HomeMy WebLinkAboutCal-Ave-Streetscape-30363
City of Palo Alto (ID # 2956)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Action ItemsMeeting Date: 7/23/2012
Summary Title: California Avenue Transit Hub Project
Title: Approval of Detailed Sidewalk and Plaza Design for California Avenue
Transit Hub Corridor Streetscape Improvements Project
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment
Recommendation
Staff recommends that Council approve the proposed California Avenue Transit Hub Corridor
Streetscape project street alignment, including sidewalk widening and plaza design, and direct
staff to continue the final design.
Executive Summary
The proposed California Avenue Transit Hub Corridor Improvements project provides for
streetscape improvements along California Avenue between El Camino Real and the California
Avenue Caltrain Station, including place-making identity markers, traffic calming treatments,
streetscape elements, parking enhancements, and improvements to the Park Boulevard.
The proposed street alignment responds to Council direction to staff to solicit community input
on the design of the project to help develop a street configuration alternative that maximizes
sidewalk widening and streetscape opportunities, introduces public plaza space, and preserves
parking. The proposed street alignment in Attachment A balances sidewalk and streetscape
opportunity areas evenly throughout the corridor, a goal of the Council to ensure equability in
the implementation of improvements throughout the project area. Centered between Ash
Street and Birch Street, a flexible public plaza space is proposed that can be sized to fit desired
events of the community while preserving access from El Camino Real to sustain on-going
business operations. The flexible plaza space also ensures that parking is preserved, so that a
net increase of four parking spaces is realized. The Council also requested that the plan be
further advanced to better integrate the Park Boulevard Plaza and California Avenue to ensure
a cohesive environment to create and maintain a unique environment for visitors and residents
of the California Avenue Business District. Staff believes this design and alignment responds
appropriately to the Council’s desire. The Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC)
recommended approval of the design at its July 11 meeting.
The proposed street alignment introduces an additional cost of $700,000 to the original project
estimate of $1.4 million cost, for a total of $2.1 million. Staff has identified an outside funding
source (vehicle registration fees) to complete the project without further impacts to the City’s
General Fund. The bulk of the project is to be funded by a grant from the Valley Transportation
Authority (VTA).
Background
Following initiation of the detailed design phase, on February 14, 2011 the City Council
requested that staff identify sidewalk widening and enhanced landscape opportunities along
the California Avenue Business District corridor. In response to the request, the design team
developed six concepts that included various street alignments that focused predominantly on
landscape treatments between El Camino Real and Birch Street and presented them to the
community and City Council for input on October 17, 2011. City Council reviewed the options
and requested that additional emphasis on sidewalk widening and landscape treatments be
incorporated between Birch Street and Park Boulevard to ensure a balance of enhancements
along the corridor, and to better help tie the streetscape improvements with the planned
treatments at the Park Boulevard Plaza.
The City sponsored six design-focused community meetings following the Council’s request,
focusing on creating a preferred street alignment so that the final civil design of the project may
proceed. The community meetings yielded positive input to help the design team respond to
the City Council request for additional treatments between Birch Street and Park Boulevard.
Conceptual designs of the Park Boulevard Plaza were also proposed along with a preliminary
selection of street furniture for the project, including benches, planting material, bike racks,
and information kiosks. The proposed street alignment in Attachment A was presented to the
PTC on July 11, 2012 with a recommendation by the PTC for Council approval of the preferred
street alignment with additional elements discussed further in this report. The July 11, 2012
PTC staff report is provided in Attachment B and the PTC’s minutes are provided as Attachment
C.
At each community meeting and at the July 11th PTC meeting, participants also expressed both
support and concern with the 4-lane to 2-lane reduction element of the project, though that
issue was not the focus of the meetings. In particular, many merchants from the area expressed
continued concern or opposition to this element of the design, though they generally noted
support for the other streetscape elements of the project and plaza. Many of the participants
also noted concerns with pavement condition along California Avenue due to delayed street
resurfacing. A set of Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ’s) and responses for the project is
included as Attachment D as further background for the project.
