoor) as well as the Coronavirus report
conveyed multiple messages about the project.
To reach a broad audience, as well as to provide a more convenient way for the community
to participate, an online survey available in three different languages was launched on the
project webpage from May 13, 2021 to May 31, 2021. The survey provided a brief
education about different types of bikeways and clickable links to initial concept plan
alternatives. Given that the grant requires the project at a minimum to deliver one
protected bikeway along Fabian Way or E. Meadow Drive, and a scope as close as possible
to protected bikeways along any corridor without a continuous protected bikeway, the
bottom line question was to define where along Fabian Way and E. Meadow Drive the
community would support protected bikeways. As such, the survey was crafted to
determine community support for protected bikeways with clickable links to initial concept
plan alternatives. While some respondents were excited to dive into the details of the
online survey and mapping exercise, others suggested alternative ways to help illustrate the
dense material (e.g. via the creation of short videos).
5.2. Survey Findings
A total of 258 responses were received. In general, there is support for protected bikeways
along Fabian Way, E. Meadow Drive between Alma Street and Waverley Street, and E.
Meadow Drive between Waverley Street and Middlefield Road. Below are highlights of the
survey results. A detailed summary of the survey results is available in Attachment D.
• 94% of survey respondents live in Palo Alto
• 68% of households have students under 18 years of age that bike to and from school
• 58% of survey respondents supported Fabian Way Alternative 2 Protected Bicycle
Lanes, which includes removal of one existing vehicle lane in each direction with
addition of a new two-way left-turn lane
2
Packet Pg. 26
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Development Services Department Page 20
• 53% of survey respondents supported E. Meadow Drive Alternative 2 Protected
Bicycle Lanes, which includes removal of parking on the north side (residential side)
with addition of one new left-turn lane in each direction onto Waverley Street
• 66% of survey respondents supported Waverley Multi-Use Path Alternative 2, which
includes widening of the path towards the tree-lined grassy strip and/or school
buildings where feasbile, and relocating the chain-link fence to accommodate the
new path alignment
• Survey feedback reflects the following themes:
o Concerns about visilibity with parking protected bike lanes along Fabian Way
and E. Meadow Drive
o Bicycling is particularly difficult at school arrival and dismissal times
o Concerns about reduced parking along E. Meadow Drive
o Requests for a lower fence along the Waverley Multi-Use Path
o Concerns about potential tree removal along the Waverley Multi-Use Path
Image 7: Survey Results for Q5, “On which corridor would you prefer to see protected
bikeways?”
5.3. Future Outreach Considerations:
As resources and public health orders allow, future community engagement for this and
other OOT projects should include additional funding and flexibility to change engagement
activities in response to community requests and needs. For example, while staff time and
resources were invested in simultaneous Spanish translations of webinars, it was not
apparent that Spanish-speakers availed themselves of this feature. Future community
2
Packet Pg. 27
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Development Services Department Page 21
engagement could offer live Chinese translation to test effectiveness in increasing
participation by members of the Chinese community.
Overall, webinar attendance, particularly by parents at local schools, was lower than
expected. However, parent participation in the online survey was more robust. The
timeframe of this first phase of engagement also restricted school-based engagement
opportunities as end-of-year school activities conflicted with project events. If this project is
approved to move forward, more creative and in-person outreach methods should be used
in the next phase to gather more feedback from the school communities affected by this
project.
Policy Implications
The South Palo Alto Bikeways Project is consistent with the following goals, policies, and
programs in the Comprehensive Plan 2030 Transportation Element:
Goal T-1: Create a sustainable transportation system, complimented by a mix of land uses, that
emphasizes walking, bicycling, use of public transportation and other methods to reduce GHG
emissions and the use of single occupancy motor vehicles.
Policy T-1.1: Take a comprehensive approach to reducing single-occupant vehicle trips
by involving those who live, work and shop in Palo Alto in developing strategies that
make it easier and more convenient not to drive.
Policy T-1.3: Reduce GHG and pollutant emissions associated with transportation by
reducing VMT and per-mile emissions through increasing transit options, supporting
biking and walking, and through the use of zero-emission vehicle technologies to meet
City and State goals for GHG reductions by 2030.
Goal T-2: Decrease delay, congestion, and VMT with a priority on our worst intersections and
our peak commute times, including school traffic.
Goal T-3: Maintain an efficient roadway network for all users.
Policy T-3.5: When constructing or modifying roadways, plan for use of the roadway by
all users.
Program T3.5.1: Continue to use best practices in roadway design that are consistent
with complete streets principles and the Urban Forest Master Plan, focusing on bicycle
and pedestrian safety and multi-modal uses. Consider opportunities to incorporate best
practices from the National Association of City Transportation Officials guidelines for
urban streets and bikeways tailored to the Palo Alto context.
2
Packet Pg. 28
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Development Services Department Page 22
Policy T-3.14: Continue to prioritize the safety of school children in street modification
projects that affect school travel routes, including during construction.
Goal T-6: Provide a safe environment for motorists, pedestrians, and bicyclists on Palo Alto
streets.
Policy T-6.1: Continue to make safety the first priority of citywide transportation
planning. Prioritize pedestrian, bicycle, and automobile safety over motor vehicle level
of service at intersections and motor vehicle parking.
Policy T-6.4: Continue the Safe Routes to School partnership with PAUSD and the Palo
Alto Council of PTAs.
Policy T-6.6: Use engineering, enforcement and educational tools to improve safety for
all users on City roadways.
Additionally, the South Palo Alto Bikeways Project is consistent with the following top
recommended projects in the Bicycle & Pedestrian Transportation Plan 2012:
BB-3 Bryant Street Bicycle Boulevard: Wayfinding signs and pavement markings south of Bryant
Street. Spot improvements for additional safety and comfort, including Churchill/Coleridge
Avenue spot improvement and arterial crossing enhancements at University Avenue, Meadow
Drive (consider beacon or signal), Charleston Road, and San Antonio Road at Nita Drive into
Mountain View.
BK-7 Meadow St / El Camino Way / Los Robles Enhanced Bikeway: Potential cycletrack
redesign or enhanced striping and signage of existing bike lanes between La Donna and
Meadow Street along Los Robles/El Camino Way; Enhanced striping and signage, including
intersection through-markings, for existing Meadow Street bike lanes from El Camino Way to
Fabian Way.
BK-9 Fabian Way Enhanced Bikeway: Potential cycle track or enhanced striping and signage of
existing substandard (time restricted) bike lanes to improve safety and access to Adobe Creek
Highway 101 crossing, Charleston bike lanes to San Antonio Road
TR-2 Adobe Creek Reach Trail: Upgrade the existing Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD)
maintenance road to a Class I trail facility from W. Bayshore Road at Adobe Creek to E. Meadow
Drive. This trail would help connect the existing Benjamin Lefkowitz underpass and future
potential overcrossing.
Resource Impact
Staff is still evaluating total project costs. If additional funding is necessary, a request will be
brought forward for Council approval.
2
Packet Pg. 29
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Development Services Department Page 23
There were no costs developed along with the Preferred Concept Plan. Once Council directs
staff to move forward with the project, staff will return with estimated design costs in the
Plans, Specifications, and Estimates (PS&E) contract award for Council’s consideration.
Estimated construction costs will be provided as a part of the Plans, Specifications, and
Estiamates (PS&E) at 100% design final deliverable package.
Funding is found in the FY22 Adopted Capital Improvement Budget for Safe Routes to School (PL-
00026). This includes the VERBS construction-only grant of $919,000 and a local match of
$781,000.
Council approved by a two-third vote on January 25, 2021, to increase the Safe Routes to School
project (PL-00026) expense appropriation by $110,000 through action item Status Report on the
South Palo Alto Bikeways Project Funded by the VERBS Grant; Approval of the Community
Engagement Plan; and Approval of Budget Amendments in the Capital Improvement Fund
Projects Safe Routes to School PL-00026 and El Camino Real Pedestrian Safety and Streetscape
Project PL-18000 (CMR# 11757). This funding was used in Spring 2021 on the project’s first
phase of community engagement, development of initial concept plan alternatives, and revision
into a preferred concept plan by Transportation’s on call-consultant Fehr & Peers.
As a part of the same staff report to Council, staff noted that the Project was awarded a grant of
$919,000 with a local match of $480,000 by the VERBS program to cover a total project cost of
$1.4M. The grant is for construction only, while the match would cover design, environmental
clearance, or community engagement costs. It must be noted that the total project cost of
$1.4M was calculated in 2016, and accounting for inflation, the project budget has increased to
approximately $1.7M, which increased the City’s local match to $781,000 in 2020 according to
the Public Works Department estimate. The grant construction funding remains the same at
$919,000.
While a partial appropriation of the City’s local match in the amount of $110,000 was approved
at the Council meeting on January 25, 2021, the remaining local match of $671,000 was
approved as part of the recommendations in CMR# 11872. Mid-Year Review the FY2021 Mid-
Year Budget Review and Approve Budget Amendments in Various Funds; Provide Direction on
(a) Potential Rent Forgiveness Programs for City Tenants and (b) Waiver of the Business Registry
Certificate and Downtown Business Improvement District Fees on March 1, 2021. This budget
amendment in the Capital Improvement Fund for the Safe Routes to School project (PL-00026)
was offset by closing the El Camino Real Pedestrian Safety and Streetscape project (PL-18000).
Timeline
With direction from Council to move forward with the project, staff anticipates soliciting a
preferred consultant to perform the required environmental assessments. A separate request
for proposals (RFP) process is anticipated to bring on-board a contractor team to complete
Plans, Specifications, and Estimates (PS&E) at 100% design.
2
Packet Pg. 30
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Development Services Department Page 24
As a federally funded project, the City is required to submit a Preliminary Environmental Study
form twelve months prior to the project’s obligation deadline on January 31, 2023. In order to
meet this deadline in January of 2022, the appropriate environmental assessments would need
to begin before award of the PS&E contract. Therefore, a clear project description is needed by
September of 2021.
Below are major milestones for the South Palo Alto Bikeways project:
• August 2021 - Request for proposals for PS&E
• September 2021 - CEQA and NEPA preparation
• November 2021 - Council award of the PS&E contract
• Winter 2021/2022 - Community engagement
• Late-Spring 2022 - Council approval of project, CEQA, and NEPA determination
• Summer 2022 - Community engagement
• Fall 2022 - Obtain E-76 and community engagement
• Early 2023 - Project obligation and community engagement
Stakeholder Engagement
The South Palo Alto Bikeways project phase 1 community engagement strives to identify,
inform, and provide opportunities to interact with the community about the project
background, existing conditions, and potential improvements. Key stakeholders include:
• City departments
• City Advisory Committees
• City community facilities including Cubberley Center users, Mitchell Park Library and
Community Center users, and Mitchell Park field users
• Palo Alto Unified School District staff and school board
• Palo Alto Neighborhood Associations
• Nearby residents
• Nearby businesses
• Nearby schools including school staff, parents, students, and Parents Teachers
Associations
• Advocacy groups including Canopy, Carbon Free Palo Alto, Palo Alto Forward, and Silicon
Valley Bicycle Coalition
• Non-profit organizations including Ability Path, Avenidas, Magical Bridge Foundation,
Palo Alto Community Child Care, and Youth Community Service
• Stanford University
• Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority
A variety of materials and methods were deployed in May and June 2021. A detailed list of
engagement efforts can be found in Table 2 below.
Table 2: Phase 1 Community Engagement Materials and Methods
2
Packet Pg. 31
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Development Services Department Page 25
Material/Event Distribution Date/Event
Date Brief Description
Project Webpage
(English)
April 28, 2021 - Present • To provide the most up to date
information including project
requirements, event recordings, and
next steps
• Approx. 743 viewed
Email Blasts
(English)
Throughout • To inform the community about
different options to provide feedback
and encourage participation in
upcoming events
• Mailers: Approx. 3500 were sent to
properties within 1000 ft of the
project corridors
• Doorhangers: Approx. 150 were hung
at properties that fronted the project
corridors
• Flyers: Approx. 300 were dropped at
Mitchell Park Library and Community
Center, JCC, and businesses
• Posters: Approx. 15 were posted on
store fronts
Facebook Posts
(English)
April 28, 2021, May 12,
2021, and May 24, 2021
Instagram Posts
(English)
April 28, 2021, May 12,
2021, and May 24, 2021
Twitter Posts
(English)
April 28, 2021, May 12,
2021, and May 24, 2021
NextDoor Posts
(English)
April 28, 2021 and May 20,
2021
Mailers
(English, Spanish,
Chinese)
May 3, 2021
Doorhangers
(English, Spanish,
Chinese)
May 3, 2021
Flyers
(English, Spanish,
Chinese)
May 3, 2021
Posters
(English, Spanish,
Chinese)
May 3, 2021
Online Survey
(English, Spanish,
Chinese)
May 13, 2021 – May 31,
2021
• To provide a convenient and
accessible platform for participants to
learn about the project and provide
feedback
• 258 responded
Introductory Webinar
(English, Spanish)
May 13, 2021, 6:30pm –
7:30pm
• To introduce the project as well as all
project engagement activities
• 31 attended
• Approx. 57 viewed on YouTube in
English
School Communities
Meeting
(English)
May 19, 2021, 5:00pm –
6:00pm
• A focused meeting with school
communities’ representatives to
understand how to better design for
2
Packet Pg. 32
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Development Services Department Page 26
their needs
• 7 attended
City School
Transportation Safety
Committee Meeting
(English)
May 20, 2021, 10:00am –
11:00am
• A focused meeting with school
communities’ representatives to
understand how to better design for
their needs
• 4 attended
Virtual Route Tour #1
Webinar
(English, Spanish)
May 22, 2021, 11:00am –
12:30pm
• To guide participants through the
project corridors and provide
explanation of potential
improvements
• 10 attended
• Approx. 45 viewed on YouTube in
English
• Approx. 11 viewed on YouTube in
Spanish
Virtual Route Tour #2
Webinar
(English, Spanish)
May 27, 2021, 6:30pm –
8:00pm
• To guide participants through the
project corridors and provide
explanation of potential
improvements
• 13 attended
• Approx. 23 viewed on YouTube in
English
• Approx. 6 viewed on YouTube in
Spanish
Pedestrian and
Bicycle Advisory
Committee Meeting
(English)
June 1, 2021, 6:30pm –
8:00pm
• A focused meeting with our
pedestrian and bicycle citizen experts
to discuss potential improvements
• Approx. 16 attended
Engagement
Summary Webinar
(English, Spanish)
June 22, 2021, 6:30pm –
8:00pm
• To share community feedback
received through previous events and
the online survey
• 15 attended
• Approx. 6 viewed on YouTube in
English
• Approx. 5 viewed on YouTube in
Spanish
* Note: Total number of attendees exclude staff and consultant attendance.
2
Packet Pg. 33
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Development Services Department Page 27
Image: Snapshot of project doorhanger
Image: Snapshot of project poster
Image: Snapshot of project Twitter post
Image: Snapshot of project Facebook post
Environmental Review
No environmental review is necessary at this time for discussion of the preferred concept plan
and recommendation of the preferred concept plan to Council.
If Council directs staff to move forward with the project, the project is subject to the
requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
Attachments:
• Attachment A - Qualitative Traffic Evaluation Memorandum (PDF)
• Attachment B - Preliminary Arborist Report (PDF)
• Attachment C - Initial Concept Plan Alternatives (PDF)
• Attachment D - Community Survey and Responses (PDF)
• Attachment E - Preferred Concept Plan (PDF)
2
Packet Pg. 34
160 W. Santa Clara Street | Ste. 675 | San José, CA 95113 | (408) 278-1700 | Fax (408) 278-1717
www.fehrandpeers.com
Memorandum
Date: June 23, 2021
To: Joanna Chan & Sylvia Star-Lack, City of Palo Alto
From: Jarrett Mullen, Ingrid Ballús Armet & Steve Davis, Fehr & Peers
Subject: South Palo Alto Bikeways Qualitative Traffic Evaluation
SJ21-2081.03
This memorandum presents a qualitative transportation evaluation of the South Palo Alto
Bikeways Project in Palo Alto, California. The project includes improvements to three corridor
segments proposed as part of a Vehicle Emissions Reductions Based at Schools (VERBS) program
grant obtained by the City:
1. Waverley Multi-Use Path Improvements
2. East Meadow Drive Enhanced Bikeways
3. Fabian Way Enhanced Bikeways
Existing Conditions & Study Locations
The South Palo Alto Bikeways Project corridors and study locations are shown in Figure 1. The
following are a description of the existing roadway characteristics and features, land use context,
and qualitative summary of traffic operations. This evaluation is based on both street segment
screen line and intersection turning movement data collected in April 2021. Note that this data
was collected during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. While regional travel activity has
increased as social distancing orders related to COVID-19 ease, travel patterns likely remain
affected compared to pre-COVID conditions.
Segment data includes daily weekday motor vehicle speed and volume from 48-hour counts
collected at the following locations:
1. Meadow Drive between Alma Street and Waverley Street
2. Meadow Drive between Waverley Street and Middlefield Road
3. Meadow Drive between Middlefield Road and Ross Road
4. Meadow Drive between Ross Road and East Meadow Circle
5. Fabian Way between East Meadow Drive and Federation Way
6. Fabian Way between Federation Way and East Charleston Road
ATTACHMENT A2.a
Packet Pg. 35
!
!
!!
Shorelineat Mtn.View Park
BaylandsPreserve
Mitchell Park
3101
W
e
s
t
El
C
a
min
o
R
e
al
SanAntonioRoad
E a st C h a rle st o n R o a d
Lo
u
i
s
R
o
a
d
Lo
u
i
s
R
o
a
d
Bays
h
o
r
e
P
a
r
k
w
a
y
Al
m
a
S
t
r
e
e
t
Mid
d
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
R
o
a
d
Ara
s
t
r
a
d
e
r
o
R
o
a
d
SanAntonioRoad
East M
e
a
d
o
w
D
r
i
v
e
East
B
aysh
ore
R
oad
Old Middlefield Wy
Mi
d
d
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
R
o
a
d
Fa
b
i
a
n
W
y
East Charleston Road
W
e
st
M
id
dle
field
Road
E
l
C
ami
n
o
W
y
West
C
h
a
r
l
e
s
t
o
n
R
o
a
d
Lom
a
V
e
r
d
e
A
v
e
n
u
e
W
e
s
t
B
a
y
s
h
o
r
e
R
o
a
d
∙82
1
2
3 4
Fairmeadow
Elementary
School
Herbert HooverElementary School
JLS Middle
School
Mitchell
Park Library
Cubberley
Community
Center
Greendell
School
Palo Verde
Elementary
School
C:
\
U
s
e
r
s
\
j
m
u
l
l
e
n
\
O
n
e
D
r
i
v
e
-
F
e
h
r
&
P
e
e
r
s
\
D
e
s
k
t
o
p
\
G
I
S
\
S
o
P
A
_
M
a
p
s
\
S
o
P
A
_
M
a
p
s
.
a
p
r
x
Study Corridors
Fabian Way
E. Meadow Dr.
Waverley Pathway
!Study Intersections
Cities
Figure 1
2.a
Packet Pg. 36
Joanna Chan & Sylvia Star-Lack
June 23, 2021
Page 3 of 16
Weekday AM and PM peak-period intersection turning movement counts were collected at the
following locations:
1. Waverley Street / East Meadow Drive
2. Middlefield Road / East Meadow Drive
3. East Meadow Circle / East Meadow Drive
4. Fabian Way / East Meadow Drive
Additionally, Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD) conducts ongoing monitoring of bicycling
participation to understand travel mode splits for students at different schools. This monitoring
typically relies upon counting parked bicycles at school sites during typical school days and
comparing it to the total school population. Bicycling by JLS students has increased from 48% of
the school population in 2009 to 70% in 2019. Similarly, bicycling by Gunn students has increased
from 33% in 2009 to 50% in 2019. Bicycling rates for various PAUSD middle and high schools are
included in the attachments.
Waverley Multi-Use Path
Pathway Configuration
The Waverley Multi-Use Path is an approximately 0.4 mile-long Class I off-street path that runs
between the intersection of Waverley Street and East Meadow Drive and East Charleston Road
along the western edge of the Mitchell Park civic facilities complex. The paved pathway section
width varies between eight and ten feet, with some areas only providing six feet of pavement due
to overgrown vegetation or lifted by tree roots. It is separated from an adjacent parking lot drive
aisle with an approximately four-foot-tall chain-link fence. Fence openings provide access to
bicycle parking enclosures that serve two adjacent Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD)
campuses that front the path’s east edge. The pathway right-of-way is approximately 16 feet
wide. Trees and informal landscaping typically occupy the unpaved portions of the right-of-way.
Land Use Context
The pathway serves two primary functions. First, to connect adjacent low-density residential
neighborhoods to the three PAUSD campuses in the Mitchell Park site. The three schools are: JLS
Middle School, Fairmeadow Elementary School, and Herbert Hoover Elementary School. The three
schools are part of the Mitchell Park civic complex which is an approximately 50-acre site roughly
bounded by East Meadow Drive to the north, Middlefield Road to the east, East Charleston Road
to the south, and the Waverley pathway to the west. In addition to the PAUSD campuses, the site
includes Mitchell Park, the Mitchell Park Library and Community Center, the Magical Bridge
Playground, and off-street vehicle parking facilities.
The pathway’s secondary function is to serve as a north-south bikeway connection between the
East Meadow Drive and East Charleston Road bikeways and destinations to the north and south.
However, the pathway does not directly continue into the Greenmeadow neighborhood. Rather,
users must travel along East Charleston Road to either Nelson Drive or Carlson Court to continue
2.a
Packet Pg. 37
Joanna Chan & Sylvia Star-Lack
June 23, 2021
Page 4 of 16
south. To the north, users may continue along Waverley Street which connects directly to the
pathway and is a low-volume local street but is not a designated bikeway.
East Meadow Drive
Roadway Configuration
East Meadow Drive is an approximately 1.4-mile long two-lane local/collector street1 with Class II
bicycle facilities and on-street parking between Alma Street and Fabian Way. Nonstandard width
parallel rolled curbs parking lanes are provided on both sides of the street except for an
approximately 300-foot-long subset of 45-degree angled parking along the Fairmeadow
Elementary School frontage. Parking is not provided on the approaches to the Middlefield Road /
East Meadow Drive and Alma Street / East Meadow Drive intersections. The absence of parking at
these intersection approaches accommodates exclusive turn lanes. Monolithic sidewalks are
provided on both sides of the street attached to rolled curbs with planter strips bookending the
street sections. The posted speed limit is 25 miles per hour (mph).
Prior to the COVID-19 shelter-in-place orders, three transit routes operated along East Meadow
Drive: Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) School Tripper lines 288L and 288M and the Palo Alto
Crosstown Shuttle. All routes included on-street stops situated roughly at major cross-streets.
Land Use Context
East Meadow Drive traverses and connects primarily low density residential and community
serving uses except for approximately 400 feet of street frontage in the vicinity of Fabian Way and
East Meadow Circle where low density industrial and commercial uses are punctuated by
multifamily housing. The corridor provides direct access to the Mitchell Park civic complex and
accompanying PAUSD tri-school campus along with Ramos Park, an approximately four-acre
neighborhood park located between Ross Road and Ortega Court. Vehicle access to single family
residences along the corridor are via driveways except between Waverley Street and Alma Street
where access is from intersecting streets.
