HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 131-10TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: CITY MANAGER
DATE: FEBRUARY 8, 2010
REPORT TYPE: ACTION
DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND
COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT
CMR: 131:00
SlTBJECT: Approval of Preliminary Design for EI Camino Reali Stanford
Avenue Intersection Improvements and Streetscape Project
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In December 2006, the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) Board of Directors
approved $1,334,000 in Community Design and Transportation (CDT) grant funding for the El
Camino/Stanford Avenue Proj ect.
Stanford Avenue is a primary route to school with high pedestrian and bicycle traffic. With
Escondido and Jordan Middle School on the west side ofEl Camino and Palo Alto High School
on the east side of El Camino, students living in both the Evergreen Park and College Terrace
neighborhoods have to cross El Camino Real at Stanford Avenue on a daily basis to go to school.
The current crosswalk configuration and existing "pork chop" islands make this an unsafe
intersection. By eliminating the triangular pedestrian refuge islands, the project will provide
shorter and more direct crosswalks between sidewalks. This will increase pedestrian safety by
reducing the distance and amount of time pedestrians would be exposed to traffic within the
roadway while crossing. Widening the median will provide a safe refuge area for pedestrians
that cannot cross the entire width of El Camino Real in one signal cycle, or for those who
become stranded in the median when the signal phase changes.
The Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) and Architectural Review Board (ARB)
have reviewed the project plans and have recommended approval of the project with additional
conditions, described further in this report.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff and the PTC recommend that the City Council approve the proposed preliminary design for
the intersection improvements at El Camino Real and Stanford Avenue, and direct staff to submit
the plans to Caltrans, with the following conditions:
CMR: 131:10 Page 1 of6
1. Modify the landscape plan to relocate the proposed trees so that they do not
substantially impede the visibility of the adjacent businesses.
2. Continue to work with Stanford University to ensure adequate drainage from the 100
year stonn event at the intersection to the satisfaction of the City's Planning Director
and Director of Public Works.
3. Provide for a two second head start timing on signal phasing for pedestrians and
bicyclists crossing El Camino Real, to the satisfaction of the City's Planning Director.
BACKGROUND
In December 2006, the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VT A) Board of Directors
approved $1,334,000 in Community Design and Transportation (CDT) grant funding for the El
Camino/Stanford Avenue Project. On April 16, 2007, the City Council accepted the award of
$1,334,000 in federal transportation grant funds for the El Camino Real/Stanford Avenue
Streetscape and Intersection Improvement Project PL-07002, to be paid on a reimbursement
basis from the VT A CDT capital grant program.
This project includes the design and construction of improvements to implement the
demonstration phase of the El Camino Real Master Design Planning Study developed by
Caltrans and the City of Palo Alto. The project area includes the intersection of El Camino Real
and Stanford Avenue and extends approximately 100 feet beyond the intersection along all four
approaches to the intersection. Since El Camino Real (Route 82) is a State highway, design
plans will be prepared per Caltrans design standards and will be submitted to Caltrans for their
review and approval.
Stanford Avenue at El Camino Real is listed as a "High Priority project" in Palo Alto's Bicycle
Transportation Plan. The intersection has also been identified, in the San Jose Mercury News, as
one of the most dangerous for bicyclists in Palo Alto.
DISCUSSION
The primary goals of the El Camino Real/Stanford Avenue Intersection Improvenlents proj ect
are to provide pedestrian walkability with improved bicycle and pedestrian visibility at the El
Camino Real/Stanford Avenue intersection area and to provide visual cues to drivers that they
are in a location of increased pedestrian and bicycle activity. Attachment A shows the existing
configuration at the intersection of Stanford Avenue and El Camino Real. The project will create
a safer and more visually inviting environment for pedestrians and bicyclists by enlarging the
street comers and sidewalks, enhancing signing, providing shorter and more direct crosswalks,
installing new pedestrian lighting and traffic signals with pedestrian countdown features, and
creating areas to gather with new street furniture, shading street trees and shrubs. This will be
the first project that implements the demonstration phase of one component of the El Camino
Real Master Planning Study developed by Caltrans and the City of Palo Alto in 2003.
Attachment B shows the design characteristics of the crosswalk improvements from the Master
Plan as applied to Stanford Avenue. The complete El Camino Master Planning Study is available
for viewing on the project website at:
CMR: 131:10 Page 2 of6
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/depts/plnlnews/details.asp?NewsID=1444&TargetID=87
The proposed proj ect includes installation of new comer bulbouts, realignment and
enhanced/textured paving of the pedestrian crosswalks, widened landscape medians with
planting and street trees; widened sidewalk with street trees; street furniture; new ornamental
street and sidewalk lights; decorative signal poles and new storm drain outlets. Plans are
included as Attachment G.
BOARD/COMMISSION REVIEW
Planning and Transportation Commission Recommendations
On January 13, 2010, the PTC voted unanimously on a 6-0 vote to recommend to City Council
approval of the proposed intersection improvements at EI Camino Real and Stanford Avenue
with four suggested conditions. Additional information is provided in the January 13, 2010
report to the Commission (Attachnlent C). The PTC minutes and response to questions fronl
Commissioner Keller are included as Attachment D and E, respectively.
Fifteen members of the public addressed the PTC at the January 13th meeting. Although many
speakers and written comments were in support of the improvements, several concerns were
raised by the public regarding the proposed improvements. These included the impact of
removing the "pork chop" islands and the potential impacts to vehicles driving eastbound on
Stanford Avenue and turning right onto southbound EI Camino Real; safety of bicyclists and
pedestrians from left tum vehicles movements onto EI Camino; trees blocking visibility of
businesses; and drainage issues at the Stanford comer of Stanford and EI Camino Real.
Each of the Commission's recommended conditions is addressed below:
1. Impacts to eastbound traffic or intersection delay
The City's Traffic Engineer has analyzed the operational changes at this intersection and has
determined that the increase in vehicle delay would be minimal, and queue capacity of cars
driving along eastbound Stanford Avenue will remain essentially the same for both through and
right turning vehicles. The increase in average vehicle delay would be negligible (less than 3
seconds) and the current Level of Service (LOS) C will remain unchanged at this intersection.
Cars turning right onto southbound EI Camino Real will continue to be able to make the right
turns once 'they approach the intersection and are clear of any vehicles and pedestrians. For cars
driving southbound on EI Camino, if a through moving vehicle is stopped on EI Camino Real in
the right lane, right turning vehicles may have to wait until the next green phase; however, the
estimated increases in delay would be less than significant.
2. Impact on pedestrians and cyclists from left turning vehicles driving northbound on EI
Camino Real. Consider head-start timing for pedestrians and bicyclists.
Staff recommends that Council advise Caltrans to provide at least 2 seconds of leading
pedestrian phase time (head start timing) for signal phasing for pedestrians and bicyclists on
Stanford Avenue crossing EI Camino Real.
CMR: 131:10 Page 3
3. Drainage Issues
Staffhas met with Stanford and their consultants to address their concerns regarding the drainage
issues at the comer of Stanford and EI Camino Real. The consultants are confident that these
issues can be addressed. With the addition of larger drainage inlets and the grading of the
landscaping areas, the drainage issues during a 100 year storm event have now been fully
resolved.
4. Impacts of trees on visibility of businesses
Council has received several emails from representatives and customers of Starbuck's and
Barbeques Galore, both located at or near the southwest comer of the intersection. Both
businesses have objected to the proposed street trees near their sites, due to potential impairment
of visibility from El Camino Real.
Staff has modified the locations of the trees at both the Starbucks comer and near the businesses
along the westside of EI Camino Real, between Stanford and Oxford Avenue, in order to
minimize obstruction of their signs by the proposed trees. With the relocated trees, staffbelieves
the signs of the businesses will remain clearly visible to drivers going both southbound and
northbound on EI Camino Real.
Staff met with the property owners of Starbucks and Barbeques Galore on February 3, 2010 and
the locations of the proposed trees were marked to show that the visibility of their business
would be impacted, minimally, if at all, by the placement of the trees. Both businesses still
object to any trees, however. Staffbelieves that street trees are an integral part of the El Camino
streetscape and further the City's urban forest management objectives. Staff also notes that
concerns about the sidewalk slope and leaf litter do not present unusual problems or hazards at
these locations.
Other Issues
1. Bus Shelter:
The representatives for Barbeques Galore have also expressed concern about the location of a
bus stop and shelter near the comer. Staff notes that the bus stop already exists. The shelter was
shown on the El Camino Real Master Design Planning Study. Staff has determined, however,
that there is not adequate space for such a shelter and has removed it from the plans.
2. Public Notification:
A couple of emails to Council have indicated a lack of public notification about this project. A
community meeting was held on December 8, 2009, at Escondido School. Notices were sent to
all residents and businesses within 600 feet of the project, to both adjacent neighborhood
associations (College Terrace and Evergreen Park), to the Palo Alto Bicycle Advisory
Committee (P ABAC), Traffic School Safety Committee, Escondido School, CANOPY,
CMR: 131:10 Page 4 of6
CAADA, and Stanford. A public hearing by the Planning and Transportation Commission on
January 13,2010 had similar noticing.
The project was also reviewed in public meetings before PABAC, the Traffic School Safety
Committee and the Architectural Review Board.
Architectural Review Board Review
This project was also presented to the ARB at a Study Session on December 3,2009 and an ARB
subcommittee on December 17, 2009 followed by a formal Public Hearing on January 7, 2010
(Attachment D). Staff presented landscaping alternatives at the corners of Starbucks and
Stanford University to the ARB for their review and recommendation. Staff will be meeting
with the subcommittee for final approval on February 4,2010.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
This project is consistent with existing City policy, including Comprehensive Plan
Transportation Element:
1) Goal T -3 which supports "Facilities, Services and Programs that Encourage and Promote
Walking and Bicycling;" and
2) Policy T -14 : "Improve pedestrian and bicycle access to and between local destinations,
including public facilities, schools, parks, open space, employment districts, shopping
centers, and multi-modal transit stations;" and
3) Policy T-23: "Develop public sidewalks and bicycle facilities in Stanford Research Park
and other employment areas." .
The EI Camino ReaVStanford Avenue intersection is identified as a critical intersection on the
City's adopted School Commute Corridors network as well as a "High Priority Project" in the
Palo Alto Bicycle Transportation Plan.
The proposed proj ect improvements are consistent with the EI Camino Real Master Planning
Study. This document was drafted in 2003 providing detailed design guidelines for the EI
Camino Real corridor through Palo Alto. This project also supports the ongoing Peninsula EI
Camino Real Grand Boulevard Initiative, with the goal of improving the performance, safety and
aesthetics of EI Camino Real for all users.
RESOURCE IMPACT
Funding for the environmental, design and construction work is included in the Capital
Improvement Program Project PL-07002. Funding for the project will be provided through the
award of $1,334,400 in federal transportation grant funds to be paid on a reinlbursement basis
from the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) Community Design and
Transportation (CDT) capital grant program. The grant also requires a local (City) match in the
amount of $333,600 which will be provided by the City's CIP projects PL-98013 (School
Commute Safety Improvements) and PL-04010 (Bicycle Boulevards Implementation Project).
CMR: 131:10 PageS
Maintenance of the proj ect will need to be budgeted in the future since ongoing maintenance of
the landscaping, crosswalks and street furniture is not included as part of the project budget.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Since EI Camino Real (Route 82) is a state highway, Caltrans is the lead agency for completion
of environmental review requirements for the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and
the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Caltrans has determined that the project is
Categorically Exempt under both CEQA and NEPA (see Attachment I).
PREPARED BY: s~0fi¥
Transportation Engineer
DEPARTMENT HEAD:
CURTIS WILLIAMS
lanning and Community Environment
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Project Existing Conditions Map
B. Design Characteristics of Crosswalk Inlprovements at Intersections
C. January 13, 2010 PTC Staff Report (without attachments)
D. January 13, 2010 PTC Minutes
E. Questions :from Commissioner Keller for the January 13 th PTC Meeting
F. January 7,2010 ARB Staff Report (w/o attachments)
G. Project Plans
.H. Correspondence
I. Environmental Determination Fornl
COURTESY COPIES:
Charles S. Carter, Stanford University
PABAC
Traffic Safety Committee
131:10 Page 6 of6
The City of
Palo Alto
""'era, 2006-07-1814:15:32
(\\oc-mapslgls$\glsladmlnlPersonalVrlvelll.mdb)
ATTACHMENT A
Route 82 El Canlino Real
Stanford Avenue Intersection
Existing Conditions
This map is a product of the
City of Palo Alto GIS
-.
0' 40'
This document Is a gf8Ilhk: representation only of best avallable sources.
The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors. e 1989 to 2008 City of Palo Alto
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I ,
I
5,3 .4 Design Characteristics of Crosswalk
Improvements at Intersections
A. Typical Crosswalk Itnprovements
Using Stanford Avenue as an example Figure 5.34 illustrates a
prototypical set of crosswalk improvements as recommended for use
throughout the Corridor. Key improvements for six, five, or four-lane
roadways are:
6-foot corner bulb-outs (curb extensions) to shorten
crossi ng distances;
Special paving material such as (colored) concrete brick
pavers for crosswalks with higher pedestrian crossing
volumes (this should include crosswalks across the
intersecting streets);
8-foot pedestrian refuge protected by the median and an
8-foN by 4-foot wide concrete curb on the opposite side;
Two in-pavement light fixrures mounted on the 8-foot by
4-foot concrete curb (which, at night, provides a wash of
light on the pedestrian refuge). A single pedestrian-scale
fixture located on the median side of the refuge (which
pro\'ides general lighting of the pedestrian refuge area);
Bollard on the 8-foot by 4-foot wide curb; and,
New combined roadway and pedestrian-scale light fixtures
at all intersection corners.
Figures 5.35 through 5.37 illustrate rhe existing conditions as well as
the difference ill CroSSiilg distance between the potential 4-Lane and the
6-Lme configurations of the Stanford Avenue intersection.
. ~
! . ,
.r ' 1O~<, ":.,;<;
;«[',.
i20."; ','
, .
, , , '
Fipre 5 .. U: Key dimensions of cypic.tl inrer section
improvemen ts (as applied at Stanford Avellue).
EI Camino Real • Master Planning Study • Public Review Draft
ATTACHMENT B
Figur~ 5.35: Photo simulation of crosswalk across 6 lanes all EI Camino.
Figure _;.36: Photo simulation of crosswalk across 4 lanes on EI Camino.
Figure 5.37: Existing conditions.
r ___ : .... _ .... r_"' ............. ~ DI .......... __ -' n ________ ~_ -1 _ • I
I __ _
TO:
FROM:
ATTACHMENT C
PLANNING &TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION
STAFF REPORT
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
Shahla Yazdy DEPARTMENT: Planning and
Community Environment
AGENDA DATE: January 13,2010
SUBJECT: El Camino Real/ Stanford Avenue Intersection Improvements and
Streetscape Project
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning and Transportation Conlmission recommend to the Director
of Planning and Community Environment approval of the proposed intersection improvements at
El Camino Real and Stanford Avenue.
BACKGROUND
In December 2006, the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VT A) Board of Directors
approved $1,334,000 in Community Design and Transportation (CDT) grant funding for the El
Camino/Stanford Avenue Intersection Improvements and Streetscape Project. On April 16, 2007
City Council accepted the award of the federal transportation grant funds for the improvement
project, to be paid on a reimbursement basis from the VT A CDT capital grant program.
In April, 2009 the City contracted with Civil Engineering Consultants, Mark Thomas & Company
and Landscape Architects, Callander and Associates to design the plans for the intersection
improvements. Since El Camino Real (Route 82) is a State highway, design plans will be prepared
per Cal trans design standards and will be submitted to Caltrans for their review and approval.
Both firms were chosen because they demonstrated superior knowledge of Caltrans design
requirements and they have extensive experience working successfully with Caltrans' design
approval process. Both firms also have experience working with cities along the Peninsula and
understand how to effectively implement Context Sensitive Design.
El Camino Real is the major north-south connection in Palo Alto, serving both local and
commute traffic. Within the project limits, El Camino Real also serves as the frontage to
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Stanford University and many commercial and retail businesses. At Stanford Avenue, EI Camino
Real is an arterial street with three through lanes in each direction separated by a raised median.
The through lanes are 12 feet wide, with 8 feet -wide outside shoulders and 1 foot -wide striped
inside shoulders along the raised median. 11 feet wide left-tum lanes are provided at both
approaches to the intersection, with the northbound left tum pocket extending approximately 200
feet in length, and the southbound pocket extending approximately 120 feet in length
(Attachment A).
There are no curb ramps for the crosswalks at the northwest comer of the intersection. There are
two triangular concrete pedestrian refuge islands on the west side of the intersection. The posted
speed limit on EI Camino Real through the project limits is 35 mph. On-street parking is allowed
away from the intersection.
DISCUSSION
This project proposes to construct improvements at the intersection ofEI Camino Real (Route
82).and Stanford Avenue to create a context-sensitive, pedestrian friendly and aesthetically
enhanced intersection and main street corridor to implement the demonstration phase of one
component of the EI Camino Real Master Planning Study developed by Caltrans and the City of
Palo Alto in 2003 (Attachment G). The project limits will extend approximately 720' along EI
Camino Real, from Leland Avenue in the north to Oxford Avenue in the south. Project limits
along Stanford A venue will extend approximately 100 feet west and 50 feet east of EI Camino
Real.
The primary goal of the project is to provide pedestrian walkability with improved bicycle and
pedestrian visibility at the EI Camino Real/Stanford Avenue intersection area and provide visual
cues to drivers that they are in a location of increased pedestrian and bicycle activity. The project
will create a safer and more visually inviting environment for pedestrians and bicyclists by
enlarging the street comers and sidewalks, enhancing signing, providing shorter and more direct
crosswalks, installing new pedestrian lighting and traffic signals with pedestrian countdown
features, and creating areas to gather with new street furniture, shading street trees and shrubs.
Roadway Improvements
The following geometric changes are proposed for the intersection:
• Bulb-outs would be added at the four comers of the EI Camino Real/Stanford
Avenue intersection to extend the sidewalk curbs line 5 feet further into the roadway from
the existing curb line.
• The existing 4 feet median along both the northbound and southbound left turn pockets of
EI Camino Real would be widened to 8 feet.
• The left-turn lanes would be narrowed from 11 feet to 10 feet.
• The six through lanes on EI Camino Real would each be narrowed from 12 feet to 11
feet.
• Outside shoulder widths along EI Camino Real at the bulb-outs would be reduced to 5
feet.
City of Palo Alto Page 2
The project would bring the entire intersection into compliance with ADA standards.
Landscaping Plan
Building on the efforts of the El Camino Real Master Planning Study, the proposed intersection
and streetscape design recaptures the pedestrian environment, provides bicycle accessibility and
creates an identifiable character for the community. The plan includes expanded sidewalk areas,
informal plaza seating, a trellis accent feature, large street tree canopies, pedestrian scale lighting
and improved transit and bicycle amenities. In keeping with the goals identified in the El Camino
Real Master Planning Study, the median trees were selected to highlight the intersection as the
start of a commercial corridor, as well as highlight an entrance to the Stanford Campus. The
general plant palette and material choices reflect improvement projects throughout the City of
Palo Alto, maintaining respect to the natural oak woodland influence and overall reflecting
native, drought tolerant species.
Thematic Red Maples will be used to signify the start of the commercial district. Median ground
cover of Bearberry and accent planting White Carpet Rose will be low growing to maintain view
corridors for safety as well as signage. Accent and storm water planting at the bulbouts consists
of a mix of grasses and native drought tolerant shrubs. Specimen Valley Oaks are provided at the
Stanford and Starbucks comers to shade informal seating areas. In keeping with the street tree
palette along El Camino Real, the sidewalk street trees are London Plane Trees. Along the
Stanford Housing frontage on El Camino two Valley Oaks will be planted to coordinate with the
new housing development currently under construction fronting Stanford Avenue, respecting
views of existing oak groves within the development (Attachment B).
Key proj ect enhancements at the El Camino/Stanford Avenue Intersection will include:
• Adding bulb-outs at street comers to shorten the length of pedestrian crossings;
• Installing new colored asphalt pavement for the crosswalks and colored concrete for
bulb-outs and median noses;
• Reconstructing the existing median island noses on El Camino Real to provide mid-
crossing pedestrian refuge areas at the crosswalks;
• Installing a complete, new signal system at the intersection;
• Installing new thematic signal poles and pedestrian scale lighting;
• Installing new street trees and other landscape enhancements; and
• Installing streetscape features and furniture that compliment and further the "Grand
Boulevard" vision and goals.
Safety Improvements
By adding bulb-outs, narrowing the lanes along El Camino Real, and eliminating the triangular
pedestrian refuge islands, the project will provide shorter and more direct crosswalks between
sidewalks. This will increase pedestrian safety by reducing the distance and amount of time
pedestrians would be exposed to traffic within the roadway while crossing. Widening the median
will provide a safer refuge area for pedestrians that cannot cross the entire width of El Camino
Real in one signal cycle, or for those who become stranded in the median when the signal phase
City of Palo Alto Page 3
changes. Colored and/or textured crosswalks will provide more clearly defined areas for
pedestrian travel and will be more noticeable to drivers.
Project Benefits
This project encompasses community benefits of pedestrian walkability, improved bicycle
connections, streetscape amenities, and safety improvements, all of which should increase
pedestrianlbicycle usage. This project will also demonstrate the viability of the overall El
Camino Real Master Plan concepts that can be extended to the other segments of the corridor
when funding becomes available.
