Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2004-01-20 City Council (7)
TO: City of Palo Alto City Manager’s Report HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT DATE:JANUARY 20, 2004 CMR:122:04 SUBJECT:PROPOSED CHARLESTON/ARASTRADERO ROAD CORRIDOR PLAN REPORT IN BRIEF On April 14, 2003 the Palo Alto City Council directed staff to prepare a Charleston/Arastradero Corridor Plan to address school commute and other travel safety concerns for pedestrians, bicyclists and drivers, as well as to enhance residential amenities along the corridor, without inducing traffic to shift onto nearby residential streets and maintaining the ability to handle existing and projected traffic. Council also adopted an urgency ordinance providing that the City would not formally consider or approve applications for certain residential or non-residential development if the development was located within specified distances from the Charleston Corridor. The ordinance provided that the restrictions on development applications would terminate no later than the expiration of the ninth month following the effective date of the ordinance. Accordingly, the restrictions on development applications shall no longer be effective after January 14, 2004. Some elements of the Charleston!Arastradero Corridor Improvement Plan are already part of the "Travel Smart, Travel Safe" Residential Arterial program approved by Council on October 7, 2003 for which funding is being pursued (CMR:454:03). These include advanced traffic detection, traffic-adaptive signal operation, electronic speed advisory signs, and pedestrian-actuated, in-pavement lighted crosswalks. The traffic-adaptive system, since it reduces delay at intersections during peak periods is an essential pre-condition to the proposed conversion of about one-half of the CharlestOn!Arastradero from four lanes (two through lanes in each direction) to three lanes (one through lane in each direction with left- turn pockets and intermittent center medians). Additionally, the City will continue to work with the schools along the corridor and the School District to decrease peak-hour automobile school commute trips by increasing the number of alternative mode (cycling, walking, Palo Alto Shuttle, school and VTA bus transit) trips to and from their facilities, as well as adjusting start times of the schools. The Corridor Improvement Plan includes a funding element, with variety of financing options, including federal, state, and regional ~’ants, traffic impact fees, and other sources. Project implementation after Council approval of a plan for the Corridor will proceed within CMR:122:04 Page 1 of 8 the context of the Cit3r’s capital improvements planning process. Council may Choose to implement the plan in phases, matching availability of grant and other funding with City resources; and!or reduce the proposed Corridor Improvement Plan scope to manage the fiscal impact of the plan. Staff recon~nends a one-year trial period of the tl~’ee-lane cross- section before Council authorization to make these changes permanent. CMR: 122:04 Page 2 of 8 RECOMMENDATION The Planning and Transportation Commission and staff recommend that the City Council adopt the attached resolution (Attachment A) adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration, and approving the Corridor and Phasing Plans (Attachment B)for the Charleston/Arastradero Corridor Improvement Plan. BACKGROUND Current Conditions The proposed Charleston/Arastradero Road Corridor Improvement Plan site is located in the southern portion of Palo Alto between Fabian Way and Charleston Road to the east and Miranda and Arastradero Road to the west. Charleston!Arastradero form a continuous corridor, with E1 Camino Real marking the point of transition from one street to the other. A map of the corridor is included as Attachment C. Both Charleston and Arastradero are classified as "Residential Arterials" in the 1998-2010 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. The length of CharlestordArastradero, within the Corridor Plan limits, is approximately 2.3 miles. Eighty-fifth percentile vehicle speeds along the corridor range from 34.7 (Charleston Road, near Carlson) to 36.9 mph (Arastradero Road, near Pomona) and 37.3 mph (Charleston Road, west of Fabian). Both roads have four through lanes within the Corridor Improvement Plan reach. The corridor comprises two of the five streets classified in the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan 1998-2020 as "Residential Arterials," which are mandated as requiring consideration for appropriate traffic calming measures. In addition, in 2000, the Charleston Road Corridor Study identified a number of potential enhancements to pedestrian and cycling safety. Public Review Process At its April 14, 2003 meeting, Council directed staff to prepare a plan of transportation and urban design/landscape improvements for the Charleston/Arastradero Road Corridor (CMR:237:03). Council also directed staff to return with a report on land use assumptions, to be included in projecting future traffic conditions on the corridor before such predictions were undertaken. The land use assumptions were reviewed and approved for traffic projection purposes by the Council on June 9, 2003 (CMR:310:03). The expected outcomes of the Charleston/Arastradero redesign include safer travel to schools and other Corridor destinations; well-landscaped medians where possible; and improvements to pedestrian, bicycle, vehicle and bus transit travel along the corridor. Other key purposes of the transportation plan directed by Council are to provide safer traffic flow along the corridor, reduce the incidence of vehicle speeding (without reducing vehicle travel times or causing diversion of through traffic to other residential streets), and accommodate existing and projected traffic. An initial set of performance measures for the Corridor based on best practices in traffic engineering assessment was presented for discussion at public meetings on July 10 and July 15, 2003. A refined and expanded set of road performance measures was then presented to CMR:122:04 Page 3 of 8 an informal focus group of Corridor stakeholders. The set of road performance measures was further refined and expanded for presentation to the Planning and Transportation Commission and then to Council (CMR:430:03), which approved them on September 22, 2003. Conceptual plans and alternatives for improving the Charleston/Arastradero corridor were presented and discussed at public meetings on October 15 and October 22, 2003 and at meetings oft he informal focus group of Corridor stakeholders. Staff and a project consultant made a presentation on the conceptual alternatives to Corridor PTA representatives and one principal (Terman Middle School) on November 13. Staff also presented information on the Corridor Improvement Plan conceptual alternatives to the Palo Alto Bicycle Advisory Committee on November 12. Conceptual plans were presented at a joint study session of City Council and the Planning and Transportation Commission on November 24 (CMR:524:03). Staff conducted a "mobile workshop" for interested residents along the Charleston Road!Arastradero Road Corridor on December 9, with stops and discussion at the Gunn High School driveway intersection with Arastradero Road, the Hoover School driveways into and out of Charleston Road, and the median island on Charleston Road between Louis and Montrose. On December 10, the Planning and Transportation Commission held a public hearing on the Corridor Improvement Plan. Staff has also scheduled meetings with representatives of Hoover Elementary School and Gunn High School to discuss implications of the Corridor Improvement Plan for circulation on each campus. A variety of information on the Corridor Plan effort is on the project web site at http://www.ci _tyofpaloalto.org/charleston-arastradero/index.html. DISCUSSION The Charleston!Arastradero Corridor Improvement Plan focuses on transportation issues, and is thus a transportation improvement plan rather than a land use plan. All urban modes of travel are addressed in the Corridor Improvement Plan, including private motor vehicles, public transit, cycling, and walking. Ways and means of reducing vehicle trips are also evaluated. Consideration of improved visual amenity on the corridor--through provision of additional street trees and other natural features, landscaped medians, street furniture, and other landscape architecture and urban design improvements--are an integral part of the plan. These amenities may provide both visual enhancement and traffic calming benefits. Another primary objective is to provide smoother, more efficient traffic flow along the corridor with no reduction in capacity or travel times, while minimizing diversions to other streets. The CharlestordArastradero Corridor Improvement Plan comprises the following elements: 1)Evaluation of existing and projected traffic conditions 2)Recommendations for corridor improvements 3)Phasing of corridor improvements 4)Cost and funding plan for corridor improvements. CMR:122:04 Page 4 of 8 Recommended Corridor Improvement Plan measures include the following major components (a more complete list is shown in Attachment B): 1)A new dedicated westbound right-turn lane and associated driveway and signalization improvements at the Gunn High School driveway. 2)Automation of the Charleston!Arastradero Road traffic signals through deployment of traffic-adaptive signal technology. 3)Converting about one-half the total corridor length from a four-lane cross-section (two travel lanes in each direction) to a three-lane cross-section (one travel lane in each direction with intermittent left-turn pockets and raised center medians for pedestrian refuge). 4)Deploying additional electronic speed advisory ("VCalm") signs; installing pedestrian "countdown" signal heads along the corridor; and, at selected non-signalized intersections, installing in-pavement, pedestrian-actuated crosswalk lighting. 5)Widening, removing gaps in, and tinting or painting the on-street bicycle lanes along the Corridor. 6)Removing the "free right" turn ("pork chop" islands) on the southern leg of the E1 Camino Real!West Charleston/Arastradero intersection and installing non-skid textured pavers on all four crosswalks. 7)Creating a center left-turn lane for eastbound Charleston Road traffic into Hoover Elementary School. 8) Re-desi~o-ning the existing center median at Louis and Montrose. 9) Increasing Palo Alto Shuttle service frequency along the Corridor. National research suggests that converting a four lane arterial to three lanes has little effect on daily traffic volumes, and thus, by implication, has little traffic-shift effect. It reduces prevailing vehicle speeds somewhat (typically less than 5mph), while substantially reducing both speeding (driving 5 or more miles per hour above the speed limit) and crashes. A 1999 research report entitled "The Conversion of Four-Lane Undivided Roadways to Three-Lane Facilities" by the Thomas M. Welch of Iowa Department of Transportation Engineering Division summarizes the benefits of these conversions in projects nationwide. National research also suggests that traffic-adaptive signal operation (automation) significantly reduces vehicle delay and shortens vehicle queues. A research report entitled "Adaptive Signal Control II" by Professor Peter T. Martin and colleagaaes at the University of Utah Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering describes the benefits of traffic CMR: 122:04 Page 5 of 8 adaptive signal operation in projects worldwide. A traffic analysis of the existing and projected corridor conditions is included as Attachment E. The Corridor Plan elements, as well as the advantages and disadvantages of each element are summarized in the following matrix: ELEMENT Traffic Adaptive System Wide 16’ Median installation For 3-lane alternatives Small 6’ medians, "vegetation islands", or center medians Where space allows Painted or Tinted Bicycle Lanes Widen bicycle lanes Pedestrian bulbouts on side streets & intersections where not interfering with significant turning traffic Enhanced Pedestrian Crossings Includes "countdown" signals at major intersections ADVANTAGES + Increase efficiency of streets and intersections + Reduce peak hour travel times + Reduce vehicle speeds, which increases traffic safety + Retain or improve traffic flow + Increase pedestrian safety (center refuge), two fewer lanes to cross + Reduce traffic accidents (potential for up to 25%) + Room for continuous & wider bike lanes + Provides left lanes for side streets + Adds vegetation + Increased vehicular safety by separating oncoming vehicles + Adds vegetation, which adds to visual component + At pedestrian crossings adds pedestrian refuges for safety + Slows traffic + Increase bicyclist safety by increased visibility + Increases presence of corridor as bicycle commuting area and perhaps bicycle use + Other communities have shown success of this element + Increase safety for bicyclists + Perhaps increase bicycle use + Shortens pedestrian crossing widths and pedestrian safety + Increase pedestrian feel of corridor and perhaps pedestrian activity + Slow traffic speeds for safer pedestrian crossings + Increases pedestrian safety and perhaps use + Many options to enhance visual nature of residential corridor DISADVANTAGES - cost - prevents some left turn access from driveways - cost - Cannot provide left lanes - Prevents some left access from driveways - Not as effective for traffic safety as larger median element - Requires space reallocation - New application here, so would likely need to do demonstration project - May confuse drivers at first, particularly at intersections - Will reallocate space from other uses, such as parking & lane widths in some areas - Needs careful design -will not be located where interfere with significant traffic movements (such as RT movements) - May require changing curbline, drainage, etc. - Can be expensive, depending on type of treatment CMR: 122:04 Page 6 of 8 ELEMENT Sidewalk Improvements Electronic speed signs Increase residential, school and bicycling signage on the corridor Enhanced roadside planting scheme Replace "pork chop islands" on ECR with traditional curb WB Right turn lane at Gunn High School EB Left turn lane at Hoover School (into what is now school exit) ADVANTAGES + Increases pedestrian safety and perhaps pedestrian activity + Repairs damaged, cracked, or uneven sidewalks + Relative inexpensive + Reduces traffic speeds + High public acceptance + Increased drivers awareness of shared mode & residential corridor and perhaps enhance traffic safety + Enhanced visual component + May slow traffic + Increase bicycle safety and perhaps use + Increase pedestrian safety and perhaps pedestrian activity + Reduce queues + Reduce intrusion on residential streets + Increase access to Hoover for both WB and EB traffic + Reduce U-turn traffic now on residential streets DISADVANTAGES - Must take precautions to not impact roots of trees as per Tree Technical Manual - Driver awareness may lessen over time - Must be designed to be attractive along the corridor - If gateway element, would require public/City consensus on design - Cost - Placements shall not compete with adjacent trees - Delay RT movements slightly - Requires wider driveway into campus - Would require School Board approval - Would involve some adjus’tments by parents The proposed Charleston/Arastradero Corridor Improvement Plan has a high probability of meeting the performance measures set for it by Council. Assessment of the Corridor Plan as regards the Council-adopted performance measures is contained in Attachment D. In addition, the project final report is appended as Attachment F. BOARD/COMMISSION REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS On December 10, 2003, the Planning and Transportation Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed Charleston!Arastradero Corridor Improvement Plan and unanimously (5 votes in favor and one Commissioner absent) recommended adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and the proposed Corridor Improvement and Phasing Plan. Commission comments and questioned focused on ways of encouraging more walking, cycling, and shuttle usage on the corridor. Commissioners agq-eed with the proposed Corridor Plan phasing and a one-year trial. Commissioners expressed enthusiasm for the proposed traffic-adaptive signal system for the Corridor and were complimentary of the public outreach and involvement in development of the Plan. The December 10 staff report to the Con~rnission and meeting minutes are included as Attachments H and I, respectively. C.M-R: 122:04 Page 7 of 8 ENWIRONMENTAL REVIEW City staff and consultants prepared an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration that analyzed the project for potential environmental impacts in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The analysis of the Initial Study identifies environmental factors that would be potentially affected by the proposed project including Biological Resources, Archaeological Resources, Public Services and Temporary Construction Impacts. Implementation of the Improvement Plan would not result in any unavoidable, significant environmental impacts. The project is designed and includes mitigation that would reduce the identified environmental impacts to the less than significant level. The Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial Study were circulated on December 9, 2003, with a state-approved, 20-day shortened review period that ended on December 31, 2003. Two comment letters were received for the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration; one from Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority and the other from the Santa Clara Valley Water District. Neither comment letter brought up any additional environmental impacts requiring further environmental review or edits to the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial Study. The Final Mitigated Negative Declaration, Initial Study and Appendices, Mitigation & Monitoring Program, Comment Letters, and Responses to Comment Letters are included in Attachment G. The Resolution approving the Mitigated Negative Declaration is included as Attachment A. ATTACHMENTS A. Resolution Adopting the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Charleston/Arastradero Corridor Improvement Plan B. Corridor Plan Provisions, Descriptive Narrative, Phasing, and Plan Illustrations C." Map of Charleston!Arastradero Corridor D. Performance Measures Assessment E. Traffic Analysis F. Corridor Improvement Plan Draft Final Report G. Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration H. Planning and Transportation Commission Staff Report of December 10, 2003 I. December 10, 2003 Minutes of the Planning and Transportation Commission meeting ! Chief T,.Tcmrs-~rt ati o n Official DEPARTMENT HEAD: Director of Planning and omm Ty CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:~~IL~ Assistant City Manager cc:Corridor Plan Advisory Group CMR:122:04 Page 8 of 8 ATTACHMENT A NOT YET APPROVED RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY FOR AND APPROVING THE CHARLESTON/ARASTRADERO CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT PLAN (02-EIA-16,CITY OF PALO ALTO, PROPONENT) WHEREAS,the City of Palo Alto adopted the 1998-2010 Comprehensive general plan in 1998, including the Transportation Element; and WHEREAS, Transportation Goal T-3 calls for an efficient roadway network for all users; and WHEREAS, Transportation Program T-33 provides that the City shall develop comprehensive roadway design standards and criteria for all types of roads and emphasizing bicycle and pedestrian safety and usability in these standards; and WHEREAS, on April 14, 2003 the City Council directed staff to prepare a plan for transportation and urban design and landscape improvements for the Charleston/Arastradero Road Corridor to address school commute and other travel safety concerns for pedestrians, bicyclists and drivers, as well as to incorporate residential amenities along the corridor without inducing traffic to shift onto nearby residential streets while also maintaining capacity for existing and projected traffic; and WHEREAS, the Charleston/Arastradero Road Corridor begins on Charleston Road approximately 1/3 miles from Interstate Highway i01 at Fabian way andcontinues 2.3 miles southwest as Charleston Road, crossing the railroad tracks near Alma Street and State Highway 82 (El Camino Real) where the road continues as Arastradero Road, and the corridor ends at Miranda Avenue; and WHEREAS, The Charleston/Arastradero Corridor Improvement Plan would improve the Corridor with visual frontage improvements (lighting, signage, speed advisory signs), infrastructure improvements (traffic adaptive signal technology, medians, lane reductions, lighted crosswalks, vegetation islands, continuous bike lanes, colored asphalt bike lanes, pedestrian bulbouts) and city transit service improvements to 040113 sm 0100183 1 NOT YET APPROVED address school commute and other travel safety concerns for all travel modes; and WHEREAS, the roadway improvements proposed in the Charleston/Arastradero Corridor Improvement Plan are contained within the existing 80-86’ right-of-way width along the Charleston/Arastradero Road Corridor and within the existing rights-of-way of each of the ten signalized intersections; and WHEREAS, the City conducted a public outreach program in deve!oping the Charleston/Arastradero Corridor Improvement Plan, including four community meetings; and WHEREAS, the City Council and Planning and Transportation Commission reviewed the project and heard public comment at a joint study session on November 24, 2003; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Transportation Commission heard public comments and reviewed and considered the Charleston/Arastradero Corridor Improvement Plan and Mitigated Negative Declaration in a public hearing on December I0, 2003, and recommended that the City Council adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and approve the Plan; and WHEREAS, the City, as the lead agency for the Project, has prepared an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration in conformity with the California Environmental Quality Act; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed and considered the information contained in the Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Palo Alto does RESOLVE as follows: SECTION i. The City Council of the City of Palo Alto ("City Counci!") finds, determines, and declares as follows: A. The City as the lead agency for the Project prepared a Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration. The Draft was released for a public comment period on December 9, 2003. The public comment period concluded on December 31, 2003. The Planning and Transportation Commission at its meeting of December i0, 2003 reviewed and considered the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration. 040114 sm 0100183 2 NOT YET APPROVED B. The Mitigated Negative Declaration consists of the following documents and records: Charleston/Arastradero Corridor Plan Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial Study prepared by the City of Palo Alto dated December 2003, including those documents referenced and included therein, including without limitation those listed as "Source References" on Page 24 of the Initial Study, and the comments and responses to comments on the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration, and the planning and other City records, minutes, and files constituting the record of proceedings. The Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code section 21000, et seq. ("CEQA"), and the State CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, section 15000, et seq. The Mitigated Negative Declaration is on file in the offices of the Director of Planning and Community Environment and, along with the planning and other City records, minutes and files constituting the record of proceedings, is incorporated herein by this reference. C. The Mitigated Negative Declaration was written by the City and City environmental consultants and reflects their independent judgment and analysis. There is no substantial evidence on the basis of the record as a whole that the Plan will have a significant effect on the environment. D. The Charleston/Arastradero Corridor Improvement Plan is consistent with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and implements the following goals of the Transportation Element of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan: ¯T-l: "Less Reliance on Single Occupant Vehicles". ¯T-2: "A Convenient, Efficient Public Transportation System that Provides A Viable Alternative to Driving". ¯T-3: "Facilities, Services, and Programs that Encourage and Promote Walking and Bicycling". ¯T-4: nAn Efficient Roadway Network for All Users". ¯T-5: "A Transportation System that Minimizes Impacts on Residential Neighborhoods" ¯T-6: "A High Level of Safety for Motorists, Pedestrians, and Bicyclists on Palo Alto Streets". E. The corridor improvement plan was developed to meet expected traffic conditions to the year 2015, as forecast by Palo Alto’s new citywide computer traffic model, according to two future land use scenarios approved for traffic modeling purposes by Council on June 9, 2003. The two scenarios are: !) 040114 sm 0100183 3 NOT YET APPROVED Comprehensive Plan EIR growth scenario extended to 2015, and 2) "known (development) proposals" to the year 2015. These computer forecasts and traffic analysis of the current and expected conditions on the Corridor indicate that Charleston/Arastradero Road can be re-designed to enhance traffic safety without inducing increased vehicle travel time or vehicle delay at signalized intersections. F.The Charleston/Arastradero Corridor Improvement Plan is likely to achieve the project goals and performance objectives approved by the City Council on September 22, 2003, for the project. SECTION 2. Adoption of Mitigated Negative Declaration. The City Council finds that the Mitigated ~Negative Declaration has been completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and adopts and approves it. The City Council has reviewed and considered the information contained in the Mitigated Negative Declaration, staff reports, oral and written testimony given at public hearings on the proposed Project, and all other matters deemed material and relevant before considering for approval the various actions related to the Project. SECTION 3. Mitigation Measures and Reporting Plan. The mitigation measures and reporting plan set forth in Exhibit "A" attached to this resolution and a part of it are hereby adopted. SECTION 4. No Recirculation Required. The City Council finds that no new significant information has been received that requires recirculation of the Mitigated Negative Declaration. // // // // // // // // 040114 sm 0100183 4 NOT YET APPROVED SECTION 5. Adoption of Improvement Plan. The City Council hereby approves and adopts the Charleston/Arastradero Corridor Improvement Plan prepared by the Department of Planning and Community Environment and dated January 2004 and which is on file in the Department of Planning and Community Environment. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Mayor APPROVED: Senior Asst. City Attorney City Manager Director of Planning & Community Environment Director of Administrative Services 040114 sm 0100183 5 EXHIBIT "A" CHARLESTON/ARASTRADERO ROAD CORRIDOR MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION MITIGATION REPORTING AND MONITORING PROGRAM (SCH # 2003082062 & City of Palo Alto #03-EIA-16) The Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial Study identifies environmental factors that would be potentially affected by the proposed project with regard to Biotic Resources, ArcheoloNcal Resources, Temporary Construction Impact and Public Services. None of these factors are "Potential Significant Issues". All feasible changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental impacts identified in the Initial Study. The Mitigation Reporting and Monitoring Program describes each potentially affected environmental factor, appropriate mitigation measures that were incorporated into the plan, and the responsible agency and time frame for mitigation monitoring. BIOTIC RESOURCES: BIO-I: Comply with Tree Technical Manual and Chapter 8.10 of the PAMC. All proposed improvements will be required to be built per the tree technical manual standards, particularly those in Section 2.20, Activities during Construction & Demolition near trees, using tree protection zones and requirements as illustrated in Images 2.20-1 through 2.20-3. It includes establishing zones near trees (such as sidewalk, planter strip, tree protection zone, etc. and include precautions to take to avoid soil compaction, to limit grading and excavation, and storage of construction equipment. The City Arborist and Managing Arborist shall review schematic designs of proposed improvements and their recommendations shall be included in the final design. Guidelines, recommendations, and scheduling of the Arbor Resources & the City of Palo Alto (Arborist comments & City Tree Technical Manual) shall apply during all phases of demolition and construction of the project. Responsible Agency for mitigation monitoring: The City of Palo Alto Time frame for mitigation monitoring: 1. Design development and preconstruction activities. Applicable City departments, including the City Arborist are responsible for review of tree protection measures, the Tree Protection and Preservation Plan and the Construction Management Plan as project design proceeds to ensure that mitigation is included in the implementation projects of the Plan. 2. Monitor during construction activities. The project arborist shall report to the City of Palo Alto Planning Arborist. The project arborist shall perform inspections of any prescribed tree protection measures. Site inspections to monitor tree condition on a minimum of four-week intervals shall also occur. The Planning Arborist shall be in receipt of the inspection report during the first week of each month until completion. 3. Mitigation monitoring for additional plantings will also extend to a minimum of at least a year after completion of construction to ensure the health and retention of trees. The City has an ongoing monitoring program for city street trees. Any trees planted within the right-of-way as part of the Corridor Plan will be added to the City Street Tree Inventory. 040114 sm0100184 A-1 Charleston/Arastradero Corridor Improvement Plan Mitigation Reporting & Monitoring Program (SCH # 2003082062 & City of Palo Alto #03-EIA-16) BIO-2: Prior to final design, an Arborist Report shall be prepared to assess construction impacts to existing plantings. Where the project includes sidewalk and/or curb relocation or widening appropriate measures shall be included in order to protect the roots of trees. These measures shall include a more detailed assessment of both existing private and public shrubs and trees at and adjacent to that ROW. The assessment shall also analyze the proposed new planting scheme for any impacts to existing plantings. The City Arborist and City Managing Arborist shall review the schematic design to determine how the improvement could be accomplished without damaging or removing trees. Whenever possible, the design shall be amended to preserve trees, and measures taken to protect trees during construction, as specified in the City Tree Technical Manual. If the trees cannot be preserved, the assessment shall identify measures to offset the loss of street trees, in accordance with PAMC,. Chapter 8.10. The City shall implement these measures, which would include additional plantings in vacant spaces, new medians, and replacement of declining street trees as listed in the City Street Tree Inventory. Responsible Agency for mitigation monitoring: The City of Palo Alto Time frame for mitigation monitoring: 1. Design development and preconstruction activities. Applicable City departments, including the City Arborist are responsible for review of tree protection measures, the Tree Protection and Preservation Plan and the Construction Management Plan as project design proceeds to ensure that mitigation is included in the implementation projects of the Plan. 2. Monitor during construction activities. The project arborist shall report to the City of Palo Alto Planning Arborist. The project arborist shall perform inspections of any prescribed tree protection measures. Site inspections to monitor tree condition on a minimum of four-week intervals shall also occur. The Planning Arborist shall be in receipt of the inspection report during the first week of each month until completion. 3. Mitigation monitoring for additional plantings will also extend to a minimum of at least a year after completion of construction to ensure the health and retention of trees. The City has an ongoing monitoring program for city street trees. Any trees planted within the fight-of-way as part of the Corridor Plan shall be added to the City Street Tree Inventory. BIO-3. Potential tree removal & nesting birds. Any tree removal along the corridor, in addition to meeting the City Tree removal requirements under PAMC Chapter 8.10 and the City Tree Technical Manual, shall also comply with the following. The removal of trees, shrubs, or weedy vegetation should avoid the December 15 through August 31 bird nesting period to the extent possible. If no vegetation or tree removal is proposed during the nesting period, no surveys are required. If it is not feasible to avoid the nesting period, a qualified wildlife biologist should conduct a survey for nesting birds no earlier than 21 days prior to the removal of trees, shrubs, gassland vegetation, grading, or other construction activity. The area surveyed should include all construction sites, access roads, and staging areas, as well as areas within 150 feet outside the boundaries of the areas to be cleared or as otherwise determined by the biologist. Survey results shall remain valid for a period of 21 days following the survey. In the event that an active nest is discovered in the areas to be cleared, or in other habitats within 150 feet of construction boundaries, clearing and construction should be postponed for at least two weeks or until a wildlife bioloNst has determined that the young have fledged (left the nest), the nest is vacated, and there is no 040114 sm 0100184 A-2 Charleston/Arastradero Corridor Improvement Plan Mitigation Reporting & Monitoring Program (SCH # 2003082062 & City of Palo Alto #03-EIA-16) evidence of second nesting attempts. Implementation of this mitigation measure would reduce impact to nesting birds to a less-than-significant level. Responsible Agency for mitigation monitoring: The City of Palo Alto Time frame for mitigation monitoring: 1. Design and Pre-construction. The City Project Manager and applicable City departments are responsible for review during design development to ensure that mitigation is included in the implementation projects of the Plan, including any necessary bird surveys. 2. Monitor during construction activities. The City of Palo Alto and Project Construction Manager is responsible for review and implementation of recommendations resulting from any bird survey, if applicable, including monitoring construction and the notification of appropriate authorities. ARCHEOLOGICAL RESOURCES: ARCH -1: In accordance with to the requirements for archaeological resources mitigation in Sections 21083.2(c)-(f) of CEQA, in areas where the curb or sidewalk is expanded, construction work crews shall be aware of the potential for discovery archeological resources. In the event of a discovery, all work at the discovery location shall cease immediately and a qualified archaeologist retained to evaluate the find. The archaeologist shall first determine whether an archaeological resource uncovered during construction is a "unique archaeological resource" under Public Resources Code Section 21083.2(g) or a historical resource under Section 15064.5(a)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines. If the archaeological resource is determined to be a "unique archaeological resource" or a historical resource, the archaeologist shall formulate a mitigation plan in consultation with the City that satisfies the requirements of Section 21083.2(c)-(f) of CEQA. If the archaeologist determines that the archaeological resource is not a unique archaeological resource or a historical resource, the archaeologist may record the site and submit the recordation form to the California Historic Resources Information System Northwest Information Center. The archaeologist shall prepare a report of the results of any study prepared as part of a mitigation plan, following accepted professional practice. Copies of the report shall be submitted to the City and to the California Historic Resources Information System Northwest Information Center. In the event of any accidental discovery of human remains, the Santa Clara County Coroner’s Office shall be notified immediately. The coroner would determine if the remains are those of a Native American, and if they are shall comply with the CEQA guidelines Section 15064.5(e). Responsible Agency for mitigation monitoring: The City of Palo Alto Time frame for mitigation monitoring: 1. Design development and preconstruction activities. Applicable City departments are responsible for review of the implementation projects’ Construction Management Plans to ensure mitigation, including a plan if an archeological discovery is found, is included in the project. 2. Monitor during construction. The City of Palo Alto and Project Construction Manager is 040114 sm 0100184 A-3 Charleston/Arastradero Corridor Improvement Plan Mitigation Reporting & Monitoring Program (SCH # 2003082062 & City of Palo Alto #03-EIA-16) responsible for monitoring construction for archeological materials and the notification of appropriate authorities. TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS: NOISE-l: Construction hours shall be limited to Monday through Friday 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. and Saturday 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., and prohibited on Sundays and holidays as per City Noise Ordinance, Chapter 9.10 requirements. All construction truck traffic shall conform to the City of Palo Alto Trucks and Traffic Ordinance (10.48) that details city truck routes. Average Noise Levels of typical construction equipment is included in Table 2 of the Technical Memorandum. At 50-100 feet construction vehicle noises ranges from 70 - 90 dBA, but with noise control these can be reduced to 60 - 80 dBA. The project shall be required to follow standard construction techniques and best management practices, including the development of a Construction Management Plan that would include measures taken to reduce construction noise. In addition, the contractor would adjust the construction schedule to be sensitive to nearby land uses, use temporary noise barriers, and use the proper equipment and shielding for construction machinery and tools. Responsible Agency for mitigation monitoring: The City of Palo Alto Time frame for mitigation monitoring: 1. Design development and preconstruction activities. The applicable City departments are responsible for review of construction management plans prepared to ensure mitigation is included in the projects constructed under the Plan. 2. Monitor during construction activities. The City Police Department is responsible for the implementation of the Noise Ordinance and monitoring of construction hours. The City of Palo Alto and the construction project manager are responsible for monitoring that the conditions are implemented. AIR QUALITY-1. Implement Best Management Practices to Reduce Air Emissions During Construction. The City shall include in construction contracts the following requirements: Cover all truck hauling construction and demolition debris from the site; Water all exposed or disturbed soil surfaces at least twice daily; Use watering to control dust generation during demolition of structures or break-up of pavement; Pave, apply water three times daily, or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers on all unpaved parking areas and staging areas; Sweep daily (with water sweepers) all paved parking areas and staging areas during the earthwork phases of construction; Provide daily clean-up of mud and dirt carried onto paved streets from the site; Enclose, cover, water twice daily, or apply non-toxic soil binders to exposed stockpiles (dirt, sand, etc.); Limit traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 15 mph; Install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff to public roadways; and 040114 sm0100184 A-4 Charleston/Arastradero Corridor Improvement Plan Mitigation Reporting & Monitoring Program (SCH # 2003082062 & City of Palo Alto #03-EIA-16) Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as possible. Responsible Agency for mitigation monitoring: The City of Palo Alto Time frame for mitigation monitoring: 1. Design development and preconstruction activities. Applicable City departments are responsible for review of, prior to granting any grading permit, the Construction Management Plan prepared for projects implemented under the Plan to ensure mitigation is included. 2.Monitor during construction activities. City of Palo Alto and the project manager will monitor that the Construction Management Plans including dust control measures are followed. PUBLIC SERVICES: Fire Department Service - PUBSERV- 1: As the improvements are phased and tested prior to placement, testing shall include fire department emergency access and tests of response time through traffic to address specific areas of concern before the permanent facilities are in place. The Transportation Department shall also work with the Fire Department to integrate areas of concern into the designs as they progress. The traffic adaptive system shall integrate a system of traffic signal pre-emption, such as the Opticom Traffic Signal pre-emption system. Responsible Agency for mitigation monitoring: The City of Palo Alto Time frame for mitigation monitoring: 1. Design development and preconstruction activities. Applicable City departments, including the City Fire and Transportation Departments are responsible for review of design of implementation projects for the Plan to ensure mitigation is included in the project. 2. Monitor during construction activities. City of Palo Alto and the project manager will monitor that the concerns brought up during and following the testing phase of implementation projects are documented and any measures taken to address these concerns. Utility Service - PUBSERV - 2: In order to protect existing utility systems in the ROW, if the project includes sidewalk or curb location or widening (where the curb or sidewalks spreads further out than existing conditions), in any areas, the following shall occur. In locations where the existing curb or sidewalk is relocatecgwidened out, a more detailed assessment of existing utility placements and proposed improvements shall occur to the satisfaction of the City’s Public Works and Utilities Departments. These departments shall review the proposed design and assessment and determine whether the improvement could be accomplished without impacting existing utilities. The design shall be amended to maintain existing utility service. The proposed improvements, with the above mitigation, are considered minor improvements to the existing utility systems, and therefore a less than significant impact. Responsible Agency for mitigation monitoring: The City of Pa.lo Alto & Santa Clara Valley Water District Time frame for mitigation monitoring: 1. Design development and preconstruction activities. The applicable City departments, including the City Public Works and Utilities Departments are responsible for the review of project 040l 14 sm 0100184 A-5 Charleston/Arastradero Corridor Improvement Plan Mitigation Reporting & Monitoring Program (SCH # 2003082062 & City of Palo Alto #03-EIA-16) designs prepared to ensure mitigation is included in the project. Work on or near the Adobe Creek bridge on Charleston Corridor must also receive review and approval by the Santa Clara Valley Water District. 2. Monitor during construction. The City of Palo Alto and Project Construction Manager is responsible for monitoring construction of projects under the Plan, including any additional coordination of Public Works or Utilities review and/or monitoring during project construction. 040114 sm 0100184 A-6 ATTACHMENT B Recommended Charleston-Arastradero Corridor Plan Provisions, Phasing, Descriptive Narrative, and Plan Illustrations Plan Provisions: 1.Implementation of traffic adaptive (automated) signal technology on the Charleston-Arastradero Corridor to add traffic capacity and reduce stopped delay on the Corridor. This is an essential pre-condition that should be met prior to reducing the number of travel lanes on any section of the Charleston-Arastradero Corridor. 2. Installation of raised center median pedestrian refuges at selected intersections on the Corridor. 3. Installation of lighted (in-pavement, pedestrian actuated) crosswalks to enhance pedestrian crossing safety on Arastradero west of Georgia, on Arastradero between Suzanne Drive and Clemo Avenue, on Charleston Road near Mumford Place, and on Charleston Road at Louis and Montrose. 4. Deployment of additional fixed, electronic radar read-out speed advisory signs along the Corridor to reduce the incidence of motor vehicle speeding. 5. Installation of bulbouts (extended curbs) to reduce pedestrian crossing distance at selected intersections. 6. Removal of the two free right turn ("pork chop") islands to improve bicycle and pedestrian safety on the southern leg of the E1 Camino Real and West Charleston-Arastradero Road intersection. 7. Provision of continuous bicycle lanes along the entire Corridor to enhance cycling safety. 8. Tinting or painting the bicycle lanes for higher visibility to both motorists and cyclists along the entire Corridor. 9. Selected improvements in Shuttle service along the Corridor sufficient to meet the Council-adopted Performance Measure of a 50% increase in public transit ridership along the Corridor by 2010. The transit improvement plan will add an additional Shuttle bus to service on the Corridor. 10. Provision on Arastradero of a three-lane cross-section with two through lanes (one in each direction) and an intermittent left turning pockets or lanes interspersed with raised center median islands from approximately one block east of Gurm High School to approximately one block west of E1 Camino Real. Four travel lanes (two in each direction) will be maintained between Foothill and approximately one block east of Gunn High School, at both east and west approaches to E1 Camino Real, along all of West Charleston between E1 Camino Real and Caltrain, and both the east and west approaches to Alma and Middlefield. The change from four to three lanes creates room (by reallocating space from use as travel lanes) for wider bicycle lanes, sections of landscape medians and "tree islands" (small landscaped medians), raised center median pedestrian refuges, and center left turn lanes for more efficient and safer traffic operations. An alternative cross-section of four travel lanes (two in each direction) throughout is available and is also feasible on Arastradero Road. 11. Creation of a new dedicated right turn lane at the Gunn High School driveway for westbound vehicles on Arastradero Road. 12.Widening the Gunn High School driveway throat to permit simultaneous eastbound left turns into Gunn and westbound right turns. The left and right turning vehicles are to be separated and channelized by a small raised median. A right turn indicator is to be installed to efficiently manage the westbound right turns into Gunn High School. 13.Retaining four travel lanes (two in each direction) on Charleston from E1 Camino Real to Ahna with intermittent ~tree islands" (small medians). 14.Provision on Charleston Road of a three-lane cross-section with two through lanes (one in each direction) and one intermittent left turning lane interspersed with raised center median islands from just west of Fabian to just east of Middlefield, from just east of Nelson to Wright Place, and from just west of E1 Camino Real to just east of Gunn High School. These changes create room (by reallocating space from use as travel lanes to wider bicycle lanes, sections of landscape medians and "tree islands", i.e. small landscaped medians), raised center median pedestrian refuges, and center left turn lanes for more efficient and safer traffic operations. An alternative cross-section of four travel lanes (two in each direction) throughout is available and is also feasible on Arastradero Road. 15. Four travel lanes (two in each direction) will be maintained at Middlefield, Alma and E1 Camino Real. 16.Provision of a center left turn lane leading to the easterly Hoover Elementary School driveway (presupposing reversal of the existing circulation from Charleston into and out Hoover). 17. Redesig-n of the existing median at Louis and Montrose to retain it as a block to through movement between Louis and Montrose while improving left turn vehicular movements in and out of Louis (allowing them to take place while the turning driver is protected from oncoming vehicles by the median). 18. Installation of frontage improvements, including street trees and new street lighting along the Corridor. 19. One-year demonstration trial of the Corridor Plan with paint, signage, and asphalt curbing in selected sections prior to construction or deployment of final improvements. Plan Phasing: 1.Installation of a new dedicated westbound right turn lane and Gunn High School and associated driveway improvements to separate right turning from left turning vehicles. 2.Deployment of traffic adaptive traffic signal operation along the entire Corridor. 3. Demonstration trial of three-lane section (two travel lanes, one in each direction) from west of Fabian to east of Gunn High School, retaining two travel lanes in each direction at both the east and west approaches of Middlefield, Alma, and E1 Camino Real, and all of West Charleston from Caltrain to E1 Camino Real. 4. At the conclusion of the demonstration trial, make such permanent changes as proven to be desirable in the trial. 5.Installation of frontage improvements, including street trees and new street lighting. CORRIDOR PLAN DESCRPITION In April 2003, the Palo Alto City Council mandated preparation of a Charleston-Arastradero Corridor Plan to address school conmaute and other travel safety concerns for pedestrians, bicyclists and drivers, as well as to incorporate residential amenities along the corridor, without inducing traffic to shift onto nearby residential streets. As part of the Cit3~ Council’s mandate for the preparation of the Plan, it provided that applications for certain development permits along the Corridor would not be formally considered, heard or approved by the City during the period of the preparation of the Plan. For the purposes of the development moratorium the project area was defined as one-quarter mile on either side of the Charleston-Arastradero Corridor, including San Antonio Avenue and the Foothills Expressway, and at the intersection of Charleston Road and Alma Street the Corridor width was defined as the one-half mile on either side of Charleston Road. The proposed Charleston-Arastradero Road Corridor Plan area, as shown in the attached map is located in the southern portion of the City of Palo Alto. The Corridor begins on Charleston Road approximately 1A mile from Interstate Highway 101 at Fabian Way, and continues 2.3 miles southwest as Charleston Road, crossing the railroad tracks near Alma Street and State Hi,way 82 (El Camino Real) where the road continues as Axastradero Road and ends at Miranda Avenue. The roadway improvements proposed in the Corridor Plan are contained within the existing 80- 86’ right-of-way width (which includes the 60-foot curb-to-curb street width plus existing sidewalks and vegetation strip areas) along Charleston/Arastradero Road corridor and the existing rights-of-way at each of the ten signalized intersections. Some improvements on the Corridor are already part of the "Travel Smart, Travel Safe" Residential Arterial pro~am approved by Council and for which funding is being pursued. These primarily include adjusting si~o-nal timing and installing a traffic adaptive system along the corridor. A traffic adaptive system allows si~o-naling to be responsive to real-time changes in the traffic conditions. Some elements of the "Travel Smart, Travel Safe" Residential Arterial progam include advanced traffic detection, traffic-adaptive system, communication system upgade, sig-nal timing, V-calm electronic speed signs, and enhanced crosswalks. The traffic adaptive system, since it reduces delay at intersections during peak periods is an essential pre- condition to the installation of most of the proposed improvements of the Corridor. Some aesthetic improvements to existing facilities could occur, such as sidewalk improvements, installing speed monitoring signs, and painting existing bike lanes. Reconfiguration of the street or installation of safety elements could not proceed. Additionally, the City will continue to work with the schools along the corridor and the School District to increase alternative mode trips to and from their facilities and to adjust start times of the schools to reduce morning peak time traffic. Project Setting The len~h of Charleston Road and Arastradero Road within the Con-idor Plan (to be referred to henceforth as "the Corridor") is approximately 2.3 miles. Charleston Road and Arastradero Road each have four tkrough lanes within the Corridor Plan reach and there are ten signalized intersections along the Con-idor. The typical curb-to-curb pavement width along the Corridor is 60 feet.1 Eighty-fifth percentile vehicle speeds along the COlTidor range from 34.7 mph (Charleston Road, near Carlson) to 36.9 mph (Arastradero Road, near Pomona) and 37.3 mph (Charleston Road, west of Fabian).2 Charleston Road average daily motor vehicle volulnes (both directions) range from approximately 13,600 just west of Fabian Way to 14,300 just west ofMiddlefield.3 Arastradero Road average daily motor vehicle volume (both directions) is approximately 20,500. Existin~ Conditions: Arastradero Road/West Charleston Road from Miranda Avenue to Alma Street: This segment of the proposed improvements extends from Miranda Avenue to Ahna Street where the existing conditions, include: -four travel lanes, -two bicycle lanes, -minor landscaping strips, -sidewalks, -24-hour parking on the north side and eveMn~overnight parking on the south side of the street, -street trees and planting strips, and -rolled curbs on some sections of Arastradero Road. Charleston Road from Alma Street to Fabian Way: This segment of the corridor improvements is from Alma Street to Fabian Way where existing conditions include: -four travet lanes, -no bike lanes from Middlefield to Fabian, -two bike lanes from Alma to Middlefield, -a small median located at Louis Street, -24-hour parking on south side and eveninffovemight parking on the north side of street between Alma and Middlefield, -24-hour parking on both sides of the street from Middlefield to Fabian, and -street trees and planting strips. Bicycle lanes are marked on both sides of the Corridor section between Nelson and Miranda. There are no striped bicycle lanes on Charleston Road between Middlefield and Fabian Way and the bicycle lanes between Nelson Drive and Mumford Place are only in force during the day. Long distances between pedestrian crossings characterize both Charleston Road and Arastradero Road; for example, there is an approximately 1,100-foot distance between the crossings along Charleston at Wilkie Way and Alma Street.4 Transit service along the COlTidor includes the Palo Alto Shuttle mad the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) bus routes. The Palo Alto Shuttle selwes two sections of the 1 Charleston Road Corridor Traffic Manaqement and Safety Study, Wilbur Smith Associates, December, 2000, p. 2.1 and City of Palo Alto Transportation Division.2 En.qineeringl and Traffic Surveys, City of Palo Alto Transportation Division, October 2001. 3 Charleston Road Corridor Traffic Manaqement and Safety Study, Wilbur Smith Associates, December 2000, p. 1.2. 4 Charleston Road Corridor Traffic Manaqement and Safety Study, Wilbur Smith Associates, December 2000, p. 2.2. Corridor: from Middlefield to Carlson (Route C) and from E1 Camino Real to Gum~ Hi~ School (Route G).5 The VTA provides service on most of the Corridor, from Louis Road to Miranda (en route to the VA Hospital) within the Corridor (Route 88).6 Land uses along the corridor include Residential zones, several public and private schools, some commercial areas and conmmnity facilities including city parks. The Corridor is frequently used by all grades as a con~nute to and from local schools. TJKM Transportation Consultants modeled existing and future traffic conditions, and their results are included in the Initial Study and their Technical Memorandum attached. For future conditions, one analysis used the City Comprehensive Plan for land use growth. Although the Comprehensive Plan EIR modeled all known developments at that time, potential new development such as Hyatt Rickey’s and the fomaer Sun site, among others, have been identified. Therefore the traffic analysis for the Corridor Plan also includes the separate modeling of land uses for proposed gro~qh within the project area of impact beyond that anticipated in the Comprehensive Plan. This list of projects and land use assumptions are attached. Funding: The Corridor proposal includes a fm~ding element, comprising an assessment of a variety of financing options, including federal, state, and regional grants, traffic impact fees, and other sources. Project implementation after Council approval of a preferred plan for the Corridor will proceed within the context of the CitT’s capital improvements planning process. Preliminary construction and installation cost estimates for implementing the Corridor proposal are $6.4 million, including $1.2 million for deployment of traffic-adaptive signal technology. Adding on 15 percent for detailed architectural and engineering design work and 5 percent for construction project management increases the preliminary cost estimate for the Corridor Proposal to $7.4 million. The City may choose to implement the plan in phases, matching availability of grant and other funding with City resources; and/or reduce the proposed Corridor Plan scope to manage the fiscal impact of the Plan. City staffhas initiated applying for grant funding for installation of traffic-adaptive technology on Charleston and Arastradero Road (CMR:454:03). Both traffic-adaptive technology and bicycle and pedestrian facility improvements are included in a draft expenditure plan for a proposed citywide traffic impact fee. Such a fee and expenditure plan, if adopted by City Council, could partially Rind bicycle and pedestrian improvements on the Corridor. Selected other potential funding sources are the following grant programs: the Metropolitan Transportation Commission’s Transportation for Livable Commm~ities, Caltrans’ Safe Routes to School, the California Office of Traffic Safety, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s Transportation Fund for Clean Air, the US Department of Transportation’s Congestion Management and Air Quality Improvement and El~hancements, and future calls for projects from the Santa Clara VTA’s Local Streets and County Roads. 