Discussion
The following sections of this report further discuss the refined street alignment plan of the
project, funding status, and proposed next steps for implementation of the project.
Staff believes that the preferred street alignment respsonds to the Council’s request for
increased sidewalk and streetscape opportunities, blends both street and Park Boulevard Plaza
elements of the project together, and adequetly preserves parking while introducing functional
uses for public plaza and gathering space.
Preferred Street Alignment Concept
Input from most attendees at the community meeting expressed a general desire to implement
sidewalk improvements as part of the California Avenue – Transit Hub Corridor Streetscape
Improvements project along with other pedestrian-scaled improvements, such as enhanced
mid-block crosswalks for speed reduction, bulb-outs at intersections to reduce crosswalk
lengths, additional planting opportunities, and opportunities for additional loading zones for
businesses along California Avenue. California Avenue currently does not have any defined
commercial loading zones within the project area; the preferred street alignment introduces
three loading zones, two near California Avenue & Ash Street and one California Avenue &
Birch Street. The preferred street alignment also preserved the same number of transit stops
along the corridor but recommends slight repositioning of some stops to minimize intrusion at
intersections to help maintain intersection efficiency.
The placement of streetscape furniture such as seating walls, benches, bicycle racks and corrals,
tree and planting species, media racks and color palette selection will be identified through
additional community outreach during final design. Final design cannot proceed without the
selection of a preferred street alignment so that civil details such as drainage, irrigation, and
street repair segments can be finalized.
Street Alignment for Sidewalk Widening Options
California Avenue has historically been a four-lane street. The current layout of the street
consists of four travel lanes with widths that vary from between 9 feet and 11 feet and with 13
foot long angled parking stalls that do not comply with the City’s or industry-standard parking
design standards of the Institute of Transportation Engineers. Non-standard parking standards
should not be reintroduced with new construction.
The preferred street alignment plan includes sidewalk widening elements throughout each
block of the project, including opportunities for flexible public plaza space on the Avenue
between Ash Street and Birch Street. The flexible plaza space includes sidewalks and street
segments that merge together without obstructions from standard street curbs to maintain
accessibility during special event use while protecting sidewalk zones through decorative
bollards and removal parking blocks during parking use. This was a preferred treatment by the
Planning & Transportation Commission during their July 11, 2011 meeting. Enhanced landscape
treatment areas are also introduced throughout the corridor and tie in with planting material
and public art elements (including the fountain at the Park Boulevard Plaza), and build upon
current tree planting. Bulb-outs at mid-block crosswalk locations and key intersections will help
to reduce the pedestrian walking distances along the roadway and introduce traffic calming
treatments at the same locations; the use of treatments such as speed tables that double as
traffic calming elements were also a request of the Planning & Transportation Commission.
1. Parking and Travel Lanes
The proposed street alignment plan protects parking along California Avenue and
introduces locations where existing angled parking is converted to parallel parking to allow
for prominent sidewalk widening. The proposed street plan line concept provides 115 on-
street parking spaces, compared to the existing 111 on-street parking spaces under the
current street configuration, for a net increase of four spaces. Four additional on-street
parking spaces near the Park Boulevard Plaza may be realized but will require support from
Caltrain for the use of Joint Powers Board right-of-way as a long-term project element. Two
15-foot wide vehicle travel lanes with “Share the Road” (Sharrow) roadway markings would
allow for comfortable travel between vehicles and bicycles. An aesthetic 3-foot wide
decorative street band defines travel from parking areas and helps to provide additional
buffer space between parked vehicles and vehicles/bicyclists traveling along California
Avenue.