The El Camino Real Master Plan is included as Attachment G and can also be viewed at the
project website:
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/depts/plnlnews/details.asp?NewsID=1444&TargetID=87
Outreach process
The City held a project stakeholder's meeting on November 19, 2009 for all business owners in the
project area, in addition to representatives from the bicycle group and school safety coordinators.
Some of the businesses expressed concerns regarding the trees that are proposed along E1 Camino
Real would block visibility to their businesses. Subsequent to the meeting, the plans were modified
to ensure improved visibility along the frontage.
The City held a community meeting at Escondido School on December 8, 2009. Overall, the
comments were positive since the community recognized that the intersection should become safer
for both pedestrians and bicyclists crossing EI Can1ino Real. Attachment E includes the prepared
summary of comments received at the meeting and Attachment F is the correspondence received
from the public.
Staff also met with Stanford University staff to discuss the proposed changes since Stanford's land
abuts the project site. Stanford University submitted a letter (Attachment C) expressing its concerns
about the proj ect' s impact to drainage patterns along EI Camino Real, the potential to cause flooding
to the new homes currently under construction, and the project's consistency with the 2003 EI
Camino Master Planning Study regarding the landscaping. Consultants have looked at the drainage
issues at the comer ofStanford/EI Camino Real and are confident that these issues can be addressed.
Staffwill be meeting with Stanford to further discuss these details. Staff also feels that all elements
of this project are consistent with the El Camino Master Planning Study.
This project was also presented to the ARB at a Study Session on December 3,2009, discussed with
an ARB subcommittee on December 17, 2009 followed by a formal Public Hearing scheduled on
January 7, 2010 (Attachment D). Staff is presenting two landscaping alternatives for the bu1bouts at
the comers of Starbucks and Stanford University to the ARB for their review and recommendation,
as shown on Attachment E, at the January 7th meeting. Staff will report on the outcome of this
meeting to the Planning Commission at the meeting on January 13, 2010.
City of Palo Alto Page 4
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
This project is consistent with existing City policy, including the Comprehensive Plan Transportation
Element Policies. The EI Camino Real/Stanford Avenue intersection is identified as a critical
intersection on the city's adopted School Commute Corridors network as well as in the Palo Alto
Bicycle Transportation Plan.
The proposed proj ect improvements are consistent with the EI Camino Real Master Planning
Study. This document was drafted in 2003 providing detailed design guidelines for the EI
Camino Real corridor through Palo Alto. This project is also in accordance with the ongoing
Peninsula's EI Camino Real Grand Boulevard Initiative, with the goal of improving the
performance, safety and aesthetics of EI Camino Real for all users. Additional information can be
found at: www.grandboulevard.net.
RESOURCE IMPACT
Funding for the environmental and design work is included in the Capital Improvement Program
Project PL-07002. Funding for the project will be provided through the award of $1,334,400 in
federal transportation grant funds to be paid on a reimbursement basis from the Santa Clara Valley
Transportation Authority (VTA) Community Design and Transportation (CDT) capital grant
program. The grant also requires a local (City) match in the amount of $333,600 which will be
provided by the City'S CIP projects PL-98013 (School Commute Safety Improvements) and PL-
04010 (Bicycle Boulevards Implementation Project).
TIMELINE
This project must be implemented on an accelerated time1ine in order to ensure that the grant funding
is set aside for construction of this project. Grant funds for project construction will need to be
obligated no later than June 30, 2010. In order to meet this deadline, final design plans must be
submitted by the City to Caltrans by February 2010.
Construction of this project is scheduled to begin in Fall 20 1 0 and will be administered by the City.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
Since EI Camino Real (Route 82) is a state highway, Caltrans is the lead agency for completion
of environmental review requirements for the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and
the National Environmental Policy Act (NEP A). Caltrans has determined that the project is
Categorically Exempt under both CEQA and NEPA (see Attachment F).
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Proj ect Existing Conditions Map
B. Perspective Drawings and Conceptual Plan
C. Letter from Stanford University
D. ARB Staff Report/ Findings of Approval
E. Summary Notes of December 8 Community Meeting
F. Correspondence
G. Categorical Exemption/Categorical Exclusion Determination Form
City of Palo Alto Page 5
H. El Camino Master Planning Study (PTC members only) Study can also be found at:
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/depts/plnlnews/details.asp?NewsID=1444&TargetID=87 )
COURTESY COPIES:
Charles S. Carter, Stanford University
Prepared by: Shahla Yazdy
Reviewed by: Julie Caporgno, Chief Planning and Transportation Official
City of Palo Alto Page 6
ATTACHMENT 0
1 Planning and Transportation Commission
2 Verbatim Minutes
3 January 13, 2010
4
5 DRAFT EXCERPT
6
7 Stanford Avenue/EI Camino Real Intersection Improvements Project: Planning and
8 Transportation Commission review and recommendation of the Stanford A venue! EI Camino
9 Streetscape Project consisting of improvements at the intersection of EI Camino Real and
10 Stanford Avenue, extending approximately 100 feet on each leg of Stanford Avenue and between
11 Oxford and Leland Avenue on EI Camino ReaL The project includes removal of the existing
12 pork chop islands and the installation of new comer bulbouts; realignment and enhanced paving
13 of pedestrian crosswalks; widened landscape medians and sidewalks with plantings and street
14 trees; and street furniture. The project also includes new ornamental street and sidewalk lights
15 and replacement of the traffic signal poles.
16
17 Ms. Shahla Yazdy, Transportation Engineer: Thank you Chair Garber. Good evening. Tonight
18 I will be presenting the Stanford A venuelEl Camino Real Streetscape and Intersection
19 Improvements Project.
20
21 Just to give you a little project history and background, I do have consultants here that will also
22 help me with the presentation. Fronl Mark Thomas & Company is Brad Leveen and also Brian
23 Fletcher from Callander Associates. To give you a little bit of background the EI Camino Master
24 Planning Study was completed in 2003. That was a collaborative effort with Caltrans and many
25 of the City working groups divested a lot of time in putting together the Master Planning Study.
26 The goals of the study were for intersections in Palo Alto and part of the planning study was to
27 develop guidelines for transforming EI Camino Real to a primarily vehicle oriented highway to a
28 true multinl0dal urban thoroughfare. The purpose of the study was to improve mobility and
29 safety for all modes of travel.
30
31 In 2006 the City obtained a community design and transportation grant through VT A. This was
32 for the design and construction of the Stanford AvenuelEl Camino Real project. An RFP was
33 put out about a year ago to hire the design consultants. The consultants have been onboard since
34 April 2009. We have been working with Caltrans. The environmental clearance has been
35 obtained. Design Exceptions have been approved in December of 2009. Our next steps would
36 be to move forward with the final design and final approval of the plans are needed from
37 Caltrans because EI Camino Real is a state route.
38
39 A question that I think comes up that I have heard a lot through discussions with the community
40 is why Stanford Avenue? Stanford Avenue is a primary route to school. There are two schools
41 on route. There are a lot of pedestrians and bicyclists crossing that intersection. Currently the
42 crosswalk configuration, which I have a layout that we will be talking about in more detail later
43 in the presentation, there is a skewed angle crosswalk which is pretty unsafe crossing that
44 intersection. The pork chop islands encourage higher turning speed from vehicles that tum from
45 EI Camino onto Stanford and also from Stanford A venue turning southbound on EI Camino.
City of Palo Alto Page 1
1 This intersection is also identified as a high-priority project in our Palo Alto Bicycle
2 Transportation Plan. It is also identified as the most dangerous road for bicyclists in Palo Alto.
3
4 So the project goals are to make the intersection area safer for pedestrians and bicyclists, and
5 also to encourage drivers to drive at safe speeds that do not exceed the speed limit. The current
6 speed limit for EI Camino is 35. Shorten the crosswalk distances for pedestrian crossings. Add
7 landscaping, street furniture, and other enhancements. Provide visual cues to drivers that they
8 are in the area of increased pedestrian and bicycle activity. This is done by the street furniture
9 and also the colored sidewalks that all the amenities would give drivers the cue. They tend to
10 slow down when they see streetscape projects like this. Also, to improve pedestrian level street
11 lighting and adding street trees to the median of EI Camino.
12
13 So I think right now I am going to tum it over to our design consultant Brad Leveen. He has
14 been working on the engineering so he will discuss more detail of what we are proposing as part
15 of this project. Thank you.
16
17 Mr. Brad Leveen, Mark Thomas & Company: Hello Commissioners. As Shahla has been
18 explaining verbally this is a graphic picture of the intersection in aerial view. These are the
19 skewed crosswalks that she is talking about right now that exist crossing EI Camino. These are
20 the pork chop islands here on each side, on the west side of EI Camino at Stanford A venue. The
21 sidewalks are pretty narrow on all sides of the intersection. Right now EI Camino has the full
22 width, 12-foot traffic lanes. There is currently no real refuge for pedestrians in the median of EI
23 Camino. If they get trapped halfway they just kind of have to stand in front of those narrow
24 medians until they get the next cycle. Then you will see on the Stanford A venue on the west side
25 comer the very large radius turns, which again encourage higher speed turning movements for
26 vehicles.
27
28 So what we are proposing to do to meet the project goals that Shahla identified is to narrow the
29 main lanes on EI Camino from 12 feet to 11 feet, to squeeze the lanes into the median and allow
30 us to create sidewalk bulb outs on all four sides on EI Camino. We would include widening the
31 median. It is currently about four to five feet and widening to eight feet to create a pedestrian
32 refuge area in the median. We would be adding a striped five-foot bike lane at the bulbout on all
33 four comers so that bikes traveling through the intersection would have a dedicated place to
34 travel through. We would be eliminating the pork chop islands on the Stanford side, right here,
35 and replacing those with stop sign controlled right turns instead of free rights. I am sorry, not
36 stop sign but red light controlled.
37
38 The project limits are approximately from Leland A venue in the north to Oxford A venue in the
39 south. So all the lanes would conform back to the existing EI Camino at those two locations.
40
41 I have a close-up here to give you a little better picture of what is happening. We would also be
42 keeping the narrow left tum lane on each side. Those are ten-foot lanes. Our cross-section
43 narrows overall on EI Camino and allows us to shorten the crosswalk distance. Furthermore we
44 are moving the noses of medians forward into the intersection so that we can have direct, straight
45 pedestrian crosswalks with the refuge area.
46
City of Palo Alto Page 2
1 This kind of highlights the main changes in the road geometry that we are making. I would like
2 to move on and talk a little bit about this area of Stanford Avenue. There has been some concern
3 raised by the comnlunity and by Starbucks as well about the ability for cars to still be able to
4 come up and make a right tum conveniently since we are eliminating the free right in the pork
5 chop island. This is the current existing condition. There is one-way traffic each direction on
6 Stanford Avenue with a bike lane and parking back here. As you approach the intersection the
7 parking ends, the bike lane shifts to the far right, the lanes widen out, you have a pretty wide lane
8 here that is kind of combined straight and free right once you get into this area. It is pretty
9 unsafe for bicyclists because they have to go through the intersection, they have to navigate
10 across, and get back over here, or stop and walk their bikes across the crosswalks. So we have
11 been working with the bicycle community and our current proposal, which they are in
12 concurrence with is to provide the two lanes for east-west travel and then provide a ten foot wide
13 kind of mixed use lane on the right side. So this is where the parking would end back here and
14 then instead of the bike lane coming over to the right the bikes would continue down. There
15 would be a dashed line to warn motorists that that is a bike travel way and then the cars turning
16 right could come over and come up, stop, and then make a right tum. So the stop arc controlled
17 right would encourage cars to slow down as they approach and make the right. It would also
18 allow cars that are coming into the Starbucks parking lot to be able to get out and go up and tum
19 right and sometimes they have to go around a few times to find a parking spot.
20
21 Another item I would like to just briefly touch on is some of the drainage changes. Currently the
22 overall roadway drainage is running north to south on El Camino. It flows this direction down
23 eventually to Matadero Creek. Then it also flows east along Stanford Avenue to El Camino and
24 down. So on the Stanford comer there is currently a large bank of inlets right here that collect all
25 the water coming down Stanford and El Camino and drops it into a big junction box there, which
26 combines with a lot of drainage coming off of the Stanford campus and it goes into a large, I
27 believe it is about a five or six foot diameter pipe running under the edge of El Camino. That is a
28 Caltrans drainage pipe that takes the drainage down to the creek.
29
30 So since we are introducing a bulbout here with the curb we would be adding a bank of inlets
31 here to replace this bank. So all the water coming out EI Camino would be picked up here and
32 then taken in a pipe over to this junction box and dropped into the system. Likewise we would
33 add an inlet here that would bring the water from Stanford Avenue over. Then on the other side
34 the same thing, we are adding an inlet here at the beginning of the bulbout and a pipe to bring the
35 water into the underground system.
36
37 Stanford has some concerns about this bulbout that we are introducing. During a higher year
38 stonn event when the main stonn drain running down Stanford A venue is maxed out the water is
39 water is actually traveling as overland flow on the street and the adjacent campus. It basically
40 continues running down EI Camino. So they have some concerns about this bulbout that we are
41 adding potentially backing up flow a little bit in tIns area. So we are continuing to work with
42 them on that concern and looking at that.
43
44 With that I am going to tum it over to Brian Fletcher from Callander Associates. He is going to
45 talk a little more about some of the pedestrian enhancements that we are adding and some of the
46 aesthetic improvements. Thank you.
City of Palo Alto Page 3
1
2 Mr. Brian Fletcher, Callander Associates: Thank you Brad. Thank you Commissioners. This is
3 the overall plan as it relates Stanford AvenuelEl Camino Real. Just to talk a little bit about the
4 overall pedestrian and landscape improvements that you see here. First are native trees, native
5 groundcover, and native or drought tolerant grasses. It is slightly in flux. We have an upcoming
6 ARB meeting, subcommittee meeting, coming up here to complete verification. We are going to
7 bring a new species of median tree in front to them. The plan itself as you can see here the eight-
8 foot median would provide us the opportunity to bring in large trees. That is the tree that we are
9 going to provide some alternatives to at that meeting. So you can see those new trees coming in
10 here as well as infilling the sidewalk street tree pattern with London Plane trees both on the east
11 and west sides, you can see with those here and there. There also are some inclusion for large
12 Valley Oak trees to provide some shade and some gateway elements at the intersection itself.
13 You will see a little bit more in detail of that planting when I get to some of the prospective
14 sketches as well.
15
16 To look at it in a little bit more detail, and specific improvements let's talk about materials and
17 such. Brad talked about the reconfiguration of the crosswalks themselves. That pedestrian
18 environment would be further enhanced through the use of colored asphalt paving. So it would
19 go beyond the standard white stripes for the crosswalk. You can see here we are proposing a
20 colored asphalt paving. Pedestrian zones including the refuge area, and island, and the nosing of
21 the median, as well as these enhanced bulbout areas would all be provided with a colored
22 concrete, again to further enhance the pedestrian environment, a tighter score-joint pattern for
23 aesthetics and such.
24
25 To look a little bit closer at some of the pedestrian enhancements on the comers I think it might
26 be helpful to look at the prospective use itself. At the Starbucks comer we are looking at again
27 colored asphalt crosswalks, colored concrete pedestrian zone, this comer would be enhanced
28 with a low seat wall, and planting behind the seat wall. You can also see the Valley Oak that
29 would be located here and a complimentary one is located on the next comer, which you will see
30 on Stanford A venue there.
31
32 The Stanford comer improvements. Again, there is the large Valley Oak, the pedestrian
33 pavement enhancements, then we have the opportunity for a meaningful landscape area behind
34 the sidewalk there before you get to the Stanford property. You can see that running right
35 though here. We are bringing forth a modified paving in this location that ARB requested at the
36 next subcommittee meeting. It just would reduce slightly the amount of concrete paving over
37 there. That is the other thing that we are bringing in front of the subcommittee -would be some
38 alternative pedestrian light selections. So we are bringing three things to the next subcommittee
39 meeting for them. So with that I will return it to Shahla.
40
41 Ms. Yazdy: Thank you. I just wanted to go over some of the City and community involvement
42 and outreach that we have done to date. We have had a local stakeholders meeting on November
43 19 where we invited the area businesses and also some of the key representation from the bicycle
44 community, the school community. So notices went out to pretty much everyone in the area and
45 also neighborhood associations were informed. So that meeting was held on the 19th where we
46 showed and discussed the plans. That was the first time that we took our proposal out there and
City of Palo Alto Page 4
1 we got a lot of good feedback, heard from everyone. So there were a lot of comments that we
2 received.
3
4 The second meeting was the community meeting that we held on December 8 at Escondido
5 School. We noticed neighborhood residents in the area and also again some of the representation
6 from some of the key groups out there. Also, the Architectural Review Board, we went to a
7 study session on December 3, a full public hearing on January 7, and also we are going back as
8 Brian mentioned on a subcommittee level to discuss kind of the final changes or more options for
9 the median trees and the streetlights. They wanted to see that in more detail. We are having the
10 Planning and Transportation Commission meeting tonight and also to go to the Council on
11 February 8. In the meantime I think it is important to say that we are continuing as we finalize
12 the design plans with Caltrans we are hoping to continue to work with PABAC and the bicycle
13 community, and also the school safety committees to just make sure that we have everything that
14 would work as far as they are concerned. Also meetings with Stanford regarding the drainage
15 issue will continue until we can resolve some of the drainage problems, which we definitely
16 think we will be able to.
17
18 The next steps again are to finalize the streetscape design by hopefully the end of this month,
19 obtain recommendation from the City in February, obtain approval from Caltrans and that would
20 begin in February for final approval in March. I would like to just add a statement about kind of
21 this really accelerated timeline. The grants that we obtained had construction funds that expire at
22 the end of actually June 30, 2010. So they were set aside for fiscal year 2010. So in order to
23 meet the deadline we need final approval in March so that later we will be going to the CTC for
24 release of the state and federal funds. So that would happen in March, which is spring of 2010,
25 and hopefully to begin construction in fall of this year.
26
27 I think we are going to make a final comment before opening it up to questions and comments.
28
29 Ms. Julie Caporgno, Chief Planning and Transportation Official: Thank you Shahla. I just
30 wanted to bring to the Commission's attention that you had received an email a short time ago or
31 late this afternoon from Penny Elson. She had indicated she was concerned because this had not
32 gone to the City School Traffic Safety Committee. The reason it didn't is the Chair of the City
33 School Traffic Safety Committee had been notified as well as the PTA representative from
34 Escondido School. However the committee didn't meet in December so we were unable to take
35 it to them prior to now. We have scheduled it for next week so we will be heard by the
36 committee next week. So I wanted to assure the Commission that the committee will have an
37 opportunity to review the project before it goes to the Council on February 8.
38
39 Chair Garber: Commissioners, we have 13 people from the public that would like to speak. I
40 would like to go ahead and hear them first because that is nearly 40 minutes of testimony. Do
41 you want to give the Commissioners an opportunity to read through that?
42
43 Commissioner Keller: If I may, I am just suggesting that Staff might wish to address the
44 comments rather than just us reading them. Staff might wish to address the comments in my
45 question.
46
City of Palo Alto PageS
1 Chair Garber: Would you like to go over Mr. Keller's questions for the benefit of us all and do a
2 brief review of that?
3
4 Mr. Curtis Williams, Planning Director: We can do that but there are 15 questions so it would
5 take a little while. We did provide them and maybe it would be more efficient to take a couple
6 of minutes to look them over and then ask us questions. If you would like we could probably
7 push through them fairly quickly I think.
8
9 Chair Garber: Commissioner Fineberg.
10
11 Commissioner Fineberg: Are copies of the responses available for the public that is present?
12 How will they be distributed for the greater public to review so they become part of the record?
13
14 Ms. Caporgno: The responses are back at the table. We can put them online also. We just have
15 not had a chance to because we just responded this afternoon. We can have them online by
16 tomorrow.
17
18 Chair Garber: Commissioner Keller.
19
20 Commissioner Keller: Yes, thank you. In the answer to number one it says scaled drawings of
21 the intersection are attached for our review. Does that mean they are attached to the Staff Report
22 or does that mean they are attached to this document? They were not attached to this document
23 and the Staff Report while it is a scale drawing it doesn't really have a scale that is useful. At
24 least Attachment A has existing conditions scale. The Attachment B doesn't have any scale that
25 I can see. So I am not sure that these are really useful scale drawings. So I was hoping to see
26 something blown up and easier to read.
27
28 Ms. Yazdy: I apologize. I think they were not printed and attached to this but we can certainly
29 get that over to you, email it as soon as possible. They were scale drawings so that would help
30 with some of the questions that you had.
31
32 Comnlissioner Keller: So in other words, I am not going to be able to review them for the
33 decision that I have to make tonight.
34
35 Ms. Yazdy: We will be getting those plans up to you. I apologize.
36
37 Chair Garber: So Commissioners, let's do our best. You have copies of Commissioner Keller's
38 questions which if we can try scanning those and if necessary we can spend a moment after we
39 get through everything we can have specific questions on those. With that let's open the public
40 hearing. We have 13 members of the public that would like to speak. You will each have three
41 minutes. I will call two names in a row so the second person can stage themselves behind the
42 person speaking. The first person to speak is Joan Marshall followed by John Morris. Welcome.