5 Palo Alto Shuttle Timetables, City of Palo Alto Transportation Division, July 2003. ° Santa Clara Valley Bus & Rail Map, Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority, July 2002. Once funding is acquired for specific area improvements, temporary placements of improvements using paint, barriers, and modifications of traffic flow patterns will be studied for a period of time before more permanent improvements are installed. For the purpose of enviroi~nental review, the Initial Study analyzed the complete project build out of the Corridor Plan improvements. Plan Goals The Palo Alto City Council mandated preparation of a Charleston-Arastradero Corridor Plan to address school commute and other travel safety concerns for pedestrians, bicyclists and drivers and to enhance residential amenities along the corridor, without inducing traffic shift onto nearby residential streets. Therefore, the project goals and objectives include the following. Maintain existing travel time on the corridor to minimize diversion to other residential streets; Reduce accidents on the corridor; Improve conditions for pedestrian and bicycle travel; Improve quality of life along the corridor; and Enhance visual amenities of the corridor. The Corridor Plan includes such Performance Measures as not increasing travel time along the corridor, reducing crash rates, increasing pedestrian and bicycling volumes by 20% by 2010, and increasing transit volumes by 50% by 2010. Proposed Plan The proposed Corridor Plan includes both small and larger scale improvements in the public right-of-way. Conceptual designs of the proposed improvements on the corridor are attached. Further design with area specific conditions (such as nearby trees, utility locations, etc.) will likely follow, but these refinements will not substantially alter the recommended Corridor Plan. The Corridor Plan includes visual frontage improvements and amenities that are proposed along the entire corridor (lighting, signage, etc.) as well as larger scale improvements (medians, vegetation islands) that are proposed for seg-rnents of the corridor. The Plan also includes specific area improvements, such as locations near schools or intersections. Within the proposa!, some improvements such as a median, or wider bike lanes could be replaced by other improvements such as parking. As an example, with four 10’ travel lanes, 20’ of the 60-foot curb-to-curb width are available for bike lanes, medians, or parking lanes. The City has the option of choosing which facilities are most desirable for different stretches of the corridor without changing the impacts that are analyzed in the Initial Study. The proposed improvements represent City staff reconmaendation on the project. Aesthetic & Service Improvements Throughout Entire Corridor: Consistent tkroughout the corridor the project proposes frontage and visual amenities improvements. These include a signage program to install warnings to motorists that the corridor is a "Residential Boulevard" or a "School Cormnute Corridor". These will be implemented throughout the corridor to enforce the message to reduce speeds and to increase the overall safety for alternate modes of travel. Vehicle speed moizitoring and notification signs, such as "school zone" signs at school locations, are typical of the types of signage proposed for the Corridor. Additionally, pedestrian scale lighting, street trees, and neighborhood amenities such as street furniture would be added along the corridor, where utilities and space will allow them. Installing such elements would increase the residential appearance of the Corridor, making it easier to slow vehicular traffic and increase awareness of alternate modes of travel along the corridor. To increase transit use along the corridor, the City of Palo Alto Shuttle service will be expanded by addition of one bus to existing Shuttle service along the Corridor. Expanding and improving bus service along the Corridor will include improvements to existing bus stops, and possibly adding or relocating city bus stops. Bus stop improvements may include adding or enhancing shelters, benches, and lighting as conditions permit. These types of improvements are part of the proposed improvements but do not typically have environmental impacts. Other, more structural improvements and specific area improvements to enhance safety are discussed below. Proposed Improvements for the Corridor: The proposed improvements, as shown in the attached cross-sections and conceptual desi~o-ns include: ¯Transition from four vehicular travel lanes to three travel lanes (10-11’ in width) for Charleston Road from Wright Place to Fabian (excepting both Corridor approaches to Middlefield), and from one block west of E1 Camino Real to one block east of Gunn High School. ¯Three travel lanes sections will include one travel lane in each direction with a central 16’ wide median with 10’ left turn pockets embedded within the median in sections. The median will include left turn pockets at all residential streets. ¯Option for four vehicular travel lanes on Arastradero from Foothill Expressway to E1 Camino Real. ¯Retain the four vehicular travel lane configuration on Charleston from E1 Camino Real to Alma Street. ¯Some small (6’) vegetated medians for the four-lane sections. ¯24-hour parking retained on the south side of the street from Alma to Fabian. ¯24-hour parking wil! be on the north side of the street from Miranda to Alma. ¯Parking would be allowed only in evening hours on the north side 8’ bike lane on Charleston from Ahna Street to Fabian Way. On Arastradero/Charleston from Miranda Avenue to Alma Street evening parking would be on the south side. ¯Colored and wider (7-8’) bike lanes will also be installed on both sides of the street throughout the corridor. In constricted areas, such as intersections, the bike lanes will be 5’. ¯Landscaping, lighting, sidewalk and si~aage improvements will be made in the existing right-of-way/public utilities easement on both sides of the street throughout the entire corridor. ¯Replacing the rolled curbs on Arastradero with vertical curbs to prohibit parking on sidewalks. Conceptual Designs of these elements are presented in the attached Cross Sections and Aerial Maps. Proposed Plan Improvements for Specific Areas: Gunn High School traffic: The proposed improvements on Arastradero Road address the following specific issue of high school access by: - Retaining the four 10’ travel lanes and the 5th 10’ left turn lane for eastbound traffic turning into high school Add a 10’ right mm lane on westbound Arastradero into the high school driveway. Improve the right turn to increase efficiency and enhance the movement by installing markings or a "pork chop" to direct traffic into the outside lane of the driveway. The left turn movement from Arastradero Road eastbound would turn into the inside school driveway lane. The roadway would be widened by 5’, removing some existing sidewalk on the south side and an existing planting strip on the north side of Arastradero Road. -The existing intersection island will also be removed with this reconfiguration. -The bike lanes at this location would remain 5’ wide, but the pavement would be colored and the westbound bike lane at the school would be relocated between the westbound travel lane and the proposed right turn lane. E1 Camino Real Intersection: At the E1 Camino Real (ECR) Intersection, the following improvements are proposed: Remove small separated right mm lanes and concrete "pork chops" from northbound ECR and Charleston and from eastbound Charleston at ECR. This will shorten the pedestrian crossing of E1 Camino Real on the south side of the Charleston intersection. -Extend curb line of adjacent streets to create more typical corner configuration. -Extend the 5’ bike lanes to and across the intersection. -Add countdown sig-nals to the pedestrian crossings. -Improve the existing pedestrian median on the east side of the intersection, as well as provide pedestrian refuges for pedestrians crossing E1 Camino Real. Add colored pedestrian crosswalk pavements at the intersection. E1 Camino Real is a State Route and therefore proposed improvements are dependent on California Department of Transportation (CalTrans) review and approval. Hoover Elementary School traffic: To further accommodate traffic into Hoover Elementary School the following improvements are proposed: Parking on the south side of the street would be retained to accoirmaodate additional turn movements. With School Board approval, traffic flow for Hoover Elementary traffic will be reversed and a center two-way left-turn lane installed between Carlson Court and the easternmost driveway of Hoover Elementary allowing eastbound traffic to make a left-turn movement into Hoover Elementary (into what is now the exit). ¯The westbound 8’ bike lane near the Hoover Elememary driveway will be dashed to indicate it’s permitted use as part of right turns into the eastertm~ost Hoover Elementary driveway. Traffic improvements at Hoover Elementary require Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD) review and approval. Middlefield & Charleston Intersection: The existing configuration will essentially remain, retaining the existing 4-lane and left turn lane configuration. Existing pedestrian crossings will be enhanced through colored pavement markings and countdown pedestrian signals. The bike lanes will be extended to and through the intersection (dashed in the latter case), as well as adding colored pavement markings. The bike lanes can be extended through the intersection within the existing ri~gcht-of-way by moving the curbs and removing the existing planter strips at this intersection. Existing Island Median at Louis & Montrose: The proposed median would replace the existing island at this location, however the existing turn movements will be retained and designed into the new median. Additional Pedestrian Crossings: Additional pedestrian crossings will be added throu~out the corridor at several locations. These crossings will be well-marked including, li~hting and signage. Additionally, some major pedestrian crossings, which would be pedestrian actuated or with embedded lights (li~dhted crosswalk) are also proposed. From west to east they include one lighted crosswalk just west of Geor~a Avenue, which would serve pedestrians accessing the bike path along the San Francisco Water District right-of-way; one proposed between Suzanne Drive and Clemo Avenue providing easier pedestrian access to Juana Briones Park and Juana Briones Elementary School; one near Mumford Place and one near Louis Road. Signalized intersection & Side Street Improvements: Improvements at all the signalized intersections including those discussed above, would include highlighting pedestrian crossings by using alternate materials or coloring. Additionally, countdown pedestrian traffic signals are proposed as part of signalized intersections improvements. Pedestrian refuges can also be added where space allows. Because of constrictions noted above, refuges are not proposed for Terman Middle School, Gunn High School, the Charleston and Arastradero Road pedestrian crossings at E1 Camino Real, the Middlefield intersection and Alma Street intersection. Bicycle improvements at intersections would include extending bike lanes across the intersection in dashed form. Concurrent with these physical improvements will be changes in the signal timings at all ten signalized intersections to make traffic flow more efficiently. Other pedestrian improvements at intersections and side streets could include adding full or half pedestrian bulbouts to the Corridor or side streets as space mad turn movements allow. For exanaple, in Segxnent 1 of the Corridor (West Charleston!Arastradero), halfbulbouts can likely be located on local side streets along, but not extending into the Charleston/Arastradero corridor (with the exception of the school driveways). In Segment 2 (Eastern pol~ion of Charleston), halfbulbouts can likely be located on the north side of the corridor, but full bulbouts can occur into the Corridor or on side street sides of the corridor where space allows mad no major right turn movement off the corridor is needed. Side street improvements would also include the continuation of marked bicycle lanes and improved marking of pedestrian crossings. ---s Charleston Corridor ATTACHMENT C ATTACHMENT D Performance Measures Assessment Council has set forth the following Objectives and Performance Measures for the Charleston Road - Arastradero Road Corridor Plan (CMR:430:03): Objectives - 1.)maintain existing travel time on corridor to minimize diversion to other residential streets 2.) reduce crashes on corridor 3.) improve conditions for pedestrian and bicycle travel 4.) improve quality of life on the corridor 5.) enhance visual amenity of the corridor Performance Measures - a.) No increase in Peak, off-Peak motor vehicle travel time between each of these points: Charleston from San Antonio to Middlefield Charleston f’om Middlefield to Alma Charleston from Alma to El Camino Real Arastradero f!-om El Camino Real to Foothill Expressway ASSESSMENT: B is highly probably that implementation of the Corridor Plan will not inerease peak or off-peak travel time between any of the above points. b.) No increase in average motor vehicle delay and critical movement motor vehicle delay at any Charleston Road or Arastradero Road Corridor Plan intersection. ASSESSMENT: It is highly probably that impletnentation of the Corridor Plan will not inerease motor vehicle average or eritieal movement at any Charleston- Arastradero intersection. c.)Reduce Off-Peak 85% speeds by at least 20% by 2010 at each of these locations: Charleston between San Antonio and Middlefield (from 37.3 MPH to 29.8 MPH) [note current 50%=33.4 MPH] Charleston between Middlefield and Alma (from 34.7 MPH on 27.8 MPH) [note current 50% = 30.9 MPH] Charleston between El Camino Real and Alma (from 34.9 MPH to 27.9 MPH) [note current 50% = 31.3 MPH] Arastradero between El Camino Real and Foothill Expressway (from 33.7 MPH to 27.0 MPH) [note current 50%=29.1 MPH] ASSESSMENT: It is highly probably that implementation of the Corridor Plan will reduce peak and off-peak 8if’ percentile motor vehicle speeds by up to 13 %, but not by as much as 20% by 2010. d.)Reduce crash rates (crashes/million entering vehicles) by at least 25% by 2010 between each of these points: Charleston f!’om San Antonio to Middlefield Charleston f!~om Middlefield to Alma Charleston f’om Ahna to El Camino Real Arastradero f!’om El Camino Real to Foothill Expressway ASSESSMENT: It is highly probably that implementation of the Corridor Plan will reduce crash rates on the Charleston-Arastradero Corridor by at least 25% by 20I O. e.)An average 20% increase in pedestrian crossing volumes (all approaches) at all signalized intersections by 2010 and a 40% increase by 2020. ASSESSMENT: It is highly probably that impletnentation of the Corridor Plan will increase pedestrian volumes by at least 20% at all signalized intersections by 2010 and by 40% by 2020. f.)An average 20% increase in bicycle volumes (all approaches) at all signalized intersections by 2010 and a 40% increase by 2020. ASSESSMENT: h is highly probably that implementation of the Corridor Plan will increase bicycle volumes by at least 20% at all signalized intersections by 2010 and by 40% by 2020. g.)An increase of 50% in daily average public transit boardings at all stops along the corridor during the school year by 2010. ASSESSMENT: It is highly probably that implementation of the Corridor Plan will increase bicycle volumes by at least 20% at all signalized intersections by 2010 and by 50% by 2020. h.)Attainment of Cycling Compatibility rating (BCI methodolo~,1) of B by 2010 on each of the following sections of the corridor: Charleston JO’om San Antonio to Middlefield Charleston J~’om MiddIefield to A hna Charleston from Ahna to El Camino Real Arastradero from El Camino Real to Foothill Expressway ASSESSMENT: It is highly probably that implementation of the Corridor Plan will result in a Cycling Compatibility rating (BCI methodology) of B by 2010 on each of these Charleston-Arastradero Corridor sections. i.)Attainment of Walking Compatibility Rating (Florida DOT methodology2) of B by 2010 on each of the following sections of the corridor: Charleston.f!’om San Antonio to Middlefield Charleston from Middlefield to Alma Charleston J~’om Ahna to El Camino Real Arastradero f!’om El Camino Real to Foothill Expressway ASSESSMENT: It is highly probably that implementation of the Corridor Plan will result in a Walking Compatibility rating (Florida DOT methodology) of B by 2010 on each of these Charleston-Arastradero Corridor sections. Attainment of a Visual Amenity Rating (methodology to be determined) of B by 2010 on each of the following sections of the corridor Charleston from San Antonio to Middle)qeld Charleston f’om Middlefield to Alma Charleston f-ore Ahna to El Camino Real Arastradero f-om El Camino Real to Foothill ~ Development of the Bicycle Compatibility Index: A Level of Service Concept. Final Report, Federal Highway Administration, December 1998. ~- Modelin~ the Roadside Walkin~ Environment: A Pedestrian Level of Service: TRB Paper No. 01-051 Landis, et. al. Florida Deparmaent of Transportation and SCI, prepared for the Transportation Research Board, undated. See http://wwwl 1 .myflorida.com!plarming/systems/sm!los/pdfs/pedlos.pdf ASSESSMENT: It is uncertain at this time that intplementation of the Corridor Plan will result in a Visual Amenity rating of B by 2010 since uo methodology of has yet been adopted to determine such a rating. Transportation Consultants ATTACHMENT E: TRAFFIC ANALYSIS January 13, 2004 To:Joe Kott, City of Palo Alto Project No.: 42-023 From:Christopher Thnay, PE, AICP Jurisdiction: Palo Alto Subject:Future Roadway Alternative, Travel Time and LOS Analysis Existing Traffic Condition The existing peak direction traffic volumes for the study corridor varies from a low of approximately 400 vehicles per hour (vph) to highs of approximately 1,200 vph. The roadway segrnent between Fabian Way and Alma Street are generally below 900 ¥-ph in the peak direction. The average is approximately 770 vph during the am peak hour and 790 during the pm peak hour. Since a residential collector street can generally carry approximately 900 to 1,000 vph per lane per hour, this segment provides the most opportunity to create a three-lane section with median left-turn lane at intersections. A typical collector street could carry higher volumes, but the available gaps for pedestrian crossing would be much reduced. The existing peak hour volumes on Arastradero Road (west of E1 Camino Road) in the peak direction generally carries between 900 and 1,200 vph. This higher volume does not lend itself to comfortably accommodate a three-lane section due to reduce gaps for pedestrian crossing. However, if future design provides for positive control that facilitate safe crossing for pedestrians, the impact of reduce gaps for pedestrians could be reduced. Besides carrying higher volumes, this seg-rnent also includes several roadway and operational characteristics that are different from the East Charleston Road (Alma to Fabian). Arastradero Road serves both Gunn High School and Terman Middle School. During the morning school commute traffic queues could be quite long and sometimes extend over several blocks towards.Terman Drive. In addition there are more side streets that intersect with Arastradero Road than at East Charleston Road. A total of 14 streets intersect with Arastradero Road verses eight on East Charleston Road (Alma Street to Fabian Way). Consequently, there will be many more conflicts with side street traffic on Arastradero Road. A three-lane section will also.mean more U-turns in this section. Lastly, there is a long 800-foot section adjacent to the Hoover Elementary School that provides for some queuing in the westbound direction without blocking any side streets. 5960 Inglewood Drive, Suite 100 Pleasanton, CA 94588-8535 925463-0611 phone 925-463-3690 fax www.tjkm.com PLEASANTON SANTA ROSA Joe Kott, January 13, 2004, 2003, 2003, Pg. 2 Future Traffic Projections TJKM has been working for the past several months on the City’s Travel Forecasting Model. Before TJKM is able to make any model forecast, the model needs to be calibrated. Model calibration is a process to ensure that the model accurately replicates the existing traffic condition. For this project, TJKM used the regional CMA travel demand model as a base. To better reflect the local streets and land use access and loading onto the network, TJKM work with City staff to create finer zones for the whole City. The City provided the 2025 local land use while the regional land use was obtained from the CMA model. Demand forecasting models need to be demonstrably reliable and credible after the model calibration before being used on a project. A centra! point of many public hearings and meetings concerning city and private development plans and projects focus on the credibility of the forecasting models. It is important that the analysis tools not become a point of contention, so that the real issues can be properly understood and addressed. The results of our mode! calibration are shown in Table I below. Table I Model Calibration Results Period I Volume AM Turn Link PM Turn Link Note: A -2.98 -45.26 -0.11 -19.63 B 1.02 0.99 0.99 0.99 STD 37.76 146.08 24.21 159.5 R2 0.98 0.95 0.99 0.98 A: Intercept of the recession line between the observed volumes and the computed volumes B: Slope of the regession line between the observed volumes and the computed volumes STD: Standard deviation of the recession line between the observed volumes and the computed volumes R2 : R-Square In addition to obtaining satisfactory parameters for A and B values, TJKM has calibrated the link and turning movement traffic volumes to within two percents of observed counts. TJKM concluded the model calibration was completed with a high level of accuracy. Working with City staff TJKM devoted an extensive amount of effort to develop the model forecasts. Two future scenarios were analyzed in this study: namely, 2015 Comp Plan and 2015 with Known Proposed Proj ects. 2015 Comp Plan This scenario includes all the land use in the Comprehension Plan. In addition, the Terman Middle School was included in the scenario. The Charleston-Arastradero Road corridor covers approximately a 2.2-mile section. Within the corridor, there are some distinct roadway and land use characteristics. For ease of comparison, the corridor has been divided into four roadway seg-rnents as shown in Figure 1 and briefly described as follows: Joe Kott, January 13, 2004, 2003, 2003, Pg. 3 Segment 1: Fabian Way to Middlefield Road Segment 2: Middlefield Road to Alma Street Segment 3: Alma Street to E1 Camino Real (ECR) Segment 4: ECR to Gunn High The results of the model forecasts for these sega’nents are shown in Table I. 2015 with Known Proposed Project This scenario includes all the known proposed projects including the Terman Middle School. Hyatt Rickey’s, Elks Club and the Sun site. As sho~m in Table II, compared to the 2015 Comp Plan scenario, it is projected that there is generally a slight increase of approximately three to ten percent for most roadway links. Potential Three-Lane Sections Based on the Projected Volumes As mentioned earlier, the existing average am peak hour traffic volumes on Arastradero Road are approximately 1,100 vph, almost 50% higher than the average peak hour volumes of approximately 770 vph on East Charleston Road. As shov, m previously in Table II, based on the 2015 model forecasts it is projected that the two roadway segments would be carrying almost an equal amount of traffic in the future. In the am peak hour, it is projected that the peak directional flow is approximately 1,100 x~ph while in the pm peak hour the peak directional flow is approximately 900 vph. Table II Projected Link Level Peak Hour Roadway Volumes Existing 2015 Comp Plan Scenarios/Link Segments AM [ PM AM PM 1. Segmaent I: Fabian to Middlefield 866/477 502/692 1,111/654 793/821 2. Segment II: Middlefield to Alma 765/693 582/944 1,120/1,119 927/1,016 3. Segment III: Alma to ECR 838/537 597/730 995/995 1,081/788 4. Segment IV: ECR to Gunn High 846/1,136 828/903 1,142/1,052 1,051/806 Note: 866/477 = Eastbound!14/’estbound peak hour volumes 2015 Known Proposal AM PM 1,121/711 803/778 1,129/1,182 937/1,022 1,004/1,112 1,139/817 1,163/1,142 1,07t/815 Joe Kott, January 13, 2004, 2003, 2003, Pg. 4 Therefore, based on the volume alone it seems like a case might be made for a three-lane treatment. However, based on the different roadway characteristics as mentioned above, it is still our opinion that a three-lane section is more appropriate on East Charleston Road. The current volume on Arastradero Road is much higher and the access to Ounn High School should be resolved before any three-lane segment could be considered. As part of this project, a design has been proposed to redesign the intersection to include a westbound right-turn lane on Arastradero Road at Gunn High driveway that will provide queuing distance for vehicles waiting to make a right-turn into Gunn High. Additional improvements at the intersection will improve the operations at the intersection. In addition three or four additional crosswalks would be added to the corridor. These crosswalks would probably include special colored pavement treatment and be fitted with a lighted crosswalk. Instead of lighted crosswalks, the City might consider installation of pedestrian signals. If pedestrian signals were installed at all major crosswalks, pedestrians and bicyclists would be able to safely cross the street regardless of the available gaps. Under this scenario, a three-lane section could be considered on Arastradero Road. That is our best judgment based on the inforn~ation available. Of course, City Council or staff might decide to install a three-lane segment in the whole corridor based on other information or priorities that we are unaware. Projected Travel Times A comparison of the travel times and delays for the 2015 forecasts were conducted. The evaluation is based on the travel time from San Antonio Road to the Foothill Expressway. As a part of the study, it is our understanding that the City has applied for funds to install traffic signal adaptive capability on the whole corridor. Traffic signal adaptive technology has been proven to increase the signal efficiency by as much as 20 percent over current time of day signal timing. The details are contained in Appendix A. Four future scenarios were analyzed: 2015 Comp Plan, 2015 Proposal, 2015 Known Proposal (meets non- auto mode criteria) and 2015 Known Proposal (three lane section from Alma to Fabian). The results of the analysis are shown in Table III. Based on our analysis, applications of traffic adaptive technology shows that compared to the existing conditions, the travel time through the study corridor under the four scenarios will be reduced from one to three minutes. Besides the 2015 Comp Plan and 2015 Known Proposal forecasts scenarios, two additional alternatives have been developed based on the 2015 Known Proposal forecasts. The 2015 Known Proposal (Meets Non-Auto Mode Criteria) was developed to meet the bike, walk and transit non-auto mode performance criteria. Based on the Gunn High mode shares information provided by the City, it was determined that the current non-auto mode use is approximately 39 percent (14 percent walk, 12 percent bike and 13 percent transit). In addition, mode share infornaation was also obtained for Terman Middle School. It was determine that approximately 63 percent of the students biked, walked or took the bus on the first Monday following the start of school. Joe Ko~, January l~.2004.200~,-00~,Pg. 5 As part of this study, bike and walk connectivity would be substantially improved. Full bike lanes would be provided throughout the whole corridor and either lighted crosswalks or pedestrian signals would be provided as well. To be conservative, TJKM only estimated that the combined increased of bike, walk and transit use would increase by no more than 20 percent at Gunn High. The potential increases at Terman Middle School and from the regular con~-nuter traffic were not considered. The analysis of the Embarcadero Ridership data bet~,een 2000 and 2002 shows almost 20 percent increase in rideship. And the Crosstown Weekday Ridership shows increase of approximately 45 percent (based on available 3rd/4th Quarter data in 2001 and 2002). Therefore, the potential for mode shifts to transit and bike use could be substantial with good service routes and improved bike lanes. The 2015 With Known Proposal (Three Lane Section) scenario assume a three-lane segment with left- turn pocket on East Charleston Road from Alma Street to Fabian Way. Table Eli Charleston/Arastradero Road Corridor Study Travel Time and Delay Comparisons Travel Time (s)Signal Delay (s) Scenarios Existing Z015 Comp Plan (A) 2015 Known Proposal (B) 2015 Known Proposal Meets Non-Auto Mode Criteria) 2015 Known Proposal Three Lane Section) * 2015 Known Proposal Three Lane Section) ** EB WB ,&M 678 726 PM 716 749 .&M 657 658 PM 566 592 .~vl 670 667 PM 577 600 AM 606 609 PM I 531 580 .&M ! 607 585 PM [ 614 5781 Ave Time 702 733 658 579 668 588 607 556 596 596 614 559 Change % (min)Change -3 -3 -3 -6% -21% -5% -14% -24% -15% -19% -13o/; -_4/o EB WB Ave Change % Time (min)Change A~M 294 336 315 PM 332 360 346 .&M 353 350 352 I 12% PM 261 283 272 -1 -21% .~vl 364 358 361 1 15% PM 272 290 281 -I -!9% AM 300 299 300 0 -5% PM 226 270 248 -2 -28% AM 306 278 292 -7% PM 248 [301 274 -I -21% .&M 327 293 310 0 -2% PM 239 276 258 -I -26% Note: " Three lane section from Alma St to Fabian Way. Include effects of traffic adaptive system along the corridor All change statistics are as convoared with existing conditions. ** Three laoe sectloo for whole corridor. Joe Kott, January 13, 2004, 2003, 2003, Pg. 6 As shown in Table l~II, due to the improved signal coordination provided by traffic signal adaptive system, it is expected that the travel times for the corridor for all the future traffic scenarios would improve. The travel time savings range from one to three minutes. It is also expected that the total signal delay for the corridor range from one minute increase to a reduction of two minutes. If the three-lane section is extended from Miranda Avenue to Fabian Way, it is expected that travel time and delay might increase marginally over the results of the three-lane section from Alma Street to Fabian Way. The biggest difference might be that the available gaps for pedestrian to cross the street would be reduced. Since the project will include more pedestrian crosswalks with refuge islands as well as potentially several pedestrian signals, the impact on pedestrians would likely be less than significant. Intersection Levels of Service Analysis Table 11I as shown previously details the travel time and signal delay for the whole study corridor. As such, the change in travel time and delays include both the intersection as ~vell as the mid block travel time in the corridor. The 2015 Comp Plan and 2015 Known Proposal intersection levels of service (LOS) analysis results are shmvn in Table IV. The levels of service shown in Table IV do not include the signal efficiency effects of implementing a traffic adaptive system. This would be the future base without the proposed study that will include the implementation of a traffic adaptive system. As mentioned earlier, traffic signal adaptive technolog2 has been proven to increase the signal efficiency by as much as 20 percent over current time of day signal timing. Factoring the effects of a traffic signal adaptive system, the resulting LOS is shown in Table V. Compared to the 2015 future base without the effects of traffic adaptive system, the proposed study project shows LOS improvements at two intersections from LOS E to LOS D and other general delay improvements in the corridor. J:tJurisdiction~P~PaIo Altot042-023 Charleston_ArastraderolReports and DocumentslM Travel times and alt 120403.doc co Z’0~- 0 Z "5 Transportation Consultants APPENDIX A Traffic Adaptive TRAFFIC ADAPTIVE COORDINATION Traffic Adaptive Control - Latest & Greatest Strategy for Traffic Control Systems New control strategies and concepts have been lurking on the fringes of the mainstream traffic control system arena since the 1980s. The predominant "other" strategy is collectively "known as traffic adaptive control. The main players in this category include SCOOT (Split Cycle and Offset Optimization Technique), SCATS (not an acronym for anything), and more recently Adaptive Control Systems (ACS). Less well-known players include Urban Traffic Optimization by Integration Automation (UTOPIA), Signal Progression Optimization Technology (SPOT), ContROl of Networks by Optimization of Switchovers (CRONOS), and (PRODYN). SCOOT was developed in England by the Transportation Road Research Laboratory of the U.K. government. SCATS was developed in Australia by the New South Wales Department of Main Roads government. Starting in the mid-1990s, the FHWA has partially funded the development of a collection of three competing traffic adaptive control strategies, ACS, previously called RT-TRACS (Real-time Traffic Adaptive Signal Control System). The common aspect of government sponsorship is not coincidence. Rather, it is out of necessity because the task of producing a workable, ~iable, marketable signal system based on a traffic adaptive strategy was clearly beyond the capability of any private enterprise. SCATS is available through TRANSCORE. RT-TRACS is available as an optional control strategy ofPB Farradyne’s MIST system. SPOT and UTOPIA, developed in Italy, are available through Peek Traffic. PRODYN, developed in France, has not been deployed yet in the U.S. The concept of most traffic adaptive control is that the supervising system monitors traffic flows on (a whole lot of) critical links in the system on a minute-by-minute (or even more frequent) basis. Given this much analytical information, it crunches numbers and decides on a cycle-by-cycle basis what each signal under its control needs to do. The system can require an intersection to revise its green splits, to use a different cycle length, to shift its end-of-coordinated-green offset value, or any combination of the three. Traffic adaptive systems, therefore, typically don’t utilize the UTCS concept of a "timing pattern". They sort of look like timing patterns, but they stretch and shrink and bend and adjust on each subsequent cycle, all dancing at the behest of the master traffic system computer’s software program. In fact, there may not even be any stored patterns in the system that it pulls from. That library of stored patterns is a hallmark of all traditiona! traffic control systems. Rather than the classic pattern matching process of comparing link flows to a look-up table in order to pick a ’best’ pattern, the traffic adaptive system continually runs an optimization routine using those current flows. "The algorithm s~vstematically evaluates combinations of phase termination points to determine the optimum time at which to end the arterial’s phases. The optimum set of phase termination times is defined as the combination that minimizes a weighted function of total intersection delay and stops, accumulated over the horizon in a simulation of traffic flow. The user selects the delay and stops 5960 Inglewood Drive, Suite 100 Pleasanton, CA 94588-8535 925-463-0611 phone 925-463-3690 fax www.tjkm.com PLEASANTON SANTA ROSA Joe Kott, January 13, 2004, 2003, 2003, Pg. 10 weighing factors. For each combination, the algorithm begins with initial conditions for the intersection and then simulates traffic over the user-specified horizon, calculating queues and accumulating delay and stops. The combination that minimizes the function of delay and stops is chosen for implementation. This phase te~w~ination selection is reevaluated evenly inte~a,al with updated head and tail arrival patterns and timing information for each phase. " [Note: this phraseology is straight from a MIST document.] Slightly different is SCATS, which decentralizes the optimization routine. SCATS calculates and implements the next intersection’s cycle len~h using the detectors at the stop line. SCATS allows for phase skipping. Offsets between adjacent intersections are predetermined and adjusted with the cycle time and progression speed factors. [Note: This class almost used SCATS rather than SPOT-Utopia for the virtual sig-nal laboratory. The adaptation of the system for virtual operation could not be completed in time.] An extraordinary amount of system detection is required for a traffic adaptive system. Unlike traditional systems that use system detectors (on maybe 5 percent of the system’s links) to determine when to change from pattern 11 to pattern 48 as an assist on making a pattern change that would have occurred anyway as a result of a time-of-day command, the traffic adaptive system needs all of these detectors (on maybe 25 percent of the system’s links?) in good operating condition all the time. Most signal system managers know that system detectors are notoriously flaky or defective, which have relatively lower maintenance priority. This simply cannot happen with a traffic adaptive system, or the system’s much sought after improved traffic flow will quickly disappear. The great benefit, on the other hand, of a traffic adaptive system, is that it is continually refining and improving its own plans. There are no timing plan libraries that contain ever more stale coordination plans, so there is no need to mount a major retinaing effort every few years. Also, a properly operating traffic adaptive system produces better traffic flow than a traditional, classic traffic pattern-based system. In this regard, traffic adaptive is significantly different from traffic responsive. A silo-hal system that has traffic responsive operation engaged is actively and continually seeking to find the best coordination pattern (from its library) to implement. Because each pattern change will result in some degree of transition, as manifested in the green times presented to drivers, the pattern change can often take 2 or 3 cycles to complete. During this transition period, the signal operation is quite often not, well, great. As a result, a system that is in traffic responsive mode needs to be constrained so that it is not making a new pattern selection every several cycles. Otherwise, the intersections will be transitioning a greater percentage of the time than they are cycling in the new, better, optimum pattern. Base on field implementation data, it has been estimated that a traffic adaptive system could achieve travel time savings in many practical situations of 20 percent or more depending on the quality and age of the previous fixed time plan and on the rapidity with which flows change. The following is a summary of several major traffic adaptive systems. Real-time Traffic Adaptive Si~o~aal Control System (RT-TRACS) - In 1991 the FHWA solicited proposals for the development of a real-time, traffic adaptive signal control system called RT-TRACS. Shortly thereafter, the FHWA contracted with PB Farradyne to develop and implement RT-TRACS. The RT- TRACS control logic assesses the current status of the network with forecasting capabilities, allowing proactive, not reactive, response. The most fundamental requirement of this system is to effectively Joe Ko~, January 13,2004, 2003,2003, Pg. 11 manage and respond to rapid variations in traffic conditions. RT-TRACS consists of a number of real- time control prototypes that each function optimally under different traffic and geometric conditions. When conditions dictate, RT-TRACS can automatically switch to another strategy. The FHWA realizes that this control logic must be integrated with freeway performance data and provide network wide control. A thorough understanding of past experience with advanced traffic signal control strategies is critical to the development of effective RT-TRACS strategies for ITS. Features of the RT-TRACS desi~on include: ¯both distributed and centralized traffic control; ¯dynamic priority control on selected routes; ¯capability to interact with dynamic traffic assignment to implement proactive control; ¯improved fallback capabilities in case of surveillance system failure; ¯effective use of the accumulated experience with real-time control. Five prototype strategies are currently being developed and evaluated for use in the RT- TRACS pro~am. The FHWA awarded five separate contracts to develop these real-time prototype strategies. The contracts were awarded to the University of Arizona, the University of Minnesota, the University of Massachusetts (Lowell)/PB Farradyne, Wright State University in Ohio, and the University of Maryland/University of Pittsburgh. Kaman Sciences Corporation is responsible for evaluating these prototypes using the CORSIM simulation model. In late 1997, the FHWA and the University of Arizona teamed to develop and field test one of these prototypes, RHODES, an open architecture version of RT-TRACS that will utilize an alternative database management system and NTCIP protocol. Three of these prototypes, the RHODES prototype from the University of Arizona, OPAC (Optimization Policies for Adaptive Control) from PB Farradyne/University of Massachusetts (Lowell), and RTACL from the University of Pittsburgh/University of Maryland, are at an advanced state of development. Initial simulation testing showed that these prototype strategies produced statistically significant improvements in traffic throughput and reduced average delay. The results of the laboratory evaluation of the RHODES prototype have indicated a reduction in delay, stops, and fuel consumption of 24 percent, 9 percent, and 6 percent, respectively, while maintaining the same throughput as the baseline case (vehicle actuated control). A 16-intersection arterial in Reston, Virginia has been selected for the field implementation. Instrumentation of the arterial is in profess. Further testing is expected to occur in Seattle, Washington, and Chicago, Illinois. Detailed System Descriptions SCATS Operation7 of the SCATS System: The SCATS system controls signals in ~oups, loaown as sub-systems, where the critical intersection for each subsystem is specified by the traffic engineer. Sub-systems are grouped together and a regional computer can control signals at up to ten intersections. Systems can expand by the addition of extra regional computers that control traffic in their own area, but a central monitoring computer usually controls data input and traffic monitoring to the different regional computers. Range of Operation: SCATS has been used in Sydney, Australia since about 1975 and has a user base of 26 systems in Australia and New Zealand and further systems in Shanghai, Shenyang (China), Joe Kott, January 13, 2004, 2003, 2003, Pg. 12 Singapore, Sandakan (Malaysia), Rauia Lumpur and Dublin (Ireland). According to SAIC (consulting company) there are three installations in the United States! Oakland County, MI (350+ signals), Hennepin County, MN (71 signals), and Durham, NC. System Evaluation: A survey carried out in Paramatta in 1981 by the Australian Road Research Board showed no significant reduction in travel times compared with operation using TRANSYT; however there was a large reduction in the number of stops, some 9 percent in the central area and 25 percent on arterial roads. Other studies have indicated improvements in travel times but compared to the original systems that were of unknown efficiency. The SCOOT System IntTvduction: sCOOT is a fully adaptive traffic control system which uses data from vehicle detectors to optimize traffic signal settings so as to reduce vehicle delays and stops. It was developed in the United Kingdom by the Transport and Road Research laboratory together from three UK signal companies. Range of Operation: SCOOT has been operational in the UK since 1980 in Coventry. There are now around forty implementations within the UK, with the largest controlling the central part of London and other parts of Greater London. There are also systems in Bejing, Hong Kong, Santiago, Durban and Port Elizabeth. Further systems are proposed in Madrid, Cyprus and Nijmegen (Netherlands). There are four systems in North America; these are Toronto, Red Deer and Halifax (Canada) and Oxnard, California in the USA. [A separate reference lists three installations: Arlington, VA, Minneapolis, Mr, and Anaheim, CA.] System Evaluation: The effectiveness of the SCOOT strategy has been assessed by major trials in five cities as shown in Table D-3. The trials in Glasgow and Coventry were conducted by TRL and those in Worcester, Southampton and London by consultants, a university, and the local traffic authority, respectively. In most cases, comparisons were made against a good standard of up to date fixed time plans, usually produced by TRANSYT. The following table shows that the largest benefits are achieved in comparison with isolated vehicle actuation but, of course, part or this benefit could be achieved by a good fixed time system. The relative effectiveness of SCOOT varies by area and time of day, but overall it is concluded that SCOOT achieved an average saving in delay of about 12 percent compared with good fixed time plans. Since SCOOT does not "age" in the way typical of fixed time plans, it follows that SCOOT should achieve savings in many practical situations of 20 percent or more depending on the quality and age of the previous fixed time plan and on the rapidity with which flows change. On the basis of the surveys and subsequent experience, SCOOT is likely to be of most benefit where vehicular flows are heavy, complex and vary unpredictably. Review of the UTOPIA System Introduction: UTOPIA was developed in Italy with the objective of improving private and public transport efficiency. Characteristics of the system are described in the sections which follow. Range of Operation: UTOPIA was first used in 1985 in Turin. This is the only current operational system, but there are plans to implement UTOPIA in Gothenburg and Salerno. The Gothenburg system will be designed using its own central controller and UTOPIA SPOT units. Joe Kott, January 13, 2004, 2003, 2003, Pg. 13 System Ea,aluation: It is believed that research to asses the benefits of UTOPIA have not been carried out against fixed time control. The improvements attributed to UTOPIA in Turin are believed to have been calculated against some other control strategy previously installed there. Trials on the Turin network were carried out over many months. After implementing UTOPIA, private traffic speeds were found to increase 9.5 percent in 1985 and 15.9 percent in 1986, following system tuning. In peak times the speed increases were 35 percent. Public transport vehicles, which were given absolute priority, showed a speed increase of 19.9 percent in 1985. Transportation Consultants Appendix B Peak Spreading As commute traffic on highway facilities reaches congested levels, commuters beDn to change their travel patterns by either finding less-congested routes or commuting during off-peak hours. This second phenomenon, known as peak spreading, has begun to occur on Bay Area area freeways. It is becoming especially pronounced on 1-680, for which no uncongested reasonable alternative route exists. The graph at right illustrates peak spreading on 1-680. On 1-680, the southbound a.m. peak period essentially lasted from 7:00 to sometime after 9:00 in 1991 and 1994. The 1996 data indicate the peak had extended well past 10:00, with traffic volumes also growing during the hours before 7:00. By 1997, the start of the a.m. peak period was close to 5:00. (TJKM’s 1997 counts ended at 8:00, so 1997 data for the end of the peak period are unavailable.) Between 1994 and 1997, the 1-680 southbound volume between 5:00 and 9:00 a.m. increased from 15,854 to 21,698 (a 37 percent increase). Essentially all of this traffic growth occurred between 5:00 a.m. and 7:00 a.m. Note that in 1996 and 1997 the peak-hour volumes have decreased even ~vhile the total peak-period volumes have increased. Note also that 1-680 was widened from 4 to 6 lanes between 1991 and 1994. Peak Spreading: 1-680 AM SB n/o SR 262 5960 Inglewood Drive, Suite 100 Pleasanton, CA 94588-8535 925-463-0611 phone 925-463-3690 fax www.tjkrn.com PLEASANTON SANTA ROSA © 0 0 d 00000 ¯ 0 ~ ~a Z~ 8 ~o ¯¯0000 ¯¯¯ ~ z o ,~ z ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ en~e’~V e~u~i~ ’ ~ o ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 0 oJ + + +++ Z + + oo =.°8 E > Transportation Consultants Appendix A - Travel Time and LOS Analysis DRAFT TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM January 13, 2004 To:Joe Kott, City of Palo Alto Project No.: 42-023 From:Christopher Thnay, PE, AICP Jurisdiction: Palo Alto Subject:Future Roadway Alternative, Travel Time and LOS Analysis Existing Traffic Condition The existing peak direction traffic volumes for the study corridor varies from a low of approximately 400 vehicles per hour (vph) to highs of approximately 1,200 vph. The roadway segment between Fabian Way and Alma Street are generally below 900 vph in the peak direction. The average is approximately 770 vph during the am peak hour and 790 during the pm peak hour. Since a residential collector street can generally carry approximately 900 to 1,000 vph per lane per hour, this segment provides the most opportunity to create a three-lane section with median left-turn lane at intersections. A typical collector street could carry higher volumes, but the available gaps for pedestrian crossing would be much reduced. The existing peak hour volumes on Arastradero Road (west of E1 Camino Road) in the peak direction generally carries between 900 and 1,200 vph. This higher volume does not lend itself to comfortably accommodate a three-lane section due to reduce gaps for pedestrian crossing. However, if future design provides for positive control that facilitate safe crossing for pedestrians, the impact of reduce gaps for pedestrians could be reduced. Besides carrying higher volumes, this segment also includes several roadway and operational characteristics that are different from the East Charleston Road (Alma to Fabian). Arastradero Road serves both Gunn High School and Terman Middle School. During the morning school commute traffic queues could be quite long and sometimes extend over several blocks towards Terman Drive. In addition there are more side streets that intersect with Arastradero Road than at East Charleston Road. A total of 14 streets intersect with Arastradero Road verses eight on East Charleston Road (Alma Street to Fabian Way). Consequently, there will be many more conflicts with side street traffic on Arastradero Road. A three-lane section will also mean more U-turns in this section. Lastly, there is a long 800-foot section adjacent to the Hoover Elementary School that provides for some queuing in the westbound direction without blocking any side streets. 5960 Inglewood Drive, Suite 100 Pleasanton. CA 94588-8535 925-463-0611 phone 925-463-3690 fax www.tjkrn.com PLEASANTON SANTA ROSA Joe Kott, January 13, 2004, 2003, 2003, Pg. 2 Future Traffic Projections TJKM has been working for the past several months on the City’s Travel Forecasting Model. Before TJKM is able to make any model forecast, the model needs to be calibrated. Model calibration is a process to ensure that the model accurately replicates the existing traffic condition. For this project, TJKM used the regional CMA travel demand model as a base. To better reflect the local streets and land use access and loading onto the network, TJKM work with City staff to create finer zones for the whole City. The City provided the 2025 local land use while the regional land use was obtained from the CMA model. Demand forecasting models need to be demonstrably reliable and credible after the model calibration before being used on a project. A central point of many public hearings and meetings concerning city and private development plans and projects focus on the credibility of the forecasting models. It is important that the analysis tools not become a point of contention, so that the real issues can be properly understood and addressed. The results of our model calibration are shown in Table I below. Table I Model Calibration Results Period AM PM Note: Volume Turn Link Turn Link A -2.98 -45.26 -0.11 -19.63 B 1.02 0.99 0.99 0.99 STD 37.76 146.08 24.21 159.5 R2 0.98 0.95 0.99 0.98 A: Intercept of the regression line between the observed volumes and the computed volumes B: Slope of the regression line between the observed volumes and the computed volumes STD: Standard deviation of the regression line between the observed volumes and the computed volumes R2 : R-Square In addition to obtaining satisfactory parameters for A and B values, TJKM has calibrated the link and turning movement traffic volumes to within two percents of observed counts. TJKM concluded the model calibration was completed with a high level of accuracy. Working with City staff TJKM devoted an extensive amount of effort to develop the model forecasts. Two future scenarios were analyzed in this study: namely, 2015 Comp Plan and 2015 with Known Proposed Projects. 2015 Comp Plan This scenario includes all the land use in the Comprehension Plan. In addition, the Terman Middle School was included in the scenario. The Charleston-Arastradero Road corridor covers approximately a 2.2-mile section. Within the corridor, there are some distinct roadway and land use characteristics. For ease of comparison, the corridor has been divided into four roadway segments as shown in Figure 1 and briefly described as follows: Joe Kott, January 13, 2004, 2003, 2003, Pg. 3 Segment 1: Fabian Way to Middlefield Road Segment 2: Middlefield Road to Alma Street Segment 3." Alma Street to El Camino Real (ECR) Segment 4: ECR to Gunn High The results of the model forecasts for these segments are shown in Table I. 2015 with Known Proposed Project This scenario includes all the known proposed projects including the Terman Middle School, Hyatt Rickey’s, Elks Club and the Sun site. As shown in Table II, compared to the 2015 Comp Plan scenario, it is projected that there is generally a slight increase of approximately three to ten percent for most roadway links. Potential Three-Lane Sections Based on the Projected Volumes As mentioned earlier, the existing average am peak hour traffic volumes on Arastradero Road are approximately 1,100 vph, almost 50% higher than the average peak hour volumes of approximately 770 vph on East Charleston Road. As shown previously in Table II, based on the 2015 model forecasts it is projected that the two roadway segments would be carrying almost an equal amount of traffic in the future. In the am peak hour, it is projected that the peak directional flow is approximately 1,100 vph while in the pm peak hour the peak directional flow is approximately 900 vph. Table II Projected Link Level Peak Hour Roadway Volumes Existing 2015 Comp Plan Scenarios/Link Segments I. Segment I: Fabian to Middlefield AM 866/477 PM 502/692 AM 1,111/654 PM 793/821 2. Segment II: Middlefield to Alma 765/693 582/944 t,120/1,I 19 927/1,016 3. Segment III: Alma to ECR 838/537 597/730 995/995 1,081/788 4. Segment IV: ECR to Gunn High 846/t,136 828/903 1,t42/1,052 t,051/806 Note: 866/477 = Eastbound/Westbound peak hour volumes 2015 Known Proposal AM PM 1,121/711 803/778 1,129/1,182 937/1,022 1,004/1,112 1,139/817 1,163/1,142 1,071/815 Joe Kott, January 13, 2004, 2003, 2003, Pg. 4 Therefore, based on the volume alone it seems like a case might be made for a three-lane treatment. However, based on the different roadway characteristics as mentioned above, it is still our opinion that a three-lane section is more appropriate on East Charleston Road. The current volume on Arastradero Road is much higher and the access to Gunn High School should be resolved before any three-lane segment could be considered. As part of this project, a design has been proposed to redesign the intersection to include a westbound right-turn lane on Arastradero Road at Gunn High driveway that will provide queuing distance for vehicles waiting to make a right-turn into Gunn High. Additional improvements at the intersection will improve the operations at the intersection. In addition three or four additional crosswalks would be added to the corridor. These crosswalks would probably include special colored pavement treatment and be fitted with a lighted crosswalk. Instead of lighted crosswalks, the City might consider installation of pedestrian signals. If pedestrian signals were installed at all major crosswalks, pedestrians and bicyclists would be able to safely cross the street regardless of the available gaps. Under this scenario, a three-lane section could be considered on Arastradero Road. That is our best judgment based on the information available. Of course, City Council or staff might decide to install a three-lane segment in the whole corridor based on other information or priorities that we are unaware. Projected Travel Times A comparison of the travel times and delays for the 2015 forecasts were conducted. The evaluation is based on the travel time from San Antonio Road to the Foothill Expressway. As a part of the study, it is our understanding that the City has applied for funds to install traffic signal adaptive capability on the whole corridor. Traffic signal adaptive technology has been proven to increase the signal efficiency by as much as 20 percent over current time of day signal timing. The details are contained in Appendix A. Four future scenarios were analyzed: 2015 Comp Plan, 2015 Proposal, 2015 Known Proposal (meets non- auto mode criteria) and 2015 Known Proposal (three lane section from Alma to Fabian). The results of the analysis are shown in Table III. Based on our analysis, applications of traffic adaptive technology shows that compared to the existing conditions, the travel time through the study corridor under the four scenarios will be reduced from one to three minutes. Besides the 2015 Comp Plan and 2015 Known Proposal forecasts scenarios, two additional alternatives have been developed based on the 2015 Known Proposal forecasts. The 2015 Known Proposal (Meets Non-Auto Mode Criteria) was developed to meet the bike, walk and transit non-auto mode performance criteria. Based on the Gunn High mode shares information provided by the City, it was determined that the current non-auto mode use is approximately 39 percent (14 percent walk, 12 percent bike and 13 percent transit). In addition, mode share information was also obtained for Terman Middle School. It was determine that approximately 63 percent of the students biked, walked or took the bus on the first Monday following the start of school. Joe Kott, January 13, 2004, 2003, 2003, Pg. 5 As part of this study, bike and walk connectivity would be substantially improved. Full bike lanes would be provided throughout the whole corridor and either lighted crosswalks or pedestrian signals would be provided as well. To be conservative, TJKM only estimated that the combined increased of bike, walk and transit use would increase by no more than 20 percent at Gunn High. The potential increases at Terman Middle School and from the regular commuter traffic were not considered. The analysis of the Embarcadero Ridership data between 2000 and 2002 shows almost 20 percent increase in rideship. And the Crosstown Weekday Ridership shows increase of approximately 45 percent (based on available 3rd/4th Quarter data in 2001 and 2002). Therefore, the potential for mode shifts to transit and bike use could be substantial with good service routes and improved bike lanes. The 2015 With Known Proposal (Three Lane Section) scenario assume a three-lane segment with left- turn pocket on East Charleston Road from Alma Street to Fabian Way. Table III Charleston/Arastradero Road Corridor Study Travel Time and Delay Comparisons Travel Time (s)Signal Delay (s) Scenarios EB WB Ave Change Time (rain) Existing A!vl 678 726 702 PM 716 749 733 2015 Comp Plan (A)AM 657 658 658 -1 PM 566 592 579 -3 2015 Known Proposal (B)AM 670 667 668 PM 577 600 588 -2 2015 Known Proposal AM 606 609 607 -2 ~leets Non-Auto Mode Criteria)PM 531 580 556 -3 2015 Known Proposal AM 607 585 596 -2 three Lane Section) *PM 614 578 596 -2 2015 Known Proposal AM 627 600 614 -I l’hree Lane Section) .4 PM 534 584 559 %EB WB Av e Change % Change Time (min)Change AM 294 336 315 PM 332 360 346 -6%AM 353 350 352 1 12% -21%PM 261 283 272 -1 -21% -5%AM 364 358 361 1 15% -20%PNI 272 290 281 -1 -19% -14%AM 300 299 300 0 -5% -24%PM 226 270 248 -2 -28% -15%.........AM 306 278 292 0 -7% -19%PM 248 301 274 -t -21% -13%AM 327 293 310 0 -2% -24%PM 239 276 258 -1 -26% Note: * Three lane section from Alma St to Fabian Way. Include effects of traffic adaptive system along the corridor All change statistics are as compared with existing conditions. ** Three lane section for whole corridor. Joe Kott, January 13, 2004, 2003, 2003, Pg. 6 As shown in Table III, due to the improved signal coordination provided by traffic signal adaptive system, it is expected that the travel times for the corridor for all the future traffic scenarios would improve. The travel time savings range from one to three minutes. It is also expected that the total signal delay for the corridor range from one minute increase to a reduction of two minutes. If the three-lane section is extended from Miranda Avenue to Fabian Way, it is expected that travel time and delay might increase marginally over the results of the three-lane section from Alma Street to Fabian Way. The biggest difference might be that the available gaps for pedestrian to cross the street would be reduced. Since the project will include more pedestrian crosswalks with refuge islands as well as potentially several pedestrian signals, the impact on pedestrians would likely be less than significant. Intersection Levels of Service Analysis Table III as shown previously details the travel time and signal delay for the whole study corridor. As such, the change in travel time and delays include both the intersection as well as the mid block travel time in the corridor. The 2015 Comp Plan and 2015 Known Proposal intersection levels of service (LOS) analysis results are shown in Table IV. The levels of service shown in Table IV do not include the signal efficiency effects of implementing a traffic adaptive system. This would be the future base without the proposed study that will include the implementation of a traffic adaptive system. As mentioned earlier, traffic signa! adaptive technology has been proven to increase the signal efficiency by as much as 20 percent over current time of day signal timing. Factoring the effects of a traffic signal adaptive system, the resulting LOS is shown in Table V. Compared to the 2015 future base without the effects of traffic adaptive system, the proposed study project shows LOS improvements at two intersections from LOS E to LOS D and other general delay improvements in the corridor. J." klurisdiction~PIPalo Alto!042-023 Charleston_ArastraderolReports and Documents\M Trm, el times and alt 120403.doc 0~ 0 mm E Z ,,~0 ~F- 0z r~ ~ E Appendix B Foothlt| ExpresSWaY Avenue //// / //// / Appendix D - Community Meeting Notes ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯mm ¯¯¯¯¯¯ rd8o ATTACHMENT F. CHARLESTON/ARASTRADERO CORRIDOR PLAN Final Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration January, 2004 Table of Contents: 1.Mitigated Negative Declaration 2.Mitigation Reporting and Monitoring Program 3.Comment Letters and Responses to Comments (Initial Study & Appendices were included in the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration that was circulated for public review. Copies of this document are available at the Department of Planning and Community Environment) SCH#2003082062 City of Palo Alto 03-EIA-16 City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment California Environmental Quality Act MITIGA TED NE GA TIVE DE CLARA TION CHARLES TON ARAS TRADER O ROAD CORRIDOR PLAN NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared by the Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment for the project listed below. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines, this document is available for review and comment during a minimum 20-day inspection period beginning December 8, 2003 and ending on December 29, 2003. Written comments may be submitted to the Department of Planning and Community Environment during the hours of 8:00 AM to 5:30 PM in the Plalming Division, Civic Center, 250 Hamilton Avenue, (fifth floor), or at the Development Center, 285 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, California or FAX 650-329-2154. The Initial Study prepared for the Mitigated Negative Declaration may be also be reviewed at the Department of Planning and Community Environment I.DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT Date: December 8, 2003 Application Nos.:City of Palo Alto 03-EIA-16 State Clearinghouse #2003082062 Project Location: Charleston-Arastradero Road Corridor is located in the southern portion of the City of Palo Alto. The Corridor begins on Charleston Road approximately ½ mile from Interstate Highway 101 at Fabian Way, and continues 2.3 miles southwest as Charleston Road, crossing the railroad tracks near Alma Street and State Highway 82 (El Camino Real) where the road continues as Axastradero Road and ends at Miranda Avenue. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address: City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94303 Susan Ondik, ~ .............. Planner (650) 617-3131 Susan.Ondik@cityofpaloalto.org Project Description and Location: In April 2003, the Palo Alto City Council mandated preparation of a Charleston-Arastradem Corridor Plan to address school commute and other travel safety concerns for pedestrians, bicyclists and drivers, as well as to incorporate residential amenities along the corridor, without inducing traffic to shift onto nearby residential streets. The roadway improvements proposed in the Corridor Plan are contained within the existing 80- 86’ right-of-way width (which includes the 60-foot curb-to-curb street width plus existing sidewalks and vegetation strip areas) along CharlestordArastradero Road corridor and the existing rights-of-way at each of the ten signalized intersections. Additional information addressing existing conditions, the proposed project’s impacts and mitigation measures, the environmental checklist, and technical reports are contained in the Initial Study prepared for the project. The Charleston/Arastradero Corridor Plan includes the following improvements: ¯Implementation of traffic adaptive (automated) signal technology on the Charleston/Arastradero Corridor. ¯Installation of raised median pedestrian refuges at selected intersections on the Corridor. ¯Installation of lighted (in-pavement, pedestrian actuated) crosswalks to enhance on Arastradero west of Georgia, on Arastradero between Suzanne Drive and Clemo Avenue, on Charleston Road near Mumford Place, and on Charleston Road at Louis and Montrose. ¯Deployment of additional fixed, electronic radar read-out speed advisory signs along the Corridor. ¯Installation ofbulbouts (extended curbs) at selected intersections. ¯Removal of the two free right turn ("pork chop") islands on the southern leg of the E1 Camino Real and West Charleston/Arastradero Road intersection. ¯Provision of continuous bicycle lanes along the entire Corridor. ¯Tinting or painting the bicycle lanes for higher visibility to both motorists and cyclists along the entire Corridor. ¯Selected improvements in Shuttle service, both bus trips and service routes, along the Corridor. ¯Provision on Arastradero of a three-lane cross-section with two through lanes (one in each direction) and an intermittent left turning pockets or lanes interspersed with raised center median islands from Foothill Expressway to Et Carnino Real. Four travel lanes (two in each direction) will be maintained at Foothill, in the vicinity of Gunn High School, and at E1 Carnino Real. An alternative cross-section of four travel lanes (two in each direction) throughout is available and is also feasible on Arastradero Road. ¯Creation of a new dedicated .right turn lane at the Gunn High School driveway for westbound vehicles on Arastradero Road. : Widening the G ~um,~ High Schoo! driveway t~oat to provide for simultaneous eastbound !eft turns into Gunn and westbound right turns. ¯Retaining four travel lanes (two in each direction) on Charleston from E1 Camino Real to Alma with intermittent "tree islands" (small medians). ¯Provision on Charleston Road of a three-lane cross-section with two through lanes (one in each direction) and one intermittent left mining lane interspersed with raised center median islands from Fabian to E1 Camino Real. An alternative cross-section of four travel lanes (two in each direction) throughout is available and is also feasible on Arastradero Road. ¯Provision of a center left turn lane leading and just west of the easterly Hoover Elementary School driveway. ¯Redesign of the existing median at Louis and Montrose. ¯Installation of frontage improvements, including street trees and new street lighting along the Corridor. ¯Demonstration trial of the Corridor Plan with paint, signage, and asphalt curbing in selected sections prior to construction or deployment of final improvements. Charleston Arastradero Corridor Plan MND December 8, 2003 2 The Corridor Plan phasing is as follows: ¯Installation of a new dedicated westbound right turn lane and Gunn High School and associated driveway improvementsto separate right turning from left turning vehicles. ¯Deployment of traffic adaptive traffic signal operation along the entire Corridor. ¯Demonstration trial of three-lane section (two travel lanes, one in each direction) from west of Fabian to east of Foothill Expressway, retaining two travel lanes in each direction at both the east and west approaches of Middlefield, from the east approach to Alma to the west approach to E1 Camino Real, at the east and west approaches to the Gunn High School driveway, and at the east approach to Foothill Expressway. ¯At the conclusion of the demonstration trial, make such permanent changes as proven to be desirable in the trial. ¯Installation of frontage improvements, including street trees and new street lighting. II.DETERMINATION In accordance with the City of Palo Alto’s procedures for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City has conducted an Initial Study to determine whether the proposed Charleston-Arastradero Corridor Plan project may have a significant effect on the environment. On the basis of that study, the City makes the following determination: The proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION is hereby adopted. X Although the project, as proposed, could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect on the environment in this case because mitigation measures have been added to the project and, therefore, a MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION is hereby adopted. The attached initial study incorporates all relevant information regarding the potential environmental effects of the project and confirms the determination that an EIR is not required for the project. The Charleston Arastradero Road Corridor Plan would not result in significant environment impacts from traffic, including level of service, noise and air quality. In addition, the following mitigation measures have been incorporated into the project: Biotic Resources: BIO-1. Comply with Tree Technical Manual and Chapter 8.10 of the PAMC. All proposed improvements would be required to be built per the tree technical manual standards, particularly those in Section 2.20, Activities during Construction & Demolition near trees, using tree protection zones and requirements as illustrated in Images 2.20-1 through 2.20-3. It includes establishing Zones near trees (such as sidewalk, planter strip, tree protection zone, etc. and include precautions to take to avoid soil compaction, to limit grading and excavation, and storage of construction equipment. The City Arborist Charleston Arasuadero Corridor Plan MND December 8, 2003 and Managing A.rborist shall review schematic designs of proposed improvements and their recommendations shall be included in the final design. Guidelines, recommendations, and scheduling of the Arbor Resources & the City of Palo Alto (Arborist comments & City Tree Technical Manual) shall apply during all phases of demolition and construction of the project. BIO-2. Prior to final design, an Arborist Report shall be prepared to assess construction impacts to existing plantings. Where the project includes sidewalk and/or curb relocation or widening appropriate mitigation measures shall be included in order to protect the roots of trees. These mitigation measures shall include a more detailed assessment of both existing private and public shrubs and trees at and adjacent to that ROW. The assessment shall also analyze the proposed new planting scheme for any impacts to existing plantings. The City Arborist and City Managing Arborist shall review the schematic design to determine how the improvement could be accomplished without damaging or removing trees. Whenever possible, the design shall be amended to preserve trees, and measures taken to protect trees during construction, as specified in the City Tree Technical Manual. If the trees cannot be preserved, the assessment shall identify measures to offset the loss of street trees, in accordance with PAMC, Chapter 8.10. The City shall commit to implementing these measures, which would include additional plantings in vacant spaces, new medians, and replacement of declining street trees as listed in the City Street Tree Inventory. BIO-3. Potential tree removal & nesting birds. Any tree removal along the corridor, in addition to meeting the City Tree removal requirements under PAMC Chapter 8.10 and the City Tree Technical Manual, shall also comply with the following. The removal of trees, shrubs, or weedy vegetation should avoid the December 15 through August 31 bird nesting period to the extent possible. If no vegetation or tree removal is proposed during the nesting period, no surveys are required. If it is not feasible to avoid the nesting period, a qualified wildlife biologist should conduct a survey for nesting birds no earlier than 21 days prior to the removal of trees, shrubs, grassland vegetation, grading, or other construction activity. The area surveyed should include all consmaction sites, access roads, and staging areas, as well as areas within 150 feet outside the boundaries of the areas to be cleared or as otherwise determined by the biologist. Survey results shall remain valid for a period of 21 days following the survey. In the event that an active nest is discovered in the areas to be cleared, or in other habitats within 150 feet of construction boundaries, clearing and construction should be postponed for at least two weeks or until a wildlife biologist has determined that the young have fledged (left the nest), the nest is vacated, and there is no evidence of second nesting attempts. Implementation of this mitigation measure would reduce impact to nesting birds to a less-than-significant level. Archeoloa-ical Resources: ARCH -1: In accordance with to the requirements for archaeological resources mitigation in Sections 21083.2(c)-(f) of CEQA, in areas where the curb or sidewalk is expanded, construction work crews shall be aware of the potential for discovery archeological resources. In the event of a discovery, all work at the discovery location shall cease immediately and a qualified archaeologist retained to evaluate the fred. The archaeologist shall first determine whether an archaeological resource uncovered during construction is a "unique archaeological resource" under Public Resources Code Section 21083.2(g) or a historical resource under Section 15064.5(a)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines. If the archaeological resource is determined to be a "unique archaeological resource" or a historical resource, the archaeologist shall formulate a mitigation plan in consultation with the City that satisfies the requirements of Section 21083.2(c)-(f) of CEQA. If the archaeologist determines that the archaeological resource is not a unique archaeological resource or a historical resource, the archaeologist may record the site and submit the recordation form to the California Historic Resources Information System Northwest Information Center. The archaeologist shall prepare a report of the results of any study prepared as part of a mitigation plan, following accepted professional practice. Copies of the report shall be submitted to the City and to the California Historic Resources Information System Northwest Information Center. In the event of any Charleston Arastradero Corridor Plan MND December 8, 2003 4 accidental discovery of human remains, the Santa Clara County Coroner’s Office shall be notified immediately. The coroner would determine if the remains are those of a Native American, and if they are shall comply with the CEQA guidelines Section 15064.5(e). Temporary Construction Impacts: NOISE-l: Construction hours would be limited to Monday through Friday 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. and Saturday 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., as per City Noise Ordinance, Chapter 9.10 requirements. All construction truck traffic shall conform to the City of Palo Alto Trucks and Traffic Ordinance (10.48) that details city truck routes. Average Noise Levels of typical construction equipment is included in Table 2 of the Technical Memorandum. At 50-100 feet construction vehicle noises ranges from 70 - 90 dBA, but with noise control these can be reduced to 60 - 80 dBA. The project shall be required to follow standard construction techniques and best management practices, including the development of a Construction Management Plan that would include measures taken to reduce construction noise. In addition, the contractor would adjust the construction schedule to be sensitive to nearby land uses, use temporary noise barriers, and use the proper equipment and shielding for construction machinery and tools. AIR QUALITY-1. Implement Best Management Practices to Reduce Air Emissions During Construction. The City shall include in construction contracts the fo!lowing requirements: Cover all truck hauling construction and demolition debris from the site; Water all exposed or disturbed soil surfaces at least twice daily; Use watering to control dust generation during demolition of structures or break-up of pavement; Pave, apply water three times daily, or apply (non-toxic) soi! stabilizers on all unpaved parking areas and staging areas; Sweep daily (with water sweepers) all paved parking areas and staging areas during the earthwork phases of construction; Provide daily clean-up of mud and dirt carried onto paved streets from the site; Enclose, cover, water twice daily, or apply non-toxic soil binders to exposed stockpiles (dirt, sand, etc.); Limit traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 15 mph; Install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff to public roadways; and Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as possible. Public Services: Fire Department Service - PUBSERV- 1: Since the improvements would be phased and tested prior to placement, part of the City testing shall include fire department emergency access and tests of response time through traffic to address specific areas of concern before the permanent facilities are in place. The Transportation department shall also work with the Fire Department to integrate areas of concern into the designs as they progress. The traffic adaptive system shall integrate a sytem of traffic signal pre-emption, such as the Opticom Traffic Signal pre-emption system. UtiliU’ Service - PUBSERV - 2: Similar to biological (tree) resources discussion, Comply with Recommendation for Supplementary Assessment if Sidewalk or Curb expanded. In order to protect existing utility systems in the ROW, if the project includes sidewalk or curb location or widening (where the curb or sidewalks spreads further out than existing conditions), in any areas, the following shall occur. In locations where the existing curb or sidewalk is relocated/widened out, a more detailed assessment of existing utility placements and proposed improvements shal! occur to the satisfaction of the City’s Public Works and Utilities Departments. These departments shall review the proposed design and assessment and determine whether the improvement could be accomplished without impacting existing utilities. The design shall be amended to maintain existing utility service. The proposed improvements, with the above Charleston Arasn-adero Corridor Plan MND December 8, 2003 5 mitigation, are considered minor improvements to the existing utility systems, and therefore a less than significant impact. ndik, Envir~-nmental Planner Date Date Charleston Arastradero Corridor Plan MND December 8, 2003 CHARLESTON/ARASTRADERO CORRIDOR PLAN Mitigation Reporting And Monitoring Program SCH# 2003082062 City of Palo Alto - 03-EIA- 16 City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Communiff Environment CHARLESTON - ARASTRADERO ROAD CORRIDOR MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION MITIGATION REPORTING AND MONITORING PROGRAM (SCH # 2003082062 & City of Palo Alto #03-EIA-16) The Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial Study identifies environmental factors that would be potentially affected by the proposed project with regard to Biotic Resources, Archeological Resources, Temporary Construction Impact and Public Services. None of these factors are "Potential Significant Issues". All feasible changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental impacts identified in the Initial Study and some mitigation is incorporated. The Mitigation Reporting and Monitoring Program describes each potentially affected environmental factor, appropriate mitigation measures that were incorporated into the plan, and the responsible agency and time frame for mitigation monitoring. BIOTIC RESOURCES: BIO-I: Comply with Tree Technical Manual and Chapter 8.10 of the PAMC. All proposed improvements shall be required to be built per the tree technica! manual standards, particularly those in Section 2.20, Activities during Construction & Demolition near trees, using tree protection zones and requirements as illustrated in Images 2.20-1 through 2.20-3. It includes establishing Zones near trees (such as sidewalk, planter strip, tree protection zone, etc. and include precautions to take to avoid soil compaction, to limit grading and excavation, and storage of construction equipment. The City Arborist and Managing Arborist shall review schematic designs of proposed improvements and their recommendations shal! be included in the final design. Guidelines, recommendations, and scheduling of the Arbor Resources & the City of Palo Alto (Arborist comments & City Tree Technical Manual) shall apply during all phases of demolition and construction of the project. Responsible Agency for mitigation monitoring: The City of Palo Alto Time frame for mitigation monitoring: 1. Design development and preconstruction activities. Applicable City departments, including the City Arborist are responsible for review of tree protection measures, the Tree Protection and Preservation Plan and the Construction Management Plan as project design proceeds to ensure that mitigation is included in the implementation projects of the Plan. 2. Monitor during construction activities. The project arborist shall report to the City of Palo Alto Planning Arborist. The project arboris( shall perform inspections of any prescribed tree protection measures. Site inspections to monitor tree condition on a minimum of four-week intervals shall also occur. The Planning Arborist shall be in receipt of the inspection report during the first week of each month until completic;n. 3. Mitigation monitoring for additional plantings will also extend to a minimum of at least a year after completion of construction to ensure the health and retention of trees. The City has an ongoing monitoring program for city street trees. Any trees planted within the right-of-way as part of the Corridor Plan shall be added to the City Street Tree Inventory. A-1 Charleston-Arastradero Corridor Improvement Plan Mitigation Reporting & Monitoring Progam (SCH # 2003082062 & City of Palo Alto #03-EIA-16) BIO-2: Prior to final design, an Arborist Report shall be prepared to assess construction impacts to existing plantings. Where the project includes sidewalk and/or curb relocation or widening appropriate mitigation measures shall be included in order to protect the roots of trees. These mitigation measures shall include a more detailed assessment of both existing private and public shrubs and trees at and adjacent to that ROW. The assessment shall also analyze the proposed new planting scheme for any impacts to existing plantings. The City Arborist and City Managing Arborist shall review the schematic design to determine how the improvement could be accomplished without damaging or removing trees. Whenever possible, the design shall be amended to preserve trees, and measures taken to protect trees during construction, as specified in the City Tree Technical Manual. If the trees cannot be preserved, the assessment shall identify measures to offset the loss of street trees, in accordance with PAMC, Chapter 8.10. The City shall commit to implementing these measures, which shall include additional plantings in vacant spaces, new medians, and replacement of declining street trees as listed in the City Street Tree Inventory. Responsible Agency for mitigation monitoring: The City of Palo Alto. Time frame for mitigation monitoring: 1. Design development and preconstruction activities. Applicable City departments, including the City Arborist are responsible for review of tree protection measures, the Tree Protection and Preservation Plan and the Construction Management Plan as project design proceeds to ensure that mitigation is included in the implementation projects of the Plan. 2. Monitor during construction activities. The project arborist shall report to the City of Palo Alto Planning Arborist. The project arborist shall perform inspections of any prescribed tree protection measures. Site inspections to monitor tree condition on a minimum of four-week intervals shall also occur. The Planning Arborist shall be in receipt of the inspection report during the first week of each month until completion. 3. Mitigation monitoring for additional plantings wil! also extend to a minimum of at least a year after completion of construction to ensure the health and retention of trees. The City has an ongoing monitoring program for city street trees. Any trees planted within the right-of-way as ...... part of the Corridor Plan shall be added to the City Street Tree Inventory. BIO-3. Potential tree removal & nesting birds. Any tree removal along the corridor, in addition to meeting the City Tree removal requirements under PAMC Chapter 8.10 and the City Tree Technical Manual, shall also comply with the following. The removal of trees, shrubs, or weedy vegetation should avoid the December 15 through August 31 bird nesting period to the extent possible. If no vegetation or tree removal is proposed during the nesting period, no surveys are required. If it is not feasible to avoid the nesting period, a qualified wildlife biologist should conduct a survey for nesting birds no earlier than 21 days prior to the removal of trees, shrubs, gassland vegetation, grading, or other construction activity. The area surveyed should include all construction sites, access roads, and staging areas, as well as areas within 150 feet outside the boundaries of the areas to be cleared or as otherwise determined by the biologist. Survey results shall remain valid for a period of 21 days following the survey. In the event that an active nest is discovered in the areas to be cleared, or in other habitats within !50 feet of construction boundaries, clearin~ and construction should be postponed for at least two weeks or until a wildlife biologist 2 Charleston-Arastradero Corridor Improvement Plan Mitigation Reporting & Monitoring Pro~am (SCH # 2003082062 & City of Palo Alto #03-EIA-16) has determined that the young have fledged (left the nest), the nest is vacated, and there is no evidence of second nesting attempts. Implementation of this mitigation measure will reduce impact to nesting birds to a less-than-significant level. Responsible Agency for mitigation monitoring: . The City of Palo Alto Time flame for mitigation monitoring: 1. Design and Pre-construction. The City Project Manager and applicable City departments are responsible for review during design development to ensure that mitigation is included in the implementation projects of the Plan, including any necessary bird surveys. 2. Monitor during construction activities. The City of Palo Alto and Project Construction Manager is responsible for review and implementation of recommendations resulting from any bird survey, if applicable, including monitoring construction and the notification of appropriate authorities. ARCHEOLOGICAL RESOURCES: ARCH-1: In accordance with to the requirements for archaeological resources mitigation in Sections 21083.2(c)-(f) of CEQA, in areas where the curb or sidewalk is expanded, construction work crews shall be aware of the potential for discovery archeological resources. In the event of a discovery, all work at the discovery location shall cease immediately and a qualified archaeologist retained to evaluate the find. The archaeologist shall first determine whether an archaeological resource uncovered during construction is a "unique archaeological resource" under Public Resources Code Section 21083.2(g) or a historical resource under Section 15064.5(a)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines. If the archaeological resource is determined to be a "unique archaeological resource" or a historical resource, the archaeologist shall formulate a mitigation plan in consultation with the City that satisfies the requirements of Section 2!083.2(c)-(f) of CEQA. If the archaeologist determines that the archaeological resource is not a unique archaeological resource or a historical resource, the archaeologist may record the site and submit the recordation form to the California Historic Resources Information System Northwest Information Center. The archaeologist shall prepare a report of the results of any study prepared as part of a mitigation plan, following accepted professional practice. Copies of the report shall be submitted to the City and to the California Historic Resources Information System Northwest Information Center. In the event of any accidental discovery of human remains, the Santa Clara County Coroner’s Office shall be notified immediately. The coroner would determine if the remains are those of a Native American, and if they are shall comply with the CEQA guidelines Section 15064.5(e). Responsible Agency for mitigation monitoring: The City of Palo Alto Time frame for miugation monitoring: 1. Design development and preconstruction activities. Applicable City departments are responsible for review of the implementation projects’ Construction Management Plans to ensure mitigation, including a plan if an archeological discovery is found, is included in the project. 3 Charleston-Arastradero Corridor Improvement Plan Mitigation Reporting & Monitoring Pro~am (SCH # 2003082062 & City of Palo Alto #03-EIA-16) 2.Monitor during construction. The City of Palo Alto and Project Construction Manager is responsible for monitoring construction for archeological materials and the notification of appropriate authorities. TEMPO1L&RY CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS: NOISE-l: Construction hours shall be limited to Monday through Friday 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. and Saturday 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., as per City Noise Ordinance, Chapter 9.10 requirements. All construction track traffic shall conform to the City of Palo Alto Trucks and Traffic Ordinance (10.48) that details city truck routes. Average Noise Levels of typical construction equipment is included in Table 2 of the Technical Memorandum. At 50-100 feet construction vehicle noises ranges from 70 - 90 dBA, but with noise control these can be reduced to 60 - 80 dBA. The project shall be required to follow standard construction techniques and best management practices, including the development of a Construction Management Plan that shall include measures taken to reduce construction noise. In addition, the contractor shall adjust the construction schedule to be sensitive to nearby land uses, use temporary noise barriers, and use the proper equipment and shielding for construction machinery and tools. Responsible Agency for mitigation monitoring: The City of Palo Alto Time frame for mitigation monitoring: 1. Design development and preconstruction activities. The applicable City departments are responsible for review of construction management plans prepared to ensure mitigation is included in the projects constructed under the Plan. 2. Monitor during construction activities. The City Police Department is responsible for the implementation of the Noise Ordinance and monitoring of construction hours. The City of Palo Alto and the construction project manager are responsible for monitoring that the conditions are implemented. Project design and construction also requires coordination with Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority, California Department of Transportation and Santa Clara Valley Water District. AIR QUALITY-1. Implement Best Management Practices to Reduce Air Emissions During Construction. The City shall include in construction contracts the following requirements: Cover all truck hauling construction and demolition debris from the site; Water all exposed or disturbed soil surfaces at least twice daily; Use watering to control dust generation during demolition of structures or break-up of pavement; Pave, apply water three times daily, or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers on all unpaved par-king areas and staging areas; Sweep daily (with water sweepers) all paved parking areas and staging areas during the earthwork phases of construction; Provide daily clean-up of mud and dirt carried onto paved streets from the site; Enclose, cover, water twice daily, or apply non-toxic soil binders to exposed stockpiles (dirt. sand, etc.); 4 Charleston-Arastradero Corridor Improvement Plan Mitigation Reporting & Monitoring Progam (SCH # 2003082062 & City of Palo Alto #03-EIA-16) -Limit traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 15 mph; -Install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff to public roadways; and Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quic-kly as possible. Responsible Agency for mitigation monitoring: The City of Palo Alto Time frame for mitigation monitoring: 1. Desig-n development and preconstmction activities. Applicable City departments are responsible for review of, prior to granting any ~ading permit, the Construction Management Plan prepared for projects implemented under the Plan to ensure mitigation is included. 2.Monitor during construction activities. City of Palo Alto and the project manager will monitor that the Construction Management Plans including dust control measures are followed. PUBLIC SERVICES: Fire Department Service - PUBSERV- 1: The improvements shall be phased and tested prior to placement, part of the City testing shall include fire department emergency access and tests of response time through traffic to address specific areas of concern before the permanent facilities are in place. The Transportation department shall also work with the Fire Department to integrate areas of concern into the designs as they progess. The traffic adaptive system shall inte~ate a system of traffic signal pre-emption, such as the Opticom Traffic Si_~nal pre-emption system. Responsible Agency for mitigation monitoring: The City of Palo _Alto Time frame for mitigation monitoring: 1. Design development and preconstruction activities. Applicable City departments, including the City Fire and Transportation Departments are responsible for review of design of implementation projects for the Plan to ensure mitigation is included in the project. 2. Monitor during construction activities. City of Palo Alto and the project manager will monitor that the concerns brought up during and following the testing phase of implementation projects are documented and any measures taken to address these concerns. Utility Service - PUBSERV - 2: Similar to biological (tree) resources discussion, Comply with Recommendation for Supplementary Assessment if Sidewalk or Curb expanded. In order to protect existing utility systems in the ROW, if the project includes sidewalk or curb location or widening (where the curb or sidewalks spreads further out than existing conditions), in any areas, the following shall occur. In locations where the existing curb or sidewalk is relocated/widened out, a more detailed assessment of existing utility placements and proposed improvements shall occur to the satisfaction of the City’ s PuNic Works and Utilities Departments. These departments shall review the proposed design and assessment and determine whether the improvement could be accomplished without impacting existing utilities. The design shall be amended to maintain existing utility service. The proposed improvements, with the above mitigation, are considered minor improvements to the existing utility systems, and therefore a less than significant impact. 5 Charleston-Arastradero Corridor Improvement Plan Mitigation Reporting & Monitoring Progam (SCH # 2003082062 & City of Palo Alto #03-EIA-16) Responsible Agency for mitigation monitoring: The City of Pa!o Alto & Santa Clara Valley Water District Time frame for mitigation monitoring: 1. Design development and preconstruction activities. The applicable City departments, including the City Public Works and Utilities Departments are responsible for the review of project designs prepared to ensure mitigation is included in the project. Work on or near the Adobe Creek bridge on Charleston Corridor must also receive review and approval by the Santa Clara Valley Water District. 2. Monitor during construction. The City of Palo Alto and Project Construction Manager is responsible for monitoring construction of projects under the Plan, including any additional coordination of Public Works or Utilities review and/or monitoring during project construction. 6 CHARLESTON/ARASTRADERO CORRIDOR PLAN Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Comments And Responses to Comments January, 2004 The following written comments were received on the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration: 1.Valley Transportation Authority (VTA), December 29, 2003 2.Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCV~1D), January 2, 2004 [Note: Comments fi’om the SCVWD were received after the close of the public review period, December 29, 20031 3. State of California, State Clearinghouse, January 5, 2004 [No response is required] This section includes copies of the comment letters and responses to the comments from the VTA and SCVWD. Jallual3:, 2004 SCH# 2003082062 City of Palo Alto - 03-EIA- 16 Chareleston/Arastradero Corridor Plan Responses to written comments on the Mitigated Negative Declaration: (Copies of the comment letters are attached) 1.Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) Comment Letter dated December 29, 2003. Comment: "VTA provides bus service along Charleston and Arastradero Roads. In order to meet the project objectives concerning improved travel along the corridor and to provide increased accessibility to transit service, VTA staff recommend that improvements to existing bus stops, in accordance with VTA and Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) standards, be included as part of the project. Our specific recommendations for each bus stop are attached. VTA staff are available to work with City staff concerning the design of the bus stop improvements. Response: The comment is noted. The City will coordinate with the VTA regarding the construction or improvements for bus stops during further design development and prior to implementation of Plan projects. 2.Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) Comment Letter dated January 2, 2004 Comment: "In accordance with District Ordinance 83-2, all projects within 50feet from a District facility are subject to review and issuance of a District perrnitpriorto construction. This includes construction, gT"ading, paving, and landscaping. The proposed project may impact Adobe Creek where Charleston Road crosses the creek. The District has fee title property along Adobe Creek downstream of Charleston Road and an easement upstream of Charleston Road. Charleston!Arastradero Corridor Plan MND - Responses to Comments Response: The comment is noted. As proposed, the project would not impact Adobe Creek. All improvements are within the existing City right-of- way. The City will coordinate all improvements within 50 feet of a District facility with the SCVWD during design development of implementation projects. Where required, the City will obtain District permits prior to construction. Charleston/Axastradero Corridor Plan MND - Responses to Comments 2 Velie~ Tr~mportotioe Authority December 29, 2003 Cit7 of Palo Alto Planning Department P.O. Box 10250 P~o Alt.,o, CA 94303 A~en~ion: Susan Ondik Subject: Cir~ File No.: 0gELi-16 / Charleston-Araswadero Corridor Plan Dear Iv’m, Ondik: Santa Clara V~dley Transportation AuthoritT (VTA) staff have rex&ewed the MiNgated Negative Declaration for the corridor study to address transportation issues and pedestrian/bicycle safety for the axea along Axast,radero Road and Cha~Ieston Road, We have the following contrnen~s. VTA provides bus service along Charleston and Arasu’adero Roads. In order ~o meet the project objectives concerning improved travel along ~he corridor and to provide increased accessibility zo umnsit service, ~’rA stmff recommend that improvements e~ds~i~g bus stops, in accordance ~ith VTA and Americans ~ith Disabilities Act (ADA) standards, be included as par~ of the project. Our specific recommenda12ons for each bus stop are attached. I~A s’ruff are available to work wi~. CiD" stuff concerning design of ~e bus stop improvementa. Thank you for the opportuniD, ~o review this project. If you h2.ve any questions, please cal! me at (408) 321-5784. Sincerely. / Roy Molseed Senior Environmen~ Planner RM:kh cc: Ron Wong, Proposed Arastradero Road/Charleston Road Bus Stop Improvements (1) #148005 WB Charleston Rd. NS Grove *Fill in planter strip, 40’ long Passenger Waiting Pad *install 10’x55’ PCC Bus pad (2) #148014 EB Charleston Rd. FS Suthedand Drive *Fill in planter strip, 40’ long F~assenger Waiting Pad *Install 10’x55’ PCC Bus Pad ArasL-adero-Chadeston.doc Proposed Arastradero Road/Charleston Road Bus Stop Improvements (3) #148016 WB Charleston Road FS Middlefield Road "Install 10’x55’ PCC Bus Pad (4) #148018 EB Charleston Road FS Middlefield Road *Install 10’x55’ PCC Bus Pad Arastradero-Chade~ton.doc 2 1212912883 16:28 ~083215787 ENVIRON ~L.¥SIS P~GE BS Proposed Arastradero Road/Charleston Road Bus Stop Improvements (5) #’138002 EB Charleston Road NS Nelson Drive =Install 10’×55’ PCC Bus Pad or Repair Damaged Curb & Gutter (6) #138003 WB Charleston Road At Stevenson House "Fill-in Additional Planter Strip W/PCC For Access to Rear Door of Bus *Install 10’x55’ PCC Bus Pad Arastradero-Chadeston.doc 3 12/29/2883 15:28 4883215787 ENVIP.DN /~_¥SIS P~ 86 Proposed Arastradero Road/Charleston Road Bus Stop Improvements (7) #t38008 WB Charleston Road NS Carlson Court *Fill-in Planter Strip W/40’ Long PCC Passenger Waiting Pad *Install 10’x55’ PCC Bus Pad (8) #138009 =_B Charleston Road FS Cadson Court *Remove Shrubs, Fill-in Planter Stdp W/40’ Long PCC Passenger Waiting Pad *Install 10’x55’ PCC Bus Pad Arastradero-Chadeston.doc 4 1212~120B3 l~:2B 4B83215787 ENVIRON bb~_YSIS PAGE B7 Proposed Arastradero Road/Charleston Road Bus Stop Improvements (9) #138006 WB Charleston Road NS Wright Place *Install 10’x55’ PCC Bus Pad (10) #138007 EB Chariest.on Road NS Mumford Place *Flit-in Planter Strip W/40’ Long PCC Passenger Waiting Pad *Install 10’x55’ PCC Bus Pad Arastradero-Chadeston.doc 5 Proposed Arastradero Road/Charleston Road Bus Stop Improvements (11 ) #137904 EB Charleston Road FS Alma St. *Fill-in Planter Strip 40’ Long PCC Passenger Pad *Install 10’x55’ PCC Bus Pad . (12) #137905 WB W. Charleston Road FS Park Blvd.*Install PGC Pad At BOW 40’ Long (Provide 8’ Wide Pax Pad) *install 10’x5,~’ PCC Bus Pad Arastradero-Charleston.doc 6 Proposed Arastradero Road/Charleston Road Bus Stop Improvements (13) #127910 EB W. Charleston Road NS Ruthelma Ave. *Install 10’x55’ PCC Bus Pad (14) #127908 EB W. Charleston Road FS El CaminoReal *Install 10’×55’ PCC Bus Pad Arastradero-Chad eston,doc 7 12/29/2883 16:28 4883215787 E!~IPJ3N ~L.~SIS PAGE~ &8 Proposed Arastradero Road/Charleston Road Bus Stop improvements (15) #127909 WB Arastradero Road FS El Camino Real *Instal110’x55’ PCC Bus Pad (18) #127804 WB Arastradero NS Coulombe Drive *Install 10’x’55’ PCC Bus Pad Arastradero-Chadeston.doc 8 ÷~ ~ ;~2/29/2BB3 l@:2B ~8B32157B7 ENVIRON ~LVSIS P~ ii Proposed Arastradero Road/Charleston Road Bus Stop Improvements (17) #127803 EB Arast~adero Road NS SuTanne Drive =Install 8’x40’ PCC Passenger Waiting *install 10’x40’ PCC Bus Pad (18) #117802 WB Arastradero Road N8 Donald bdve *Install 10’x55’ PCC Bus Pad Arastradero-C harleston.doc 9 Proposed Arastradero Road/Charleston Road Bus Stop Impi:ovements (19) #117801 EB Arastradero Road NS Ten’nan *Enlarge Passenger Waiting Pad, South of Tree *Install 10’x55’ PCC Bus Pad (20) #117703 WB Arastradero Road AT Gunn H.$. *Install !0’x55’ PCC Bus Pad Arastrad ero-Charleston .doc 10 1212912883 16:28 4883215787 ENVIP.BN ~N~_YSIS Pt-~:~_ 13 Proposed Arastradero Road/Charleston Road Bus Stop Improvements (21) #117704 EB Arastradero Road OP Gunn H.S. *Install 10’×5~’ PCC Bus Pad Arastradero-Charteston.doc 11 SAN JOSE, CA 95118-3686 TELEPHONE 1408) 265-2600 FACSIMILE (408) 266-0271 www.valleywater.org AN EQUAL OPPORTUN)TY EMP[OYE~ Janua~ 2,2004 File:17823 Adobe Creek Ms. Susan Ondik Department of Planning and Community Environment City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94303 Subject:Initial Study and Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration for Charleston/Arastradero Corridor Dear Ms. Ondik: The Santa Clara Valley Water District (District) staff has reviewed the Initial Study and Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Charleston/Arastradero Corridor dated December 2003. In accordance with District Ordinance 83-2, all projects within 50 feet from a District facility are subject to review and issuance of a District permit prior to construction. This includes construction, grading, paving, and landscaping. The proposed project may impact Adobe Creek where Charleston Road crosses the creek. The District has fee title property along Adobe Creek downstream of Charleston Road and an easement upstream of Charleston Road. For those portions of the proposed projects that are adjacent to Adobe Creek, please forward two sets of plans to us for review. Thank you for the opportunity to review the Initial Study. If you have any further questions, please call me at (408) 265-2607, extension 2586, or email me at kturner@valleywater.org. Sincerely, Kathrin A. Turner Assistant Engineer Community Projects Review Unit cc: S. Tippets, B. Goldie, K. Turner, File (2) kt:jl 0102c-pl.doc The mission of the Santa Clara Valley Water District is a healthy, safe and enhanced quality of living in Santa Clara Counly throuah watershed Araold Schwarzen~gger Governor January 5, 2004 STATE OF CALIFORNIA Governor’s Office of Planning and Research State Clearinghouse and Planning Unit Jan Bo¢l lat~im Deputy Director Susan O~dik City, of Palo Alto, Plarming Deparmaem 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94303 Subiect: Charleston-Arastradero Corridor Plan 5Clig: 2003082062 Dear Susan Ondik: The State Clearinghouse submitted the above named Negative Declaration to selected state agencaes for review. The review period closed on December 30, 2004, and no state agencies submitted commeats by thal date. This letter acl~.nowledges that you have compiled with the State Clearinghouse review requiremems for draft envtronmeutal documents, pursuant to the California Enviroamental Quality Act. l’lcase call the State Clearinghouse st (9] 6) 445-0613 if you have any questions regarding the environmental review process. If you have a questio~ about the above-named project, please refer to the ten-digit State Clea~aghouse number when contacting tl~s office. Sincerely, 1400 TENTH STREET P.O. BOX 3044, SACRAMENTO, CALIFORaNIA 95812-3044 (916),445-0613 FAX(916)323,3018 www.opr.ca.gov :. ATTACHMENT G T NSPOR TA TION DIVISION STAFF REPORT TO:PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION FROM:Joseph Kott DEPARTMENT: Planning and Community Environment AGENDA DATE: December 10, 2003 SUBJECT:Review and Recommendations to Council on a Proposed Charleston/ Arastradero Corridor Plan of Improvements from Fabian to Miranda RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the following CharlestoniArastradero Corridor Plan: 1.Implementation of traffic adaptive (automated) signal technology on the Charleston/Arastradero Corridor to add traffic capacity and reduce stopped delay on the Corridor. This is an essential pre-condition that should be met prior to reducing the number of travel lanes on any section of the CharlestoniArastradero Corridor. 2. Installation of raised median pedestrian refuges at selected intersections on the Corridor. 3. Installation of lighted (in-pavement, pedestrian actuated) crosswalks to enhance pedestrian crossing safety on Arastradero west of Georgia, on Arastradero between Suzanne Drive and Clemo Avenue, on Charleston Road near Mumford Place, and on Charleston Road at Louis and Montrose. 4. Deployment of additional fixed, electronic radar read-out speed advisory signs along the Corridor to reduce the incidence of motor vehicle speeding. 5. Installation of bulbouts (extended curbs) to reduce pedestrian crossing distance at selected intersections. 6. Removal of the two free right turn ("pork chop") islands to improve bicycle and pedestrian safety on the southern leg of the E1 Camino Real and West Charleston/Arastradero Road intersection. H:\CMRS\P-TC\Char-Aras.doc Page 1 7. Provision of continuous bicycle lanes along the entire Corridor to enhance cycling safety. 8. Tinting or painting the bicycle lanes for higher visibility to both motorists and cyclists along the entire Corridor. 9. Selected improvements in Shuttle service, both bus trips and service routes, along the Corridor sufficient to meet the Council-adopted Performance Measure of a 20 percent increase in public transit ridership along the Corridor by 2010 and a 40 percent increase in 2020. The transit improvement plan is still in preparation, but will likely feature a change in Shuttle service frequency on the Corridor (e.g. changing from 30 minutes to 15 minute frequency). 10. Provision on Arastradero of a three-lane cross-section with two through lanes (one in each direction) and an intermittent left turning pockets or lanes interspersed with raised center median islands from Foothill Expressway to E1 Camino Real. Four travel lanes (two in each direction) will be maintained at Foothill, in the vicinity of Gunn High School, and at E1 Camino Real. These changes create space (by reallocating space from use as travel lanes to wider bicycle lanes, sections of landscape medians and "tree islands (small landscaped medians), raised center median pedestrian refuges, and center left turn lanes for more efficient and safer traffic operations. An alternative cross-section of four travel lanes (two in each direction) throughout is available and is also feasible on Arastradero Road. 11. Creation of a new dedicated right turn lane at the Gunn High School driveway for westbound vehicles on Arastradero Road. 12. Widening the Gunn High School driveway throat to permit simultaneous eastbound left turns into Gunn and westbound right turns. The left and right turning vehicles are to be separated and channelized by a small raised median. 13. Retaining a four travel lanes (two in each direction) on Charleston from E1 Camino Real to Alma with intermittent "tree islands" (small medians). 14. Provision on Charleston Road of a three-lane cross-section with two through lanes (one in each direction) and one intermittent left turning lane interspersed with raised center median islands from Fabian to E1 Camino Real. These changes create room (by reallocating space from use as travel lanes to wider bicycle lanes, sections of landscape medians and "tree islands (small landscaped medians), raised center median pedestrian refuges, and center left turn lanes for more efficient and safer traffic operations. An alternative cross-section of four travel lanes (two in each direction) throughout is available and is also feasible on Arastradero Road. 15. Four travel lanes (two in each direction) will be maintained at Middlefield, Alma and E1 Camino Real. 16. Provision of a center left turn lane leading and just west of the easterly Hoover Elementary School driveway (presupposing reversal of the existing circulation from Charleston into and out Hoover). H :\CMRS\P-TC\Char-Aras.doc Page 2 17.Redesign of the existing median at Louis and Montrose to retain it as a block to through movement between Louis and Montrose while improving left turn vehicular movements in and out of Louis. 18.Installation of frontage improvements, including street trees and new street lighting along the Corridor. 19. Demonstration trial of the Corridor Plan with paint, signage, and asphalt curbing in selected sections prior to construction or deployment of final improvements. Recommended Corridor Plan phasing is as follows: 1.Installation of a new dedicated westbound right turn lane and Gunn High School and associated driveway improvements to separate right turning from lest turning vehicles. 2.Deployment of traffic adaptive traffic signal operation along the entire Corridor. 3.Demonstration trial of three-lane section (two travel lanes, one in each direction) from west of Fabian to east of Foothill Expressway, retaining two travel lanes in each direction at both the east and west approaches of Middlefield, from the east approach to Alma to the west approach to E1 Camino Real, at the east and west approaches to the Gunn High School driveway, and at the east approach to Foothill Expressway. 4. At the conclusion of the demonstration trial, make such permanent changes as proven to be desirable in the trial. 5. Installation of frontage improvements, including street trees and new street lighting. BACKGROUND At its April 14, 2003 meeting, Council directed staffto prepare a plan of transportation and urban design/landscape improvements for the Charleston/Arastradero Road Corridor (CMR:237:03). A map of the corridor is included as Attachment A. Council also directed staff to return with a report on land use assumptions, to be included in projecting future traffic conditions on the corridor before such predictions were undertaken. The range of land use projections was reviewed by the Council on June 9, 2003 (CMR:310:03). The expected outcomes of the Charleston/Arastradero redesign include safer; more attractive routes to schools; well-landscaped medians where possible; and pedestrian, bicycle, and bus transit improvements all along the corridor. Other key purposes of the transportation plan will be to provide safer traffic flow along the corridor and to reduce the incidence of vehicle speeding, without reduction in vehicle travel times or causing diversion of through traffic to other streets. An initial set of performance measures for the Corridor, based on best practices in traffic engineering assessment, was presented for discussion at public meetings on July 10 and July 15. A refined and expanded set of road performance measures was then presented to an informal focus group of Corridor stakeholders. The set of road performance measures was H:\CMRS\P-TC\Char-Aras.doc Page 3 further refined and expanded for presentation to the Planning and Transportation Commission and Council (CMR:430:03), which approved them on September 22, 2003. Conceptual plans and alternatives for improving the Charleston/Arastradero corridor were presented and discussed at public meetings on October 15 and October 22, 2003 (see Attachment B for public comments from these workshops) and at meetings of the informal focus group of Corridor stakeholders. Staff and a project consultant made a presentation on the conceptual alternatives to Corridor PTA representatives and one principal (Terman Middle School) on November 13. Staff also presented information of the Corridor Plan conceptual alternatives to the Palo Alto Bicycle Advisory Committee on November 12. Conceptual plans were presented at a joint study session of City Council and the Planning and Transportation Commission (CMR:524:03). A variety of information on the Corridor plan effort is being disseminated on the project web site: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org /charleston-arastradero/index.html. A full narrative description of the Corridor Plan is contained in Attachment C. DISCUSSION Morning weekday peak hour traffic volume on the Corridor is projected to rise from the current average of from 765 to 866 (depending on street section) to from approximately 1,000 to 1,200 (depending on street section and land development scenario) by the year 2015. These projections do not take into account increases in public transit and Palo Alto Shuttle use (a 50 percent increase in passenger boardings by 2010), bicycling (a 20 percent increase by 2010 and a 40 percent increase by 2020), and walking (a 20 percent increase by 2010 and a 40 percent increase by 2020). Traffic engineers consider that a three lane cross-section is capable of accommodating up approximately 1,000 vehicles per hour before cross street and residential driveway motorists begin to experience difficulty entering the vehicle stream. In these circumstances, entering motorists have an average time gap for entry of 3.6 seconds. The proposed Charleston!Arastradero Road Corridor improvement plans comprise a set of physical, operational, electronic, and aesthetic measures to improve safety for all modes of travel (with particular emphasis on cycling and walking conditions) while ensuring efficient traffic flow and avoiding traffic shift onto nearby residential streets. The plans were developed to meet expected traffic conditions to the year 2015, as forecast by Palo Alto’s new citywide computer traffic model, according to two future land use scenarios approved for traffic modeling purposes by Council on June 9, 2003. The two scenarios are: 1) Comprehensive Plan EIR growth scenario extended to 2015, and 2) "known (development) proposals" to the year 2015. These computer forecasts and traffic analysis of the current and expected conditions on the Corridor suggest that Charleston/Arastradero Road can be re- designed to enhance traffic safety without inducing increased vehicle travel time or vehicle delay at signalized intersections. H:\CMRS\P-TC\Char-Aras.doc Page 4 Integral to this finding is the conclusion that the potential traffic capacity (up to a 20 percent increase according to the Federal Highway Administration) can be handled by automating the traffic signals along the Corridor to operate in "traffic-adaptive" mode (i.e. electronic reallocation in the next signal cycle of green time at each signalized intersection along the entire Corridor in response to real time traffic conditions); and providing dedicated left-turn pockets and lanes, which move lefi-tuming vehicles out of the through traffic stream. Attachment D presents the traffic analysis for the Corridor and information about traffic- adaptive signal operation. The traffic analysis includes the effect of achievement of the non- auto mode (transit, cycling, and walking) using performance targets for the Corridor under a three-lane cross section scenario (excepting major intersections and Alma to E1 Camino Real, which will be kept at two travel lanes in each direction). Both travel time on the entire Corridor and stop delay at each of the Corridor’s signalized intersections decreases with deployment of traffic adaptive signal technology and falls even further with attainment of alternative modes performance measures compared to 2015 traffic projections without implementation of the Corridor Plan. The major physical, operational, electronic, and aesthetic measures proposed for the Corridor, along with their likely advantages and disadvantages, are as follows: Traffic CapaciW and Flow: 1.Implement automated, "traffic-adaptive" traffic signal operation along the entire corridor to improve traffic capacity and traffic flow efficiency at signalized intersections. Advantages: If funding were available, signal automation could be implemented as the next phase of the City of Palo Alto’s Advanced Transportation Management System (ATMS - CMR:273:03), since the ATMS upgrades to the traffic signal system are an essential pre-requisite to traffic-adaptive operation. The Federal Highway Administration estimates that traffic-adaptive signal operation can increase efficiency, hence capacity, of a street by approximately 20 percent without adding lanes, removing parking, or grade separating streets. Since traffic delays occur at intersections, not in between them, more efficient operation of traffic signals along the Corridor will reduce both delay and travel time along the entire Corridor and open up opportunities for re-allocating travel lane space between signalized intersections to such purposes as widening bicycle lanes, creating pedestrian refuges, and providing landscape center medians or "tree islands" (small center medians). Disadvantages: Implementing traffic-adaptive signal operation is expensive. Staff has estimated the cost of traffic-adaptive signalization on the Corridor to be approximately H :\CMRS\P-TC\Cha r-Aras.doc Page 5 $1.3 million, inclusive of design and construction contingencies. Vehicle detection (either through in-pavement inductive loops or digitized video imaging) data has to be comprehensive and accurate, so that more detection devices and vigilant maintenance of detection devices are required than at more conventional signalized intersections. It should be noted that staff has already applied for grant funding through the Valley Transportation Authority’s Local Streets and County Roads program, to install traffic- adaptive signalization on five residential arterial streets, including Charleston/Arastradero Road (CMR:454:03). Alternative: Better coordination of traffic signal timing can be implemented in the shorter term or as an alternative to signal automation. While much less expensive, this altemative will only yield a fraction of the efficiency benefits of traffic-adaptive operation. 2.Provide a dedicated westbound right-turn lane at the Gunn High School driveway to reduce vehicle queuing and enhance safety. Advantages: Construction of a dedicated right-turn lane at this location will mitigate the long morning queue for westbound drivers waiting to turn into the Gunn driveway; reduce traffic intrusion onto Georgia Avenue and other nearby residential streets; improve access to and egress from Georgia Avenue and other residential cross streets east of Gunn High School during the morning school commute period, as well as enhance safety by reducing abrupt lane changes by drivers and the crowding out of cyclists in the vicinity of the Gunn driveway. Disadvantages: This will entail a construction project. Depending on construction timeline, not all of this work may be possible during school vacation, thus traffic conditions could be exacerbated temporarily before being mitigated thought the planning improvements. Alternative: Reserving the current outside westbound through lane on Arastradero east of the Gunn High School entrance for peak period only (e.g. for 30 minutes or an hour each weekday morning during the school year) right turn use was considered, but not recommended. This solution is highly unconventional and requires considerable attention to transitioning through drivers out of the outside lane during the stated time period (via road striping and signing). Since for approximately 98 percent of the year the outside lane would function as a standard through lane, driver expectations during the remaining 2 percent of the year may be violated, resulting in last moment lane changing (unsafe driving behavior) and relatively low compliance with the lane use restriction, both of which would eliminate some of the efficiency gains from the right-turn lane designation. H:\CMRS\P-TC\Char-Aras.doc Page 6 Provide a center left-turn lane from East Charleston Road into the easterly driveway of Hoover School should the school agree to reverse the circulation flow of its two driveways onto East Charleston. Advantages: Left turns are now prohibited into Hoover on eastbound Charleston, partly due to the proximity of the Carlson intersection to the current (westerly) Hoover driveway. By reversing the circulation into and out of Hoover School so that ingress is via the easterly driveway onto Charleston, it will be possible to provide a long enough left-turn lane from Charleston to accommodate peak demand. As a result, parents will be able to access Hoover from both the westbound and the eastbound direction of travel. The current problem of some drivers making u-turns on Nelson, or one of its cross-streets, to reverse direction on Charleston, to make an allowed fight turn into Hoover will be eliminated. Disadvantages: Hoover School will have to agree to this change and parents will have to adjust to the new ingress and egress arrangements. Staff is assessing whether sufficiently long gaps in traffic will be available for left tums during the moming, peak hour in the circumstances of a three-lane cross-section (one opposing through lane). However, since traffic signals at Nelson and Middlefield will create gaps in westbound Charleston the opposing traffic flow will not be continuous. Alternative: Creating a short eastbound left-turn pocket on Charleston for turns into the existing Hoover ingress drive was considered but discarded, since the short distance between the westerly Hoover driveway and Carlson would only allow room for a left-turn pocket too short to meet morning peak demand. This would likely cause spillback onto the Carlson intersection and attendant safety and efficiency concerns. Traffic Safe _W: 1.Install electronic radar read out (" V-Calm ") signs at additional selected locations along the corridor. Advantages: This device, which is relatively inexpensive ($7,000 to $10,000 each, installed depending on proximity to a power source). It has been deployed successfully in Palo Alto in six locations and has high public acceptance to date. Disadvantages: Driver awareness of the electronic speed advisory signs may lessen over time, and with it the speed reduction effect of these devices. H:\CM RS\P-TC\Char-Aras.doc Page 7 Alternative: Radar speed trailers could be deployed and periodically re-positioned along the Corridor. Re-positioning the trailers periodically over time will entail ongoing labor costs. The trailer and car set will require on-street parking space. Experience has shown that the speed reduction effect of radar trailer disappear in a given location after the trailer leaves. Shorten pedestrian crossing distance, improve aesthetics, and enhance traffic safety ("prudent driver sets the pace " to moderate vehicle speeds) along East Charleston from Fabian to Alma and potentially West Charleston and Arastradero Road from Alma to Miranda (excepting reservation of four lanes for adequate space for storage of motor vehicles at both approaches to major signalized intersections-Middlefield, El Camino Real, and Charleston and the Caltrain tracks) through provision of two through lanes and sections of landscaped medians interspersed with left-turn pockets in place of four through lanes. Advantages: The three-lane design will reduce prevailing vehicle speeds and increase safety for pedestrians, cyclists, and vehicle users. Pedestrians would enjoy shorter through lane crossing distance and time, as well as the protection of raised center refuge medians at crosswalks. Cyclists would enjoy wider bike lanes due to the reallocation of road space, as one through lane in each direction (except in the vicinity of major intersections and Caltrain) is dropped. The safety benefits to pedestrians and cyclists would induce more walking and cycling along the Corridor, thereby reducing motor vehicle volumes and the attendant impacts of motor vehicle use (e.g. noise and air pollution). Provision of continuous bike lanes and intermittent center left-turn pockets, along with any available empty curbside parking, will provide adequate room for emergency and other vehicles to maneuver around inoperative vehicles in the travel lane. Disadvantages: Interspersing medians in the middle lane (to discourage use of the lane for potentially unsafe "by-pass" maneuvers), even while retaining all vehicle movements at all cross-streets, may prevent some residents on the Corridor from making left turns out of and into their driveways. Should future traffic growth be much greater than projected, the three-lane design alternative may not be sufficient to meet vehicle demand and not induce driver shortcutting onto nearby residential streets due to travel time delays. It should be noted that since Arastradero Road has more cross streets per mile than does Charleston Road, a three-lane section may have more interruption to traffic flow on Arastradero, as cross-street drivers turn to merge into the traffic flow. Preliminary cost estimates for these improvements range from $2,131,000 to $2,649,000, depending on the extent of the median treatment. H:\CMRS\P-TC\Char-Aras.doc Page 8 Alternative: A four lane cross-section on Arastradero is a viable alternative, but does not yield the safety benefits to all modes of travel or the amount of improvement in walking and cycling conditions that are provided by a three-lane cross-section design. 