The most prominent and continuous sidewalk widening segment occurs at each gateway
entry of California Avenue, including the south side of the street between El Camino Real
and Ash Street to provide a prominent gateway for visitors and in front of the Mollie Stone’s
frontage at the east end of the project area to welcome visitors from Caltrain and Park
Boulevard. During the concept design stage of the project, the community noted concerns
regarding angled parking and bicycle operations near El Camino Real. The proposed street
alignment converts the angled parking closest to El Camino Real to parallel parking in
response to the concern and allows for a grander sidewalk treatment. The Planning &
Transportation Commission asked that staff consider relocating the sidewalk widening near
the west end of the corridor to the north side of the street instead of the south, but staff
recommends preserving the design as currently proposed to support economic
development opportunities with the existing uses clustered in that area. Maintaining the
parallel parking along the south side between El Camino Real and Ash Street also supports a
grand boulevard entry to the corridor setting the stage for a new street character that is
supported with the remaining streetscape treatments of the plan.
2. Flexibility for Public Plaza
The flexible plaza design between Ash Street and Birch Street is further defined in
Attachment E showing block by block segments of the proposed street alignment. The
flexible plaza space uses curbless transitions between sidewalks and the street to provide
accessible space for special event uses, whether those be limited to the sidewalk and
parking aisles areas or the entire street block through the use of removable bollards on the
street. Although no specific on-going use is currently identified, the public plaza space can
allow for larger events such as the Farmer’s Market or outdoor music events. California
Avenue is already closed to traffic each Sunday for the Farmer’s Market and the new public
plaza element of the project would allow the closure to expand or move east one block
without obstruction of access to California Avenue from El Camino Real. The enhanced
sidewalk widening treatments of the project allow events within the public plaza to expand
throughout the corridor with the use of outdoor seating areas, booths, stages, etc.
Park Boulevard Plaza
The Park Boulevard Plaza design provided in Attachment F addresses a much of the public input
received during two focused community design meetings, including:
Centering and buffering access to public art and fountain elements within the plaza to
preserve views to the fountain as a focal element down California Avenue,
Providing ample useable seating areas for special plaza events or regular patron use,
Maintaining accessible bicycle access and parking adjacent to the California Avenue
transit station and underpass,
Preserving an unobstructed view of the California Avenue streetscape and hills west of
the project areas, and
Introduction of lighting improvements to the plaza
The Park Boulevard Plaza element of the project revitalizes and improves functionality of the
existing park space by creating a larger and more flexible use-space with ample seating and
enhanced landscaping. A gathering area has been created by relocating the existing sculptural
fountain into the project at the community’s request. The fountain would retain its visual
prominence as a focal point at the terminus of the corridor and will be enhanced with
interactive elements, thus activating the edge of the plaza space. All existing trees have been
retained, with a grassy passive use zone provided under existing trees in the center of the
space. Accent planting has been added at edges and to soften the tunnel access. Seating, low
walls, planting and trees create visual edges that buffer the street for safety, while allowing
visual access for security. Lighting would be added for safety.
Bicycle use of the Park Boulevard Plaza continues to be a concern of the community and the
Palo Alto Bicycle Advisory Committee, as the tunnel serves several hundred bicyclists daily
during the morning commute periods. In response, the plaza design includes a widened bicycle-
preferred use area that functions as a contraflow treatment to provide an unobstructed path
out of the tunnel and back onto California Avenue or Park Boulevard. Entering the plaza, a
share-the-road approach is provided with a separate access point designated only for bicyclists.
The plaza will also house the new bicycle share facilities being deployed in 2012 as part of the
Valley Transportation Authority-Metropolitan Transportation Commission partnership.
Project Implementation
The City anticipates continuing the design phase of the project through the Spring of 2013 upon
approval of the preferred street alignment by the Council, to allow opportunities for additional
community input and feedback by the Architectural Review Board, Public Art Commission and
Parks & Recreation Commission, prior to final review by the Planning and Transportation
Commission and Council.
Planning and Transportation Commission Review and Recommendations
Staff presented the preferred street alignment for the California Avenue Transit Hub Corridor
Streetscape project to the Planning and Transportation Commission on July 11, 2012. The PTC
unanimously (4-0) recommended approval of the plan to Council with the following additional
recommendations:
Commercial Loading Zones
Work with local area merchants to distribute new loading zones on the corridor near
facilities that currently do not have access to loading zone areas on alleyways behind
California Avenue.