Adobe Creek Bridge Reach Trail
East Meadow Drive provides a direct connection between South Palo Alto neighborhoods and a
major new bicycle and pedestrian connection: the Adobe Creek Reach Trail and Highway 101
Pedestrian/Bike Bridge. The Adobe Creek Reach Trail is an approximately 800-foot-long Class I
trail that connects the new Highway 101 Pedestrian/Bike Bridge with East Meadow Drive at Adobe
Creek, roughly mid-way between the Fabian Way and East Meadow Circle intersections. Both the
Highway 101 Pedestrian/Bike Bridge and Adobe Creek Reach Trail are currently under
construction but when complete, they will provide a direct bicycle and pedestrian connection
1 Street classification per City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan 2030
2.a
Packet Pg. 38
Joanna Chan & Sylvia Star-Lack
June 23, 2021
Page 5 of 16
between East Meadow Drive, the Palo Alto Baylands, the Bay Trail, and the City of Mountain
View’s North Bayshore employment center.
Transportation Conditions
April 2021 Roadway Volumes: As shown in Figure 2, average weekday daily traffic
volumes vary substantially along the corridor with approximately 5,000 vehicles per
day (vpd) traveling along the segment between Alma Street and Middlefield Road.
Vehicle volumes are much lower east of Middlefield Road with the segment between
Ross Road and East Meadow Circle serving approximately 700 vpd, or around one
vehicle per minute in either direction during peak periods. Historic 2016 traffic count
data provided by the City indicates that traffic volumes were approximately 7,100 vpd
between Alma Street and Middlefield Road and 3,100 vpd between Louis Road and
Fabian Way.
• April 2021 Intersection Volumes: Figure 2 shows intersection turning movement
counts during the weekday AM and PM peak hours. In general, observations indicate
that major intersections along East Meadow Drive operate without lengthy delays or
queuing outside of the busiest portions of weekday peak periods. Historic 2018
intersection counts at East Meadow Drive / Middlefield Road indicate that volumes
were notably higher pre-pandemic, with overall peak period vehicle entering volumes
being as much as twice as high as those observed in April 2021. A primary contributor
to the difference is likely the reduction in school-related activity.
• Bicycle and Pedestrian Activity: Figure 3 shows April 2021 intersection volumes for
active modes, while typical bicycle and pedestrian mode share at schools near the
study corridor are provided in the attachments. Historic 2018 intersection counts at
East Meadow Drive / Middlefield Road indicate that active transportation volumes
were notably higher pre-pandemic, with hundreds of bicyclists traveling along East
Meadow Road during school peaks. Observed pre-pandemic bicycle parking counts
at schools throughout Palo Alto reinforce the high bicycling demand.
• April 2021 Vehicle Speeds: The 85th percentile motor vehicle speed along the study
corridor is between 30 mph and 35 mph as shown on Figure 4. Speeds are generally
higher between Middlefield Road and Alma Street (35 mph) and are lower east of
Middlefield Road. However, 85th percentile speeds along all segments exceed the 25
mph posted speed limit.
• On-street Parking: Parking is provided on both sides of East Meadow Drive for a
majority of the corridor in nonstandard width lanes and has been observed to be
frequently utilized adjacent to residences and demand generators such as schools
and parks that directly front the roadway. On-street parking is less frequently
occupied between Alma Street and Waverley Street where most properties front cross
streets rather than East Meadow Drive. The nonstandard width parking lanes with
rolled curbs result in parked vehicles encroaching on either the sidewalks or the
bicycle lanes (or both, for large vehicles) and create dooring risks for bicycle lane
users.
2.a
Packet Pg. 39
Shorelineat Mtn.View Park
BaylandsPreserve
Mitchell Park
3101
W
est
El
C
a
min
o
R
e
al
SanAntonioRoad
East Ch arleston Road
Louis Ro
a
d
da
o
R
s
i
u
o
L
Bay
s
h
o
r
e
P
a
rk
w
a
y
Alma Str
e
e
t
Aras
t
r
a
d
e
r
o
R
o
a
d
SanAntonioRoad
E
ast
B
ays
h
o
re
R
o
a
d
yW
n
a
i
b
a
F
East Charleston Road
W
e
st
Mid
dle
eldRoad
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
W
y
Eas tMeado w D riv e
West Charleston Roa
d
Lo ma Verd
e
A
v
e
nue
We
s
t
B
a
y
s
ho
re
R
o
a
d
·82
5,
5
4
7
1,814
4,62
0
5,105
792 32
0
,
4
C:
\
U
s
e
r
s
\
j
m
u
l
l
e
n
\
O
n
e
D
r
i
v
e
-
F
e
h
r
&
P
e
e
r
s
\
D
e
s
k
t
o
p
\
G
I
S
\
S
o
P
A
_
M
a
p
s
\
S
o
P
A
_
M
a
p
s
.
a
p
r
x
Average Weekday Vehicle Volume and Turning Movement Counts
1,000
5,000
Figure 2
E M
e
a
d
o
w
Cir
BE
5 (12
)
139 (
2
3
2
)
22 (2
1
)
9 (2
3
)
2 (2)
2 (2
1
)
2 (6)
151
(
2
0
4
)
19 (2
6
)
E. M
e
a
d
o
w
D
r
Wa
v
e
r
l
y
S
t
D
DBE
3 (1
3
)
2 (5)
7 (1
0
)
BE
7 (
1
0
)
59
(
9
9
)
0 (
0
)
1 (8)5 (1)19 (30)
34
(
1
9
)
78
(
1
0
2
)
42
(
1
7
)
Fa
b
i
a
n
W
a
y
E. Meadow Dr
D D
BE
7 (17)
2 (0)23 (47)
0 (
0
)
4 (
6
)
12
(
9
)
17 (7)13 (3)15 (16)
2 (
2
)
5 (
7
)
16
(
3
2
)
E.
M
e
a
d
o
w
D
r
E. Meadow Cir
D D0 (0)3 (23)3 (4)
E.
M
e
a
d
o
w
C
i
r
E. Meadow Dr
D
D
10 (10
)
34 (50
)
9 (17)
9 (9
)
286
(
3
5
3
)
109
(
1
0
1
)
48 (65
)
22 (75
)
86 (12
1
)
E. Mea
d
o
w
D
r
Mid
d
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
R
d
ACE
2 (1
7
)268
(
4
2
3
)
62 (
8
7
)
ACEA
E
AE
AM (PM)
vehicles/hour
Peak Hour Intersection
Turning- Movement Counts
AA
F
Signalized
Intersection
Average Daily Vehicle Volume Stop-controlled
Intersection
2.a
Packet Pg. 40
Shorelineat Mtn.View Park
BaylandsPreserve
Mitchell Park
3101
W
est
El
C
a
min
o
R
e
al
SanAntonioRoad
EastCh arlesto n R oad
Louis Road
daoR siuoL
Bay
s
h
o
r
e
P
a
rk
w
a
y
Alma Street
Arastradero Road
SanAntonioRoad
East Mea d o w Drive
E
ast
B
ays
h
ore
R
o
a
d
yW naibaF
East Charleston Road
W
e
st
Mid
dle
eldRoad
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
W
y
West Charleston Road
Lo ma Verde Avenue
W
est B
a
ysho
re R
o
a
d
·82
AM (PM)pedestrians or bicycles/hourPeak Hour Pedestrian and Bicycle Intersection Turning- Movement CountsAA
F
C:
\
U
s
e
r
s
\
j
m
u
l
l
e
n
\
O
n
e
D
r
i
v
e
-
F
e
h
r
&
P
e
e
r
s
\
D
e
s
k
t
o
p
\
G
I
S
\
S
o
PA_
M
a
p
s
\
S
o
PA_
M
a
p
s
.
a
p
r
x
Bicycle and Pedestrian Volumes
Fabian Way
E. Meadow Dr.
Waverley Pathway
!Study Intersections
Cities
Figure 3
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
2 (1)
10
(
3
)
1 (5)
0 (
0
)
0 (
0
)
0 (
0
)
0 (
0
)
0 (
0
)
1 (
3
)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)4 (
1
)
E.
M
e
a
d
o
w
D
r
E. Meadow Cir E.
M
e
a
d
o
w
C
i
r
E. Meadow Dr
D D
D
D
0 (0)
0 (0)1 (0)
0 (0)
0 (
0
)
4 (6)
0 (
0
)
0 (
1
)
0 (
0
)
0 (
0
)
1 (
1
)
0 (
0
)
0 (0)
0 (0)0 (0)0 (
4
)
Fa
b
i
a
n
W
a
y
BE
D D
BE
E. Meadow Dr
0 (0
)
3 (1
)
0 (3
)
1 (
4
)
6 (12
)
8 (
8
)
0 (1)
0 (2)
0 (0)
1 (1)
2 (5)
0 (5)
0 (0)
0 (4)
1 (0
)
2 (15
)
Mid
d
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
R
d
ACE
ACEAE
AE
E. Me
a
d
o
w
D
r
BE
E. Me
a
d
o
w
D
r
Wav
e
r
l
y
S
t
D
DBE
0 (0)
0 (6
)
0 (0
)
1 (1
2
)
33 (1
9
)16 (
1
4
)
0 (0)
8 (14
)
1 (0)
0 (0)
5 (12
)
0 (0)
6 (0)
0 (0
)
0 (0
)
5 (27
)
!
!
!!
1
2
3 4
2.a
Packet Pg. 41
Shorelineat Mtn.View Park
BaylandsPreserve
Mitchell Park
3101
W
e
s
t
El
C
a
min
o
R
e
al
SanAntonioRoad
E a st C h a rle st o n R o a d
Lo
u
i
s
R
o
a
d
Lo
u
i
s
R
o
a
d
Bays
h
o
r
e
P
a
r
k
w
a
y
Al
m
a
S
t
r
e
e
t
Mid
d
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
R
o
a
d
Ara
s
t
r
a
d
e
r
o
R
o
a
d
SanAntonioRoad
EastM
e
a
d
o
w
D
r
i
v
e
East
B
aysh
ore
R
oad
Old Middlefield Wy
Mi
d
d
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
R
o
a
d
Fa
b
i
a
n
W
y
East Charleston Road
W
e
st
M
id
dle
field
Road
E
l
C
ami
n
o
W
y
West
C
h
a
r
l
e
s
t
o
n
R
o
a
d
Lom
a
V
e
r
d
e
A
v
e
n
u
e
W
e
s
t
B
a
y
s
h
o
r
e
R
o
a
d
∙82
FairmeadowElementary
School
Herbert HooverElementary School
JLS Middle
School
Mitchell
Park Library
Cubberley
Community
Center
Greendell
School
Palo Verde
Elementary
School
C:
\
U
s
e
r
s
\
j
m
u
l
l
e
n
\
O
n
e
D
r
i
v
e
-
F
e
h
r
&
P
e
e
r
s
\
D
e
s
k
t
o
p
\
G
I
S
\
S
o
P
A
_
M
a
p
s
\
S
o
P
A
_
M
a
p
s
.
a
p
r
x
85th Percentile Weekday Vehicle Speed
30 mph
31 - 35 mph
36 - 40 mph
> 40 mph Figure 4
85th Percentile Vehicle Speeds
2.a
Packet Pg. 42
Joanna Chan & Sylvia Star-Lack
June 23, 2021
Page 9 of 16
Fabian Way
Roadway Configuration
Fabian Way is an approximately 0.5-mile long four-lane local/collector street with a shared Class II
bicycle facilities and on-street parking along the east street edge. The street runs between East
Charleston Road and East Meadow Drive where it transitions to a two-lane section and continues
as West Bayshore Road. Sidewalks are provided on both sides of the street separated from the
traveled way with planter strips. Five marked, uncontrolled crosswalks are provided along the
corridor, three of which are equipped with pedestrian-actuated flashing warning beacons. The
posted speed limit is 30 mph. Fabian Way is a designated through truck route.2
Prior to the COVID-19 shelter-in-place orders, two transit routes operated along Fabian Way:
Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) School Tripper line 288 and the Altamont Commuter
Express (ACE) Orange Line shuttle. The ACE Orange Line shuttle is currently operating while VTA
line 288 is suspended. Both routes share on-street stops along the corridor.
Land Use Context
A mix of land uses fronting the Fabian Way corridor. The northern portion of the corridor is
distinctly commercial/industrial while the southern half includes residential, educational, and
community-serving facilities concentrated at the Fabian Way / Federation Way intersection. This
intersection connects Fabian Way to Kehillah Jewish High School and the Oshman Family Jewish
Community Center, a roughly nine-acre campus with community facilities, housing, and a
conference center and Alta Torre, a 56-unit affordable multifamily housing development for very-
low-income seniors.
Transportation Conditions
•April 2021 Roadway Volumes: As shown in Figure 2, average weekday daily traffic
volumes are between approximately 5,500 and 4,000 vpd, which is similar to the
volume on East Meadow Drive between Alma Street and Middlefield Road. Historic
2013 traffic count data provided by the City indicates that traffic volumes were
approximately 10,100 vpd.
•April 2021 Intersection Volumes: Figure 2 shows intersection turning movement
counts during the weekday AM and PM peak hours. Observations indicate that peak
period demand for vehicles turning from Fabian Way onto East Charleston Road is
high, resulting in queuing and delays. Other intersections and driveways along the
corridor generally do not experience notable queuing, though vehicles turning left
from Fabian Way into driveways can cause backups due to blockages of the left lane.
2 Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 10.48: Trucks and Truck Routes:
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/transportation/wide-load-permits/truck-route-map-city-
of-palo-alto.pdf
2.a
Packet Pg. 43
Joanna Chan & Sylvia Star-Lack
June 23, 2021
Page 10 of 16
Bicycle and Pedestrian Activity: Figure 3 shows April 2021 intersection volumes for
active modes on Fabian Way. Historic counts for Fabian Way were not available for
comparison, but additional manual data collection of active modes completed in late
May 2021 generally showed 5-15 bicyclists and 10-25 pedestrians traveling along
Fabian Way during peak hours approximately 300 feet north of East Charleston Road.
An average of 30 active transportation users were observed at this location during
the morning peak hour (7:30-8:30 AM), with an average of 20 during the afternoon
peak hour (4:30-5:30 pm) over two days. Anecdotal reports indicate that parents
generally discourage students’ use of Fabian Way for walking or biking trips due to
roadway widths, traffic volumes, and vehicle speeds.
•April 2021 Vehicle Speeds: The 85th percentile motor vehicle speed along the study
corridor is between 42 mph and 38 mph as shown on Figure 4. Speeds are generally
higher between Federation Way and East Meadow Drive (42 mph) and are lower south
of Federation Way. However, 85th percentile speeds along all segments exceed the 35
mph posted speed limit.
•On-street Parking: Parking is provided by a nonstandard shared parking/bicycle lane
on the east side of Fabian Way for a majority of the corridor and is understood to be
utilized by a mix of residential, office, and school users at different times of day. Large
vehicles also park along Fabian Way at times and package/freight delivery services
have been observed using the parking as loading/unloading space.
•Uncontrolled Crosswalks: As previously noted, five uncontrolled crosswalks are
currently provided across Fabian Way between East Charleston Road and East
Meadow Drive. The mid-block crosswalk located approximately 300 feet north of East
Charleston Road does not have curb ramps and is, therefore, not ADA compliant. The
crosswalk cannot be upgraded to compliance in its current location since it utilizes a
driveway for access on the west side of the street.
This crosswalk generally sees low usage since it does not serve major pedestrian
desire lines and is located between two crosswalks with enhancements or signal
control at Federation Way and East Charleston Road, respectively. Additionally, peak
period queues on southbound Fabian Way from East Charleston Road extend into this
crosswalk, creating a hazardous condition for interactions between drivers and
pedestrians.
2.a
Packet Pg. 44
Joanna Chan & Sylvia Star-Lack
June 23, 2021
Page 11 of 16
Analysis and Project Concepts
A number of existing issues and potential opportunities have been identified for each of the
project corridors. Based upon these, two preliminary improvement ideas have been developed as
described below.
Waverley Multi-Use Path
Issues & Opportunities
•Narrow Pathway: The pathway paved section is approximately eight feet wide as
measured from edge of pavement to the adjacent fence. Class I pathway standards
recommend a 12-foot minimum horizontal cross-section free of vertical obstructions
(eight feet paved, two-foot shoulders on either edge). The pathway narrows to less
than eight feet at pinch points where fire hydrants, overgrown vegetation, or lifted
tree roots encroach into the pathway alignment.
•Existing Tree Locations: While the pathway right-of-way width is estimated at
approximately 16 feet, an eight to five-foot-wide landscape strip separates the
pathway from the westerly right-of-way edge. Twenty-eight trees are within this area
and approximately 15 would potentially require removal due to construction
disturbances associated with removing and replacing the pathway paving3. Some of
the tree removals could allow for pathway widening. In general, a goal of the project
is to avoid tree removals explicitly for path widening where possible.
•Existing Fire Hydrants: In addition to trees located on the west side off the path, three
fire hydrants located on the east edge of the path (between the path and vehicle
circulation paths for JLS School) also cause reduced path width.
•Existing Fence: The path is directly adjacent to a chain-link fence throughout, with the
fence additionally intruding into the path around each of the fire hydrants. The fence
is approximately four feet tall and can interfere with bicycle handlebars, causing
crashes for students traveling on the path.
Concept Response & Features
•Option1 – Widen Path Only into Grassy Strip: This option would consist of widening
the path toward the grassy strip away from the school where feasible to
accommodate larger flows and potentially a more consistent path width. This would
help to address narrower portions of the path adjacent to two fire hydrants. One of
the three fire hydrants is directly across from a tree, and widening is unlikely without
removal of that tree. Additionally, replacement or modification of the fence to
provide a barrier which does not interfere with handlebars would help to increase the
effective width of the path.
3 Preliminary Arborist Report: Bike Path, Herbert Hoover Elementary School to Jane Lathrop Stanford Middle
School. HortScience | Bartlett Consulting, March 24, 2021
2.a
Packet Pg. 45
Joanna Chan & Sylvia Star-Lack
June 23, 2021
Page 12 of 16
•Option2 – Widen Path Toward Either Side: While Option 1 could allow for increasing
the path width in many locations, tree removals would be required in order to
provide a facility of consistent width by widening only away from the school property.
Option 2 would consist of shifting the separation between the path and vehicle
circulation to allow widening adjacent to existing trees and vegetation located on the
west side of the path. This option would also include modifications to the existing
chain-link fence and may require the use of mountable separators to maintain
emergency vehicle access along the vehicle circulation drive.
•Any modifications for both options would require coordination with both PAUSD and
the Fire Department.
East Meadow Drive
Issues & Opportunities
•High Vehicle Speeds: Speeds along the entire corridor exceed the posted speed limit
but are highest adjacent to the PAUSD campus and Mitchell Park frontages.
•Vehicle Parking & Bikeway/Sidewalk Conflicts: Due to the existing nonstandard width
parking lanes and rolled curb on most segments, vehicles – particularly large vehicles
– are often parked either intruding on the bicycle lane or the adjacent sidewalk.
•School Drop-Off & Bikeway Conflicts: School pick-up and drop-off appears to occur
along both curbs between Waverley Street and Cowper Street, creating potential
conflicts between drivers attempting to reach the curb and through bicyclists.
•Students Bicycling: Bicycling by JLS students has increased from 48% of the school
population in 2009 to 70% in 2019. Similarly, bicycling by Gunn students has
increased from 33% in 2009 to 50% in 2019. For the coming school year, start times
of 8:30 AM for JLS and 9:00 AM for Gunn could result in even higher rates of bicycling
and walking as parents’ work schedules may no longer align with a morning school
drop-off. This has the potential to increase bicycle demand, particularly on East
Meadow Drive.
•Bus Stops & Bikeway Conflicts: Several on-street bus stops are situated along the East
Meadow Drive corridor, requiring buses to cross and potentially block the existing
bicycle lanes when serving a curbside stop.
Two Proposed Bikeway Design Options
Two preliminary ideas are under consideration for the Meadow Drive corridor:
•Option 1 – Buffered Bicycle Lanes: This option would remove all on-street parking on
one side of the street and reallocate the space to provide a three-foot striped buffer
between vehicle and bicycle travel lanes in both directions. On-street parking would
remain on one side of the street.
2.a
Packet Pg. 46
Joanna Chan & Sylvia Star-Lack
June 23, 2021
Page 13 of 16
•Option 2 – Separated Bikeways: In contrast to Option 1, this option would separate
the bikeway from vehicles, including on-street parking, by a buffer with a physical
feature such as curbs or delineators. All on-street parking would be removed on the
one side of the street. For the side of the street where on-street parking is retained,
parking lane widths would be enlarged to a standard 8-foot width and additional
stalls would be removed to provide sight line buffers at intersections and major
driveways.
Concept Response & Features
•Facility Type: Meadow Drive’s vehicle
speed and volume in conjunction with
the corridor’s status as a suggested route
to school led to the selection of both
buffered and separated bikeway
concepts. As shown in Table 1, the
corridor’s vehicle speed and volume
characteristics align with either providing
a separated or buffered bicycle facility.
•Option 2 Lessens Sidewalk Parking
Encroachment: The Palo Alto Bicycle and
Pedestrain Transportation Plan notes that
rolled curbs can lead to sidewalk
blockages from parked vehicle
encroachment. This condition would be
prevented in Option 2, since parking is
removed from the curb and the remaining
parking lane would be re-sized to a standard
8-foot width.
Fabian Way
Issues & Opportunities
Coordination with Other Projects: Modifications proposed as part of this project must
be coordinated with the development of the Charleston/Arastradero project,
including lane configurations and bicycle accommodations at the East Charleston
Road intersection. The proposed intersection improvements include removal of dual
turn lanes on both approaches of East Charleston Road, which will result in metering
of traffic entering Fabian Way such that two northbound travel lanes would not be
beneficial. Combined with the existing lack of auxiliary lanes that result in the lefthand
through lane being blocked by left turn vehicles awaiting gaps in oncoming traffic, a
reduction in through lanes with addition of a center two-way left-turn lane can be
expected to better serve traffic demands on Fabian Way. Additionally, with the
Table 1: Recommended bicycle facility
types given vehicle speed and volume
characteristics. Source: Bikeway
Selection Guide, FHWA
2.a
Packet Pg. 47
Joanna Chan & Sylvia Star-Lack
June 23, 2021
Page 14 of 16
anticipated opening of the Highway 101 Pedestrian/Bike Bridge and development of
the Charleston/Arastradero project, Fabian Way is envisioned to serve more active
transportation users and would benefit from enhanced facilities.
•High Speeds and Low Volume: 85th Percentile speeds along the corridor reach 42 mph
which is above the 35 mph posted speed limit while volumes are similar to the
Meadow Drive segments west of Middlefield Road. The low volume suggests the
four-lane section may have excess capacity that could be repurposed to other uses.
•Bus Stops & Bikeway Conflicts: Like the East Meadow Drive corridor, several on-street
bus stops are situated along the Fabian Way corridor, requiring buses to cross and
potentially block the existing bicycle lanes when serving a curbside stop, but bus
activity is limited to several trips during peak periods and directions only.
•Vehicle Parking & Bikeway Conflicts: Due to the existing nonstandard shared
parking/bicycle lane, vehicles – particularly large vehicles – are often parked intruding
on the traveled way for bicyclists. The constrained space also limits opportunities for
bicyclists to avoid vehicle doors which are opened into their path.
•Vulnerable Users: While much of the corridor appears commercial and industrial, the
Federation Way / Fabian Way intersection is a node of potential vulnerable user
activity. The crosswalk by Federation Way provides access to a senior housing facility,
the Oshman Jewish Community Center, and to the Kehillah Jewish High School. High
pedestrian crossing activity is often expected here.
•Truck Route: Fabian Way is a City-designated truck route, and design enhancements
will need to be balanced with the need to accommodate appropriate design vehicles.
Two Proposed Bikeway Design Options
Two preliminary ideas are under consideration for the Fabian Way corridor:
•Option 1 – Buffered Bicycle Lanes: All on-street parking would be removed, and the
bicycle lanes would be separated from motor vehicle traffic with three-foot striped
buffers. Four travel lanes would remain.