43
44 Ms. Joan Marshall, Palo Alto: Hi. I am a cyclist. I ride from Redwood City to Palo Alto every
45 day and I cross this intersection. My concern is on the way back going east to west crossing EI
46 Camino. That is very dangerous and the reason is there is a long line of drivers making a left
City of Palo Alto Page 6
1 tum from the west side going north on EI Camino. Once they get going, once that light turns
2 green they just go. They don't stop for anybody. They don't stop for drivers, pedestrians, or
3 cyclists.
4
5 One time I was crossing not too long ago and I got to about the middle of the street and the long
6 line is coming through, and I am waving my arms because they are not stopping. I am saying I
7 have the right-of-way and they still didn't stop. So I finally just stopped there in the middle of
8 the road and let all the drivers go by and then I got across just before the light turned red.
9
10 So Ijust wanted to bring up the point that it is the traffic turning left that is really dangerous.
11 Thank you.
12
13 Chair Garber: Excuse me one of the Commissioners had a question for you. Commissioner
14 Keller.
15
16 Commissioner Keller: If I may, I am just trying to figure out which direction, from where to
17 where the traffic is going or the left turns are causing problems.
18
19 Ms. Marshall: So the dtjvers are turning left onto EI Camino. They are going north on EI
20 Camino. They are on the west side of EI Camino on Stanford A venue. So they have come from
21 Junipero Serra.
22
23 Commissioner Keller: From Junipero Serra turning left onto EI Camino towards Menlo Park.
24
25 Ms. Marshall: That's right. They wait there a long time so by the time the light turns green the
26 line has at least ten or 15 cars. Once they get going they just don't want to stop.
27
28 Commissioner Keller: Which direction are you going?
29
30 Ms. Marshall: I am going the opposite direction and it is like going through a gauntlet trying to
31 cross that street. I think pedestrians too have the same problem.
32
33 Commissioner Keller: So you are trying to cross EI Camino.
34
35 Ms. Marshall: That's right.
36
37 Commissioner Keller: Okay, thank you.
38
39 Chair Garber: You are describing an existing condition.
40
41 Ms. Marshall: Yes.
42
43 Chair Garber: Yes. All right, thank you. John Morris followed by Paul Machado.
44
45 Mr. John Morris, Palo Alto: Thank you. Ijust found out about this plan. I live in Evergreen. I
46 found out about this plan through an invite in the mail to come to some of the meetings. That
City of Palo Alto Page 7
1 was about five weeks ago. What this seems like to me is a fast-track beautification plan more
2 than anything else. I am deeply concerned about the safety issues that I think are less of a
3 priority than are the beautification, the attempts at beautification. Part of what bothers me is the
4 talk about squeezing lanes and extending or putting in these bushes and trees and things like that.
5 That somehow that is going to make it a safer and more improved intersection. It doesn't make
6 sense to me.
7
8 Eliminating the pork chop, I am concerned. Coming south on El Camino to tum right onto
9 Stanford Avenue with a new mall like comer that is being planned there I think it makes it
10 awfully tight for buses to come around that comer. When you are talking about squeezing things
11 and it is adjacent to the Starbucks parking lot I think you are going to have some real problems
12 with backup there and you may have accidents as well.
13
14 I am not interested in promoting that intersection as a gateway project into Evergreen for
15 purposes of anything but transportation. We have difficulties there with transportation as it is.
16 So I would like it if things could be examined very carefully in terms of the safety and make that
17 the absolute priority. Make that were the money goes. Make that where the brains go and put all
18 this other pretty stuff on the back burner if it is affordable after everything is safe. Thank you.
19
20 Chair Garber: Thank you. Paul Machado followed by Wolfgang.
21
22 Mr. Paul Machado, Palo Alto: Good evening. I am a Palo Alto native who resides on Stanford
23 Avenue. That is where I grew up. At this time I am concerned if the improvement project for
24 Stanford and EI Camino will only contribute to the congestion on Stanford A venue. I do not
25 believe this project will reduce traffic on Stanford A venue nor make Stanford Avenue itself
26 safer. It would only be, as previously mentioned, be a gateway to entice more traffic into the
27 neighborhoods. Thank you.
28
29 Chair Garber: Thank you. Wolfgang Dueregger followed by Jim Wolfe.
30
31 Mr. Wolfgang Dueregger, Palo Alto: Hello. I am also a resident of Evergreen Park
32 neighborhood. We live a block from El Camino and Stanford Avenue. There is a lot of attention
33 given, for good reason I say, for the western part of the intersection but what about the eastern
34 part? Are there also things planned like narrowing Stanford Avenue on the eastern side towards
35 the entrance into the Evergreen Park neighborhood for example? Because there there is always a
36 flood of young kids coming out every morning to school, to the Escondido Elementary School. I
37 am just wondering if on that side of the intersection also some more planning has been done
38 because from the outline I can only see, okay, the colored intersection, but not that much else.
39 For example, is there also a narrowing of Stanford A venue planned, which would probabl y be
40 good plus a wide bike lane in terms of safety.
41
42 The other thing I would like to raise is if I am not mistaken there is also a plan to put a
43 Marguerite bus stop there. I have to tell you as a resident there the overflow parking will get
44 nluch worse. What people will do is they will park their car in our neighborhood and then hop
45 onto the free Marguerite and go to Stanford. So I would also like to have this issue addressed,
City of Palo Alto Page 8
1 how this non-intended but actually take this overflow parking that actually does take place how
2 this is being addressed. Thanks.
3
4 Chair Garber: Thank you. Jim Wolfe followed by Mike Dhillon.
5
6 Mr. Jim Wolfe, Palo Alto landowner: First of all, thank you Commissioners for the opportunity
7 to speak to you tonight. I am the landowner of the Starbucks. I met with Starbucks managenlent
8 so I speak to you tonight on behalf of the Starbucks and the issues that are posed here.
9
10 The economy is fragile and having just met with the Starbucks people they have closed 900
11 stores. The sales at this particular store are down. The adjacent business, the Barbeque and
12 Galore went bankrupt, and was purchased by another owner in an attempt to bring it back. The
13 store to the left of that has been vacant forever. The store to the left of that, the Sleep Train, I am
14 a Sleep Train landowner/property owner and lease to Sleep Train. I can tell you that their
15 business is substantially down. So my plea to each of you tonight is to attempt to create a
16 situation, visibility, and enjoyment on the part of the patrons who come to the Starbucks to enjoy
17 that experience to as great a degree as possible and to allow visibility as people drive up and
18 down EI Camino. About half the business that comes to the Starbucks is predicated actually on
19 people driving up and down EI Camino.
20
21 I have attended a few sessions and I would tell you that many changes have been made. I would
22 tell you that democracy is alive and well in your community. Shahla and her team and the
23 landscape team that you have hired to consult on this project and make recommendations has
24 really done an exceptional job. I would tell you that there is only one issue that I want to raise
25 with you that I hope each of you would address and hopefully make a particular change. Quite
26 frankly I am pleased with the direction of everything that has happ~ned. I do believe that this
27 intersection will be better both in safety and visibility. I was particularly concerned about the
28 Stanford area and the farm-like setting having both my kids go to Stanford and I like what is
29 being done there. I would tell you that the biggest issue for me is right up there and it is the oak
30 tree. This balancing situation that they are trying to create by putting an oak tree right there next
31 to the Starbucks. It looks to you perhaps like it is way away from the Starbucks. It is not way
32 away. An oak tree is a humungous tree. Just walk on the Stanford campus. The trunk will be
33 two to three feet eventually if not sooner than later if they put a bigger one there.
34
35 I think that would be a good one to look at. Right there that leafy tree to your right that is not a
36 leafy tree that is going to go there. That would actually be a nice situation. They are going to
37 put an oak tree and an oak tree is huge. It is going to drop tremendous debris on that area, and
38 most importantly, and I am going to leave you with a picture here, it is going to take away
39 substantial visibility from the site. My plea to you would be to change that tree to a tree like that
40 tree, for example a sycamore, something other than a massive oak tree. Although that looks like
41 it is many, many feet away it is only just a few feet away from the store. That is where the
42 customers sit. It is going to be a tremendous amount of debris and it is going to block visibility.
43 I have asked Mike Dhillon to speak to you tonight. He is on your agenda. He is a landscape
44 designer who has done the master plans for the parks of San Jose, Santa Clara, and Mountain
45 View.
46
City of Palo Alto Page 9
1 Chair Garber: Mr. Wolfe, I am going to remind you your three minutes are up if you would like
2 to sum up.
3
4 Mr. Wolfe: I just want to say this I appreciate everything that has been done here. It is a lot of
5 hard work. I do think it is going to be a great intersection. I would just say that I would
6 appreciate your attention to that particular oak tree.
7
8 Chair Garber: Okay, thank you.
9
10 Mr. Wolfe: Thank you very much.
11
12 Chair Garber: Mike Dhillon followed by Sarah Carpenter.
13
14 Mr. Mike Dhillon: Thank you. Good evening ladies and gentlemen of the Commission. We are
15 landscape architects and have been for 30 years. We have worked in urban scenarios like this
16 and we have some experience with Valley Transit Authority project. We are fortunate they are
17 paying close attention to our transportation in this valley and this is one of the projects that is
18 really an exemplary example of what they want to do.
19
20 The one thing that we have an issue with is if you look at the picture on the screen right now the
21 Starbucks sign right behind the lights on the dark side of the building would be blocked fronl
22 view as you come down El Camino Real going south. My experience with situations especially
23 on a comer like this is when you are going to go meet someone at Starbucks and you see that
24 sign at the last minute you make an erratic decision while you driving. If you tum right really
25 hard or you slam on your brakes or whatever because you didn't see the sign until you got right
26 on top of it. So having that tree in that location would be actually or could invite some
27 dangerous driving. I would inlagine over tinle you would experience that.
28
29 The other thing that really is problematic with that particular tree at that location is we already
30 have two trees within 20 to 30 feet of this. They are very, very large trees, which are setback
31 behind that sign. If you go to the slide that we had exhibited before there, maybe I have a way to
32 point it out. It would be the plan view. Maybe the one up there with the roadway, okay there. It
33 doesn't show the trees right there but adjacent to the end of the building on the right of the dark
34 tree there are two trees that are exactly the same size as that view light now. So it would be a
35 little bit south of that. What I am saying is that those trees will fill in and give you a very large
36 canopy situation. They are both London Plane trees. They fit in with your street tree
37 environment. I think those trees once they do fill in as they already have in a lot of ways will do
38 the job of creating a shaded area especially at that location. We are at the north side of the
39 building. In the interest of creating a sustainable design on this we don't really want to have day
40 lighting blocked by a dark oak tree to the north side especially of our building. There are
41 windows along that side of the building and the introduction of especially a dark foliage tree
42 there after we already have two light foliage trees would really cut down on the clearstory day
43 lighting. If you have been in that building there is just a lot of nice light. You can actually read
44 without glasses on, at least I can, which is nice. So we are opposed to having two trees as a
45 gateway effect. We think those trees both belong on the Stanford side to better balance with the
46 existing trees around the site. That is probably enough. Thank you.
City of Palo Alto Page 10
1
2 Chair Garber: All right, thank you very much. Sarah Carpenter followed by Roger Pierno.
3
4 Ms. Sarah Carpenter, Palo Alto: Hi. I live in Evergreen Park and have been a neighbor in that
5 neighborhood for 15 years. I was also School Traffic Safety Rep at Escondido. I have two kids,
6 one still at Escondido. I also was the person who spearheaded getting a crossing guard at
7 StanfordlEl Camino because there are so nlany children that cross that intersection every single
8 day in both directions, both from College Terrace that go to Jordan and Paly, and fronl all of the
9 east side of EI Camino because half of Escondido is a school-wide program. So with all the
10 green that is going on there are much more people who are biking. So there are not just kids
11 from our neighborhood that bike across EI Camino but also all the way from North Palo Alto and
12 South Palo Alto. So this is a huge intersection.
13
14 I must say that I anl delighted with this plan. Finally we are getting recognition of how
15 dangerous this intersection is. I think in the Mercury News last year this intersection was one of
16 ten listed as the most dangerous intersections for cyclists. Having cycled across that intersection
17 many times I can tell you that either way people in cars do not see you, they don't care about
18 you, they speed, they are worried about getting to their jobs, to Starbucks, to park, whatever, and
19 it is incredibly difficult to navigate. When you are ten or 11 it is even harder.
20
21 I want to also say that we personally in our family have had at least two near accidents where
22 cars don't stop or pay attention to the cyclists and they have actually crashed. My husband
23 luckily was not in it but he was on the bike and caused the crash because they were not paying
24 attention. My daughter was clipped once on the back of her bike.
25
26 Also, I have to say that the way it is currently configured you have to do a light jog to actually
27 get across on a decent time. If you do get stuck in the middle you have to be skinny because
28 those cars whiz by really, really fast. So I want to emphasize that also with that side where you
29 don't have any sidewalk right now, it is all dirt, no room for anybody to cross on the other side
30 there. On Stanford it is wonderful that we are actually going to encourage pedestrian crossing.
31 So I just want to reemphasize that this is a bike, car, and pedestrian intersection and all this takes
32 consideration for everybody and I strongly support it, and so do a lot of my neighbors who use it
33 everyday on bike or on wheels. Thank you.
34
35 Chair Garber: Thank you. Roger Pierno followed by Charles Carter.
36
37 Mr. Roger Pierno, Palo Alto: Good evening Commissioners. I live on College Avenue. I
38 assume you have read the email I sent since I saw it in your package. So I will therefore just
39 briefly reiterate nly concerns.
40
41 First let me say that I am pleased to see tonight one of my concerns resolved with the addition of
42 the right tum lane on Stanford Avenue. In general I agree that the crosswalks and medians need
43 improvements to increase pedestrian traffic but that said replacing the existing right tum lane at
44 EI Camino at the bulbout curbs and plazas would decrease traffic flow, which will thus be
45 violating one of the project goals, and also wasting public space as the plazas will be rarely used.
46 In addition to reducing traffic flow taking away the right tum lane would cause longer waits at
City of Palo Alto Page 11
1 the intersection, increased driver frustration, and increased pollution with drivers waiting,
2 stopping, and starting. Without the right tum lane on El Camino through traffic on El Camino
3 will have to slow or stop behind drivers turning right.
4
5 So I therefore propose a solution similar to what was just changed on Stanford A venue to widen
6 the bike lane on El Camino on the Stanford comer so that it too is ten feet wide so that cars can
7 make a right tum there when the light is red. I assume it would be good to have that be maybe
8 100 feet long instead of 50 feet long like the one Stanford Avenue so that cars can pull over to
9 the right and tum and not impede through traffic in that far right lane on El Camino. I think
10 these modifications I propose would just increase the crossing distance across El Camino on that
11 side by five or six feet.
12
13 Finally, I am just going to say a few comments about the process. It is upsetting to n1e that this
14 project has gotten essentially no pUblicity and the design received no input from the
15 neighborhood or any of the neighbors. The only input from property and business owners at the
16 intersection, bicyclists, and pedestrians, and only after it was first drafted. The community
17 meeting held in December, two weeks before Christmas, was poorly advertised, poorly attended
18 and the attendees not representative of the comn1unity. Even though the project is on a fast track
19 for approval it still deserves the benefit of real community input. Thank you.
20
21 Chair Garber: Thank you. Charles Carter followed by Cathy Blake.
22
23 Mr. Charles Carter, Stanford University: Good evening Commissioners. I live in Palo Alto but
24 tonight I am representing Stanford University. We wrote a letter prior to the project going to the
25 ARB that is in your packet. So I will focus my comments tonight on a few brief con1l11ents.
26
27 In general Stanford supports the engineering modifications such as the elimination of the pork
28 chops, the addition of the bulbouts, and the median refuges to make the intersection more
29 friendly to pedestrians and cyclists. We believe these improvements also yield significant safety
30 benefits to an important school commute route and campus access.
31
32 The proposed aesthetic enhancements, the paving and the crosswalks, appear to support the
33 engineering modifications. We especially appreciate Staff's ongoing outreach efforts and the
34 opportunity to meet with Stanford and our opportunity to meet with the consultants and to work
35 cooperatively toward a design that meets the needs of the City, Caltrans, and local stakeholders.
36 We support the ARB recommendation that the project team continue to work with stakeholders
37 on landscape design details and elimination of features intended to create to a gateway or public
38 gathering place. Instead it is important to develop a design vocabulary appropriate to this
39 particular application and to the greater objectives articulated in the El Camino Real Master
40 Planning Study.
41
42 We understand that Caltrans did the CEQA on this and issued a Negative Declaration. We think
43 that evidence should be provided that demonstrates that the potential environmental impacts of
44 traffic delays and potential flooding were considered adequately in determining if the project is
45 categorically exempt from evaluation under CEQA. We can support a recon1l11endation for
46 approval that would allow the project team to continue to work with property owners and other
City of Palo Alto Page 12
1 stakeholders to refine and coordinate grading and drainage design and landscape design features.
2 We have met with City Staff and the City's outside engineers but the technical question of
3 possible overland flooding in major storms has not been fully resolved and we will continue to
4 evaluate that situation.
5
6 Our campus landscape architect that has worked on both the EI Camino Real Master Plan and
7 our EI Camino Real Frontage Plan is also here and available to address specific landscape
8 concerns if you have any further questions. Thanks.
9
10 Chair Garber: Thank you. Mr. Carter, Commissioner Fineberg has a question for you.
11
12 Commissioner Fineberg: I couldn't discern whether you said Stanford can or cannot recommend
13 approval as it stands.
14
15 Mr. Carter: We can support and recommend approval of the engineering changes. We would
16 like the ability to continue to work with the City Staff and the consultants on the drainage issue
17 and the refinement of the landscape, but we support the basic engineering configuration.
18
19 Chair Garber: Thank you. Cathy Blake followed by Paul Goldstein.
20
21 Ms. Cathy Blake, Stanford University: Hi, I am from Stanford. I filled out the card because I
22 wasn't sure what we were going to see up here. I do want to thank the Staff and the consultants
23 who have worked really hard since mid December when we first started looking at this to
24 accommodate and make changes and make it more compatible with what we think will work out
25 there. So like Charles we may not be finished but in concept I think it has come a long way and
26 is very close to what we think is a good scheme for this corner. Thank you.
27
28 Chair Garber: Thank you. Paul Goldstein followed by John Ciccarelli.
29
30 Mr. Paul Goldstein, Palo Alto: Hi I live on Emerson Street and I am currently the Vice-Chair of
31 the Palo Alto Bicycle Advisory Committee. I was on the original advisory group for the EI
32 Camino study that was a pilot project by Caltrans to look at making that road a more pedestrian
33 and bicycle friendly road.
34
35 There is a statewide effort. It was begun at that time but it is gaining momentum to make all of
36 our roadways safer for non-motorized travel as well as for motorist. This project is the first
37 project that will actually allow us to begin building on the recommendations of that EI Camino
38 study and begin to make EI Camino a more suitable place for pedestrians as well as maintaining
39 the motorist capability to use the road.
40
41 I strongly support the project. The major components have been outlined here. I think the
42 biggest safety improvement is the shortened crosswalks and the elimination of the pork chop
43 island. As a bicyclist making those turning radius's tighter for turning traffic, slows down
44 traffic, and makes it safer. There is nothing as scary as approaching an intersection when you are
45 trying to slow down and yet the car behind you is speeding up to try to make a right turn into
City of Palo Alto Page 13
1 traffic as they look behind them to see if there is any approaching traffic on the other side of the
2 intersection. So free right hand turns are definitely something that bicyclists do not like.
3
4 Trees in general tend to slow down traffic. They tend to make an area more pleasant for both
5 pedestrians and bicyclists, and speed for bicyclists is another major scary thing. Speeding traffic
6 is much more dangerous and much scarier as I have said.
7
8 An issue that has been mentioned before by another cyclist is trying to go straight across the
9 intersection headed westbound. This project unfortunately does not solve that problem. So I
10 would say it remains a major problem. I would suggest that Staff continue to investigate with
11 Caltrans whether there is any way to change the phasing of those lights to give pedestrians and
12 cyclists, but especially cyclists westbound, an opportunity to get out ahead of the left turning
13 traffic conling out of the College Terrace neighborhood.
14
15 So in short, I would just like to say I think this is a good project and I encourage you to nlove it
16 ahead so that we can get the funding that is set aside for us at this time.
17
18 Chair Garber: Thank you very much. Mr. Goldstein, before you retire Commissioner Keller has
19 a question for you.
20
21 Commissioner Keller: Thank you. I think you are the best person to answer this question for
22 me. You would answer it from a bicyclist's perspective, which is one of the perspectives I
23 would like. So if you think about Stanford Avenue traveling eastbound approaching the
24 intersection.
25
26 Mr. Goldstein: Yes.
27
28 Commissioner Keller: You identified a problem as persisting, which another speaker referred to,
29 which is the left turn onto EI Camino north.
30
31 Mr. Goldstein: Now, if you are approaching it westbound was what I was talking about.
32 Coming out of the Evergreen Park neighborhood headed towards -from here it would be headed
33 towards Stanford University.
34
35 Commissioner Keller: Right. In other words, the cars going from Stanford onto EI Camino
36 north and the bicyclists coming from Evergreen.
37
38 Mr. Goldstein: Yes.
39
40 Commissioner Keller: That straight bicyclist and left turning car conflict. Right. I understand
41 that. What I am wondering about is if you think about Stanford A venue people turning from
42 Stanford the cars going eastbound and turning right onto EI Camino south. I am wondering how
43 the interplay of the cars doing that and the bicyclists presumably going straight into Evergreen,
44 how that will work. What you envision for that especially with people going on left turns and
45 people impatiently waiting behind left turns to go right. How do you envision that working?