Contraflow Bike Facility
Provide a raised on-plaza contraflow bicycle facility to provide egress access from the
California Avenue Underpass to the California Avenue & Park Boulevard intersection to
help avoid bicycle and pedestrian interaction within the plaza itself.
Raised Mid-Block Crosswalks
Provide raised mid-block crosswalks along California Avenue to both enhance pedestrian
safety and reduce vehicle speeds on the street.
Public Plaza Space Protection
Provide adequate treatments to protect sidewalk from parking uses in the public plaza
areas (e.g., curb stops).
Parklets
Explore the use of parklets to provide an opportunity for future land uses to take
advantage of sidewalk widening opportunities where not currently defined in the
proposed street alignment.
Angled versus Parallel Parking between El Camino Real and Ash Street
Consider placing parallel parking and sidewalk widening on the north side of this block
segment instead of the south to retain traffic flow from El Camino east on California
Avenue.
The location of commercial loading zones will be identified through the final design phase of
the project and an on-plaza contraflow bicycle element to the Park Boulevard Plaza has been
added in response to the community and PTC input. The raised crosswalks and public plaza
space protection have also been added and are highlighted in Attachment E. Parklets are an
effective way to allow for expansion of private use and the City’s staff will subsequently work
on a policy to allow for their future use without impact to the project. Staff does not
recommend shifting widening and parallel parking to the north side of the street between El
Camino and Ash, as the widening on the south side would better support the level of activity in
that block and to enhance the gateway treatment from El Camino.
Trial Lane Reduction
The PTC also recommended that the merchants and other community members propose a trial
lane reduction and that staff consider the feasibility of implementation of the trial project, if it
can be done without delaying project implementation and without jeopardizing grant-fund
sources. Many of the merchants objected to the lane reduction and suggested a trial be
implemented prior to final approval. The most simple and straightforward traffic trial would be
to initially just pave and restripe the road to two lanes, but that would not be representative of
the actual project, which would be affected by the sidewalk widening and bulbouts that further
constrain street pavement width.
Staff is concerned about the success of a trial for multiple reasons:
It is very difficult to replicate the aesthetic and safety treatments of the trial, including
widened sidewalks, plantings, raised crosswalks, pavement treatments, etc.
A trial would require repaving and striping of the road (probably at a cost of $60,000 -
$100,000) but then the permanent installation (if approved) would require repaving
again only a year later;
A trial is likely to be unsightly, using temporary barriers and a less than high quality
pavement, which could also be disruptive to business and confusing to drivers; and
The measures of “success” of a trial are likely to be contentious, as the perception of
congestion or delay will be subjective to some, rather than relying on traffic engineering
criteria.
Staff would, however, work with merchants and the community to develop a trial if directed by
the Council.
Planning for Construction Mitigation for Businesses
Upon approval by the Council of the sidewalk widening and plaza designs, staff will initiate final
design of the project. Staff expects, during this phase, to schedule regular discussions with area
merchants to explore ways to minimize impacts on business during construction (including
occasional all-day on-site availability to meet with individual merchants about their particular
interests or constraints). Some of the issues to be evaluated will include, but are not limited to:
phasing of construction (block by block, side of the street, etc.), hours of construction, signage,
access for loading/deliveries, access for customers, marketing assistance and publicity, and
shuttle service to the street for construction workers and/or for customers. Staff attempted to
initiate a discussion on these issues in March, but the meeting attendees (merchants) strongly
felt that it was premature to discuss those details when they still oppose the lane reduction.
Timeline
The City anticipates continuing the detailed design phase of the project through the Summer of
2013 upon approval of the preferred street alignment by the Council, allowing opportunities for
additional community input and feedback by the Architectural Review Board, Art Commission
and Parks & Recreation Commission. The PTC and City Council would then review the final
design for approval. The City anticipates construction in the Fall of 2013 upon the receipt of
grant-fund sources.