•Option 2 – Separated Bikeway: Most on-street parking would be retained on the
northbound side of the corridor. The parking lane provided would be sized to better
accommodate vehicles of different sizes, including those used for package delivery.
One vehicle travel lane in each direction would be removed and a center two-way
left-turn lane would be provided. Bicycle facilities would be placed against the curb
and separated from vehicles with physical barriers such as curbs or delineators.
Concept Response & Features
•Facility Type: Vehicle speeds and volumes on Fabian Way suggest excess vehicle
capacity can lead to speeding, particularly during off-peak periods, which can cause
discomfort to bicyclists and pedestrians. The Option 1 striped buffers would provide
additional lateral separation between vehicles and bicycles, but Option 2
2.a
Packet Pg. 48
Joanna Chan & Sylvia Star-Lack
June 23, 2021
Page 15 of 16
incorporating lane reduction has greater likelihood to reduce vehicle speeds and
retain on-street vehicle parking. As noted in Figure 5, the risk of bicyclist or
pedestrian death due to a collision with a moving vehicle increases greatly as vehicle
speeds increase.
Upcoming City investment in improved bicycle facilities on each end of Fabian Way,
as well as an existing mix of recreation, education, employment, and residential uses,
are anticipated to increase and diversify active transportation use along and across
Fabian Way. Given the existing high pedestrian crossing activity along with
anticipated increase in bicycling, the City should consider separated facilities which
could reduce vehicle speeds and make crosswalks shorter.
Figure 5: Vehicle Speed Comparison to Chance of Injury or Fatality.
Source: SFMTA Vision Zero Action Plan
•Vehicle Lane Reduction: The observed traffic volumes on Fabian Way in April 2021
were less than 6,000 vpd, though it is acknowledged that these volumes are
suppressed by changes in travel characteristics caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) advises that four-lane roadways with fewer
than 20,000 vpd may be good candidates for lane reductions4, suggesting this may
be a viable option for Fabian Way.
•Marked Uncontrolled Crosswalks: Without proper countermeasures, marked,
uncontrolled crosswalks are potentially hazardous along four-lane high speed
roadways such as Fabian Way. The City has been upgrading the crosswalks with
FHWA-recommended countermeasures5 - flashing beacons and median islands - and
4 Road Diet Information Guide, FHWA, November 2014.
https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/road_diets/guidance/info_guide/rdig.pdf
5 Safety Effects of Marked Versus Unmarked Crosswalks at Uncontrolled Locations, FHWA, September 2005.
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/04100/04100.pdf
2.a
Packet Pg. 49
Joanna Chan & Sylvia Star-Lack
June 23, 2021
Page 16 of 16
both concepts would augment these features. Option 2, however would provide
additional support by eliminating the “double threat” risk of multilane approaches to
uncontrolled crosswalks and would likely reduce vehicle speeds, thus lessening
severity of a collision should one occur.
As previously noted, the mid-block crosswalk located approximately 300 feet north of
East Charleston Road does not have curb ramps and is, therefore, not ADA compliant.
The crosswalk cannot be upgraded to compliance in its current location since it
utilizes a driveway for access on the north side of the street.
This crosswalk generally sees low usage since it does not serve major pedestrian
desire lines and is located between two crosswalks with enhancements or signal
control at Federation Way and East Charleston Road, respectively. Additionally, peak
period queues on southbound Fabian Way from East Charleston Road extend into
this crosswalk, creating a hazardous condition for interactions between drivers and
pedestrians. Given these factors, the City should investigate modifying or eliminating
this crosswalk if future land use changes are not anticipated to generate additional
pedestrian demand.
Key Findings
1. COVID-19 Effect on Traffic Conditions: COVID-19 may still be affecting travel activity in
the study area and transportation volumes for vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians may be
lower than typical pre-pandemic conditions.
2. Leverage On-Street Bikeways to Broaden Access to US-101 Overcrossing: The new
US-101 overcrossing at Adobe Creek represents a substantial investment in the city’s
bikeway network. Enhancements to the bridge’s approaches, including improved active
transportation access to/from East Meadow Drive and Fabian Way, can extend the
connectivity benefits to reach more people and destinations.
3. East Meadow Drive Bicycle Facility Selection: Either separated or buffered bicycle lanes
could be a suitable facility type along the broader East Meadow Corridor, however special
consideration is required at the school drop-off areas to minimize vehicle-bicycle conflicts
and promote the City’s Sustainability, Climate Action, and Safe Routes to School non-auto
school commute goals. Selection of facility type may differ for blocks which provide
primary access to adjacent properties on East Meadow Drive and those that do not (such
as south of Waverley Street).
4. Student Bicycling: Bicycling by students at PAUSD schools has trended upward for many
years. For the coming school year, revised start times of 8:30 AM for JLS and 9:00 AM for
Gunn could result in increased rates of student bicycling and walking as parents’ work
schedules may no longer align with a morning school drop-off. This has the potential to
increase bicycle demand, particularly on East Meadow Drive.
5. Fabian Way Speeds Fabian Way’s vehicle speed and volume suggest excess vehicle
capacity is leading to speeding, which could cause discomfort to cyclists. The Option 1
striped buffers would provide additional lateral separation between vehicles and bicycles,
but only the Option 2 lane reduction concept would likely reduce vehicle speeds.
2.a
Packet Pg. 50
Attachments
2.a
Packet Pg. 51
2.a
Packet Pg. 52
Fabian Way one-hour ped and bike counts at westernmost mid-block crossing
Using westernmost mid-block crosswalk
Date Time Pedestrians Bicyclists Total Pedestrians & Bikes
Tuesday, May 25, 2021 7:30-8:30 am 27 12 39 2
Tuesday, May 25, 2021 4:30-5:30 pm 14 11 25 3
Wednesday, May 26, 2021 7:30-8:30 am 15 7 22 1
Wednesday, May 26, 2021 4:30-5:30 pm 10 4 14 0
Source: City of Palo Alto, May 2021
Traveling along Fabian
2.a
Packet Pg. 53
www.idaxdata.com
to
to
Two-Hour Count Summaries
Note: Two-hour count summary volumes include heavy vehicles but exclude bicycles in overall count.
Total
12
6
12
10
8
31
8
8
95
55
Date: 03-31-2021
Peak Hour Count Period: 7:00 AM 9:00 AM
SB 8.3%0.75
TOTAL 1.7%0.80
TH RT
WB 0.6%0.81
NB 7.7%0.54
Peak Hour: 8:00 AM 9:00 AM
HV %:PHF
EB 1.7%0.77
UT LT TH RT UT LT
Rolling
One HourEastboundWestboundNorthboundSouthbound
UT LT TH RT
Interval
Start
E. Meadow Dr E. Meadow Dr Waverley St Waverley St 15-min
TotalUTLTTHRT
0 1 7 1 0 0
1 0 1 27 0
7:15 AM 0 0 11 1
1 0 0 0 0 07:00 AM 0 0 16 0 0 1 7
2 1 0 39 0
7:45 AM 0 2 20 3
0 0 0 0 1 0
21 0
7:30 AM 0 0 14 4 0 1 16
0 0 0 0 0 0
52 139
8:00 AM 0 0 39 6 0 5 28
0 1 0 0 0 40318100
0 6 43 2 0 0
2 0 1 83 195
8:15 AM 0 1 51 4
1 0 1 0 0 0
1 1 1 84 333
8:45 AM 0 0 28 5
0 0 0 2 1 0
114 288
8:30 AM 0 1 33 4 0 5 35
0 3 0 0 0 4
82 3630500110633201
Count Total 0 4 212 27 0 28 187 6 3 12 502 0
Peak
Hour
All 0 2 151
8 0 2 2 11 0
0 1 0 0 6 0000100
7 363 0
HV 0 0 3 0 0 1
2 2 9 0 3 21902213950
0
Interval
Start
Heavy Vehicle Totals Bicycles Pedestrians (Crossing Leg)
EB WB NB SB Total
0%-33%0%0%2%5%0%0%-50%0%HV%-0%2%0%-
1 6
7:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
0 0 0 1 0 5
West North South
7:00 AM 0 2 0 0 2 1
EB WB NB SB Total East
7:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0
2 5 1 5 4 2
3
7:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0
0 0 2 0 2 1
2 1
8:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 2 4
3 0 0 4 0 5
3 2 4
8:00 AM 1 1 1 1 4 1
1 2 0 1 4 1
8:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0
0 5 0 1 0 7
20
8:30 AM 2 0 0 0 2 1 1 3
3 0 9 1 7 3
3 0 5110020
13 48
Peak Hour 3 1 1 1 6 5 9
14 6 3 32 3 31Count Total 3 3 1 1 8 9
3360201165
0
5
0
0 0 0
600
0
8
1
5
33
16 1
N
Waverley St
E. Meadow Dr
E. Meadow Dr
Wa
v
e
r
l
e
y
S
t
E. Meadow Dr
Wa
v
e
r
l
e
y
S
t
363TEV:
0.8PHF:
7 2 3
12 9
0
5
139
22
166
1630
922
1343
0
19
151
2
172
148 0
Project Manager: (415) 310-6469 project.manager.ca@idaxdata.com
2.a
Packet Pg. 54
www.idaxdata.com
Two-Hour Count Summaries - Heavy Vehicles
Two-Hour Count Summaries - Bikes
Note: U-Turn volumes for bikes are included in Left-Turn, if any.
SouthboundNorthboundWestboundEastbound
Northbound Southbound
UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT
Interval
Start
E. Meadow Dr E. Meadow Dr Waverley St Waverley St 15-min
Total
Rolling
One HourEastboundWestbound
0 0 0 2 0
7:15 AM 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
TH RT
7:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
UT LT TH RT UT LT
0 0
7:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0000000
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
7:45 AM 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
1 0 0 4 4
8:15 AM 0 0 0 0
0 0 1 0 0 0
0 2
8:00 AM 0 0 1 0 0 1 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 4
8:30 AM 0 0 2 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0000000
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 2 6
8:45 AM 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 6000000
1 0 0 8 0
Peak Hour 0 0 3 0
0 0 1 0 0 0Count Total 0 0 3 0 0 1 2
1 07:00 AM
RT
6 0
Interval
Start
E. Meadow Dr E. Meadow Dr Waverley St Waverley St 15-min
Total
Rolling
One Hour
0 0 0 1 0 0010001
RTTHLT RTTHLTRT
12
8:00 AM
4000
5 0
7:45 AM
0 0 0 1
0
7:30 AM
20000007:15 AM 0
0 1
1 1 0
5 22
8:45 AM
0 0 3 0
22
8:30 AM
9300000
4 15
8:15 AM
0 0 0
0 2 0
0 1 0
0 4 0
2020000100
Peak Hour
2 1Count Total
0
THLT
20600000
32 00006
0 0
0 0
0010
0
0
2
00
0
THLT
00000000
1
10
0
0
1 2 0
0 1 1
0
050 1 8 0
270 2 10 2
0 1 0
0 1 0
1 0
1 0 0
0 0 0
Project Manager: (415) 310-6469 project.manager.ca@idaxdata.com
2.a
Packet Pg. 55
www.idaxdata.com
to
to
Two-Hour Count Summaries
Note: Two-hour count summary volumes include heavy vehicles but exclude bicycles in overall count.
Total
10
20
11
17
9
16
30
25
138
72
Date: 03-31-2021
Peak Hour Count Period: 4:00 PM 6:00 PM
SB 0.0%0.70
TOTAL 0.0%0.81
TH RT
WB 0.0%0.87
NB 0.0%0.41
Peak Hour: 4:45 PM 5:45 PM
HV %:PHF
EB 0.0%0.88
UT LT TH RT UT LT
Rolling
One HourEastboundWestboundNorthboundSouthbound
UT LT TH RT
Interval
Start
E. Meadow Dr E. Meadow Dr Waverley St Waverley St 15-min
TotalUTLTTHRT
0 1 40 2 0 2
1 0 2 137 0
4:15 PM 0 2 79 3
4 0 5 0 11 04:00 PM 0 2 55 3 0 2 52
2 0 5 112 0
4:45 PM 0 2 42 2
1 0 5 1 3 0
134 0
4:30 PM 0 2 41 0 0 1 51
0 3 0 2 0 0
119 502
5:00 PM 1 1 48 7 0 4 51
0 1 0 5 0 50356300
0 10 56 1 0 5
2 1 0 129 494
5:15 PM 0 0 56 11
5 0 6 1 2 0
0 2 4 177 576
5:45 PM 0 0 43 4
3 0 10 1 17 0
151 511
5:30 PM 0 3 58 6 0 4 69
0 3 0 6 2 1
88 5450102000134201
Count Total 1 12 422 36 0 26 409 20 5 17 1,047 0
Peak
Hour
All 1 6 204
21 0 34 3 41 0
0 0 0 0 0 0000000
10 576 0
HV 0 0 0 0 0 0
21 2 23 0 13 526021232120
0
Interval
Start
Heavy Vehicle Totals Bicycles Pedestrians (Crossing Leg)
EB WB NB SB Total
0%-0%0%0%0%0%0%0%-0%0%HV%0%0%0%0%-
0 6
4:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 7 4
3 0 0 5 2 2
West North South
4:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 2
EB WB NB SB Total East
4:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0
2 15 1 7 0 3
9
4:30 PM 0 1 0 0 1 5 6 2
0 0 11 1 8 2
1 4
5:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 2 2
5 0 0 10 2 2
0 12 4
5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 5
2 2 0 4 8 1
5:45 PM 1 0 0 0 1
0 8 5 8 8 9
2
5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 3 5 0
0 2 6 4 4 6
6 4 88320137
33 45
Peak Hour 0 0 0 0 0 12 14
30 4 8 76 23 37Count Total 1 1 0 0 2 34
190632121427
0
12
0
0 6 0
000
0
14
0
27
19
14 12
N
Waverley St
E. Meadow Dr
E. Meadow Dr
Wa
v
e
r
l
e
y
S
t
E. Meadow Dr
Wa
v
e
r
l
e
y
S
t
576TEV:
0.81PHF:
10 5 13
28 20
0
12
232
21
265
2400
23221
4652
0
26
204
6
237
264 1
Project Manager: (415) 310-6469 project.manager.ca@idaxdata.com
2.a
Packet Pg. 56
www.idaxdata.com
Two-Hour Count Summaries - Heavy Vehicles
Two-Hour Count Summaries - Bikes
Note: U-Turn volumes for bikes are included in Left-Turn, if any.
SouthboundNorthboundWestboundEastbound
Northbound Southbound
UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT
Interval
Start
E. Meadow Dr E. Meadow Dr Waverley St Waverley St 15-min
Total
Rolling
One HourEastboundWestbound
0 0 0 0 0
4:15 PM 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
TH RT
4:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
UT LT TH RT UT LT
0 0
4:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
0 0 0 0 0 0000000
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 1 0
4:45 PM 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 1
5:15 PM 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 1
5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 1
5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0000000
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
5:45 PM 0 0 1 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
1 1000000
0 0 0 2 0
Peak Hour 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0Count Total 0 0 1 0 0 0 1
5 04:00 PM
RT
0 0
Interval
Start
E. Meadow Dr E. Meadow Dr Waverley St Waverley St 15-min
Total
Rolling
One Hour
0 0 0 0 0 0000000
RTTHLT RTTHLTRT
39
5:00 PM
8000
15 0
4:45 PM
0 2 0 0
0
4:30 PM
110000004:15 PM 0
4 2
0 2 0
8 32
5:45 PM
0 0 0 0
39
5:30 PM
6002000
10 44
5:15 PM
0 0 0
0 2 0
0 3 0
0 2 0
37130020800
Peak Hour
0 8Count Total
0
THLT
32006000
76 00040
0 0
0 0
0020
0
0
1
16
4
THLT
00000003
2
50
0
0
0 5 0
0 4 0
0
0120 0 14 0
2320 0 27 3
0 5 0
0 2 1
2 0
0 4 0
0 0 0
Project Manager: (415) 310-6469 project.manager.ca@idaxdata.com
2.a
Packet Pg. 57
www.idaxdata.com
to
to
Two-Hour Count Summaries
Note: Two-hour count summary volumes include heavy vehicles but exclude bicycles in overall count.
Total
1
3
3
2
2
0
0
2
13
4
Date: 03-31-2021
Peak Hour Count Period: 7:00 AM 9:00 AM
SB 11.8%0.81
TOTAL 9.0%0.85
TH RT
WB 16.0%0.89
NB 6.5%0.82
Peak Hour: 8:00 AM 9:00 AM
HV %:PHF
EB 9.4%0.80
UT LT TH RT UT LT
Rolling
One HourEastboundWestboundNorthboundSouthbound
UT LT TH RT
Interval
Start
E. Meadow Dr E. Meadow Dr Fabian Way Fabian Way 15-min
TotalUTLTTHRT
0 4 2 0 0 5
5 4 0 51 0
7:15 AM 0 1 1 2
0 0 12 7 16 17:00 AM 0 1 0 2 0 1 2
2 4 1 49 0
7:45 AM 0 2 1 8
1 0 7 11 14 0
39 0
7:30 AM 0 2 0 4 0 2 1
8 10 0 1 4 1
64 203
8:00 AM 0 3 2 4 0 3 2
18 13 0 0 8 0023207
0 6 1 0 0 5
0 20 1 82 234
8:15 AM 0 1 0 6
0 0 8 30 9 0
0 6 3 62 273
8:45 AM 0 3 0 7
0 0 12 18 10 1
65 260
8:30 AM 0 0 0 6 0 5 1
16 14 1 0 13 2
70 27914900201051109
Count Total 0 13 4 39 0 28 13 8 79 9 482 0
Peak
Hour
All 0 7 2
4 0 65 122 95 3
2 0 6 0 25 0300442
7 279 0
HV 0 0 0 3 0 1
34 78 42 2 0 5923019510
0
Interval
Start
Heavy Vehicle Totals Bicycles Pedestrians (Crossing Leg)
EB WB NB SB Total
5%100%-10%0%9%5%60%0%-12%5%HV%-0%0%13%-
0 1
7:15 AM 0 0 4 0 4 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
West North South
7:00 AM 1 0 0 1 2 0
EB WB NB SB Total East
7:45 AM 0 0 2 0 2
0 1 1 0 0 2
2
7:30 AM 1 0 2 0 3 1 0 0
0 0 0 0 1 0
0 2
8:15 AM 0 1 0 3 4 0 0
0 1 0 1 0 0
0 0 0
8:00 AM 1 1 4 0 6 0
0 0 0 1 1 2
8:45 AM 1 1 2 4 8
0 0 0 0 0 0
0
8:30 AM 1 1 4 1 7 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 2100010
0 9
Peak Hour 3 4 10 8 25 1 0
0 1 1 4 3 1Count Total 5 4 18 9 36 2
4102000
1
0
0
0 0 0
010
0
0
0
0
4
0 0
N
Fabian Way
E. Meadow Dr
E. Meadow Dr
Fa
b
i
a
n
W
a
y
E. Meadow Dr
Fa
b
i
a
n
W
a
y
279TEV:
0.85PHF:
7 59 0
68 88
2
1
5
19
25
440
427834
15
4
10
1
0
23
2
7
32
46 0
Project Manager: (415) 310-6469 project.manager.ca@idaxdata.com
2.a
Packet Pg. 58
www.idaxdata.com
Two-Hour Count Summaries - Heavy Vehicles
Two-Hour Count Summaries - Bikes
Note: U-Turn volumes for bikes are included in Left-Turn, if any.
SouthboundNorthboundWestboundEastbound
Northbound Southbound
UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT
Interval
Start
E. Meadow Dr E. Meadow Dr Fabian Way Fabian Way 15-min
Total
Rolling
One HourEastboundWestbound
0 1 0 2 0
7:15 AM 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
TH RT
7:00 AM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
UT LT TH RT UT LT
4 0
7:30 AM 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
3 0 0 0 0 0000001
0 0 0 0 0 1
0 0 0 3 0
7:45 AM 0 0 0 0
0 0 1 1 0 0
0 0 0 6 15
8:15 AM 0 0 0 0
0 0 1 2 1 0
2 11
8:00 AM 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
0 1 0 0 0 0
4 15
8:30 AM 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
0 0 1 0 2 0001000
0 1 0 0 0 1
0 0 0 7 19
8:45 AM 0 0 0 1
0 0 2 1 1 1
8 25100040
0 7 0 36 0
Peak Hour 0 0 0 3
0 0 7 8 3 2Count Total 0 1 0 4 0 1 3
0 07:00 AM
RT
25 0
Interval
Start
E. Meadow Dr E. Meadow Dr Fabian Way Fabian Way 15-min
Total
Rolling
One Hour
4 2 2 0 6 0013004
RTTHLT RTTHLTRT
2
8:00 AM
1000
1 0
7:45 AM
0 0 0 0
0
7:30 AM
00000007:15 AM 0
0 0
0 0 0
0 2
8:45 AM
0 0 0 0
3
8:30 AM
0000000
1 3
8:15 AM
0 1 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
210000010
Peak Hour
0 1Count Total
0
THLT
2000001
4 00010
0 0
0 0
0000
0
0
1
00
0
THLT
00000000
0
00
0
0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0
100 0 0 0
200 0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0
0 1 0
0 0 0
Project Manager: (415) 310-6469 project.manager.ca@idaxdata.com
2.a
Packet Pg. 59
www.idaxdata.com
to
to
Two-Hour Count Summaries
Note: Two-hour count summary volumes include heavy vehicles but exclude bicycles in overall count.
Total
0
2
2
0
6
2
2
4
18
10
Date: 03-31-2021
Peak Hour Count Period: 4:00 PM 6:00 PM
SB 0.9%0.92
TOTAL 1.1%0.92
TH RT
WB 0.0%0.54
NB 0.7%0.86
Peak Hour: 4:30 PM 5:30 PM
HV %:PHF
EB 3.1%0.62
UT LT TH RT UT LT
Rolling
One HourEastboundWestboundNorthboundSouthbound
UT LT TH RT
Interval
Start
E. Meadow Dr E. Meadow Dr Fabian Way Fabian Way 15-min
TotalUTLTTHRT
0 3 3 2 0 5
0 14 4 62 0
4:15 PM 0 4 1 5
5 0 6 13 1 04:00 PM 0 1 0 8 0 9 1
0 21 1 95 0
4:45 PM 0 3 0 16
3 0 3 22 4 0
53 0
4:30 PM 0 7 0 19 0 15 0
22 0 0 0 7 1
94 304
5:00 PM 0 4 0 4 0 6 0
23 9 1 0 23 4050406
0 4 1 0 0 6
0 28 2 76 318
5:15 PM 0 3 0 8
1 0 4 25 2 0
0 31 4 92 348
5:45 PM 0 2 0 8
2 0 8 26 3 0
86 351
5:30 PM 0 5 0 5 0 8 0
32 2 0 0 27 3
59 31314000242030204
Count Total 0 29 1 73 0 53 5 0 175 21 617 0
Peak
Hour
All 0 17 0
19 0 42 177 21 1
0 0 1 0 4 0000010
10 351 0
HV 0 0 0 2 0 0
19 102 17 1 0 9947030180
0
Interval
Start
Heavy Vehicle Totals Bicycles Pedestrians (Crossing Leg)
EB WB NB SB Total
0%0%-1%0%1%0%0%0%-0%1%HV%-0%-4%-
0 0
4:15 PM 0 0 2 1 3 1 0
0 0 1 1 0 0
West North South
4:00 PM 0 0 1 0 1 0
EB WB NB SB Total East
4:45 PM 2 0 1 0 3
0 0 0 2 0 0
2
4:30 PM 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0
0 0 1 0 0 0
0 4
5:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 2
0 0 0
5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 1 1 0
5:45 PM 0 0 1 0 1
0 1 0 1 0 1
2
5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
1 0 1 0 0 0
3 0 1001010
0 10
Peak Hour 2 0 1 1 4 0 0
0 2 2 6 0 8Count Total 2 0 5 2 9 2
6112040
0
0
0
0 1 0
010
0
0
0
0
6
4 0
N
Fabian Way
E. Meadow Dr
E. Meadow Dr
Fa
b
i
a
n
W
a
y
E. Meadow Dr
Fa
b
i
a
n
W
a
y
351TEV:
0.92PHF:
10 99 0
11
0
12
8
1
8
1
30
39
170
17
10
219
13
8
17
6
0
47
0
17
64
30 0
Project Manager: (415) 310-6469 project.manager.ca@idaxdata.com
2.a
Packet Pg. 60
www.idaxdata.com
Two-Hour Count Summaries - Heavy Vehicles
Two-Hour Count Summaries - Bikes
Note: U-Turn volumes for bikes are included in Left-Turn, if any.