46
City of Palo Alto Page 14
1 Mr. Goldstein: Well, I think it is an improvement over the current situation because the pork
2 chop has been eliminated in the lower right hand side. The traffic turning right has to go slower.
3 So a bicyclist would position himself or herself in that essentially right most traffic lane and that
4 is a generally pretty safe place to be. So I would say that it is an improvement over the current
5 situation.
6
7 Commissioner Keller: So basically there would be a lane there for people going left and straight
8 on the left, the right lane to the right of the dotted line would be for cars turning right and for
9 bicyclists going straight. Is that?
10
11 Mr. Goldstein: Yes, it is not really a dedicated right hand tum lane but it is a shared bicycle lane.
12 California law says that before an intersection if there is a bicycle lane you should merge into
13 that bicycle lane when it is suitable to do so. If you are motorist make sure that there is not a
14 bicyclist in there, but bicycles and motorists share it. Again, because of the elimination of the
15 pork chop I suspect that traffic speeds will be relatively slow just to get onto El Camino.
16
17 Commissioner Keller: So you are not worried about cars that are sort of queued up there trying
18 to go through being impatient and not being safe to bicyclists.
19
20 Mr. Goldstein: Not particularly. The times that they are queued up there is a light and it will be
21 slow.
22
23 Commissioner Keller: Okay, thank you.
24
25 Mr. Goldstein: So when PABAC looked at it we were not particularly concerned about that.
26
27 Chair Garber: Thank you very much. John Ciccarelli followed by David Shapiro.
28
29 Mr. John Ciccarelli, San Mateo: A former resident of College Terrace speaking as a private
30 citizen currently living in San Mateo. I was College Terrace's representative on the El Camino
31 Study Advisory Group years ago with Paul.
32
33 I wanted to commend the City and Caltrans for moving forward with this. It is good to see this
34 come to fruition. I think as others have spoken the pedestrian safety benefits by far are the
35 biggest benefit here. Secondarily, benefits to bicyclists.
36
37 There are a couple of issues left over as Paul mentioned because of the split phase signal.
38 Because the movements on Stanford A venue both go at the same time you inherently have
39 conflicts between left turners and through traffic. A couple of things that you might try. I do
40 think that going away from split phase should be the eventual goal although it costs some cycle
41 time it makes it much safer for a through bicyclist.
42
43 There is a technique called 'leading pedestrian interval' or 'pedestrian head start' that is used in
44 San Francisco and many other places, possibly even Palo Alto to get pedestrians off the comer
45 before the motor traffic gets a green light. The same technique can be applied to bicyclists. So
46 that is one thing to look at. Call it a bicycle head start.
City of Palo Alto Page 15
1
2 Another thing that n1ight be looked at is a nonstandard marking that New York City DOT has
3 pioneered. They actually have a set of standard details for this. This is an intersection
4 continuation marking to indicate the path of the bicyclist through the intersection. In fact they
5 have three levels of intensity for this marking depending on the level of turning conflict. I have
6 pictures of this for Manhattan. New York is kind of leading the way. They are out ahead of the
7 manual on unifonn traffic control devices but it is worth looking at what they are doing to
8 resolve this very san1e issue that the first commentator mentioned.
9
10 In the eastbound direction, in the shared curbside ten-foot space that Paul was just discussing
11 with Commissioner Keller you might consider adding a shared lane marking aligned towards the
12 left side of that ten-foot space. This is the same marking that is on Alma northbound just north
13 of Homer to encourage cyclists to stay away from the curb as they move from the Homer
14 Undercrossing to Forest Avenue.
15
16 Lastly, this is a crosswalk nit. Colored crosswalks are good but for the service to low vision
17 pedestrians who absolutely require contrast cues to navigate all colored crosswalks should have
18 the 12-inch white lines as well. So someone whose vision is very limited but they are not blind
19 can navigate by contrast. Thank you.
20
21 Chair Garber: Thank you very much. David Shapiro followed by Cecltjc de La Beaujardiere.
22
23 Mr. David Shapiro, Palo Alto: Hi, I have been a resident of Evergreen Park for 15 years. I live
24 on Stanford Avenue east of El Camino. Since 2001 I have escorted one or both of my children
25 across that intersection to Escondido School mostly by bike or by foot. Between doing that
26 virtually every morning, the pickups, the activities at school, and my too frequent trips to
27 Starbucks in the middle of the day I would say that I have crossed this intersection easily 3,000
28 or more times in the past nine years. My observation is it is an incredibly dangerous intersection.
29 I have witnessed numerous near accidents between cars, between cars and bicycles, and cars and
30 pedestrians. I have not let my kids go across it on their own until they were in fifth grade, the
31 last year at Escondido, and that was only after the crossing guard came on and only because they
32 go in a group of kids so there is kind of a gaggle, so that they are more visible to have kind of a
33 convoy going up in the monling. Even so, my last words to them often in the morning are 'be
34 careful crossing El Camino. Look to your left when the light turns green.' I shouldn't have to be
35 saying that to them every morning.
36
37 The dangers of this intersection have been known for many years. I want to address the
38 sentiments that some people have mentioned that this is kind of a rushed project and accelerated
39 approval timeline. We have been having meetings and plans about this intersection for many,
40 many years. All or n10st of these changes were part of the earlier iterations. In fact, I remember
41 one not too long ago would have cut El Camino down to two lanes in the northbound direction,
42 which was shot down because they were fearing backups. I think it actually would have worked.
43 There was a blockage of that lane for some construction for months at a time right after that plan
44 was abandoned and I didn't see a single backup occurring there. The point is that they are
45 relatively minor changes that are envisioned for this intersection and won't really in my opinion
46 have a detrimental effect on traffic flow through the intersection. They should slow down traffic
City of Palo Alto Page 16
1 turning at that intersection and that is a positive safety effect that we would like to see. So in
2 conclusion I just want to say that I and many residents in my neighborhood strongly support
3 these changes. We are thrilled that it is actually hopefully going to happen very soon and we
4 would like you to consider and expedite the project as much as possible. Thanks.
5
6 Chair Garber: Thank you. Cedric de La Beaujardiere followed by our last speaker, Herb
7 Borock. If there is anyone else that would like to speak please fill out a card and bring it
8 forward.
9
10 Mr. Cedric de La Beaujardiere, Palo Alto: Good evening Commissioners. I am the Chair of the
11 Palo Alto Bicycle Advisory Committee. I am here to tell you that PABAC has reviewed these
12 plans and believes that they are generally an improvement for safety for bicyclists and
13 pedestrians. We believe the bulbouts and the extension of the median refuges will reduce the
14 turning radii and thus reduce speeds for tunling traffic.
15
16 We are still concerned about safety as has been mentioned for the westbound cyclists on
17 Stanford with the conflict with the left turners. The proposed crosswalk green preceding the
18 traffic green we believe would be helpful but that would still be just a pedestrian actuated and
19 would not necessarily be actuated for all bicyclists trying to cross. So it wouldn't help all the
20 time all the cyclists. It has been suggest that there could be signs reminding drivers or turning
21 traffic to yield to bicycles and pedestrians and that would be beneficial. While the bulbouts
22 would reduce some of the traffic capacity for right turners it was mentioned in our meeting that
23 during heavy commute hours the heavy EI Camino traffic pretty much prevents right turners
24 anyways so we believe that it wouldn't be that big of an impact on capacity for eastbound traffic
25 on Stanford, and that it would be an acceptable tradeoff for improved safety.
26
27 Finally, we believe that split phasing would be the most safe options for bicyclists and would
28 probably also be good for traffic flow on Stanford, although we do recognize that Caltrans might
29 have some issues. It would be nice if Staff could try to work with Caltrans to see if that would
30 be possible. Thank you.
31
32 Chair Garber: Before you leave Commissioner Keller has a question.
33
34 Commissioner Keller: I am wondering if you could speak very briefly to the effect on bicyclists
35 going northbound and southbound on EI Camino and how this would or wouldn't improve safety
36 for them. Through bicyclists northbound and southbound on EI Camino.
37
38 Mr. de La Beaujardiere: Again, I think that the more constrained turning radii will be slowing
39 the speed of the right turners so that will be a safety improvement for bicyclists. The wider the
40 radius and with the pork chop islands the cars can just whip through that corner really quickly.
41 Knowing that they are going to be able to turn very quickly they don't really slow down so much
42 so it is all around pretty dangerous.
43
44 Commissioner Keller: So the space for the bikes adjacent to the bulbouts going straight is fine
45 for your concern.
46
City of Palo Alto Page 17
1 Mr. de La Beaujardiere: Yes.
2
3 Commissioner Keller: Thank you.
4
5 Chair Garber: Thank you very much. Our last speaker of the evening, Herb Borock.
6
7 Mr. Herb Borock, Palo Alto: Good evening Chair Garber and Conunissioners. I would like to
8 hear some clarity on the process for approvals and where the project stands at this time. I
9 understand there was an Architectural Review Board hearing last Thursday and the Staff Report
10 indicated they were making a recommendation to the Director. Normally under the process the
11 Director would have made his decision yesterday.
12
13 You are being asked to make a reconlffiendation but I don't know what planning entitlement it is
14 for. It just says about intersection improvements. Then it is indicated here on the printed
15 presentation I have a copy of a City Council meeting on February 8 although I thought I heard
16 the date March 8. So it should be clear for the Commissioners and for the public as to what
17 types of approvals are being requested in this application and at what level of the City those are
18 being made.
19
20 I thought I heard mention from a property owner about concern about a mature tree. It reminded
21 me of California Avenue's trees. There were lots of reasons given but I think it has come clear
22 even with the comments from the Director of the California A venue Area Development
23 Association that the main reason for cutting down the trees was to facilitate future development.
24 It seems to me if there is any concern from someone, a property owner, of cutting down a mature
25 tree the time to bring that up is when the property redevelopment occurs rather than a discussion
26 of this project.
27
28 Finally, Mr. Carter from Stanford expressed a concern about what appears is the cumulative
29 affect on drainage, which seems to be creating a potentially significant effect. So this is not a
30 project that-is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act for that reason. The
31 California Environmental Quality Act makes clear that you need to determine the mitigations for
32 a project such as for this drainage problem now. That you can't defer a decision as to what those
33 mitigations should be however much Stanford is willing to meet with the City and with others at
34 some future time that is not appropriate under the law. Thank you.
35
36 Chair Garber: Thank you. Commissioners, just as an FYI it is 7:15. I would like to try and get
37 through this by 8:00 or 8:30 the latest. If we do need to go beyond 8:00 we will have a brief
38 break at 8:00. Comnrissioner Tuma has a question to be followed by Commissioner Fineberg.
39 We will do questions, comments, and then discussion. We will pack it all together into one
40 conversation here. Commissioner Tuma.
41
42 Vice-Chair Tuma: The first question is a procedural question. Where does this go from here?
43 Our packet says that we are making a recommendation to the Director of Planning but the
44 presentation said it is going to go to Council. Where are we and where does this go?
45
City of Palo Alto Page 18
1 Ms. Caporgno: Originally when the Staff Report was written we were planning on the Director
2 of Planning making the recommendation to Caltrans. Since this has become more controversial
3 after the Council Meeting the other night one of the speakers had raised some issues about the
4 project in Oral Communications and the Council wanted us to report back to them. So we
5 decided we would just bring it to Council.
6
7 The CIP, Capital Improvement Progran1, identifies this project as one of the projects and the
8 process for review is to go to the Planning Commission. We added the ARB in because of the
9 design issues regarding the street furniture and the trees. The fact that it is a transportation
10 project primarily that is why it was identified to go to Planning Commission.
11
12 Vice-Chair Tuma: So it will go to Council simply for information or will they actually be in any
13 way acting on it?
14
15 Ms. Caporgno: They will be making the recommendation to Caltrans. If I may just add one
16 thing. Caltrans is the lead agency on this project so they are going to do the actual approval of
17 the project. The City is making a recommendation and that is why the environmental review
18 process that they identified, which was an exemption, is coming from them.
19
20 Vice-Chair Tuma: Okay, thanks. I would like to go to this exact screen. For the gentleman who
21 had given us this portion of the presentation on the traffic flow I would like to understand better
22 or more clearly how traffic that is eastbound on Stanford approaching El Camino making that
23 right hand tum, how that traffic interacts with the traffic that is eastbound on Stanford, stopped at
24 the traffic light waiting to make a left hand tum.
25
26 Chair Garber: I am assuming that would Brad Leveen.
27
28 Mr. Leveen: So back here the traffic eastbound on Stanford A venue there is one lane with an
29 adjacent bike lane, and then parking. So as the vehicles come up to the intersection, right about
30 here, this shared lane to the right would begin and the solid stripe for the bike lane would tum
31 into a dashed line all the way up. So at this point there would also probably be a sign here of
32 some type that would identify that it is a shared lane or yield to bicycles. So vehicles would
33 make the transition into that lane, come up to the stop bar, they would have to stop at a red light,
34 and then they could make a right tum if everything is clear. Meanwhile vehicles waiting to
35 either tum left northbound El Camino or go through would be sitting here. You see a red car
36 right there in that picture. They would be sitting there. So over time they would be backing up
37 as the light was red and at some point cars coming up Stanford would have to wait. This would
38 be about the limit where they could begin pulling over and using that shared lane to make the
39 right tum.
40
41 Vice-Chair Tuma: So is that two lanes? At the point where you come out of the parking lot
42 where Starbucks is I understand ...
43
44 Mr. Leveen: Yes, that is about where the shared lane would start. So this lane I believe is about
45 11 feet and then this would be ten feet over here. So right about there I believe is where the
46 dashed line would start and the shared lane would start. So you could come out of the parking
City of Palo Alto Page 19
1 lot even if cars were stacked up here, you could come out of the parking lot, tum right, come up,
2 and tum right.
3
4 Vice-Chair Tuma: Okay. So have you studied the existing condition versus the proposed
5 condition and what the impact on stacking or staging in that area would be? In other words, is
6 this going to make it worse for cars coming out wanting to make a right hand tum?
7
8 Mr. Leveen: Is this going to be worse than the existing?
9
10 Vice-Chair Tuma: For automobiles in terms of are there going to be delays for people wanting
11 to make a right hand tum versus the current condition?
12
13 Mr. Leveen: I don't believe so. Here you go, this is the existing condition. Here is the parking
14 lot at Starbucks. So we are proposing at about here is where the shared lane would start. Right
15 now that extra wide lane does go a little farther back so vehicle,S somewhere in this area if cars
16 are stacked up back to about there vehicles can kind of squeeze by them. They kind of go into
17 the bike lane actually and straddle the bike lane line there and then come up and make the free
18 right. So our proposed situation, it is not on the aerial background, I think the Starbucks
19 driveway is about there. It is not quite as long.
20
21 Vice-Chair Tuma: Okay. Sorry, maybe I am not asking the question right but I am not getting
22 the information I am looking for. What I am trying to find out is, well maybe the way it was just
23 whispered in my ear is the way to ask it, which is over the course of an hour during rush hour
24 would there be more or less cars able to make that right hand tum?
25
26 Ms. Caporgno: Excuse me we had our Traffic Engineer look at that so maybe he could respond.
27
28 Vice-Chair Tuma: Okay, sure. That would be great.
29
30 Mr. Rafael Rius, Traffic Engineer: Good evening Commissioners. I was able to look at this
31 briefly. In my opinion it would be ab<;>ut the same and possibly even slightly better with the
32 proposed recommendation.
33
34 In this situation as you can see the bike lane ends about here so going off memory I think I
35 measured about 150 feet here. The vehicles can queue up here and if a car is up against the left
36 line potentially the cars can squeeze by around them, but as one wide lane if a car is queued up to
37 go straight or left but in the middle of the lane they could potentially not provide enough room
38 for a right turning car to get by. In this configuration there will be the left line and also the right
39 line for through and left cars to queue up. The right cars will be able to go into the shared lane to
40 make the right tum. I think right here as we showed it on here the dash starts about 100 feet
41 from the intersection. The final design hasn't been finalized yet so that could even be extended
42 up to 150 feet if needed. About 125 feet would provide about the same distance as what exists
43 right now. Theoretically the through and left tum vehicles would be queued up more organized
44 on the left side so cars could tum right easier.
45
City of Palo Alto Page 20
1 In terms of capacity of right turners turning right now even though we are referring to it as a free
2 right tum it is not technically a free right tum because the vehicles that come whip around here
3 still have to yield. It is a yield right tum. In looking at the analysis it is almost negligible as to
4 vehicles that would now have to come to a complete stop on a red but they would still be able to
5 go when there are gaps. During the peak hour it would be very similar as to what is available
6 now when cars go whip around here and have to stop and yield and wait for gaps up here.
7
8 Vice-Chair Tuma: Okay. Thank you. I will save that for comments. Just one other quick
9 question for Staff. The issue about the species of the tree and the blocking or not blocking of
10 visibility for the Starbucks that is there. Do you have any comments on that?
11
12 Ms. Yazdy: We are currently working with the business owners a lot from Barbeques Galore.
13 We have committed to going out there and meeting with them once we finalize the species and
14 the number of trees that we are proposing and just kind of marking out the locations. So we have
15 committed to working with them and trying to address their concerns. Did I answer your
16 question?
17
18 Vice-Chair Tuma: When you say Barbeques Galore, also the Starbucks? The landowner from
19 Starbucks was concerned about where that tree was. I could see that a large tree right there
20 southbound on El Camino could create an unsafe driving condition if someone says, oh, there's
21 the Starbucks, and they didn't see it until they got there.
22
23 Ms. Yazdy: We have heard their concerns. I think the reduced landscaping in that section from
24 what it was to what it is really speaks a lot. The Valley Oak we have also agreed to once we
25 finalize the design to see if at all possible to push it back more up towards Stanford A venue so
26 that sign could be more visible.
27
28 I would also like to point out that the prospective drawings that you saw were really standing
29 diagonal from the intersection. So cars driving southbound on El Camino don't exactly have that
30 view that is shown as part of the presentation.
31
32 Vice-Chair Tuma: Okay. One last question and then I will pass it on. What is driving Valley
33 Oak as opposed to some other species or something that is not as broad?
34
35 Ms. Yazdy: The recommendation for the Valley Oak was to have kind of a gateway statement
36 tree at this intersection. So the same Valley Oak would be mirrored on the opposite site, on the
37 Stanford comer. So I think just the statement tree and it being a gateway to the neighborhood
38 was what drove the Valley Oak recommendation, which was also supported by the ARB.
39
40 Ms. Caporgno: I believe that also Stanford has a lot of Valley Oaks in that area. So it was kind
41 of to continue that theme. Also the ARB had recommended, when those oaks are planted, to
42 kind of 'limb up' is kind of the term that they used, they would trim the tree so that the lower
43 portion of the tree would be trimmed back so that the canopy would be higher up. So you would
44 have more visibility of the storefront itself.
45
46 Vice-Chair Tuma: The storefront yes, but isn't the sign for Starbucks up higher?
City of Palo Alto Page 21
1
2 Chair Garber: Thank you. Comnlissioner Fineberg, then Comnlissioners Martinez, Keller, and
3 Lippert.
4
5 Comnlissioner Fineberg: I would like to ask some questions relating to what we are considering
6 tonight, what our purview is, and what we are supposed to base our recommendations on. I
7 could see in our Staff Report that the ARB has already made findings with consistency to the
8 Comprehensive Plan. The Staff Report doesn't include any statements about whether there are
9 any required findings. It does not really include any discussion about whether we are supposed
10 to be considering the Negative Declaration. So what is it that we are evaluating and what is our
11 purview?
12
13 Ms. Caporgno: The focus of the Planning Commission is on the configuration of the intersection
14 itself. It is not so much on the design of the furniture, the landscaping, that was more of the
15 ARB purview. You are looking at the project as a whole and obviously can make
16 recommendations on that aspect of it also. Because you are a Transportation Comnlission you
17 are looking more at the configuration, how the different aspects of turning movements will work,
18 and the pedestrian, bicycle and vehicular flows will work. So that is really the focus of what
19 your review should be.
20
21 Mr. Donald Larkin, Assistant City Attorney: I was going to add with regard to the Negative
22 Declaration your role is not as a recommending body on the Negative Declaration. All
23 subsidiary bodies that make recommendations on the project should review the findings of that
24 Negative Declaration and consider those.
25
26 Ms. Caporgno: The lead agency, which is Caltrans, found the project to be exempt from CEQA
27 so there has been no Negative Declaration prepared. They are going to be the approval body for
28 this project and they made the determination that there was not a need for preparation of a
29 Negative Declaration.
30
31 Comnlissioner Fineberg: Okay. So it is exempt then. So going back to the City Attorney's
32 statement that we need to review it, do we just accept then if Caltrans is saying it is exempt there
33 is nothing for us to review?
34
35 Mr. Larkin: My point is that you are not a recommending body on CEQA. I shouldn't have said
36 Negative Declaration. You are not a recommending body on CEQA with regard to this project
37 so it is simply to consider the merits of the project. Just to reiterate another point this is not a
38 quasi-judicial matter so there are no required findings.