Resource Impact
Funding for the design work is included in the Capital Improvement Program project PL-11002 –
California Avenue Transit Hub Corridor Streetscape Project. The Council has approved the
Capital Improvements Program (CIP) to fund the design phase and local match of the
construction phase for the project in the amount of $550,000. Reinstatement of deferred grant
funding from the Valley Transportation Authority in the amount of $1,175,000 is anticipated
this Fall. The enhanced sidewalk widening and landscape elements of the project are estimated
to cost an additional $700,000 above the original project estimate. The City has identified a
fund source to cover the cost of the additional work through the new Vehicle Registration Fee
(VRF) program that is being administered by the VTA. In 2010, voters in Santa Clara County
approved a $10 per vehicle registration fee of which a population-based percentage is returned
to each city within the County. The City of Palo Alto is scheduled to receive $350,000 per year
the over next 2 years. The first disbursement of the VRF fee will be available this year. The City
would bank its first year disbursement and use that in combination with the second year
disbursement to cover the cost of the enhanced sidewalk widening and landscape treatments
for the project. The remaining capital and design costs of the project remain available within
the existing project budget.
Additional funding will be required for the enhanced design elements, however. Staff will
return to the Council in the Fall following approval of the new design to request up to an
additional $100,000 for the design phase from the Infrastructure Reserve along with an
amendment to the design contract with the RBF Consulting Design Team to complete the
sidewalk widening design. Staff also expects that additional funding will be requested to
provide for marketing and publicizing to assist businesses during construction of the project.
Street lighting enhancements were requested by the community but are not currently
budgeted within the current project. The City Capital Improvement Program (CIP) and Utility
Department budget may be available resources for lighting improvements if desired by the
Council as a future phased element of the project.
Policy Implications
The City’s Comprehensive Plan recommends that the City enhance the California Avenue
streetscape by upgrading the visual quality of the street to attract additional business and
visitors to the area. Consistent with those Comprehensive Plan goals, the proposed streetscape
and place-making improvements along California Avenue should ensure continued vitality of
the California Avenue Business District. The Comprehensive Plan also encourages a mix of
residential and non-residential uses at a scale of development that is comfortable for
pedestrian use. The Plan encourages improving the appearance of the street while preserving
its “home town” character. Also, Program L-18 specifically calls for street improvements that
could make a substantial contribution to the character of Commercial Centers, including
narrowing travel lanes.
Environmental Review
A preliminary Initial Study and the Negative Declaration - CEQA checklist for the project were
completed, circulated for public review in December 2010 and approved by Council on February
14, 2011. Litigation challenging the timing of that review was filed shortly thereafter, and the
Santa Clara County Superior Court ruled in Fall 2011 that the City should have completed CEQA
review prior to submitting the application for VTA grant funds. The City corrected this by
rescinding and reapproving the environmental review and associated approvals in the proper
order. In February 2012, the Court found that the City complied with CEQA. A second lawsuit
was filed in January 2012 challenging the city’s revised approvals, which the court dismissed in
its entirety in April 2012.
The City is now in compliance with CEQA and is free to proceed with the project. The Negative
Declaration concluded that the project will not result in any significant environmental impacts
and may be reviewed online at www.cityofpaloalto.org/calave.
Attachments:
Attachment A: Proposed Alignment and Design for Sidewalk Widening and Plaza (PDF)
Attachment B: July 11, 2012 Planning and Transportation Commission Staff Repo (PDF)
Attachment C: July 11, 2012 Planning and Transportation Commission Draft Excerpt
Minutes (DOCX)
Attachment D: Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ's) for California Avenue Streetscape
Improvements Project (DOCX)
Attachment E: California Avenue Proposed Design by Block Segments (PDF)
Attachment F: Draft Design of the Park Blvd. Plaza (PDF)
Attachment G: Correspondence (PDF)
Prepared By: Shahla Yazdy, Traffic Engineer
Department Head: Curtis Williams, Director
City Manager Approval: ____________________________________
James Keene, City Manager
• l~
"" "I'" .5 ~ " ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ :() 3: :2 u ~'il ~ ~ r
z '" " I
_ 0 r
Hd lin
d
Ulil
I( I I
e li ~ 1 Ii j
I
1 I I I f 1 1 j • •
~,~ .•..