SouthboundNorthboundWestboundEastbound
Northbound Southbound
UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT
Interval
Start
E. Meadow Dr E. Meadow Dr Fabian Way Fabian Way 15-min
Total
Rolling
One HourEastboundWestbound
0 0 0 1 0
4:15 PM 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 1 0 0
TH RT
4:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
UT LT TH RT UT LT
3 0
4:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2 0 0 0 1 0000000
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 1 0 1 0
4:45 PM 0 0 0 2
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 7
5:15 PM 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
3 8
5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1 0 0 0 0 0
0 4
5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0000000
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 3
5:45 PM 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
1 1100000
0 2 0 9 0
Peak Hour 0 0 0 2
0 0 0 5 0 0Count Total 0 0 0 2 0 0 0
1 04:00 PM
RT
4 0
Interval
Start
E. Meadow Dr E. Meadow Dr Fabian Way Fabian Way 15-min
Total
Rolling
One Hour
1 0 0 0 1 0000000
RTTHLT RTTHLTRT
3
5:00 PM
1000
0 0
4:45 PM
0 0 0 0
0
4:30 PM
10000004:15 PM 1
0 0
0 0 0
1 3
5:45 PM
0 0 0 0
2
5:30 PM
1000001
0 2
5:15 PM
0 0 0
0 0 0
1 0 0
0 0 0
310010000
Peak Hour
0 1Count Total
0
THLT
2001001
6 01020
0 0
0 0
0000
0
0
0
00
0
THLT
10000000
0
00
0
0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0
000 0 0 0
002 0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0
0 1 0
0 0 0
Project Manager: (415) 310-6469 project.manager.ca@idaxdata.com
2.a
Packet Pg. 61
www.idaxdata.com
to
to
Two-Hour Count Summaries
Note: Two-hour count summary volumes include heavy vehicles but exclude bicycles in overall count.
Total
1
1
5
3
3
7
4
1
25
17
Date: 03-31-2021
Peak Hour Count Period: 7:00 AM 9:00 AM
SB 11.1%0.75
TOTAL 10.9%0.92
TH RT
WB 11.1%0.94
NB 4.3%0.72
Peak Hour: 7:45 AM 8:45 AM
HV %:PHF
EB 33.3%0.50
UT LT TH RT UT LT
Rolling
One HourEastboundWestboundNorthboundSouthbound
UT LT TH RT
Interval
Start
E. Meadow Cir E. Meadow Dr E. Meadow Dr E. Meadow Cir 15-min
TotalUTLTTHRT
0 1 5 4 0 1
2 0 1 20 0
7:15 AM 0 0 0 1
9 0 1 1 1 07:00 AM 0 0 1 1 0 0 3
1 1 0 19 0
7:45 AM 0 0 1 2
7 0 1 0 4 0
16 0
7:30 AM 0 0 2 1 0 1 1
1 1 0 2 0 0
24 79
8:00 AM 0 0 1 0 0 2 4
1 2 0 6 0 0052401
0 4 2 4 0 0
2 2 0 25 84
8:15 AM 0 0 0 1
6 0 0 1 7 0
3 1 0 23 92
8:45 AM 0 0 0 2
3 0 1 1 2 2
20 88
8:30 AM 0 0 1 0 0 4 5
2 5 0 1 1 0
20 88040120044300
Count Total 0 0 6 8 0 21 26 18 7 1 167 0
Peak
Hour
All 0 0 3
40 0 5 7 26 2
0 2 0 0 10 0220100
0 92 0
HV 0 0 0 2 0 1
2 5 16 2 12 4301513170
0
Interval
Start
Heavy Vehicle Totals Bicycles Pedestrians (Crossing Leg)
EB WB NB SB Total
0%0%17%0%-11%7%15%12%-50%0%HV%--0%67%-
0 0
7:15 AM 0 1 1 0 2 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 1
West North South
7:00 AM 0 0 0 1 1 0
EB WB NB SB Total East
7:45 AM 1 1 1 0 3
0 4 2 1 1 1
0
7:30 AM 1 1 0 1 3 1 0 3
0 0 0 0 0 1
0 1
8:15 AM 1 1 0 0 2 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 2
0 0 0
8:00 AM 0 2 0 1 3 0
0 0 0 0 0 3
8:45 AM 1 2 0 1 4
0 0 4 0 0 0
0
8:30 AM 0 1 0 1 2 0 0 0
1 0 1 3 2 2
0 0 1001010
4 3
Peak Hour 2 5 1 2 10 0 0
0 5 0 6 12 6Count Total 4 9 2 5 20 1
11011042
0
0
0
0 0 0
100
0
0
0
2
1
4 10
N
E. Meadow Dr
E. Meadow Cir
E. Meadow Dr
E.
M
e
a
d
o
w
D
r
E. Meadow Cir
E.
M
e
a
d
o
w
C
i
r
92TEV:
0.92PHF:
0 4 12
18 24
2
17
13
15
45
310
1652
2322
0
3
3
0
6
15 0
Project Manager: (415) 310-6469 project.manager.ca@idaxdata.com
2.a
Packet Pg. 62
www.idaxdata.com
Two-Hour Count Summaries - Heavy Vehicles
Two-Hour Count Summaries - Bikes
Note: U-Turn volumes for bikes are included in Left-Turn, if any.
SouthboundNorthboundWestboundEastbound
Northbound Southbound
UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT
Interval
Start
E. Meadow Cir E. Meadow Dr E. Meadow Dr E. Meadow Cir 15-min
Total
Rolling
One HourEastboundWestbound
1 0 0 1 0
7:15 AM 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
TH RT
7:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
UT LT TH RT UT LT
2 0
7:30 AM 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
1 0 0 0 0 0001000
0 1 0 0 0 1
0 1 0 3 0
7:45 AM 0 0 0 1
1 0 0 0 0 0
1 0 0 3 11
8:15 AM 0 0 0 1
0 0 0 0 0 0
3 9
8:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
0 0 0 0 0 0
2 11
8:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0000100
0 0 2 0 0 0
1 0 0 2 10
8:45 AM 0 0 0 1
1 0 0 0 0 0
4 11000100
4 1 0 20 0
Peak Hour 0 0 0 2
3 0 1 1 0 0Count Total 0 0 1 3 0 1 5
0 07:00 AM
RT
10 0
Interval
Start
E. Meadow Cir E. Meadow Dr E. Meadow Dr E. Meadow Cir 15-min
Total
Rolling
One Hour
0 0 0 2 0 0012201
RTTHLT RTTHLTRT
4
8:00 AM
0000
4 0
7:45 AM
0 1 2 0
0
7:30 AM
00000007:15 AM 0
0 0
0 0 0
0 1
8:45 AM
0 0 0 0
5
8:30 AM
1100000
0 4
8:15 AM
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
211000000
Peak Hour
0 0Count Total
0
THLT
1100000
6 00014
0 0
0 0
0000
0
0
1
00
0
THLT
00000000
0
00
0
0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0
000 0 0 0
100 0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
Project Manager: (415) 310-6469 project.manager.ca@idaxdata.com
2.a
Packet Pg. 63
www.idaxdata.com
to
to
Two-Hour Count Summaries
Note: Two-hour count summary volumes include heavy vehicles but exclude bicycles in overall count.
Total
4
3
1
3
1
5
8
13
38
10
Date: 03-31-2021
Peak Hour Count Period: 4:00 PM 6:00 PM
SB 6.7%0.54
TOTAL 2.7%0.71
TH RT
WB 3.8%0.81
NB 2.4%0.70
Peak Hour: 4:30 PM 5:30 PM
HV %:PHF
EB 0.0%0.48
UT LT TH RT UT LT
Rolling
One HourEastboundWestboundNorthboundSouthbound
UT LT TH RT
Interval
Start
E. Meadow Cir E. Meadow Dr E. Meadow Dr E. Meadow Cir 15-min
TotalUTLTTHRT
0 5 0 1 1 0
0 1 0 15 0
4:15 PM 0 0 1 1
0 0 0 0 5 04:00 PM 0 0 1 0 1 6 1
2 1 0 39 0
4:45 PM 0 0 4 1
1 0 1 2 12 0
17 0
4:30 PM 0 0 13 1 0 5 1
1 6 0 1 0 0
28 99
5:00 PM 0 0 4 1 0 3 0
2 7 0 6 1 0032101
0 5 0 3 1 0
1 2 0 21 105
5:15 PM 0 0 2 1
2 0 0 1 7 0
3 4 0 29 100
5:45 PM 0 0 2 1
1 0 2 1 5 0
22 110
5:30 PM 0 1 1 2 0 7 2
2 6 0 0 2 0
21 93150110050212
Count Total 0 1 28 8 1 39 6 14 12 0 192 0
Peak
Hour
All 0 0 23
11 3 6 10 53 0
0 1 0 0 3 0000001
0 110 0
HV 0 0 0 0 0 1
2 7 32 0 9 64016371
0
Interval
Start
Heavy Vehicle Totals Bicycles Pedestrians (Crossing Leg)
EB WB NB SB Total
3%-11%0%-3%6%0%0%0%0%0%HV%--0%0%-
1 0
4:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1 2 0 7 3 0
West North South
4:00 PM 0 0 0 1 1 4
EB WB NB SB Total East
4:45 PM 0 1 0 1 2
0 1 1 0 0 0
2
4:30 PM 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1
1 1 2 0 0 1
0 0
5:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 1 0
0 1 2
5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 1 0 1 0
5:45 PM 0 1 0 0 1
0 1 6 0 2 0
3
5:30 PM 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1
1 0 1 1 1 0
0 3 5000005
8 12
Peak Hour 0 1 1 1 3 0 0
1 7 1 13 17 1Count Total 0 2 2 2 6 4
5303311
0
0
0
0 0 0
300
0
0
0
1
5
1 3
N
E. Meadow Dr
E. Meadow Cir
E. Meadow Dr
E.
M
e
a
d
o
w
D
r
E. Meadow Cir
E.
M
e
a
d
o
w
C
i
r
110TEV:
0.71PHF:
0 6 9
15 14
0
7
3
16
26
640
3272
4227
1
4
23
0
27
5 0
Project Manager: (415) 310-6469 project.manager.ca@idaxdata.com
2.a
Packet Pg. 64
www.idaxdata.com
Two-Hour Count Summaries - Heavy Vehicles
Two-Hour Count Summaries - Bikes
Note: U-Turn volumes for bikes are included in Left-Turn, if any.
SouthboundNorthboundWestboundEastbound
Northbound Southbound
UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT
Interval
Start
E. Meadow Cir E. Meadow Dr E. Meadow Dr E. Meadow Cir 15-min
Total
Rolling
One HourEastboundWestbound
0 1 0 1 0
4:15 PM 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
TH RT
4:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
UT LT TH RT UT LT
0 0
4:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0000000
0 1 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 1 0
4:45 PM 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 1 0
0 0 0 0 3
5:15 PM 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
2 4
5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 1 0 0
0 3
5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0000000
0 0 0 1 0 0
0 0 0 1 3
5:45 PM 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 1 0
1 2000000
1 1 0 6 0
Peak Hour 0 0 0 0
1 0 0 0 2 0Count Total 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
7 04:00 PM
RT
3 0
Interval
Start
E. Meadow Cir E. Meadow Dr E. Meadow Dr E. Meadow Cir 15-min
Total
Rolling
One Hour
0 1 0 1 0 0010000
RTTHLT RTTHLTRT
11
5:00 PM
1100
1 0
4:45 PM
0 0 1 0
0
4:30 PM
20100104:15 PM 0
0 0
0 0 0
1 3
5:45 PM
0 0 1 0
3
5:30 PM
1100000
0 4
5:15 PM
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
200000000
Peak Hour
1 0Count Total
0
THLT
3300000
13 00106
0 0
0 0
1103
0
0
0
00
0
THLT
00020000
0
00
0
0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0
000 0 0 0
103 1 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
Project Manager: (415) 310-6469 project.manager.ca@idaxdata.com
2.a
Packet Pg. 65
www.idaxdata.com
to
to
Two-Hour Count Summaries
Note: Two-hour count summary volumes include heavy vehicles but exclude bicycles in overall count.
Total
4
8
6
9
3
9
2
3
44
17
Date: 03-31-2021
Peak Hour Count Period: 7:00 AM 9:00 AM
SB 1.5%0.70
TOTAL 2.5%0.83
TH RT
WB 5.7%0.88
NB 3.0%0.93
Peak Hour: 8:00 AM 9:00 AM
HV %:PHF
EB 2.6%0.85
UT LT TH RT UT LT
Rolling
One HourEastboundWestboundNorthboundSouthbound
UT LT TH RT
Interval
Start
E. Meadow Dr E. Meadow Dr Middlefield Rd Middlefield Rd 15-min
TotalUTLTTHRT
0 1 2 1 0 8
3 18 2 73 0
7:15 AM 0 3 2 4
0 0 8 26 0 07:00 AM 0 3 3 7 0 2 1
0 28 2 103 0
7:45 AM 0 3 2 8
1 0 13 39 2 0
88 0
7:30 AM 0 3 3 9 0 1 2
41 2 0 0 18 6
177 441
8:00 AM 0 2 5 15 0 1 9
92 1 0 0 35 100082016
0 1 9 2 0 30
1 45 13 195 563
8:15 AM 0 16 4 25
1 0 28 74 1 0
1 81 9 249 906
8:45 AM 0 14 10 22
2 1 26 72 1 0
285 760
8:30 AM 0 16 3 24 0 4 9
77 2 0 0 90 29
217 9466350052110375025
Count Total 0 60 32 114 0 13 47 5 367 82 1,387 0
Peak
Hour
All 0 48 22
14 1 154 484 14 0
0 0 5 0 24 0110291
62 946 0
HV 0 1 0 3 0 1
109 286 9 0 2 268860934101
0
Interval
Start
Heavy Vehicle Totals Bicycles Pedestrians (Crossing Leg)
EB WB NB SB Total
11%-0%2%0%3%11%3%10%0%2%3%HV%-2%0%3%-
1 2
7:15 AM 0 0 1 1 2 1 1
0 1 0 1 0 1
West North South
7:00 AM 0 1 0 1 2 0
EB WB NB SB Total East
7:45 AM 0 0 1 3 4
0 2 1 1 0 4
3
7:30 AM 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1
0 0 2 0 2 3
0 1
8:15 AM 1 0 2 0 3 1 0
0 0 1 2 0 2
3 4 2
8:00 AM 1 0 4 1 6 1
1 2 0 3 6 0
8:45 AM 1 2 4 2 9
0 0 0 2 0 0
4
8:30 AM 1 1 2 2 6 0 0 0
0 2 3 0 4 1
0 1 1101021
10 17
Peak Hour 4 3 12 5 24 3 0
3 3 6 18 2 15Count Total 4 4 15 10 33 6
6137182
0
2
1
0 3 0
001
0
0
0
2
6
8 1
N
Middlefield Rd
E. Meadow Dr
E. Meadow Dr
Mi
d
d
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
R
d
E. Meadow Dr
Mid
d
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
R
d
946TEV:
0.83PHF:
62 26
8
2
33
2
34
4
0
10
34
9
53
330
9
28
6
10
9
40
5
36
4
1
86
22
48
156
205 0
Project Manager: (415) 310-6469 project.manager.ca@idaxdata.com
2.a
Packet Pg. 66
www.idaxdata.com
Two-Hour Count Summaries - Heavy Vehicles
Two-Hour Count Summaries - Bikes
Note: U-Turn volumes for bikes are included in Left-Turn, if any.
SouthboundNorthboundWestboundEastbound
Northbound Southbound
UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT
Interval
Start
E. Meadow Dr E. Meadow Dr Middlefield Rd Middlefield Rd 15-min
Total
Rolling
One HourEastboundWestbound
0 1 0 2 0
7:15 AM 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
TH RT
7:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
UT LT TH RT UT LT
2 0
7:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1 0 0 0 1 0000000
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 1 0
7:45 AM 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 1 0
0 1 0 6 13
8:15 AM 0 1 0 0
0 0 1 3 0 0
4 9
8:00 AM 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
1 0 0 0 3 0
3 14
8:30 AM 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
2 0 0 0 0 0000000
0 1 0 1 0 1
0 2 0 6 19
8:45 AM 0 0 0 1
0 0 0 2 0 0
9 24210020
0 10 0 33 0
Peak Hour 0 1 0 3
1 0 2 11 2 0Count Total 0 1 0 3 0 2 1
1 07:00 AM
RT
24 0
Interval
Start
E. Meadow Dr E. Meadow Dr Middlefield Rd Middlefield Rd 15-min
Total
Rolling
One Hour
9 1 0 0 5 0011102
RTTHLT RTTHLTRT
11
8:00 AM
6000
2 0
7:45 AM
1 0 0 0
0
7:30 AM
20000007:15 AM 0
0 0
0 2 0
0 11
8:45 AM
0 0 0 0
13
8:30 AM
3002000
2 12
8:15 AM
0 0 0
0 1 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
720100100
Peak Hour
0 5Count Total
0
THLT
7003010
18 01210
0 0
0 0
0000
0
1
0
01
1
THLT
00001000
0
01
0
0
0 0 0
0 1 0
0
021 0 0 0
141 0 3 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0
0 2 1
0 1 0
Project Manager: (415) 310-6469 project.manager.ca@idaxdata.com
2.a
Packet Pg. 67
www.idaxdata.com
to
to
Two-Hour Count Summaries
Note: Two-hour count summary volumes include heavy vehicles but exclude bicycles in overall count.
Total
15
11
7
13
5
9
12
18
90
39
Date: 03-31-2021
Peak Hour Count Period: 4:00 PM 6:00 PM
SB 0.6%0.88
TOTAL 0.4%0.92
TH RT
WB 0.0%0.84
NB 0.4%0.81
Peak Hour: 4:45 PM 5:45 PM
HV %:PHF
EB 0.0%0.83
UT LT TH RT UT LT
Rolling
One HourEastboundWestboundNorthboundSouthbound
UT LT TH RT
Interval
Start
E. Meadow Dr E. Meadow Dr Middlefield Rd Middlefield Rd 15-min
TotalUTLTTHRT
0 5 9 4 0 23
4 96 18 333 0
4:15 PM 0 14 17 29
2 0 25 95 6 04:00 PM 0 20 19 29 0 2 17
3 100 16 308 0
4:45 PM 0 18 11 31
6 0 16 88 3 0
325 0
4:30 PM 0 16 14 31 0 5 10
92 3 0 4 105 20
301 1,267
5:00 PM 0 8 22 32 0 6 13
83 3 0 5 90 1903112025
0 3 13 2 0 31
4 124 21 329 1,263
5:15 PM 0 12 18 30
4 0 21 71 3 0
2 96 22 362 1,328
5:45 PM 0 15 15 26
2 0 24 117 2 0
336 1,274
5:30 PM 0 27 24 28 0 5 13
82 1 0 6 113 25
282 1,30991105781103164017
Count Total 0 130 140 236 0 32 102 33 802 152 2,576 0
Peak
Hour
All 0 65 75
26 0 182 719 22 0
0 0 3 0 5 0000020
87 1,328 0
HV 0 0 0 0 0 0
101 353 9 0 17 42312101750100
0
Interval
Start
Heavy Vehicle Totals Bicycles Pedestrians (Crossing Leg)
EB WB NB SB Total
0%-0%1%0%0%0%0%0%-0%1%HV%-0%0%0%-
7 4
4:15 PM 0 0 1 1 2 4 1
4 1 0 5 1 3
West North South
4:00 PM 0 1 1 1 3 0
EB WB NB SB Total East
4:45 PM 0 0 1 1 2
1 8 2 2 1 2
2
4:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 6 1 0
1 2 8 3 5 1
2 0
5:15 PM 0 0 1 1 2 1 1
0 0 0 2 0 3
4 8 1
5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 2
1 0 1 1 3 0
5:45 PM 1 0 1 1 3
2 13 1 1 4 6
5
5:30 PM 0 0 0 1 1 7 2 2
1 1 4 3 0 1
4 2 9310153
26 29
Peak Hour 0 0 2 3 5 11 3
10 6 8 48 13 22Count Total 1 1 5 6 13 24
1244224815
5
5
1
3 1 0
040
1
2
0
15
12
8 4
N
Middlefield Rd
E. Meadow Dr
E. Meadow Dr
Mi
d
d
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
R
d
E. Meadow Dr
Mid
d
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
R
d
1,328TEV:
0.92PHF:
87 42
3
17
52
7
42
8
0
10
50
17
77
1010
9
35
3
10
1
46
3
56
1
0
121
75
65
261
238 0
Project Manager: (415) 310-6469 project.manager.ca@idaxdata.com
2.a
Packet Pg. 68
www.idaxdata.com
Two-Hour Count Summaries - Heavy Vehicles
Two-Hour Count Summaries - Bikes
Note: U-Turn volumes for bikes are included in Left-Turn, if any.
SouthboundNorthboundWestboundEastbound
Northbound Southbound
UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT
Interval
Start
E. Meadow Dr E. Meadow Dr Middlefield Rd Middlefield Rd 15-min
Total
Rolling
One HourEastboundWestbound
0 1 0 3 0
4:15 PM 0 0 0 0
1 0 0 1 0 0
TH RT
4:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
UT LT TH RT UT LT
2 0
4:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1 0 0 0 1 0000000
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
4:45 PM 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 4
5:15 PM 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
2 7
5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1 0 0 0 1 0
2 4
5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1 0 0 0 1 0000000
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 1 0 1 5
5:45 PM 0 0 0 1
0 0 0 0 0 0
3 6100010
0 6 0 13 0
Peak Hour 0 0 0 0
1 0 0 5 0 0Count Total 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
5 04:00 PM
RT
5 0
Interval
Start
E. Meadow Dr E. Meadow Dr Middlefield Rd Middlefield Rd 15-min
Total
Rolling
One Hour
2 0 0 0 3 0000000
RTTHLT RTTHLTRT
24
5:00 PM
3001
8 0
4:45 PM
0 0 0 0
0
4:30 PM
80020104:15 PM 1
1 0
0 0 0
13 22
5:45 PM
0 2 0 0
17
5:30 PM
4000101
2 21
5:15 PM
0 0 0
0 0 1
1 3 3
0 1 0
2450000300
Peak Hour
0 5Count Total
0
THLT
22001304
48 03150
0 2
0 1
0000
1
0
0
03
6
THLT
00001004
1
10
0
0
0 0 0
0 1 0
0
551 0 2 1
5172 0 9 1
0 1 1
0 1 0
1 0
0 1 0
0 0 0
Project Manager: (415) 310-6469 project.manager.ca@idaxdata.com
2.a
Packet Pg. 69
www.idaxdata.com
to
to
Two-Hour Count Summaries
Note: Two-hour count summary volumes include heavy vehicles but exclude bicycles in overall count.