39
40 Mr. Williams: If I could tack on one comment too. One of the reasons why there is some
41 confusion about sort of the process and permits and such is because this is a Caltrans project but
42 it is a public project that the City is recommending on. Somewhat similar to a CIP project that
43 you might see. This is the City's project and you are reviewing it, the Council will review it
44 because it is part of what we are proposing in our CIP. I don't think as Don is saying, it is not
45 something that has specific findings that you have to make or anything. It is pretty wide open. If
City of Palo Alto Page 22
1 you feel like this serves the purpose for the City and furthers the public good then that is what it
2 is here for you to discuss.
3
4 Commissioner Fineberg: Okay. What is the northern most border of the South EI Camino
5 Design Guidelines and do those design guidelines apply to this project or do they stop at the
6 southern edge of this?
7
8 Mr. Williams: The design guidelines are for private development only. The EI Camino Corridor
9 Master Plan has implications for this and what it is trying to implement.
10
11 Commissioner Fineberg: Okay, great. I was wondering why there was no mention of it and that
12 would explain it.
13
14 In terms of the, you gave a perfect segue for the EI Camino Real Master Planning Study. Is our
15 role to consider what specific elements of that this project would support or what elements of it
16 may not be supported by the project? If it is we can possibly cull that out during tonight's
17 meeting, but if that is the basis for how we make a recommending decision it would be helpful to
18 get some specific citations from that in the Staff Report. I don't know is that a good foundation
19 for how we base our recommendations?
20
21 Ms. Caporgno: Just the study itself provides guidance for the Commission in reviewing the
22 project but it is not -because it was kind of limited in what it described for that intersection it
23 doesn't get into all the detail that you have before you. So the study was a pilot program and this
24 project is a pilot project under that pilot progranl.
25
26 Commissioner Fineberg: Okay, thank you. Another couple quick comments. With regard to the
27 lack of input from the district-wide PTA Council Traffic Safety Committee I understand they
28 didn't meet in December, which means a last minute communication to them would not afford
29 the City the opportunity for feedback in December. However, if there was a December either
30 fourth or eighth nleeting at Escondido that meant that things were scheduled much earlier than
31 that. I think it is not a good oversight -let me word that differently. It is not good to have
32 missed the opportunity to get feedback from that group. There are many schools that this will
33 impact. There are many students commuting. The kids that live west of EI Camino are going to
34 be going to Gunn High School via that route. There are children crossing for other purposes like
35 going to libraries, community centers, recreational facilities. So I think we have missed an
36 opportunity to get feedback from representation from those other districts. I was thrilled to hear
37 when you said that even as this nloves forward that feedback will be sought and hopefully
38 respected. Thank you for that.
39
40 Ms. Caporgno: Yes, it is scheduled for review by the committee next Thursday.
41
42 Commissioner Fineberg: That is great. Okay. Regarding the CIP projects that are referenced
43 very briefly in the Staff Report there are three of them cited, CIP PL07002, CIP PL98013, and
44 CIP PL04010. Then they are described as being projects for the school commute safety and the
45 bike boulevard. I wish we had more information about what those projects were scoped as, what
46 year they were included in the CIP reviews. To me it is a big black hole. I don't know what
City of Palo Alto Page 23
1 Council approved. I don't know what the scope of the projects were. I don't know if the
2 proposed project fulfills the goals of those. There is no place to easily find that infonnation. I
3 have to beg forbearance that I didn't do my review on this project in time to ask you those
4 questions three or four days ago, but that infonnation simply isn't out there for members of the
5 public to get without specific requests to Staff. This is yet another time where the CIPs are just a
6 black hole and how that feeds into this project. It is baffling that there is less transparency than
7 one might hope for.
8
9 The last comment I have is I would like to hear a little bit more discussion as the evening goes on
10 the intersection's role as a transition from the rural character along Stanford's border to the north
11 and then to a very urban character south. The discussion of that Valley Oak on the property at
12 Starbucks I understand how that is sort of bringing that rural character south but it has crossed
13 the street into an urban area. Are there Valley Oaks anywhere else south in the urban areas?
14 Then also I am wondering, we are doing this do improve safety and to improve the ability for
15 bicycles and pedestrians to use it but then immediately north is a dirt sidewalk. I happen to be
16 driving by it today and there was no one on it because it was a giant mud puddle. The people
17 that had parked along El Camino were walking in the street close to the cars. So do we need to
18 look at improving safety at an intersection for pedestrians where they are walking in mud
19 puddles? The whole concept of that is the key intersection where cars north of there are going
20 really fast. It is a wide, uninterrupted, straight, flat area and then all of a sudden they hit that
21 intersection and it completely changes character. I don't know if there have been traffic studies
22 because we don't have them tonight, but what is the impact of throwing a bulb out right when you
23 hit that transition from the rural to the urban area? So if we could hear more about that as the
24 evening goes. Thank you.
25
26 Chair Garber: Does Staff want to return to some of those questions and we will continue with
27 others or would you like to try and address some of them now?
28
29 Ms. Yazdy: I think we can respond to your concern about the more urban and rural feel and then
30 the Valley Oaks. I will make one statement I think I will tum it over to Brian and he can explain
31 kind of the landscaping that was proposed for this area. I believe the Valley Oaks that were
32 placed on Starbucks which would mirror the Valley Oak on the Stanford side was really just to
33 provide a consistency and to carryover. It is an intersection project and I think the issue was one
34 side being rural and the other side being urban and it was a way to just tie the two comers
35 together being an intersection. Again, I will let Brian discuss this in more detail. Thank you.
36
37 Mr. Fletcher: I think Shahla has been absolutely right on that. The concept of rural to more
38 urban has been widely discussed through our outreach and the plans have been improved upon
39 based upon that. So continuing on with that theme from going from a n10re rural that you find at
40 Stanford that is why the landscape palette for the intersection, the landscape improvements
41 behind the sidewalk at the Stanford bulbout have been much simplified. We are talking about a
42 single species of low groundcover that is more in line with the character of other entrances and
43 gateways into Stanford, and that more rural farm character as well. At the same time we have
44 the opportunity to bring that same ground plane element over to some of the planting that is
45 happen on, I am calling it the Starbucks comer, so that there could be a consistency, a transition
46 zone per se between the two. I think going beyond that the selection of the oak tree is much
City of Palo Alto Page 24
1 more consistent with that frontage along Stanford A venue and the existing trees and the palette
2 that is going on in that frontage. So it is not only providing further gateway into that
3 neighborhood it is furthering the palette, bringing that palette from the farm frontage of Stanford
4 A venue bringing that onto this transition zone which is the intersection itself.
5
6 Chair Garber: Just before we go to Commissioner Martinez let me clarify. I am assuming that
7 Staff is looking for a motion from the Commission this evening as opposed to just comments.
8
9 Ms. Caporgno: That is correct.
10
11 Chair Garber: Thank you. Commissioner Martinez and then Commissioners Keller and Lippert.
12
13 Comnrissioner Martinez: Thank you. On this plan for example there aren't any indications of
14 any bus stops along these intersections. Is that correct or not?
15
16 Ms. Yazdy: There is a bus stop actually right along EI Camino. I don't know if you can see it in
17 the photos. Yes, actually we do. You will see a bus shelter right next to Barbeques Galore. It is
18 in a light blue. That is a VT A bus that we are proposing to add a new shelter at that location.
19
20 Commissioner Martinez: Okay. That doesn't show up in the plans though, right?
21
22 Ms. Yazdy: I believe they were in the prospective. I think they were called out on the
23 conceptual plans I believe.
24
25 Commissioner Martinez: Okay, then I missed it. Sonlebody mentioned the Marguerite. Where
26 is that going to be if anywhere?
27
28 Ms. Yazdy: I am not aware of any Marguerite shuttle being proposed at this location. That is
29 not part of this project. So I am sorry but I am not sure. They were saying it is on the east side.
30
31 Commissioner Martinez: Okay. I wanted to ask about the crosswalks. This colored asphalt is
32 that part of the master plan? Is that indicated that that is sort of a theme that we want to build
33 on?
34
35 Ms. Yazdy: Yes. The colored crosswalks were called out in the master plan. The reason was to
36 really bring attention to the pedestrians or bicyclists crossing at these intersections.
37
38 Commissioner Martinez: Do we have them anywhere else along EI Camino?
39
40 Ms. Yazdy: No, this is the first in Palo Alto.
41
42 Commissioner Martinez: The intension is that we are going to continue to do this as the theme
43 of the master plan, is that right?
44
45 Ms. Yazdy: Yes.
46
City of Palo Alto Page 25
1 Commissioner Martinez: Okay. The white stripes on either side is that painted or is that another
2 material?
3
4 Ms. Yazdy: I believe that would be painted. Yes, that would be painted.
5
6 Mr. Leveen: That would be a thennoplastic material that is heat applied like the striping on the
7 highways and so on.
8
9 Commissioner Martinez: Okay. How wide is it?
10
11 Mr. Leveen: It is 12 inches wide. It is a 12-inch wide white stripe on each side of the crosswalk.
12
13 Commissioner Martinez: Is that like a Caltrans standard or is that just your design proposal?
14
15 Mr. Leveen: That is a standard pretty universal for crosswalks, yes, and Caltrans standard.
16
17 Commissioner Martinez: Visually it looks sort of thin that's why I was asking whether you
18 might consider increasing it. It is part of that crossing design element and somebody mentioned
19 for low-vision pedestrians that that's an important feature.
20
21 The bulbouts especially the northwest one how wide are they from the widest point, the
22 northwest side?
23
24 Mr. Leveen: The north ...
25
26 Commissioner Martinez: The one by the Stanford property. It looks fairly wide.
27
28 Mr. Leveen: Well, this is the curb line of EI Camino here and at the farthest point the bulb out is
29 just five feet out into EI Camino.
30
31 Commissioner Martinez: Fronl the edge of the dirt let's say to the curb.
32
33 Mr. Leveen: Well, like from this point to this point?
34
35 Commissioner Martinez: Yes. It looks like it is 15 feet or more.
36
37 Mr. Leveen: Oh yes, it is probably 40 feet although that is not all pavement. The paved
38 portion ...
39
40 Commissioner Martinez: I am asking about the paved portion.
41
42 Mr. Leveen: Okay this is the exact back dimension is still evolving as we are working out some
43 of the drainage issues. But at a minimum there would probably be ten to 12 feet of concrete
44 sidewalk in the bulbout there. Something in that range.
45
46 Commissioner Martinez: Okay and the other side looks a little bit smaller. Is that correct?
City of Palo Alto Page 26
1
2 Mr. Leveen: On the east side over here?
3
4 Commissioner Martinez: The Starbucks side.
5
6 Mr. Leveen: The Starbucks side, well this side will probably end up looking a little narrower
7 like this by the time this is all done.
8
9 Commissioner Martinez: Okay.
10
11 Mr. Leveen: That is probably about 12 feet from the curb to the point there.
12
13 Commissioner Martinez: Okay. I know this isn't our area but since we are told we can tweak I
14 am tweaking. I just think that the landscape area could be a little bit more generous on both
15 sides. It looks a little thin. So that is just a comment.
16
17 Lastly, just a last question on the Stanford property. Do we know anything about the site plan
18 for that housing? Has it evolved?
19
20 Ms. Yazdy: Actually, the prospectives that we are proposing show the two buildings, there are
21 more, but these are the two that kind of are in perspective at this location. So the two boxed
22 areas that you see are behind the proposed buildings from Stanford. I believe there is more that
23 we are not showing.
24
25 Commissioner Martinez: Okay, that's fine.
26
27 Ms. Yazdy: The three trees are also behind the so it is on the Stanford side.
28
29 Commissioner Martinez: Okay. Then is that development somehow going to cause demolition
30 of what we are going to be putting in or is it going to not affect it?
31
32 Ms. Yazdy: It isn't going to affect what we are proposing.
33
34 Commissioner Martinez: So they are not going to be running utility lines or storm drainage lines
35 or anything where our sidewalks are going to be torn up after just being installed. Is that correct?
36
37 Ms. Yazdy: Well, both Stanford and our Staff have been working together in trying to
38 coordinate our design plans and making sure that there are no conflicts like you mentioned.
39
40 Commissioner Martinez: Okay.
41
42 Mr. Leveen: Shahla, I could just add real quick this drainage plan shows these existing storm
43 drain systems. These are the actual new storm drain systems that were put in as part of this
44 development project. They have already been put in place and that is what we are showing on
45 here. So they have already done their work in that corner so then the work we do won't be torn
46 out because they are already done.
City of Palo Alto Page 27
1
2 Commissioner Martinez: Okay, very good.
3
4 Chair Garber: Commissioner, Commissioner Fineberg had a follow up on your question if that is
5 all right.
6
7 Commissioner Fineberg: The housing that is being built on the Stanford land adjacent to El
8 Camino, when I drove by today I saw maybe three of the homes that are already framed in and
9 plywood is up, and then foundations of another maybe half dozen or so. Is there an expected
10 completion date? Will it be completed before we go anywhere near this so there would be no
11 construction conflicts?
12
13 Ms. Yazdy: Maybe Stanford can respond to that.
14 .
15 Chair Garber: Mr. Carter.
16
17 Mr. Carter: The Stanford housing projects as you noted are underway. The first phases are
18 scheduled for completion fall of 2010. I don't believe all of the project will be complete then. I
19 am not completely aware of the schedule for the City project.
20
21 Ms. Yazdy: We are scheduled to hopefully begin construction in the fall of 2010.
22
23 Chair Garber: Commissioner Martinez, anything else?
24
25 Commissioner Martinez: I am done for now. Thanks.
26
27 Chair Garber: Commissioner Keller, then Commissioner Lippert, and myself.
28
29 Commissioner Keller: Thank you. So my first question is, is the idea for this project sort of a
30 prototype for other treatments that might happen for other intersections on El Camino Real
31 presumably further south such as Arastradero, Charleston, and El Camino. Is that the idea?
32
33 Ms. Yazdy: Yes that is correct.
34
35 Commissioner Keller: Okay. Usually when we get transportation issues that involve change to
36 developments or intersections or things like that we usually get LOS data, Level of Service data,
37 which is before the project as well as project after the project with or without the project. We
38 also get traffic counts not only the volumes that you have given in response to question number
39 two of mine but we also get directional traffic data like how many cars go straight, how many go
40 left, how n1any go right, how many pedestlians, how many bicyclists. I was expecting to see that
41 kind of data in this. I was also expecting to see critical delay data. I an1 wondering because
42 while this is not subject to CEQA Palo Alto does have a standard of significance with respect to
43 critical delay. Part of, I think, our review should be the degree to which this does or does not
44 increase critical delay for this intersection. So I would find my review inadequate without
45 reviewing the LOS before and after, and with and without the project after, and critical delay
City of Palo Alto Page 28
1 before and after, and with and without the project after. Does that data exist? Does anybody
2 have it? Has some simulation or whatever been done?
3
4 Ms. Yazdy: No traffic studies were conducted as part of this project mainly because Caltrans
5 and the type of project that this is didn't require us to do a full complete traffic study. One of the
6 reasons being this is not a capacity-increasing project, and mainly because pedestrian safety
7 improvements projects are kind of exempt from traffic studies. I believe that we can maybe do
8 some internal looking at some numbers and get something sent for your review.
9
10 Commissioner Keller: Let me explain why I am concerned about this. I realize this is not a
11 capacity-increasing project. However, I would expect that many people would think that this is a
12 capacity-decreasing project. When you decrease capacity you want to make sure that you don't
13 increase critical delay in that regard. So if you basically have a pipe and you are trying to shove
14 more water through it that gets delay and if you constrict the pipe that gets delay, and what we
15 are doing is constricting the pipe. So yes, we are not doing a standard development but
16 nonetheless it makes sense for that kind of analysis to be done so that the community as a whole
17 and the Planning and Transportation Commission with the purview of transportation and being
18 concerned about traffic delay as part of our purview should review that kind of data on similar
19 studies. So what I am hoping is that we learn some lessons from how this project is being done
20 so that next time a project like this comes before us for other projects that we have all of the
21 appropriate data that we can show the community if it is the case that it won't delay traffic, that it
22 won't impede on throughput, that it won't significantly increase delay such as on eastbound
23 Stanford Avenue that we have the data to be able to show that. Without that data it is really hard
24 to make the case that it won't make things worse for some communities while making it better
25 for others. Do we have some of that data? Does Rafael have some for us? Thank you.
26
27 Mr. Rius: As Shahla mentioned Caltrans didn't do a traffic study for this so we don't have
28 current data for a typical project that they would collect new data for. As part of the Stanford
29 expansion EIR we have data from 2006 that I was able to take a quick look at today. This
30 intersection generally operates at Level of Service C during both the AM and PM peak periods.
31 Because of what I mentioned earlier that it is not technically a free right turn and when I tried to
32 analyze the difference between the current configuration and the new configuration where they
33 still have to yield, and I even tried to configure this proposed configuration and nlake it a little
34 bit more conservative like with the amount of right turns that cut into capacity by as much as half
35 we are still Level of Service C. I didn't print it out but I was getting increases from about 23 to
36 24 seconds of average delay up to about 27 to 28. So really it is not close to our thresholds of
37 significant impact, which is Level of Service E, and that is at about 50 seconds. So instead of a
38 25 or 30 second increase needed it would only increase about three or four seconds is what I
39 found. Now, this is unofficial based on 2006 data.
40
41 Commissioner Keller: Well, I don't have a problem with using whatever data is available, 2006
42 data, but it is helpful to actually as part of a Staff Report to give us that kind of analysis so that
43 we in the community can be reassured that it isn't problematic. So I would encourage 2006 data
44 is good enough if that -for example if you do the thing on Charleston! ArastraderolEl Camino
45 the data we have gathered for whatever studies, use that and then do the analysis based on it. I
46 am perfectly happy with that but I think we need to be able to do that kind of analysis. So if you
City of Palo Alto Page 29
1 could send that to us and put that in the record for the City Council I think that would be very
2 helpful.
3
4 Mr. Rius: Yes, I can do that. I don't know if you want extra information but I also looked at like
5 potentially splitting the phases and that would potentially cause a huge increase in delay just
6 because of the amount of walk time that you did for both approaches.
7
8 Commissioner Keller: What about the suggestion that was made of the delayed start for cars and
9 the early start for pedestrians and bicyclists, would that be a problem?
10
11 Mr. Rius: I definitely agree with that and in fact I have talked to Shahla about that. That was
12 one of my own personal recommendations of the head start for a couple of seconds. It would
13 take away a little bit of green time from the Stanford approaches but wouldn't affect the EI
14 Camino approaches at all.
15
16 Commissioner Keller: Okay.
17
18 Mr. Rius: John Ciccarelli left but I am interested in talking to him about the stuff that New York
19 was doing and their striping. I am not totally familiar with that. The green head start, I think it
20 was Cedric or Paul mentioned that it is primarily a benefit for the pedestrians that push the
21 button and cyclists typically don't like to get off their bikes and have to push a push-button so
22 they wouldn't reap the benefits as much, but for pedestrians it would. We do know that it is an
23 issue with pedestrians also being cutoff.
24
25 Commissioner Keller: Well, I have seen intersections where there is a bicycle light button right
26 against the curb instead of inside the curb. So I have seen satellite push buttons.
27
28 Ms. Y azdy: Yes, that is an option. I think that is not a trend that most designers are going with
29 anymore. They try to avoid putting the standalone push buttons out by the curbs just because
30 they can get hit easily and such.
31
32 Commissioner Keller: Do you have any comments about the suggestions about reduced cars,
33 about removing·some of the cars that was suggested by a member of the public? Removing
34 some of the parking spaces I mean. I think there were some suggestions on that. They were on
35 Stanford on the east side I believe. Yes, Roger's Attachment F, do you have any comments on
36 that?
37
38 Mr. Rius: I am not recalling exactly. On the east side?
39
40 Commissioner Keller: He was referring to several issues there. Do you have any response to
41 that? I think he was talking about the right turns. I think what you are saying is that your
42 analysis of the critical delay is there wouldn't be a problem. Is that right?
43
44 Mr. Rius: I didn't go through all of Roger's comments. I didn't get a chance to read through
45 these. I definitely can for the Council.
46
City of Palo Alto Page 30
1 Commissioner Keller: Thank you.
2
3 Mr. Rius: The right tum capacity as I mentioned earlier the vehicles would be able to shift over
4 to the right lane and reach the intersection. They won't be able to make the right tum as quickly
5 because they will have to slow down and by law make a complete stop on red, and then look for
6 a gap. In terms of getting to the intersection and storage capacity they would be allowed to do
7 that, and the extension where the length where we could extend the no parking down Stanford
8 that is something we could work with in the final design. If there are no cars parked there I think
9 legally they are allowed to go into that lane within 150 feet of the intersection.
10
11 Commissioner Keller: Especially if that dotted line were continued visually indicating that you
12 could go to the right there.
13
14 Mr. Rius: Yes, especially if we wanted to restrict parking. We can allow parking closer than the
15 150 feet but if we wanted to restrict it up to 150 feet then cars would essentially be able to use
16 that as a second lane.
17
18 Commissioner Keller: Okay. I would like to make a contrast if I may between what is going on
19 here and if you look at California Avenue when you are going eastbound approaching EI
20 Camino. In that case you have a left tum lane and a straight and through lane. In this case
21 essentially what we have is a left and through lane and a right tum lane. I can tell you I have
22 driven on California A venue trying to get through the light either turning right or going straight,
23 usually going straight, and somebody is trying to tum right and can't tum right because of the
24 pedestrian contlict. Therefore, it turns out that two cars can get through the intersection going
25 straight because they are stuck behind cars going right. That is not going to happen here because
26 the right turns are not interfering with the straight and left turners, which I think, is an
27 improvement of this intersection.