" .......
~
~
1""11""",,0:> 13 .'
---.'" .: ,-_ ..
r
~ •
:..;.;;
City of Palo Alto Page 1 of 6
PLANNING &TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION
STAFF REPORT
TO: PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
FROM: Jaime O. Rodriguez DEPARTMENT: Planning and
Chief Transportation Official Community Environment
AGENDA DATE: JULY 11, 2012
SUBJECT: California Avenue Transit Hub Corridor Streetscape Improvements
Project – Design Status
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning and Transportation Commission provide input to Council on
the design status, location of proposed sidewalk widening areas and plaza design for the
California Avenue Transit Hub Corridor Streetscape Improvements Project.
BACKGROUND
City staff and consultants continue to develop the detailed design options for the California
Avenue – Transit Hub Corridor Streetscape Improvements project. In the Fall 2010 the City
submitted and received a grant from the Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) – Community
Design for Transportation (CDT) Program for the project in the amount of $1,175,200. A design
contract was awarded to the RBF Consulting/David Gates & Associates design team in July
2011.
Following initiation of the detailed design phase, on February 14, 2011 the City Council
requested that staff identify sidewalk widening and enhanced landscape opportunities along the
California Avenue Business District corridor. In response to the request, the design team
developed six concepts that included various street configurations, but focused predominantly on
landscape treatments between El Camino Real and Birch Street, and presented them to the
community and City Council for input on October 17, 2011. City Council reviewed the options
and requested that additional emphasis on sidewalk widening and landscape treatments be placed
between Birch Street and Park Blvd. to better help tie the streetscape improvements with planned
treatments at the Park Blvd. Plaza. The staff report and minutes of that meeting are included as
Attachment A to this report. The City held two additional community meetings in response to
City of Palo Alto Page 2 of 6
this request, including one citywide meeting and one business focused meeting.
A set of Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ’s) is provided for further information about the
project (Attachment D).
DISCUSSION
The proposed California Avenue Transit Hub Corridor Streetscape Improvements project
provides for streetscape improvements along California Avenue between El Camino Real and the
California Avenue Caltrain Station; including place-making identity markers, traffic calming
treatments, streetscape elements, parking enhancements, bike sharing stations, improvements to
the Park Blvd. Plaza, and a reduction from four lanes to two lanes of travel.
City staff and the design team have sponsored six design-focused community meetings to date.
The first meeting, held on September 1, 2011, was an opportunity for merchants and property
owners of California Avenue to meet with the design consultants and staff. Staff has held 5
additional meetings soliciting input on street configuration opportunities to introduce sidewalk
widening and enhanced landscaped treatment opportunities, as well as meetings focused on the
design of the Park Blvd. Plaza. The meetings yielded positive input to help the design team
respond to the City Council request for additional treatments between Birch Street and Park
Boulevard. Conceptual designs of the Park Boulevard Plaza were also proposed along with a
preliminary selection of street furniture for the project, including benches, planting material, bike
racks, and information kiosks. Meeting participants also expressed both support and concern
with the lane reduction element of the project, though that was not the focus of the meetings. In
particular merchants from the area expressed continued concern or opposition to this element of
the design. Staff noted that the potential environmental impacts of this project were analyzed in
the Negative Declaration, which concluded that a lane reduction would not have a substantial
impact on traffic flow or parking. Many of the participants also noted concerns with pavement
condition along California Avenue due to delayed street resurfacing.
The following sections of this report further discuss the refined street alignment plan of the
project, funding status, and proposed next steps for implementation of the project.