3.lnstall center medians in selected locations to physically separate motor vehicle traffic in opposing directions. Advantages: Center medians provide safety benefits through separating opposing traffic streams. The medians may also provide opportunities for tree planting and other landscaped amenities. Disadvantages: Depending on location, center median can prevent residents along a roadway to make left turns into and out of their driveways and increasing circui.ty of vehicle trips (e.g. a left turning movement out of a driveway may be replaced by a right turn out, then a u-turn at a nearby intersection to reverse direction). Alternative: Center medians are "scalable" in that a greater or lesser number of them in lesser or greater dimension can be provided along a roadway depending on design objectives. As examples, narrower center medians can thus be provided with a four-lane section and both fewer and shorter center medians can be provided with a three-lane cross-section. Continuous center medians (interspersed with left-turn pockets or lanes at signalized intersections), which provide the greatest safety enhancement, were considered for Arastradero, but are not recommended since they also provide the most access restrictions for both on-street residents and cross street drivers. Staffis recommending a balanced approach to safety and access with emphasis on improving safety of the most vulnerable street users: those on foot and those riding bicycles. Bicycling Safe _ty and Comfort: 1.Paint or tint continuous bicycle lanes for the entire corridor, including through intersections. Advantages: This sends a clear visual message to drivers and cyclists about the presence of cycling facilities on the two streets, thus has both practical (as guidance to both motorists and cyclists) and symbolic ("bikes belong") importance. Making the bike lanes more visible means that drivers will be more aware of cyclists and prepared for taking bicyclists into account as fellow travelers. Portland, Oregon, and many Dutch communities have has good success with tinted or painted bike lanes. The preliminary cost estimate for this improvement is $217,500. H:\CMRS\P-TC\Char-Aras.doc Page 9 Disadvantages: This is not a convention treatment for bicycle lanes in Palo Alto or statewide, thus would need to undertaken as a demonstration project. Some cyclists have expressed concern that continuing the tinted or painted lanes into and through the intersection does not give drivers adequate guidance, particularly in making right turns. Staff will work with the Palo Alto Bicycle Advisory Committee to during the design process. An alternative to striping and tinting or painting bicycle lanes through an intersection is to dash (along with paint or tint) the bicycle lanes, as is standard practice when bicycle lanes approach an intersection (to signal to right-turning drivers that they can cross over the bicycle lane and to signal to bicyclists that drivers may be making this maneuver). Alternative: The tinted or painted bicycle lanes could be dashed in both the approach to and through intersections. It should be noted that standard practice is to dash bicycle lanes on the approach to intersections, which gives drivers guidance that crossing the bicycle lane near the intersection to make a right turn is permissible. An off-road side path (separated from the street by both the curb and a planting strip) alternative to continuous on-street bike lanes was considered for a section of Charleston Road where sufficient right of way was available or could be obtained, but was discarded due to concerns by staff and members of the bicycling community. The reasons for this are that drivers at cross streets will not expect bicyclists to cross their path in advance of an intersection and that some bicyclists will not slow down or stop at cross streets without being forced to by placement of bollards and other restrictive devices. This safety concerns are the reasons why side paths are not considered a good alternative to on street bicycle lanes. Sufficient right-of-way exists for this purpose. 2.Widen bicycle lanes to 7feet on Arastradero/West Charleston and to 6feet on the south and 8feet on the north side of East Charleston Road. Advantages: Wider bicycle lanes provide both bicyclists and drivers a larger "forgiveness zone" in the event of human error or mechanical problem, as well as greater psychological security for cyclists. This combination will induce more people to bicycle on a street with wide bicycle lanes, all other things considered equal. Disadvantages: Widening bicycle lanes will require re-allocating space for other uses. Depending on location and design (three lane or four lane), these uses include through movement and daytime parking. While much of the Corridor is characterized by eleven- foot lane widths, in some locations space will be reallocated from a reduction of through lane width from eleven feet to ten feet. Ten-foot lane widths are acceptable on streets such as Charleston and Arastradero, which have low proportions of trucks and full-size H:\CMRS\P-TC\Char-Aras.doc Page 10 urban transit vehicles on them; however, some drivers may prefer 11-foot lanes for added maneuverability. Alternative: Maintenance of five-foot bicycle lanes on arterial streets like Arastradero and Charleston is the desirable minimum in Palo Alto. Bicycle lanes above eight feet are likely to be violated by some drivers using them as (illegally) as travel lanes, thus creating a potential safety hazard. Replace the free right turn ("pork chop islands ") on the southwest and southeast corners of the El Camino Real and West Charleston/Arastradero intersection to enhance pedestrian and bicycle safety. Advantages: Bicycle and pedestrian safety is enhanced in that vehicle approach and merge speeds on right turns onto and off on E1 Camino Real at Arastradero/West Charleston will be reduced. The preliminary cost estimate for this improvement is $25,000. Disadvantages: Right turns at these locations will take slightly longer and vehicle delay and queues for these turns at peak congestion periods will also be somewhat longer. This will not result in a degradation of overall intersection efficiency as measured by level of service, however. Alternative: These free right turn islands can be left in place, although staff believes that the safety benefits to pedestrians and bicyclists of removing them far outweighs any consequent inconvenience to motorists. 4. hnplement attractive bicycle lane signage along the entire corridor. Advantages: Driver awareness that "bikes belong" would be increased by such signage and heightened awareness should have safety benefits. The encouragement given to bicyclists should have a positive impact on use of the bicycle lanes. Disadvantages: Unless attractive, additional signs can contribute to aesthetic concerns ("sign pollution"). Alternative: Conventional bicycle lane legends and logos can be used or the more visible tinted or painted bicycle lanes with or without logos and legends, in either case without a signage program. Pedestrian Safe _ty and Comfort: H:\CMRS\P-TC\Char-Aras.doc Page 11 Shorten pedestrian crossing distance, improve aesthetics, and enhance traffic safety ("prudent driver sets the pace ") along East Charleston from Fabian to Ahna and potentially West Charleston and Arastradero Road from Alma to Miranda (excepting reservation of four lanes for adequate space for storage of motor vehicles at both approaches to major signalized intersections-Middlefield, El Camino Real, and Charleston and the Caltrain tracks) through provision of two through lanes and sections of landscaped medians interspersed with left-turn pockets in place of four through lanes. See "Traffic Safety ". 2. Provide center median islands for pedestrian refuge at intersection crosswalks. Advantages: Safer pedestrian conditions and as a result more walking along and across the corridor with some congestion relief and other public benefits (air quality, reduced noise, etc.) Disadvantages: The space needed for these refuges must be acquired through re- allocation from other uses, such as parking spaces. Alternative: Enhanced crosswalk striping can be provided at each signalized crosswalk location without provision of a center median refuge. Staff recommends installation of center median pedestrian refuges since they provide a protected space for pedestrians to regroup and shift their focus (e.g. to look right instead of left). Without such a refuge, pedestrians have to maintain focus on both directions for much of their crossing and have no place to wait in case they cannot complete a full crossing safely. 3. Provide of bulb-outs at selected locations to shorten pedestrian crossing distance. Advantages: Enhances pedestrian safety by shortening crossing distance and time and can at the same time provide a protected parking bay if applicable. Disadvantages: Can be expensive in that it requires breaking down the existing curb line and installing new curbing and may- depending on location -require movement of catch basins and portions of storm drains. Alternative: Conventional or enhanced crosswalks can be provided. Enhanced striping and yellow-green pedestrian crosswalk warning signs can raise driver awareness of a crosswalk and enhance safety. H:\CMRS\P-TC\Char-Aras.doc Page 12 Enhance crosswalk striping and install more visible texture or paving on crosswalk surfaces at the El Camino Real and West Charleston/Arastradero. Advantages: Enhances pedestrian safety at the busiest Corridor intersection while also enhances visual aesthetics. Disadvantages: Can be expensive, depending on materials and treatment. Alternative: Enhanced crosswalk striping and crosswalk warning signage can be installed without also installing textured or specially paved crosswalks. 5.Replace the free right turn ("pork chop islands ") on the southwest and southeast corners of the El Camino Real and West Charleston/Arastradero intersection to enhance pedestrian and bicycle safety. See "Bicycling Safety and Comfort". Advantages: Enhances pedestrian and bicycle safety at the busiest Corridor intersection by reducing the turning speed of vehicles crossing crosswalks and bicycle lanes. Disadvantages: Adds a small amount of time to the fight turn movement. Alternative: Rely on enhanced crosswalk striping, crosswalk warning signage, and painted or tinted bicycle lanes to alert drivers of the need to slow down while crossing the travel path of pedestrians and bicyclists. 6.Install pedestrian "countdown" signals at the major signalized intersections along the corridor. Advantages: Enhances pedestrian safety by giving useful information to pedestrians on how long they have to complete a crossing. The countdown device at Bryant and Hamilton has been successful in this respect. Disadvantages: Some pedestrians may misjudge their walking pace and not make good use of the countdown information. o Alternative: Conventional pedestrian symbol signal heads. Enhance pedestrian crossing safety between signalized intersections at selected locations through provision of lighted crosswalks or pedestrian-actuated traffic signals. H:\CM RS\P-TC\Cha r-Aras.doc Page 13 Advantages: Enhances safety by increasing the visibility of crosswalks and raises motorists’ awareness and alertness. In addition, pedestrian-actuated signals provide positive fight of way control and a higher level of pedestrian safety than when such control is not provided. Disadvantages: Lighted crosswalks cannot be installed at signalized intersections due to concerns about distracting attention from the essential information provided by the traffic signal. Prevailing car speeds should be below 30 miles per hour for installation of lighted crosswalks; pedestrian demand should be high, for driver expectancy and cost- effectiveness; and they are safer on two lane instead of four lane cross-sections (in the latter case, one driver may yield to a pedestrian, while another alongside and slightly behind may not seethe pedestrian being yielded to). Pedestrian-actuated signals are effective for safety but do induce added vehicle delay and make traffic signal foreordination on a street corridor more difficult. Alternatives: Enhanced crosswalk striping and signing at existing pedestrian crosswalks. Visual Aesthetics: Shorten pedestrian crossing distance and improve aesthetics along East Charleston from Fabian to Alma and potentially West Charleston and Arastradero Road from Alma to Miranda (excepting reservation o f four lanes for adequate space for storage of motor vehicles at both approaches to major signalized intersections-Middlefield, El Camino Real, Charleston, and the Caltrain tracks) through provision of two through lanes and sections of landscaped medians interspersed with left-turn pockets in place of four through lanes. See "Traffic Safe& ". Enhance the roadside planting strip in selected locations. (Attachment F illustrates schematically and in representative fashion improvements recommended along the Corridor.) Advantages: Makes the roadway environment more pleasant and adds value to the travel experience. While some trees will be removed as the Corridor Plan is implemented, on net more trees will be added in planting strips, landscaped medians, and "tree medians". Disadvantages: Can be costly to install, irrigate, and maintain. Alternative: Conventional planting strips and existing street trees can be maintained. H:\CMRS\P-TC\Char-Aras.doc Page 14 3.lnstall vertical gateway monuments with aerial connections between each side of the street near Fabian and near Miranda. Advantages: Provides an attractive entry to the Corridor and can be used for seasonal displays. The preliminary cost estimate for this improvement is $200,000. Disadvantages: It may be difficult to come to a community consensus on design and aesthetics for this improvement. Alternative: A Charleston/Arastradero Corridor Improvement Area sign could be installed on either end of the Corridor. Improvements Being Evaluated and Not Yet Recommended: A conceptual plan has been prepared for a new pedestrian and bicycle undercrossing of Alma and Caltrain near Charleston (see Attachment G). This design, which would not require acquisition of any additional right of way, would require cyclists to dismount before entry into the tunnel. A design and construction cost of from $2.5 million to $3.0 million has been estimated for this facility, exclusive of contingencies. Given the preliminary nature of this estimate, a contingency of up to 50 percent would be advisable, which would increase the estimated cost to from $3.75 million to $4.5 million. Staff is still evaluating this design for feasibility, so it is not recommended at this time. A more elaborate design, which would not require bicyclists to dismount, would require elaborate "switch-backs" and acquisition of additional right of way. The cost of this approach, while not yet estimated, would be significantly higher than the design illustrated in Attachment G. Assessment under the Corridor Plan Performance Measures Performance Measure #1: no increase in Corridor travel time. The Corridor Plan will likely reduce travel time compared to 2015 traffic conditions without implementation of the Plan. Performance Measure #2: no increase in delay or critical movement delay along the Corridor. The Corridor Plan will likely reduce both vehicle delay and critical movement delay at all signalized Corridor intersections compared to 2015 traffic conditions without implementation of the Plan. H:\CMRS\P-TC\Char-Aras.doc Page 15 Performance Measure #3: Reduce 85th percentile speeds by at least 20 percent along the Corridor. The Corridor Plan will likely reduce 85tu percentile speeds, by at least 20 percent along those sections with two travel lanes rather than four. The Plan is not likely to do so in those sections retaining four travel lanes. Performance Measure #4: Reduce crash rates by at least 25 percent. The Corridor Plan will likely reduce crashes by at least 25 percent along those sections with two travel lanes rather than four. The Plan is not likely to do so in those sections retaining four travel lanes. Performance Measure #5: Increase pedestrian volumes by at least 20 percent by 2010 and 40 percent by 2020 The Corridor Plan will likely increase pedestrian volumes by at least 20 percent by 2010 and by at least 40 percent by 2020 along those sections with two travel lanes rather than four. The Plan is not likely to do so in those sections retaining four travel lanes. Performance Measure #6: Increase bicycle volumes by at least 20percent by 2010 and 40 percent by 2020. The Corridor Plan will likely increase bicycle volumes by at least 20 percent by 2010 and by at least 40 percent by 2020 along those sections with two travel lanes rather than four. The Plan is also likely to meet these performance targets should four travel lanes be retained, although the bicycle volume percentage increase will not likely be as great as in those sections with two travel lanes rather than four. Performance Measure #7: Increase public transit boarding by at least 50 percent by 2010. Conclusion Installation of traffic-adaptive signal technology, along with mode shift performance measures, could result in less congestion on the Corridor than at present or projected for 2015. Assuming these changes, overall travel time is projected to fall from Fabian to Miranda from 2 to 3 minutes, depending on land development scenario and cross-section design (three-lane or four-lane). Similarly, vehicle delay at traffic signals is [projected to fall by up to 2 minutes. Tables I and II in Appendix C provides detail on these current and projected traffic conditions. Even without the targeted shift toward alternatives modes, deployment of H:\CMRS\P-TC\Char-Aras.doc Page 16 traffic-adaptive signal technology itself will result in a reduction in overall corridor travel time in the year 2015 from 1 to 2 minutes, even with a three-lane cross-section. These findings suggest that implementation of traffic-adaptive technology, along with achievement of the mode shift performance standards, will enable re-design of all portions of the Corridor to accommodate a three-lane cross-section without increasing delay or travel time or, as a consequence, induce traffic shift onto nearby residential streets. While this result may appear "counter-intuitive", it is important to remember that traffic congestion on urban arterial streets occurs at intersections, not between intersections. Funding On April 14, 2003, the City Council authorized an expenditure of $200,000 for preparation of the Charleston/Arastradero Corridor Plan. The Corridor plan itself will include a funding element, comprising an assessment of a variety of financing options, including federal, state, and regional grants, traffic impact fees, and other sources. The Corridor plan will also include estimated costs of any improvements and a phasing plan for implementation. Project implementation after Council approval of a preferred plan for the Corridor will proceed within the context of the City’s capital improvements planning process. Preliminary construction and installation cost estimates for implementing the Corridor Plan are $6.4 million, including $1.2 million for deployment of traffic-adaptive signal technology. Adding on 15 percent for detailed architectural and engineering design work and 5 percent for construction project management increases the preliminary cost estimate for the Corridor Plan to $7.4 million. These estimates are exclusive of any costs for a new pedestrian and bicycle under crossing of Alma and Charleston and also do not include increased Shuttle bus service costs due to increased service frequency along the Corridor. It should be noted and emphasized that these are preliminary cost estimates, thus will likely change with more refinement of design detail. It is also important to note that a decrease or increase in the number of improvements will change cost estimates accordingly. Council can choose to authorize a Corridor Plan in phases, matching availability of grant and other funding with City resources; and/or reduce the proposed Corridor Plan scope to manage the resource impact of the Plan. Attachment E comprises a report on alternative sources for funding the Corridor Plan. It is anticipated that federal, state, and regional transportation grants, along with proceeds from a proposed citywide traffic impact fee will provide all or most of the funding required. Council has already authorized staff to apply for grant funding for installation of traffic- adaptive technology on Charleston and Arastradero Road (CMR:454:03). Both traffic- adaptive technology and bicycle and pedestrian facility improvements are included in a draft expenditure plan for a proposed citywide traffic impact fee presented to the Planning and H:\CM RS\P-TC\Cha r-Aras.doc Page 17 Transportation Commission at a study session on August 27, 2003. Such a fee and expenditure plan, if adopted by Council, could partially fund bicycle and pedestrian improvements on the Corridor. Selected other potential funding sources are the following grant programs: the Metropolitan Transportation Commission’s Transportation for Livable Communities, Caltrans’ Safe Routes to School, the California Office of Traffic Safety, the Bay Area Air Quality Management Districts’ Transportation Fund for Clean Air. the US Department of Transportation’s Congestion Management and Air Quality Improvement and Enhancements, and future calls for projects from the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority’s Local Streets and County Roads. POLICY IMPLICATIONS The Charleston/Arastradero Road Corridor Plan addresses the first six goals of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan: ¯T-l: "Less Reliance on Single Occupant Vehicles". ¯T-2: "A Convenient, Efficient Public Transportation System that Provides A Viable Alternative to Driving". ¯T-3: "Facilities, Services, and Programs that Encourage and Promote Walking and Bicycling". ¯T-4: "An Efficient Roadway Network for All Users". ¯T-5: "A Transportation System that Minimizes Impacts on Residential Neighborhoods". ¯T-6: "A High Level of Safety for Motorists, Pedestrians, and Bicyclists on Palo Alto Streets". In addition, the Corridor Plan should facilitate achievement of Policy B-19: "Use street corridor improvements as catalysts for economic revitalization in selected Centers." While the Corridor plan is a transportation and not a land use plan, the Corridor Plan will be consistent with Comprehensive Plan Housing Goal H-1: "A supply of Affordable and Market Rate Housing that meets Palo Alto’s share of Regional Housing Needs" and Goal B-1: "A Thriving Business Environment that is Compatible with Palo Alto’s Residential Character and Natural Environment." ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW An initial study has been prepared forthe project and a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) will be issued by the Department of Planning and Community Environment on Monday December 8. The MND will have a public review period of 20 days. Copies of the initial study an~,d MND will be available in the Planning Department office on the fifth floor of City Hall. H:\CMRS\P-TC\Char-Aras.doc Page 18 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 has been given I don’t believe for increasing the flow on San Antonio and also limiting trucks on Charleston. This can reduce the volume. Chair Griffin: Thank you Richard. Our next speaker is Dave Cerf. Mr. Dave Cerf, 731 Montrose Avenue, Palo Alto: I have lived on Montrose for over 25 years. What I would like to do is support the retention of the barrier that is at the Charleston-Montrose- Louis intersection. We have over 15 smaller kids on our block and what we really need is to prevent people cutting through that section. The barrier has done a good job for a long time and we just want to make sure that it stays. Thank you. Chair Griffin: Thank you. Jean Wilcox. Do you have a presentation, Jean? Ms. Jean Wilcox, 4005 Sutherland Drive, Palo Alto: Yes, I have one overhead that is going on. Members of the Planning and Transportation Commission as you can see this is a map of Charleston Gardens. The proposed development on the Sun site at East Charleston and Fabian Way is within two blocks of our neighborhood. The campus for Jewish Life and Bridge Development are proposing to build 380 units of housing to a height of 50 feet on the Sun site, however, they are inquiring about possibly building to a height of 85 feet and adding many more units of housing with a lot more vehicle trips. This has not been taken into consideration in CMR-450 the proposed set of performance measures for the Charleston Gardens corridor, Attachment B, Land Use Assumptions. The unknown number of new residents will increase vehicle trips on East Charleston as they make their way to and from local grocery stores in the Charleston Shopping Center. Unfortunately these new residents will return to the Sun site via Montrose to Charleston and then to Fabian Way. Reducing East Charleston from four to two through lanes will only encourage them to use our neighborhood side streets, which Counci! promised would not happen. I would have preferred that Staff had proposed keeping four lanes, ten feet wide, on East Charleston between Fabian Way and Middlefield. This configuration would still allow for wide bicycle paths and if necessary bulbouts for pedestrians to safely cross the street. A set of flashing lights either side of the crosswalk at Louis/Montrose would help pedestrians cross safely. I urge the Commission to proceed cautiously particularly on the section of East Charleston between Fabian Way and Middtefield. Reducing this section of East Charleston from four to two through lanes before we really know how large the development on the Sun site will be is too drastic a solution. I hope however you will include a large sign at Fabian Way, which says, "You are entering Palo Alto." Thank you. Chair Griffin: Thank you, Jean. Our next three speakers will be Penny Ellson followed by Rich Ellson followed by Michael Maurier. Penny, if you would introduce your self, please. Ms. Penny Ellison, 513 E1 Capitan Place, Palo Alto: Good evening. I am here tonight as the Co- Chair of the Civic Affairs Committee for Green Meadow Community Association. Here tonight CharlestordArastradero and to some extent South Palo Alto are being fundamentally redesigned for the future. I would like to take a minute to reflect on why we embarked on this moratorium and study as I hope that the goals that we laid out in the beginning of this process will guide the decisions that we make now. City of Palo Alto Page 18 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 1 Our neighborhood association met recently to discuss the recommended safety redesign 2 proposals with a written invitation to the meeting hand delivered to each house. We strongly 3 support a six-month trial of these changes including the three-lane configuration. The three lane 4 configuration is critical to slowing speed along the school corridor, to making room for medians 5 which will make it safer to cross the street and to providing and adequate and continuous bike lane. The three lane configuration is much safer for children crossing the street than a four lane config~aration because when there are two lanes in each direction and one driver stops to let a child cross the driver in the other lane often can’t see the child and that creates a very dangerous situation. We support the three-lane configuration along both Charleston and Arastradero because school children from our neighborhood must go along the entire corridor to get to Terman and Gunn. If the whole corridor isn’t safe you will not see the increase in biking and pedestrian modes, which are needed to make the system work. With regard to phasing it is very important that the six- month trial include the entire corridor so if there is a problem spot it will be discovered and remedied prior to instituting any permanent changes. We are very excited that the study has made school commute safety its first priority. Thank you. Chair Griffin: Thank you, Deborah. The next three speakers will be Richard Geiger followed by Dave Cerf and Jean Wilcox. Welcome Richard. Mr. Richard Geiger, 714 East Charleston Road, Palo Alto: I have lived here over 20 years and I am retired and I spend a lot of time walking the sidewalks and observing what is going on. These studies have been going on for quite a few years and long before Hyatt came along. The situation has really gotten worse. I have noticed over the last at least five years that people drive along the freeway at five miles/ten miles an hour in the rush hour and they come to Fabian to Middlefield where I will concentrate my comments on East Charleston. They come to this open road and they drive as fast as their car will go. It is the speeders that do the red light running. Walking across from Southerland to Grove crossing the street and the cars two blocks away coming at 50 miles an hour it is hard to get across. They don’t slow down, they may swerve around you and they get mad because you are in the street and impeding their flow. So speeding is the main problem. I have seldom seen any real traffic backup problems. I drive quite frequently in the evening, 5:00 to 6:30, from Arastradero to my home. The only backup is at the train tracks. Other traffic along this corridor turns right and turns left and by the time I get to Middlefield there are very few cars. I had some notes here. I want to thank Joe Kott and the Transportation Committee for coming up. I strongly support this three-lane version. I think it is essential to narrow the streets and narrow the lanes to reduce the speeding while maintaining at the signal intersections the full width and even making a right turn lane going west on Charleston and Middlefield. If there was a right turn lane there that would speed the flow of traffic because one car making a right turn stopping or one car going straight ahead and stopped for the light prevents all the cars behind it from making a right turn. If there are pedestrians in the crosswalk it delays even further. So adding right turn lanes and left turn lanes and narrowing the street which allows for this is a very good idea. No consideration City of Palo Alto Page 17 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 seen is bicyclists hit up where they come off the bike path trying to cross over where there is no designated crossing to get over to the Gunn side of the street in order to continue on the bike path. We desperately need additional designated crosswalks along Arastradero. It is not safe and constantly I am seeing people cross along at Suzanne or at Ctemo to get to the park. Again, it is not safe and we need your help to get this corrected. I thank you. Chair Griffin: Thank you. Lee Wieder. Mr. Lee Wieder, 637 Middlefield Road, Palo Alto: Chairman Griffin, members of the Planning Commission I am Lee Wieder a member of the stakeholders group. My comments tonight are not going to focus on the four lanes and three lanes. I think that we really need to do a bit more deliberation and looking at that to see if that indeed will work throughout the entire corridor. I hope that it will. My comments tonight will really be about processing questions, phasing and funding schedule and CEQA threshold levels for evaluating projects. So specifically you have a memorandum that has been handed to you that I shared with the stakeholders group this morning and you see them copied on there. My comments are not to read this letter but to focus on the questions that are before you. To set it up, number one, the traffic analysis section of the Comp Plan EIR goes out to the year 2010. Two, the Charleston/Arastradero Corridor Study projects traffic analysis circulation mitigations through the year 2015. This is beyond the five years that the Comp Plan EIR analyzes. Question, what are the advantages and disadvantages of limiting the study to 2010 as the Comp Plan EIR has done? What are the advantages and disadvantages of not extending the study to 2025 as you heard from the Chamber, as is being proposed in the consideration of a citywide traffic impact fee? The answers to these questions were as you can see shown by Joe Kott on the sheet here. Number three question, I am flipping to the other side, in this Staff Report today under the Attachment E, Preliminary Assessment of Funding Sources, Exactions on Development page 13 and 14, should there not be some discussion as to credit given against the pending citywide transportation fee to a project proponent who directly funds some elements of the Charleston/Arastradero Plan? Lastly, which I probably consider the most important, is would it take a General Plan amendment to add or to replace any of the present Comp Plan circulation policies with any of the performance standards that are described in the CharlestordArastradero Corridor Plan? If this were to be proposed, who could propose it and what would be the process step schedules? The responses from Joe Kott are listed here and I hope that your deliberations will take into consideration some of these questions as well. Thank you. Chair Griffin: Thank you, Lee. It must be Deborah Ju. Ms. Deborah, Ju, 371 Whitclem Drive, Palo Alto: Good evening. I would like to thank Joe Kott and Steve Emslie for their hard work and leadership on the Charleston Corridor Study. The study is very important to Charleston Meadow residents because for those of us living south of Charleston, Charleston is our only access in or out of our neighborhood. If Charleston is not safe we have no alternate route for our children to get to school and currently Charleston is very unsafe. So unsafe in fact that most families don’t allow their children to walk or bicycle to school. It is so unsafe that even many adults choose to ride on the sidewalk because they are afraid to ride in the narrow often-disappearing bike lane. City of Palo Alto Page 16 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 Ms. Audrey Sullivan Jacob, Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce: Good evening Commissioners. I am the Director of Government Relations for the Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce. I am speaking tonight on behalf of the Chamber and we are as concerned as anybody about the safety of this corridor. Our main concern is about the reduction of lanes from four to three along Arastradero. In the traffic consultant’s report, Attachment D to your Staff Report, basically they say that the three lane configuration only works when the carrying capacity is less than 1,000 cars at the peak travel time. You will notice in the Table on page three, Table Two, that the peak traffic is approaching 1,000 or more cars in 2015 and 2015 is known. So it sounds great to have these three lanes and all of that but I would ask you to question Staff about the consultant’s report that it is not feasible for parts of Arastradero to have three lanes. Also the Chamber would like to see the study to encompass figures from 2025, which I think are available. Finally, there should be consideration of the grade separation at Alma and Charleston. Thank you. Chair Griffin: Thank you. Henry Lum. Henry will be followed by Nina Bell, Lee Wieder and Deborah Ju. Mr. Henry_ Lum, 4202 Suzarme Drive, Palo Alto: Hi I am the President of Palo Alto Archers Association. Our neighborhood is located on the east side of Arastradero and the only way we can get in and out of our neighborhood is via Arastradero. Some people claim that Arastradero is safe. I can tell you that my wife and I have been rear-ended twice ~vhile waiting for a left turn because cars either did not see us or they could not swerve in time and you hear the screeching of breaks and then suddenly you get rear-ended. We also have a lot of senior citizens and grandparents living in our neighborhood who take their kids to the park. They have an extremely difficult time crossing Arastradero especially pushing baby carriages. As you get older your legs don’t move as fast as you brain tells you to move so as a result you just can’t cross that or you are dodging cars. We see that often. We live on the corner of Arastradero and Suzanne so we have a pretty good idea as to what the traffic is. We certainly commend Joe for his report. We have been banging on him for two years now and I think that we have finally softened him. A lot of his improvements will make the quality of life of our residents and the safety of our neighborhood children a lot safer and better. Thank you. Chair Griffin: Thank you, Henry. Our next speaker is Nina Bell. Ms. Nina Bell, 4245 Los Palos Avenue, Palo Alto: Thank you. I live in the Green Acres I neighborhood, which is on the Terman side ofArastradero. I first would like to say that I commend and am appreciative of all that Joe Kott and the Staff and engineers for listening to the neighborhood, listening tO our concerns and looking to address those concerns. As Henry Lum just mentioned, the only way we can get into and out of our neighborhood is from Arastradero. You take your life into your hands as you try to turn into our neighborhood. I have not personally been hit but my hair is getting grayer every time I wait to turn in. I have spoken with other neighbors in our neighborhood and they have been hit multiple times. So if we don’t get designated turn lanes you will leave a situation unsafe on Arastradero. The other thing I have City of Palo Alto Page 15 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 Ms. Misao-Sakamoto, 4275 Suzanne Drive, Palo Alto: I am a senior citizen who lives on Suzanne Drive and has lived here for nearly 50 years. Making a left turn on Suzanne Drive has become increasingly difficult and more and more dangerous. The keep clear space on McKe!ler Lane is not often respected and it is hard to make the break into McKeller to enter Suzanne Drive. I also walk up and down Arastradero Road frequently to do my exercise on Terman walkway and I have noticed that more and more children are now using the bicycle lane and some of the children use the sidewalks because of the limited space. I also use Briones Park and I find that crossing Suzanne Drive entering Briones Park has become very, very risky and dangerous because there are no crosswalks and the drivers do not sometimes stop for any pedestrians walking across Arastradero. Thank you. Chair Griffin: Thank you. Myllicent Hamilton. Then following Myllicent will be Audrey Sullivan Jacob and Henry Lum and Nina Bell. Welcome Myllicent. Ms. Myllicent Hamilton, 4014 Ben Lomond Drive, Palo Alto: Thank you. On November 18 the Green Meadow Community Civic Affairs Committee organized a special meeting to present to the Green Meadow residents the City Staff’s proposed redesign concepts for Charleston!Arastradero and also some of the findings of the current Charleston/Arastradero Study. Forty-three people attended the meeting. Twenty-nine members voted in favor of the following statement of community position. There was one dissenting vote. There are fewer votes than people here because there is only one vote per household allowed. There was discussion and questions during the meeting. I will read the statement that was approved. "Green Meadow Community Association supports the implementation of a three lane reduction the full length of the Charleston/Arastradero school corridor with the exception of sections where it is clear that four lanes are needed to accommodate queuing. It is our understanding that the three lane reduction with proposed mitigations will provide safer speeds, widen bicycle lanes, pedestrian refuges, maintain point-to-point travel times, reduce crashes both vehicular, pedestrian and bicyclists. We also understand that the new plans will include painted bike lanes the full length of the corridor and new crosswalks across Arastradero. All of these changes will result in a much safer route to school for our nei~hborhood’s children and a more pedestrian friendly environment for our residents to throughout the City. These changes are critical on a road that serves more schools than any other street in Palo Alto. Soon Charleston/Arastradero also will serve many new seniors some of whom no longer can drive. The lane reduction plan is consistent with Comprehensive Plan Policy T-39 to continue to make safety the first priority of citywide transportation planning and with City goals to calm residential traffic. It is also consistent with the Comprehensive Plan policies, which require the City to balance traffic circulation needs with the goal of creating walkable neighborhoods that are designed and oriented toward pedestrians, this is Policy L-67. And to improve pedestrian and bicycle access to and between destinations including public facilities, schools, parks, open space, employment districts, shopping center, this is Policy T-14. It also supports Comprehensive Plan Policy T-40, which calls for prioritizing the safety and comfort of school children in street modification projects that affect school routes this is Policy T-40. While we have some concerns about specific aspects of the study and street simulations we support the lane reduction as it seems to be the best solution to the long term traffic safety problems we foresee on the corridor." That was approved by the Green Meadow Community Association on November 18. Chair Griffin: Thank you, Myllicent. Nicely timed. Audrey Jacob. Ci& of Palo Alto Page 14 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 Next slide. I think I will stop here. Those are some of the main points. We can keep the PowerPoint going to look at some of the more detailed geometry and circulation issues for the plan, as we need to. Chair Griffin: Joe. Mr. Kott: Commissioner, I would like to add that Gary Krueger, a principle of the firm TJKM Associates has joined us. So Gary is available to assist us in answering traffic operations questions. Chair Griffin: Thank you. At this stage do Commissioners have any questions they would like to address to Staff before we open for the public to make their comments? We have some 20 cards this evening, which should give us about an hour’s worth of public testimony. Our first speaker is Wayne Martin. Each speaker would have three minutes. What I would like to do is I will read off three names and maybe you can stage yourself or queue up as they say in the Transportation business. That would expedite the comments. Wayne would be followed by Misao Sakamoto to be followed by Myllicent Hamilton. Welcome Wayne. Mr. Wayne Martin, 3687 Bryant, Los Altos: A month or so ago there were a couple of guest opinions in the Weekly that indicated that at the outreaches no one had objected to primarily the three lane reduction plan. Then shortly after that there was another guest opinion that claimed that anyone that didn’t agree with this their facts were wrong, they didn’t know what they were talking about and I myself was a little shocked because I have been trying to get hard data out of the Transportation Department about the traffic flows and queues and hadn’t been able to get that at the time that these guest opinions appeared. Subsequent to that I saw in some of the minutes of some of the Transportation Meetings that people were making the claim that Charleston was totally unsafe. Well, I have lived on Charleston for 25 almost 30 years and would not call it totally unsafe at all since 12 hours a day it is dark and the thing is hardly used and it is not very well used on the weekends. So I began to wonder what is going on. I made a little survey and walked to 100 people over the last month and I have gotten about 40 back, which I will collate and send to you very shortly. I have dumped another 100 off. By and large about seven out often of the people that have returned the survey say that they don’t want the road changed. Most of them, whether it is actually safe or not drops down to about 64. By and large I believe you will find that when I can get you these surveys you’ll find that most of the people that live on the corridor have opinions that are quite different than what you have been hearing from people that are pushing this particular plan. So the question then becomes for me what is the compelling reason to do this? What really is on the table here? When I went to some of the homes they told me that this would help to stop Rickey’s. I just couldn’t for the life of me understand and when I asked them how is that going to stop Rickey’s they couldn’t really tell me. So I would encourage you to recognize this is going far, far too fast, to vote no and to do whatever you can do to slow this thing down so that we can get more people’s voices here to talk about their views rather than a few who seem to have an agenda. Thank you. Chair Griffin: Thank you, Wayne. Our next speaker will be Misao Sakamoto. City of Palo Alto Page 13 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 lane would be more visible and wider. On the north side because we have a wide bike lane that would allow for overnight parking which doesn’t exist today. So during the day on the north side of the street the widen bike lane would function as a bike lane but at night, say from seven p.m. to seven a.m., it could provide extra frontage parking for the properties along the street. Next slide. There are a lot of details related to these different design approaches that I am not going to get into. I assume we will have time to do that this evening. One of the things that we did then and we have plans on the wall over yonder is take the sort of typical plan sections that we were just looking at and the big ideas for the corridor as a whole and try and create a layout plan of lane striping, traffic islands, left turn lanes, right turn lanes, whatever we needed for the entire corridor. That is what is over on the wall here. We also enlarged that plan so that people could see what is proposed adjacent to their street. We have some enlarged segments for the entire plan also up on the wal! that shows where traffic islands would be and pedestrian crossings and those kinds of things. Next slide. As Joe said there were a couple ofhotspot locations that we had to prepare some more special or custom design recommendations for. One was Hoover Elementary School. What is currently recommended by the plan is reversing the circulation on the school site. So instead of entering on the west side driveway and exiting on the east you would enter on the east and exit on the west. What that does is it takes some of the pressure, the left turn movements, away from the intersection of Carlson Court and Carlson Circle and allows us to get a longer left turn lane into the school down by the easterly driveway. This requires coordination with the school and consent of the school but in terms of access and congestion on Charleston it could work quite well. I think one of the latest recommendations this doesn’t show is instead of being able to exit and make a left turn onto Charleston this median island here could be closed. Right now we are showing it open. What else does this show? One of the things that you can see is that with the traffic islands in place there are many more opportunities for pedestrian crossings and refuges for kids on their way to school. Another element of this is the bike lane that I had referred to before, the eight foot wide bike lane that could serve as overnight parking, can also work as a right turn lane for the 20 minutes or so when congestion here is at its peak. So folks entering the school westbound can have a right turn lane into this driveway. That is the current idea for that. At Gunn High School, another sort of congestion puzzle, the current plan shows a designated right turn lane that would essentially be carved out of a portion of the existing right-of-way back of the curb. To squeeze in a right turn lane that would be controlled with maybe chatter bars or some sort of a concrete ridge there along the edge of the lane to channel cars directly into the Gunn driveway and not allow them to jut back or scoot back into the through lanes. So essentially adding an additional lane above and beyond what is there today for the entrance into Gunn High School. Along with that would be changing the configuration of the intersection and signal. Today there is sort of a pork chop island in the middle of the street that sort of controls when left turns can be made into the driveway. One of the things that is recommended is that there be a different kind of an island or pork chop that allows a free right turn into the school from this way and on a left turn going the other way and keeping them apart on the left turn phase so that these two movements can proceed simultaneously sometimes. Ci& of Palo Alto Page 12 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 segment from the East Charleston segment. The reason for that was that the existing traffic counts indicated that this portion of the corridor had higher levels of traffic. We looked at a variety of both three and four lane alternatives for this portion of the street but one of the things the traffic models also showed was that over time both the Arastradero and West Charleston and the East Charleston links or segments would sort of arrive at the same future traffic level. Next slide. So although we looked at a variety of different confi~o-urations for bikes and on-street parking and street trees and traffic islands for the two segments of the street, actually we looked at 13 in all and this is sort of an example of the kind of thing that we looked at with a proposed cross section and a proposed plan that indicated what the changes could be, we in the end based on input from our stakeholders group and the City Staff and traffic consultants and the rest sort of arrived at a continuous three lane recommendation for the entire corridor at least to start. One of the things that is mentioned in the Staff Report and in the Negative Declaration document is that there will be a trial plan, and Joe mentioned this too, where the sort of hard, with a capital H, improvements like concrete medians and concrete bulbouts and street trees associated with these things wouldn’t be installed right away. What would be installed first would be a temporary or interim striping more or less stripped configuration of medians and turn lanes so people could try it out and see if it worked. Throughout the corridor what we are assuming is that we would have a consistent wider bike lane, frontage street trees and a center traffic island. Next slide. We got a 10t of comments on our first presentation of traffic islands and medians as part of the recommended plan. It wasn’t unanimous but it was generally a solid majority of people that felt that the safety and the traffic calming and the bicycle encouragement and the aesthetic improvements associated with the traffic islands offset some of the inconvenience in terms of left turn movements. We can talk about that more in a second. Next slide. We prepared some revised or more finished design recommendations for critique. This one is for Arastradero-West Charleston and what it shows is what is currently our fallback position. It is four lane, maintains this segment of the street at four lanes, it installs narrow islands in the middle of the street so we can still provide the pedestrian refuges and such and still get some landscaping in the center of the street. It sticks with four lanes and one of the things that it doesn’t provide are designated left turn lanes at perpendicular intersections. Next slide. What is currently recommended is a three-lane cross-section with wider medians and designated left turn lanes at every intersection. What this allows us to do is to have pedestrian crossings with refuges on both sides of every intersection if it makes sense to do so. So there are many more potential safe-crossing locations and as Joe said as regards left turn lanes it rationalizes the traffic. Joe can you go back to the previous slide? One of the issues about going to the four lane cross section here is we had to figure out a way to allow cars who wanted to make a left turn to get out of the through lanes which is the problem today before they made a left. What this shows is sort of a refuge area for cars at an intersection. I is not as good, it is not as controlled, it is not as programmed as a designated left turn lane. Next slide. We have a similar recommendation for East Charleston as well, three lanes, designated left turn lane at every intersection. One oftl), e things I should point out that is constant throughout the entire corridor in terms of the recommended plan is that there would be eight foot wide bike lanes painted or tinted on both sides of the street, highly, highly visible bike lanes, much different than exists today. On the East Charleston segment it would remain pretty much as it is today with curbside parking and a bike lane on the south side of the street. The bike City of Palo Alto Page 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 the opposite side of the street. On Arastradero and West Charleston it is on the north side of the street and on East Charleston it is on the south side of the street. Another difference that affects the sort of quality of life and appearance of the street is that the sidewalk is separated by an eight foot in most places planting strip, which is quite attractive and has consistent street trees and the rest. One of the things that this side over here shows, this is looking over Adobe Creek just to the west of Hoover School actually looking up towards Hoover School, is the midday condition. I think one of the things we had to work with in terms of the traffic analysis was the peak congestion. But for say 22 hours a day, maybe 21 hours a day, the street looks like this a lot of excess capacity, which tends to encourage speed. Next slide. The final segment from Fabian to Middlefield of East Charleston currently doesn’t have bike lanes. Next slide. It is still the same 60-foot curb-to-curb cross section, four lanes but curbside parking on both sides of the street and no bike lanes. So that is sort of a missing link in terms of a continuous bike lane along the corridor. Next slide. We got a lot of comments about existing conditions at our workshops. Next slide. Related to all kinds of circumstances, intersections, pedestrian crossings, special locations like the park. Next slide. We tried to translate those recommendations into a sort of a conceptua! overall plan not an engineering design plan at this point but sort of big ideas. What this diagram shows are some of the things that Joe just discussed. The orange squares are existing signalized intersections where the current recommended plan would include improve pedestrian crossings and refuges and things like that but also the traffic adaptive signalization. That would increase the through capacity for the corridor as a whole to allow us to propose these kinds of pedestrian and bicycle enhancing improvements. Next slide. The design goals. Real briefly, the overall design goals are to promote walking, bicycling and transit, to maintain the current vehicle trip times as Joe said and thirdly but not necessarily always last to beautify the street. There are portions particularly the segment the Arastradero-West Charleston segment where there aren’t consistent street trees and other amenities as there are in the East Charleston segment. Next slide. Our basic design assumption is that we work with in terms of doing the more detailed design plans for the street, conceptual design plans, was to narrow existing travel lanes where we could, to provide comer bulbouts at adjacent or perpendicular intersections from the neighborhoods and bulbouts are sort of extended sidewalk areas that shorten the crossing distance, widen and improve bike lanes, establish a sign program "bike boulevard" or other term that alerts motorists to the fact that this is a special street they should slow down, behave, respond differently than you are used to, provide infill street trees where they are needed where there are gaps or there aren’t existing street trees, construct a typical curb in that section of Arastradero that I mentioned previously where cars park up on the sidewalk to prevent them from doing that and synchronizing the traffic signals with the traffic adaptive program. Next slide. These are just illustrations of the different types of improvements that we are looking at or including in the plan. Landscaped traffic islands or medians improved pedestrian crossings and enhance bike lanes. Next slide. These are just enlarged ~;iews of those images. Next slide. When we started the more detailed design work after we got through the major ideas we were assuming that we would differentiate the design for the Arastradero-West Charleston City of Palo Alto Page 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 Commissioner Burt: Joe, earlier you alluded to a study that you have that compares the impact of a reduction from four lanes to three. It seems that that is likely to be at the center of a good deal of any contention that we might have in the community over the proposed plan. First I wonder whether as a follow up to this meeting it might be helpful for Staff to either supply that or a summary of that because I think that is one thing that the community and for that matter the Commission would value going into greater depth on. Mr. Kott: Yes, thank you Commissioner Burt. That is a very good point. We do have the whole study up on the Charleston/Arastradero website and it is titled, "The Conversion of Four Lane Undivided Roadways to Three Lane Facilities." We also have another somewhat less formal review of national experience we did in-house up as well. This former study is professionally refereed, so it has passed professional muster. Our own less formal review of four to three conversions around the country was done based not only on a web search but calls to colleagues around the country. We are glad to have people access those on our Web site and do their own poking about on the Internet. The results of both and the conventional thinking in our professional world is that four to three doesn’t reduce traffic volume flow and it has the effect of reducing crashes. When you go the opposite direction, from three to four lanes, Welch documents all of this in his study, there are dramatic rises in crashes. In four to three conversions, the left turn bay makes an important efficiency difference and of course there is less vehicle maneuvering, you might say weaving, when one you have one through lane in each direction. Chair Griffin: Mr. Bottomley. Mr. Bottomley: Just to review very quickly. The corridor that we are looking at extends from Foothill on the south and west to Fabian on the north and east, about 2.2 to 2.3 miles. There are a variety of different conditions that occur in terms of configuration of bike lanes and curbside parking and locations of sidewalks and the rest. Throughout there is a constant curb-to-curb cross section distance of 60 feet. Next slide and we will take a look at some of the conditions. This is looking at the area up by Gunn High School when the addition was under construction. You see a four-lane street with bike lanes on both sides and a combined bike lane and parking lane on the north side. One of the things that you can see right here is that monolithic curb, gutter and sidewalk all one piece so the sidewalk is right next to the curb. That is thecondition on both sides of the street. In fact, on the opposite side of the street there is sort of a rolled curb and gutter. There is an issue at certain times of the day with cars parking up on the sidewalk. Next slide. This condition carries through Arastradero and into West Charleston. Next slide. Here is a view of that area, again a four-lane cross-section, parking and bike lane on the north side of the street shown here too. E1 Camino, this is approaching E1 Camino from the east heading west as one of our major pinch points we had to work with in terms of trying to figure out how to more safely get pedestrians and bicyclists across the street working with the existing needs for turning movements and through traffic at the intersection. Next slide. East Charleston is a bit different in terms of the way the street looks and location of parking and bike lanes. Next slide. The relationship between basically the parking switches to City of Palo Alto Page 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 pedestrian countdown signals and whatnot. Phase two is really a trial with asphalt curbing. We would need to not landscape however. Landscaping would have to come later. Really, median landscaping should be in phase three. Phase three is frontage landscaping including street trees and lighting as well as median landscaping. In addition, we would also make the curbing permanent, that is concrete and not asphalt. There are lots of funding opportunities. Here is a good example of funding. Our Homer Undercrossing is $5.4 million and totally funded by external money, the whole thing. It wasn’t easy to get, by the way; we got $5.05million in federal and state grants. We got a $350,000 contribution from developers, we expect something similar to occur over time with the CharlestordArastradero Corridor Plan and we list some potential funding sources. We have applied for grants in all of those categories in the past. If the Commission has any questions I would be pleased to answer them or if the Commission prefers to hold questions until after Terry Bottomley finishes I would be pleased to do that too. Chair Griffin: What I would like to do actually before we move any further is in order to give me an idea of how many of you wish to speak this evening I would like to encourage you to please fill out a speaker card so we can do our count. Unless any Commissioner wants to ask a question of Joe at this stage we would hear from Mr. Bottomley. Mr. Terry Bottomle,/-, Consultant: Because Steve did such a good job describing the context and the sort of impetus for the project and Joe did such a good job describing the sort of technical aspects of traffic calming and pedestrian and vehicular safety improvements what I am going to do is use slides to just provide a quick review of the existing conditions, kind of breeze through the summary I did last timeof the process, the alternatives evaluations, and go straight then to the current recommended plan and some of the design details associated with that. It will take about five to ten minutes. The photographs and the aerial photographs take up a lot of memory and are really slow to load up. Chair Griffin: Thank you. If other members of the public would like to make additional comments you might hold them until the break and then it is easier to contact Staff people at that time. Mr. Bottomle¥: This isn’t so bad. I was at the City Council in Redwood City a couple of months ago and no one knew the password to get the computer started. So we were in front of a whole room full of people while we tried to sort of cast about and find out who had the password to get the sottware started. So at least we are into the program here and that’s good. Chair Griffin: Joe, while we are waiting for that program to load would you be available to take questions. Mr. Kott: Please do. Chair Griffin: Pat. Mr. Kott: Gayle has made another suggestion as far as how we can do this. She’ll work it. City of Palo Alto Page 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 A little bit about safety. What do pedestrians need? They need to have their cognitive tests simplified. They need less exposure to through traffic. They need slower through traffic approach speeds. They need a chance if possible for a median refuge not only to collect their breath, but also to greatly simplify the task of walking. Imagine this as you cross an intersection, four lane roadway, fairly high approach speeds, like on these two streets (35 to 40 miles an hour design speed, 85tu percentile speeds), pedestrians must be aware as they cross that first travel lane in the oncoming direction as they look left of traffic that there is traffic on the other side too, because they will soon cross the center line and have to meet that traffic. So by the time you are into the second lane in the first stage of your pedestrian journey you are already mindful and half watchful of traffic on the other side. With the center median refuge the only cognitive task you have is to look one direction, wait for a safe gap, cross over, reach the median, and then change your focus. If you have a three lane cross section it means you have got one through lane in each direction to worry about. It reduces your through lane crossing time and through lane crossing distance by half. Bicycle lanes are critical matters for cycling safety and I am glad to say we have done a lot of work in Palo Alto on bicycle facilities and we know a lot in this town about them. Bicyclists need space, they need width and they also need recognition or visibility. There needs to be an understanding, a recognition that there is a bike facility on the