Total
10
11
14
13
10
5
8
10
81
4814442487621
28 27
Peak Hour 5 1 24 13 43 19 221
233 10 7 277 13 13Count Total 7 1 36 17 61 27
4 1 52112609:15 AM 0 0 4 1 5
0 5 2 1 2 3
2
9:00 AM 1 0 3 1 5 3 0 2
2 1 9 0 1 2
4 1
8:45 AM 0 0 3 2 5 3 3
7 1 0 12 2 3
2 5 4
8:30 AM 0 0 9 3 12 4
5 10 1 0 16 2
1 6 5
4
8:00 AM 3 0 6 2 11 7 106 0
2 3 106 1 0 6
0 3 0
EB WB NB SB Total East
8:15 AM 0 0 4 3 7
1 114 2
-1%4%HV%-1%1%1%-
2 3
7:45 AM 2 1 5 5 13 3 98
8 1 0 9 4 1
West North South
7:30 AM 1 0 2
0
136 624 26 0 19 537240041154270
0
Interval
Start
Heavy Vehicle Totals Bicycles Pedestrians (Crossing Leg)
EB WB NB SB Total
0%-0%2%2%2%0%1%0%
Peak
Hour
All 0 96 155
47 0 202 1,057 54 0
0 0 11 2 43 01001230
106 2,161 0
HV 0 1 1 3 0
Count Total 0 142 215 390 0 73 225 32 946 165 3,548 0
355 1,6651183049814010162022
3 102 14 364 1,872
9:15 AM 0 13 12 43
6 0 11 115 7 0
423 2,131
9:00 AM 0 15 11 52 0 10 18
128 15 0 4 143 1608164017
10 164 14 523 2,161
8:45 AM 0 9 25 38
6 0 20 139 8 0
562 1,883
8:30 AM 0 19 41 69 0 16 17
162 8 0 3 147 3107399044
4 113 23 623 0
8:15 AM 0 21 28 63
10 0 40 189 1 0
453 0
8:00 AM 0 40 60 74 0 11 58
134 9 0 2 113 3807402032
2 66 15 245 0
7:45 AM 0 16 26 34
8 0 16 72 3 07:30 AM 0 9 12 17 0 4 21
UT LT TH RT UT LT
Rolling
One HourEastboundWestboundNorthboundSouthbound
UT LT TH RT
Interval
Start
Meadow Dr Meadow Dr Middlefield Rd Middlefield Rd 15-min
TotalUTLTTHRT
Date: 12-06-2018
Peak Hour Count Period: 7:30 AM 9:30 AM
SB 2.0%0.88
TOTAL 2.0%0.87
TH RT
WB 0.5%0.70
NB 3.1%0.85
Peak Hour: 7:45 AM 8:45 AM
HV %:PHF
EB 1.0%0.71
2
17
0
3 1 0
022
0
221
0
21
14
6 7
N
Middlefield Rd
Meadow Dr
Meadow Dr
Mid
d
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
R
d
Meadow Dr
Mi
d
d
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
R
d
2,161TEV:
0.87PHF:
10
6
53
7
19
66
2
74
7
0
27
154
41
222
2000
26
62
4
13
6
78
6
81
8
0
240
155
96
491
396 0
Project Manager: (415) 310-6469 project.manager.ca@idaxdata.com
2.a
Packet Pg. 70
www.idaxdata.com
Two-Hour Count Summaries - Heavy Vehicles
Two-Hour Count Summaries - Bikes
Note: U-Turn volumes for bikes are included in Left-Turn, if any.
0 1
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 1 0
2170 0 221 0
6201 0 233 0
0000
1
0
1
03
6
THLT
00000108
5
30
0
0
0 7 0
0 98 0
0
THLT
248001322
277 03550
0 0
0 2
Peak Hour
0 4Count Total
0
3260010020
5 42
9:15 AM
1 1 0 0
151
9:00 AM
9001011
12 248
8:45 AM
1 0 0
0 2 1
1 1 1
0 3 0
245
8:30 AM
16001
114 0
8:15 AM
0 0 0 0
0
8:00 AM
1060012117:45 AM 0
106 0
0 10 0
9 07:30 AM
RT
43 0
Interval
Start
Meadow Dr Meadow Dr Middlefield Rd Middlefield Rd 15-min
Total
Rolling
One Hour
23 0 0 0 11 2001001
RTTHLT RTTHLTRT
0 15 2 61 0
Peak Hour 0 1 1 3
0 0 4 32 0 0Count Total 0 2 1 4 0 0 1
5 27400010000000
0 1 0 5 29
9:15 AM 0 0 0 0
0 0 1 2 0 0
5 35
9:00 AM 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
3 0 0 0 2 0000000
0 2 1 12 43
8:45 AM 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 9 0 0
7 34
8:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
3 0 0 0 3 0000001
0 2 0 11 0
8:15 AM 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 6 0 0
13 0
8:00 AM 0 0 0 3 0 0 0
5 0 0 0 4 1001000
0 0 0 3 0
7:45 AM 0 1 1 0
0 0 2 0 0 0
TH RT
7:30 AM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
UT LT TH RT UT LT
Northbound Southbound
UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT
Interval
Start
Meadow Dr Meadow Dr Middlefield Rd Middlefield Rd 15-min
Total
Rolling
One HourEastboundWestbound
SouthboundNorthboundWestboundEastbound
Project Manager: (415) 310-6469 project.manager.ca@idaxdata.com
2.a
Packet Pg. 71
www.idaxdata.com
to
to
Two-Hour Count Summaries
Note: Two-hour count summary volumes include heavy vehicles but exclude bicycles in overall count.
Total
14
10
10
11
7
7
3
9
71
35192231376
18 31
Peak Hour 0 0 5 5 10 13 14
25 7 6 70 8 14Count Total 2 1 7 9 19 32
3 2 23221826:15 PM 0 0 0 1 1
0 3 1 0 0 2
4
6:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1
1 0 7 0 2 1
3 1
5:45 PM 0 0 1 1 2 4 2
3 0 1 7 2 1
3 0 7
5:30 PM 0 0 2 1 3 3
4 5 1 0 10 1
1 2 7
1
5:00 PM 0 0 1 0 1 2 4 0
2 2 13 0 3 6
0 5 10
EB WB NB SB Total East
5:15 PM 0 0 1 3 4
1 7 0
-0%0%HV%-0%0%0%-
4 7
4:45 PM 0 0 0 3 3 5 4
4 0 1 15 2 1
West North South
4:30 PM 2 1 2
0
164 906 39 0 23 782186055119300
0
Interval
Start
Heavy Vehicle Totals Bicycles Pedestrians (Crossing Leg)
EB WB NB SB Total
3%-0%1%0%0%0%0%0%
Peak
Hour
All 0 61 104
55 1 323 1,679 74 0
0 0 5 0 10 0000041
123 2,592 0
HV 0 0 0 0 0
Count Total 0 130 198 356 0 88 220 45 1,518 222 4,909 0
555 2,441189110715127010253149
4 179 27 596 2,543
6:15 PM 0 13 27 42
7 0 45 211 10 0
653 2,592
6:00 PM 0 20 26 31 0 7 29
251 6 0 7 181 3209223048
6 175 42 637 2,552
5:45 PM 0 20 30 44
12 0 41 215 12 0
657 2,468
5:30 PM 0 11 26 45 0 16 36
210 14 0 5 220 23017403042
5 206 26 645 0
5:15 PM 0 13 24 46
12 0 33 230 7 0
613 0
5:00 PM 0 17 24 51 0 13 21
210 8 0 6 207 2706238035
5 199 18 553 0
4:45 PM 0 18 19 46
7 0 30 163 6 04:30 PM 0 18 22 51 0 10 24
UT LT TH RT UT LT
Rolling
One HourEastboundWestboundNorthboundSouthbound
UT LT TH RT
Interval
Start
Meadow Dr Meadow Dr Middlefield Rd Middlefield Rd 15-min
TotalUTLTTHRT
Date: 12-06-2018
Peak Hour Count Period: 4:30 PM 6:30 PM
SB 0.5%0.94
TOTAL 0.4%0.99
TH RT
WB 0.0%0.80
NB 0.5%0.91
Peak Hour: 5:00 PM 6:00 PM
HV %:PHF
EB 0.0%0.93
2
10
1
0 2 0
011
0
14
0
6
19
7 3
N
Middlefield Rd
Meadow Dr
Meadow Dr
Mi
d
d
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
R
d
Meadow Dr
Mi
d
d
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
R
d
2,592TEV:
0.99PHF:
12
3
78
2
23
92
8
99
7
0
30
119
55
204
1660
39
90
6
16
4
1,
1
0
9
1,
0
2
3
0
186
104
61
351
406 0
Project Manager: (415) 310-6469 project.manager.ca@idaxdata.com
2.a
Packet Pg. 72
www.idaxdata.com
Two-Hour Count Summaries - Heavy Vehicles
Two-Hour Count Summaries - Bikes
Note: U-Turn volumes for bikes are included in Left-Turn, if any.
1 0
0 0 0
0 1 0
0 1 0
1 1 0
2101 0 14 0
4262 1 24 0
00100
1
1
0
22
2
THLT
01000004
3
20
0
0
0 3 0
0 4 0
0
THLT
31002011
70 00232
0 0
0 1
Peak Hour
0 6Count Total
0
2580110300
3 27
6:15 PM
0 0 1 0
31
6:00 PM
7000001
7 37
5:45 PM
0 0 0
1 3 0
0 1 0
0 2 0
45
5:30 PM
10010
7 0
5:15 PM
0 0 0 0
0
5:00 PM
131020014:45 PM 1
4 0
0 5 0
15 04:30 PM
RT
10 0
Interval
Start
Meadow Dr Meadow Dr Middlefield Rd Middlefield Rd 15-min
Total
Rolling
One Hour
4 1 0 0 5 0000000
RTTHLT RTTHLTRT
0 9 0 19 0
Peak Hour 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 6 1 0Count Total 0 1 1 0 0 0 1
1 6000010000000
0 0 0 0 9
6:15 PM 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
2 10
6:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1 0 0 0 1 0000000
0 1 0 3 11
5:45 PM 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 1 1 0
4 13
5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1 0 0 0 3 0000000
0 0 0 1 0
5:15 PM 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 1 0 0
3 0
5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 3 0000000
0 0 0 5 0
4:45 PM 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 2 0 0
TH RT
4:30 PM 0 1 1 0 0 0 1
UT LT TH RT UT LT
Northbound Southbound
UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT
Interval
Start
Meadow Dr Meadow Dr Middlefield Rd Middlefield Rd 15-min
Total
Rolling
One HourEastboundWestbound
SouthboundNorthboundWestboundEastbound
Project Manager: (415) 310-6469 project.manager.ca@idaxdata.com
2.a
Packet Pg. 73
Location:E. Meadow Dr, Between Alma St and Waverley St
Date Range:3/31/2021 - 4/6/2021
Site Code:01
Time EB WB Total EB WB Total EB WB Total EB WB Total EB WB Total EB WB Total EB WB Total EB WB Total
12:00 AM 3 4 7 7 7 14 ---------------5 6 11
1:00 AM 2 1 3 4 1 5 ---------------3 1 4
2:00 AM 0 3 3 2 2 4 ---------------1 3 4
3:00 AM 0 0 0 2 0 2 ---------------1 0 1
4:00 AM 1 4 5 2 3 5 ---------------2 4 5
5:00 AM 6 6 12 4 8 12 ---------------5 7 12
6:00 AM 14 21 35 19 23 42 ---------------17 22 39
7:00 AM 70 63 133 65 59 124 ---------------68 61 129
8:00 AM 146 151 297 178 184 362 ---------------162 168 330
9:00 AM 151 167 318 105 114 219 ---------------128 141 269
10:00 AM 124 147 271 138 148 286 ---------------131 148 279
11:00 AM 157 171 328 162 179 341 ---------------160 175 335
12:00 PM 152 188 340 141 162 303 ---------------147 175 322
1:00 PM 137 209 346 135 165 300 ---------------136 187 323
2:00 PM 140 194 334 122 160 282 ---------------131 177 308
3:00 PM 206 288 494 202 276 478 ---------------204 282 486
4:00 PM 228 229 457 210 219 429 ---------------219 224 443
5:00 PM 224 244 468 209 218 427 ---------------217 231 448
6:00 PM 140 159 299 183 212 395 ---------------162 186 347
7:00 PM 99 135 234 112 141 253 ---------------106 138 244
8:00 PM 78 66 144 60 66 126 ---------------69 66 135
9:00 PM 31 33 64 48 55 103 ---------------40 44 84
10:00 PM 22 22 44 18 25 43 ---------------20 24 44
11:00 PM 15 18 33 7 8 15 ---------------11 13 24
Total 2,146 2,523 4,669 2,135 2,435 4,570 ---------------2,141 2,479 4,620
Percent 46%54%-47%53%----------------46%54%-
AM Peak 11:00 11:00 11:00 08:00 08:00 08:00 ---------------08:00 11:00 11:00
Vol.157 171 328 178 184 362 ---------------162 175 335
PM Peak 16:00 15:00 15:00 16:00 15:00 15:00 ---------------16:00 15:00 15:00
Vol.228 288 494 210 276 478 ---------------219 282 486
1. Mid-week average includes data between Tuesday and Thursday.
4/6/20214/5/20214/4/20214/3/2021
Wednesday Thursday Friday
4/1/20213/31/2021 Mid-Week Average4/2/2021
Saturday Sunday Monday Tuesday
1Project Manager: (415) 310-6469
project.manager.ca@idaxdata.com
2.a
Packet Pg. 74
Location:E. Meadow Dr, Between Waverley St and Middlefield Rd
Date Range:3/31/2021 - 4/6/2021
Site Code:02
Time EB WB Total EB WB Total EB WB Total EB WB Total EB WB Total EB WB Total EB WB Total EB WB Total
12:00 AM 3 5 8 8 4 12 ---------------6 5 10
1:00 AM 3 1 4 4 1 5 ---------------4 1 5
2:00 AM 1 2 3 1 2 3 ---------------1 2 3
3:00 AM 0 0 0 2 0 2 ---------------1 0 1
4:00 AM 2 5 7 3 4 7 ---------------3 5 7
5:00 AM 8 8 16 5 11 16 ---------------7 10 16
6:00 AM 14 20 34 24 24 48 ---------------19 22 41
7:00 AM 64 66 130 67 76 143 ---------------66 71 137
8:00 AM 165 187 352 232 274 506 ---------------199 231 429
9:00 AM 166 175 341 132 120 252 ---------------149 148 297
10:00 AM 131 140 271 141 139 280 ---------------136 140 276
11:00 AM 190 177 367 238 229 467 ---------------214 203 417
12:00 PM 197 206 403 190 152 342 ---------------194 179 373
1:00 PM 170 205 375 146 169 315 ---------------158 187 345
2:00 PM 163 223 386 149 162 311 ---------------156 193 349
3:00 PM 295 270 565 260 232 492 ---------------278 251 529
4:00 PM 264 235 499 256 211 467 ---------------260 223 483
5:00 PM 265 241 506 236 211 447 ---------------251 226 477
6:00 PM 161 164 325 186 219 405 ---------------174 192 365
7:00 PM 116 129 245 138 140 278 ---------------127 135 262
8:00 PM 79 69 148 62 67 129 ---------------71 68 139
9:00 PM 28 34 62 46 55 101 ---------------37 45 82
10:00 PM 18 20 38 20 26 46 ---------------19 23 42
11:00 PM 16 18 34 8 9 17 ---------------12 14 26
Total 2,519 2,600 5,119 2,554 2,537 5,091 ---------------2,537 2,569 5,105
Percent 49%51%-50%50%----------------50%50%-
AM Peak 11:00 08:00 11:00 11:00 08:00 08:00 ---------------11:00 08:00 08:00
Vol.190 187 367 238 274 506 ---------------214 231 429
PM Peak 15:00 15:00 15:00 15:00 15:00 15:00 ---------------15:00 15:00 15:00
Vol.295 270 565 260 232 492 ---------------278 251 529
1. Mid-week average includes data between Tuesday and Thursday.
4/6/20214/5/20214/4/20214/3/2021
Wednesday Thursday Friday
4/1/20213/31/2021 Mid-Week Average4/2/2021
Saturday Sunday Monday Tuesday
1Project Manager: (415) 310-6469
project.manager.ca@idaxdata.com
2.a
Packet Pg. 75
Location:E. Meadow Dr, Between Middlefield Rd and Ross Rd
Date Range:4/20/2021 - 4/26/2021
Site Code:03
Time EB WB Total EB WB Total EB WB Total EB WB Total EB WB Total EB WB Total EB WB Total EB WB Total
12:00 AM 5 5 10 3 1 4 ---------------4 3 7
1:00 AM 0 1 1 2 0 2 ---------------1 1 2
2:00 AM 0 1 1 0 0 0 ---------------0 1 1
3:00 AM 0 0 0 0 1 1 ---------------0 1 1
4:00 AM 1 0 1 1 0 1 ---------------1 0 1
5:00 AM 3 6 9 5 4 9 ---------------4 5 9
6:00 AM 10 10 20 8 8 16 ---------------9 9 18
7:00 AM 22 32 54 19 38 57 ---------------21 35 56
8:00 AM 70 118 188 54 85 139 ---------------62 102 164
9:00 AM 55 55 110 54 81 135 ---------------55 68 123
10:00 AM 50 52 102 67 66 133 ---------------59 59 118
11:00 AM 54 76 130 49 69 118 ---------------52 73 124
12:00 PM 56 57 113 76 79 155 ---------------66 68 134
1:00 PM 54 62 116 56 71 127 ---------------55 67 122
2:00 PM 55 70 125 57 92 149 ---------------56 81 137
3:00 PM 83 94 177 110 112 222 ---------------97 103 200
4:00 PM 91 93 184 70 92 162 ---------------81 93 173
5:00 PM 76 73 149 100 87 187 ---------------88 80 168
6:00 PM 67 57 124 64 72 136 ---------------66 65 130
7:00 PM 50 40 90 49 44 93 ---------------50 42 92
8:00 PM 34 14 48 28 21 49 ---------------31 18 49
9:00 PM 17 8 25 18 9 27 ---------------18 9 26
10:00 PM 14 11 25 4 5 9 ---------------9 8 17
11:00 PM 4 5 9 3 4 7 ---------------4 5 8
Total 871 940 1,811 897 1,041 1,938 ---------------884 991 1,875
Percent 48%52%-46%54%----------------47%53%-
AM Peak 08:00 08:00 08:00 10:00 08:00 08:00 ---------------08:00 08:00 08:00
Vol.70 118 188 67 85 139 ---------------62 102 164
PM Peak 16:00 15:00 16:00 15:00 15:00 15:00 ---------------15:00 15:00 15:00
Vol.91 94 184 110 112 222 ---------------97 103 200
1. Mid-week average includes data between Tuesday and Thursday.
4/26/20214/25/20214/24/20214/23/2021
Tuesday Wednesday Thursday
4/21/20214/20/2021 Mid-Week Average4/22/2021
Friday Saturday Sunday Monday
1
Project Manager: (415) 310-6469
project.manager.ca@idaxdata.com
2.a
Packet Pg. 76
Location:E. Meadow Dr, Between Ross Rd and E. Meadow Cir
Date Range:3/31/2021 - 4/6/2021
Site Code:04
Time EB WB Total EB WB Total EB WB Total EB WB Total EB WB Total EB WB Total EB WB Total EB WB Total
12:00 AM 2 0 2 2 0 2 ---------------2 0 2
1:00 AM 3 3 6 1 1 2 ---------------2 2 4
2:00 AM 0 0 0 0 1 1 ---------------0 1 1
3:00 AM 0 1 1 1 1 2 ---------------1 1 2
4:00 AM 2 1 3 0 0 0 ---------------1 1 2
5:00 AM 3 2 5 4 0 4 ---------------4 1 5
6:00 AM 7 5 12 10 6 16 ---------------9 6 14
7:00 AM 19 18 37 16 18 34 ---------------18 18 36
8:00 AM 22 21 43 35 48 83 ---------------29 35 63
9:00 AM 25 16 41 19 20 39 ---------------22 18 40
10:00 AM 23 18 41 25 19 44 ---------------24 19 43
11:00 AM 27 28 55 27 28 55 ---------------27 28 55
12:00 PM 24 24 48 28 23 51 ---------------26 24 50
1:00 PM 28 26 54 26 24 50 ---------------27 25 52
2:00 PM 36 28 64 33 34 67 ---------------35 31 66
3:00 PM 37 37 74 32 30 62 ---------------35 34 68
4:00 PM 50 29 79 36 31 67 ---------------43 30 73
5:00 PM 43 38 81 39 33 72 ---------------41 36 77
6:00 PM 24 31 55 29 23 52 ---------------27 27 54
7:00 PM 24 22 46 26 12 38 ---------------25 17 42
8:00 PM 14 2 16 16 9 25 ---------------15 6 21
9:00 PM 12 6 18 6 9 15 ---------------9 8 17
10:00 PM 6 4 10 4 4 8 ---------------5 4 9
11:00 PM 2 1 3 1 0 1 ---------------2 1 2
Total 433 361 794 416 374 790 ---------------425 368 792
Percent 55%45%-53%47%----------------54%46%-
AM Peak 11:00 11:00 11:00 08:00 08:00 08:00 ---------------08:00 08:00 08:00
Vol.27 28 55 35 48 83 ---------------29 35 63
PM Peak 16:00 17:00 17:00 17:00 14:00 17:00 ---------------16:00 17:00 17:00
Vol.50 38 81 39 34 72 ---------------43 36 77
1. Mid-week average includes data between Tuesday and Thursday.
4/6/20214/5/20214/4/20214/3/2021
Wednesday Thursday Friday
4/1/20213/31/2021 Mid-Week Average4/2/2021
Saturday Sunday Monday Tuesday
1Project Manager: (415) 310-6469
project.manager.ca@idaxdata.com
2.a
Packet Pg. 77
Location:Fabian Way, Between E. Meadow Dr and Federation Way
Date Range:3/31/2021 - 4/6/2021
Site Code:05
Time NB SB Total NB SB Total NB SB Total NB SB Total NB SB Total NB SB Total NB SB Total NB SB Total