28
29 Mr. Rius: Yes, it wouldn't affect cars turning left or going straight. I do know that there is a
30 high number of right tum volumes that could potentially be affected by that situation.
31
32 Commissioner Keller: Thank you. So a couple of further comments. Thank you. First is that I
33 remember when I was in college and Federal Express, FedEx, was first created and popular.
34 That was in the mid 1970s when it was becoming very popular. United Parcel Service basically
35 had this slogan, which I think fell on deaf ears. Federal Express said if you need it absolutely,
36 positively need to get it there tomorrow us Federal Express. UPS had a slogan, which says if you
37 absolutely, positively have to get it there tomorrow send it yesterday. Now that didn't work very
38 well because it wasn't ready until today otherwise if you sent it yesterday it would get there
39 today. Everybody waits until the end. In some sense the project was approved as far as I
40 understand it in April 2007 for funding. We got all the approvals I think in April 2007. From
41 your response to my message in January 2009 is when we asked for proposals to do the design
42 contract. So there was a delay of about 19 months from April 2007 to January 2009. If this
43 work had started, if the design contract had been basically the RFP had been put out a year and a
44 half earlier we would be able to do this in a much more relaxed environment getting community
45 input and such. Because of the, I would assume, the delay in getting the design work out such
46 that the project is now rushed essentially we are probably in a position where it is more or less
City of Palo Alto Page 31
1 we are putting a rubber stamp on this. We can't make major changes to it. I am not saying I
2 would want to make major changes to it but essentially we can't make major changes to it
3 because things are too late, it is hard to do due diligence because it is hard to get all that data.
4 We have to decide essentially tonight or the project gets delayed and therefore we lose our
5 funding. So I am sort of stuck a little bit because I would love to give this project, and my
6 feeling is that we should give a project belonging to Cal trans or a project proposed by the City
7 the same due diligence and the same standard of care that we give to every other project that
8 comes before us. I am concerned about whether we can in fact do that.
9
10 Another comment is I was actually fascinated reading this EI Camino Design Guideline in the
11 Master Planning Study because what it basically said to me is that ten-foot sidewalks are bad,
12 13-foot sidewalks are passable, and 17-foot sidewalks are good. I remember the South EI
13 Camino Design Guideline says 12-foot sidewalks and I am wondering huh? Why don't we have
14 16-foot sidewalks or 17-foot sidewalks for the South EI Camino Design Guidelines? It makes
15 absolutely no sense. We have this study and then we go ahead and say that we only need 12-foot
16 sidewalks. That is inconsistent and that is why I have been complaining about the EI Camino
17 Design Guidelines being 12-foot sidewalks. Now I understand why I have been complaining
18 about it. It is because people smarter than I am who have done the study say you need 17 feet to
19 have a good sidewalk. So no wonder I have been complaining.
20
21 In terms of the outreach to schools, have you done outreach with Paly? I know you have done
22 outreach with Escondido Elementary School. I am wondering if this is a route for people to get
23 to Paly and if you have done outreach with the Paly School safety people-other than through the
24 meeting happening next week.
25
26 Ms. Yazdy: Email notices were sent to pretty much the traffic school and safety. I need to check
27 my email and see. I believe they were noticed on the meetings but I can check on that.
28
29 Commissioner Keller: Does Jordan Middle School serve College Terrace? I believe it does, is
30 that correct? And, if that is the case were the Jordan traffic safety people brought into account
31 for this as being a safe route to school for people from College Terrace to Jordan Middle School?
32
33 Ms. Caporgno: The Committee for Traffic Safety for the schools in general were notified and
34 that is who we will be meeting with next week.
35
36 Commissioner Keller: Okay. So it would be helpful for me to get a little education on one thing.
37 There are a lot of things I need to learn but one of the things that has been confusing to me and
38 this follows up on something that Commissioner Fineberg mention. Essentially you have this
39 more rural section if you will on southbound EI Camino from essentially the City line by Sand
40 Hill Road and the Stanford Shopping Center all the way to Stanford A venue where people are
41 probably excessively speeding. Then suddenly you get to a congestion area. I could imagine
42 that that congestion happens when you get to Stanford A venue is a large part of the reason why
43 there is a lot of collisions. I understand the word accident is favored. We prefer the word
44 collision. So the issue is, what I am trying to understand is to what extend will the treatments
45 that we are doing to the intersection of EI Camino and Stanford A venue, to what extent will
46 those treatments slow down traffic enough so that by the time they get to Stanford Avenue traffic
City of Palo Alto Page 32
1 will be calmer and you won't have the accidents, which is what I am hoping the case is and you
2 will explain to me why that is, versus traffic will go as fast as it can hit Stanford A venue, wind
3 up with these narrow lanes and we will have more collisions because the congestion will be
4 exacerbated. So my intuition doesn't work well enough here but I can see both arguments. So I
5 am trying to understand how it is that this treatment is going to slow down traffic to reduce the
6 kinds of accidents that happen. So help me out here. Give me some intuition.
7
8 Chair Garber: Actually, before you respond if I may gently ask the Commissioner you have
9 been speaking now for over 15 minutes and we do want to get onto Commissioner Lippert.
10 Maybe we can get an answer and then maybe you can put some of your comments and tie them
11 up a little bit.
12
13 Commissioner Keller: Yes, I am getting close to the end.
14
15 Chair Garber: Great, thank you.
16
17 Ms. Yazdy: Well, the treatments that are proposed at this intersection project, this is an
18 intersection project that is what the funding is for. So really it is what we can best do for this
19 intersection. The approaches on the north side I understand there are no businesses on there so
20 the speed is faster but because as you enter Stanford A venue going southbound we are entering a
21 more commercial-residential areas. The visual cues that are being proposed as part of the project
22 being the colored sidewalks, the bulbouts, the trees, the planting, the seat wall, the benches what
23 all these amenities are really supposed to do is provide visual cues to drivers. That, what it does
24 is it just lets them know that they are enteling an area of pedestrian, bicycle zone. So that is I
25 guess the goal of the project is the drivers are slowed down.
26
27 Now you had mentioned a concern about the narrowing from 12-foot lanes to II-foot lanes and
28 Caltrans has approved and they recommend actually these reductions in lanes very often. That is
29 even done on highways. You had asked for data on whether and unfortunately there is no data
30 that they have. I did look into it briefly. They wouldn't approve this or recommend this if they
31 felt it was a danger to the drivers at all. I am not sure if I have responded to your questions about
32 the slowing down the traffic.
33
34 Mr. Williams: As sort of a side light I might recommend and I will bring it in there is a book
35 that came out last year called Traffic.
36
37 Commissioner Keller: I have it but I have not had a chance to finish reading it.
38
39 Mr. Williams: Actually fairly early in the book it has a description of how narrowing the lanes,
40 not too much, but narrowing the lanes somewhat how it affects driver's perception and sort of
41 indirectly makes them slow down. Then like Shahla was saying some of the discussion of the
42 visual cues and how that also helps slow traffic down and it also creates a more 'even flow of
43 traffic so that you don't get the rush up and the accidents, collisions actually from the book, the
44 book takes exception to the word accidents. So there is quite a bit of discussion in there and
45 studies behind that that help justify it.
46
City of Palo Alto Page 33
1 Commissioner Keller: Well, I appreciate that. I am hoping when this Staff Report goes to the
2 City Council that you will put in some of that reference nlaterial, not necessarily quote it but cite
3 it and indicate that is a reason why you expect traffic to slow down before the intersection in
4 order to make this happen.
5
6 So two quick things. In response to Commissioner Martinez's question it looks like the bus stop
7 is on the bulbout, or is the bus stop following the bulbout?
8
9 Ms. Yazdy: The bus stop is following the bulbout.
10
11 Commissioner Keller: So the buses would move out of the lane of traffic to go to the bus stop
12 after the bulbout and not impede right turners from Stanford A venue or through traffic on El
13 Camino. Is that right?
14
15 Ms. Yazdy: It would currently be the same position or situation that it is right now. So it would
16 be after the bulbout. They would make the right turn but I believe if the bus is there they might
17 have to wait until the bus pulls out again.
18
19 Commissioner Keller: Well, if the bus was after the bulb out wouldn't it be out of the way or am
20 I confused?
21
22 Ms. Yazdy: Maybe Brad can help with the configuration.
23
24 Mr. Leveen: There are actually two bus stops right now. There is a bus stop southbound right
25 here. Northbound there is a bus stop right here. The bus stop would remain actually on the
26 bulbout so when the bus comes up and stops it is blocking the nUlnber three lane while it stops
27 and picks up people.
28
29 Commissioner Keller: Since I have taken a lot of time I would just like an analysis of whether
30 having the bus stop on the bulbout impedes traffic or whether the bus stop should follow the
31 bulbout and thereby be able to have traffic go around it, particularly with the constriction on
32 right turns that becomes an issue. Somebody will come around right and then they will be into
33 the bus.
34
35 Then the last thing is in terms of I am wondering to deal with the Stanford issue whether you can
36 have some sort of slightly subsurface drainage culvert. I have seen these things where bulbouts
37 happen and there is actually some sort of culvert or conduit that goes I am not sure I am using the
38 right word, but that goes underneath where the bulbout happens to bring surface water flow
39 along the curb and come out on the other side. Maybe something that would go slightly west of
40 the curb cut would allow water to flow through and avoid that. So I am thinking of some idea
41 like that allow for the issue of the water.
42
43 So to summarize I think that on the whole this is a good project. I think it increases safety. I feel
44 uncomfortable about not having been given the complete analysis of data in order to do what I
45 think is part of my fiduciary responsibility on the Planning Commission to make sure that this
City of Palo Alto Page 34
1 won't impede and obstruct the flow of traffic while it increases the pedestrian and bicycle safety.
2 Thank you.
3
4 Chair Garber: Thank you. Commissioner Lippert.
5
6 Commissioner Lippert: Well, first of all I would like to thank the members of the public that
7 came out here this evening to speak on this item. I think that your input was particularly
8 important this evening as well as the consultants that gave us their time this evening to speak on
9 this item.
10
11 Director Williams is perfectly correct when it comes to the narrowing of the lanes. I think a
12 really good example of that that we all drive every day is when you go south on Alma Street and
13 you cross the bridge at Embarcadero Road. There are two lanes of traffic heading south there
14 and they actually narrow quite a little bit. Everybody slows down a little bit as they cross the
15 bridge at Embarcadero and then the lanes widen up and everybody sort of speeds off again. That
16 is a good example of how lanes subconsciously make us pause for a moment and slow down, and
17 think about it for a second. I believe that is what this plan is doing.
18
19 I do have a minor question or concern and maybe Rafael can help me out here. When I am
20 coming north on Stanford A venue and I am coming around that comer, and I am a bicyclist, I am
21 very concerned about the mixing of cars and bicycles. Specifically what I am thinking of is
22 when I am out in the Open Space and I am coming back along Alpine Road in Menlo Park and I
23 come across the bridge to Sand Hill Road there is actually a lane there in which the traffic
24 merges into the bicycle lane to make the right hand tum onto Sand Hill Road. It is very difficult
25 for bicyclists. We have to nlaneuver around the cars. Is there a way to mitigate that a little bit
26 better? What I am thinking of is there maybe a no right tum or red sign, would that impede the
27 intersection?
28
29 Mr. Rius: I am trying to pull up the Alpine approach.
30
31 Commissioner Lippert: It is out by the golf course. It is Alpine Road, crosses the bridge and
32 you are getting ready to make that right hand tum onto Sand Hill Road to head back into Palo
33 Alto.
34
35 Mr. Rius: Is there a right tum only vehicle lane?
36
37 Commissioner Lippert: What happens is the right hand tum lane merges into the bicycle lane
38 just like you have it here.
39
40 Mr. Rius: Yes, if there are cars queued up here then the bicyclists would have to maneuver
41 around them. If it is a red light they will be stopped. If the cars are there first then they would
42 have the right-of-way just like if the bike was there first they would have the right-of-way too.
43 The bike could split the cars and get to the front. There is a little bit more waiting room up at the
44 stop bar. I am sorry, your question?
45
City of Palo Alto Page 35
1 Commissioner Lippert: Well, I am just thinking would a no right tum on red help mitigate that
2 so that the bicyclists can at least get over to the right hand side so that they have a safe place and
3 they are not intermingled with the cars.
4
5 Mr. Rius: The cars would have to make a stop anyway so if they were queued up and each
6 stopping like they are supposed to theoretically they would be moving pretty slowly as they each
7 move up. Sure, a no right tum on red would stop the cars dUling the whole red phase and yes
8 that would be a little bit safer.
9
10 Commissioner Lippert: Is an arrow appropriate in that lane?
11
12 Mr. Rius: The pavement markings are not according to the state guidelines because they go next
13 to parked cars. Part of their intention is to line up the bicyclists so they are out of the door zone
14 of parked cars. So by the strict guidelines it wouldn't go here but those pivot markings like the
15 ones on Alma they are accompanied by street signs. So if you notice there is a bike logo warning
16 sign and also a share the road sign right adjacent to them. Those signs could be placed definitely
17 there. I think the plans right now show a right tum yield to bike sign but additional signs can be
18 added like the bright yellow warning signs that say share the road and have the bike logo. The
19 pavement markings, some jurisdictions will go against the state standards and put them in non-
20 conventional places. We have not done any in this city yet. I know the Bike Advisory
21 Committee wants us to and we have been reluctant to go against the standard guidelines.
22
23 Commissioner Lippert: I think that turning situation warrants a little bit more study. I know that
24 I wouldn't feel comfortable on a bicycle making that tum. In fact if I might, I would like to give
25 a little brief history and then I would like to make a couple of comments with regard to the plan.
26
27 First of all this has been going on for quite awhile. This has been going on since 2003. I was on
28 the ARB and about the time that I was coming off the ARB I was asked along with I think Board
29 Member Wasserman to serve on the committee that was looking at the EI Camino Real Master
30 Plan for study and beginning to formulate that. So this has been something we have been
31 looking at for a very long time.
32
33 The way this came about and the history of this is that we wanted to plant some trees along EI
34 Camino Real. They were London Plane trees I believe. It was Caltrans' right-of-way and
35 Caltrans said no-no you are not going to have any trees, we don't want it, and we don't want it in
36 El Camino Real. We lobbied our state senator or assemblyman, I think it was Joe Simitian who
37 had proposed the legislation, which said to Caltrans you really need to begin to take some cues
38 from the local governments and municipalities and begin to make El Camino Real more like
39 what the communities want that EI Camino Real goes through. The net result of that was
40 basically these guidelines that were drafted. It is still Caltrans' road and they still maintain it,
41 and they still do the improvements on it. One of the big things about EI Camino Real that a lot
42 of people don't know is that our water supply basically runs underneath it. It is a major artery
43 with a huge line from Hetch-Hetchy that goes down the peninsula. That is part of the reason
44 why we have a problenl planting trees in EI Camino Real is because it seeks out that water.
45
City of Palo Alto Page 36
1 We have very little to say when it comes to the Level of Service for El Camino Real. In fact, I
2 think that the Staff pointed out correctly that we haven't diminished capacity. They haven't
3 increased capacity on it. It is just merely restriping lane changes and how this is going to be
4 reconfigured in the way of the intersection. So from that point of view it is not subject to CEQA
5 and if it was the proper authority for n1aking those determinations would be Caltrans as the lead
6 agency on this. All we are basically doing is going through and assuring that what they have
7 come up with or the scheme that has been devised here really complies with what our standards
8 and our guidelines are here. So our focus is really very narrow. It doesn't have to do with traffic
9 flow or traffic counts in this case. It has to do with the improvements at this particular
10 intersection based on our Master Planning Study.
11
12 Now this is a really important intersection and it has been expressed as to how important it is in
13 terms of kids getting across to school, and bicyclists, etc., but there are a nun1ber of other things
14 that are very important here which is this connects and provides an important conduit up
15 Stanford Avenue to the Dish which hundreds of people use on a daily basis to go up there and go
16 hiking. Right now what we have is people that actually drive all the way up Stanford Avenue to
17 the Dish and park to be able to walk in the Open Space. What this proposal does is for the first
18 time it says we want walkable EI Camino Real. We want this to be pedestrian friendly. We
19 want people from the adjacent neighborhood, we want people from Southgate to be able to cross
20 El Camino Real here safely and to be able to go up into the Open Space and not have to drive.
21 We want people to be able to bicycle down through Southgate, through this neighborhood, across
22 El Camino and up Stanford Avenue to get up to Foothill Expressway. The only way to do that is
23 to be able to make El Canuno Real safer, and the only way to make El Camino Real safer is for
24 the cars to begin to take stock and notice the pedestrians, and that is what this intersection does.
25
26 I wanted to say something clever like you can't see the forest for the trees. In this case I think
27 we don't see the trees for the traffic. It is important that we make that traffic go slower so that
28 we can see what is going on here at this intersection. I think they have it perfectly, perfectly
29 right.
30
31 One other comment that I want to make and this is just so important. We have so many dogleg
32 crosswalks in this city. They are illegal. They are not safe. Blind people start into the middle of
33 the street and they can't get across because of the doglegs, the dogleg crosswalks. This for the
34 first time really begins to correct some of those problems for visually impaired people.
35
36 So in closing, I just want to say one last comment and then I would like to make a motion if I
37 might.
38
39 Chair Garber: Sure.
40
41 Commissioner Lippert: When I go bicycling out into the Open Space there are four things that I
42 take. I take my front door key, I take my expired driver's license for identification in case
43 something happens, I take pocket change so that I can take the bus back if something happens to
44 my bicycle or it is raining, and I take a Starbucks card. I say that is really important. I am a
45 Pete's Coffee drinker and I carry a Starbucks card when I go bicycling. Why do I carry a
46 Starbucks card? Starbucks is Ubiquitous. It is on almost every single comer where Pete's is not.
City of Palo Alto Page 37
1 This is particularly important so when I am out cycling and I run out of my Noon or my
2 Cytomax I can get some caffeine and speed on my way as any good cyclist will tell you. I do
3 take my cell phone. What is important here I think is when it comes to the Valley Oak tree is
4 that where it is located is not going to make a difference as to people using that Starbucks or not.
5 Already, somebody earlier on, I think it was the Traffic Engineer had mentioned that 50 percent
6 of the people cruising along EI Camino Real stop in that Starbucks, 50 percent of the people that
7 got to that Starbucks are just cruising along EI Camino Real. The other 50 percent are people
8 that know that the Starbucks is there. So the signage isn't as important as the tree. The tree
9 frames the street. The tree ties in the other trees along EI Camino Real. It lets you know there is
10 a definitive end or boundary to the Stanford land and where we are beginning to get into an
11 urban area. It is a signature tree. It is nleant to call attention to that intersection. I think that
12 Paul Goldstein said it the best when he said the trees are one of the best traffic calming measures
13 that we can have along EI Camino Real.
14
15 MOTION
16
17 With that I would like to nlove the Staff recommendation that the Planning and Transportation
18 Commission recommend to the City Council approval of the proposed intersection
19 improvements at EI Camino Real and Stanford A venue.
20
21 Chair Garber: Great, thank you. Do I hear a second to the motion? Would you please restate it?
22
23 Commissioner Lippert: The Planning and Transportation Commission recommend to the City
24 Council approval of the proposed intersection improvements at EI Camino Real and Stanford
25 Avenue.
26
27 Chair Garber: Do I hear a second?
28
29 SECOND
30
31 Commissioner Martinez: I second that.
32
33 Chair Garber: Thank you. It is seconded by Eduardo Martinez, Commissioner Martinez. Would
34 the maker like to speak to their motion?
35
36 Commissioner Lippert: I think I have said enough.
37
38 Chair Garber: The seconder?
39
40 Commissioner Martinez: Yes. Currently this is a really ugly intersection and I am not speaking
41 aesthetically. It is an intersection that was probably designed in 1950 that if you slowed your car
42 down the battery would die. I think we are in a different time. If we are going to be true to our
43 Comprehensive Plan where we talk about walkable streets and pedestrian improvements along EI
44 Camino, we talk about pedestrian safety you can't get a nluch clearer example than this. I think
45 the safety of our children going to school, coming home, and bicyclists trumps a two-minute
City of Palo Alto Page 38
1 delay if you miss the light or not being able to do that right tum at 30 miles an hour. It is an
2 excellent improvement to the plan. I wholeheartedly support it. Thank you.
3
4 Chair Garber: Discussion from Commissioner Tuma and then Keller.
5
6 Vice-Chair Tuma: So I am essentially in support of the motion however there are three friendly
7 amendments that I would like to offer. I will do those one at a time. All three of these would be
8 conditions of the approval that the following three things happen prior to the matter going to City
9 Council. The first one of those is that Staff study the impact on traffic traveling on Stanford
10 eastbound heading towards EI Camino and that if needed the design be modified in order to not
11 have a significant increase in the delay or backup on Stanford. Is that acceptable to the maker?
12
13 Commissioner Lippert: Can you give your other amendn1ents as well?
14
15 Vice-Chair Tuma: No, I would like to do them one at a time.
16
17 Commissioner Lippert: You want to do them one at a time?
18
19 Vice-Chair Tuma: Yes.
20
21 Commissioner Lippert: I can accept that one.
22
23 Chair Garber: And the seconder?
24
25 Commissioner Martinez: Yes, I accept it.
26
27 Vice-Chair Tuma: Okay. Number two that Staff develop a scheme for bike and pedestrian
28 traffic traveling eastbound on Stanford crossing EI Camino so that it minimizes the impact from
29 vehicular traffic traveling eastbound on Stanford making a left hand tum onto EI Camino
30 northbound.