street. We have a proposal in our corridor plan to make the bike lanes highly visible and also widen them and make them continuous. They are not continuous on this corridor, which creates a potential safety problem. Now a lot of people avoid walking and biking on the corridor, therefore, we have an artificially low rate of crashes, if you will, for bikes and pedestrians. I think if more people hazarded these bike and walk trips on the corridor as it is now we would have higher crash rates. One of the people that joined us in the mobile workshop biked on the sidewalk the whole way. Not just on the section between Fabian and Middlefield but the whole way and that spoke volumes to me about how people perceive this corridor for biking. Again, the cyclists and walkers, once we make it safer, they will appear. Just a little bit about why we worry about vehicle speeds. Well, at 40 miles and hour if you are hit by a car you have an 85% chance of being killed. It is only five percent at 20 miles an hour. A driver at 40 miles an hour sees the pedestrian 100 feet ahead and hits the pedestrian at 38 miles an hour. You can see what the odds of the pedestrian are from the line above. Driving at 25 miles an hour a driver will stop before hitting the pedestrian. So it is a very critical time gap between 25 and 40 miles per hour. That is why we are worried about prevailing speeds that are too close to 40 as they are on this corridor. Another good principle to think about is when we have a three-lane section, one through in each direction; the prudent driver sets the pace. The speeder, the rash driver, just has to be prudent him or herself because the person ahead will set the pace. We have a phasing plan in our recommendations. We need to do the Gunn right turn lane first of all. An essential precondition for doing any conversion to three lanes from four is that we have traffic adaptive signalization deployed along the whole corridor. We need that additional efficiency and traffic flow in order to reallocate space in between the intersections when there is an oppommity to do so. We have other electronics improvements we would like to put in; pedestrian in-pavement automated lighting, these V-calm advisory speeds signs and so forth, City of Palo Alto Page 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 have had considerable public input within the constraints of time we’ve had. This is really a forced march operation particularly in Palo Alto, which is a town that does like to be engaged over time in these kinds of processes. We did make some outreach to some stakeholder groups, including PTA Traffic Safety Reps, and our Bicycle Advisory Committee. We have had an informal input group of stakeholders that includes business people, developers, neighborhood association representatives, bicycle committee representatives and others. I mentioned the mobile workshop and we do have a corridor plan website and that is the web address for anyone interested in taking a look at it. It has quite a bit of information on it, all of our traffic analysis, all of our traffic forecasts, related studies on this topic of four to three conversions and a !ot of other things, meeting notes from our public forums and Staff Reports. We are adding to it all the time. Again in terms of approach and I think this is very interesting, we are creating what I call a "smart corridor" here. We are trying to get out of this box of a really kind of dumb stalemate and the arguments between folks who want more highway physica! capacity, more lanes, and those who want what are called "skinny streets" or "road diets"." For the latter category, the advocates are called New Urbanists. The former category in the old days was called the "Highway Boys". I don’t know what they are called now. It is a very stale debate. Ithas been going on for a !ong time. It has been getting rather intense and there is no real need for it because we can have both. We can more efficient operations on our streets, we can have better throughput and better flow for motor vehicles and we can have more person trip capacity. In other words, not just occupants in private motor vehicles, but people on bicycles, people on foot, and people in public transport. It is really a different kind ofparadigrn. It is not very exciting because it doesn’t involve a lot of struggle and strife and so forth because it really gives everyone what they most want, I think. Also interesting in context of discussion in town and so forth in opinion columns in newspapers and whatnot is that as we stand now with our proposal about one half of this corridor will remain two travel lanes in each direction. The changes are not quite as dramatic as they have been portrayed. Nevertheless with a new set of left turn lanes and automated traffic signal systems through traffic adaptive signal technology, some spot improvements including a new dedicated right turn at Gunn High School, we expect actually to reduce travel time and reduce delay through this corridor plan and open up a lot of opportunity for cycling and walking and more transit use. Our approach holds vehicle travel harmless, in fact it marginally increases the efficiency of vehicle travel by reducing the delay fractionally. About one to three minutes is our projection of reduced delay for a trip along the entire corridor in a motor vehicle. At the same time it also creates much safer biking and walking conditions. We expect that the cyclists and the walkers will appear like the swallows at Capistrano. There have been some arguments in town that you don’t see many pedestrians or cyclists and so forth on this corridor. Well, you know what? The corridor is not all that safe. I biked it the other day for the mobile workshop from one end to the other. I have done that before. It is just not real safe especially at the major intersections and we do address those problems in the corridor plan. Make it safer and they will come. There are a lot of reasons to cycle and walk in Palo Alto. We have a lot of cycling and walking in other parts of town. There is no reason on a major school corridor that we can’t have the same here. So we are talking about smart capacity and getting out of this really stale dead-end debate over do we need more lanes or fewer lanes. We are really vectoring off into a much smarter quadrant. At the same time we are making room for bicycling and walking. City of Palo Alto Page 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 is an improvement plan by segment. It is a diverse roadway, as you all know. There are different types of land uses on it, somewhat different traffic mix, although traffic volumes don’t vary a lot on an average daily basis. It is definitely characterized by school traffic flows. Key objectives as Steve has enunciated are to improve walking and cycling conditions. This is very important. It is not only to address current safety concerns but also to induce more people to walk and bike. For a long time traffic engineers have been justly criticized for being unwilling to for example recommend a new crosswalk because there aren’t many people crossing at that location. We are justly chastised because when it is pointed out to us that they are not crossing because it is often not safe to cross. So we would really like to induce more walking and biking for a whole host of reasons. Enhanced streetscape and amenity. More efficient traffic flow but less speeding. A very interesting, a very important point to grasp. We don’t want to delay anybody. One of the constraints put on us by Council is do not delay average vehicle trip times on this corridor. So we have to somehow make our intersections work better and at the same time slow speeds and speeding generally occurs in between major intersections. Of course enhance the quality of life on the corridor. There is a big emphasis in this plan on more efficient traffic signal operations. That is, a greater throughput and less delay, shorter queues, at our signalized intersections. We will talk a little bit later about automating our traffic signal system on this corridor as a way to do that. We can reallocate green time in real time for optimal efficiency. The plan provides opportunities to widen and make continuous corridor bicycle lanes. In general the wider the bike lane, the safer and more comfortable biking. The constraint on width of course is if you make the bike lanes too wide vehicle drivers think they are through lanes. That said there are opportunities to widen bike lanes and make cycling a safer experience and induce more people to cycle as a result. Likewise we have oppommities for new left turn lanes to improve traffic flow. One of the stunning results in the research around the county and one of these papers is up on the Internet and I do recommend everyone take a look at it is the value of left turn lanes and pockets. A lot of people in town like to read this stuff, I certainly do. The paper is entitled, "Conversion of Four Lane Undivided Roadways to Three Lane Facilities is done by Thomas Welch of the Iowa DOT’s Chief of the Office of Transportation Safety there. Around the country when there has been conversion of four lane roadways to three lanes there has been really no loss in traffic volume. It seems to be a very interesting result. In general, conversion has sharply reduced crash rates. The center left turn lane is one reason why that happens because it really moves the obstructing vehicle on a four-lane roadway wishing to make a right turn out of the travel flow, tucks that vehicle away so that you don’t have this spillback effect, the spillback effect of people having to stop to wait for them to make the turn. Often they get frustrated and try to jockey over to the adjoining lane to the right interrupting that flow of traffic. The plan also provides for spot safety and efficiency improvements at selected locations. Commissioners may know we did conduct what we called a mobile workshop and had a lot of fun doing it actually with residents yesterday looking at these particular sites. I’ll talk about the approach here. We need to consider future travel demand since there is no good at all designing or redesigning a roadway without considering what the future might bring for demand for space on the roadway. Council did adopt formal Corridor Plan performance measures. There are a total often and they include travel time and delay, that it is not to increase those. Increase cycling and walking and transit use. Decrease crashes and related objectives. As Steve said, we City of Palo Alto Page 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 who have been working on the project for the duration. We have Gayle Likens our Transportation Planner who is sitting at the Staff table and we have Dan Sodegren our Deputy Senior City Attorney from the Attorney’s Office also able to answer legal questions. In the audience we have John Lusardi who is our Special Plaiming Projects Manager and Susan Ondik whose team burned the midnight oil over the weekend in completing the Negative Declaration, which you have in front of you. They are here to answer any questions regarding that document. So now I am going to turn it over to Joe and the rest of the presentation. Mr. Joe Kott Chief Transportation Official: Thank you very much Steve and good evening Commissioners. Actually Steve gave my presentation so if there are any questions I would be pleased to answer them. In all seriousness before my presentation I would like to give the Commission a couple of edits on our recommendations. I should note that the good Dominican Sisters taught me how to read years and years ago. The Christian Brothers, those free vintners and enjoyers of fine wine, taught me how to proofread and I think the former lesson was better than the latter lesson. To begin with we are asking this Commission to recommend to Council. So this Commission’s role as we all know is to recommend to Council. The Commission recommends and the Council disposes of recommendations. Recommendation number 14 a very important edit. By the way, these will be corrected on the internet not only on the Commission’s Agendas and Reports site but also on the Charleston Road Corridor website. Recommendation 14 please do note that in the third line, which reads, "median islands from Fabian to E1 Camino Real," that should be corrected to read, "from Fabian to Alma." The sentence above that should have been better written but was not and reads now, "each direction) and one," please eliminate the ’one,’ "intermittent left turning lane" please add an ’s’ to the ’lane’ to make it plural. Recommendation 14 line two the fourth word is ’one’ please just eliminate that word and add later on in that line an ’s’ to the word ’lane’ to make it plural. I should have really said clearly that we are recommending more than one left turning lane. Finally, Recommendation 17 please add to the very end of the recommendation after, "in and out of Louis and widen pedestrian refuge." It is as important an objective as safer left turning movements for vehicles. I really do need to take responsibility for that myself and not blame the fine Christian Brothers who otherwise gave me a very good education. Chair Griff~n: You are not supposed to do your own proofing. Mr. Kott: That is true enough. This Commission and the public are well aware of conditions on Charleston and Arastradero Roads. These are fairly representative but probably a little bit busier times of day than ordinarily but present some of the obstacles driver and pedestrians and cyclists encounter on a daily basis. As Steve indicated we have been mandated by Council, the date was April 14, to prepare this corridor plan. In doing so we had to consider not only current conditions but cumulative future traffic conditions. We have used in this plan our new citywide computer traffic model for the future conditions projections. It is certainly a transportation focus, we have to make that clear, it is not a land use plan. We take land use as given or as assumed. Council, for example, did assume two land use programs that we put into our computer forecast model. We are interested in this project the whole public right-of-way, not just the circulation parts of the right-of-way, therefore, the visual amenity, the streetscape and so forth, street trees and landscaped medians and whatnot. We are supposed to recommend to Council a plan of improvements that cover these topics by the end of January of 2004. The plan City of Palo A ho Page 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 is set to expire on the 31st and we certainly want to have the plan in place before that happens. There is no provision in the Moratorium for any extensions and we are taking this deadline incredibly seriously. So we did want to emphasize the need to move through this as quickly as possible. As you listen to the presentation tonight I just wanted to leave you with a couple of key messages as you digest the information that you are about to be presented. One is that the primary motivation for moving on the study was the safety concerns. As the Commission is well aware the Charleston/Arastradero Corridor serves the majority of the City’s school age population. Many of our children and parents traverse this corridor on a regular basis and a big factor in promoting mobility through the corridor really depends on promoting safe alternative forms of transportation, bicycle, pedestrian and public transportation is paramount in achieving our objectives. A second major objective is that Staff has taken very seriously and believes that we can achieve the mobility concerns of the community for the passenger vehicle as well. That traversing the corridor should continue to be as smooth and efficient as possible. With the corridor as it is currently designed with decades old traffic engineering went into the design of this corridor and we know quite a bit more about capacity and traffic behavior than in the 1950s when this roadway was designed to the current day standards. It is very possible to through technology and through current transportation practices to promote the efficient travel time through the corridor. That is what we feel is important to smooth out the travel time to make the signal operations work as efficiently as possible so that the experience ofthe moving through the corridor is as trouble-free and efficient as possible. That means that the average speed could be reduced because we do know that there are segments of this corridor that the average speed is unacceptably high and that through better signal timing and through efficient intersection improvements have the motorist stop as little as possible moving through the corridor so that the average travel time is actually improved or kept at the current levels. So those are some of the goals that we had going into this. One of the major components of the recommendation is that several segments of the plan are recommended to be reduced to a three-lane.segment, two travel lanes and a center left turn lane. As you review the information keep in mind that a four lane section provides primarily extra pavement in the two center lanes for the left turn movement, that you can promote better traffic efficiency by channelizing the traffic, providing the kinds of refuges in the center turn lane that reduces the backup and the need for driver frustration and backlog caused by left turners blocking a travel lane. The benefit of that is not only a more efficient and smooth traffic movement through the corridor but also much improved pedestrian and bicycle safety especially when crossing the street. The phenomenon of the four-lane cross section greatly contributes to unsatisfactory pedestrian conditions. By just simply reducing the number of travel lanes that the pedestrian must pay attention to as they cross the roadway and it also provides an opportunity for center pedestrian refuges, a place where a pedestrian can be out of the line of traffic in the center median that can also greatly enhance traffic safety. So those are the messages we would like you to consider as you hear the presentation. I would like to now introduce Joe Kott our Chief Transportation Official who is going to be giving you his view of the project. Then after that we will hear from Terry Bottomley our Design Consultant. I would also like to let you know we have several Staff members available City of Palo Alto Page 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 CONSENT CALENDAR. items will be voted on in one motion unless removed from the calendar by a Commission Member. AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS. The agenda may have additional items added to it up until 72 hours prior to meeting time. UNFINISHED B USINESS. Public Hearings: None. Other Items: None. Chair Griffin: I will open the public hearing on item number one, which is a Commission review and recommendation to the Council on a Proposed Charleston/Arastradero Corridor Plan of Improvements from Fabian to Miranda. Will the Staff please make some introductory remarks? Steve. NEW BUSINESS. Public Hearings: 1.Review and Recommendation to Council on a Proposed Charleston/Arastradero Corridor Plan of Improvements from Fabian to Miranda. Mr. Steve Emslie. Plannin~ Director: Thank you Chair Griffin and members of the Commission. My name is Steve Emslie, Director of Planning and Community Environment for the City of Palo Alto. I would like to make a brief introductory set of comments and introduce the team that has been working on the plan that you have before you. Just in the way of background as the Commission is well aware this study was initiated by the City Council’s adoption of a Development Moratorium for the Charleston/Arastradero Corridor back in April of this year. Since that time Staff and our consultants have been working to develop a set of recommendations to present to you as a drat~ plan that you would then forward to the City Council for their review. Leading up to that event.the Staff held a series of community workshops, four workshops, two were held last summer as an introduction to get feedback and comment from the community. Staff had prepared a set of alternatives, which were reviewed at two subsequent public workshops this fall. In addition Staff has been working with a group of stakeholders on an every other week basis for feedback and comment and for exchange of information. We have a brief presentation tonight from Joe Kott and our Urban Design Consultant, Terry Bottomley. We are not intending on covering a lot of the background since we did review that with the Commission and the City Council a couple of weeks ago. We wanted to spend a tittle bit more time on the rationale of some of the recommendations, some of the safety improvements and then of course entertain specific questions. I did also want to emphasis that we are on a very tight timeframe. When we took on this assignment back in April we made it very clear that this is a very short timeframe to do a plan of this magnitude, really nine months is just-in-time planning. So as such we are encouraging the Commission to be as efficient as possible in its review clearly not to sacrifice any of the quality or the information that you need but we do have a deadline of presenting this to the City Council on January 20 as the Development Moratorium City of Palo Alto Page 2 ATTACHMENT H 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 :MEETINGS ARE CABLECAST LIVE ON GOVERNMENT ACCESS CHANNEL 26: Wednesday, December 10, 2003 REGULAR MEETING- 7:O0 PM City Council Chambers Civic Center, 1st Floor 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, California 94301 ROLL CALL: 7:00 PM- Commissioners: Michael Griffin, Chair Phyllis Cassel, Vice-Chair Annette Bialson - absent Patrick Burr Bonnie Packer Karen Holman Staff: Steve Emslie, Planning Director Joe Kott, Chief Transportation Official Gayle Likens, Transportation Planner Dan Sodegren, Special Counsel to City Attorneys Terry Bottomley, Consultant Olubayo Elimisha, Staff Secretary AGENDIZED ITEM: Review and Recommendation to Council on a Proposed Charleston/Arastradero Corridor Plan of Improvements from Fabian to Miranda. Chair Grift~n: Good evening ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the Wednesday, December 10 meeting of the Planning and Transportation Commission. It is a regular meeting of the Commission and would the Secretary please call the roll? We now come to the Oral Communications part of our agenda. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS. Members of the public may speak to any item not on the agenda with a limitation of three (3) minutes per speaker. Those who desire to speak must complete a speaker request card available from the secretary of the Commission. The Planning and Transportation Commission reserves the right to limit the oral communications period to 15 minutes. Chair Griffin: Do we have any speaker request cards for Oral Communications? No, that being the case we will move on to New Business. City of Palo Alto Page 1 8~ 11’~Pedestrian--- Refuge 1/2 Bulbout @ West Side Street Bulbout @ East Side Street E Enlarged Plan Residential (Orientation of Residences Varies) 5’ Side- walk 8’~11’ Planting ] Bike "Travel Strip | Lane/Lane IFlex Parking |¯¯¯~GM SD SD 16’ Median / lff Left Tttrn Lane ¯¯SS SS 11’14’8~ [ 5" [Travel Parking/Bike Planting Side- Lane Lane Strip walk ¯ ¯WM GM ¯Reduce from 4-Lane to 3-Lane Cross Section ¯Install 6’ Median Islands w/Pedestrian Crossing Refuges¯Stripe Auto Lanes 11’/10/11’ ¯Maintain Curbside Parking on East Side ¯Widen Bike Lanes to 6’ on East and 8’ on West¯Sign Bike Lane on West Side for Programmed Curbside Parking (e.g. 7pm to 7am)¯Paint/Tint Bike Lanes ¯Install Lights / Signs, e.g., "Bike Boulevard" E Residential Section East Charleston CHARLESTON / ARASTRADERO CORRIDOR STUDY CITY OF PALO ALTO No t’arRmg Zone Bike Lane Narrows to 5’ Neighborhood Street w 1~o t’arKmg Zone ~ Narrows to 5’~’ P.U.E. Clear Zone Pedestrian~ Refuge E No Parking Zone Median Island Widens / Bike Lane Narrows @ Intersection Enlarged Plan W E Residential (Orientation of Residences Varies)~P.U.E? Side-Travel "Travel Island Travel Travel Bike 1Side-" walk Lane Lane Lane Lane Lane/ ~walk WM W SS ¯Maintain 4-Lane Cross Section ¯Install 6’ Median Islands* w/Pedestrian Crossing Refuges ¯Stripe Auto Lanes 10’/10/10’/10’ ¯Remove Curbside Parking Lane West Side ¯Widen Bike Lanes to 7’ * ¯Sign Bike Lanes Both Sides for Prograntmed Curbside Parking (e.g. 7pm to 7am) ¯Paint/Tint Bike Lanes ¯Construct Regular Curb East Side ¯Install Lights / Signs, e.g., "Bike Boulevard" ¯Install Street Trees in ROW/PUE Area * Islands widened to 10’ at Local Streets to Create Left Turn Pockets; Requires Narrowing Bike Lanes to 5’ and Eliminating Curbside Parking Residential Section Arastradero / West Charleston CHARLESTON / ARASTRADERO CORRIDOR STUDY CITY OF PALO ALTO Full Bulbout @ Side P.U.E. Refuge E Enlarged Plan W Residential (Orientation of Residences Varies t.U.E. Side-Parking Bike Travel walk lane Lane 16’11’8’4’ [6’] Median Travel Bike Side- Lane lane alk ¯¯SS GM ¯Reduce from 4-Lane to 3-Lane Cross Section ¯Install 16’ Median Islands w/Pedestrian Crossing Refuges ¯Stripe Aut~ Lanes 11’/10/11’ ¯Maintain Curbside Parking on West Side ¯Widen Bike Lanes t~ 6’ on West and 8’ on East ¯Sign Bike Lane on East Side for Programmed Curbside Parking (e.g. 7pro t~ 7am) ¯Paint/Tint Bike Lanes ¯Install Lights / Signs, e.g., "Bike Boulev~d" ¯Construct Regular Curb East Side ¯Install Street Trees in ROW / PUE Area Residential Section Arastradero / West Charleston CHARLESTON / ARASTRADERO CORRIDOR STUDY CITY OF PALO ALTO <© ATTACHMENT F ~ 0 < Charleston Arastradero Funding Plan CITY"OF PALO ALTO 4. Palo Alto General Fund The General Fund is a flexible, yet over-committed resource that is critical to supporting community services, police, fire, public works and other core governmental functions in the City of Palo Alto. In recent years, the General Fund has totaled over 100 million dollars, but less than $1 million of that, on average, has been committed to transportation capital projects. Currently, given the severe recession, General Fund revenues are down dramatically and the City has had to significantly decrease budgets across the board, and has put off capital expenditures whenever possible. At this point, the city conservatively does not expect receipts to return to their 2000 levels for another five years. Governor $chwarzenegger’s first act in office, to repeal the Vehicle License Fee, presents another immediate crisis to the city’s General Fund, which stands to lose another $2.4 million from this source. Given the great demands on the General Fund, and the prospect of a slow turn-around in tax receipts flowing into Palo Alto, this source of funding is not a likely one for the Charleston Arastradero Corridor Plan. Conclusions Our initial assessment is that there are several funding sources available to the City of Palo Alto which are very appropriate candidates for funding the Charleston Arastradero Corridor Plan, and a funding strategy can be devised to build the improvements as planned, even in the current difficult funding environment. The nature of the Corridor Plan makes it highly fundable from a number of competitive grant pools that focus on pedestrian and bike improvements, school safety, and smart growth. It is likely that these programs will continue under a reauthorized federal transportation bill ("SAFETEA"), which should be passed by Congress in the coming months. Importantly, there are feasible sources of local match money, particularly if the Transportation Impact Fee is adopted. A firm source of local match will be important to attract competitive grants. The timing of funding depends largely on Palo Alto’s prioritization of this project in the overall Transportation Improvement Program for the city as a whole. Because of the cost the project will either have to be a very high priority for available funding, or, more likely it will need to be broken into smaller phases for gradual implementation as funding is obtained. Page 15 ¯ Neison\Nygaard Consulting Associates Charleston Arastradero Funding Plan f~.~!.~!~ry Asse:ss~ent o~ ~u~ding S£Urces ........... CiTY OF PALO ALTO the Charleston Arastradero Corridor Plan, there may be some elements of the plan that could be directly funded as a part of the development process. More formal exactions on new development, in the form of impact fees, require study and legal clearance to determine that there is a rationale for the application of the fees. A traffic impact fee could be developed specifically for the Charleston Arastradero Corridor Plan area, as has been done for Stanford Research Park and the San Antonio/West Bayshore, but the proceeds of this fee would be limited by the amount of new development in the project area. As Palo Alto is currently considering the adoption of a citywide Transportation Impact Fee (described below), creation of an area-specific fee, which could be duplicative of the citywide fee and complicate its adoption, does not appear to be a fruitful path at this time. 3. Palo Alto Transportation Impact Fee The City of Pato Alto is currently formulating a new development fee that will be used to fund citywide transportation improvements. It is broader than a typical traffic impact fee in that it recognizes that Palo Alto has a very high priority to enhance the ease of transportation for pedestrians, bicyclists and transit as well automobiles, and therefore focuses on bicycling, walking and transit projects. Transportation impact fees are commonly used by local jurisdictions in California to account for the impact of new growth on transportation resources. The proposed projects in the Charleston Arastradero Corridor area would all pay into this citywide fund, if it were approved, based on their projected generation of peak hour automobile trips. Use of the Transportation Impact Fee will be limited to improvements specified in the fee ordinance. Revenues will be dependent on the rate of new development, which tends to fluctuate markedly from year to year. At the current proposed rate of $2,458 per PM peak hour vehicle trip, the Traffic Impact Fee is predicted to generate $7.2 million (in 2003 dollars) over its 22-year life. Generating about $330,000 per year for Palo Alto projects, it will provide a good source of local match for implementing the Charleston Arastradero Corridor Plan. The advantages of the useof this source for the Charleston Arastradero Corridor Plan over a more narrowly drawn neighborhood traffic impact fee is that the project will be able to draw on fees generated in the entire city, smoothing year to year variations in local development cycles. More importantly, under the proposed Transportation Impact Fee, major aspects of the Charleston Arastradero Corridor project are fundable, including computerized traffic management, bike routes, and pedestrian improvements. The Charleston Arastradero Corridor bike lanes and ped/bike intersection improvements are specifically named in the draft expenditure plan for the fees. Page 14 ¯ Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Charleston Arastradero Funding Plan ~F~(i~!nary ~Asse. s~m~ t of Fund~n9 SOurce.,~ ......................... CITY OF PAL0 ALTO Other Local Sources Finding outside funds for projects is naturally a more attractive option for any city, compared to raising revenue locally. However, not only are outside funds competitive, uncertain, and threatened by larger fiscal issues, but they also almost always call for a local "match." Therefore, Palo Alto will best be able to fund the Charleston Arastradero Corridor Plan if it can maximize its own contribution. Below is a short list of sources that could be considered in order to advance project implementation and make the City more competitive for outside funding. 1. Assessment District An Assessment District has been discussed as a potential mechanism to raise funds for the Charleston Arastradero Corridor Plan. Assessment districts delineate a defined geographic constituency and provide benefits to those residents, such as roads, water, parks, and recreational facilities. Assessment Districts are a common mechanism to pay for community infrastructure in California because they are not subject to Proposition !3 limits. The districts typically place a levy on a property in such as way that the benefit is comparable to the assessment. Benefit assessment districts come in several different forms, and depending on their enabling legislation have a different set of requirement on what they may fund and how they are established. An assessment district created under the Improvement Act of 19! 1 or the Municipal Improvement Act of 1913, for instance, is normally initiated by petition by owners of property within the proposed district and then formed by a sponsoring local agency. Property owners can protest the district before it is formed. Other districts require a direct vote of property owners, such as a 1982 Act Benefit Assessment Districts (majority) and Mello Roos Community Facilities Districts (2/3rds). Once it is formed, assessments can be paid either in a lump sum or over a period of years (generally 15-20). Cities often bond against the income stream to pay for improvements. 2. Exactions on Development It may be appropriate for the city to impose project-specific exactions on new development for certain elements of the Charleston Arastradero Corridor Plan, such as enhanced bus shelters, urban design improvements or intersection capacity improvements. In larger development projects, such exactions are often negotiated during the approvals process, often driven by the findings of an environmental analysis of the proposed project showing that the project will have impacts on local roadways and other infrastructure. In the case of the Charleston Arastradero Corridor Plan, there are several large-scale developments in the pipeline, including those proposed for the Hyatt Rickey’s site, the Elks Club, the proposed Jewish Community Center, and Alma Plaza. It is expected that each of these projects will be required to undergo an impact analysis, and that the project proponents may be required to mitigate some of their impacts on the transportation infrastructure. Depending on the timing of both the projects and the implementation of Page t3 ¯ Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Charleston Arastradero Funding Plan Preliminary Assessment of Funding Sources CITY OF PALO ALTO Formula-Based Sources 1. Transportation Development Act - Article 3 (Bicycle/Pedestrian) The Transportation Development Act (TDA) levies a statewide 1/4-cent sales tax to generate revenue for transportation. TDA Article 3 funds are allocated to Santa Clara County by formula and generate about $1.4 million annually. The county uses the funds to implement the Bicycle Element of the Valley Transportation Plan 2020, which was adopted in 2002. The Bicycle Element consists of the Santa Clara Countywide Bicycle Plan and a $31 million Bicycle Expenditure Program (BEP). The California Avenue Undercrossing is allocated $1 million in the BEP and is the sole Palo Alto project on the list. The list of priority projects of the BEP (Tier 1 list), is reviewed and revised by the Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) Board of Directors every two years, at which time jurisdictions that do not currently have a project in Tier 1 receive priority consideration. A number of other counties distribute a share of TDA Article 3 funds to cities. Palo Alto could work with other cities to press VTA to do the same for local bike/pedestrian projects, and the city should also be prepared to propose and advocate for projects during the BEP revision processes. In that scenario, the Charleston Arastradero Corridor Plan could receive some funding from this source, but otherwise, funding is currently unlikely. 2. Local Subventions of the State Gas Tax Of Califor~ia’s 18 cents per gallon fuel tax, 6.46 cents are allocated to cities and counties for local streets and roads. This important source provides revenue for Palo Alto to maintain and rehabilitate its streets. Local subventions are generally inadequate however, because the rate has not kept up with inflation. The current state fiscal crisis, and the stress it puts on Palo Alto’s general fund, makes this source very important to simply try to keep up with road maintenance, and it is therefore an unlikely source for funding capital improvements associated with the Charleston Arastradero Corridor Plan. In some cases, however, communities have built traffic calming improvements as part of rehabilitation, reconstruction and /or restriping projects: these range from narrowing traffic lanes (e.g. Stanford’s Campus Drive bicycle lanes, created by narrowing travel lanes to 10.5’ width as part of a resurfacing project) to major changes during full reconstruction. For example, the genesis of Mountain View’s Castro Street traffic calming improvements was the need to replace a major sewer line under the street. Savings can sometimes, but not always, be realized with this technique. Page t2 ¯ Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Charleston Arastradero Funding Plan CITY OF PALO ALTO 7. Transportation Community and System Preservation Program (TCSP) The federal TEA-21 legislation created TCSP as a pilot program. During the four-year program, federal agencies awarded grants totaling $120 million for smart growth projects intended to reduce the need for costly new infrastructure. Projects funded under the program ranged from bike paths to highway widening, with budgets from the tens of thousands to over $1 million. The administration’s initial proposal under SAFETEA would incorporate the TCSP program into the Surface Transportation Program, delegating equal amounts of funding to each of the states, which would set up an allocation process including regional transportation planning agencies. Until the future direction of the program is established, it will not be clear whether this source will be available for the Charleston Arastradero Corridor. Page 10 ¯ Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Charleston Arastradero Funding Plan CITY OF PALO ALTO While fiscal uncertainties may threaten this program, it has been highly popular and is likely to be continued in some form after its sunset. Its popularity, however, has also made it a highly competitive application process, and an oversubscribed funding source. The large number of schools in the Charleston Arastradero Corridor Plan area, combined with the street improvements and traffic calming concepts that Palo Alto wishes to implement would make this a strong candidate for funding under the Safe Routes To School Local Assistance Program. Figure 6 Safe Routes to Schools - Sample Projects Belmont - in pavement crosswalk lights and radar signs Los Gatos - new sidewalks and sidewalk gap closures Mountain View - speed warning signs and countdown pedestrian signals $232,000 Source: http:llwww.dot.ca.9ovlhqJLocalProgramslSafeRTS2Schooll4thCycleProgramPlan.pdf 2003 TIP Funding $372,700 $306,900 5. Bicycle Transportation Account (BTA) Through the Bicycle Transportation Account, Caltrans provided $7.2 million in 2003 to local communities for capital projects intended to improve and increase bicycle commuting, and despite the budget crisis that same amount will be distributed in upcoming 2004/5 funding cycle. This source is highly competitive, usually providing funding for bikeways of regional importance (generally Class 1 and Class 2 facilities), and providing grants from $100,000 to over $1,000,000 in rare instances. To be competitive for this source, the City of Palo Alto will need to articulate the regional and local benefits of the Charleston Arastradero Corridor Plan. 6. Transportation Fund for Clean Air (TFCA) Using a regional surcharge on motor vehicles, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District provides grants to public agencies for a wide variety of transportation projects with a focus on projects that minimize or reduce single-occupant vehicle trips, such as bicycle projects, ride-sharing and transit shuttles. Bicycle projects have often scored well under the criteria for this source, which ranks project applications based on their projected cost- effectiveness in reducing air pollution: one project partially funded by a TFCA grant was the Alma Street Bicycle Bridge between Palo Alto and Menlo Park. However, because the project improves existing bicycle facilities, rather than creating entirely new ones, demonstrating that increased bicycling will result will be somewhat more difficult, though some evidence does demonstrate the link between traffic calming and increased levels of bicycling and walking. Page 9 ¯ Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Charleston Arastradero Funding Plan Preliminary Assessment of Funding Sources CiTY OF PALO ALTO The regional enhancement’s share is allocated during the regional Transportation Improvement Program process. In recent years, MTC has chosen to allocate the 75% regional share via the Transportation for Livable Communities program, discussed previously. STP Regional- 50% Half of STP funds are allocated to regional entities that allocate these highly flexible funds during the regional Transportation Improvement Program process. In Santa Clara County, this source has helped fund a number bicycle and pedestrian oriented projects like the Charleston Arastradero Corridor Plan (Figure 5) in the range of $100,000-500,000. Figure 5 STP Regional 50% Share - Sample Projects Evelyn Ave Class I1 bike Lane $170,000 .... Sunnyvale North-South Bikeways ....$150,000 Palo Alto Medical Foundation Bike/Ped Crossing $500,000 Source: MTC 2003 TIP - http:llwww.rntc.ca.go[!publiq~tions!tipItipind.htrn 3. Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ) This flexible funding source for transportation is allocated primarily through the regional planning processes described earlier. Transit agencies and local governments both compete for these funds and in the short term these funds are oversubscribed. The Charleston Arastradero Corridor Plan seeks to calm traffic, but does not seek to remove SOV’s from the roadways. However, by making it easy to bicycle or walk in the community (particularly to local schools) the overall impact of the plan could reduce vehicle congestion. To acquire funding for the Charleston Arastradero Corridor Plan, it will be important to articulate these benefits of the project to MTC and VTA. In recent years, MTC has chosen to allocate a portion of CMA© funding via the Transportation for Livable Communities program, discussed previously. 4. Safe Routes to School Local Assistance Program Caltrans uses federal funds from the.Hazard Elimination/Safety program for this local grant program. Originally a pilot program, the Safe Routes to School Local Assistance Program was extended for three years until 2005. Each round of funding has distributed more than $20 million in funding to cities around the state, in grants ranging up to $500,000. Applications for the final scheduled round of funding are due in February, 2004. Page 8 ¯ Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Charleston Arastradero Funding Plan CITY OF PALO ALTO 2. Surface Transportation Program (STP) The Surface Transportation Program is a funding program governed by the TEA-21 legislation and administered by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and Caltrans. The funds can be used for a wide variety of capital purposes across all modes. The approximately $680 million in annual funding for California STP funds must be distributed as follows: Allocation 10% 10% 50% 30% _Category (Approx. Annual Statewide Fundinq) Safety Construction ($68 m) Transportation Enhancement Activities (STP-TEA) ($68 m) Regional STP and rural areas guaranteed return ($340 m) State Discretionary ($204 m) The Safety Construction allocation and the State Discretionary allocation would generally not fund projects like the Charleston Arastradero Corridor Plan. However, the STP Transportation Enhancements and the Regional STP portions are potential sources for Charleston Arastradero. STP Transportation Enhancement Activities (~JTP-TEA) - 70% Of particular interest to the implementation of the Charleston Arastradero Corridor Plan is the STP Transportation Enhancement Activities programming. Examples of Bay Area projects funded from this program in the most recent TIP are listed in Figure 4. Figure 4 Transportation Enhancement Activities - Sample Projects Oakland Bay Trail: Mandela Parkway $836,000 Bay Trail (Baurnbeq] Track Trail segment)$293,000 San Pablo Ave Smart Corridor- Phase II $31,000 Source: MTC 2003 TIP - http:llvvw~.rntc.ca.govlpublicationsltipltipind.htm Control over this funding source is divided between the region and the state. Regional agencies - MTC in the Bay Area - control the funding of 75% of the statewide funds for the STP-TEA program (i,e. 75% of the 10% allocated for this category), with the state controlling the remaining 25%. The state’s 25% share is further divided into three areas: the Caltrans Share (11%), the Statewide Environmental Enhancement Share (11%), and the Conservation Lands Share (3%). Only very high profile projects would be expected to attract the state share. Page 7 ¯ Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Charleston Arastradero Funding Plan ~ u n d i n.g S .°., ~.r c.e s ...................... CiTY OF PALO ALTO Recommended Funding Sources This section specifies the federal, state and local sources that are most applicable to funding the Charleston Arastradero Corridor Plan. Sources are considered in two broad categories categories: Federal and State funded grant programs, and local sources. State and Federal Grant Programs The most relevant grant sources are briefly discussed below and summarized in detail in Figure 7. 1. Transportation for Livable Communities MTC created this innovative program to fund community-oriented transportation projects. Capital projects are funded using regional Transportation Enhancement Activities funding from the federal Surface Transportation Program (STP) of TEA-21 (and its eventual successor). Funding has also come from the Congestion Mitigation Air Quality program (CMAQ). MTC is revising the current project evaluation criteria and application process and the next call for projects is tentatively scheduled for February 2004. The planning grant cycle is expected to begin in spring 2004, and the next capital grant cycle for the Spring 2005. The intent of the program is to improve neighborhood livability and coordinate transportation and land use. Project sponsors are encouraged to submit proposals that improve bicycling, and walking, and encourage transit ridership through transit-oriented development. Current evaluation criteria for capital projects include community involvement, benefits to bicyclists and pedestrians, support for community redevelopment activities, and improved internal community mobility. The Charleston Arastradero Corridor Plan fits many of these criteria, placing the project in a very good position to receive this funding. Examples of projects currently funded by the TLC program in the MTC 2003 TIP in Santa Clara County are presented in Figure 3. Grants awarded through this source range from several hundred thousand to well over one million dollars, and are often awarded on a multi-year, multi-phase basis which could be very appropriate for the Charleston Arastradero Corridor Plan. Figure 3 Transportation for Livable Communities - Sample Projects Fruitdale Station Area Streetscape .......$400,000 River Oaks Bike/Pedestrian Bridge .............$1,000,0,00 San Fernando Light-Rail Station Pl~a $885,000 Source: MTC 2003 TIP - http:llwww.mtc.ca.go~ipublicationsltipltipind.htm STP funds CMAQ fund,~ CMAQ funds Page 6 ¯ Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Charleston Arastradero Funding Plan ~,r~,l,i~!n~[,~.A~ses~,m~.t. o(,,~U~,qing Sour,COS CiTY OF PALO ALTO Funding Context Transportation Funding in Transition - "SAFETEA. and State Deficits For two major reasons, this is an uncertain time to evaluate funding sources and opportunities. First, the federal law that currently governs transportation spending, known as TEA-21, was set to expire in the fall of 2003. It was extended for five months in its current form into early 2004, but the replacement law, now referred to as "SAFETEA",1 has yet to be finalized and passed. Both the level of funding for and the ability to fund projects in the region’s Transportation Implementation Plan will be significantly impacted by the terms of SAFETEA. However, the two previous federal transportation bills have generally been considered popular successes and it is likely that most programs will not be radically changed. Therefore, this analysis is generally based on TEA-21 provisions. A second uncertainty is the current State financial crisis, which not only mak&s new state funding programs for transportation projects unlikely, but also threatens existing sources. However, the fiscal picture will change over time and transportation is a sector that benefits from a number of "lock-boxed" sources that cannot easily be used for other purposes, such as filling general fund deficits. Trends in Funding that Support the Charleston Arastradero Corridor Plan Despite these reasons for concern regarding transportation funding, there are many trends and developments that bode well for the funding and implementation of the Charleston Arastradero Corridor Plan. These trends include growth in funding opportunities for projects focusing on bicyclists and pedestrians, as this one does. Examples of programs targeting funds towards bicycle/pedestrian projects include the federal Transportation Enhancement Activities Program (TEA), the state Safe Routes to School Local Assistance Program, and the regional Transportation for Livable Communities Program. In addition, these programs often emphasize community based planning processes, which fits well with Palo Alto’s planning philosophy and practice. The Regional Process The majority of federal and state funding sources are programmed at the regional level, overseen by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC). The two primary processes for funding that take place at MTC are the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) and the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). For Palo Alto, the county CMA - the Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) - is the key point of entry into the regional transportation planning process. For its preferred projects to receive outside funding, the City must impress their importance upon VTA. Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act Page 5 ¯ Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Charleston Arastradero Funding Plan ~r,~!imi~ar~Y A~S~,ssm~qt, of, .EU~,~.in.g. s.~,U,rces CITY OF PALO ALTO Figure 2 Project Costs Roadway and Median Improvements Frontage Improvements Contingency,,,@ 15% Construction Subtotal Architecture & Engineering @ 15% Project Management @ 5% Project To~! Traffic Adap~!ve Signals Grand Total Source: Bottomley Design Group, TJKM $2,530,~00 $1,980,000 $676 575 $5,187,075 $778,061 $259,354 .,$6,224~90 $1,200,000 $7,424,49O These costs suggest that the project may be installed in phases. Preliminarily/, it is expected that a first phase will include the traffic adaptive signalization of the corridor, along with pedestrian controlled crossings at select locations, turning lanes and bike lanes. Temporary/ (trial) restriping of the street and installation of temporar:y medians and bulbouts could also be included. A second phase would make permanent the medians and corner bulbouts, and would include installation of the median landscaping. Finally, in a third phase frontage improvements, including installation of street trees and lighting, would complete the project. Funding Funds to provide the traffic calming benefits proposed in the Charleston Arastradero Corridor Plan will need to come from a variety of sources, and may also be phased in over several ~years in a sequence of products through full plan implementation. This section identifies potential sources of funding for the Charleston Arastradero Corridor Plan implementation that will be reasonably available to the City of Palo Alto in coming years for these types of projects. In this section, we do not attempt to rank the importance of this project against others in Palo Alto that may also be competing for funds. After a review of the broader funding environment and the regional transportation funding process, 13 possible funding sources are evaluated in detail. The emphasis is on the process of allocating the funds, the appropriateness of each source for projects in this plan, and strategies for successfully securing competitive sources. Funding sources are categorized by grant programs, formula allocations, and possible local sources (the latter are essential to winning competitive funds). Page 4 oNelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Charleston Arastradero Funding Plan CITY OF PALO ALTO Following designs prepared for the City of Palo Alto by Bottomley Design Group and TJKM Engineers, what is now a typical arterial would become a multi-use street with a tree-lined median along its full length. Bike lanes will be installed on both sides of the street, with their presence strongly signified by colored pavement. On the Charleston section, the number of lanes is decreased to one continuous lane in each direction, plus a left turn lane approaching all major intersections. Daytime parking is prohibited in much of the corridor, but overnight parking would be allowable in the bike lanes. The project also includes landscape treatments along the entire street frontage, including the addition of street trees. Many of the improvements focus on making the street safer and more convenient for pedestrians. Bulbouts and half-bulbouts will be extended to make travel along the corridor easier. The planted median will incorporate pedestrian refuge islands at all crosswalks, allowing much greater safety in crossing from one side of the corridor to the other. Other improvements try to heighten the driver’s awareness of pedestrians, with lighted and textured crosswalks prompting drivers to proceed cautiously through the neighborhood. Finally, landscaping and gateway treatments communicate that this stretch of roadway is different than a normal arterial, and also prompts drivers to be more vigilant. Project Costs The total costs for completing the Charleston Arastradero Corridor Plan have preliminarily been estimated by TJKM and Bottomley Design Group at approximately $7.4 million (in 2003 dollars). The costs of the basic project include the costs to install an irrigated, planted median, reorganize the travel lanes, add a painted or tinted bike lane in each direction, add pedestrian bulb-outs and median island refuges, install lighting, and add signage throughout the corridor. With contingencies, design, and management costs, the streetscape portion of the project totals $6.2 million. In addition to the streetscape portion, some additional improvements are proposed. These are part of the "Travel Smart, Travel Safe" Residential Arterial program approved by the Palo Alto City Council, and funding for them is being pursued already. These improvements primarily are comprised of a traffic adaptive system (which comprises both hardware and software) to coordinate signals along the corridor. This coordination can increase throughput by 20%, and is required to meet the city’s objective of no loss of capacity, even though traffic calming is projected to slow speeds somewhat through the corridor. This system adds another $1.2 million in costs, resulting in the $7.4 million grand total cost. Page 3 ¯ Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Charleston Arastradero Funding Plan ~.re,!,irninar)z,,~.s,~s~eq!, of Fut~g, CITY OF FALO ALTO Figure 1 Charleston Arastradero Corridor 11 Page 2 ¯ Ne|son\Nygaard Consulting Associates Charleston Arastradero Funding Plan CITY OF PALO ALTO Introduction This memorandum investigates feasible funding sources for the implementation of the Charleston Arastradero Corridor Plan. Funding may come from a variety of programs, including federal, state and local transportation grants, formula funds, and potential fees and exactions that could be levied by the City of Palo Alto. This list is an initial one, and therefore encyclopedically lists all potential sources. For each, this analysis summarizes the requirements, the amount of funding available, and assesses the likelihood that the funding could be available to implement the Charleston Arastradero Corridor Plan. Some sources of funding can quickly be judged as unlikely, due to lack of project competitiveness for discretionary grant sources, or local political barriers [rephrase?]. For these sources analysis is somewhat more cursory than for those that are more likely sources. A funding matrix summarizes all of the sources investigated. This analysis builds upon Nelson\Nygaard’s ongoing work with the City of Palo Alto on the Transportation Improvement Program for the city. This work investigated many potential funding sources, and was a very helpful starting place to address the Charleston Arastradero Corridor in particular. Our initial assessment is that several funding sources available to the City of Palo Alto are very appropriate candidates for funding the Charleston Arastradero Corridor Plan, and a funding strategy can be devised to build the improvements as planned. The timing of funding depends largely on Palo Alto’s prioritization of this project in the overall Transportation Improvement Program for the city as a whole. Because of the cost, the project will either have to be a very high priority for available funding, or it will need to be broken into smaller phases for gradual implementation. Project Description For the Charleston Arastradero Corridor Plan, the city proposes to calm traffic and increase pedestrian and bicycle safety by making substantial physical changes to the street environment along a 2.3-mile segment of Charleston and Arastradero Roads between Fabian Way and Miranda Avenue. The roadway improvements proposed in the Corridor Plan are contained within the existing 80-86’ right of way width (which includes the 60- foot curb-to-curb street width plus existing sidewalks and vegetation strip areas) along Charleston/Arastradero Road corridor and the existing rights of way at each of the ten signalized intersections. Page I ¯ Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Charleston Arastradero Funding Plan CITY OF PALO ALTO Table of Contents PAGE Introduction .....................................................................................................................1 Project Description ........................................................................................................1 Project Costs .................................................................................................................3 Funding .........................................................................................................................4 Recommended Funding Sources ....................................................................................6 Conclusions ................................................................................................................15 Table of Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Figure 5 Figure 6 Figure 7 PAGE Charleston Arastradero Corridor .....................................................................2 Project Costs ..................................................................................................4 Transportation for Livable Communities - Sample Projects ...................~ ........6 Transportation Enhancement Activities - Sample Projects ..............................7 STP Regional 50% Share -Sample Projects ...................................................8 Safe Routes to Schools - Sample Projects .......................................................9 Grant Funding Source Matrix .......................................................................11 Page i ¯ Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates ATTACHMENT E CITY OF PALO ALTO November 2003 Transportation Consultants Appendix B Peak Spreading As commute traffic on highway facilities reaches congested levels, commuters begin to change their travel patterns by either finding less-congested routes or commuting during off-peak hours. This second phenomenon, known as peak spreading, has begun to occur on Bay Area area freeways. It is becoming especially pronounced on 1-680, for which no uncongested reasonable alternative route exists. The graph at fight illustrates peak spreading on 1-680. lasted from 7:00 to sometime after 9:00 in 1991 and 1994. The 1996 data indicate the peak had extended well past 10:00, with traffic volumes also growing during the hours before 7:00. By 1997, the start of the a.m. peak period was close to 5:00. (TJKM’s 1997 counts ended at 8:00, so 1997 data for the end of the peak period are unavailable.) Between 1994 and 1997, the 1-680 southbound volume between 5:00 and 9:00 a.m. increased from 15,854 to 21,698 (a 37 percent increase). Essentially all of this traffic growth occurred between 5:00 a.m. and 7:00 a.m. Note that in 1996 and 1997 the peak-hour volumes have decreased even while the total peak-period volumes have increased. Note also that 1-680 was widened from 4 to 6 lanes between 1991 and 1994. On 1-680, the southbound a.m. peak period essentially Peak Spreading. 