12:00 AM 7 15 22 7 12 19 ---------------7 14 21
1:00 AM 7 10 17 5 9 14 ---------------6 10 16
2:00 AM 2 7 9 5 7 12 ---------------4 7 11
3:00 AM 10 5 15 14 6 20 ---------------12 6 18
4:00 AM 36 11 47 35 11 46 ---------------36 11 47
5:00 AM 162 15 177 155 14 169 ---------------159 15 173
6:00 AM 145 45 190 142 49 191 ---------------144 47 191
7:00 AM 129 48 177 120 59 179 ---------------125 54 178
8:00 AM 157 104 261 174 100 274 ---------------166 102 268
9:00 AM 105 109 214 114 110 224 ---------------110 110 219
10:00 AM 115 108 223 94 85 179 ---------------105 97 201
11:00 AM 114 117 231 126 121 247 ---------------120 119 239
12:00 PM 136 112 248 132 128 260 ---------------134 120 254
1:00 PM 144 121 265 127 122 249 ---------------136 122 257
2:00 PM 133 223 356 127 208 335 ---------------130 216 346
3:00 PM 131 204 335 119 230 349 ---------------125 217 342
4:00 PM 116 145 261 129 154 283 ---------------123 150 272
5:00 PM 131 156 287 134 147 281 ---------------133 152 284
6:00 PM 105 116 221 115 109 224 ---------------110 113 223
7:00 PM 100 86 186 96 73 169 ---------------98 80 178
8:00 PM 52 48 100 63 35 98 ---------------58 42 99
9:00 PM 47 34 81 49 35 84 ---------------48 35 83
10:00 PM 30 35 65 30 30 60 ---------------30 33 63
11:00 PM 20 36 56 10 25 35 ---------------15 31 46
Total 2,134 1,910 4,044 2,122 1,879 4,001 ---------------2,128 1,895 4,023
Percent 53%47%-53%47%----------------53%47%-
AM Peak 05:00 11:00 08:00 08:00 11:00 08:00 ---------------08:00 11:00 08:00
Vol.162 117 261 174 121 274 ---------------166 119 268
PM Peak 13:00 14:00 14:00 17:00 15:00 15:00 ---------------13:00 15:00 14:00
Vol.144 223 356 134 230 349 ---------------136 217 346
1. Mid-week average includes data between Tuesday and Thursday.
4/6/20214/5/20214/4/20214/3/2021
Wednesday Thursday Friday
4/1/20213/31/2021 Mid-Week Average4/2/2021
Saturday Sunday Monday Tuesday
1Project Manager: (415) 310-6469
project.manager.ca@idaxdata.com
2.a
Packet Pg. 78
Location:Fabian Way, Between Federation Way and E. Charleston Rd
Date Range:4/20/2021 - 4/26/2021
Site Code:06
Time NB SB Total NB SB Total NB SB Total NB SB Total NB SB Total NB SB Total NB SB Total NB SB Total
12:00 AM 2 10 12 13 13 26 ---------------8 12 19
1:00 AM 4 11 15 5 7 12 ---------------5 9 14
2:00 AM 3 5 8 3 4 7 ---------------3 5 8
3:00 AM 13 8 21 10 8 18 ---------------12 8 20
4:00 AM 36 12 48 35 9 44 ---------------36 11 46
5:00 AM 183 21 204 177 15 192 ---------------180 18 198
6:00 AM 160 55 215 165 50 215 ---------------163 53 215
7:00 AM 193 75 268 167 67 234 ---------------180 71 251
8:00 AM 379 229 608 287 147 434 ---------------333 188 521
9:00 AM 201 119 320 169 128 297 ---------------185 124 309
10:00 AM 149 135 284 143 124 267 ---------------146 130 276
11:00 AM 188 163 351 163 168 331 ---------------176 166 341
12:00 PM 177 162 339 230 184 414 ---------------204 173 377
1:00 PM 184 169 353 187 179 366 ---------------186 174 360
2:00 PM 181 264 445 164 241 405 ---------------173 253 425
3:00 PM 276 331 607 224 239 463 ---------------250 285 535
4:00 PM 174 217 391 179 229 408 ---------------177 223 400
5:00 PM 209 232 441 174 223 397 ---------------192 228 419
6:00 PM 165 142 307 163 151 314 ---------------164 147 311
7:00 PM 109 95 204 109 87 196 ---------------109 91 200
8:00 PM 60 60 120 85 51 136 ---------------73 56 128
9:00 PM 35 28 63 55 30 85 ---------------45 29 74
10:00 PM 25 31 56 31 38 69 ---------------28 35 63
11:00 PM 8 27 35 14 35 49 ---------------11 31 42
Total 3,114 2,601 5,715 2,952 2,427 5,379 ---------------3,033 2,514 5,547
Percent 54%46%-55%45%----------------55%45%-
AM Peak 08:00 08:00 08:00 08:00 11:00 08:00 ---------------08:00 08:00 08:00
Vol.379 229 608 287 168 434 ---------------333 188 521
PM Peak 15:00 15:00 15:00 12:00 14:00 15:00 ---------------15:00 15:00 15:00
Vol.276 331 607 230 241 463 ---------------250 285 535
1. Mid-week average includes data between Tuesday and Thursday.
4/26/20214/25/20214/24/20214/23/2021
Tuesday Wednesday Thursday
4/21/20214/20/2021 Mid-Week Average4/22/2021
Friday Saturday Sunday Monday
1
Project Manager: (415) 310-6469
project.manager.ca@idaxdata.com
2.a
Packet Pg. 79
2.a
Packet Pg. 80
HortScience│Bartlett Consulting ● Divisions of The F.A. Bartlett Tree Expert Company
Preliminary Arborist Report
Bike Path
Herbert Hoover Elementary School to
Jane Lathrop Stanford Middle School
PREPARED FOR:
Palo Alto Unified School District
25 Churchill Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94306
PREPARED BY:
HortScience | Bartlett Consulting
325 Ray Street
Pleasanton, CA 94566
March 24, 2021
ATTACHMENT B2.b
Packet Pg. 81
HortScience│Bartlett Consulting ● Divisions of The F.A. Bartlett Tree Expert Company
Preliminary Arborist Report
Bike Path
Palo Alto, CA
Table of Contents
Page
Introduction and Overview 1 Assessment Methods 1 Description of Trees 2 Suitability for Preservation 4 Preliminary Evaluation of Impacts and Recommendations 5 Preliminary Tree Preservation Guidelines 6
List of Tables
Table 1. Condition ratings and frequency of occurrence of trees 2
Table 2. Tree suitability for preservation 5
Table 3. Tree disposition 6
Attachments
Tree Inventory Map Tree Assessment Form
2.b
Packet Pg. 82
HortScience | Bartlett Consulting, Divisions of The F. A. Bartlett Tree Expert Company
Preliminary Arborist Report
Bike Path
Palo Alto, CA
Introduction and Overview
The City of Palo Alto obtained a grant to renovate the bike path between Herbert Hoover
Elementary School and Jane Lathrop Stanford Middle School of the Palo Alto Unified School
District in Palo Alto, CA. HortScience | Bartlett Consulting (Divisions of The F.A. The Bartlett
Expert Tree Company) was asked to prepare a Preliminary Arborist Report for trees along the
path. The assessment area was limited to the 4 to 5-foot-wide strip between private property
fencing and the existing bike path. Energized electrical lines were located above the path.
Recommendations can be found in the Preliminary Evaluation of Impacts and Recommendations
section.
This report provides the following information:
1. An assessment of each tree’s health, structure, suitability for preservation and protected
status within and adjacent to the proposed project area.
2. Give a preliminary assessment of trees that can be preserved and removed base on
trees health and preliminary plans.
3. Preliminary guidelines for tree preservation throughout the planned demolition and
construction phases of the project.
Assessment Methods
Trees were assessed on March 16, 2021. Tree assessment included all trees located on the Bike
Path or that overhung the path. The assessment procedure consisted of the following steps:
1. Identifying the tree species.
2. Tagging trees and recording locations on a map.
3. Measuring the trunk diameter at a point 54 inches above grade.
4. Evaluating the health and structural condition using a scale of 1 – 5:
5 - A healthy, vigorous tree, reasonably free of signs and symptoms of disease, with
good structure and form typical of the species.
4 - Tree with slight decline in vigor, small amount of twig dieback, minor structural
defects that could be corrected.
3 - Tree with moderate vigor, moderate twig and small branch dieback, thinning of
crown, poor leaf color, moderate structural defects that might be mitigated with
regular care.
2 - Tree in decline, epicormic growth, extensive dieback of medium to large
branches, significant structural defects that cannot be abated.
1 - Tree in severe decline, dieback of scaffold branches and/or trunk; most of foliage
from epicormics; extensive structural defects that cannot be abated.
5. Rating the suitability for preservation as “high”, “moderate” or “low”. Suitability for
preservation considers the health, age and structural condition of the tree, and its
potential to remain an asset to the site for years to come.
High: Trees with good health and structural stability that have the potential for
longevity at the site.
Moderate: Trees with somewhat declining health and/or structural defects than can
be abated with treatment. The tree will require more intense
management and monitoring, and may have shorter life span than those
in ‘high’ category.
Low: Trees in poor health or with significant structural defects that cannot be
mitigated. Tree is expected to continue to decline, regardless of
treatment. The species or individual may have characteristics that are
undesirable for landscapes, and generally are unsuited for use areas.
2.b
Packet Pg. 83
Preliminary Arborist Report, Bike Path
Palo Alto Unified School District ~ March 24, 2021 Page 2
HortScience│Bartlett Consulting ● Divisions of The F.A. Bartlett Tree Expert Company
Description of Trees
Twenty-eight (28) trees representing seven species were evaluated (Table 1). Assessment was
limited to the 4 ft. wide area. Trees #....... were located on adjacent properties but had canopy
that extended over the bike path. The majority (85%) of trees were in fair condition. Colorado
blue spruce #20 was in good condition and Modesto ash trees #2, 3 and 22 were in poor
condition. Descriptions of each tree can be found in the Tree Assessment Form and
approximate locations are shown on the Tree Inventory Map (see Attachments).
Table 1: Condition ratings and frequency of occurrence of trees
Bike Path. Palo Alto, CA
Common Name Scientific Name Condition Total
Poor
(1-2)
Fair
(3)
Good
(4-5)
Modesto ash Fraxinus velutina 'Modesto' 3 12 - 15
Photinia Photinia fraseri - 1 - 1
Colorado blue spruce Picea pungens 'Glauca' - - 1 1
Holly oak Quercus ilex - 1 - 1
California pepper Schinus molle - 2 - 2
Coast redwood Sequoia sempervirens - 6 - 6
Chinese elm Ulmus parvifolia - 2 - 2
Total 3 24 1 28
The 15 Modesto ash 15 trees ranged from 21 to 38 inches in diameter. The ash trees were in fair
condition (12 trees) #2, 3 and 22 were in poor condition (Photo 1). All of the trees had been
topped for powerline clearance, resulting in misshapen crowns, decay, and an overall lack of
vigor. Modesto ash was simply too large a species for the confined growing space. Trees #2 and
3 were in such poor condition that they should be removed as soon as possible.
Six coast redwoods were mature with trunk diameters ranging from 24 to 36 inches. Redwoods
were fair condition with the typical pyramidal form.
They had, however, been side-trimmed, leaving a
gap in the canopy (Photo 2). The redwoods
appeared drought stressed with thin crowns and
chlorotic growth in places.
Four off-site trees were assessed: Chinese elms
#16 and 19 and California peppers #27 and 28.
The trunks of these trees were hidden behind
wood fences and could not be assessed.
However, their crowns were healthy and vigorous
with overhangs of 16 to 20 feet (Photo 3).
Photo 1: Modesto ash #22 was in poor condition
with topped branches, decay in seams of
attachments, growth was mostly epicormic.
2.b
Packet Pg. 84
Preliminary Arborist Report, Bike Path
Palo Alto Unified School District ~ March 24, 2021 Page 3
HortScience│Bartlett Consulting ● Divisions of The F.A. Bartlett Tree Expert Company
The remaining three species were represented by one
tree each.
• Colorado blue spruce (#20) was juvenile in
development with typical form for an evergreen
pine. However, the tree had a sinuous trunk.
The Colorado blue spruce was in good condition
with a full healthy crown.
• Holly oak (#12) had a 5-inch diameter and was
in fair condition with a small dense crown.
• Photinia (#21) was a large shrub with trunk
diameters ranging from 2 to 7 inches.
Photo 2 (right). Coast redwood in the background had
been notched out for powerline clearance. Modesto ash
#13 in the foreground had a fairly significant lean.
Photo 3 (right). The trunk of
Chinese elm #19 was not visible
from the site, but the crown was
healthy and the foliage over hung
the site by 20 feet.
Photo 4 (right). California pepper
#28 was overhanging the site by 16
feet. Growth was various and
healthy.
2.b
Packet Pg. 85
Preliminary Arborist Report, Bike Path
Palo Alto Unified School District ~ March 24, 2021 Page 4
HortScience│Bartlett Consulting ● Divisions of The F.A. Bartlett Tree Expert Company
Suitability for Preservation
Before evaluating the impacts that will occur during development, it is important to consider the
quality of the tree resource itself, and the potential for individual trees to function well over an
extended length of time. Trees that are preserved on development sites must be carefully
selected to make sure that they may survive development impacts, adapt to a new environment
and perform well in the landscape. Our goal is to identify trees that have the potential for long-
term health, structural stability and longevity within the proposed development.
Evaluation of suitability for preservation considers several factors:
▪ Tree health
Healthy, vigorous trees are better able to tolerate impacts such as root injury, demolition
of existing structures, changes in soil grade and moisture, and soil compaction than are
non-vigorous trees. Modesto ash trees #2 and 3 had decay cavities in the branch
attachments and were generally in poor health. These trees would not be worth
preserving.
▪ Structural integrity
Trees with significant amounts of wood decay and other structural defects that cannot be
corrected are likely to fail. Such trees should not be preserved in areas where damage to
people or property is likely. Modesto ash #22 had been headed back to avoid large limb
breakage or as a result of large limb breakage and would not be a good candidate for
preservation.
▪ Species response
There is a wide variation in the response of individual species to construction impacts
and changes in the environment. Coast redwood and California pepper are tolerant
construction impacts, whereas Modesto ash is less tolerant.
▪ Tree age and longevity
Old trees, while having significant emotional and aesthetic appeal, have limited
physiological capacity to adjust to an altered environment. Young trees are better able to
generate new tissue and respond to change.
▪ Invasiveness
Species that spread across a site and displace desired vegetation are not always
appropriate for retention. This is particularly true when indigenous species are displaced.
The California Invasive Plant Inventory Database (http://www.cal-ipc.org/paf/) lists
species identified as being invasive. Palo Alto is part of the Central West Floristic
Province. California pepper is listed as having limited invasiveness potential.
Each tree was rated for suitability for preservation based upon its age, health, structural condition
and ability to safely coexist within a development environment (Table 2, following page). We
consider trees with high suitability for preservation to be the best candidates for preservation. We
do not recommend retention of trees with low suitability for preservation in areas where people or
property will be present. Retention of trees with moderate suitability for preservation depends
upon the intensity of proposed site changes.
2.b
Packet Pg. 86
Preliminary Arborist Report, Bike Path
Palo Alto Unified School District ~ March 24, 2021 Page 5
HortScience│Bartlett Consulting ● Divisions of The F.A. Bartlett Tree Expert Company
Table 2: Tree suitability for preservation
Bike Path. Palo Alto, CA
High Trees in this category had good health and structural stability that have the
potential for longevity at the site. None of the trees assessed had high
suitability for preservation.
Moderate Trees in this category have fair health and/or structural defects that may be
abated with treatment. Trees in this category require more intense
management and monitoring and may have shorter lifespans than those in
the “high” category. Thirteen (13) trees including four coast redwoods (#5, 6,
7 and 14), Colorado blue spruce #20, Chinese elms #16 and 19, and
California peppers #27 and 28 had moderate suitability for preservation.
Low Trees in this category are in poor health or have significant defects in
structure that cannot be abated with treatment. These trees can be expected
to decline regardless of management. The species or individual tree may
possess either characteristics that are undesirable in landscape settings or
be unsuited for use areas. Fifteen (15) trees had low suitability for
preservation including 12 Modesto ash, redwoods #9 and 10, and photinia
#21.
Evaluation of Impacts and Recommendations
Appropriate tree retention requires a practical match between the location and intensity of
construction activities with the quality and health of trees. The tree assessment was the
reference point for tree condition and quality. Plans for the bike path have not yet been
developed. Once general, grading, drainage, stormwater, utility and landscape plans that will
likely impact trees have been prepared a more comprehensive assessment can be made.
Trees are growing in a 4 to 5-foot-wide area between the asphalt bike path and private property
fence line to the west. Construction proposes to remove the existing asphalt surface. Work
would then construct a new bike path with dividers between the edge of the path and the adjacent
street.
The trunks of on-site trees were located within 2 to 3-feet of the path. Removal of the asphalt will
likely impact trees in two ways: 1) root disturbance when the asphalt is removed, and 2) crown
injury due to equipment. Some trees may be severely damaged. I would expect impacts from
construction to be beyond the tolerance of the 15 trees with low suitability for preservation.
These trees should be considered for removal. Additionally, trees with moderate suitability and
poor species tolerance to impacts should be considered for removal.
I can assume that trees with moderate suitability for preservation and good species tolerance to
construction impacts are more likely to withstand impacts from construction (Table 3).
I recommend removing Modesto ash (#2, 3 and 22) which were in poor condition as soon as
possible. The trees were in poor conditions with defects that cannot be corrected with treatment.
General Tree Preservation Guidelines can be found below. Once details of construction are
provided, more project specific Tree Preservation Guidelines can be prepared.
2.b
Packet Pg. 87
Preliminary Arborist Report, Bike Path
Palo Alto Unified School District ~ March 24, 2021 Page 6
HortScience│Bartlett Consulting ● Divisions of The F.A. Bartlett Tree Expert Company
Table 3: Tree disposition
Bike Path. Palo Alto, CA
Tree
No. Species
Trunk
Diameter
(in.)
Suitability
for
Preservation
Disposition Comments
1 Modesto ash 19,15,14 Moderate Preserve Poor species tolerance
2 Modesto ash 35 Low Remove Condition removal
3 Modesto ash 32 Low Remove Condition removal
4 Modesto ash 29 Low Preserve Low suitability
5 Coast redwood 36 Moderate Preserve Moderate suit. Good species tolerance
6 Coast redwood 26 Moderate Preserve Moderate suit. Good species tolerance
7 Coast redwood 34 Moderate Preserve Moderate suit. Good species tolerance
8 Modesto ash 25 Low Preserve Low suitability
9 Coast redwood 34 Low Preserve Low suitability
10 Coast redwood 24 Low Preserve Low suitability
11 Modesto ash 25 Low Preserve Low suitability
12 Holly oak 5 Moderate Preserve Moderate suit. Good species tolerance
13 Modesto ash 19 Low Preserve Low suitability
14 Coast redwood 31 Moderate Preserve Moderate suit. Good species tolerance
15 Modesto ash 20 Low Preserve Low suitability
16 Chinese elm 28 Moderate Preserve Off-site. Moderate suit. Good tolerance
17 Modesto ash 38 Low Preserve Off-site. Moderate suit. Good tolerance
18 Modesto ash 30 Low Preserve Low suitability
19 Chinese elm 17 Moderate Preserve Off-site. Moderate suit. Good tolerance
20 Colorado blue
spruce
5 Moderate Preserve Moderate suit. Good species tolerance
21 Photinia 7,6,4,2 Low Preserve Low suitability
22 Modesto ash 35 Low Remove Low suitability
23 Modesto ash 35 Low Preserve Low suitability
24 Modesto ash 27 Moderate Preserve Poor species tolerance
25 Modesto ash 18 Low Preserve Low suitability
26 Modesto ash 21 Moderate Preserve Poor species tolerance
27 California pepper 35 Moderate Preserve Off-site. Moderate suit. Good tolerance
28 California pepper 30 Moderate Preserve Off-site. Moderate suit. Good tolerance
Preliminary Tree Preservation Guidelines
The goal of tree preservation is not merely tree survival during development but maintenance of
tree health and beauty for many years. Trees retained on sites that are either subject to
extensive injury during construction or are inadequately maintained become a liability rather than
an asset. The response of individual trees will depend on the amount of excavation and grading,
the care with which demolition is undertaken, and the construction methods. Coordinating any
construction activity inside the TREE PROTECTION ZONE can minimize these impacts.
The following recommendations will help reduce impacts to trees from development and maintain
and improve their health and vitality through the clearing, grading and construction phases. Plans
for redevelopment have not yet been finalized. Off-site trees and on-site trees with moderate
suitability for preservation should be preserved where possible.
2.b
Packet Pg. 88
Preliminary Arborist Report, Bike Path
Palo Alto Unified School District ~ March 24, 2021 Page 7
HortScience│Bartlett Consulting ● Divisions of The F.A. Bartlett Tree Expert Company
Design recommendations
1. Any changes to the plans affecting the trees should be reviewed by the Project Arborist
with regard to tree impacts. These include, but are not limited to, site plans, improvement
plans, utility and drainage plans, grading plans, landscape and irrigation plans, and
demolition plans.
2. Design adequate space around trees to be preserved. This area is called the TREE
PROTECTION ZONE: No grading, excavation, construction or storage of materials should
occur within that zone. Route underground services including utilities, sub-drains, water
or sewer around the TREE PROTECTION ZONE. In this case the tree protection zone should
be 1 ft. behind the edge of the existing path..
3. Irrigation systems must be designed so that no trenching severs roots larger than 1 inch
in diameter within the TREE PROTECTION ZONE.
4. Tree Preservation Guidelines prepared by the Project Arborist, which include
specifications for tree protection during demolition and construction, should be included
on all plans.
5. Any herbicides placed under paving materials must be safe for use around trees and
labeled for that use.
Pre-demolition and pre-construction treatments and recommendations
1. The demolition and construction superintendents shall meet with the Project Arborist
before beginning work to review all work procedures, access routes, storage areas, and
tree protection measures.
2. The TREE PROTECTION ZONE should be fenced. Alternatively, trees may be protected by
wrapping erosion control wattling and orange snow fence around the trunk to a height of
6 ft.
3. Prune trees to be preserved to clean the crown of dead branches 1 inch and larger in
diameter, raise canopies as needed for construction activities.
4. All pruning shall be done by a State of California Licensed Tree Contractor (C61/D49).
All pruning shall be done by Certified Arborist or Certified Tree Worker in accordance with
the Best Management Practices for Pruning (International Society of Arboriculture, 2002)
and adhere to the most recent editions of the American National Standard for Tree Care
Operations (Z133.1) and Pruning (A300). The Project Arborist will provide pruning
specifications prior to site demolition.
5. Structures and underground features to be removed within the TREE PROTECTION ZONE
shall use equipment that will minimize damage to trees above and below ground, and
operate from outside the TREE PROTECTION ZONE. The Project Arborist shall be on site
during all operations within the TREE PROTECTION ZONE to monitor demolition activity.
6. All tree work shall comply with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act as well as California Fish
and Wildlife code 3503-3513 to not disturb nesting birds. To the extent feasible, tree
pruning, and removal should be scheduled outside of the breeding season. Breeding bird
surveys should be conducted prior to tree work. Qualified biologists should be involved in
establishing work buffers for active nests.
Recommendations for tree protection during construction
1. Any approved grading, construction, demolition or other work within the TREE PROTECTION
ZONE should be monitored by the Project Arborist.
2. All contractors shall conduct operations in a manner that will prevent damage to trees to
be preserved.
2.b
Packet Pg. 89
Preliminary Arborist Report, Bike Path
Palo Alto Unified School District ~ March 24, 2021 Page 8
HortScience│Bartlett Consulting ● Divisions of The F.A. Bartlett Tree Expert Company
3. Tree protection devices are to remain until all site work has been completed within the
work area. Fences or other protection devices may not be relocated or removed without
permission of the Project Arborist.
4. Construction trailers, traffic and storage areas must remain outside TREE PROTECTION
ZONE at all times.
5. Any root pruning required for construction purposes shall receive the prior approval of
and be supervised by the Project Arborist. Roots should be cut with a saw to provide a
flat and smooth cut. Removal of roots larger than 2 inches in diameter should be
avoided.
6. If roots 1 inches and greater in diameter are encountered during site work and must be
cut to complete the construction, the Project Arborist must be consulted to evaluate
effects on the health and stability of the tree and recommend treatment.
7. Spoil from trench, footing, utility or other excavation shall not be placed within the TREE
PROTECTION ZONE, neither temporarily nor permanently.
8. All grading within the dripline of trees shall be done using the smallest equipment
possible. The equipment shall operate perpendicular to the tree and operate from
outside the TREE PROTECTION ZONE. Any modifications must be approved and monitored
by the Project Arborist.