31
32 Chair Garber: This is the car taking a left tum versus bicycle conflict.
33
34 Commissioner Lippert: You know I don't have a problem with that and you could have run it
35 with the first one.
36
37 Vice-Chair Tuma: Okay.
38
39 Chair Garber: And the seconder? Westbound bike, eastbound car turning left, north.
40
41 Commissioner Martinez: Yes, I support that.
42
43 Vice-Chair Tuma: Okay. Then the third that Staff works with the owners of the Starbucks
44 property and develop a scheme that is to the satisfaction of those owners so that any trees that are
45 planted do not impede the visibility of the Starbucks. That is the proposed amendment and that
46 could include either modifying the species or the location of that tree.
City of Palo Alto Page 39
1
2 Chair Garber: Maker?
3
4 Commissioner Lippert: You are going to vote for the motion if I accept that?
5
6 Vice-Chair Tuma: Yes.
7
8 Commissioner Lippert: Sure.
9
10 Chair Garber: Seconder?
11
12 Commissioner Martinez: I was going to propose my own friendly amendment to the same effect.
13 I feel that if you look at our next agenda item, Palo Alto wants to be business friendly. I think
14 that is a perfect example of how we want to be business friendly. I accept it.
15
16 Chair Garber: Thank you.
17
18 Vice-Chair Tuma: Okay. I do have a couple of comments because I do think that there are few
19 things here. With respect to the first of the amendments that I offered I think Staff needs to look
20 at in order to -if the initial study indicates that there would be a backup or delay I think we need
21 to look at the options of maybe a combination of reducing the number of parking spaces on that
22 side of Stanford A venue and also bringing the dotted line back as far as feasible in order to
23 minimize the backup there.
24
25 With respect to the second of those amendments I think whether it is a head start capability or
26 some other vehicle that has been mentioned but it would seenl to me that not addressing that
27 issue is leaving one of the biggest safety problems that exist at this intersection unaddressed.
28
29 With respect to the last one there really are two issues with those trees. One is being business
30 friendly, which is extremely important to me. The other one is the safety issue and that is that I
31 think there are plenty of people traveling southbound on El Camino who don't know there is a
32 Starbucks there and find out about it at the last second. I go to Starbucks all the time and I see
33 people jamming on their brakes and making a turn. It happens. They don't know whether to
34 make that right hand turn and then go in that way or the other way. So anything that we put there
35 that would block the visibility of that store and you only saw it as you get up to the intersection
36 would really create a safety issue that I don't think we want to exacerbate. So those are the
37 reasons for all of those amendments.
38
39 Commissioner Keller: First I am going to ask Commissioner Tuma whether his question only
40 referred to the trees affecting Starbucks or whether his amendment affected the trees further
41 south along El Camino affecting the other stores such as the barbeque and whatever.
42
43 Vice-Chair Tuma: The intent was both.
44
45 Commissioner Keller: Is that what the maker of the motion thought?
46
City of Palo Alto Page 40
1 Commissioner Lippert: I don't have a problem with that.
2
3 Commissioner Keller: Thank you. I think it is helpful to make sure that that is clear.
4
5 Commissioner Lippert: Does the seconder have a problem with that?
6
7 Commissioner Martinez: No, I think it is a good idea. Thank you.
8
9 Commissioner Keller: Thank you. I think that although this is a Caltrans project it is a major
10 thoroughfare on El Camino Real. Many of the intersections on El Camino Real are quite
11 impacted. The fact that Caltrans did not do an LOS study on this intersection or it is not clear
12 that they would even have considered the need to do an LOS study on this intersection means
13 that our reliance on Caltrans for the adequacy of traffic flow in this intersection is insufficient.
14 Therefore, as the potential exists when one removes lanes or narrows lanes to reduce traffic flow
15 along with the reduced speeds I think it is important for somebody, some organization, some
16 agency if you will to ensure that when we do safety improvements to an intersection like El
17 Camino and Stanford Avenue to improve pedestrian safety and bicycle safety and presumably
18 also that will hopefully also improve safety for cars that either we understand that we aren't
19 reducing throughputs and making delay worse or if we are that we consider those changes to be
20 acceptable. But failure for some organization to do that analysis I think is problematic. That is
21 why it is important since we are the Planning and Transportation Commission we are the ones
22 who should verify that analysis. I am hoping that in the future that analysis is done. I appreciate
23 Rafael Rius' comments about his informal analysis indicates that there isn't a problem with that.
24 I would hope that future projects of this kind would have a similar analysis. Thank you.
25
26 Chair Garber: Commissioner Fineberg.
27
28 Commissioner Fineberg: I would like to offer two friendly amendments. The first one would be
29 to direct Staff to continue to work with Stanford University regarding their drainage concerns at
30 the intersection.
31
32 Commissioner Lippert: What is the second one?
33
34 Commissioner Fineberg: I will take them one at a time also.
35
36 Commissioner Lippert: I will accept the first one.
37
38 Chair Garber: And the seconder?
39
40 Commissioner Martinez: I accept it as well.
41
42 Commissioner Fineberg: The second is that Staff consider the head start timing for pedestrians
43 and bicyclists on the signalization.
44
45 Commissioner Lippert: Are you going to vote in support of the motion if I accept?
46
City of Palo Alto Page 41
1 Commissioner Fineberg: Time will tell.
2
3 Commissioner Lippert: I will accept it.
4
5 Chair Garber: Seconder.
6
7 Con1D1issioner Martinez: Yes, I accept.
8
9 Commissioner Fineberg: A couple of quick comments. I think the project is attempting to
10 accomplish a great good. Getting that intersection more pedestrian friendly and safer for
11 pedestrians and bicycles is a good thing that is supported by our Comprehensive Plan. Without
12 the benefit of Staff's citations to that or a copy here on the dais I can't tell you which ones but I
13 know it is in there. I would recommend for Council that you include some direct references to
14 the Comprehensive Plan so it is suppolted. Then also when this does go to Council if you
15 include page 5.23 of the El Camino Real Master Planning Study, it is paged titled, Design
16 Characteristics of Crosswalk Improvement at Intersections, and a Typical Crosswalk
17 Improvement Pattern, and it is a drawing of the improvements at the comer of Stanford and El
18 Camino. So I am assuming it is the theoretical basis of how this intersection is being redesigned.
19 There is no reason to make Council work to find it. Give them that one page and it I think will
20 yield some timesavings. So I will vote in favor of this proposed project and I will look forward
21 to the results. Thanks.
22
23 Chair Garber: I am in support of the motion as stated with its amendments. I believe that it
24 meets the goals of both the Comprehensive Plan as well as the El Camino Master Plan. For the
25 record, my questions that I had regarding the phasing of the lighting, etc. were asked and
26 answered through Commissioner Keller, and my questions regarding the bicycles and car
27 conflicts were addressed by several including Comn1issioner Lippert.
28
29 We will close the public hearing and we will call the question.
30
31 MOTION PASSED (6-0-0-0)
32
33 All those in favor of the motion and the amendments as stated say aye. (ayes) All those
34 opposed? The motion passes unanimously with Commissioners Martinez, Fineberg, Garber,
35 Tuma, Keller, and Lippert voting.
36
City of Palo Alto Page 42
ATTACHMENT E
January 13, 2010
Responses to Commissioner Keller's Questions on Stanford Ave/EI Camino Real
Improvements Plan:
1. Please provide detailed scale drawings of the before and after for the
intersection.
Scaled drawing of the intersection is attached for your review.
2. Please provide current and projected traffic counts at this intersection.
Existing 2009 Traffic 2030 Project Design Year
Volumes Traffic Volumes
AM PM AM PM
AADT Peak Peak AADT Peak Peak
EI Camino
Real at
Stanford Ave 32,520 2,901 3,603 33,700 3,090 3,650
3. please provide the current and projected LOS and delay data.
The proposed project will not cause any delay increases since cars will still
be able to make the right turns. Cars would be turning at a slower rate,
which is safer for both pedestrians and bicyclists.
4. Please provide speed data on EI Camino Real in sections before, within,
and after this intersection.
Staff was not able to get this information fram Cal trans in ttme for this
response.
5. Please provide data on the collisions at or near this intersection, and
their locations on the map and the causes of these collisions, and the nature
of these collisions (car, truck, motorcycle, bicycle, pedestrian; rear end,
broadside, side swipe; speeding, red light running, failure to yield right
of-way) .
See table below:
Actual Accident Rate A verage Accident Rate
Number of Accidents (ace/million veh miles (ace/million veh miles
Location Post or ace/million veh at or ace/million veh at
Mile intersections) intersections)
Total Fatal F+I Total I Fatal F+I Total Fatal F+I
EI Camino Real 24.49 to around Stanford 24.63 21 0 9 3.18 0 1.36 1.85 0.019 0.83
Ave
EI Camino Reali
Stanford Ave 24.56 22 0 10 0.40 0 0.18 0.35 0.002 0.14
intersection
Source: Caltrans, T AS AS
6. The report indicates that this intersection has a high number of
collisions. To what extent is this high collision rate due to the
differential in and congestion in the Page Mill Road to Stanford
Avenue extent of El Camino Real compared with the Stanford Avenue to north
city line extent? How do these changes affect this cause of accident?
This project will encourage drivers to slow down to the current speed limit,
which is set for 35 mph in this area.
6. What data is there showing the safety of transitions from 12-foot wide
lines to ll-foot wide lanes?
Ca1trans makes/approves these changes to lane configurations often. These
lane transitions are also common on freeways, which have much higher speeds.
Ca1trans would not allow this change if they thought this was unsafe.
7. How do the changes affect the
Camino Real?
of bicyclists traveling along El
The goal of the proposed project is to provide uvisua1 H cues (plantings,
street furniture, etc) to drivers that they are in an area of increased
pedestrian and bicycle activity and therefore slow down their speeds which
would make E1 Camino safer for bicyclist. The outside lane widths will be
wider so that bicycle can ride along with the cars.
8. How do the changes affect the
Stanford Avenue?
of bicyclists traveling along
The removal of the 2 uporkchop is1ands H would make this intersection safer
for bicyclist (as well as for pedestrians). Also, the bu1bouts would provide
a shorter crossing distance across E1 Camino.
9. How do the changes affect the safety of pedestrians traveling along El
Camino Real?
with the proposed project, pedestrians would have a shorter distance while
crossing El Camino, in addition to having a median refuge area so that they
can safely wait until the light is green again. We are also proposing to add
a pedestrian count down timer to help pedestrians with how much time they
have left.
The elimination of the "pork chopH islands will reduce the pedestrian
crossing where cars usually are trying to make a quick right turn onto El
Camino.
10. How do the changes affect the safety of pedestrians traveling along
Stanford Avenue?
See response above.
11. How do the changes affect the for east-bound Stanford Avenue
traffic to proceed through the intersection? To what extent will cars
turning right onto south-bound El Camino Real waiting for pedestrians to
cross El Camino Real impede other traffic going straight or turning left onto
north-bound El Camino Real?
The benefit of the project is that because there is a shorter crossing
distance, pedestrians would be able to make it across El Camino quicker;
therefore there would be less vehicle delay.
12. Is there a school crossing guard at this intersection? If not, what
would be the differential effect in safety of the proposed changes compared
with adding a school crossing guard?
A crossing guard has currently been at this location since 2005, for 30
minutes in the morning and afternoon.
The differential effect in safety would be that the crossing guard cannot
reduce the pedestrian crossing time and reduce the number of
pedestrian/vehicle conflicts at 2 locations, when crossing El Camino, and 3
locations while crossing Stanford.
13. What was the cause of the two-year delay between April 2007 when the City
Council accepted the award until April 2009 when the design contract was
issued? Is this delay the primary reason why an accelerated timeline is
needed? What happens if Caltrans objects to the variances from its standard
policies for state highways for the proposed project?
The RFP process began in January 2009 and the Consultants were brought on
board in April 2009. The reason for the accelerated timeline is because the
funds for the construction of this project is programmed for fiscal year 2010
and must be obligated by JUne 30, 2010.
Cal trans has already approved the "variances from its standard policies H
(Design Exceptions) for this project.
14. Please provide details on the agreement worked out by State Senator Joe
Sicilian with Caltrans.
The agreement that you are referring to is the pilot program where Caltrans
agreed to allow Palo Alto, Redwood City and Menlo Park to plant large trees
(trees that have a trunk size of 4 inches at maturity (10 years» at specific
locations along El Camino Real. This project is also proposing to take
advantage of this great opportunity to plant the "large " trees in the
median.
'''~'"'EfCamino Real
II/W
2" " 4.}<::
II'
'"
10' --""""""
,,'
11'
21' +
PLAN
SCALE: 1·=50'
DESIGN EXCEPTION FEATURE #3
130' CORNER SIGHT DISTANCE
\
21'
,,'
,>,,'
,,'
fI'
",~
'P!C3 ~~
\" \0-
EL CAMINO REAL/STANFORD AVE INTERSECllON
STREETSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS
CITY Of' PALO AlTO, CA
L-l
Agenda Date:
To:
From:
Subject:
ATTACHMENT F
Architectural Revie)v Board
Staff Report
January 7,2010
Architectural Review Board
Shahla Yazdy, Transportation Engineer Department: Planning and
. Community Environment
EI Camino Reali Stanford Avenue Intersection Improvements Project
(09PLN-00305) Request by Transportation Division, on behalf of the City
of Palo Alto for Architectural Review for streets cape improvements for the
EI Camino Real and Stanford Avenue Intersection. The proposed project
includes installation of new comer bulb-outs, realignment and
enhanced/textured paving of the pedestrian crosswalks, two new pedestrian
refuges, widened landscape medians with planting and street trees, widened
sidewalk with street trees, transit amenities and street furniture, new
ornamental street and sidewalk lights, signal poles and new storm drain
outlets.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Architectural Review Board (ARB) recommend to the Director of
Planning and Community Environment approval of the proposed intersection improvements at the
four comers of EI Camino Real and Stanford Avenue, based upon the findings in Attachment A.
PROJECT OVERVIEW
On April 16, 2007 City Council accepted the award of$1,334,000 in federal transportation grant
funds for the EI Camino Real/Stanford Avenue Streetscape and Intersection Improvement Project.
This project includes the design and construction of the improvements at this intersection to
implement the demonstration phase of one component of the EI Camino Real Master Planning
Study developed by.Caltrans and the City of Palo Alto in 2003. The project area includes all four
comers of the intersection of EI Camino Real and Stanford Avenue and extends approximately
100 feet beyond the intersection along all four approaches to the intersection.
Stanford A venue at EI Camino Real is a primary route to school for the three schools in the area:
Jordan Middle School, Palo Alto High School and Escondido Elementary School. It is identified
as a critical school crossing on the City's adopted School Commute Corridors network map.
Page 1 of5
In April, 2009 the City contracted with Landscape Architects Callander and Associates and Civil
Engineers Mark Thomas & Company to prepare the design dra-wings for the intersection
improvements.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Building on the efforts of the El Camino Real Master Planning Study, the proposed intersection
and streetscape design recaptures the pedestrian environment, provides bicycle accessibility and
creates an identifiable character for the community. The plan includes expanded sidewalk areas,
informal plaza seating, a trellis accent feature, large street tree canopies, pedestrian scale lighting
and improved transit and bicycle amenities. In keeping with the goals identified in the EI Camino
Real Master Planning Study, the median trees were selected to highlight the intersection as the
start of a commercial corridor, as well as highlight an entrance to the Stanford Campus. The
general plant palette and material choices reflect improvement projects throughout the City of
Palo Alto, maintaining respect to the natural oak woodland influence and overall reflecting native,
drought tolerant species.
Thematic Red Maples will be used to signify the start of the commercial district. Median ground
cover of Bearberry and accent planting White Carpet Rose will be low growing to maintain view
corridors for safety as well as signage. Accent and storm water planting at the bulbouts consists of
a mix of grasses and native drought tolerant shrubs. Specimen Valley Oaks are provided at the
Stanford and Starbucks comers to shade informal seating areas. In keeping with the street tree
palette along EI Camino Real, the sidewalk street trees are London Plane Trees. Along the
Stanford Housing frontage on EI Camino two Valley Oaks will be planted to coordinate with the
new housing development currently under construction fronting Stanford A venue, respecting
views of existing oak groves within the development.
Key project enhancements at the EI Canlino/Stanford Avenue Intersection will include:
• Adding bulb-outs at street comers to shorten the length of pedestrian crossings;
• Installing new colored asphalt pavement for the crosswalks and colored concrete for
bulb-outs and median noses;
• Reconstructing the exi'sting median island noses on El Camino Real to provide mid-
crossing pedestrian refuge areas at the crosswalks;
• Installing a complete, new signal system at the intersection;
• Installing new thematic signal poles and pedestrian scale lighting;
• Installing new street trees and other landscape enhancements; and
• Installing streetscape features and furniture that compliment and further the "Grand
Boulevard" vision and goals.
Page 2 of5
DISCUSSION
This project was designed to provide pedestrian vvalkability vvith improved bicycle and pedestrian
visibility and safety improvements as well as streetscape amenities, all of which should improve
the pedestrian/bicycle experience in this area of the El Camino Real Corridor. Visual cues such as
the sidewalk bulb-outs, the enhanced crosswalks, landscaping along medians and sidewalks, and
street furniture such as stone seatwalls, benches and the trellis, all reduce vehicle speeds and
enable awareness for motorists of the main street amenities. This project will also demonstrate the
viability of applying the overall El Camino Master Planning Study concepts to other segments of
the corridor when funding becomes available.
With the median along El Camino Real being widened to eight feet, the plan calls for placement
of approximately 10 Red Maples in the medians (20 feet on center) and approximately eight
London Planes along the sidewalks on the east and west side of El Camino Real, south of Stanford
Avenue, which are all consistent with the El Camino Master Planning Study. The Red Maples
would provide a strong color in the fall and be compatible with the London Plane trees on the
sidewalks. Trees would be placed to not obscure/block signs or storefronts for the businesses in
this stretch of El Camino Real.
The El Camino Master Planning Study is available for viewing at the project's website at:
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/depts/plnlnews/details.asp?NewsID=1444&TargetID=87
Widening the median will provide a safer refuge area for pedestrians that cannot cross the entire
width of El Camino Real in one signal cycle, or for those who become stranded in the median
when the signal phase changes. Colored andlor textured crosswalks will provide more clearly
defined areas for pedestrian travel and will be more noticeable to drivers.
The removal of the "pork chop" islands and adding bulb-outs, the project will provide shorter and
more direct crosswalks between sidewalks. This will increase pedestrian safety by reducing the
distance and amount of time pedestrians would be exposed to traffic within the roadway while
crossing.
Previous Review
The ARB previously reviewed the project plans at a Study Session on December 3, 2009. The
comments provided on the project focused on the following design concepts:
• Provide additional details (dimensions) for the trellis.
• Enlarge the two bulbout areas for a better visual of what is proposed at the two comers.
• Evaluate providing 2 ramps (instead of one) at the Starbucks comer, if possible.
Staff presented updated plans to sub committee members Grace Lee and Judith Wasserman on
December 17,2009. The updated concept plans (Attachment F) had been revised based on input
received at the study session and from the community, business owners and Stanford University.
The updated plan for the comer at Stanford has less seatwalls and the trees (Valley Oak and
Marina Madrones) have been reduced to make the Stanford fence, with its roses, more visible as
Page 3 of5
requested by Stanford. The trees at the Starbucks comer have also been reduced in number and
height to maintain visibility of the building at that comer.
A representative from Stanford University also attended the subcommittee meeting and discussed
Stanford's concerns, as discussed in their letter (Attachment B). The subcommittee members
supported her recommendations to provide a more "rural" feel to the Stanford comer and
recommended the following:
• Remove all of the seatwalls at the Stanford comer.
• Remove the. Marina Madrone trees (2).
• Plant a single grass consistent with one of the species from the Starbucks comer along
with the Valley Oaks.
• Remo've the proposed trellis at the Starbucks comer.
Perspectives of these two comers illustrating comments received from Stanford and subcommittee
members (listed above) will be presented at the ARB meeting for the Board to review and
comment.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
The City held a community meeting at Escondido' School on December 8, 2009 to present the
pro'posed plans and to gather input/comments from the community regarding the project plans.
Attachment C includes the staff prepared summary of comments received at the meeting.
Staff also received several emails from the public on the project and has included them in
Attachment D.
NEXT STEPS
The project is scheduled for review by the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) o'n
January 13,2010.
This proj ect will need to be implemented on an accelerated timeline in o'rder to ensure that future
grant funding is set aside for construction of this project. Grant funds for project construction in
the amount of$1,210,000 will need to be obligated no later than June 30, 2010. In order to meet
this deadline, final design plans must be submitted by the City to Caltrans by February 2010.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Since El Camino Real (Route 82) is a state highway, Caltrans is the lead agency for completion of
environmental review requirements for the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Caltrans has determined that the project is
Categorically Exempt under both CEQA and NEP A (See Attachment E).