1-680 AM SB n/o SR262 0 (D CD CD O CD CD CD 5960 Ingiewood Drive, Suite 100 Pleasantor~, CA 94588--8535 925-463-0611 phone 925-463-3690 fax www.tjkm.com PLEASANTON SANTA ROSA Joe Kott, December 4, 2003, 2003, Pg. 13 System Evaluation: It is believed that research to asses the benefits of UTOPIA have not been carried out against fixed time control. The improvements attributed to UTOPIA in Turin are believed to have been calculated against some other control strategy previously installed there. Trials on the Turin network were carried out over many months. After implementing UTOPIA, private traffic speeds were found to increase 9.5 percent in 1985 and 15.9 percent in 1986, following system tuning. In peak times the speed increases were 35 percent. Public transport vehicles, which were given absolute priority, showed a speed increase of 19.9 percent in 1985. Joe Kott, December 4, 2003, 2003, Pg. 12 Singapore, Sandakan (Malaysia), Rauia Lumpur and Dublin (Ireland). According to SAIC (consulting company) there are three installations in the United States: Oakland County, MI (350+ signals), Hennepin County, MN (71 signals), and Durham, NC. System Evaluation: A survey carried out in Paramatta in 1981 by the Australian Road Research Board showed no significant reduction in travel times compared with operation using TRANSYT; however there was a large reduction in the number of stops, some 9 percent in the central area and 25 percent on arterial roads. Other studies have indicated improvements in travel times but compared to the original systems that were of unknown efficiency. The SCOOT System Introduction: SCOOT is a fully adaptive traffic control system which uses data from vehicle detectors to optimize traffic signal settings so as to reduce vehicle delays and stops. It was developed in the United Kingdom by the Transport and Road Research laboratory together from three UK signal companies. Range of Operation: SCOOT has been operational in the UK since 1980 in Coventry. There are now around forty implementations within the UK, with the largest controlling the central part of London and other parts of Greater London. There are also systems in Bejing, Hong Kong, Santiago, Durban and Port Elizabeth. Further systems are proposed in Madrid, Cyprus and Nijmegen (Netherlands). There are four systems in North America; these are Toronto, Red Deer and Halifax (Canada) and Oxnard, Califomia in the USA. [A separate reference lists three installations: Arlington, VA, Minneapolis, MN, and Anaheim, CA.] System Evaluation: The effectiveness of the SCOOT strategy has been assessed by major trials in five cities as shown in Table D-3. The trials in Glasgow and Coventry were conducted by TRL and those in Worcester, Southampton and London by consultants, a university, and the local traffic authority, respectively. In most cases, comparisons were made against a good standard of up to date fixed time plans, usually produced by TRANSYT. The following table shows that the largest benefits are achieved in comparison with isolated vehicle actuation but, of course, part or this benefit could be achieved by a good fixed time system. The relative effectiveness of SCOOT varies by area and time of day, but overall it is concluded that SCOOT achieved an average saving in delay of about 12 percent compared with good fixed time plans. Since SCOOT does not "age" in the way typical of fixed time plans, it follows that SCOOT should achieve savings in many practical situations of 20 percent or more depending on the quality and age of the previous fixed time plan and on the rapidity with which flows change. On the basis of the surveys and subsequent experience, SCOOT is likely to be of most benefit where vehicular flows are heavy, complex and vary unpredictably. Review of the UTOPIA System Introduction: UTOPIA was developed in Italy with the objective of improving private and public transport efficiency. Characteristics of the system are described in the sections which follow. Range of Operation: UTOPIA was first used in 1985 in Turin. This is the only current operational system, but there are plans to implement UTOPIA in Gothenburg and Salemo. The Gothenburg system will be designed using its own central controller and UTOPIA SPOT units. Joe Kott, December 4, 2003, 2003, Pg. 11 manage and respond to rapid variations in traffic conditions. RT-TRACS consists of a number of real- time control prototypes that each function optimally under different traffic and geometric conditions. When conditions dictate, RT-TRACS can automatically switch to another strategy. The FHWA realizes that this control logic must be integrated with freeway performance data and provide network wide control. A thorough understanding of past experience with advanced traffic signal control strategies is critical to the development of effective RT-TRACS strategies for ITS. Features of the RT-TRACS design include: ¯both distributed and centralized traffic control; ¯dynamic priority control on selected routes; ¯capability to interact with dynamic traffic assignment to implement proactive control; ¯improved fallback capabilities in case of surveillance system failure; ¯effective use of the accumulated experience with real-time control. Five prototype strategies are currently being developed and evaluated for use in the RT- TRACS program. The FHWA awarded five separate contracts to develop these real-time prototype strategies. The contracts were awarded to the University of Arizona, the University of Minnesota, the University of Massachusetts (Lowell)/PB Farradyne, Wright State University in Ohio, and the University of Maryland/University of Pittsburgh. Kaman Sciences Corporation is responsible for evaluating these prototypes using the CORSIM simulation model. In late 1997, the FHWA and the University of Arizona teamed to develop and field test one of these prototypes, RHODES, an open architecture version of RT-TRACS that will utilize an alternative database management system and NTCIP protocol. Three of these prototypes, the RHODES prototype from the University of Arizona, OPAC (Optimization Policies for Adaptive Control) from PB Farradyne/University of Massachusetts (Lowell), and RTACL from the University. of Pittsburgh/University of Maryland, are at an advanced state of development. Initial simulation testing showed that these prototype strategies produced statistically significant improvements in traffic throughput and reduced average delay. The results of the laboratory evaluation of the RHODES prototype have indicated a reduction in delay, stops, and fuel consumption of 24 percent, 9 percent, and 6 percent, respectively, while maintaining the same throughput as the baseline case (vehicle actuated control). A 16-intersection arterial in Reston, Virginia has been selected for the field implementation. Instrumentation of the arterial is in progress. Further testing is expected to occur in Seattle, Washington, and Chicago, Illinois. Detailed System Descriptions SCATS Operation of the SCATS System: The SCATS system controls signals in groups, known as sub-systems, where the critical intersection for each subsystem is specified by the traffic engineer. Sub-systems are grouped together and a regional computer can control signals at up to ten intersections. Systems can expand by the addition of extra regional computers that control traffic in their own area, but a central monitoring computer usually controls data input and traffic monitoring to the different regional computers. Range of Operation: SCATS has been used in Sydney, Australia since about 1975 and has a user base of 26 systems in Australia and New Zealand and further systems in Shanghai, Shenyang (China), Joe Kott, December 4, 2003, 2003, Pg. 10 weighing factors. For each combination, the algorithm begins with initial conditions for the intersection and then simulates traffic over the user-specified horizon, calculating queues and accumulating delay and stops. The combination that minimizes the function of delay and stops is chosen for hnplementation. This phase termination selection is reevaluated every interval with updated head and tail arrival patterns and timing information for each phase. " [Note: this phraseology is straight from a MIST document.] Slightly different is SCATS, which decentralizes the optimization routine. SCATS calculates and implements the next intersection’s cycle length using the detectors at the stop line. SCATS allows for phase skipping. Offsets between adjacent intersections are predetermined and adjusted with the cycle time and progression speed factors. [Note: This class almost used SCATS rather than SPOT-Utopia for the virtual signal laboratory. The adaptation of the system for virtual operation could not be completed in time.] An extraordinary amount of system detection is required for a traffic adaptive system. Unlike traditional systems that use system detectors (on maybe 5 percent of the system’s links) to determine when to change from pattern 11 to pattern 48 as an assist on making a pattern change that would have occurred anyway as a result of a time-of-day command, the traffic adaptive system needs all of these detectors (on maybe 25 percent of the system’s links?) in good operating condition all the time. Most signal system managers know that system detectors are notoriously flaky or defective, which have relatively lower maintenance priority. This simply cannot happen with a traffic adaptive system, or the system’s much sought after improved traffic flow will quickly disappear. The great benefit, on the other hand, of a traffic adaptive system, is that it is continually refining and improving its own plans. There are no timing plan libraries that contain ever more stale coordination plans, so there is no need to mount a major retiming effort every few years. Also, a properly operating traffic adaptive system produces better traffic flow than a traditional, classic traffic pattern-based system. In this regard, traffic adaptive is significantly different from traffic responsive. A signal system that has traffic responsive operation engaged is actively and continually seeking to find the best coordination pattern (from its library) to implement. Because each pattern change will result in some degree of transition, as manifested in the green times presented to drivers, the pattern change can often take 2 or 3 cycles to complete. During this transition period, the signal operation is quite often not, well, great. As a result, a system that is in traffic responsive mode needs to be constrained so that it is not making a new pattern selection every several cycles. Otherwise, the intersections will be transitioning a greater percentage of the time than they are cycling in the new, better, optimum pattern. Base on field implementation data, it has been estimated that a traffic adaptive system could achieve travel time savings in many practical situations of 20 percent or more depending on the quality and age of the previous fixed time plan and on the rapidity with which flows change. The following is a summary of several major traffic adaptive systems. Real-time Traffic Adaptive Signal Control System (RT-TRACS) - In 1991 the FHWA solicited proposals for the development of a real-time, traffic adaptive signal control system called RT-TRACS. Shortly thereafter, the FHWA contracted with PB Farradyne to develop and implement RT-TRACS. The RT- TRACS control logic assesses the current status of the network with forecasting capabilities, allowing proactive, not reactive, response. The most fundamental requirement of this system is to effectively Transportation Consultants APPENDIX A Traffic Adaptive TRAFFIC ADAPTIVE COORDINATION Traffic Adaptive Control - Latest & Greatest Strategy for Traffic Control Systems New control strategies and concepts have been lurking on the fringes of the mainstream traffic control system arena since the 1980s. The predominant "other" strategy is collectively known as traffic adaptive control. The main players in this category include SCOOT (Split Cycle and Offset Optimizati.on Technique), SCATS (not an acronym for anything), and more recently Adaptive Control Systems (ACS). Less well-known players include Urban Traffic Optimization by Integration Automation (UTOPIA), Signal Progression Optimization Technology (SPOT), ContROl of Networks by Optimization of Switchovers (CRONOS), and (PRODYN). SCOOT was developed in England by the Transportation Road Research Laboratory of the U.K. government. SCATS was developed in Australia by the New South Wales Department of Main Roads government. Starting in the mid-1990s, the FHWA has partially funded the development of a collection of three competing traffic adaptive control strategies, ACS, previously called RT-TRACS (Real-time Traffic Adaptive Signal Control System). The common aspect of government sponsorship is not coincidence. Rather, it is out of necessity because the task of producing a workable, viable,.marketable signal system based on a traffic adaptive strategy was clearly beyond the capability of any private enterprise. SCATS is available through TRANSCORE. RT-TRACS is available as an optional control strategy of PB Farradyne’s MIST system. SPOT and UTOPIA, developed in Italy, are available through Peek Traffic. PRODYN, developed in France, has not been deployed yet in the U.S. The concept of most traffic adaptive control is that the supervising system monitors traffic flows on (a whole lot of) critical links in the system on a minute-by-minute (or even more frequent) basis. Given this much analytical information, it crunches numbers and decides on a cycle-by-cycle basis what each signal under its control needs to do. The system can require an intersection to revise its green splits, to use a different cycle length, to shift its end-of-coordinated-green offset value, or any combination of the three. Traffic adaptive systems, therefore, typically don’t utilize the UTCS concept of a "timing pattern". They sort of look like timing patterns, but they stretch and shrink and bend and adjust on each subsequent cycle, all dancing at the behest of the master traffic system computer’s software program. In fact, there may not even be any stored patterns in the system that it pulls from. That library of stored patterns is a hallmark of all traditional traffic control systems. Rather than the classic pattern matching process of comparing link flows to a look-up table in order to pick a ’best’ pattern, the traffic adaptive system continually runs an optimization routine using those current flows. "77w algorithm systematically evaluates combinations of phase termination points to determine the optimum time at which to end the arterial’s phases. The optimum set of phase termination times is defined as the combination that minimizes a weighted function of total intersection delay and stops, accumulated over the horizon in a simulation of traffic flow. The user selects the delay and stops 5960 lng~ewood Drive. Suite 100 Pleasanton, CA 94588-8535 925-463-0611 phone 925-463-3690 fax www.tjkm.com PLEASANTON SANTA ROSA II Joe Kot-t, December 4, 2003, 2003, Pg. 6 travel time savings range from one to three minutes. It is also expected that the total signal delay for the corridor range from one minute increase to a reduction of two minutes. If the three-lane section is extended from Miranda Avenue to Fabian Way, it is expected that travel time and delay might increase marginally over the results of the three-lane section from Alma Street to Fabian Way. The biggest difference might be that the available gaps for pedestrian to cross the street would be reduced. Since the project will include more pedestrian crosswalks with refuge islands as well as potentially several pedestrian signals, the impact on pedestrians would likely be less than significant. Intersection Levels of Service Analysis Table III as shown previously details the travel time and signal delay for the whole study corridor. As such, the change in travel time and delays include both the intersection as well as the mid block travel time in the corridor. The 2015 Comp Plan and 2015 Known Proposal intersection levels of service (LOS) analysis results are shown in Table IV. The levels of service shown in Table IV do not include the signal efficiency effects of implementing a traffic adaptive system. This would be the future base without the proposed study that will include the implementation of a traffic adaptive system. As mentioned earlier, traffic signal adaptive technology has been proven to increase the signal efficiency by as much as 20 percent over current time of day signal timing. Factoring the effects of a traffic signal adaptive system, the resulting LOS is shown in Table V. Compared to the 2015 future base without the effects of traffic adaptive system, the proposed study project shows LOS improvements at two intersections from LOS E to LOS D and other general delay improvements in the corridor. J: Llurisdiction IP~Palo Alto1042-023 Charleston_ArastraderolReports and Documents~Vl Travel times and alt 120403.doc Joe Kott, December 4, 2003, 2003, Pg. 5 As part of this study, bike and walk connectivity would be substantially improved. Full bike lanes would be provided throughout the whole corridor and either lighted crosswalks or pedestrian signals would be provided as well. To be conservative, TJKM only estimated that the combined increased of bike, walk and transit use would increase by no more than 20 percent at Gunn High. The potential increases at Terman Middle School and from the regular commuter traffic were not considered. The analysis of the Embarcadero Ridership data between 2000 and 2002 shows almost 20 percent increase in rideship. And the Crosstown Weekday Ridership shows increase of approximately 45 percent (based on available 3rd/4th Quarter data in 2001 and 2002). Therefore, the potential for mode shifts to transit and bike use could be substantial with good service routes and improved bike lanes. The 2015 With Known Proposal (Three Lane Section) scenario assume a three-lane segment with left- turn pocket on East Charleston Road from Alma Street to Fabian Way. Table H_I Charleston/Arastradero Road Corridor Study Travel Time and Delay Comparisons Travel Time (s)Signal Delay (s) Scenarios EB WB Ave Change % Time (min)Change Existing AM 678 726 702 PM 716 749 733 !,915 Comp Plan (A)AM 657 658 658 -1 -6% PM 566 592 579 -3 -21% :~015 Known Proposal (B)AM 670 667 668 -1 -5% PM 577 600 588 -2 -20% !015 Known Proposal AM 606 609 607 -2 -14% Meets Non-Auto Mode Criteria)PM 531 580 556 -3 -24% !015 Known Proposal AM 673 617 645 *1 -8% Three Lane Section) *PM 614 578 596 -2 -19% EB WB Ave Change % Time lmin)Change AM 294 336 315 PM 332 360 346 AM 353 350 352 1 12% PM 261 283 272 -1 -21% AM 364 358 361 1 15% PM 272 290 281 -1 -19% AM 300 299 300 0 -5% PM 226 270 248 -2 -28% AM 373 310 341 0 8% PM 3!3 270 291 -1 -16% Note: * Three lane section from Alma St to Fabian Way. Include effects of traffic adaptive system along the corrid6r All change statistics are as compared with existing conditions. As shown in Table III, due to the improved signal coordination provided by traffic signal adaptive system, it is expected that the travel times for the corridor for all the future traffic scenarios would improve. The Joe Kott, December 4, 2003, 2003, Pg. 4 Therefore, based on the volume alone it seems like a case might be made for a three-lane treatment. However, based on the different roadway characteristics as mentioned above, it is still our opinion that a three-lane section is more appropriate on East Charleston Road. The current volume on Arastradero Road is much higher and the access to Gunn High School should be resolved before any three-lane segment could be considered. As part of this project, a design has been proposed to redesign the intersection to include a westbound right-turn lane on Arastradero Road at Gunn High driveway that will provide queuing distance for vehicles waiting to make a right-turn into Gunn High. Additional improvements at the intersection will improve the operations at the intersection. In addition three or four additional crosswalks would be added to the corridor. These crosswalks would probably include special colored pavement treatment and be fitted with a lighted crosswalk. Instead of lighted crosswalks, the City might consider installation of pedestrian signals. If pedestrian signals were installed at all major crosswalks, pedestrians and bicyclists would be able to safely cross the street regardless of the available gaps. Under this scenario, a three-lane section could be considered on Arastradero Road. That is our best judgment based on the information available. Of course, City Council or staffmight decide to install a three-lane segment in the whole corridor based on other information or priorities that we are unaware. Projected Travel Times A comparison of the travel times and delays for the 2015 forecasts were conducted. The evaluation is based on the travel time from San Antonio Road to the Foothill Expressway. As a part of the study, it is our understanding that the City has applied for funds to install traffic signal adaptive capability on the whole corridor. Traffic signal adaptive technology has been proven to increase the signa! efficiency by as much as 20 percent over current time of day signal timing. The details are contained in Appendix A. Four future scenarios were analyzed: 2015 Comp Plan, 2015 Proposal, 2015 Known Proposal (meets non- auto mode criteria) and 20!5 Known Proposal (three lane section from Alma to Fabian). The results of the analysis are shown in Table III. Based on our analysis, applications of traffic adaptive technology shows that compared to the existing conditions, the travel time through the study corridor under the four scenarios will be reduced from one to three minutes. Besides the 2015 Comp Plan and 2015 Known Proposa! forecasts scenarios, two additional alternatives have been developed based on the 2015 Known Proposal forecasts. The 2015 Known Proposal (Meets Non-Auto Mode Criteria) was developed to meet the bike, walk and transit non-auto mode performance criteria. Based on the Gunn High mode shares information provided by the City, it was determined that the current non-auto mode use is approximately 39 percent (! 4 percent walk, 12 percent bike and 13 percent transit). In addition, mode share information was also obtained for Terman Middle School. It was determine that approximately 63 percent of the students biked, walked or took the bus on the first Monday following the start of school. Joe Kott, December 4, 2003, 2003, Pg. 3 Segment 1: Fabian Way to Middlefield Road Segment 2: Middlefield Road to Alma Street Segment 3: Alma Street to E1 Camino Real (ECR) Segment 4: ECR to Gunn High The results of the model forecasts for these segments are shown in Table I. 2015 with Known Proposed Project This scenario includes all the known proposed projects including the Terman Middle School, Hyatt Rickey’s, Elks Club and the Sun site. As shown in Table II, compared to the 2015 Comp Plan scenario, it is projected that there is generally a slight increase of approximately three to ten percent for most roadway links. Potential Three-Lane Sections Based on the Projected Volumes As mentioned earlier, the existing average am peak hour traffic volumes on Arastradero Road are approximately 1,100 vph, almost 50% higher than the average peak hour volumes of approximately 770 . vph on East Charleston Road. As shown previously in Table II, based on the 2015 model forecasts it is projected that the two roadway segments would be carrying almost an equal amount of traffic in the future. In the am peak hour, it is projected that the peak directional flow is approximately 1,100 vph while in the pm peak hour the peak directional flow is approximately 900 vph. Table II Projected Link Level Peak Hour Roadway Volumes Existing 2015 Comp Plan Scenarios/Link Segments I. Segment I: Fabian to Middlefield 2. Segment II: Middlefield to Alma 3. Segment III: Alma to ECR 4. Segment IV: ECR to Gunn High AM 866/477 765/693 838/537 846/I,136 PM 502/692 582/944 597/730 828/903 AM 1,111/654 1,120/1,119 995/995 1,142/1,052 PM 793/821 927/1,016 1,081/788 1,051/806 2015 Known Proposal AM PM 1,121/711 803/778 1,129/1,182 937/1,022 1,004/I,112 1,139/817 1,163/1,142 1,071/815 Note: 866/477 = Eastbound[Westbound peak hour volumes Joe Kott, December 4, 2003, 2003, Pg. 2 Future Traffic Projections TJKM has been working for the past several months on the City’s Travel Forecasting Model. Before TJKM is able to make any model forecast, the model needs to be calibrated. Model calibration is a process to ensure that the model accurately replicates the existing traffic condition. For this project, TJKM used the regional CMA travel demand model as a base. To better reflect the local streets and land use access and loading onto the network, TJKM work with City staff to create finer zones for the whole City. The City provided the 2025 local land use while the regional land use was obtained from the CMA model. Demand forecasting models need to be demonstrably reliable and credible after the model calibration before being used on a project. A central point of many public hearings and meetings concerning city and private development plans and projects focus on the credibility of the forecasting models. It is important that the analysis tools not become a point of contention, so that the real issues can be properly understood and addressed. The results of our model calibration are shown in Table I below. Table I Model Calibration Results Period Volume AM Turn Link PM Turn Link Note: A -2.98 -45.26 -0.11 -19.63 B STD 1.02 37.76 0.99 146.08 0.99 24.21 0.99 159.5 R2 0.98 0.95 0.99 0.98 A: Intercept of the regression line between the obser~,ed volumes and the computed volumes B: Slope of the regression line between the observed volumes and the computed volumes STD: Standard deviation of the regression line between the obser~,ed volumes and the computed volumes R2 : R-Square In addition to obtaining satisfactory parameters for A and B values, TJKM has calibrated the link and turning movement traffic volumes to within two percents of observed counts. TJKM concluded the model calibration was completed with a high level of accuracy. Working with City staff TJKM devoted an extensive amount of effort to develop the model forecasts. Two future scenarios were analyzed in this study: namely, 2015 Comp Plan and 20!5 with Known Proposed Projects. 2015 Comp Plan This scenario includes all the land use in the Comprehension Plan. In addition, the Terman Middle School was included in the scenario. The Charleston-Arastradero Road corridor covers approximately a 2.2-mile section. Within the corridor, there are some distinct roadway and land use characteristics. For ease of comparison, the corridor has been divided into four roadway segments as shown in Figure 1 and briefly described as follows: Transportation Consultants ATTACHMENT D DRAFT TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM December 4, 2003 To:Joe Kott, City of Palo Alto Project No.: 42-023 From:Christopher Thnay, PE, AICP Jurisdiction: Palo Alto Subject:Future Roadway Alternative, Travel Time and LOS Analysis Existing Traffic Condition The existing peak direction traffic volumes for the study corridor varies from a low of approximately 400 vehicles per hour (vph) to highs of approximately 1,200 vph. The roadway segment between Fabian Way and Alma Street are generally below 900 vph in the peak direction. The average is approximately 770 vph during the am peak hour and 790 during the pm peak hour. Since a residential collector street can generally carry approximately 900 to 1,000 vph per lane per hour, this segment provides the most opportunity to create a three-lane section with median left-turn lane at intersections. A typical collector street could carry higher volumes, but the available gaps for pedestrian crossing would be much reduced. The existing peak hour volumes on Arastradero Road (west of E1 Camino Road) in the peak direction generally carries between 900 and 1,200 vph. This higher volume does not lend itself to comfortably accommodate a three-lane section due to reduce gaps for pedestrian crossing. However, if future design provides for positive control that facilitate safe crossing for pedestrians, the impact of reduce gaps for pedestrians could be reduced. Besides carrying higher volumes, this segment also includes several roadway and operational characteristics that are different from the East Charleston Road (Alma to Fabian). Arastradero Road serves both Gunn High School and Terman Middle School. During the morning school commute traffic queues could be quite long and sometimes extend over several blocks towards Terman Drive. In addition there are more side streets that intersect with Arastradero Road than at East Charleston Road. A total of 14 streets intersect with Arastradero Road verses eight on East Charleston Road (Alma Street to Fabian Way). Consequently, there will be many more conflicts with side street traffic on Arastradero Road. A three-lane section wilt also mean more U-turns iri this section. Lastly, there is a long 800-foot section adjacent to the Hoover Elementary School that provides for some queuing in the westbound direction without blocking any side streets. 5960 Ing~ewood Drive, Suite 100 Pleasanlon, CA 94588-8535 925-463-0611 phone 925-463-3690 fax www.tjkm.com PLEASANTON SANTA ROSA Additionally, countdown pedestrian traffic signals are proposed as part of signalized intersections improvements. Pedestrian refuges can also be added where space allows (because of constrictions noted above refuges are not proposed for Terman Middle School, Gunn High School, the Charleston and Arastradero Road pedestrian crossings at El Camino Real, the Middlefield intersection and Alma Street intersection. Bicycle improvements at intersections would include extending bike lanes across the intersection. Concurrent with these more physical improvements will be changes in the signal timings at all ten signalized intersections to make traffic flow more efficiently. Other pedestrian improvements both at intersections and side streets could include adding full or half pedestrian bulbouts to the Corridor or side streets as space and turn movements allow. For example, in Segment 1 of the Corridor (West Charleston/Arastradero), half bulbouts can likely be located on local side streets along, but not extending into the Charleston/Arastradero corridor (with the exception of the school driveways). In Segment 2 (Eastern portion of Charleston), half bulbouts can likely be located on the northside of the corridor, but full bulbouts can occur into the corridor or on side street sides of the corridor where space allows and no major right turn movement off the corridor is needed. As well as potential full and half bulbouts, side street improvements would also include the continuation of marked bicycle lanes and improved marking of pedestrian crossings. Enhance the existing pedestrian median on the east side of the intersection, as well as providing pedestrian refuges for pedestrian s crossing El Camino Real. Add colored pedestrian crosswalk pavements at the intersection. El Camino Real is a State Route and therefore proposed improvements are dependant on CalTrans permission and approval. Hoover Elementary School traffic: To further accommodate traffic into Hoover Elementary School the following improvements are proposed: Parking on the south side of the street would be retained to accommodate additional turn movements. = Traffic flow for Hoover traffic will be reversed (with School Board approval) and a median two-way left-turn lane installed between Carlson Court and the westernmost driveway of Hoover Elementary allowing movements into the residential street and eastbound traffic to make a left-turn movement into Hoover Elementary (into what is now the exit). ¯The westbound 8’ bike lane near the Hoover Elementary driveway will be dashed to indicate use as right turn lane into the easternmost Hoover Elementary driveway. Traffic reversal at Hoover Elementary requires School District Board review and approval. Middlefield & Charleston Intersection: The existing configuration will essentially remain, retaining the existing 4-lane and left turn lane configuration. Existing pedestrian crossings will be enhanced through colored pavement markings and countdown pedestrian signals. The bike lanes will be extended to and through the intersection, as well as adding colored pavement markings. The bike lanes can be extended through the intersection within the existing right-of-way by moving the curbs and removing the existing planter strips at this intersection. Existing Island Median at Louis & Montrose: The proposed median would replace the existing island at this location, however the existing turn movements will be retained and designed into the new median. Additional Pedestrian Crossings: Additional pedestrian crossings will be added throughout the corridor at several locations. These crossings will be well-marked including, lighting and signage. Additionally, some major pedestrian crossings, which would be pedestrian actuated or with embedded lights (lighted crosswalk) are also proposed. From west to east they include one lighted crosswalk just west of Georgia Avenue, which would serve pedestrians accessing the bike path along the San Francisco Water District right-of-way; one proposed between Suzanne Drive and Clemo Avenue providing easier pedestrian access to Juana Briones Park and Juana Briones Elementary School; one near Mumford Place and one near Louis Road. Signalized intersection & Side Street Improvements: Improvements at all the signalized intersections including those discussed above, would include highlighting pedestrian crossings by using alternate materials or coloring. ¯Either three or four vehicular travel lanes from Miranda Avenue to El Camino Real. Some small (6’) vegetated medians may be possible for the 4 lane.section from Miranda to El Camino Real. ¯24-hour parking retained on the south side of the street from Alma to Fabian. ¯24-hour parking will be on the north side of the street from Miranda to Alma. ¯Parking would be allowed only in evening hours in the north side 8’ bike lane from Alma to Fabian, and from Miranda to Alma evening parking would be on the south side. ¯Colored and wider (7-8’) bike lanes will also be installed on both sides of the street. In some tight areas, such as intersections, the bike lanes will be 5’. ¯Landscaping, lighting, sidewalk and signage improvements will be made in the existing right-of-way/public utilities easement on both sides of the street. ¯Replacing the rolled curbs on Arastradero with vertical curbs to prohibit parking on sidewalks. Conceptual Designs of these elements are presented in the attached Cross Sections and Aerial Maps. Proposed Specific Area Improvements: Gunn High.School traffic: The proposed improvements also address the specific issue of high school access by: Retaining the four 10’ travel lanes and the 5th 10’ left turn lane for eastbound traffic turning into high school Add a 10’.right turn lane on westbound Arastradero into the high school driveway. Make the right turn more efficient and enhance it by installing markings or a "pork chop" to direct traffic into the outside lane of driveway, while the left turn movement from Arastradero Road eastbound would turn into the inside driveway lane. For this configuration, the roadway needs widening by 5’, removing the existing planting strip on the north side of Arastradero Road. The existing intersection island will also be removed with this reconfiguration. The bike lanes at this location would remain 5’, but the pavement would be colored and the westbound bike lane at the school would be relocated between the westbound travel lane and the proposed right turn lane. El Camino Real Intersection: At the El Camino Real (ECR) Intersection, the following improvements are proposed: Remove small separated right turn lanes and concrete "pork chops" from northbound ECR and Charleston and from eastbound Charleston at ECR. This will shorten the pedestrian crossing of El Camino Real on the south side of the Charleston intersection. -Extend curb line of adjacent streets to create more typical corner configuration. -Extend the 5’ bike lanes to and across the intersection. Add countdown signals to the pedestrian crossings. corridor, the city shuttle will be expanded. Expanding and improving bus service along the corridor will include improvements to existing and possibly some addition bus stops. Bus stop improvements would likely include adding or enhancing shelters, benches, and lighting as conditions permit. Improvements to enhance safety between travel modes will also be added throughout the corridor, such as improved pedestrian and bicycle crossings and refuges at most intersections and installing full and half bulbouts where possible. No new signals are proposed for the corridor; however, some additional enhanced mid-block pedestrian crossings may be added. Proposed locations include near Louis Road on the Corridor, near Mumford Place, near Suzanne Drive and Arastradero Road to serve Juana Briones Park, and near Georgia Avenue and Arastradero Road for the San Francisco Water District right-of-way bike path. Existinq Conditions: Miranda Avenue to Alma Street: This segment of the proposed improvements extends from Miranda Avenue to Alma Street where the existing conditions, include: -four travel lanes, -two bicycle lanes, -little to no landscaping strips, -sidewalks, and -24-hour parking on the north side and evening/overnight parking on the south side of the street; and rolled curbs on some sections of Arastradero Road. Alma Street to Fabian Way: This segment of the corridor improvements is from Alma Street to Fabian Way where existing conditions include: -Four travel lanes -No bike lanes from Middlefield to Fabian -Two bike lanes from Alma to Middlefield A small median located at Louis Street 24-hour parking on south side and evening/overnight parking on the north side of street between Alma and Middlefield, and 24-hour parking on both sides of the street from Middlefield to Fabian. Corridor Improvement Proposal: The proposed improvements, as shown in the attached cross sections and conceptual designs include: ¯In general, transition from four vehicular travel lanes to three travel lanes (10-11’ in width) for most portions of the corridor. ¯The three travel lanes include one in each direction with a central 16’ wide median with a 10’ left turn pockets embedded within the median in sections. The median will include left turn pockets at most residential streets. = Retain the four vehicular travel lane configuration from El Camino Real to Alma Street (some frontage improvements consistent with the Plan would occur, but this portion will not include traffic or pedestrian safety improvements.) inducing traffic shift onto nearby residential streets. Therefore, the project goals and objectives include the following. Maintain existing travel time on corridor to minimize diversion to other residential streets. -Reduce crashes on corridor. -Improve conditions for pedestrian and bicycle travel. -Improve quality of life on the corridor. -Enhance visual amenities of the corridor. Proposed Project The proposed Corridor Plan includes both small and larger scale improvements in the public right-of-way. The Corridor Plan is conceptual in nature in that proposed improvements are proposed for large corridor sections. Further design with area specific conditions (such as nearby trees, utility locations, etc.) will likely follow. Additional environmental review may still be required for improvements at specific areas. Smaller-scale improvements, such as visual amenities are proposed along the entire corridor and are described first. The larger scale improvements follow and include a discussion of certain area improvements, such as locations near schools or intersections. Within the proposal, some improvements such as a median (which Would increase pedestrian and vehicular safety) could be traded for others such as parking (which can also act as a buffer between vehicle travel lanes and bicycle or pedestrian facilities). As an example, with four 10’ travel lanes; a remaining 20’ is available for bike lanes, medians, or parking lanes, implying some potential tradeoffs between these facilities. The proposed improvement represents City staff recommendation on the project and trading off some improvements in areas would not increase impacts that are analyzed in the initial study. Improvements Throughout Entire Corridor: Consistent throughout the corridor the Plan proposes small improvements that will not have any environmental impacts such as the following elements. A signage program, e.g. "Residential Boulevard" or "School Commute Corridor" signage program will be added throughout the corridor to enforce the message of reduced speed to drivers and to increase the overall safety for alternate mode travel. Sign placement will likely include vehicle speed monitoring and notification signs, for example "school zone" signs at school locations. Additionally, pedestrian scale lighting, street trees, and neighborhood amenities such as street furniture would be added all along the corridor, where utilities and space will allow them. Installing such elements increase the more residential appearance of the corridor, making it easier to slow vehicular traffic down and increase awareness of alternate modes of travel along the corridor. Additionally, to increase transit use along the Comprehensive Plan land use assumptions and future Comprehensive Plan plus proposals. The Corridor plan itself will include a funding element, comprising an assessment of a variety of financing options, including federal, state, and regional grants, traffic impact fees, and other sources. The Corridor plan will also include estimated costs of any improvements and a phasing plan for implementation. Project implementation after Council approval of a preferred plan for the Corridor will proceed within the context of the City’s capital improvements planning process. Preliminary cost estimates for implementing the Corridor plan are approximately $2.3 million (roughly one half of this cost is for traffic-adaptive signal technology) without landscaped center medians, to $5.9 million with landscaped center medians on selected street sections from Fabian to Miranda. These estimates are exclusive of any costs for a new pedestrian and bicycle under crossing of Alma and Charleston. It should be noted and emphasized that these are preliminary cost estimates, thus will likely change with more refinement of design detail. It is also important to note that a decrease or increase in the number of improvements will change cost estimates accordingly. Council can choose to authorize a Corridor Plan in phases, matching availability of grant and other funding with City resources; and/or reduce the proposed Corridor Plan scope to manage the resource impact of the Plan. Council has already authorized staff to apply for grant funding for installation of traffic- adaptive technology on Charleston and Arastradero Road (CMR:454:03). Both traffic- adaptive technology and bicycle and pedestrian facility improvements are included in a draft expenditure plan for a proposed citywide traffic impact fee presented to the Planning and Transportation Commission at a study session on August 27, 2003. Such a fee and expenditure plan, if adopted by Council, could partially fund bicycle and pedestrian improvements on the Corridor. Selected other potential funding sources are the following grant programs: the Metropolitan Transportation Commission’s Transportation for Livable Communities, Caltrans’ Safe Routes to School, the California Office of Traffic Safety, the Bay Area Air Quality Management Districts’ Transportation Fund for Clean Air, the US Department of Transportation’s Congestion Management and Air Quality Improvement and Enhancements, and future calls for projects from the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority’s Local Streets and County Roads. The project will likely be phased as money is acquired for different elements and sections of the project improvements. Once money is acquired for specific areas improvements, temporary placements of improvements using paint, barriers, modifications of traffic flow patterns wilt be studied for a period of time before more permanent improvements installed. Project Goals The Palo Alto City Council mandated preparation of a Charleston-Arastradero Corridor Plan to address school commute and other travel safety concerns for pedestrians, bicyclists and drivers along with residential amenities along the corridor, without curb pavement width along the Corridor is 60 feet.1 Eighty-fifth percentile vehicle speeds along the corridor range from 34.7 mph (Charleston Road, near Carlson) to 36.9 mph (Arastradero Road, near Pomona) and 37.3 mph (Charleston Road, west of Fabian).2 Charleston Road average daily motor vehicle volumes (both directions) range from approximately 13,600 just west of Fabian Way to 14,300 just west of Middlefield.3 Arastradero Road average daily motor vehicle volume (both directions) is approximately 20,500. Bicycle lanes are marked on both sides of the Corridor section between Nelson and Miranda. There are no striped bicycle lanes on Charleston Road between Middlefield and Fabian Way and the bicycle lanes between Nelson and Mumford are only in force during the day. Long distances between pedestrian crossings characterize both Charleston Road and Arastradero Road, for example the approximately 1,100-foot distance between the crossings along Charleston at Wilkie Way and Alma.’~ Transit service along the corridor includes the Palo Alto Shuttle and the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA). The Palo Alto Shuttle serves two sections of the Corridor: from Middlefield to Carlson (Route C) and from El Camino Real to Gunn High School (Route G).5 The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) provides service on most of the Corridor, from Louis Road to Miranda (en route to the VA Hospital) within the Corridor (Route 88).s Land uses along the corridor include Residential zones, several public and private schools, some commercial areas and community facilities including city parks. It is a frequently commuted school route traveled by children of all ages. Existing and future traffic conditions were modeled by TJKM Transportation Consultants are their results reported in the analysis included with the Initial Study. For project future conditions and future land use developments, which would likely change traffic conditions along the corridor, the base analysis used the City Comprehensive Plan for land use growth. The City Comprehensive Plan EIR modeled all known developments at that time, however, some additional projects (such as Hyatt Rickeys, Sun Microsystem, etc.) have since been clarified and proposed, therefore the traffic analysis for the project also includes the modeling of land use projects (as currently proposed) and anticipated development (at maximum build out based on existing development standards). Therefore, there may be some discussion in the initial study of future ~ Charleston Road Corridor Traffic Management and Safety Study, Wilbur Smith Associates, December, 2000, p. 2.1 and City of Palo Alto Transportation Division.2 Engineerin¢ and Traffic Surveys, City of Palo Alto Transportation Division, October 2001. 3 Charleston Road Corridor Traffic Mana,oement and Safety Study, Wilbur Smith Associates, December 2000, p. 1.2.4 Charleston Road Corridor Traffic Management and Safety Study, Wilbur Smith Associates, December 2000, p. 2.2. Palo Alto Shuttle Timetables, City of Palo Alto Transportation Division, July 2003. Santa Clara Valley Bus & Rail Map, Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority, July 2002. Narrative Description of Corridor Plan ATTACHMENT C Introduction In April 2003, the Palo Alto City Council mandated preparation of a Charleston- Arastradero Corridor Plan to address school commute and other travel safety concerns for pedestrians, bicyclists and drivers along with residential amenities along the corridor, without inducing traffic to shift onto nearby residential streets. As part of the City Council’s mandate for the preparation of the Plan, it provided that applications for certain development permits would not be formally considered, heard or approved by the City during the period of the preparation of the Plan. For the purposes of the development moratorium the project area was defined as one-quarter mile on either side of the Charleston-Arastradero Corridor, including San Antonio Avenue and the Foothills Expressway, and at intersection of Charleston Road and Alma Street the Corridor width was defined as one-half mile on either side of Charleston Road. The proposed Charleston-Arastradero Road Corridor Plan area, as shown in the attached map is located in the southern portion of the City of Palo Alto. The Corridor begins on Charleston Road approximately ½ mile from Interstate Highway 101 at Fabian Way, and continues 2.3 miles southwest as Charleston Road, crossing the railroad tracks near Alma Street and State Highway 82 (El Camino Real) where the road continues as Arastradero Road and ends at Miranda Avenue. The roadway improvements proposed in the Corridor Plan are contained within the existing 80-86’ right of way width (which includes the 60-foot curb-to-curb street width plus existing sidewalks and vegetation strip areas) along Charleston/Arastradero Road corridor and the existing rights of way at each of the ten signalized intersections. Some improvements on the Corridor are already part of the "Travel Smart, Travel Safe" Residential Arterial program already approved by Council and funding is being pursued. These primarily include adjusting signal timing and installing a traffic adaptive system along the corridor. A traffic adaptive system allows signaling to be responsive.to real- time changes in the traffic conditions. Some elements of the ’’Travel Smart, Travel Safe" Residential Arterials Project include advanced traffic detection, traffic-adaptive system, communication system upgrade, signal timing, V-calm electronic speed signs, and enhanced crosswalks. Additionally, the City will continue to work with the schools along the corridor and the School District on increasing alternative mode trips to and from their facilities as well as continuing to adjust start times of the schools to reduce morning peak time traffic. Project Setting The length of Charleston Road and Arastradero Road within the Corridor Plan limits (to be referred to henceforth as "the Corridor") is approximately 2.3 miles. Charleston Road and Arastradero Road each have four through lanes within the Corridor Plan reach and there are ten signalized intersections along the Corridor. The typical curb-to- could extend from Gunn High to the south, thus allowing cyclists to avoid Arastradero altogether. The mid-block bike/ped crossing should be aligned with this route. ¯Often people think of safety and comfort as one in the same. But really these are two different things. In this case, however, we can accomplish both. I believe the option with three lanes, including the left turn pocket, accomplishes this best. ¯I would rather drive in traffic than risk swinging doors in bike lanes. If we cut down on cut-through traffic we will increase the safety of the corridor. ¯It is very difficult to get out of driveways currently. This can be a problem in emergency situations. ¯There should be a bicycle route behind Gunn High. (R) Currently there is one between Bull Park and Gunn High. ¯There should be a law requiring cyclists to use bells in order to alert pedestrians when they are coming. -4- way as traffic and off-street they are pseudo-pedestrians? (R) In all the options presented cyclists can ride in the street. There is a choice of where to ride in the bike path options. : How does the combination of bike lanes with corner bulb-outs work at intersections? (R) You can only have bulbouts parallel to a bike lane where there is a parking lane, otherwise you would block the bike lane. !n a three-lane alternative how do emergency vehicles fit on the street? (R) The sixteen-foot combined travel lane and bike lane provides sufficient room for emergency vehicles; or if there is just a bike lane the combination of the bike lane and travel lane. ¯I am a cyclist on East Charleston and find the street extremely frightening. The idea is to regulate traffic flow. Simple things could be done to accomplish this. ¯If there is a question regarding the safety of grade separated bike paths then I am not for them. ¯I have a two-year-old and would like to have her ride her bike to school in the future. I am for maximum traffic calming. Bike lanes (on-street) won’t be safe if traffic is not slowed considerably. ¯I support improving existing bike lanes and calming traffic. I am also for iron clad traffic enforcement. Currently enforcement is nonexistent. The cost would be about $ lmillion per year and the fear would deter speeders. ¯A combination of medians and center turn lanes could be used to suit unique situations. They should be used flexibly. ¯As long as we have four-lanes of traffic, speed will be problem. Perhaps if we have four-lanes we should have speed humps. ¯Parking on Arastradero should not be eliminated. ¯There is no enforcement to prohibit truck traffic along the corridor today; there should be. ¯The two-way grade separated bike path alternatives should be eliminated. (R) That is the consensus. ¯In terms of bike lane safety, color may not make a difference but widening bike lanes and eliminating parking lanes does. ¯If we want a fast and cheap solution we should narrow traffic lanes, widen bike lanes, and paint a colored striped to delineate bike lanes. Also painting ">" in traffic lanes makes the lanes appear more narrow the faster the driver goes, and can calm traffic; this has been tested. ¯As a cyclist I find intersections to be highly dangerous. Also, swinging car doors pose a hazard to cyclists when bike lanes are next to parking lanes. Storm drains are an additional hazard. The ridges run parallel to the lane catching bicycle tires and causing serious accidents. (R) In a four-foot bike lane the cyclist is in the swinging door zone. But a six-foot lane (within a fourteen-foot bike/parking zone) provides enough room for cyclists and open car doors. (R) Nowadays the storm drain covers are made of criss-cross bars to avoid bike tires catching in the ridges. ¯There is an off-road bike path along the water company property near Gunn. It doesn’t quite reach Gunn yet but most likely will in the near future. It would then cross Arastradero and continue past Terman School. Currently there is no vehicle access between the area behind Terman School and E1 Camino. But the bicycle path -3- widening in all of the options. ¯ . Regarding pedestrian refuges. How will these slow traffic, when drivers cannot see pedestrians in the refuge. (R) The purpose of the refuges is not to slow traffic, but rather to make it safer and more convenient for pedestrians to cross the street. The City of Palo Alto is conservative about using pedestrian crossings (without refuges) on four-lane streets because of the danger this may create for pedestrians. ¯I live near Gunn High. Currently it is not recommended for cyclists to use Arastradero, but to use Maybell instead. If we had safe bike paths on the (Arastradero) corridor cyclists would use them. Regarding the electronic speed sign near Fabian. There should be a differentiation between the actual driver’s speed and the enforced speed. When it switches back and forth between the two it is difficult to determine what speed you are actually going. The speed limit should be shown as well as the driver’s speed. ¯A nationally recognized bicycle accident study shows that most biking accidents occur at intersections. How do you minimize this occurrence with grade separated bike paths? (R) Bicyclists need to stop at intersections and cross with pedestrians. ¯There is a Palo Alto study that compares on-street bike lanes with off-street bike paths. It determines that off-street bike paths are twice as unsafe at intersections and in instances where cyclists ride on the wrong side of the path. Drivers don’t expect to see cyclists coming from paths behind the curb. Therefore experts have serious reservations about grade separated bike paths. (R) Two-way bike paths on one side of the street were discouraged (at last week’s workshop). If we change the atmosphere of the street people can adapt to change. Adding bollards to the bike paths at intersections and a sign system along the corridor would be recommended to alert motorists and cyclists to the new conditions. ¯If you put bollards cyclist will ride in the street. How will you put in street trees with storm drains and other utilities in the way? (R) We are mapping utilities including storm drains, and they are not in consistent locations. In certain locations street trees could conflict with utilities, in others they wouldn’t. Medians and sidewalk widenings could still be constructed, though trees may not be consistent. ¯When you talk about the right-of-ways being behind the sidewalk does this mean you plan on taking portions of frontage properties? (R) The right-of-way actually extends behind the back of walk. We could add street trees in this strip to make the street more beautiful, but not take any property, no. ¯I live on the corridor and it is very difficult to back out of my driveway. I use the parking lane to edge out of my drive and gain visibility. If you remove the parking it will make it even more difficult to back out. ¯I have a seven-year-old son. I love the idea of a designated bike path and trees in a center median. I would never allow my son to ride on the street along the corridor, even with wider bike lanes. ¯There is a problem with traffic back up at Gunn High. A right-hand turn lane would alleviate this problem. Also, in other locations there are flashing yellow lights alerting people to drive 15 mph in a school zone during active times; we should have that here too. If people need a cut-through street (between 101 and 280) let them use another road. ¯Where would cyclists stop at intersections? On-street they have the same right-of- -2- City of Palo Alto Arastradero / Charleston Corridor Study Community Meeting #2b: Street Design Options -10/22/03 Community Comments Summary The comments summarized below were made by participants and recorded during the course of the meeting. (R) indicates a response by City staff or consultants *Medians are an inconvenience to people tuming left (into driveways). Would it be possible to combine medians and center turn lane? (R) Yes. Median wouldn’t be continuous. There would need to be places for left and u-turns. ¯With a median is it possible to make a u-turn at intersections? (R) It depends on the location; e.g. cross street vs. mid-block. It may be possible to have shorter medians, making u-turns possible. Though this can reduce safety. ¯Is it possible to make some sections four lanes and some three, as shown in the options (at Alma)? Won’t this create a back up, similar to when the number of lanes on a freeway is reduced? (R) Traffic on the corridor is different from that on a freeway. It is more complicated because it’s not a single direction flow through, but comes and goes at different intersections. It is possible to have a transition at intersections. Still, we do want to minimize transitions between different lane conditions to maintain traffic flow. ¯Perhaps all we need along the corridor is traffic enforcement and shrub trimming. Also, not too many cars park on Arastradero. If you remove it that flees up extra space for bike lanes. Why do you need a six-foot median to create a pedestrian refuge? Wouldn’t three feet be sufficient? (R) Six feet is generally the preferred minimum for a refuge for safety, though any width is safer than no refuge. ¯Which alternative would slow traffic the most? (R) Any of the alternatives with three narrowed lanes and pedestrian refuges. ¯I like the option which maintains the four vehicle lanes on Arastradero with a median. This is a main road into and out of town. Traffic will flow slower and more smoothly. I also like the grade separated bike paths, but am unclear about how to get cyclists out of the streets and onto paths. ¯I like grade separated bike paths and medians. Safety is the priority, not speed and convenience. Traffic wilt continue to get worse in the future. If people want to race down the street to reach the highways they should use the thoroughfares. This is a residential street. Our goal should be to improve the street for pedestrians and cyclists. I also like the idea of including street trees because they screen the sun and improve visibility along the street (relative to shrubs). This will make the street safer and prettier. ¯I’m concerned about traffic gridlock. How are you going to synchronize signals with the railroad crossing? (R) The railroad crossing will not have a significant impact on the signal system. In the future the train will run more frequently and we may need to look at grade-separated streets. That would be the safest and most efficient configuration. ¯When I ride my bike on the street the VTA buses cannot even stay in an eleven-foot lane. How will they stay in a ten-foot lane? (R) The bike lanes are proposed for -1- ¯I am concerned about medians blocking access to streets. ¯Off-peak parking is dangerous, especially for kids on bikes. They have to ride around parked cars (especially on Arastradero) and drivers don’t look out for them. One solution is towing. ¯! have a concern regarding traffic between Middlefield and Gunn. Currently traffic is diverted onto residential streets. Drop-offzones would help. But how do we get cars offMaybell? (R) There will be more analysis of Maybell. It requires a custom solution. ¯A potential solution would be to make Page Mill and Oregon freeways. ¯A 60’ cross-section (curb to curb) is too constrained. We should consider taking room from some of the frontages to make the street better. ¯I have a concern regarding medians and kids using them to cross the street rather than using designated (signalized) crossings. But the medians would be safer for elderly people. It is very difficult for my father to cross the entire width of a street (in the time allowed by a traffic signal). ¯On West Charleston between Alma and E1 Camino parking is used for businesses and special destinations; in other areas it is just residential guest parking. If we are going to have grade separated bike paths I’d like to propose that we also have on street bike lanes (for commuter cyclists). Middlefield, and E1 Camino. I prefer the idea of over-crossings for pedestrians and cyclists. ¯Community participation in Palo Alto is an illusion. The parameters are already set. Why don’t you just tell us what they are? Shouldn’t you base your options on these parameters? ¯I don’t think traffic diversion (that could result from street improvements) onto residential streets is an issue. ¯Oh yes it is! ¯I am a homeowner across from Hoover School and I prefer grade-separated bike paths. I would be more than happy to sacrifice curbside parking for the safety and beauty (offered by those plan options). ¯Do these plans extend to San Antonio Road? (R) As of now the improvement concepts end at Fabian Way. ¯I think grade-separated bike paths and medians are a good idea for East Charleston and should be extended to the rest of the corridor (including Arastradero). Currently, there is more traffic, relatively, east of E1Camino. But in the near future it is not expected to be that much different there. Safety should be the number one priority along the entire corridor. ¯Are there funds available for grade separated bike paths? (R) We have applied for a grant to pay for additional electronic speed signs. There are other grants we can and will apply for. And the city is looking at funding projects from its traffic impact fee program ¯It is important to get drivers to slow down. Safety is th__9.e issue, so I like the idea of the medians. ¯Does expense effect the timeline of implementation? (R) Yes. It would take time to package the funding needed, especially if it includes grants. ¯We need to improve travel on San Antonio to deter through traffic on this corridor. (R) There is a network of streets that we are part of, and what happens on other streets definitely affects us. The county is interested in improving efficiency on Page Mill and the Oregon Expressway, which are county highways, and this would relieve some of the traffic on this corridor. ¯I am a cyclist commuter and would definitely use grade separated bike paths. I am however concerned about trees blocking visibility near intersections. Would treatment of the grade separated bike paths be the same at every intersection? (R) No, each intersection is different and would require some independent analysis and design. We would make sure visibility at intersections is very good. ¯I like the Louis island. It prevents through traffic on Louis, which was a real problem before it was installed. ¯The Louis Street island serves a good function but can stand improvement. ¯The Louis island does not prevent through traffic on Montrose however. People use this as an alternate route to reach Fabian and avoid San Antonio. ¯Street lighting should be more pedestrian-oriented than vehicle oriented. We don’t want the lighting to be so bright that it attracts cars (by making the street seem like it is supposed to be a through route). ATTACHMENT B City of Palo Alto Arastradero / Charleston Corridor Study Community Meeting #2: Street Design Options -10/15/03 Community Comments Summary The comments summarized below were made by participants and recorded during the course of the meeting. (R) indicates a response by City staff or consultants ¯Keeping curbside parking may not be a crucial concern of residents who live along or in the vicinity of the corridor. ¯There are different kinds of cyclists. Are the proposed grade-separated paths only for kids? What is the goal of these design options as regards cycling speed? ¯As a serious cyclist I prefer to fide on the street, rather than on a bike path. ¯Regarding process, how are solutions reached? There are too many alternatives. Where is the analysis of community needs? What are the options and choices? (R) The basic options and choices relate to medians, bikeway locations, pedestrian crossings, planting, and street signs and lighting. There are a number of ways to combine these different elements to create a street that has a more neighborhood- oriented character. It is important to create visual cues for drivers. An example of this is the electronic speed sign near Fabian. Drivers instantly reduce their speed from 40mph to 25mph, at least until they hit Middlefield Road. Then they speed back up. ¯Serious cyclists do use grade-separated bike paths. You’d be surprised. Once they’re installed you just can’t help but ride on them. Also they increase the value of properties located along the paths. ¯Two-way bike paths can be unsafe at intersections and can make it difficult to reach the opposite side of the street. I prefer one-way grade-separated bike paths located on both sides of the street. ¯I prefer maintaining outside lanes for vehicular travel lanes (on the 4-lane options), rather than programming them for parking during offpeak times. ¯Painting the bike lanes doesn’t go far enough in preventing vehicles from veering into bike lanes. Have you considered a raised surface strip to separate the bike lane from vehicle lanes? Little round domes? (R) A raised surface, or even a change in surface textures can be hazardous for cyclists. At the city we are conservative about using any kind of raised surface along bike lanes. ¯Near the cemetery it is very dangerous for cyclists. They try to cross to the south/east side of Arastradero from Foothill. A safe crossing is needed there. Also, many Terman students travel in the bike lane against traffic on that side of the street; this is not safe. ¯I like the grade-separated bike paths. I have kids and would feel good about allowing them to ride their bikes to school on these paths. I also think the safety benefits (to motorists, pedestrians) of medians outweigh any inconvenience they may cause. My concern involves how bike paths may work at the major intersections like Alma, Charleston Corridor Attachment A SECTION 6. The city manager and city attorney are directed and authorized to take all necessary actions to implement this resolution immediately. INTRODUCED AIVD PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: .ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Mayor APPROVED: City Attorney City Manager Director of Planning and Community Environment Director of A~ministrative Services 040114 s.vn 8250012 SECTION 2. The City Council hereby finds that the public interest, health, safety and welfare of Pa!o Alto and the surrounding region re_quire deve!opment projects to mitigate fully any im_macts they cause on the City’s transportation system. SECTION 3. Until such time as the Transportation Impact Fee has been approved by the City Council and becomes effective, the City shal!, where warranted and to the greatest extent legally possible, impose conditions of approval on development projects that require the project proponent and applicant to agree to bear their fair share of the cost and burden of mitigating im_macts on the City’s transportation system as described and established in the Comprehensive Plan or other applicable studies. The cost and burden of this mitigation and enhancement shall not exceed the proportion reasonably related to the project and may be imposed and secured via deve!opment fee, assessment district or other mechanism. SECTION 4. The City Council hereby declares that, as a genera! matter, development projects that do not include conditions or features needed to bear a fair share of the cost and burden of mitigating impacts on the City’s transportation system wil! be determined to be inconsistent with the adopted 1998-2010 Comprehensive Plan. SECTION 5. The City Council hereby declares that, as a general matter, the cumulative impacts of deve!opment projects that do not include conditions or features needed to bear a fair share of the cost and burden of mitigating impacts on the City’s transportation system wi!l be determined to be significant environmental effects pursuant to the California Envirom~nenta! Quality Act. This declaration is based upon the Council’s finding and determination that, as a genera! matter, the incrementa! effects of individual deve!opment projects upon the City’s transportation system have been cumulatively considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, current projects and probable future projects. // // // // 040! 14 syn 89.250012 P~SOLUTiON NO. RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ~T,~O DECL_~RING COUNCIL POLICY TO MITIGATE DEVELOPMENT IMPACTS AND INITIATING PROCEEDINGS TO ESTABLISH A TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE WHEREAS, the direct and cumulative impacts of deve!opment have caused negative environmenta! and physica! effects upon the City’s transportation system; and WHEREAS, the adopted 1998-2010 Comprehensive Plan, including the Transportation Element, articulates numerous goals, policies, and programs that are designed and intended to provide accessible, attractive, economically viable and environmenta!ly sound transportation options; and k~EREAS, the City’s constitutional police power, the adopted 1998-2010 Comprehensive Plan, the Subdivision Map Act, the Mitigation Fee Act, and the.California Environmental Quality Act provide lega! authority for the City Counci! to re_quire deve!opment projects to mitigate direct and cumulative environmenta! effects and to require deve!opment projects to bear a fair and reasonable share .of the burden of mitigating impacts on the City’s transportation system; and k~EREAS, the City has initiated proceedings to adopt a Transportation impact Fee; and WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to articulate existing policy and provide direction to staff that will assure that all pending and proposed deve!opment projects are required to mitigate direct and cumulative environmenta! effects and to bear a fair and reasonable share of the burden of mitigating impacts on the City’s transportation system; and ~SEREAS, this resolution has been considered at a noticed public meeting in accordance with Government Code sections 65090(a) and 66474.2. NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Palo Alto does RESOLVE as fol!ows: SECTION !. The City Council has initiated proceedings to establish a Transportation impact Fee. 040114 syn 8250012 proceeds that reflects the polic?T framework of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element. The PTC will fore, ally review a staff reconmaendation for the citym4de Transportation Impact Fee on February 4, 2004. PTC reconm~endations on the full pa~iculars of a TIt~ will be fol~¢arded to the Council at a date to be scheduled. ATTACHMENTS A.Resolution declaring council policy to mitigate development impacts and initiating proceedings to establish a Transportation Impact Fee. PREPARED BY: DEP:~RTMENT HEAD: Q..ii JOSEPH KOTT Chief Transportation Official [/ EMSLIE Director of Planning and Community Environment CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: {EMILY HARRISON Assistant City Manager cc:Plamaing and Transportation Commission Chamber of Commerce CMR:126:04 Page 3 of 3 1) 2) 7) 10) :11) 12) 14) Applicability of the fee cit3~,ide. Uniformity of the fee citywide. Assessment of the fee on a per PM peak-hour ~p basis. Assessment of projects of all sizes (i.e. regardless of peak-hour trip generation). Peak-hour trip generation estimation to be consistent with the Santa Clara Valley Transportation AuthoriD,’ s Transportati on Impact Analysis Guidelines. Levy of the fee as a one-rime (not annuM) charge. Levy fees on new trips generated by a change in land use. Fee level adjustments to be made armually in line with the Construction Cost Index. Focus proceeds on alternative modes (cycling, walking, shuttle transit) and cit3~,ide traffic signal system investments. Development and redevelopment projects remain responsible for mitigating significant impacts on nearby intersections, along with payment of the per-peak hour trip fee. (Thus the existing Stanford Research Park!El Camino Real and San Antonio!Bayshore intersection congestion mitigation impact fees would remain in place). Intersection congestion mitigation impact fees would remain in place. Cit)aa, ide TIF proceeds would be usable on projects cit?~;ide (an alternative approach would be to allocate a portion of the fees collected for use on any project cit3-~,ide and a portion solely for the geo~aphic area of the development project generating the fees. Geogapl,Ac equity is to be ensured through a geo~aphically balanced expenditure plan. (An alternative approach would be to allocate a portion cit?~vide and a portion to the geo~aphic area [or "zone"] of the development project). Credits (fee for~veness) would be ~ven for transportation demand management efforts. 15)Exemptions would be sinailar to those for other City impact fees (e.g. for !00 percent affordable housing projects, day care centers, public schools, etc.). BOARD/CO.M-MISSION REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS The Plamaing and Transportation Commission conmaents during study sessions on June 11, 2003 and August 27, 2003 focused on several key areas. These included the TIF level; the desirability of geo~aphic equity, in funding projects from the proposed TFI; the need to outreach to the business co~nmunity; and the nature and extent of exemptions from the fee. PTC connnents were supportive of a ciDavide TIF and of an expenditure plan for TIF CMR: 126:04 Page~ ~ of 3 of Palo Alto C ty Manager’s Report TO:HONOR~BLE CITY COUNCIL 7 FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT DATE:JANUARY 20, 2004 CMR:126:04 SL~JECT:APPROV.4J. OF RESOLUTION DECLARING COUNCIL POLICY TO MITIGATE DEVELOPMENT IMPACTS AND INITIATING PROCEEDLNGS TO ESTABLISH A TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE CITY--TIDE RECOMMEN2DATION Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a Resolution (Attachment A) providing the legal framework and policy direction necessary for the City to use "placeholder" fee conditions in anticipation of the Council adopting a citywide Transportation Impact Fee. BACKGROUND Creation of a Citywide Transportation Impact Fee (TIF) is a task included under two of the "Top 5" Council Priorities: "City Finances" and "Alternative Transportation/Traffic Calming." In study sessions on June 11 and August 27, 2003, the Planning and Transportation Colxmaission (PTC) discussed draft "conceptual alternatives’: for establishment of a ci~wide, multimodal transportation impact fee. The TIF would supplement two existing ordinances that pertain on!y to the Stanford Research Park (1986) and the environs of San Antonio/West Bayshore (1989) and are also limited strictly to traditional intersection lrdtigations of taaffic congestion. Staff is currently revising the proposal presented to the PTC on August 27, based on Commission comments and public testimony, outreach to the business community (mainly through the Palo Alto Chamber of Conmaerce), and results of independent legal review. Staff will return to Council with a detailed reconamendation regarding a ciLywide Transportation Impact Fee after completing these revisions. DISCUSSION The effect of the attached resolution is to direct the Cib, Manager and Cib, Attorney to take steps immediately so that development projects are charged their fair share of impacts on the City"s transportation system and on transportation within the connnuniry. The proposed TIF structure being prepared is predicated on the following 15 principles (subject to further modification prior to and after PTC final review): CMR.:126:04 Page ! of 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 4! 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 Commissioner Holman: I just wanted to chime in with the other comments that have been made about congratulating the Staff and the members of the community who have also been working on this program. I think it is a good product and look forward to its implementation. I also wanted to mention one other thing which didn’t come up in our discussion tonight but the environmental benefits of this program also by reducing the amount of idling time for cars and getting people out of their cars and I think that is also something that ought to be mentioned and lauded. So thank you. Chair Griffin: Phyllis. Vice-Chair Cassel: I wanted to thank the neighborhood groups and others who came forward to speak. I "know a lot of work has been done. One of the problems we run into with projects like this however is there are a lot ofpeopte who come forward who haven’t read the program, haven’t looked at the alternatives and it is going to take continuous education and help from all of those groups as they exist now in order to help other people understand why we say this might work or that might work. We would really appreciate that kind of support and continued help. Chair Griffin: While I would say that I am fundamenta!ly in favor of traffic calming schemes although based on some very recent experience I know these projects are not trouble-free. I hope that we are prepared for some pushback because there are a lot of people that are still focused on this counter-intuitive aspect. That being said I think it is a dandy program and I really hope that it works as w-ell as it has been explained to us tonight. So are we ready to vote this up? MOTION PASSED (5-0-1-0, Commissioner Bialson absent) All those in favor of the motion say aye. (ayes) All opposed? There are none with Commissioner Bialson being absent. Mr. Kott: Commissioners, thank you very much. REPORTS FROM OFFICIALS. Chair Griffin: Now we come to the Commissioner Questions and Comments portion. CO.MMISSION MEMBER QUESTIONS, CO.MMENTS, AND/OR AN,WO UT~rCEMENTS. Chair Griffin: I would like to ask for a volunteer for Planning Commissioner Rep with City Council for the month of February. Pat you are good man, thank you for that. Now approval of minutes. APPROVAL OFM1NUTES. Minutes of the Regular Meeting of October 29 and Regular Meeting of November 12, 2003. Chair Griffin: We have two sets of minutes to vote on. One is for October the 29tu. Do I have a motion for approval of October 29tu minutes? City of Palo Alto Page 52 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 !2 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 that there will be tess impacts on a number of issues including aesthetics and a number of other problems. So I am pleased to second this motion. Chair Griffn: Pat. Commissioner Burt: On the issue of funding if I might briefly ask Joe any colxmaents that he has on anticipated timeframe. I ~know when we were talking at a previous meeting about the Smart Signal concept we already had a first proposal in to the County I think and I just wanted to see if you could Nve us some sense of when you think funding might occur and the likelihood of it. Mr. Kott: You need a crystal ball for this kind of thing but I think we have a very good shot at this County Roads and Local Streets program funding for traffic adaptive signalization. It is just the right time and the right place for it. We have had pretty good luck over the years getting other grant funds. As I mentioned with the Homer tunnel, it is a lot of work. Gayle actually is instrumental on all of our grant activities and deserves a lot of credit. I am hoping in a few years we will be ready to rock and roll and maybe sooner than that. Mr. Emslie: Maybe to just clarify, the funding source that Joe is referring to is from the VTA, Valley Transportation Authority, and the initial funding phase, which we have already applied for, is for three-year funding. So the first allocations are going to be decided and given out in the first three years, no later. Then the program continues for another seven years for a total often years. So we should know fairly soon. Going through the process of allocating monies in three years is relatively quick and as the Commission "knows this county has got a long history of support of its transportation infrastructure through outside sources. So there is a higher level of confidence that this will come through just because of the track record that this county has in supporting our transportation system. Commissioner Butt: As a follow up to that what is the intended relationship between the trial period and its funding and implementation versus locking up funding for the permanent measures? Mr. Kott: All the way through. As we do the trial we wilI be working like crazy to get money for the permanent. As I say" we have been fairly successful over the years in getting money. If Council wants this as a top priority we wil! just work real hard to get the money. Chair Griffin: Karen. Mn-. Emslie: One thing that is important and this comes up, the uncertainty of using grant funding, but I tell you project readiness, having a plan in place to move forward is absolutely essential for getting any kind of funding. One of the things that funding agencies want to know is that you are going to be able to use the money quickly. So having the plan in place is absolutely essential tO being competitive. It does put us a little bit at risk and we are always out there trying to push it but it absolutely is essential to show that our project is ready to go and the money will be put to good use quickly. That is very, very important in making our competitive bid for this. Ci& of Palo Alto Page 51 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 Commissioner Holman: Don’t we also need to make a comment about the phasing? Do Commissioners feel and Staff feel like we have effectively or completely addressed the phasing aspect of this? Chair Griffin: My take on it was that we had sufficiently ventilated that item unless you want to discuss it some more. I would be ready to entertain a motion. Bonnie. MOTION Commissioner Packer: It is a privilege to be able to make a motion on this project. So I will move that we recommend to the Council that they approve the plan that is before us with a one- year trial t -aking into account the comments that we have made tonight and that we recommend approval of the initial study Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration associated with the CharlestordArastradero Corridor Plan. Chair Griffin: Do I have a second? SECOND Vice-Chair Cassel: Second. Chair Griffin: Do you wish to speak to your motion, Bonnie? Commissioner Packer: Yes, I will just repeat my con~atulations to the Staff and to the community for working together to come with such a fine product. The beauty of it is that it is so simple in its concept. All the way through the corridor it is very eloquent. Moving lanes around doesn’t require a whole lot of construction that we have to deal with. I am looking forward to the new 21st Century technology in the traffic adaptive technology that the Council has already approved. I am looking forward to a beautiful street that we can enjoy traveling on. I am looking forward to people realizing that they can get from A to B without having to go terribly fast and enjoy the scenery as they are driving along at 25 miles an hour, stopping for pedestrians and bicyclists. And I am looking forward to the shift in mode more pedestrians and bicyclists going any-where whether it is to school or heading off to the beautiful bike lane on Arastradero or wherever people are going. I won’t go on and on the hour is late and I will let other wax eloquently. Chair Griffin: Phyllis, would you like to add any comments on your second? Vice-Chair Cassel: Bonnie did all the eloquent waxing here. We haven’t said anything about the funding issues. In some way it is beyond us but it is in front of us. So my comment on that is of course it is going to be difficult to get funding. We are going to have to keep going after it and it may come in pieces and I think that may change our phasing but it would be nice if we could do it all at once. The other is that we didn’t mention directly the Negative Declaration in our conversations. I don’t know if anyone has any questions. This Was very helpful to us. One of the problems with these declarations, these EIRs or mitigated negative declarations is they never say whoopee Us takes out problems. !t is either a sQmaificant change or a minor change or whatever and it always presumes that that’s negative but in fact in this it makes many comments City of Palo Alto Page 50 1 2 3 4 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22., 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Mr. Kott: I’ll let Steve handle the land use part of it because he knows everything about that and I don’t know very much about it. I think what we are going to be learning is traffic operations lessons. As we have more traffic we will have more of the same. We want to make sure these turning movements are correct and make sure that the people are behaving themselves as vehicles in the bicycle lanes and answer all those kinds of questions. Steve, do you have any comments about land use h-nplications? Mr. Emslie: I would say that the trial is not going to inform us as to how accurate our growth projections are. That is something that we can’t do. The trial will be more focused on as Joe mentioned fine tuning the operational aspects of that, how turning movements are made or are the proper radiuses in place, is the signage there, is the transition adequate, those kinds of things. How traffic operates in the corridor would be the issues that you would test during the trial. As far as how accurate we will have been in terms of our projections we have tried to be as conservative as we possibly can in modeling the outside of our development potential on the corridor and including those in. So we really do think we have projected a worst-case scenario for comfort that we have predicted the maximum amount of change in the corridor. So time will tell but the trial will not tell us how well we have done on our traffic predictions. Commissioner Holman: I g~ess my question is a little bit different. It is not to ask you to try to commit to how accurate you have been on the growth projections but how we are trying to address the anticipated growth. So how far into a trial and is there a date projected Nven Council approval for this when we might see if the program is performing as anticipated? Mr. Kott: We would take special note of the modal shift aspects beyond the traffic shift aspects. t. We would like to see some of these swallows as they arrive similar to Capistrano come to our corridor, bikes and pedestrian and more shuttle usage. That will be an important lesson. More development on this corridor wil! mean more traffic and we need to induce modal shift, we need to create some efficiencies with traffic adaptive and we will learn some important lessons. Steve is ri~t thou~h, in terms of the longer-term future we have done some pretty good projections but what actually gets developed out there is up the community. Chair Griffin: Pat. Commissioner Butt: I have faith that we won’t have to swallow our words. I would just like to say in a wrap up before we lose any more folks I have been particularly impressed not only with the product the Staffhas presented to us tonight but with the public participation process. I think it has been a very good model and both the quality of input from the public and the perseverance and in particular apparently the excellent work of the stakeholders goup. I just wanted to say that before we lose anybody else tonight.. Chair Griffin: I am going to ask a question about whether we need to make a motion to approve this initial study. Mr. Emslie: You would recommend the Council adopt the mitigated Negative Declaration in conjunction with the adoption of the plan. City of Pato Alto Page 49 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 Mr. Emslie: I wanted to emphasize one of the key factors in recommending any traffic improvement is we always test it and that is one of the three axioms that Joe mentioned, and we are incredibly dependent on the trial as a test so that we can flesh out issues that are unanticipated. So it is with this that-we do proceed. I wanted to make one clarifying comment. In item 19 it does say selected sections and I think because this is really a holistic approach that you can’t do seg-ments and get a true read on the efficiencies that you would get. So we would want to make sure that item 19 is clear that we would test the whole corridor rather than selected sections. I think you would have the problem of not getting an accurate reflection of the efficiencies. I do agee that I think that a longer than six month trial with a project of this level is most likely going to occur. Probably a 12-month would be appropriate in this case. Other cities that have done this ~pe of trial have found that 12 months is the appropriate amount of time. Chair Griffin: Phyllis. Vice-Chair Cassel: Two things with the trial. One is 12 months is free as long as every three months we are making corrections if we need to make corrections or something like that. The other is what if we get money to do part of it, a piece of it, out of one kind of funding? Can we then say well we have money for part of it we will do that triM? The goal is to do the whole thing at once but sa~y we get bicycle money for that bicycle path that is coming down Bryant and then going down Middlefleld so we can do a piece in the middle. Mr. Emslie: It would really depend on what we were getting funding for. If it is for an improvement that didn’t relate directly to traffic flow, if it was a safety improvement that was not connected to promoting traffic flow then yes and we could do those types of things that wouldn’t interfere with that. But in terms of the lane reduction and transitions and all that you really have to do that as a corridor-wide test. Chair Griffin: I am going to say that a 12-month trial certainly resonates with me based on some experience that I .got here recently and also the ability to do some tweaking during the process is something I personaliy would encourage as well. I also am thinking about your comment about the holistic approach. I would like to see it all done or not. In other words, if we can’t do it ri~,~ht then let’s wait and keep the money in the savings account until we do have sufficient funding to do this thing properly particularly when the traffic signal system costs $1.3 million. That is quite a nut to crack. Are there any other comments on this or are we ready to do some wrap up conversation? Karen. Commissioner Holman: I have a question that probably nobody wants to ask but needs to be asked i think. I think it is smart to do a 12-month trial and can Staff lay out for us then how this works? The reason we are doing this is because of projected development along the corridor. So how is this going to interface, and is this a question you want now or is it a question you want later? How then wil! this interface with how-projects coming before us in the 12 months after this test is impl~nented how do we know if are achieving and when will we ~know if we are achieving the efficiencies that are anticipated and so how to use that in applying that iog-ic to development proposals? City of Palo Alto .Page 48 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 Chair Griffm: If there are no other comments on that we will move to 17, which is redesigning of the existing median at Louis and Montrose to retain it as a block to through movement as well as adding a widened pedestrian center median refuge. Any comments on number 17? Commissioner Packer: I am looking fol~vard to it. Chair Griffin: Then we will finish up here with 18, which is the installation of the frontage improvements including the street trees and street lighting along the corridor. Any comments on 18? I am hearing none so 19 would be the item on the demonstration trial of the corridor plan with paint, signage, asphalt curbing in selected sections prior to construction or deployment of the fmal improvements. Any comments or questions on that? Karen. Commissioner Hotman: Just one. Should there be some, even with all the expertise and all the work that has gone into this, should there be some fatal flaw let’s call it just for sake of conversation. It is a six-month trial but would it be possible rather than again to get debate going in the community to address a particular instance in the study rather than waiting the full six months so the situation might not get exacerbated? Mr. Kott: I am not quite sure that I understand that question, Commissioner Holman. You mean individual elements rather than doing the whole demonstration trial? Commissioner Holman: No I am saying doing the whole demonstration trial but then if there is, I an trying not to g-ive an example either from another community or in our own community, but let’s say that there is a problem at the Young Life School. Would it be possible or is there any facility for addressing a problem there that might develop that is not anticipated even with all the work that has been done so that it doesn’t get to be a hot issue and jeopardize the rest of the program? Mr. Kott: Yes, that is a good question. That is precisely why we Want to do a trial. Whenever we do trials in Palo Alto of any ~kind of traffic measures, if safety problems occur then we correct them. So our prime directive is safety. If we need to close medians or open medians, whatever we have to do, to cure a safety problem. I would guess because we are inducing slower car speeds in between these intersections that we will likely not see safety concerns but we would defmitely address them immediately if they occurred. Commissioner Holman: Just for clarity, meaning that it is a six-month study so if two months down the road a real issue became identified it could be addressed at three months instead of waitingthe six months. Mr. Kott: In terms of a pressing safety issue, we would get out there and fix it ASAP. We would just get a contractor out or the Public Works Department and fix it. If it is more like perceptions or anxieties of fears that is something else again. Now Steve is very keen on, and I agee with him, a longer trial and he is probably right. We are thinking now of maybe a whole year. We will get the whole course of the seasons and that wi!! Nve us a real good test. Ci.ty of Palo Alto Page 4 7 ! 2 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16. 17 I8 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 4! 42 43 44 45 46 47 Vice-Chair Cassel: Yes, I have some questions and comments. They have to do with the fact that I drove throug.h that today and the reason that they obviously changed the pattern was so that people could be dropped out on the rigJat side in the back of the school and stay on the center where the school property is and not have to cross traffic. On the other hand there are extensive problems out on the street caused by not being able to make a left hand turn in there. Could you comment on the feasibili~ of actually reversing the traffic for the school? Mr. Kott: I would like to add comments to mine too. We are presupposing this will be done. We have not had the kind of detailed back and forth with the Hoover School community that we need to engage in. We had a mobile workshop yesterday at Hoover School and some of their PTA people were there. We have Kathy Dirken who is with the School District, the Transportation Manager, on our stakeholders ~oup. One interesting point about this drop off issue is that there are a lot ofminivans now and mini-vans tend to have doors open on the right. In the first place it seemed to us that a left drop off is really no problem because you shouldn’t have young kids in the front seat anyway because of air bags and they will be getting off from the backseat. Well not so fast, there are mini vans. So we would really have to have drop-off on the right. We need to discuss details I think, but our thinking right now is we would create a couple of well-marked crosswalks that-would charmelize these kids. We would have a sidewalk on that other side, we would channelize the kids and there would have to be traffic wardens or crossing guards to help guide them. We would have slow car speeds circulation, maybe five miles an hour; people who are trying to get out.. So that might be a good solution. We don’t have any sig-n-off from the Hoover School community yet though on that. That is a very important thing for us to get before we do the left turn lane because we need to have the reversal of circulation first. Ms. Likens: I don’t really have anything to add other than we will be meeting with the school principal and the school administration with the representative on our advisory committee, the school bus manager, between now and when we go to the Council. Vi~e-Chair Cassel: Joe, I am really familiar with this comer of the street. One time we were talking about a rotary at Nelson and I imagine that’s not making anyone too happy and it is expensive. The other alternative would be not to make a left hand turn there but let people make a U-turn at Nelson, which they can’t do now’. There is no way to turn in the middle of the street. Would that be another alternative then eve13,one w-ould be entering from the right? Mr. Kott: Well, a couple of points. As this Commission knows, I don’t need talked into roundabouts, I think they are peat and I am willing to say that. Roundabouts have many, many, many advantages. We think that they are very difficult to implement in Palo Alto. I wi!l just leave it like that. In terms of U-turning rigJat there and inducing and encouraNng a lot of U-turns we have a lot of kids crossing at that crosswalk at Nelson. We will have a lot of bicyclists and we will have many more of both bicyclists and kids crossing with these improvements. I would be real concerned about inducing a lot of U-turns in that situation. We are going to have cars U-turning and . swinging into the bike lane and so forth. So I don’t myself think that is a good solution. I don’t know whether Gayle you have comments or Terry or Gary. City of Palo Alto Page 46 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 !6 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 pork chop islands. There are some exceptions but in this case we think it is a pretty good cal! to get rid of them. Chair Griffin: I am going to interject here for a moment and ask Commissioners, you will notice that it is basically 10:30 and we still have a third of these items left to go. We can do one of two things we can keep grinding on this and get through it tonight. An alternative wouid be to comeback tomorrow evening and finish up these last I think there are about seven items still to go. I have one Commissioner who in fact would look forward to continuing the item until tomorrow night. How do the rest of you feel? Bonnie. Commissioner Packer: I think we are almost done. Chair Griffin: Anyone else? And Pat? Okay, we will just keep right on going here then. The next item would be moving to West Charleston. It is item number 13, retaining the existing four travel lanes on Charleston from El Camino down to the railroad tracks and Alma street. Are there any questions or comments on item 13? There being none we wi!l go to 14, which is provisions for a three lane cross section from Fabian back up westward to _Alma Street. I won’t read the rest of that paragraph. Questions or comments on that? Commissioner Packer: Did you do t4? Chair Griffin: I was on 14, yes. Commissioner Packer: I just want to reiterate my support for the three lanes instead of the four lanes for the same reasons I supported it on the West Charleston side. There was a concern raised about the area between Fabian and Middlefield in the event the development on the Sun site may impact that. But you "know lanes are not that difficult to move back and forth and if that creates a problem down the road that could probably be changed back. Vice-Chair Cassel: Those numbers were already calculated into the calculations that said we could do it. Commissioner Packer: That’s true so that is why ! am supporting the three !ane a!! t_he way. Chair Griffin: Any other comments? Then we move to number 15, which would be the four trave! lanes maintained at Middlefield, Alma, E1 Camino Real and Gunn High School. Any comments on number 15? Vice-Chair Cassel: That is an edit to the Staff Report that we have. It doesn’t say Gunn on the Staff Report and it should be added. Chair Griffin: Was that one of Joe’s edits earlier on? Yes, he says it was. If there are no comments on that then we will move to 16 which is provision of a center left turn lane leading to and just west of the easterly Hoover Elementary School driveway presupposing reversa! of the existing circulation from Charleston into and out of Hoover. Any questions or comments on 16? Phyllis. City of Palo Alto Page 45 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 DD 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 4! 42 43 44 45 46 47 Vice-Chair Cassel: There is an alternative proposal that keeps getting discussed about making the current lane a right hand turn lane for an hour but not only is that only doing it for an hour but there is an extensive amount of traffic that goes through there. If you have to make a right hand turn on Miranda or on Foothill and you have to get back into that right hand lane from the left hand lane, and I can assure you that is not easy in that amount time having done that many time. When you do this work with Gurm would you look at a way for people who are brinNng their children and dropping them off if they can get into that right hand lane and find someplace in there to drop off and get back out. One of the problems in that people go throug.h the intersection, stop on the other side of the intersection to let their kids out and then that interferes with the movement of that lane and stops it and backs it back up into the intersection. Mr. Kott: There are a lot of interrupted flows. It is very interesting about this four-lane stuff. Believe me it is not terribly efficient. It is ldnd of a myth and if you provide for the turning movements properly you don’t need as many through lanes except at the major intersections where you must have them just to store cars. Chair Griffin: Any further comments or questions? Then we will move to item number six which is at the eastern end of Arastradero where the intersection with E1 Camino takes place and the removal of the two free ri~t turn pork chop islands to improve bicycle and pedestrian safety. Any" questions or comments on that item? Vice-Chair Cassel: If you can do it without causing a backup on the right hand turn lane going north, you don’t have to comment on this, but if you do this carefully I ~ it will be much better for the crossing there. I am not sure we gain as much out of that as we think we do. Mr. Kott: The advantage of taking them out of course is that the turns are slowed down so that the danger of motor vehicles going too fast and conflicting with bikes and pedestrians is ~eatly reduced. There is a big distance between that signal and the nearest upstream signal. We think the delay to motorists will be just very marg-inal and the benefit to cyclists and pedestrians will be major, it will be important. Chair Griffin: Pat. Commissioner Burt: Joe, are there are other alternatives to the removal of pork chops? They themselves and I g~ess perhaps traffic studies might refute my personal experience but when I think about them on E1 Camino and Embarcadero they are a pedestrian and bicycle refuge in themselves as you prepare to cross the next lanes. Are there ways to make the crossing to the pork chop safer through having that be some mechanism that would slow the cars turning right? Mr. Kott: I suppose that could be done. We need to deflect the vehicles; you need to stow them down by deflecting them similar to the roundabout center median deflection that the Commissioners ~know about. But gosh, the approach speeds are very high on those turns. I don’t know what your experience has been Commissioner Burt. As regards mine as a pedestrian, is it is difficult. I can’t always be sure when I step out into the crosswalk between the pork chop island and the mainland that I migJat not encounter a turning vehicle real suddenly, similarly with t~he cyclists because cyclists have their blind spots too. Cars whip around and maybe coming at a cyciist’s biind spot, the driver may be distracted and so forth. So we are not very keen about City of Palo Alto Page 44 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 think by any chance have an effect of encouragSng people to come because we are facilitating the automobile? Just could you respond to that? Mr. Kott: Very good question. My own view is that the car is here to stay and so forth. I come from a family in which I would have a lot of unemployed relatives if the car ever vanished, since they build cars. It seems to me that we are going to make t~As corridor so much more hospitable to biking and walking and we will have even better shuttle transit use. We are likely to make a pretty big dent in the number of cars accessing the high school, at least for those Gunn kids who are not yet 16. I will kind of hold my opinion as to how big a dent we will make in the licensed driver population. We may be in pretty good shape overall with that fight mm lane. We won’t have to worry too much about the len~h of it since it will be continuous flow. I expect a lot more alternative mode cycling and walking into Gunn and bus usage too in the furore. Chair Griffin: Bonnie. Commissioner Packer: A couple of things on that. There is another alternative for westbound bicyclists heading toward Gurm. They can just turn fight on Georgia and go into Gunn that way. There is a special entrance, a lovely redwood treed entrance, into Gunn. That is one possibility that they may choose to take. Another point is that Gurm is not only used by students there are a lot of activities that happen on that campus on the weekends and athletic activities so there are a lot of reasons to go to Gunn in the car. The question I have though on this part of the project is again a phasing question. Is this an item that could be implemented prior to the adaptive signal purchase? Mr. Kott: The answer is yes of course we are very keen to proceed with that one most of all. Chair Griffin: Karen, did you have a follow up? . Commissioner Holman: Yes. My comment about the bicyclists was not the ones necessarily going in just to Gurm but the ones going past that too. Maybe there is not very much bicycle traffic going past there. Ms. Likens: The plan shows that we wou!d continue the bike lane al! the way through to Foothi11 Expressway because that is a direct commute route to the Research Park for employees and we do have a fair amount of commuter traffic, more commuter traffic than student traffic, right now in the corridor..The bike lane would continue but it would be shifted to the left, as Joe mentioned, of the fight turn lane into Gunn. That is a very standard practice for designing bikeways. We actually have that configuration now at Miranda and Arastradero. That was a recently completed improvement project. So that would be the way that we would continue the bike lanes for those through bicyclists. Mr. Kott: I should say that that shift means that the5’ will just go straight on through. They won’t have to shift back because the new right turn lane is to the right of the through lane adjacent to it. Chair Griffin: Phyllis. Cir. of Palo Alto Page 43 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 Chair Griffin: Karen. Commissioner Holman: The only comment I will make is that I am pleased to see this come forward and happy that it sounds like most of the community is in support of it too. I will took forward to its trial. Chair Griffin: No other questions or comments then item numbers eleven and twelve, eleven being the creation of a dedicated right turn lane at Gurm Hi~ School driveway as well as widening the driveway which is item number twelve. ~amy questions or comments on those two? Karen. Commissioner Holman: Here is one where I am going to have to be convinced. Number eleven, a member of the public actually talked about how this would interrupt the bicycle lane and I wonder if Staff could comment on that? Mr. Kott: A few comments and then I am sure Gayle will want to follow. The bicycle lane would be shifted to the left of this new right turn lane. Cyclists who wish to make a right turn at the Gunn driveway, just as cyclists who wish to make any ~kind of right turn, will need to become a vehicle. In fact they are a vehicle in making that ri~ht turn. So we would expect that to occur. Throu~ bicyclists will simply shift over to the left of the new right turn lane. This is a pretty conventional approach. Gayle. Ms. Likens: In addition, currently adjacent to the Gunn driveway there is a path that cyclists use to enter the campus and then they cross over the schoo! driveway to get to the bike parking area on campus. So we would need to work with the school in redesigning the intersection to see exactly how those bicyclists would enter the campus. They could enter in the traffic lanes or they might want to get out of the traffic lane and onto that path. So we would work wifla them to design it most appropriately. Commissioner Holman: How would pedestrians be accommodated then with this? I think that was a question that came up also. Mr. Kott: i think there was a misunderstanding of the proposaI. We would take what is calied in some places the esplanade or the planting strip and use that five feet and combine it with some other width we are getting through restriping to make a right turn lane. That planting strip is just big rocks rig_hi now. There isn’t a blade ofgass that I could see on it and I was just there yesterday. We are not t ~aking any sidewalk. We are not moving the sidewalk. It remains. There was a question and a good one. Irwin Dawid is a fine environmentalist in town, a Sierra Club member and so forth. His concern that we would be putting pedestrians right by that right turn lane and there wouldn’t be a buffer. Even if it is just rock, its a buffer, and that is a point well taken, except it is a very short stretch of sidewalk. The benefits to the community of having much, much better efficiency- at the driveway needs to be considered as a tradeoff. Commissioner Holman: Just a quick follow up to that. Obviously you think it would be an improvement and that is why you are proposing it. The question I am asking thougah is is it really a long term solution and I ~know it is just a turn lane it is not a lane of traffic but would it do you City of Paio Alto Page 42 1 2 3 ,4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22., 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 and particularly I am thinking during the commute period in the morning when children are trying to go to school, trying to cross the corridor and that’s also when the commute traffic is at its highest level? It seems like we are shooting ourselves in the foot there a bit. Mr. Kott: I think that is a very. good comment. I think what is likely to happen is that children and pedestrians will bunch up at important school crossings under the protection or guidance of traffic monitors or crossing guards and will wait for gaps. Cars do not come in continuous flows. There are gaps. There is platooning in traffic and there will be those gaps and crossings will take place then and the ~ds will tend to be bunched up during the gaps. There is no doubt that there is some, if you will, efficiency drag and there will be some loss of the efficiency of the optimization. We don’t think it will be a serious one. You ~know, I try to fairly portray all the disadvantages but that doesn’t strike us as being a major one. We will still get most of the efficiency of the traffic actuation even with interrupted flow through pedestrian crossings. Chair Griffin: Then the next one is going to be number ten, still on Arastradero, and it is provision of the three lane cross section. I guess I am not going to read that entire para~aph. Are there questions or comments? This is probably the big one here. Bonnie. Commissioner Packer: I don’t really have a question. I just want to express my support for the concept in this area. I think we have heard from the public all the advantages. We have read in the report all the advantages of having the three lanes instead of the four lanes. I don’t want to have to reiterate them. I support it for all the reasons that are in the report. Chair Griffin: Pat. Commissioner Butt: I am also hopeful that we can achieve this. One of the speakers had raised the issue of the Attachment D citation that 1,000 vehicles per hour per lane is a rule of thumb and in our 2015 projections we are projecting numbers exceeding that. I guess I have two questions. One is do the 2015 projections take into account any modal transfer basically people that we may have fewer car trips as a result of the other enhancements that we are doing on the corridor? Second, just in general what are your thoughts on the surface the contradiction between those ~9two relerences. Mr. Kott: That is also a ve~ good comment. No, those projections do not take into account what we are actually hoping to achieve, that is the attainment of these performance measures as stated in percentage increases in cycling, walking and public transit use, particularly our Shuttle use. If you look at the Table, using 1,000 vehicle during peak hour, the numbers run from 20% below that threshold to about 16% above. Applying the mitigations, achieving the performance measures, we would be reasonably confident we would be under the 1,000 threshold. Now, Christopher Thnay, our good colleague who used to work here, did this analysis for us and he was very conservative. He didn’t put in the effects of the modal shift mad that is what drew him to the conclusion that the prudent course was to keep the four-lane cross-section, but we don’t agee with Christopher’s conclusion. We think-- Palo Alto in particular can easily achieve those performance measures, particularly with the success we have had for example at Terman. Commissioner Butt: Well then I would just comment that i wouid encourage you to inc!ude that reasoning and those assmnaptions in the report to make it clear to both the community and the Council that that’s how you believe these numbers can be reconciled. City of Palo Alto Page 41 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 34 35 36 37 .3O 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 like that would be increased frequency and extended routing. So it would be some combination of that. Chair Griffin: If there are no other questions or comments we would revert back to the first page and start working on the Arastradero items. That would mean item number three which is installation of li~hted in-pavement pedestrian actuated crosswalks to enhance safety on Arastradero west of Georgia on Suzarme Drive, Clemo and near Mumford Place as well as Louise and Montrose. Questions or comments? Bonnie. Commissioner Packer: My question would be where would this come in the phasing of this project? It sounds like this might be a little more expensive and more permanent of an installation. At what point would you propose doing this? I think it is a peat idea. The safety is peat. Mr. Kott: It is probabty most sensible to do it once the demonstration trial has proven successful and you get a permanent installation. We do have some concerns about making uncontrolled crosswalks. We have gone through this issue many times in Pato Alto. Uncontrolled crosswalks are really problematic when we have higja approach speeds, as we have in this corridor, in four lanes. It is very- difficult. If we slow car speeds down and do one lane crossing each direction for pedestrians, then the lighted crosswalk with a median refuge will give you a wonderful combination where you don’t have to worry about having stop control or signal control. All the factors are working for you. But when we don’t have that combination we b%Nn to get really nervous and we would have to be real careful about doing an uncontrolled crosswalk with the three-lane configuration without the in-pavement lighting. We would do very bright signage, our neon signage, which has been successful in town, very clear pavement markings, which would probably be diagonal or zebra stripe crosswalk markings. We would have to be real careful about visibility. The in-pavement li~,~.Jating is kind of icing on the cake and we are really optimistic about how successful that can be but it should come with the permanent installation I think. Chair Griffin: Pat. Commissioner Butt: Joe, I didn’t notice any reference to potential tinting or texturing of crosswalks, is that also under consideration? Mr. Kott: Very good question. E1 Camino Real for example, lots of questions about E1 Camino Real, we are very interested in doing some kind of colored or textured pavers for those crosswalks similar to what is suggested with the E1 Camino plan at, for example, Stanford and E1 Camino Real. We just think that visibility and the differentness of the pavement, it would have to be non-skid or skid resistant of course, but it we are just compelled by the safety benefits of visibility. We would like to do similar treatments in other places depending on cost constraints. Chair Griffin: I have a question. Joe in the SR on page 14 where you are talking about the disadvantages of lighted crosswalks the last sentence you say, "Pedestrian actuated signals are ef~%ctive for safety but do induce added vehicle delay and make traffic signa! coordination on a street corridor more difficult." i am thinking if the whole idea of this signal system is to permit the efficient utilization of a three lane street and then we put in a number, I think there were five or six, of these pedestrian actuated crosswalks won’t that disrupt our sophisticated signal system Ciu’ of Palo Alto Page 40 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 D 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 3! 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 lane and they have to behave differently. So I think it is a really good thing and I think it will affect the behavior of both the motorists and the bicyclists. It migJ-~t solve that problem. Commissioner Holman: t think it is a really good idea too. It says disadvantage, less attractive. Well, why would we want to put up unattractive signs? The other thing is since this is a school commute corridor instead of just denoting this as a bike iane and i think it might promote safety more is to do some kind of designation visibly that this is a school bike commute corridor so that that’s implemented in this painting or tinting or design that goes on here. Mr. Kott: It is a really good idea. We are great believers that visibility and awareness through bike lane tinting and good signage that people notice is a big plus. We would endeavor not to put up ugly looking signs. Commissioner Holman: Last comment is that I would hope that a lot of this indication could be done on the pavement itself and there wouldn’t be too much need for vertical signage. Mr. Kott: As long as we stripe the words ’bike lane’ we would be able to use other symbols if we need to on a demonstration basis, yes. Chair Griffin: What color are you proposing or has that come into the discussion at this stage? Mr. Kott: Well given that this is Palo Alto we will likely have a lively controversy about the color. Portland, Oregon used blue and they have had good success, by the way, with increased safety, reduced crashes and increased use of the bike lane because of the tinting. That has really inspired a lot of people around the country. But there has been concern that the blue might be confusing to some people because as you know blue is our handicap parking indicator color. So there is discussion now nationally to make green the standard. Chair Griffin: I would think a bright green something like drivers not wanting to drive on the grass. _anyway that sounds reasonable. Any other comments on this item? Next is number nine, which is selected improvements in the shuttle service, but trips and service routes along the corridor, etc. Phyllis. Vice-Chair Casse!: Let me just m_a!,:e a corn_rnent here. We have at the PlannLng Comzaission level spent a lot of time working on shuttle buses and have been very much in support of it. It is mostly a funding issue and we know Gayle is working on that. I really didn’t want to get into that particular item tonig2~t in general but to say that whenever we can work on a better shuttle system certainly I am delighted with that and I think other Commissioners have been. Note the nods Bonnie says. Chair Griffm: Pat. Commissioner Burt: Yes, just one of the speakers had advocated a school commute loop and I am hoping that we are also looking at extending it a!l the way down to the JCC. M_r. Kott: Gayle Likens is our Transit Planning Specialist as we!1 as our Bike Lane Planning Specialist and School Commute Planning Specialist. Gayle will be working with the school community to detail out a shuttle improvement program. The two facets of any kind of program Ci~ of Palo Alto Page 39 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 3! 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 light until nine o’clock or so and bicyclists you don’t want to discourage them from using the bike lanes and it is not real healthy for bicyclists to be sharing a place where there are cars parked. So I would have that as another cautionary about eigJat foot wide bicycle lanes. Maybe I am being over cautious or overly concerned but it didn’t sound very healthy to me. Mr. Kott: Big road projects and plans and so forth are just a conglomeration oftradeoffs and the bias is always towards safety, and toward making a roadway serve more people more of the time. I think you are rigtat, we are not providing two-way 24/7 cycling opportunities on the corridor and that is a leNtimate concern. I must say that parking in Palo Alto, like in every other community, curbside parking has a value to residents. I sometimes joke and Steve has to yank on me when I do, that the third unwritten rule of traffic planning in Palo Alto concerns parking. I can’t remember the first two. I am just joking. The third one is "don’t take someone’s parking away". The first one is of course safety first. It is all a tradeoff. I don’t know whether Gayle you have comments about full-day cycling lanes. Ms. Likens: We have a history in Palo Alto on our collector streets of having this tradeoff between parking on one side of the street all of the time with par-king permitted in the evening on the other side of the street, in the seven-foot bike lane. That is a balancing of the bike lanes and the parking demands. You can find that on North California, on Louis, on Loma Verde and other places. On this corridor, we really have the same situation on Charleston and on Arastradero. On the south side of Arastradero, on the Terman side, right now we have program parking because that bike lane is only seven feet wide and parking is permitted in the evening. Then on Charleston on the Hoover School side we have programmed parking the narrow bike lane. So there isn’t a tremendous amount of on-street parking that occurs in this corridor, but parking is permitted in the narrow bike lane at night. This plan will increase the width of the bike lanes up to eight feet. It is not desirable, but it is a tradeoffbetween meeting the competing needs in this plan to provide landscape medians, some parking and narrower traffic lanes and ackieve the goals of the progam. Mr. Kott: I would like to add on the question of motorists violating the bicycle lane and using it as a travel lane, Terry just pointed out something I think important to me that I would like to share with the Commission. Painting or tinting the bicycle lanes a color will likely inhibit that behavior. We would like to find that out. It seems to me that a clear signal sent that this is a bike facility will likely cause better driving behavior. We can’t guarantee it will eliminate all that stuff though. Chair Griffin: Any further comments? Then we wdll move to number eight that was a nice segue actually which involves tinting or painting the bicycle lanes for higher visibility along the entire corridor. Are there any questions or comments? Karen. Commissioner Packer: I think it is a great idea. During the break I was raising the question with Gayle about the concerns that you have when kids are in a bike lane but you have these dedicated or encouragh_ng right turns like into Hoover School or into Gurm. It creates sort of conflict with the bikers and the right turn makers. I think when something is striped or painted a different color as a motorist you are going to be really careful with your crossing and you might actually look to see if there is a bicyclist. Also it might help the bicyclists remember that this is a special City of Palo Alto Page 38 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2! 