9. All trees shall be irrigated on a schedule to be determined by the Project Arborist (every 3
to 6 weeks is typical). Each irrigation shall wet the soil within the TREE PROTECTION ZONE
to a depth of 18-24 inches.
10. If injury should occur to any tree during construction, it should be evaluated as soon as
possible by the Project Arborist so that appropriate treatments can be applied.
11. No excess soil, chemicals, debris, equipment or other materials shall be dumped or
stored within the TREE PROTECTION ZONE.
12. Any additional tree pruning needed for clearance during construction must be performed by a Certified Arborist and not by construction personnel or certified tree climber.
13. Trees that accumulate a sufficient quantity of dust on their leaves, limbs and trunk as judged by the Project Arborist shall be spray-washed at the direction of the Project Arborist.
Maintenance of impacted trees
Trees should be monitored and inspected annually and after major storms to identify conditions
requiring treatment to manage risk associated with tree failure.
Preserved trees will experience a physical environment different from that pre-development. As a
result, tree health and structural stability should be monitored. Occasional pruning, fertilization,
mulch, pest management, replanting and irrigation may be required. In addition, provisions for
monitoring both tree health and structural stability following construction must be made a priority.
Inspect trees annually and following major storms to identify conditions requiring treatment to
manage risk associated with tree failure.
Our procedures included assessing trees for observable defects in structure. This is not to say
that trees without significant defects will not fail. Failure of apparently defect-free trees does
occur, especially during storm events. Wind forces, for example, can exceed the strength of
defect-free wood causing branches and trunks to break. Wind forces coupled with rain can
saturate soils, reducing their ability to hold roots, and blow over defect-free trees. Although we
cannot predict all failures, identifying those trees with observable defects is a critical component
of enhancing public safety.
2.b
Packet Pg. 90
Preliminary Arborist Report, Bike Path
Palo Alto Unified School District ~ March 24, 2021 Page 9
HortScience│Bartlett Consulting ● Divisions of The F.A. Bartlett Tree Expert Company
Furthermore, trees change over time. Our inspections represent the condition of the tree at the
time of inspection. As trees age, the likelihood of failure of branches or entire trees increases.
Annual tree inspections are recommended to identify changes to tree health and structure. In
addition, trees should be inspected after storms of unusual severity to evaluate damage and
structural changes. Initiating these inspections is the responsibility of the client and/or tree
owner.
If you have any questions regarding my observations or recommendations, please contact me. HortScience | Bartlett Consulting
Darya Barar, Managing Consulting Urban Forester
ISA Certified Arborist No. WE-6757A
Registered Consulting Arborist #693
ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified
2.b
Packet Pg. 91
Preliminary Arborist Report, Bike Path
Palo Alto Unified School District ~ March 24, 2021 Page 10
HortScience│Bartlett Consulting ● Divisions of The F.A. Bartlett Tree Expert Company
Attachments
Tree Inventory Map
Tree Assessment Form
2.b
Packet Pg. 92
Tree Assessment Map
Bike Path
Herbert Hoover Elementary School
to Jane Lathrop Stanford
Middle School
Palo Alto, CA
Prepared for:
Palo Alto Unified School District
Palo Alto, CA
March 2021
No Scale
Notes:
Base map provided by:
Google Earth
Numbered tree locations are approximate.
325 Ray Street
Pleasanton, California 94566
Phone 925.484.0211
Fax 925.484.0596
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 11 8 9 10 12 13 14 17 15 16 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Herbert Hoover
Elementary School
Jane Lathrop Stanford
Middle School
2.b
Packet Pg. 93
Tree No. Species Trunk
Diameter
(in.)
Condition
1=poor
5=excellent
Suitability for
Preservation
Comments
1 Modesto ash 19,15,14 3 Moderate Multiple trunks arise from 3’; under power lines; one sided west.
2 Modesto ash 35 2 Low Multiple trunks arise from 3’; topped for power lines; western
trunk cracked resting on lines; *** breaking apart.
3 Modesto ash 32 2 Low Multiple trunks arise from 6’; topped for power lines; decay in
cavity; fussed branches; *** breaking apart.
4 Modesto ash 29 3 Low Multiple trunks arise from 4’; topped for power lines; decay in
cavities.
5 Coast redwood 36 3 Moderate Typical form and structure; thin; pruned for power line
clearance.
6 Coast redwood 26 3 Moderate Typical form and structure; thin; pruned for power line
clearance.
7 Coast redwood 34 3 Moderate Typical form and structure; thin; pruned for power line
clearance.
8 Modesto ash 25 3 Low Multiple trunks arise from 4’; topped for power lines; decay in
cavity.
9 Coast redwood 34 3 Low Typical form and structure; thin; pruned for power line
clearance.
10 Coast redwood 24 3 Low Trunk sweeps north; thin; pruned for power line clearance.
11 Modesto ash 25 3 Low Multiple trunks arise from 4’; topped for power lines; twig and
branch dieback.
12 Holly oak 5 3 Moderate Straight upright trunk; full healthy crown.
13 Modesto ash 19 3 Low Trunk leans north; cavity with decay on south side of trunk; twig
dieback.
14 Coast redwood 31 3 Moderate Typical form and structure; thin; pruned for power line
clearance.
Tree Assessment
Bike Path
Palo Alto, CA
March 16, 2021
2.b
Packet Pg. 94
Tree No. Species Trunk
Diameter
(in.)
Condition
1=poor
5=excellent
Suitability for
Preservation
Comments
Tree Assessment
Bike Path
Palo Alto, CA
March 16, 2021
15 Modesto ash 20 3 Low Multiple trunks arise from 3’; topped for powerline clearance;
twig dieback.
16 Chinese elm 28 3 Moderate Off-site; tagged on fence; can’t see trunk; multiple attachments
at 7’; overhangs 20’.
17 Modesto ash 38 3 Low Off-site; tagged on fence; can’t see trunk; multiple attachments
at 7’; overhangs 23’; topped for power line clearance.
18 Modesto ash 30 3 Low Multiple trunks arise from 4’&6’; one sided north; twig dieback.
19 Chinese elm 17 3 Moderate Off-site; tagged on fence; can’t see trunk; multiple attachments;
low over path; overhangs 20’.
20 Colorado blue
spruce
5 4 Moderate Sinuous trunk; typical form; healthy crown.
21 Photinia 7,6,4,2 3 Low Multiple trunks arise from base; twig and branch dieback; 2”
branch is dead.
22 Modesto ash 35 2 Low Multiple trunks arise from 3’; topped for powerline clearance;
twig dieback; decay in main attachment.
23 Modesto ash 35 3 Low Multiple trunks arise from 5’; pruned for power line clearance;
Ganoderma conks; one sided north.
24 Modesto ash 27 3 Moderate Multiple trunks arise from 5’; pruned for power line clearance;
one sided north.
25 Modesto ash 18 3 Low Multiple trunks arise from 5’; pruned for power line clearance;
one sided north.
26 Modesto ash 21 3 Moderate Multiple trunks arise from 4’; one sided north; full crown.
27 California pepper 35 3 Moderate Off-site; tagged on fence; can’t see trunk; multiple attachments;
overhangs 16’.
28 California pepper 30 3 Moderate Off-site; tagged on fence; can’t see trunk; multiple attachments;
overhangs 16’.
2.b
Packet Pg. 95
FABIAN WAY FABIAN WAY
FABIAN WAY FE
D
E
R
A
T
I
O
N
WA
Y
EA
S
T
C
H
A
R
L
E
S
T
O
N
RO
A
D
6'
10'
10'
10'
10'
6'
7'
6'
10'
10'
10'
10'
6'
6'
10'
10'
10'
10'
6'
3'
3'
6'
10'
10'
10'
10'
6'
3'
3'
7'
PRELIMINARY IDEAS FOR DISCUSSION
Charleston/Arastradero Corridor Project
Improvements Programmed Here
Charleston/Arastradero Corridor Project
Improvements Planned Here
ATTACHMENT C 2.c
Packet Pg. 96
FABIAN WAY FABIAN WAY
FABIAN WAY FE
D
E
R
A
T
I
O
N
WA
Y
6'
8'
10'
12'
10'
3'
3'6'
EA
S
T
C
H
A
R
L
E
S
T
O
N
RO
A
D
6'
8'
10'
12'
10'
3'
3'6'
PRELIMINARY IDEAS FOR DISCUSSION
Charleston/Arastradero Corridor Project
Improvements Programmed Here
Charleston/Arastradero Corridor Project
Improvements Planned Here
2.c
Packet Pg. 97
AL
M
A
ST
R
E
E
T
EM
E
R
S
O
N
S
T
R
E
E
T
EAST MEADOW DRIVERA
M
O
N
A
S
T
R
E
E
T
BR
Y
A
N
T
S
T
R
E
E
T
SO
U
T
H
C
O
U
R
T
C:
\
U
s
e
r
s
\
j
m
o
s
e
r
\
O
n
e
D
r
i
v
e
-
F
e
h
r
&
P
e
e
r
s
\
F
P
\
S
J
_
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
S
J
2
1
_
2
0
8
1
.
0
3
_
S
o
P
A
_
B
i
k
e
w
a
y
s
_
E
n
g
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
\
C
A
D
\
X
r
e
f
s
\
M
o
s
a
i
c
4
\
W
a
v
e
r
l
e
y
_
P
a
t
h
_
A
e
r
i
a
l
-
p
a
r
t
0
x
0
.
j
p
g
C:\U
s
e
r
s
\
j
m
o
s
e
r
\
O
n
e
D
r
i
v
e
-
F
e
h
r
&
P
e
e
r
s
\
F
P
\
S
J
_
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
S
J
2
1
_
2
0
8
1
.
0
3
_
S
o
P
A
_
B
i
k
e
w
a
y
s
_
E
n
g
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
\
C
A
D
\
X
r
e
f
s
\
M
o
s
a
i
c
4
\
W
a
v
e
r
l
e
y
_
P
a
t
h
_
A
e
r
i
a
l
-
p
a
r
t
0
x
0
.
j
p
g
EAST MEADOW DRIVE
JLS MIDDLESCHOOL FAIRMEADOWELEMENTARY SCHOOL
M
I
D
D
L
E
F
I
E
L
D
R
O
A
D
CORNERSTONECOMMUNITYCHURCH
COVENANTCHILDREN'SCENTER
WA
V
E
R
L
E
Y
ST
R
E
E
T
CO
W
P
E
R
S
T
R
E
E
T
G
R
O
V
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
6'
10'
10'
6'8'
3'4'
10'4'
6'
3'6'
11'
10'
8'
6'
10'
10'
6'8'
3'6'
11'
10'
6'
3'
10'
6'
11'
10'
6'
3'
10'
PRELIMINARY IDEAS FOR DISCUSSION
2'
3'
6'
10'
10'
6'8'
3'
3'
6'
10'
10'
6'8'
3'
3'
6'
10'
10'
6'8'
3'
3'
6'
10'
10'
6'8'
3'
3'3'
10'
10'
10'
2.c
Packet Pg. 98
EAST MEADOW DRIVE
R
O
S
S
R
O
A
D
AR
B
U
T
U
S
AV
E
N
U
E
L
O
U
I
S
R
O
A
D
EAST MEADOW DRIVE
OR
T
E
G
A
CO
U
R
T
SUNSHINEPRE-SCHOOL RAMOSPARK
EAST MEADOW DRIVE
Q
U
A
I
L
D
R
I
V
E
EAST MEADOW DRIVE
EA
S
T
M
E
A
D
O
W
CI
R
C
L
E
EA
S
T
M
E
A
D
O
W
DR
I
V
E
6'
11'
11'
6'8'
3'
3'
6'
10'
10'
6'8'
3'6'
11'
11'
6'8'
3'
3'
6'
10'
10'
6'8'
3'
6'3'11'
6'
11'2'
3'
3'
PA
L
O
M
E
S
T
R
E
E
T
PRELIMINARY IDEAS FOR DISCUSSION
No
Changes
Proposed
2.c
Packet Pg. 99
AL
M
A
ST
R
E
E
T
EM
E
R
S
O
N
S
T
R
E
E
T
EAST MEADOW DRIVERA
M
O
N
A
S
T
R
E
E
T
BR
Y
A
N
T
S
T
R
E
E
T
SO
U
T
H
C
O
U
R
T
..
\
X
r
e
f
\
X
-
A
e
r
i
a
l
_
0
7
A
.
j
p
g
..\
X
r
e
f
\
X
-
A
e
r
i
a
l
_
0
7
A
.
j
p
g
EAST MEADOW DRIVE
JLS MIDDLE
SCHOOL
FAIRMEADOW
ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
M
I
D
D
L
E
F
I
E
L
D
R
O
A
D
COVENANT
CHILDREN'S
CENTER
CORNERSTONE
COMMUNITY
CHURCH
WA
V
E
R
L
E
Y
ST
R
E
E
T
CO
W
P
E
R
S
T
R
E
E
T
G
R
O
V
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
6'
Install bollards
(typ.)
Parking protected
cycle track
10'
10'
8'
6'
3'
3'
6'
10'
10'
8'
6'
3'
3'
PRELIMINARY IDEAS FOR DISCUSSION
2.c
Packet Pg. 100
EAST MEADOW DRIVE
R
O
S
S
R
O
A
D
AR
B
U
T
U
S
AV
E
N
U
E
L
O
U
I
S
R
O
A
D
EAST MEADOW DRIVE
OR
T
E
G
A
CO
U
R
T
SUNSHINE
PRE-SCHOOL
RAMOS
PARK
EAST MEADOW DRIVE Q
U
A
I
L
D
R
I
V
E
EAST MEADOW DRIVE
EA
S
T
M
E
A
D
O
W
CI
R
C
L
E
EA
S
T
M
E
A
D
O
W
DR
I
V
E
6'
10'
10'
8'
6'
3'
3'
FA
B
I
A
N
W
A
Y
Install bollards (typ.)
Parking protected
cycle track
PA
L
O
M
E
S
T
R
E
E
T
11'
11'
11'
6'
PRELIMINARY IDEAS FOR DISCUSSION
No
Changes
Proposed
2.c
Packet Pg. 101
PRELIMINARY IDEAS FOR DISCUSSION
Waverley Multi-Use Path Idea 1Widen into grassy strip at pinch points, where feasibleEast Meadow Drive to East Charleston Road
Preliminary Ideas for Discussion Only
2.c
Packet Pg. 102
PRELIMINARY IDEAS FOR DISCUSSION
Waverley Multi-Use Path Idea 2Widen towards either side, where feasible East Meadow Drive to East Charleston Road
Preliminary Ideas for Discussion Only
2.c
Packet Pg. 103
Community Survey
Launched through the project webpage at cityofpaloalto.org/bikeways
from May 13, 2021 to May 31, 2021
ATTACHMENT D2.d
Packet Pg. 104
South Palo Alto Bikeways Community Survey
Thank you for participating in this community survey gathering feedback
about existing conditions and preferences for improvements.
The City of Palo Alto is undertaking an effort to improve bicycling along
East Meadow Drive, Fabian Way, and the Waverley Bike Path in South
Palo Alto. These corridors serve as key walk-and-roll routes for students
traveling to multiple schools and connect the community to the new
Adobe Creek Pedestrian/Bike Bridge over Highway 101, opening
Summer 2021, as well as other Palo Alto communities.
Please share your thoughts below and join the City for a series of
upcoming events to share input and learn more about potential bikeway
enhancements under consideration. Go to cityofpaloalto.org/bikeways
Please submit only one survey per household.
Types of Bikeways
This survey includes some terminology with respect to different types of
bikeways. Below are some definitions and example pictures so you can
familiarize yourself with these terms.
Standard bike lane:
Standard bike lanes create a dedicated lane for bikes marked with white
edge lines on the pavement.
English
2.d
Packet Pg. 105
Buffered bike lane:
Buffered bike lanes create a dedicated lane for bikes, with the added
benefit of putting extra space between cyclists and passing cars, usually
with a painted safeguard area (buffer) of one to two feet.
Protected bike lane:
Protected bike lanes clearly delineate space on the road for bikes and
prevent cars from infringing on that space by installing physical barriers
English
2.d
Packet Pg. 106
prevent cars from infringing on that space by installing physical barriers
such as plastic bollards or a raised curb.
Protected bike lane with plastic bollards
Protected bike lane with raised curb
Parking-protected bike lane:
Parking-protected bike lanes are protected bike lanes with parking
English
2.d
Packet Pg. 107
g p p p g
between the physical barrier (e.g. plastic bollards, raised curb) and the
vehicle lane, providing an additional layer of protection for bikes.
Parking-protected bike lane with plastic bollards
Parking-protected bike lane with raised curb
English
2.d
Packet Pg. 108
Interactive Webmap
1. Please use the interactive webmap to share your thoughts about the
existing bikeways and potential future improvements at specific
locations on the corridors.
Webmap: https://arcg.is/0P8GWO
Corridor Options
Multiple options are being considered for each corridor. Please indicate
which option you prefer below.
2. Fabian Way
The existing street cross-section for Fabian Way is as follows:
Option 1 - Buffered Bike Lanes and Parking Removal
Option 1 would remove existing parking to provide buffered bike lanes in
both directions.
English
2.d
Packet Pg. 109
View the full corridor with this option.
Option 2 - Protected Bike Lanes and Lane Removals
Option 2 would remove one travel lane in each direction to provide a
parking-protected bike lane eastbound, a protected bike lane
westbound, and a two-way-left-turn median.
View the full corridor with this option.
Option 1 – Buffered Bike Lanes and Parking Removal
Please indicate which option you prefer for Fabian Way:
English
2.d
Packet Pg. 110
Option 2 – Protected Bike Lanes and Lane Removals
Option 3 – Something Else (please describe below)
3. East Meadow Drive
The existing street cross-section for East Meadow Drive is as follows:
Option 1 - Buffered Bike Lanes and Parking Removal
Option 1 would remove parking on one side of the street to provide
buffered bike lanes in both directions.
English
2.d
Packet Pg. 111
View the full corridor with this option.
Option 2 - Protected Bike Lanes and Parking Removal
Option 2 would remove parking on one side of the street to provide a
protected bike lane in one direction and a parking-protected bikeway in
the other direction.
View the full corridor with this option.
Option 1 – Buffered Bike Lanes and Parking Removal
Option 2 – Protected Bike Lanes and Parking Removal
Option 3 – Something Else (please describe below)
Please indicate which option you prefer for East Meadow Drive:
4. Waverly Path
English
2.d
Packet Pg. 112
The existing Waverley path is separated from vehicles in the adjacent
school parking by a tall fence (right side of the path in the photo below).
This project would replace the existing fence adjacent to the school
parking with a shorter barrier that would not trap handlebars.
Option 1 - Widen path into grassy strip only at pinch points, where
feasible
This option would widen the path into the grassy strip (left in the picture
below) at pinch points, where feasible. The path would not be widened
toward the school in this option, so existing pinch points adjacent to trees
would remain.
This option would replace the existing fence with a shorter barrier and
maintain it at its existing location.
The image below shows an example of this path widening at an existing
pinch point by a fire hydrant and a potential lower barrier.
English
2.d
Packet Pg. 113
Option 2 - Widen path towards either side, where feasible
This option would widen the path, where feasible, towards the grassy
strip (right in the picture below) and/or towards the school property (left
in the picture below).
This option would also replace the existing fence with a shorter barrier
and adjust its location adjacent to the school parking.
The image below shows an example of this path widening and a potential
lower barrier.
Option 1 – Widen path into grassy strip only at pinch points, where feasible
Option 2 – Widen path towards either side, where feasible
Please indicate which option you prefer for Waverley Path:
5. The grant funding this project requires that a bikeway with physical
protection between bicyclists and vehicles be provided on a portion of
the roadway corridors. On which corridor would you prefer to see
protected bikeways?
Check all that apply.
*
English
2.d
Packet Pg. 114
Fabian Way
East Meadow between Meadow Cir and Louis Rd
East Meadow between Louis Rd and Ross Rd
East Meadow between Ross Rd and Middlefield Rd
East Meadow between Middlefield Rd and Waverley St
East Meadow between Waverley St and Alma St
Demographics
I live here.
I work here.
I go to school in the city.
I visit family in the city.
I use services in the city.
Other (please specify below)
6. What brings you to Palo Alto?
Check all that apply.
*
English
2.d
Packet Pg. 115
As a driver
As a bicyclist
As a pedestrian
As a transit rider
7. How do you experience these corridors?
Check all that apply.
*
8. What is your home zip code?
Enter 5-digit ZIP code; for example, 94303
None
1
2
3 or more
Prefer not to say
9. How many students 18 years old and under living in your household
ride a bicycle to/from school?*
English
2.d
Packet Pg. 116
Commuting to work/school
Recreation/Fitness
Shopping/Errands
Other (please specify below)
No one in this household bikes
10. Please indicate if any adults in your household ride a bike for the
following activities:
Select all that apply.
*
Submit
English
2.d
Packet Pg. 117
Survey Responses
2.d
Packet Pg. 118
1. Please use the interactive webmap to share your thoughts about the existing bikeways and
potential future improvements at specific locations on the corridors.
https://www.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=94f5c92265784cc894fcab890cc2c123&ext
ent=-13594694.6789%2C4497507.6518%2C-13592255.86%2C4499411.4115%2C102100
2.d
Packet Pg. 119
Waverly Path Webmap Comments
Widen Pin Adequate Pin Other Comments
Path needs to be widened the entire length. 10' minimum
with space of 2' on either side to the fences
This bikeway is fine as is. Need better/ clearer pathway to get here
from the other side of Charleston.
Open up intersection near where the bike racks are, so
people don't have to slow down to make the sharp curve
No comment provided should have an easy path to mitchel park
from here - you have to go around the
hoover parking lot to get there now and
that's not safe
Widen path where tree roots and hydrants cause a pinch
point. I am concerned about removing fence because
currently, the fence limits where students can exit the path;
bollards or delineators would make it easier for students to
go into the parking lot wherever they want to. Furthermore, if
there are bike accidents, students could more easily tip into
parking lot traffic without the fenceMy choice would be a
lower fence or lower continuous barrier.
Not very safe turning left from Waverly path
onto Charleston
Not sure what the solution is, but there are many near
accidents here as students slow down to turn into cages.
Trees are cutting into the path making it dangerous for bikers
and walkers.
There needs to be a passthrough to the park here. Otherwise
you have to go through the drive line at Hoover. There is a
gate here but it's always locked!
So glad that you are planning to repair and widen this
pathway. It has been a safety hazard for some years!
Too narrow, with trees and fire hydrants
yes, widen the path and lower the fence that "catches" kid's
handlebars. But, use a solid, low barrier, to prevent kids from
zig-zagging in and out of the dividers and being in the JLS
auto traffic lane. (kids will always zig-zag, given the chance -
so please be cautious of barrier material used here.
No comment provided
Widen the path but keep a permanent barrier between
Meadow and the parking lot so kids on bikes can't dart in/out
& across vehicle lanes.
No comment provided
2.d
Packet Pg. 120
Fabian Way Webmap Comments
Protected Bikeway Buffered Bikeway Other Comments
Fabian has commercial traffic - trucks and cars.
Cyclists should have a protected bikeway on this
roadway. Reduce the two traffic lanes in each
direction to just one traffic lane. Most properties
are businesses and have their own parking, but it
is possible to have a parking protected bikeway.
Traffic fairly light most of the
time; street is wide
Need safe left turn from S bound
Charleston onto Fabian.
Fabian is a busy street and we feel unsafe biking
here.
Don't allow wide vehicles to park.
They block the bike path
We feel unsafe to bike here - we need a protected
bikeway here.