ATTACHMENTS
A. ARB Findings for Approval
B. Letter from Stanford University
C. Summary Notes of December 8 Community Meeting
Page 4 of5
D. Comments received
Categorical Exemption/Categorical Exclusion Determination Form
Site Plans (ARB members only)
COURTESY COPIES
Charles S. Carter, Director Land Use & Environmental Planning
Prepared By: Shahla Yazdy, Transportation Engineer
Manager Review: Julie Caporgno, Chief Planning and Transportation Official
Page 5 of5
\
-)
./
--
I
\ )
'----'
r " I \
--, J
I' '" -A _\ ' 'Y-___
Existing fence to re m ai n-~_...L-
I' ----"
/ \ I'
\ I /
" ..../ .:: -,\" '
"
~ .-..t » (")
::I: :s: m z
.-..t
G')
CONCEPTUAL PERSPECTIVE -WITHOUT TRELLIS
SOUTHWEST CORNER OF EL CAMINO REAL
AND STANFORD AVE . INTERSECTION
CONCEPTUAL PERSPECTIVE
NORTHWEST CORNER OF EL CAMINO REAL
AND STANFORD AVE . INTERSECTION
December 14, 2009
Shahla Yazdy
Project Manager
STANFORD UNIVERSITY
LAND USE AND ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING
City of Palo Alto Transportation Department
250 Hamilton Ave.
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Dear Ms. Yazdy,
ATTACHMENT H
Thank you for providing information about the EI Camino RealI Stanford Avenue Intersection
Improvement Project and for the opportunity to provide initial feedback in a stakeholders
meeting on the project and in a working session. While we were unable to attend a larger public
meeting on December 8, we did attend the December 3 Architectural Review Board (ARB)
meeting study session for the project. While these meetings have been useful in bringing
Stanford up to speed on the project and giving us the opportunity to provide informal comment,
we believe that it is important to document our response to the project formally in this letter as it
moves through what appears to be an accelerated City approval process. We have organized our
comment into three categories: Process, Engineering, and Landscape Design
A key concern of moving the corner's curb out into the EI Camino roadway is the potentially
significant impact of interrupting the existing drainage pattern along EI Camino, impacting
homes, businesses, and the roadway itself. The raised corner would constrict the overland flow
path of runoff from major storms that flows southeasterly along the south side of EI Canllno,
which could back-up flood waters into EI Camino and Stanford property and potentially flood
new homes currently being constructed and a larger portion of EI Camino itself. See further
explanation below.
PROCESS
1. The outreach efforts have been reasonable and useful, however, we are not clear about
how input from those efforts will be incorporated into the process. To date, we have not
seen revised project design plans reflecting our comments. Will such plans be posted on
the project website or otherwise provided? (Possibly through distribution of a formal
ARB application to stakeholders?).
Please note that the Protocol -2000 to the Stanford Land Use Policy Agreement requires
that the City provides copies to Stanford of all City development project applications
with potential to affect Stanford.
1
3145 PORTER DRIVE • PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA 94304-8442 • (650) 72)-7773 FAX (650) 725-8598
2. We understand that the project will require site and design approval from ARB. What is
the schedule for subsequent ARB actions? We wish the ARB to take our comn1ents into
consideration and will provide copies of our comments to the Chair and Planning
Department Staff to ARB and to the Planning Director. We understand that it is the
Planning Director who formally approves or denies site and design approval at the
recommendation of the ARB.
3. What is the anticipated CEQA action for the project? We understand that for minor
projects the Planning Director may approve an exemption or negative declaration, again
following recommendation of the ARB.
4. How will Caltrans review and sign off on the plan? We anticipate that agency will be
interested in the drainage issue we've raised.
ENGINEERING
There are serious drainage issues that the project as proposed causes. The Stanford engineers
raised this concern several months ago and again in December. To date these have not been
addressed. In an email to the Palo Alto project manager and the design engineer dated May
2009, Tom Zigterman, Stanford Associate Director of Utilities and Civil Infrastructure Manager
wrote:
"My biggest concern about your proposed project (your plan is scanned and attached, for
reference) is drainage. EI Camino is a major drainageway for the region's runoff,
including Stanford's. Our pipes and ditches discharge to Caltrans' 52-inch storm drain
along our side of EI Camino, flowing south eventually to Matadero Creek. This storm
drain, though large, only has capacity for minor storms, and is overtopped in major
storms, sending runoff overland along EI Camino, as was experienced in the February
1998 storm. Your proposed new corners on each side of Stanford Ave could likely cut off
the south-bound overland flow across Stanford A venue, possibly causing runoff to back
up onto Stanford property. We have carefully engineered our campus drainage system to
function appropriately with the EICamino pipe and overland flow, and interruption of the
El Camino flow could have a major impact on the campus, particularly the new
residential developments.
The residential projects include major drainage changes in the area. The Stanford Ave
ditch is being replaced with a combination pipe and overflow ditch, still connecting to the
24-inch and 36-inch lines that currently convey runoff from the ditch to the Caltrans pipe.
Also, a new drainage ditch will be constructed along EI Camino. All of these
improvements are totally contained on Stanford property and do not modify the Caltrans
pipes or roadway.
2
So, I know this is a major challenge for your project, and we have some coordination to
do. Please let me know when you would like to meet to discuss these complexities
further."
We suggest a working session with the engineer as soon as possible to ensure that they
understand the hydrologic and hydraulic conditions, so that they can engineer an approach that
preserves the existing hydraulic capacity of the El Camino corridor through the Stanford Ave
intersection, and prepare drawings, cross-sections, and hydraulic calculations for our review (and
possibly Caltrans') ensuring no increase in flooding risk to our developments.
LANDSCAPE DESIGN
Both Stanford and the City have prepared guidelines for the treatment of EI Camino Real frontage. In
developing the Stanford University EI Camino Plan required by the University's Santa Clara County
General Use Permit, Stanford received specific guidance from the Palo Alto ARB to maintain a rural
character for the future housing frontage adjacent to Stanford Ave. That rural character would include
generous setbacks (100' +1-), large oak trees, limited pedestrian access, etc. The plan was subsequently
approved by Santa Clara County. Further, Stanford referenced the City's 2003 EI Camino Master Plan
Study that went through a year of community input and which Stanford supports, for the treatment and
design principles along this stretch of EI Camino. Stanford feels it is important that the landscape design
for the intersection is consistent with the approved EI Camino Plan and the City's StUdy.
The issues the landscape design as proposed are as follows:
1. Character
In the City's 2003 EI Camino Study diagrams and text clearly show that when one travels
northwest (toward Menlo park) on EI Camino there is a distinct change from urban to rural
treatment when one crosses Stanford Avenue and begins Stanford University. Stanford has tried
very hard to create an identity consistent with its nickname "the Farm" at all of its major entries
with elegant, but rural landscape treatments including loose beds of roses, vine covered fence,
large trees and a very simple ground plane. Stanford has avoided suburban development
treatments that would be more consistent with commercial development. We believe that the
little seat walls and planters as shown on the current (2009) intersection plans are inconsistent
with the Stanford character at the beginning of the University as seen traveling northwest on EI
Camino, and out of scale with the long university edge. We would prefer to feature the Stanford
fence with its roses (rather than hide it); and if additional planting is needed, to do it in character
consistent with other university edges and entries, such as Palm Drive, with a simple bed of
drought tolerant roses or other plant material, and perhaps one or two large specimen oaks that
Stanford may even be able to supply
3
Stanford Character:
2. Trees
The 2003 El Camino Plan was specific about characters and treatments of trees along El
Camino. The original 2009 intersection plans we saw did not seem to reflect any of the
plan components. After subsequent conversation, some adjustments have been made to
be more consistent. Particularly, the Stanford frontage will be loose masses of Oak trees
(in lieu of the originally proposed regular pattern of street trees), and the medians will
have large scaled canopy trees (the original smaller scaled trees between the canopy trees
as originally proposed have been eliminated). At the Stanford comer, however, we do
not prefer a crowded cluster of small trees that are not typical of University plantings or
character. The El Camino Plan recommended Red Maple in the medians at the
commercial neighborhoods to call attention to them as something special. We think that
the Red Maple probably does a better job of this than the now proposed Quercus lobata,
but Stanford does not feel strongly about the median tree choice. We would like to see
the final planting plan.
4
3. Operations
We are not sure how desirable the Stanford Comer will be to hang out or sit on seat walls
with the noise and traffic so close. However, if it is intended for spillover from
Starbucks, then Stanford would want to be assured that there would be trash pick-up and
clean-up on a daily basis.
4. Prototype
While this is not of immediate concern relative to the Stanford comer, if this project is to
be a prototype for future El Camino redevelopment, the elements proposed should bear
scrutiny. The light fixtures and particularly the benches have a very decorative old
fashioned character. These may not be universal enough to work equally with
contemporary redevelopment such as in South Palo Alto or near Page Mill, as with older
structures. The same can be said for the walls and the elements proposed at Starbucks.
The title of the 2009 plans are "Context-sensitive Streetscape Improvement Project", but
the plans don't seem to fully reflect this.
We look forward to your response and the opportunity to work with you to make this important
project one that we can all support enthusiastically. Please don't hesitate to call if you have any
questions.
Charles S. Carter, Director
Land Use & Environmental Planning
cc: Cathy Blake, Grace Lee, Jean McCown, Russ Reich, Curtis Williams, Tom Zigterman
5
DillonDesignAssooates
landscape Architecture
January 27,2010
Shahla Yazdy
Transportation Engineer
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
CLN 1910
Re: EI Camino Real & Stanford Avenue Intersection Improvements & Streetscape Project (specifically the
Starbuck's retail at southwest quadrant adjacent to Stanford northwest quadrant)
Dear Ms. Yazdy,
Dillon Design Associates was present at the January 13,2010 Planning & Transportation Commission meeting.
We have not viewed the minutes for this meeting but we understand the information communicated regarding
the Starbuck's site landscaping was as follows:
1. Starbucks has two existing London Plane trees (approx. 4" to 6") in the parkways and one larger Plane
tree (approx. 8") in the north cafe patio.
2. Adding a large Valley Oak adjacent to the Cafe Patio creates problems as follows:
a. This tree would obscure Starbuck's sign therefore creating hazard for drivers looking for the store
from the north. This coffee shop has high volume of car traffic.
b. The mirroring of two proposed Oaks as a gateway is not valid. We concur with the Stanford Planning
staff that the Oaks should both be in the rural quadrant and that the southwest quadrant should remain
the urban boundary.
3. The Planning & Transportation Commission requested by verbal unanimous vote that the tree
location and species of tree on the southwest comer adjacent to the Starbucks be acceptable to
Starbucks.
4. The Transportation staff was directed to meet with the owners and their representatives. A site
(field) meeting with all the Principals involved is to be scheduled. Revised proposals and accurate
existing conditions will be determined at that time. Resolution proposals will be ready before the next
City Council meeting.
Please include this letter in the packet to the City Council Members for February 8, 2010 meeting.
Sincerely,
Michael B. Dillon, Principal Landscape Architect
Dillon Design Associates
Cc: Cathy Deino Blake, Stanford University
259 Chico Avenue Santa Cruz, CA 95060 Phone (831) 420-1648 E-Mail ddastudio@sbcglobal.net
Yazdy. Shahla
From:
Sent:
To:
jamesdwolfe@aol.com
Wednesday, January 27, 2010 11 :02 AM
Yazdy, Shahla
Cc:
Subject:
ddastudio@sbcglobal.net; Planning Commission
Re: Proposed tree location at Starbucks
Dear Shahla,
Re: The El Camino Real and Stanford Avenue Intersection Improvements and Streetscape
Project
Thank you for your email.
At the 13 meeting of the Palo Alto Planning and Transportation Commission we
clearly stated that the choice of an oak tree on Stanford Avenue adjacent to the Starbucks
is unacceptable. The Commission under the chairmanship of Daniel Garber voted unanimously
for amendments which included a directive to you to work with us to find both a location
and a species of tree acceptable to us. To that end, our response to your email is that
we, with our landscape architectural consultant, Mike Dillon, feel that an on-site
meeting imperative. Let me know if either Tuesday, February 2 or Wednesday, February 3
at the noon hour works for you; otherwise, kindly suggest several other possibilities
after February 1 and before the February 8 meeting of the Council.
I have forwarded your email to Mike Dillon to keep him apprised.
include this correspondence as well as the emails of Mike Dillon addressed to you
in the packet to the City Council for the 8 meet
Best regards,
Jim Wolfe
Starbucks property owner
-----Original Message-----
From: Yazdy, Shahla <Shahla.Yazdy@CityofPaloAlto.org>
To: jamesdwolfe@aol.com
Sent: Tue, Jan 26, 2010 5:14 pm
Subject: Proposed tree location at Starbucks
Hi
We were able to review the visual simulation with the tree in the current location and
with the tree moved 5' west along Stanford Avenue.
The screen shots of the new location are attached. As you can see with the relocation of
the tree, the views of the sign would be clear of the tree.
If you would still like to meet out in the field
Thanks,
Shahla
Transportation Engineer
of Palo Alto
650.617.3151 phone
650.6 7.3108 fax
shahla.yazdy@cityofpaloalto.org
1
let me know.
Yazdy,Shahla
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Roger Pierno [rpierno@valleywater.org]
Wednesday, December 09,20091:18 PM
Yazdy, Shahla
'Kathy Durham'; Planning Commission; 'gltanaka@yahoo.com'
Subject: Comments on EI Camino Real/Stanford Avenue Intersection Changes
Dear Shahla,
Page 10f2
Here are the comments I made at last night's meeting on the EI Camino Real (ECR)/Stanford Avenue intersection project.
would like them added to the record for this project.
I agree with this project's mission to improve safety at this intersection, but the plan as presented creates unnecessary new
restrictions on motor vehicle movement. Removing the "pork chop" islands should increase pedestrian and bicyclist safety,
but replacing the islands with bulbouts is counter to the stated objective of not reducing vehicle capacity.
• Adding bulbouts takes away the existing right turn lanes that aid traffic flow. With this proposal, those drivers
turning right onto Stanford going West or right on to ECR going South will have to wait behind those going straight
at red lights, something they generally do not do now.
• Worse than the waiting is that eliminating these right turn lanes will in fact reduce capacity and reduce safety
because those traveling straight will have to slow or stop behind those turning right; in the morning there are many
drivers turning right onto Stanford A venue and onto ECR, so this is a recipe for disaster. For example, when a
pedestrian is crossing ECR, all drivers on Stanford will have to wait, not just those turning right from Stanford Ave;
this will lead to people in cars waiting through many light cycles to enter ECR. Either that or the light for Stanford
will be green an excessively long time, thus reducing traffic flow and ECR.
• Another likely outcome of eliminating the right tum lane from Stanford Ave onto ECR is that drivers will "shortcut"
through College Terrace rather than wait to turn right at ECR. It is inconceivable to me that anyone representing
College Terrace would overlook this likely outcome since this has been a topic of concern for years.
It's a nice idea to create large plazas on the Stanford and Starbucks comers of this intersection, but please realize that they
will rarely be used and in taking this space from vehicle traffic this proposal adds to traffic congestion, pollution, and driver
frustration.
Finally, I stated at the meeting that those in attendance [which numbered only about 20] do not appear to represent a cross
section of the community. Most of the discussion centered on the trees being considered. There were also several comments
on improvements for bicyclists, which are of course important, but they should not dominate what is primarily a motor
vehicle intersection. It seemed that a majority present were either merchants or property owners in the immediate vicinity.
Only I, and maybe one or two others, even mentioned car traffic flow issues.
The above are the remarks I made at the meeting, but I have some further thoughts on this subject which I want added to the
record.
This intersection is a main, and likely the busiest, entrance and exit to and from the College Terrace neighborhood. I am
deeply concerned that the College Terrace neighborhood has been poorly represented in this process. I don't remember
receiving any City notice regarding this issue and there has been little notice made by the College Terrace Residents
Association to the neighborhood; it certainly did not get anywhere near the level of publicity that the JJ&F redevelopment got
and it is equally, if not more important. The low profile of this project is particularly disturbing considering that it is on a fast
track for approval. Another concern is the fact that there have been stakeholder meetings which seem to be comprised of
mainly merchants and property owners near the intersection.
In summation, I agree that the crosswalks and medians need improvement and that the pork chop islands should be
eliminated to improve safety. But addition of the bulbout curbs is counter to improving traffic flow and a waste of street
space. Instead, dedicated right tum lanes should replace the islands as these seem to be the safest way to maintain through
traffic and turning traffic capacity on both streets and the best way effectively use of the street space already there.
Improvements in the appearance ofEI Camino Real do not have to come at the expense of the majority of the users of this
street.
2/3/2010
Sincerely,
Roger Piemo, P .E.
1200 College Avenue
(650) 867-7597
2/3/2010
Page 20f2
ATTACHMENT I
CATEGORICAL EXEMPTIONJ CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION DETERMINATION FORM
{)4~SCL-82 4A7301 -----------------
Dist-Co.-Rte. (or Local Agency)
24.5/24.7
P.MlP.M. EA. (State project) Federal-Aid Project No. (Local project)! Proj. No.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
BrieR describe project, purpose, location, limits, rtght...of-way requirements, and activities involved.)
Enter project description in this box. Use Continuati(}n Sheet, if necessary ~
This project wilt construct improvements at the intersection of EI Camino Real (SR 82) and Stanford Avenue in the City of P~~o_~t~; I
The improvoments includ!> recQl1S\nJctirIg and .t~ghtening the crosswalks on an fou, legs of the interse<ltion. ,emoving ·pork chop" I
islands on the west side of the intersection, adding sidewalk bulb outs on EI Camino Real, reconstructing the sidewalk on the west I
side of EI Ci!I1]ino Real fi'om Stanftlrd Avenue south 10 Oxford. avenue. widening the existing medien islands. adjaceot to the left tum I
lanes on EI ca. mino Real, re.:striPin.9 E.' Gamino. Real t Replacing the Elxlsting traffic signal. Replacing street lights between Leland
Avenue and Oxford Avenue, installing new inigationsystems. and planting trees and other landscape enhancements .
.-.,...,. .. "'" -
CEQA COMPLIANCE (iorState Projects only)
Based on an examination ofthrs proposal, supportinginfonnation. and the foIlowinitstatemenfs (See 14 CCR 15300et seq.):
• If this project raUsWithine)(empt class 3, 4,5,6or 11, it ~s not impact. an environmental resource of hazardous or critical concem
where designateci, precisely mapped and officially adopted pursuant to ·Jaw.
• There wiH not be a significant cumulatlveeffect by this proj~ct and successive project~ of the same type 10 the same place; over time.
-There is not areasonablepossibifity that the projedwiUhaveasigniflcant effectQn the environment due tQ unusual circumstances.
• This pr:ojeclc!oesnot damage a scenic resQurce.within an officially designated state scenic highway.
• This project is not locatedona site included on any fist compiled pursuant to Govt. Code§65962.5 ("Cortese List,,).
• This projectdoes notcaU5e. a substantial adverse change in the signiflcanceof ahistotical resource.
I CAL TRANS CEQAOETERMINATION (Check one)
I 0 Exempt by statute. (PRe 21 080 [b};14 CCR 15260 et seq;)
I 6asecjon an examination of this proposal. supporting fnformatioo, and the above stat~ments, the project is:
! t8l Categorically ex~mpt. Class i. (PRe 21084; 14 CCR 15300et seq.) I DCategoritaUy Exempt-General Rule eXemption. IThis projet;t does not faU.within an exempt cl~s. buUt can be seen with
certainw that th(are is 00 'possibility th/ilt the activity may have a significant effect on the environment (CCR 15061 IbJ[3])
Jared Goldfine Nick Saleh
Print Name: Environmental Branch Chief ~--~--~~-------------------
~tMdIf2'~ Signature·
1(11~~~~
Date C:!J
NEPACOMPLIANOE
in accordariceWitn 23CFR 771,117. and based on an examination of this proposal and suppOrting information, the State has
determined that thisprojecf;
~ does not indMdualty or cumulathl6fy have a significant Impact on the enVironment asd~fine(f by NEPA and IS excluded from the
reqUirements to prepare an Environmental Assessmenl(EA:) or Environmenfal Impact Statement (flS). and
• has considered unusual circumstances pursuant to 23 CFR 771, 117(b}
(h!m:fl'JAAW-fhwa,dotgovlhep/23cfr171.htm ~ sec" 771.117);
lnnon~,attainm$l1tor maintenance areas for Federal air quaUtystandards, the project i$ either exempt from all conformity requirements,
or CClnformityanalysis ha::; been completed pursuant to 42 usc 7506{~} and ±QJ;;'fB.~~.
CAL TRANS NEPADE'rERM1NATION (CheCk one)
k8J Section6004: The St()fe has been assigned, and hereby certifies that fthas earned out, the responsibility to make this
determination pursuant to Chapter 3 of Title 23. United States COde; Section 3.26 and a Memorandum of Undefstanding (MOU)
dated June 7. 2007,executed between the FHWAandtheState .. The State ha$determined that1he project is a Categorical
Exclusion tJoder:
.. 23CFR 771.11.7(c): activity (CKJ81.i1
.. 23:CFR 77L117(d): activity {d)LD->
• Activity listed in the MOU between FHWA and the State
!
' 0 Section 6005; Based on an examination of this proposal and supporting information, the State has determined that the project
, isa CE under Section 6005 of 23 U.S.C. 327.
Jared Goldfine
Briefly list environmental commitments on continuation sheet. Reference additional information, as appropriate (e.g., air quality studies,
dOCUmentation of Conformity exemption, FHWA conformity determination if Section 6005 project§106 cOmmitments; §4{fJ: §7 results;
Wetlands Finding; Floodplain Flnding;additionaJ studies; and design conditions). Revised September 15, 2008
Page 1 01'2