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 35 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 Vice-Chair Cassel: Yes, I am delighted that you are talking about paving it and marking it and all those good things and having a continuous line through. My concern is with the width of lanes. I am really concerned about getting the lane so wide that people start driving in them. I know coming down M_iddlefield Road turning onto Charieston on a fight hand turn there that cars get in that lane and turn right all the time. They use it as a right turn lane. I think I was on that road today and there was another spot that i ran into the same thing. The lanes were so wide, in this case it was a real disadvantage because the cars were just tooling down that lane and mining right and they think the?, can and they think they have the right to do that. So how do you deal with that? Would it not be better just to have six-foot wide consistent lanes rather than letting them get eight feet? Can you keep them wide enough in the intersections? Mr. Kott: Eight feet, some motorists will act like that in eight-foot bike lanes but we think most won’t, but we may be optimistic. Vice-Chair Cassel: Lots of them do it. Ivlr. Kott: Nine-foot lanes are perfectly fine for very short sections for travel lanes. For very short sections like at intersections if you really need to get the additional space for another turn lane or something. Motorists use these okay. Eight-foot bike lanes, yes, some motorists might behave badly. So we may have to frustrate them with somewhat less than eight feet, maybe seven and a half feet. Chair Griffin: I would like to speak in support of Joe’s comment and the Staff Report. My experience on a three-lane road is with Willow Road, which is in a theoretical neighborhood community that will remain anonymous. Willow Road has what I consider to be what I consider to be eight foot wide bicycle lanes in some areas and I do not see anybody, we are all nose to tail going down our single travel lane like is being proposed here tonight on the corridor, and nobody is veering off. One of the things that does happen is that people do use those wide bicycle lanes to help back out of their driveways. Now I don’t know if that is envisioned in your scheme or not but I have seen that happen. It seems to be an ameliorative effect because otherwise they would be backing into the stream of traffic. "Fnis Nves them some maneuvering room. If you want to comment on that. Mr. Kott: ! don’t thip~ we would officially endorse that but it does happen and if there are no bicyclists around I suppose it is harmless enough. I think about a condition we have on say the section of Charleston between Fabian and Middlefield where people are induced to bike on the sidewalks. That is far more dangerous than the condition you have observed because we have a lot of driveways along there and there is a potential for collision because drivers are thinking about the roadway not about the sidewalk with crossing bicyclists. So I think in a practical sense, Commissioner Griffin, I think you are right, it is an ameliorative measure but we wouldn’t advertise it as such. Chair Griffin: Karen. Commissioner Holman: I had another question about this and it has to do with the eight-foot width and you said perhaps something smaller. !t was mentioned earlier that these eight-foot wide bicycle ianes could be used in the evening time, say from seven to seven, for on street parking. Well, I am not sure I see that as a positive because especially in the summer time it is CiO, of Palo Alto Page 37 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 Commissioner Packer: All I would like to say is that the design of the medians and where the breaks would be most appropriate I believe our traffic engineering experts will do their best to design a median system, if you will, that will achieve the most optimum safety design balancing the convenience and the other issues that were just discussed and that when we get to a point of making our recommendations to Councii that we can capture it in those general terms as opposed to saying we should have a median break at this intersection and not at this intersection. I don’t think we have those details in front of us. That is all I would like to say. Chair Griffin: Phyllis. Vice-Chair Cassel: If we are m "aking comments I am concerned if these medians come too often we lose a couple of other factors. The idea is to have some plantings in these medians to create some visual calming and we won’t have that if we have too many changes. We will have an Alma Street situation where we have a lane down the middle in which people are allowed to ram, in that case they often don’t go left but there is one down there that you can mm on and that isn’t avev pretty place. The idea here is to make this aesthetically pleasing so that we want to be there and that helps calm us. I don’t think this distance is going to be too peat. Chair Griffin: Karen. Commissioner Holman: I just didn’t want to We people or Commissioners the impression I was littering the medians with these rams. I was just thinking there rnight be some places where it might be quite appropriate and just trying to get a better understanding of what the plan is. Chair Griffin: If there are no other questions or comments on the raised median item then we would move now to item number four which is deployment of additional fixed electronic radar readout speed advisory signs along the corridor. A_re there any questions or comments on item number four? Pat. Commissioner Burt: Just a question. you~,ooino~ to skip over that for now-? Chair Griffin: For the momem ! was. On number three, the lighted in-pavement pedestrian, are Commissioner Burr: That’s fine. My comment was on that and I will wait. Chair Griffin: So no further comments then on the radar readout signs. Item number five has to do with bulbouts extending from the curbs to reduce pedestrian crossing distances at selected intersections. Any questions or comments on that? Vice-Chair Casse1: Just to support the Staff recommendation. Those will be evahiated intersection by intersection. Chair Griffin: Pat. Commissioner Burr: I am generaliy a fan ofbulbouts but I wanted to ask Staff what lessons we might have learned from the problems that Menlo Park had on Santa Cruz Avenue’s installation City of Palo Alto Page 35 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 and the feedback that they got. What are we doing to not have that sort of reaction after the fact that they experienced? Mr. Kott: Hdre we go. We generally don’t like to make comments about our neighbors. Commissioner Burr: A hypothetical community where there mi~t have been adverse reaction after the fact. Mr. Kott: It is always difficult when you put fixed objects in the roadway that cause cyclists on the one side to veer away from them and motorists veer away on the other side and bring them closer together. So you have to be very careful about the placement of these kinds of fixed objects. Since one of the major objectives of this corridor plan is to improve cycling safety we would take particular concern that we are not inducing vehicles and bicyclists to come to close quarters. Chair Griffin: Bonnie. Commissioner Packer: This is a quickie. Sometimes when there is a pedestrian activated button you could press to cross the street but there is a big distance the bicyclists can’t get over there to press it. So if you have a bulbout would you have a button for the biker if it were a signalized intersection? Mr. Kott: I think I will defer to Gayle Likens here. We have had some experience with cyclist level actuation and Gayle can address that. Ms. Gavle Likens. Transportation Plarmer: We have gotten away from putting curbside push buttons for bicyclists per se in recent years because it requires the bicyclist to hug the curb to get to the signal to change the light, when they might not want to be right next to the curb depending upon whether they are going straigt~t or turning. The pedestrian push buttons that are on the sidewalk for pedestrians are generally not situated properly to be accessed by bicyclists, so you would have to have a separate button for bicyclists. There are other ways of dealing with this. One is to have an in-pavement loop detector, which we haven’t done either, but that is something I think we are going to be looking at in the furore. Then, if this corridor were to convert to overhead video detection, then you wouldn’t need to have any kind of physical in-pavement or curbside button because the video camera would detect everyone in the roadway including bikes. Mr. Kott: I need to add very quicNy, very quickly, on video detection these are digitized video images. These are not images ofpeopte and so forth. No civil liberties issues here, the computer just simply senses throu~dh the digitization of the image that there is something that classifies as a bicycle there. It is likely we will move to video detection with traffic adaptive both for vehicles and for bicycles. Chair Griffin: No other comments or questions on that one. ! propose mo-~dng to number seven now which is on the next page. That has to do with the provision of continuous bicycle lanes along the entire corridor to enhance cycling safety. Any questions or comments on that? Phyllis. City of Palo Alto Page 36 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 !7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 DD 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 4! 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 though was is there a tradeoffbetween having more median breaks to provide more access and safety, or through traffic, etc.? Genera!ly-, and Gary from TJKM can help me, in general the fewer breaks you have the more efficient the street is because there is less crossing, there is less turning movements in terms of less possibilities of a conflict. The more that you have the more the chances for conflict. Today you have sort of infinite chances for conflict because you can take a left turn anywhere from the center left tuna lane. The more median you have it reduces it. So I think we have tried to keep an even spacing of breaks consistent with a typical block len~h of about 300 feet sort of going down the street but not consider seriously having a lot more breaks than that for that reason, the sort of in and out and left turn movements. One of the ways that we get some efficiency and maintain the travel time that is desired for the corridor is not to have too many of those crossing movements. They are controlled they are at streets. There is a direct tradeoffin terms of the efficiency and safety of the street and how many breaks there are. Commissioner Holman: Not to beat a dead dog on this but just to follow up on that with on little other question is that the people who would be causing those interruptions would be the people who are living on the corridor. So sort of common sense tells me that they wouldn’t try to do that during the peak hours of traffic but for the vast majority of the rest of the day it would afford them the opportunity to take the shorter, least inconvenient way. Am I just being naive that people wouldn’t try to take it during the hea~2¢ commute hours too? Mr. Bottomlev: Some would. Human nature is what it is it is hard to predict. One of the things that we are trying to avoid to is having - when we have the left turn pockets at the intersecting streets that takes up a certain amount of space. One of the things we would have to have room for to have intervening left turn breaks is room to have a left turn pocket that a turning car wouldn’t cut throu~ja. I mean the lengths of the median segments are kind of restrictive in terms of allowing those additional breaks. As I said, there are a couple of segments where distances between side streets are long and we have proposed a couple of median breaks where there isn’t a street just to reduce the length of travel that people have to do to make a U-turn. In a lot of areas it is really ti~ht, the blocks aren’t that long and it is hard to squeeze in another median break say between two left turn lanes. Chair Griffin: You want to respond to that as well, Joe? Mr. Ko~: Actually we have an answer to Commissioner Cassel’s question. Depending on direction and depending on the time of day our approximate through trip time is about 12 minutes on the corridor, existing. Chair Griffin: Bonnie. Commissioner Packer: I wanted to ask you Michael are we going to also if we ask a question on a subject can we make our comments now? Was that what you were thinking? Chair Griffin: Yes, if you would like to do that, yes. Commissioner Packer: Well, okay. Like ifI wanted to make a comment on the median issue "would it be appropriate for me to do that now since we are on the topic? Chair Griffin: Would you like to do that? That would be free with me. City of Palo Alto _Page 34 ! 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 !6 17 18 19 20 21 22., 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 Mr. Kott: I might ask Terry to follow my comments but if we need to of course we could put a median break in to accommodate a site like that school. A school does generate a fair amount of traffic in the mornings of course. Individual driveways are another issue. It is clear if you have medians along some portion of a roadway and you have driveways there too you are going to force people to make U-turns. We would be concerned with a lot of U-turns. Terry, would you like to follow- on? Mr. Bottomlev: Sure. In fact the latest plans that we sort of heard this concerns in the last hours and we added a left mm break in front of the school on the plans that are up on the wall. So it looks like we can fit one in there to accommodate a direct left into the driveway. It is tricky- because it is a short block but it looks feasible. Vice-Chair Cassel: Before you go, because the question is the same. This is a pre-school, there are other churches and pre-schools on this corridor and there are other houses. With these medians obviously we are going to have to be making U-turns and that is going to be common. We do it all the time on E1 Camino. Is the average car going to be able to pull into that left pocket and make an easy U-turn? Mr. Bottomlev: We are assuming that if they do it at an intersection yes because there is the adjacent street to turn into. Also where we have the extra width provided by the bike lane and there is width with the median. So just to We you an example, if you are in a left turn lane, the space you have to turn into to your left is you have six feet of median to the left, you have ten feet of lane, that is 16 feet to turn into and if you need it you have an additional eight feet of bike lane. Vice-Chair Cassel: This will be necessary say to get into Stevenson House and you would have to turn at Nelson. Mr. Bottomle¥: Rig.ht. But in terms of the U-turns in general, most of them we have been assuming are going to be for residential folks who have driveways t_hat intersect the street and the street facing houses and driveways are not consistent along the corridor. It is probably about 50% or maybe a little bit more of the frontage has street facing driveways. So it is not like eveu house would need to do that to get into their driveways. Lots are on side streets. There would be some but ! guess my point is not every, property that exists along this street enters its driveway from the street. Quite a few are from side streets. Chair Griffin: Karen. Commissioner Holman: Follow up to that. Is there any disadvantage to having breaks in medians to minimize the U-turn aspect and to minimize the frustration potentially of some residents? I am anticipating frustration that might lead to some consternation and opposition to a progam in its trial phase that we would like not to encounter. Mr. Bottomlev: Well there are a couple of segments that are long without cross streets where you might have to go a ways. I think there is one between Nelson and Carlson for instance. But in most cases the adjacent streets or intersecting s~eets are pretty close. So you wouldn’t have to go far out of your way, I guess is what I am saying, in terms of making a left ~-’n to get back to where you want to go in terms of the frontage property. The first part of your question I think CRy of Palo Alto Page 33 t 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 !7 18 19 20 21 22 2.D 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 4! 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 lanes in any section of the corridor. I am thinking all through this study you have emphasized the absolute paramount position of this system calling it a centerpiece and other words. Why did you say this is an essential precondition that should be met? I am tNnking that it must be met. It has to be there or the rest of this system doesn’t work. Am I misunderstanding that? ,Mr. Kott: Commissioner Griffin it was an instinctive politeness that caused me to use the word ’should’ and not ’must.’ Really it must be. We have to do this before we reduce the number of travel lanes. Chair Griffin: I am greatly relieved at that answer. Thank you. Bonnie. Commissioner Packer: I understand that when you factor in all the projected ~mvth with existing number of cars however are there some safety advantages that you can achieve right now with three lanes, the dedicated left turn lanes that you can do? Let’s say it takes a long time to find the money for this traffic adaptive and it takes a little time to implement because software is sometimes finicky. Because we are not yet at the 2015 levels of traffic volumes is it possible that you could say well, if the traffic is at this point we could implement the three lanes in some portions of this corridor even before we have the traffic adaptive signals? Just because we heard about all the safety advantages I just wonder about that. Mr. Kott: That is a good observation Commissioner Packer. As you know the corridor right now can sustain the three-lane cross-section. We are being very conservative though. We don’t want to have the three-lane section and never be able to put in the traffic adaptive because of money or something else and then find ourselves in a gridlock situation in the future. So again it is ~kind of an instinctive conservatism. Chair Griffin: Phyllis. Vice-Chair Cassel: You keep ta -lking about the time that people wi11 travet in the corridor. What is the time to travel in the corridor? Mr. Kott: You ~know, I don’t remember offhand. All the data I remember is in reducing the trip time. So i really should have been prepared on that question and I’m not. As I mentioned earlier the reduction in trip time is one to tkree minutes. I don’t recall what we said is the current trip time. My boss, Steve, has made a very good suggestion. We will look that up and get back to you. Chair Griffin: Are there any other questions or comments about the si~m~al system and item number one? If not, we go to number two which talks about the raised median pedestrian refuges at selected intersections. Any questions? Karen. Commissioner Holman: I do have a question about this one. Actually it is probably a two-part question. One question is I believe it was at the joint session with Council that Ms. Chambers spoke about the school and worried about U-turns being forced there and also some people have made comments about having to ultimately make U-turns also to get in the direction they want to go because they won’t be able to go but one direction out of their driveways. Couid Staff address that especially having to do with the school? Ci& of Palo Alto Page 32 1 2 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 at that point. I don’t know if that is also a question that is relevant for Alma as well. I was just wondering how that works. Mr. Kott: We!l, we definitely would have to consult with them. E1 Camino is their roadway. To do traffic adaptive you have to have very good and very sophisticated detection of vehicles. Our hope is that they will want to do the very same thing on E1 Camino Real. I think they are pretty receptive to traffic adaptive. They have been working with Menlo Park on a section of E1 Camino Real with similar technology. I don’t envision a lot of problems. The idea of optimizing efficiency at intersections is really not very controversial. Chair Griffin: Pat. Commissioner Burt: Joe, two questions. First is the traffic adaptive signalization plarmed also for San Antonio and might that provide some relief for Charleston corridor? Mr. Kott: Well, San Antonio is a multi-jurisdictional road, as the Commissioners know, so it is a little bit difficult to do a corridor like that. We would like to do that with our partners in neighboring communities. I should say we have already applied for funding t%r five corridors to automate signal operations. They are our five residential arterials, which means Middlefield too, Middlefield and Charleston!Arastradero and Embarcadero and the residential portion of University. Over time we would like to do all the arterials in Palo Alto, including San Antonio, but we would have to have good cooperation and shared funding from our neighbors to do that. Commissioner Burt: It is probably difficult for you to estimate but do you have any sense of the degree to which that efficiency improvement on San Antonio might relieve traffic on Charleston? Mr. Kott: We have an appendix in the Staff Report that discusses experience in this country and around the world with traffic adaptive, which really is not exactly brand new, variations of it have been around since the mid 1970s but it has gotten much, much better. We may look for, well, our midrange estimate is 20% increase in efficiency. Some experiences as you know from reading that that attachment goes up well above one-third increase in efficiency. San Antonio is "~subject to the same kSnd of range, 15% to a0zo is a reasonable guesth-nate as far as improved throughput and reduced delays. Commissioner Burr: Then finally on Attachment D there is a reference to collector streets generally carrying 900 to 1,000 vehicles per hour per lane. Is that influenced by the traffic signal efficiency? Mr. Kott: That is a mistake in nomenclature. The intent was to discuss arterials not collectors. That is, our major streets. The governing number is 1,000 cars in a lane at peak hour. If the fig~es get much higher than that then there are problems that cross-street drivers and people entering and exiting driveways experience. The Commission may wish to discuss further this whole issue in relationship to Arastradero Road. Chair Griffin: Joe, in item number one you say on the third sentence this is an essential precondition. You are talking about the implementation of the automated signal system, you say that this is an essential precondition that should be met prior to reducing the nm-nber of travel City of PaIo Alto Page 31 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 t7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 .3_ ~A 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 Commissioner Packer: With all due respect Michael, I kind of see this plan as a big project, which is more on a design concept level. I don’t know that I want to go into a nit-picky detai! discussion of each item. I am looking at this project as one big collective. It is not a piecemeal kind of thing. It is a whole lot of things that are part of a big picture. I see this plan as a big picture. So I don’t know ifI want to go through on an item-by-item but to talk more of how we feel about the concept in a more general sense. There may be one or two areas that we have specific questions about that need. some discussion that Commissioners feel free to raise. I think it would be more efficient if we talked about it as a whole plan rather than taking it apart as 19 different items because I don’t see it that way. I don’t know how the other Commissioners feel. Chair Griffin: Well, anyone else have any comments one-way or the other? Karen. Commissioner Holman: I am more of a like-mind with Bonnie. I think we will each have probably concerns in different areas and maybe as those concerns and those particular points come up we can chime in on that issue. I really do agree with Commissioner Packer that we probably don’t need to take item by item because some of the issues I think are not going be controversia! among us. That’s my instinct. Chair Griffin: I am sorry I didn’t hear you. Commissioner Packer: I also have a couple of questions for Staff. We haven’t done that yet. Vice-Chair Cassel: The idea was to try- to ask the questions in clusters so that we would be working down some of the general questions and then another segment and another segment. Chair Griffin: Anybody else have a comment one-way or the other? Commissioner Burt: I gness I need to understand what Commissioner Packer is envisioning. Michael, I think what I understood you to be talking about was perhaps breaking some of the non-controversial issues. Another approach might be to group them according to subject matter and have a discussion on them on that basis. So I would be open to looking at some way to break up a laundry list and I thought that was what you were attempting to do. So maybe we should talk about how to best do that. Chair Griffin: My take on it is that because Phyllis and I discussed this earlier this afternoon, how to go about attacking this, she and I did in fact work to break it out a little so that we could look at the issues under a subject matter heading. I am saying that I have three people that are in favor of that approach so consequently I would like everyone to come along with that and let’s Nve it a try and see how it works out. Therefore we would start with the first item actually, which is the automated signal technology. The thought here is that if you had any questions about that we would then address the signal system. Bonnie. Commissioner Packer: I have one question. I am really looking forward to seeing one of these technoloNes adopted and bought and working. My question was with E1 Camino since it is a state highway would Cal Trans be cooperating in ~ving us the data that we would need and how far up and down E1 Camino would you need it in order to incorporate the information you need City of Palo Alto Page 30 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 Chair Griffin: Thank you. Our last speaker is Peter Taskovich. 1 2 4 Mr. Peter Taskovich. 75i Gailen Avenue. Palo Alto: I am a 40 year resident of Palo Alto, grew 5 up here and still live here. I have concerns about reducing the through traffic lanes from four to 6 two. There are real concerns expressed by speakers here about safety issues around the Hoover 7 School, about the at grade crossing of the train tracks at Alma especially when they are going to 8 go to three tracks in the near future. I have no problems with the traffic study addressing those 9 concernsl I do have concerns about going down from four to two or three lanes. I think it is 10 going to create congestion, a great deal. I think the Staff is being overly optimistic that it will 11 not, that their mitigation of timing lights will work. I think it is going to create a much worse 12 traffic jam during rush hours with two lanes which is going to encourage more people to cut- 13 through the circles and cut-through Ely and cut-through my street, Gailen Avenue, which is 14 about a block away. So I have no problems trying to calm the traffic down I just think it is very 15 unrealistic that - right now I think four lanes of through traffic is just about right for the 16 Charleston corridor. It does get congested during rush hour. You are always going to have congestion in rush hour but for most of the time it is nice. That is one thing I do like about living in South Palo Alto is that we don’t have the congestion that you guys have here in North Palo Alto, Middlefleld Road and Embarcadero Road. It is minimal congestion right through peak hours. If you go down to two through lanes you are going to have nightmare backup problems and people are going to start racing through the neighborhoods trying to avoid Charleston. The Staff says they can accommodate 3.7 seconds cars with down to two or three lanes. That is not realistic. That means 3.7 seconds every minute for every hour during peak hours and with the stoplights there is going to be congestion. I am basically opposed to cutting down to two lanes. I am not opposed to mitigations to help the safety around the school area or having a below grade crossing for pedestrians at Charleston because I think there are some safety concerns for the children and the residents of the area. But I think it is a big mistake to narrow it down to two lanes. If you want to maybe narrow it down as a compromise to two lanes right at the heart between Carlson and Alma just to make a slight choke point to reduce the speed of the traffic that’s fine but I think most of Charleston should remain four lanes through traffic. Thank you. Chair Griffin: Thank you. That was our last speaker and I am now closing the public hearing on this item. The Commission will now- enjoy an eight-minute break. I would like to call the Commissioners back to session, please. If you would all enjoy a seat we will recommence the meeting session. We need one more Commissioner and we will start this. I would like the Commissioners to consider a way of framing this discussion. We have an SR here with 19 different items on it and perhaps an approach would be to discuss briefly, I say briefly I hope we could go through briefly, some of the general items before we get into some of the more specific items. What I am suggesting is that item number one, which is on the automated signal technology, item number two is on raised median refuge, number four is deploNr~ent of radar readout speed advisory signs and five has to do with bulbouts, seven is continuous bicycle lanes, eight is painted bicycle lanes and nine is improvements in the shuttle service. Those perhaps, I’m saying perhaps, being less controversial we might take those first and then come back and deal with for example number ten which gets into the three lane versus the four lane approach. Bonnie. City of Palo Alto Page 29 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22,,.3 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 35 36 37 38 39 40 4t 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 Ms. Betty Lum, 4202 Suzarme Drive, Palo Alto: I have lived here for 39 years and am so delighted that something might finally happen to calm the traffic on CharlestordArastradero. I really urge you Commission members to really seriously consider the wonderful work that Mr. Kott and his group have done and want to thank them very, very much. I would like to urge you to seriously consider the dedicated turn lanes. I have personally been rear-ended turning into Suzanne Drive. I have been paranoid about getting on my bicycle on the City streets because I have also been tapped by a car, landed on the hood, didn’t get hurt but hurt my di~maity very much. I have been quite afraid since then to ride the City streets. So I would like to see dedicated turn lanes, a crosswalk hopefully at Los Palos and Arastradero or Suzanne and Arastradero. There are lots of senior citizens going to the park with their charges. Lots of our citizens, our neighbors, walk to Walgreen’s, which I think, is very nice. I personally had said initially why a Walgreen’s when there is Long’s down the street? People used to say well we can walk there. My husband and I find that we walk there all the time anymore, even transferred our prescriptions there. So if you would please consider the work that Mr. Kott has done, dedicated turn lanes, three lanes and the crosswalk we would really appreciate it. Thanks very much. Chair Griffm: Thank you. Lydia Tan. Ms. Lydia Tan, 360 West Charleston Road, Palo Alto: Good evening. I have been fortunate to be a member of the stakeholders group in my capacity" as Vice President of Bridge Housing Corporation. As you know we are working with the JCC on the Sun Microsystems site. I would like to thank Staff. They have done a fabulous job. The public process has been really great. As I said I had the oppommity to meet every other Wednesday since July9 with a really great group of folks. While I am at those meetings, as part of my job, there are a number of community members who are spending a lot of their time being very engaged in this process. I just want to thank the stakeholders group in addition to Staff and all the folks who have come out to committee meetings. It has been a rea!ly great process for me to see. On a personal note, I have lived on West Charleston Road for 12 years now. My "kids have grown up there, attended four of the schools that are along the Charleston!Arastradero corridor including right now both my sons bike to either Terman or Gunn. So I am very much aware of all of the issues along Charleston. i am personally very much in favor of the Staff recommendation even though it means my parking is going to turn out to be limited hours only I am willing to Nve up unlimited parking in exchange for a better corridor. In my professional capacity with Bridge we also are very much in favor of the Staff recommendation and would urge the Commission to try and act on this tonight. I know it has been a long night and will continue to be a long night but we are really quite impressed with how quickly the process has gone and hope that you can stay with the commitment of being done by the end of January. There was one comment made by a pre-v-ious speaker about the En’,dronmental CEQA document and the potentia! traffic impact of our particular proposal. I just want to assure you we haven’t settled on a proposal yet. We have a number of proposals we are thinking about but none of them would have any impact at all on the Environmental documents that have been proposed and submitted to date. Thank you. Ci& ofPalo Alto Page 28 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 2~ 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 4! 42 43. 44 45 46 47 48 Further the notion of safety both for pedestrians, bicyclists and just the krnprovement of the aesthetic value of Charleston Road can’t be overestimated. I have lived at my residence for 41 years and I have watched a rapid change in the last five or six years particularly with those changes at the Hoover School and so on bringing in more traffic during the peak hours and in the afternoon. This is also a factor our neighborhood has now become more youth oriented. Young families have moved in and it represents more of what it was when I moved in many years ago. So we have a number ofpeopte who want to take their children to school and they do in fact walk to Fair Meadow, JLS and Hoover. But the traffic and the safety on this corridor have a huge effect on the effectiveness of their continuing to use it both for bicycling. The next thing that I wanted to mention is that the bicycle street in Palo Alto, the Bryant Street, ends and comes onto Redwood Circle and then proceeds on Carlson Circle into the Green Meadow area. In the morning this is an area that is not only used by the bicyclists, and I watch them in the morning, but it also is a commute lane for the Palo ,Alto Shuttle. It is a very difficult thing. Thanks again to the Staff. Chair Griffin: Thank you. I have the last three cards here. We have one more. I am going to say that we will stop the cards now. We will be taking a break here as soon as we have finished up with these last four speakers. They are first of all Dave Ramsey followed by Betty Lum followed by Lydia Tan and finally Peter Taskovich. So if speakers could come down that would be helpful. Dave Ramsey. Mr. Dave Ramsev, 381.7 Carlson, Palo Alto: Hi I am one of the people that Tom just talked about li’ving on Carlson here and impacted by the school. I would like to echo his thoughts. He actually stole most of my thunder since I was going to talk about the same issues. I have seen a very large paradigm shift since the Ohlone School transitioned to Hoover from becoming a nei~hborhood school to a commuter school. AlthougJa I very much appreciate and support the plan as it is envisioned I don’t see that it particularly addresses the cut-through traffic issue and that in conjunction with the traffic that parks and does illegal U-turns in front of our houses every morning and particularly Wednesday as Tom mentioned with the garbage trucks blocking things. It is only a matter of time before there is a serious injury or death. There has already been one death at that intersection in years past. I certainly don’t want to see it happen. I am witness to this every morning. I am a mrmer, I’m a walker, I’m a cyclist, I use all modes of those to get to and from work in addition to driving. It is a very serious problem to me. So basically as the conjunction of the school traffic and the cut-througl:~ traffic and I just don’t see any mitigation to the cut-through traffic by this plan. I also wish you very good luck in trying to work with the school to change the ingress direction into Hoover, as it was many years ago when Ohlone was there. The other thing that I heard this evening was using a bike lane as a riglat turn entrance in the mornings to Hoover, which unfortunately I think is a very. bad idea because as a cyclist it becomes very difficult to get around cars in the bike lane. Particularly that time of morning the people who use that bike lane in the westbound direction are students who are going to Gunn and they are always in the bike lanes there. So it creates a very dangerous situation. Thank you very much. Chair Griffin: Thank you. Betty Lum. Cio, of Palo Alto Page 2 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 In general I just want to say that I support the whole process that has been followed here. Again, I would like to thank the folks who have been designing this. I think it is just great. I hope it all works out. Chair Griffin: Thanks vew much. Diane Chambers. Ms. Diane Chambers. 687 Arastradero Road, Palo Alto: Hi. I am the Director of Young Life Christian Pre-School. We are halfway between Gurm and Terman schools at 687 Arastradero. We are located in an active church facility. Thank you for your work. We are excited about the proposed walking conditions, the improvements to the walking conditions. In the twelve and a half years that we have been there we have not felt safe taking pre-schoolers on educational walking field trips to either Termanpark or the fire station which are two close situations that we could expand our horizons to. Our concerns are with the proposed median that would block our driveway and cause up to 31 parents and six teachers to make U-turns two times each day. Also impacted is the church with Sunday and weekday activities. One, our U-turns may end up at Gunn or Terman adding congestion to these already grid locked areas. By 7:45 in the morning the traffic from Gunn extends past our driveway. Two, our driveway- is our only access. There is no other back road or other way to get to our church or school. Three, the median would block emergency vehicles probably coming from Station No. 5 trying to make a left turn into the school. This is a huge concern to the parent. Four, Palo _Alto has been concerned about the number of childcare spaces in the City. Currently our school is lucky to be operating at ful! capacity even in these economic times. Forcing parents to make time consuming and possibly unsafe U-turns may make them reconsider coming to our school. So what I am doing is asking for dedicated left turns through the median into our school and church. Thank you. Chair Griffin: Thank you. Tom Vician. Mr. Tom Vician, 3718 Redwood Circle. Palo Alto: I am President of the Fair Meadow Neighborhood Association, which is bounded by East Meadow and East Charleston and Alma and the JLS and Hoover schools on the opposite sides. I was one of the original members about five or six years ago at the origknal corridor study or at least the East Charleston and of course it has evolved rather nicely into what has now been presented this evening, t do want to express my appreciation to Mr. Kott and Mr. Emslie for having done such effective work with their staff. Our initial concern as a residential community is the cut-through traffic that began to develop some years ago from Alma via Lindero, via Redwood Circle, Carlson, onto East Charleston and back. They try to avoid the stoplight at East Charleston and Alma. Now the further development when Hoover School was opened and became a commute school basically which made a tremendous effect on the life of the people particularly on Carlson Circle. I brought this to the attention of the Staff that on any Nven morning for at least an hour or so it is almost amazing that nobody as yet been badly hurt because people instead of using the ingress/egress for Hoover actually stop on Carlson and leave off their children. They park in the driveway, across driveways, they double park, they make U-turns in the middle of the street in order to reverse their commute when they have left the children off. When the garbage trucks come through on Wednesday morning it is unbelievable because they have to park in the middle of the street and there are cars on either side. So these are issues that are being addressed by this, which I think is very,- positive, and what we are concerned about. Ci& of Palo Alto Page 26 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 t2 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 have actually seen a few near.misses, all of them related to speed. In one case we had a kid who was on roller blades and just could not stop before they ,,vent into the road and a speeding car had to basically skid in order to prevent from hitting them. I am really concerned that the speed on this road is one of the factors that makes it unsafe. This plan addresses keeping the throughput on the road high while at the sanae time reducing the speed, which I think is very critical. Another thing to keep in mind too is that if we can reduce the average speed people can actually make left turns easier because you are not dealing with a car coming at 40 miles per hour, you have cars coming at you at 25 miles per hour. So it makes it easier for you to turn and therefore get out of the way of other cars behind you. That is pretty much the summary of my remarks. I hope that in the future we go and address the issues on Charleston and E1 Carnino for bicyclists. We bicycle quite a bit and of the things that we find is that the only time you find it safe to really cross in that area is basically Sunday morning. So if we can find some ways to address that in the future I think that would be great. But this plan is great. I hope you guys support it. Chair Griffin: Thank you. Our next speakers are Milind Pansare, Diane Chambers and Tom Vician. Milind. Mr. Milind Pansare. 6212 Suzanne Drive. Palo Alto: Hi. I must confess I am relatively the new kid on the block having moved from Berkeley and purchased a house on Suzanne very recently, about eight months ago. Two things have impressed me since then, one has been the process that I have had the opportunity to be involved in with prior meetings out here in terms of how we have gone about designing the changes to this corridor. So I am very impressed with the work that has been done by these gentlemen here. The other thing that has impressed me right away was that it relatively unsafe to cross, both walk, bike and drive, out of our neighborhood out Of Suzanne Drive anywhere around there. I have two kids, seven years old and the younger one is three, we use the park, Briones Park, quite often. We use that intersection at Suzanne and we always cross over because it is too hard to get to a signal. With a three year old that is miles away. So I think having that pedestrian crossing there is going to help a lot and I stron#y support that proposal. in terms of biking i have to admit that I am a little ashamed that i have my bike, actually ail three of our bikes, in my garage and I haven’t used them very much because the only place ! would feet safe biking is in the little refuge on Suzanne Drive which isn’t very interesting for very long. So I would look forward to having better bike access as well so we can get our bikes out at least as frequently as we did in Berkeley. I would really enjoy that. The third point is driving. There has been some thought about how this mi~Jat slow things down. I can tell you that the left turns as well as the bottlenecks that there are currently along the corridor are probably more of a problem than the number of lanes there. I tmow that ! make a left mm to go and drive my older son over to Ban:on Park School and nobody cares about a minute lost in the morning when you have two kids to drop off and then get to work. You got to get there by 8:25 in the morning or you get a tardy slip that goes strai~jat to the heart of every parent. So I really support having that left turn lane. Ci& of Palo Alto Page 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 !0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 2~ 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 Commissioner Holman: Just briefly would you describe the shuttle loop that you would advocate? Ms. Marx: Well, what I would suggest is that, I was trying to think about the size of it. I think you would actually use a rather large bus, as large as the Marguerites that are now being used. You would have a bus that would go up and down, you would start at one end of the corridor and just go up say to Gunn and then it would circle around back down. What you would have to do is sit down carefully and you would work it out. Do you really need two small ones and they need to follow each other in a certain sequence of time? What you want essentially is for students to be able to miss one shuttle for example and then still get to school on time within say a half hour period. It seems to me quite a reasonable proposition. We could pay for it with developer fees and it would take an enormous load off the corridor for those people who feel they have to have their child in a motor vehicle, which some people do. Thank you. Chair Griffin: Jean Olmsted. Welcome Jean. Ms. Jean Olmsted, 240 West Charleston Road, Palo ~dto: Thank you. I have to confess that my personal dream is a pedestrian refuge in the middle of Charleston at Park. That would help me get across the street. I spend a lot of time waiting on the sidewalk for a gap in both directions and then I often have to run across the street. I hope I don’t miscalculate someday. I am here to support the plan to add medians and three tanes to make Charleston/Arastradero safer and more attractive. Smarter sQmaals paid for with a grant seem to meet general approval. I don’t want this plan used by developers to justify adding more building with more cars to Charleston before the plan is really in place and it is successful. Until the plan is paid for, until it is built, until we "know people are willing to change their car-dependent habits we shouldn’t count on anything. Chair Griffin: Thank you. Alan Snyder. Mr. Alan Snvder, 310 East Charleston Road, Palo Alto: 1 live right on the corridor and 1 live very close to Hoover Elementary so I see a lot of the safety issues that are occurring on the street. I strongly support this plan. I think it is a great plan. I think the emphasis on safety for bicyclists and pedestrians is really important because we have so many kids on this road. Evewone here "l, mows this but I am just going to repeat it. We have Hoover Elementary, we have Fair Meadow Elementary where my kids go to school, we haYe Challenger Elementary, Briones is close by to the corridor, then we have two of the three middle schools which are primary bicycle ages for kids, then we have JLS very close to us, we have Terman, which has opened up plus we have Gunn xvhich is one of the two high schools here. So there are a lot ofldds on the street. ! think one of the things in the presentation that really stuck out for me was the stat of the percentage of people -who are actually killed with cars going 40 miles per hour versus 20 miles per hour and the stopping distance. Basically it says if you see a pedestrian ! 00 feet away from you and you are going 40 miles per hour you are going to hit that pedestrian going30 miles per hour. If you are going 20 miles per hour you are going to stop before you get to the pedestrian. 1 live right on Charleston and one of the things people who are concerned with safety keep track of are things like near misses like if there is a near miss for a plane crash the?, record it. Well, I City of Palo Alto Page 24 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 done quickly so that we can see how that improves the traffic in that area. That is near Long’s Drug Store that batter. I guess that will do it, my other points are minor. Chair Griffin: Thank" you. Our next three speakers are Joan Marx, Jean Olmsted and Alan Snyder. So if those individuals would come forward please. Joan. Ms. Joan Marx. 827 La Para. Palo Alto: I am speaking for Go Fast at Gunn Hi~mla School an alternative transportation advocacy organization. We warmly support the City Staff efforts to improve conditions for pedestrians and cyclists on the Charleston/Arastradero corridor and thereby increase pedestrian and cyclist travel on the corridor. We admire the careful research, which shows that making the street pleasanter and safer for these constituents will not increase congestion. We realize that this scenario is counter-intuitive but the actual case studies and modeling show it is a reasonable proposition. Go Fast will do its best to publicize this reasonableness within the school communities if you will adopt it. I would like to emphasize certain points that you have heard a number of times tonight. E1 Camino intersection is without doubt dangerous for cyclists. We know what needs to be done, we kmow how to do it and it should be done as quickly as we can get the money. Second, again crossings of Arastradero at Suzarme which you have heard many times and also where the bike path comes into Arastradero that is the Hetch-Hetchy parcel, that is rigjat about level with the cemetery. These are marked on the map up there. They were little yellow proposed crossings. We appreciate the Staff efforts to increase the steadiness of the flow into the Gunn entrance. One, by having simultaneous left and right turns into Gurm at the same time safely and second having a steady right turning queue in the curb lane going into Gunn. Now the specific way that is being proposed, a fifth lane that would be carved out of the sidewalk does not seem to me consistent with the largest goals of the whole project but I am hopeful that there would be a way of arranging it so that the straight ahead people do not block the right turning queue but without carving off the sidewalk on either side. We need that buffer strip for our pedestrians that are coming in. We ask you also, the Commissioners, to make part of your recommendations for phase I the institution of a shuttle loop on Charleston/Arastradero. Such a shuttle which would circle during the morning commute would allow’ students to arrive at the corridor on side s~eets and then transfer to the shuttle to go west and east along the corridor. Such a shuttle would remove a very large number of cars from the corridor at the peak commute time. Thank you. Chair Griffin: Joan I have a question for you. We may- have two questions for you actually. The process, you said Go Fast, your organization, would propose to work with the school system to promote walking and bicycling? Tell me a little bit more about that. Ms. Marx: No. What I am saying is it seems to me there is a fear on the part of the Commission and also on the Council that you have a counter-intuitive propositi.on before you, wi!l the public receive it wellor will this be another sewer drain project? I want to reassure you in the best way that I can that there are man?, people who will respond to the reasonableness althou~,da counter- intuitive quality of the proposition and that this organization, we, would do our best to make this evident to people. Chair Griffin: Great. Thanks. We have another question for you. Karen. Ci& of Palo Alto Page 23 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 Chair Griffin: Ken, perhaps you could have another member of your group finish up your presentation because you have used your three minutes. Mr. Szutu: Okay, thank you. Chair Griffin: Pat has a question. Mr. Szutu: I just wanted to say most of our neighbors recommend to approve this proposal. Chair Griffin: We have a question for you, Ken. Commissioner Burt: Could you repeat which intersection you say that you observe quite a bit of pedestrian crossing? Mr. Szutu: From Suzanne and across to the Fire Station. Commissioner Burt: Thank you. Chair Griffin: Our next speaker is Sally Probst. Ms. Sally Probst. 735 Coastland Drive. Palo Alto: Commissioner Griffin and other Commissioners, thank you. I want to say that this report format was just excellent with the recommendations and then the advantages and disadvantages and then the alternatives. I really hio~)hly congratulate the Staff for having come up with this. There was a question on page 17 whether the Commission should authorize and the Council should authorize the corridor plan in phases as funding becomes available or reduce the scope of the plan to manage the resource impact. I want to speak authorizing the corridor plan in phases. In fact there are five non-controversial items that could be done as quickly as money is available. The first of course is the new signalization system and I am glad that funding is being sought already for that. The second is improving the entrance and exit at Gunn High School on Arastradero. I have a grandchild at Gunn but fortunately she and her friends all walk and take the back entrance so they are not anywhere near Arastradero. But for all the people who are I think that is an important improvement to make quickly. The third is the improvements at Homer School, chanNng the ingress and egress to the school and with the queuing possibilities there. The fourth is Charleston-Louis-Montrose improving that pork chop in the middle of the street so that people won’t do the strange thing of driving to the left. Retaining it but improving it. The fifth is whatever crosswalk improvements can be made quickly in response to the various requests. I have some rninorpoints. There was some talk about gateway monuments at a cost of $200,000. I think that is a waste of money. There was talk about removing the pork chop islands on E1 Camino Real at a cost of $25,000 and I am not sure that removing those would be much help. I use those right turns frequently and it seems to me that if you stop, flash your red light, you stop and you watch carefully for traffic that they simply offer more queuing space than would be if they were removed. So that is a question. This is something that I should have asked the Staff. I am hoping that the three-lane experiment on Middlefield, which I thou~t was approved, wil! be City of Palo Alto ~Page 22 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 and Foothill Expressway. I would say that the 100 feet on either side of E1 Camino is one of the more stressful bicycle experiences that I have in my life. There are many- issues that we could be considering here but I would like to focus primarily on what I consider the main issue and that is the tradeoff of speed versus safety- and neighborhood tranquility. I am very much in favor of the proposal in that it is in the direction of improving safety and retaining the tranquility that we have, the residue that there may be left in the world today of a road that is pleasant to ride on and is pleasant to live near. I have been a Palo Alto resident since 1958 and I have seen a lot of change and there has been uniformly the direction of change has been an erosion of the kind of community values that makes Palo Alto a wonderful place to live. It seems that always the community values of tranquility and pleasantness that we enjoy are always asked to rollover in favor of growth whenever growth comes along. I think we have an opportunity here to for once in our lifetime reverse that and retain something which is of the sort of value which really makes Palo Alto the place that’s nice to live. I would think that even the Chamber of Commerce would favor that because in the long run it is the community values which will bring people here and keep the property values and the business values up not frantic streets. Chair Griffm: Thank you. Ken Szutu. Mr. Ken Szutu. 647 Fairmede Avenue. Palo Alto: I am the President of Green Acres I Neighborhood Association. Green Acres I is the neighborhood right next to Terman Middle School. We have about 200 residents. We have about probably 800 to 1,000 foot frontage on Arastradero. Basically our neighbors use Pomona and Los Palos to get in and get out of our neighborhood. The only way we can go is Arastradero. So you know we are very interested in the improvement of this corridor. We have been talking with many neighbors in our neighborhood and I think most of them agree we need a protected turn lane to get in and get out of our neighborhood. I think you have heard earlier that people get hit when they are trying to get into our neighborhood and waiting to make a left turn. Also as an example in the morning when we want to go out of our neighborhood and make a left mm into Arastradero it is almost impossible or very dangerous. You just have to look from both sides and see that the traffic is clear from both sides and then you can make a turn. So I think for our neighborhood a protected turn lane is on the very top of our list. We really think it will make the whole area safer. The second point which many people want is safety crosswalk. We say many people walking because Briones Park is on the other side of the street, so we saw many people walking across Arastradero like fight in front of the Fire Station. I know they are not supposed to do that but you see many people do that. I think it is very unsafe and if we can improve that situation that would be great. The third one is we want to have a bike and pedestrian friendly environment, which I am going to go into a little bit more detail later. The fourth thing which most of our neighbors want is to slow down the traffic on Arastradero. I guess we need to remember Arastradero is a school corridor it is not a major artery and the speed limit is 25 miles per hour. City of Palo Alto Page 21 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 !6 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 DD 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 redesi=~fi_ng South Palo Alto for the future that we can take the time to invest in infrastructure and an infrastructure that helps us keep people off the roads and in particular take advantage of the geat opportunity to move people off the roads in the morning. At the present time we have close to 5,000 children and we are forecasting in the studies that you have seen more than 5,000 students will be attending public schools on the corridor. There are only 1,200 link volumes even in the 2025 forecast so we don’t have a large amount of trips that we need to get off the corridor. So it is a small percentage of those 5,000 students that need to move out of cars to shift 100 to 200 cars to keep the road be!ow the 1,000 limit even into 2025. So I hope you will support the proposed plan that the City Planning and Transportation Commission has put before you. It provides the capacity for this development and others we are looking at as well as the necessary road improvements to maintain safety and in particular during that very unsafe period, the most unsafe period in the week, which is the school commute hour. So let’s follow the inspired lead of our predecessors who planned for furore, provide us with infrastructure by augmenting that infrastructure to define the community that we enjoy today and one that we wil! enjoy li~dng in the future. And one where our children can look at the community that we have created today with some pride as they bicycle and walk to school and not just sit in a single occupancy vehicle. Thank you. Chair Griffin: Thank you. Michael Maurier. Mr. Michael Maurier. 646 Fairmede Avenue. Palo Alto: 1 live in the Green Acres Association. As I have been watching this evolve here we, as you ~know, had yet another school open in our neighborhood and this time it is a middle school. So we are monitoring the safety, issues that are involved with middle schoolers with particular care as they go througAa our neighborhood, as we watch them and observe them daily, where we live on the Arastradero stretch right in front of us. It is manifestly unsafe, has been for years but it has gotten considerably more so and it is only a matter of time before under the current configuration we have ... welt we have already had one example on our end of town of what we are going to have. Hopefully it is not of that seriousness. We are extremely relieved to see Mr. Kott and company much to my personal ~eat surprise have done actually a very good job I think of responding to community input. Well, you ~know what happens g, ays, when it does i say so but it isn’t often that I say so as you are aware. We are certainly willing and more than willing, even anxious to try this on an experimental basis. And you note it is an experimental basis. I think it is noteworthy that the institutions and the organizations that represent the people who live and work along there, we don’t have many that work, we have schools and neighborhood associations, churches and pre-school organizations and they are all I believe that you seen from the communications in support of this plan and I ask you to approve it. Thank you. Chair Griffin: Thank you. Our next three speakers will be William Cutler followed by Ken Szutu followed by Sally Probst. Willian. Mr. William Cutler, 4114 Park Boulevard. Pal0 Alto: 1 live on Park Boulevard between Meadow and Charleston. The Charleston corridor is the primary ingess and e~ess that I use to get in and out of my community and it is also the route that I frequently take on my bicycle between Wilkie City of Palo Alto Page 20 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 !8 19 20 21 22,D 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 We set out to make the school corridor safer while maintaining travel times. We wanted to improve conditions for pedestrians and cyclists, improve quality of life and enhance visual amenity. Our hope was to ensure a safer, better functioning Charlestor~Arastradero in the face of significant new development. We have before us a window of opportunity. Charleston can become a school commute corridor with average speeds below 35 miles per hour or an expressway with average speeds above 35 miles per hour. We get to decide. There are some that believe that adaptive signals alone would be a step in the right direction for Charleston Road. However, adaptive signals address ortly one of the five objectives of this study. They would improve throughput on the road but they would do nothing to improve safety, ericourage mode shift or provide maximum relief of congestion at intersections, the primary cause of delay on the road. We have to keep in mind that a primary, goal is to make the road safer for pedestrians and cyclists. So speed reduction is very important. Why? Because a pedestrian is nearly twice as likely to be killed by a vehicle mo-,dng 35 miles per hour than by a vehicle moving 28. By reducing speeds to 28 we get a 50% reduction in the likelihood of serious injury or fatality" in accidents on the school corridor. That is for the general population. The curve is even steeper for children and seniors. CharlestordArastradero currently serves a lot of children and soon will serve many more seniors many of whom no longer can drive. A pedestrian friendly road and better shuttle service will be very important to these new Charleston residents. Mr. Rich E11ison, 513 E1 Capitan Place. Palo Alto: 1 live at the same address as Penny E11son. My name is Rich Ellson and I will finish on a similar theme. One fact that we learned recently was that the primary generator of trips on the corridor is the residents. So we are them. This seems like an excellent argument for a lane reduction Nven that most of the planned development will be adding to the residences and not the business traffic along the corridor. If you look at much of the planned development it is for residential. If residences are the primary generator of car trips we should do everything we can right now to get people out of their cars and create mode shift. One of the ways that we can actually get below the 1,000 car mark now and in the future is to get people out of their cars. One of the great sources of vehicle trips in the a.m. is of course the school commute. One of the things that we noticed looking at data, and this is data that was collected from VTA funded survey that Go Fast performed and I believe they covered more than 60% of all the students at Gunn in this survey, was that the distance that students had to commute to school did not correlate that well with how many of them actually bicycled to school. It was the perception of safety along the route. So if you look at people who have to commute along the corridor you can see that Green Meadow and Charleston Terrace are at !2% and seven percent and are commuting one and a half miles and two to two and a half miles respectively. Now students that are coming from greater distances, one and a half miles, two to four miles and even one and a half miles, they all end up with higher percentages of cyclists making the trip because they don’t have to commute along the corridor. They come sort of from the northern portion they don’t have to come along those unsafe routes. So we would hope that as we are City of Palo Alto Page 19 ATTACHMENTS A. Map of Charleston Road!Arastradero Road Corridor B. Charleston/Arastradero Corridor Plan Public Meeting Notes, October 15 and October 22, 2003. C. Narrative Description of Corridor Plan D. Draft Traffic Analysis and Description of Traffic-adaptive Coordination E. Preliminary Assessment of Funding Sources F. Schematics of representative Charleston!Arastradero Road Corridor improvements G. Schematic of potential new pedestrian and bicycle undercrossing of Alma and Caltrain Prepared by: Joseph Kott, Chief Transportation Official Division Head Approval: Kott, Chief Transportation Official cc: Charleston/Arastradero Corridor Plan Informal Input Group H:\CMRS\P-TC\Char-Aras.doc Page 19