Wayfinding to freeway bridge
crossing should be installed here
It is terrible to bike in this area because the cars
travel so fast, and are commuters not necessarily
looking out for school kids
This light is very unsafe for
pedestrians attempting to cross
Charleston. I don't understand how
this happens, but there are times
when I have the "walk" sign at the
same time traffic is cleared to turn
left across my path.
Fabian is very busy, with a lot of commuter traffic
moving quickly. My family feels unsafe biking
here, even on weekends.
No comment provided
This is not an easy street for children to bike on
and we would like children (and their parents) to be
comfortable biking to school, so adding protected
bike lanes lanes for this whole stretch would be
very helpful.
2.d
Packet Pg. 121
East Meadow Webmap Comments
Protected Bikeways Buffered Bikeways
Dangerous for bikes where westbound E. Meadow expands to 4
lanes (plus right turn) at the Alma light
Lots of cars parked on both sides of the street here and road is
narrower, making it more dangerous for bikers
Dangerous to turn left onto E Meadow from Bryant. Traffic can get
really busy in the AM and PM, cyclists need to constantly look
both ways for oncoming traffic. Bryant is a bike friendly route from
north to south Palo Alto, except when making this left turn onto E
Meadow.
Many parked cars on both sides of street make it more dangerous
for bicyclists
My family avoids biking on East Meadow because it's not safe. I wonder if a protected or buffered bike lane on Meadow between E
Meadow and Cowper would make the area feel safer for
elementary school commuters. Middle schoolers and up I think are
generally fine with existing infrastructure. Would be nice to have
parking buffered bike lanes on school (south) side of Meadow to
reduce risk to cyclists from car drop offs.
No comment provided There is too much interaction between cars getting in and out of
parking spots and bicyclists.
Cars turning right always a source of conflict w bikes going
straight!!!
Cars turning right conflict with bicyclists (east-bound). I find it
challenging as both a driver and cyclist. If the street order can be
sidewalk>right turn lane>bike lane>car travel lane>street
midpoint, I think that would be safer.
A parking protected bike lane between the diagonal parking and
the sidewalk would be a significant safety improvement - this is a
busy area with lots of distractions. Managing cross-traffic
between the bike lane and the drop off lane is a hurdle, but this is
already a problem and I'm not sure it gets worse with a parking
protected lane. If parking needs to be removed on the opposite
side of the street to accommodate this, that may be a problem.
These bike lanes are heavily used particularly by Gunn students.
Add parking protected bike lanes and remove parking on one side
of the street between Alma & Waverley. This is a relatively easy
place to accommodate this change, with very few driveways and
infrequent parking use.
Vehicle drop off is chaotic and a safety issue for bikes. Please
add a parking protected bike lane on the school side of the street
between Waverley and the pull in parking area.
2.d
Packet Pg. 122
East Meadow Webmap Comments (continued)
Bikeways are Adequate Other Comments
Not too much traffic here, and street is wide enough to
accommodate bikes and parked cars
Please remove stop signs on East Meadow at the
roundabout. These are confusing to drivers and
bicyles. Most people ignore them.
The existing bike lanes on Meadow from Alma to Ross are wide
and well marked. The bike lanes need to be striped on the
roadway from Ross to East Meadow Circle. No need for a
protective bikeway on this street. Use the money on Fabian Way.
The rotary must have failed because you installed stop
signs. What failed? Tell us, please, as loudly as you
introduced the rotary.
Clearly mark the bike lane on this short street with relatively little
traffic Use the money to put a protective bikeway on Fabian - that
road is dangerous.
Just to echo the removal of stop signs - cars will
speed past this on Ross instead of treating this a yield.
Very dangerous for bikers. We usually walk across if
there are any cars on approach.
This is a less frequently used part of e meadow. While I think
buffered lanes are good, I think installing bollards is overkill and
overcomplicates parking, garbage pickup, etc....
To expound a bit - either add stop signs in both
directions or remove them from E Meadow. Otherwise
Ross traffic may feel like they have the right away,
even if a biker is about to enter the intersection.
Many use this side of the street for accessible access to the park -
for example transporting equipment. It would be nice to continue
to easily park here.
This roundabout has caused nothing but problems
from day one, the addition of the stop stops have only
made matters worse. Few users know how to use
roundabouts, & there are regular incidents almost
resulting in accidents. Remove the roundabout!
I don't like the idea of bollards in residential neighborhoods. Even
very busy streets like San Antonio do not have these.
I have seen multiple traffic accidents at this site from
cars hitting pedestrians or bicyclists. Either from
turning onto East Meadow or running the traffic light.
I don't like the idea of bollards in residential neighborhoods. Even
very busy streets like San Antonio do not have these.
No comment provided
Honestly, we travel this route daily for school (back and forth)
and don't really see any issues. The bike path is huge.
No comment provided
I'm ok with making the existing bike paths wider and safer. I am
against bollards or curves on East Meadow as they will prevent
the street cleaning trucks from doing work. We also have elderly
and I would like them to park closer to the houses (and not on the
street where they have to cross the bike paths)
Restore the roundabout. (remove stop signs)
The existing bike lanes between Waverley and Ross are wide and
comfortable to bike in. Cars seem well aware there are bicyclists
and look out for them. The only concern would be riding
westbound into a car door between Middlefield and Waverley,
where E. Meadow his heavily parked on the north side of the
road. However, people who park there seem to be well aware of
bicyclists and are careful.
Where road bends, car drivers go into bike lane.
Bike lanes are plenty wide enough, no need to spend money on
additional bike safety features.
comming out of Waverly path and turning left, cyclists
are on wrong side of intersection to trigger the light.
2.d
Packet Pg. 123
East Meadow Webmap Comments (continued)
Bikeways are Adequate Other Comments
Would prefer buffered bike lines During AM school traffic, there are too often too many
bikes to fit safely when waiting for the light to turn
green. (Wait times can be pretty long due to morning
trains.) Need to widen bike lane here, or fix
intersection to increase bike waiting capacity
Do not like the idea of bollards or other obstructions on streets
with houses. Empty lots of parks is a different story.
Wayfinding to freeway bridge crossing should be
installed here
I nearly hit a big bolt on the street. I would greatly prefer buffered
vs protected for safety reasons! I want the street cleaners to
remove this unsafe debris weekly and a protected lane would
prevent this. With all the construction I see nails, bolts, screws
and all sorts of stuff every week!
this intersection is very dangerous for the many
pedestrians + families who use it daily. Cars often do
not stop. This intersection needs something to help
(but NOT a roundabout!!!) I'm so afraid someone will
be hit here. Pedestrians often don't l
No comment provided We need a safe and well-marked connection between
the bike lane and new path along Adobe Creek. If
protected bike lanes can be added on this short stretch
of E. Meadow, that could be beneficial.
Bike to school everyday and it's fine
bike here on weekends all the time, don't see a problem really
existing bike lane is fine except when horedes of kids ride several
abreast.
No comment provided
Please do not put up barriers in residential neibhorhoods.
Middlefield is ok, but these streets is not. We have elderly and
this will be a major hassle not exiting a car next to the house.
The bile lanes + parking here are fine. Don't use bollards or limit
parking to one side of the road. Residents and guests, deserve
and need accessibility to their homes with street parking and no
obstructions.
The bike lanes here are fine and parking is need in front of the
park. With that said, if a parking protected bike lane is feasible
without losing parking on one side, that would be beneficial.
2.d
Packet Pg. 124
2. Please indicate which option you prefer for Fabian Way
2. Please indicate which option you prefer for Fabian Way: N = 258 Respondents (%)
Option 1 – Buffered Bike Lanes and Parking Removal 66 26
Option 2 – Protected Bike Lanes and Lane Removal 149 58
Option 3 – Other 19 7
No Preference Stated 24 9
Other Responses:
Protected bike lane with plastic bollards. I don't like parking-protected bike lanes because they hide
bikes from car drivers.
Buffered lanes, but put the buffer between parked cars and cyclists. Getting doored is the biggest
risk!
No change
Remove all parking and put in protected bikeways. Nobody really needs to park on Fabian.
Companies and Altaire have plenty of parking in their lots. That might allow two traffic lanes each
way or the 1+1+ turn lane.
Keep Fabian "as is" w/ two lanes each way, but add green paint to dilineate bike travel paths. Fabian
Way is not a problem.
26%
58%
7%
9%
Please Indicate Which Option You Prefer for Fabian Way
Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 No Preference Stated
2.d
Packet Pg. 125
Leave as is
Leave it as is. Stop wasting public $ to make things worse for bikers and cars
Protect the bike lane, cars drift, but we don’t need to lose a lane unless we cannot protect cyclists
another way
Standard bike lane
Leave as is
Leave it as is
This is too dangerous for bikes. PA has allowed too much development in this area to make biking
safe here. It will slow down auto traffics far too much.
Preference for Option 2 without the bollards on the westbound bike lane. Removing parking in this
direction adds a great amount of safety without the distraction of the bollards to both bicyclists and
automobile traffic. Side obstructions slow traffic.
leave as is. Do not change
Leave as is
Leave Fabian "as is" with parking on one side and bike lanes on each side of the road AND keep 2
lanes of traffic in each direction. DO NOT REDUCE LANES.
Leave as is , to ensure that lanes are not reduced from 4 to 2 (just 1 in each direction is not enough
for the traffic carried on that road) and also we should never take away parking in Palo Alto, as it is
desperately needed.
2.d
Packet Pg. 126
3. Please indicate which option you prefer for East Meadow Drive
3. Please indicate which option you prefer for East Meadow
Drive N = 258
Respondents
(%)
Option 1 - Buffered 62 24
Option 2 - Protected 136 53
Option 3 - Other 47 18
No Preference Stated 13 5
Other Responses:
I would like parking on both sides of street. It's not fair to homeowners to remove parking.
Standard Bike lane
I prefer the existing standard bike lanes as there is not enough parking on this street as it is
Option 2, except east of Middlefield, then no change
Protected bike lane with plastic bollards. I don't like parking-protected bike lanes because they hide
bikes from car drivers.
Bike Lanes as they exist are fine. Parking removal not necessary. Stripe bike lanes from Ross to E.
Meadow Circle.
24%
53%
18%
5%
East Meadow Preference
Option 1 - Buffered Option 2 - Protected Option 3 - Other No Preference Stated
2.d
Packet Pg. 127
neither option shows adequate treatment at the Adobe Creek crossing which purprtedly would be the
access point to the bridge over Hwy-101, hence cannot indicate a preference. Furthermore, it is not
easy to choose without knowing about parking
Option that retains parking on both sides of the street.
Leave as-is.
I think a compromise with something similar to San Antonio and Charleston, this is close to buffered
bike lanes but without the bollards that make this hazardous to residential neighborhoods.
no changes, enforce the speed limit. green bike path on each side. the street is wider than most in the
area, leaving plenty of room for cars and bikes.
I prefer Buffered Bike Lanes. I chose this option to explain my answer. I don't like the idea of bollards
or curbs on East Meadow. The street gets extremely dirty due to the high wind. The street cleaning
trucks will not be able to clean the bike paths.
No change
I’d say leave East Meadow alone except for possibly removing the roundabout at Ross and restoring
the 4-way stop.
Designated bike lanes in both directions, especially between the Ross Road roundabout and Louis
Road. Many cars speed in this area, potentially endangering school-age bike-riders. There are no 25
MPH speed-limit signs posted in this area.
East and west of Middlefield are different scenarios. Protected bikeways are not compatible with
residential streets. East of Middlefield should be left as is. We will send a separate e-mail with more
comments about E. Meadow plans.
Keep parking on both sides of the street. Reduce auto travel lanes to 10 ft. Add the painted buffer
between cars and bikes. Reduce the bike pathway to 5 ft.
Leave as is. I’m a daily cyclist and what’s there works well. It’s not broken.
All plans must address intersection at E.Meadow & Middlefield; south side next to fire station.
Turning from E.Meadow south onto Middlefield, cars make a right turn lane by going into bike path
and on side walk even if children are present (bikes & foot)
Please stop removing parking in areas that need parking. Definitely don't put parking in between the
street and the bike lane (opt2). It seems rarely safe b/c people don't think before opening their right
doors (straight into the bike lane)!
Leave it as is. Stop wasting public $ to make things worse for bikers and cars
Don't change anything please!
Keep existing. Reducing any street space in E.Meadow would make everything worse (like Charleston,
a complete disaster!)
Standard bike lane
As someone who lives on E Meadow, I am very against the idea of protected bikeways for residential
streets. As someone with young kinds, I can see them trying to play games around bollards in their
scooters while riding around.
I am very against protected bike lanes for safety reasons. Just today I was biking on East Meadow and
nearly hit a big bolt. This is not uncommon. Bollards or curbs prevent the weekly street sweeper
machines from keeping our streets safe!
Leave as is
It’s fine now, remove the stupid circle in the middle of intersection, it’s taking up too much space
Clearer identification and better upkeep of current bike lanes. This entire bike project involving E.
Meadow and Ross has been an absolute debacle. Remove that dangerous circle and clean up hedges
at the corner for better visibility!!
2.d
Packet Pg. 128
Leave East Meadow between Ross and Louis as is.
Standard bike lanes with clear markings
Make no changes on East Meadow between Ross and Louis Roads.
leave as is. Do not change
Retain existing configuration.
Leave as is
We are on Meadow and have elderly. We need to exit the car and be by the home. We are very
worried about them getting hit by a bike.
please leave east meadow as is
Standard bike lane. Leave things as they are now
DO NOT REMOVE PARKING ON EAST MEADOW - especially between Ross and Louis
Leave as is.
Hybrid: Alma to Waverley- parking protected bike lanes and parking removal on 1 side of street.
Waverley to Fairmeadow- parking protect bike lane between the diagonal parking and sidewalk.
Please leave E Meadow "as is"/no changes between Ross and Louis. We live on that segment of East
Meadow Dr. and there already is not enough parking. We don't want reduced parking or bollards on
that stretch.
Do not install bollards or remove parking on one side of the street for residents on East Meadow. Do
not install any more round about either. Residents need parking in this town and obstructions in the
roadway , like the mess on Charleston. Keep parking!
2.d
Packet Pg. 129
4. Please indicate which option you prefer for Waverley Path
4. Please indicate which option you prefer for Waverley Path N = 258
Respondents
(%)
Option 1 - Widen towards grassy strip 65 25
Option 2 - Widen either side 170 66
No Preference Stated 23 9
25%
66%
9%
Waverley Path Preference
Option 1 - Widen towards grassy strip
Option 2 - Widen either side
No Preference Stated
2.d
Packet Pg. 130
5. The grant funding for this project requires that a bikeway with physical protection between
bicyclists and vehicles will be provided on a portion of the roadway corridors. On which
corridor would you prefer to see protected bikeways?
5. The grant funding this project requires that a bikeway
with physical protection between bicyclists and vehicles be
provided on a portion of the roadway corridors. On which
corridor would you prefer to see protected bikeways? N = 258
Respondents
(%)
East Meadow between Middlefield Rd and Waverley St 144 56%
Fabian Way 139 54%
East Meadow between Waverley St and Alma St 117 45%
East Meadow between Ross Rd and Middlefield Rd 84 33%
East Meadow between Louis Rd and Ross Rd 61 24%
East Meadow between Meadow Cir and Louis Rd 58 22%
56%54%
45%
33%
24%22%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
East Meadow
between
Middlefield Rd
and Waverley St
Fabian Way East Meadow
between
Waverley St and
Alma St
East Meadow
between Ross Rd
and Middlefield
Rd
East Meadow
between Louis
Rd and Ross Rd
East Meadow
between
Meadow Cir and
Louis Rd
Protected Bikeway Segment Preference
2.d
Packet Pg. 131
6. What brings you to Palo Alto?
6. What brings you to Palo Alto? N = 258 Respondents (%)
Live 243 94%
Work 67 26%
Use Services 62 24%
Go to School 47 18%
Visit Family 14 5%
Other 3 1%
No Response 2 1%
Other Comments:
Children go to school in Palo Alto.
I worked here. I am now retired. I still home my home here.
94%
26%24%
18%
5%1%<1%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Live Work Use
Services
Go to
School
Visit Family Other No
Response
What Respondents do in Palo Alto
2.d
Packet Pg. 132
7. How do you experience these corridors?
7. How do you experience these corridors? N = 258 Respondents (%)
As a bicyclist 218 84%
As a driver 205 79%
As a pedestrian 157 61%
As a transit rider 16 6%
No Response 2 1%
How Respondents Use Corridors
As a bicyclist
As a driver
As a pedestrian
As a transit rider
No Response
2.d
Packet Pg. 133
8. What is your home zip code?
8. What is your home zip code? N = 258 Respondents (%)
94025 2 0.8%
94043 1 0.4%
94061 1 0.4%
94085 1 0.4%
94301 16 6.2%
94303 134 51.9%
94304 3 1.2%
94305 4 1.6%
94306 84 32.6%
94396 1 0.4%
95112 1 0.4%
No Response Provided 10 3.9%
2.d
Packet Pg. 134
9. How many students 18 years old and under living in your household ride a bicycle to/from
school?
9. How many students 18 years old and under living in your
household ride a bicycle to/from school? N = 258 Respondents (%)
1 59 23%
2 88 34%
3 or More 29 11%
None 72 28%
Prefer Not to Say 8 3%
No Response 2 1%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
1 2 3 or More None Prefer Not to
Say
No Response
How Many Students Under 18 in Household Bike
to/from School
2.d
Packet Pg. 135
10. Please indicate if any adults in your household ride a bike for the following activities
10. Please indicate if any adults in your household ride a bike
for the following activities N = 258 Respondents (%)
Recreation/Fitness 210 81%
Commuting to work/school 145 56%
Shopping/Errands 140 54%
No one in the household bikes 14 5%
Other (please specify below) 11 4%
No Response 3 1%
Other Comments:
We bike everywhere and never use our car - the main reason I live in Palo Alto.
Eating out at California Avenue or University Avenue
School
My kids are biking to school
I try to ride everywhere in Palo Alto when I can
Until recently commuted by bike to CalTrain station at California Avenue. We strongly disapprove of
bollards anywhere on city streets. Sight lines are very important particularly w private vegetation at
Ross-Meadow and Park vegetation at Ross-Mayview.
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
Recreation/Fitness Commuting to
work/school
Shopping/Errands No one in the
household bikes
Other (please
specify below)
No Response
Activites That Adults in Household Ride a Bike for
2.d
Packet Pg. 136
Pretty much any time (one of us) leaves the house... work play shopping first/last mile to transit for
larger trips exercise...
visiting family and friends
volunteer work
We want smart decisions made about biking along with consideration of residents and to keep
parking spaces as Palo Alto needs parking. We need to be realistic that bikes cars kids adults
pedestrians all need to co exist here now and in the future.
2.d
Packet Pg. 137
FABIAN WAY FABIAN WAY
FABIAN WAY FE
D
E
R
A
T
I
O
N
WA
Y
6'
8'
10'
12'
10'
3'
3'6'
EA
S
T
C
H
A
R
L
E
S
T
O
N
RO
A
D
6'
8'
10'
12'
10'
3'
3'6'
PRELIMINARY IDEAS FOR DISCUSSION
Charleston/Arastradero Corridor Project
Improvements Programmed Here
Charleston/Arastradero Corridor Project
Improvements Planned Here
Preliminary Concept, Detailed Engineering Analysis Required
ATTACHMENT E
2.e
Packet Pg. 138
AL
M
A
ST
R
E
E
T
EM
E
R
S
O
N
S
T
R
E
E
T
EAST MEADOW DRIVERA
M
O
N
A
ST
R
E
E
T
BR
Y
A
N
T
S
T
R
E
E
T
SO
U
T
H
C
O
U
R
T
C
:
\
U
s
e
r
s
\
j
m
o
s
e
r
\
O
n
e
D
r
i
v
e
-
F
e
h
r
&
P
e
e
r
s
\
F
P
\
S
J
_
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
S
J
2
1
_
2
0
8
1
.
0
3
_
S
o
P
A
_
B
i
k
e
w
a
y
s
_
E
n
g
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
\
C
A
D
\
X
r
e
f
s
\
M
o
s
a
i
c
4
\
W
a
v
e
r
l
e
y
_
P
a
t
h
_
A
e
r
i
a
l
-
p
a
r
t
0
x
0
.
j
p
g
C:\
U
s
e
r
s
\
j
m
o
s
e
r
\
O
n
e
D
r
i
v
e
-
F
e
h
r
&
P
e
e
r
s
\
F
P
\
S
J
_
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
S
J
2
1
_
2
0
8
1
.
0
3
_
S
o
P
A
_
B
i
k
e
w
a
y
s
_
E
n
g
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
\
C
A
D
\
X
r
e
f
s
\
M
o
s
a
i
c
4
\
W
a
v
e
r
l
e
y
_
P
a
t
h
_
A
e
r
i
a
l
-
p
a
r
t
0
x
0
.
j
p
g
EAST MEADOW DRIVE
JLS MIDDLE
SCHOOL
FAIRMEADOW
ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
M
I
D
D
L
E
F
I
E
L
D
R
O
A
D
CORNERSTONE
COMMUNITY
CHURCH
COVENANT
CHILDREN'S
CENTER
WA
V
E
R
L
E
Y
ST
R
E
E
T
CO
W
P
E
R
S
T
R
E
E
T
G
R
O
V
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
4'
10'
4'
6'
3'6'
10'
10'
8'
6'
11'
10'
6'
3'
10'
6'
11'
10'
6'
3'
10'
3'
6'
10'
10'
6'
8'
3'
3'
10'
10'
10'
6'
3'6'
10'
10'
8'
3'6'
3'6'
10'
10'
8'
3'
6'
3'6'
10'
10'
8'
3'
6'
10'
10'
6'
8'
3'
3'
3'
17'
6'
10'
10'
6'
8'
3'
3'
6'
10'
10'
6'
8'
3'
3'
6'
10'
10'
6'
8'
3'
3'
6'
10'
10'
6'
8'
3'
3'
Preliminary Concept, Detailed Engineering Analysis Required
2.e
Packet Pg. 139
EAST MEADOW DRIVE
R
O
S
S
R
O
A
D
AR
B
U
T
U
S
AV
E
N
U
E
L
O
U
I
S
R
O
A
D
EAST MEADOW DRIVE
OR
T
E
G
A
CO
U
R
T
SUNSHINE
PRE-SCHOOL RAMOS
PARK
EAST MEADOW DRIVE
Q
U
A
I
L
D
R
I
V
E
EAST MEADOW DRIVE
EA
S
T
M
E
A
D
O
W
CI
R
C
L
E
EA
S
T
M
E
A
D
O
W
DR
I
V
E
6'
11'
11'
6'
8'
3'
3'
6'
10'
10'
6'
8'
3'
6'
8'
10'
5'
10'
3'
PA
L
O
M
E
ST
R
E
E
T
6'
8'
10'
5'
10'
6'
11'
11'
6'
8'
3'
3'
6'
11'
11'
6'
8'
3'
3'
6'
10'
10'
6'
8'
3'
3'
8'6'
3'
10'10'6'
3'
No
Changes
Proposed
Preliminary Concept, Detailed Engineering Analysis Required
2.e
Packet Pg. 140
Planning & Transportation Commission
Staff Report (ID # 13418)
Report Type: Approval of Minutes Meeting Date: 7/14/2021
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Development Services
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
(650) 329-2442
Summary Title: June 9, 2021 Draft Meeting Minutes
Title: June 9, 2021 Draft PTC Meeting Minutes
From: Jonathan Lait
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) adopt the meeting
minutes.
Background
Draft minutes from the June 9, 2021 Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) meetings
were made available to the Commissioners prior to the July 14, 2021 meeting date. The draft
PTC minutes can be viewed on line on the City’s website at
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/Departments/Planning-Development-Services/Planning-and-
Transportation-Commission-PTC
3
Packet Pg. 141