Preferred Design
Input from most attendees at the initial community meeting showed a general desire to
implement certain sidewalk improvements as part of the California Avenue – Transit Hub
Corridor Streetscape Improvements project along with other pedestrian-scaled improvements
such as enhanced mid-block crosswalks for speed reduction, bulb-outs at intersections to reduce
crosswalk lengths, additional planting opportunities, and opportunities for additional loading
zones for businesses along California Avenue. Community input also helped to refine the design
of the Park Boulevard Plaza. Additional areas of interest, but not currently funded within the
project, include lighting improvements along California Avenue.
At the October 17, 2011 meeting, Council asked staff to incorporate the following into the
design:
Add more sidewalk widening/landscaping towards the eastern project limits
Project design should not result in a loss of parking spaces (not a Council consensus)
City of Palo Alto Page 3 of 6
Expand on Public Street Plaza concept to provide for gathering opportunites
Staff believes that the preferred alignment respsonds to the Council’s direction.
Street Alignment for Sidewalk Widening Options
California Avenue has historically been a four-lane street. The layout of the street consists of
four travel lanes with widths that vary from between 9 feet and 11 feet and with 13 foot long
angled parking stalls that do not comply with the City’s or industry-standard parking design
standards of the Institute of Transportation Engineers. The detailed design prepared in response
to the City Council request with community input is provided in Attachment B. The street plan
line concept includes sidewalk widening elements throughout each block of the project,
including opportunities for flexible public plaza space on the Avenue between Ash Street and
Birch Street. Enhanced landscape treatment areas are introduced throughout the corridor and tie
in with planting material and public art elements (including the fountain) used within the Park
Boulevard Plaza, building upon existing tree planting along the corridor. Bulb-outs at mid-block
crosswalk locations and key intersections help to reduce the pedestrian walking distances along
the roadway and introduce traffic calming treatments at the same locations.
1. Parking and Travel Lanes
The street plan line concept protects parking along California Avenue and introduces locations
where existing angled parking is converted to parallel parking to allow for sidewalk widening
and to respond to community concerns regarding visibility related to backing out of angled
parking spaces. The proposed street plan line concept provides 115 on-street parking spaces,
compared to the existing 111 on-street parking spaces under the current street configuration, for
a net increase of four spaces. Two 15-foot wide vehicle travel lanes with “Share the Road” –
(Sharrow) roadway markings provided allow for comfortable travel between vehicles and
bicycles. The travel lane is also separated by a 3 foot wide decorative street band that allows for
additional buffer space between parked vehicles and vehicles/bicyclists traveling along
California Avenue.
2. Flexibility for Public Plaza
The design between Ash Street and Birch Street introduces flexibilty for large public gathering
events such as Farmer’s Markets or outdoor music events, through the use of removable street
barriers and/or continuous street to sidewalk treatments. California Avenue is already closed to
traffic each Sunday for the Farmer’s Market and the new public plaza element of the project
would allow the closure to move east one block without obstruction of access to California
Avenue from El Camino Real. The enhanced sidewalk widening treatments of the project allow
events within the public plaza to expand throughout the corridor with the use of outdoor seating
areas, booths, stages, etc.
Park Boulevard Plaza
The design provided in Attachment C addresses a majority of the public input received in two
focused community design meetings including centering and buffering public access to public art
and fountain elements within the plaza, plenty of useable seating areas, accessible bicycle access
and parking adjacent to the California Avenue transit station and underpass, an unobstructed
view of the California Avenue streetscape and hills west of the project areas, and the introduction
City of Palo Alto Page 4 of 6
of lighting in the plaza.
The California Avenue plaza concept revitalizes and improves functionality of the existing space
by creating a larger, flexible space with ample seating and enhanced landscaping. A gathering
area has been created by relocating the existing sculptural fountain. The fountain would retain its
visual prominence as a focal point at the terminus of the corridor and will be enhanced with
interactive elements, thus activating the edge of the plaza space. All existing trees have been
retained, with a grassy passive use zone provided under existing trees in the center of the space.
Accent planting has been added at edges and to soften the tunnel access. Seating, low walls,
planting and trees create visual edges that buffer the street for safety, while allowing visual
access for security. Lighting has also been added for safety. The proposed circulation pattern also
would reduce the conflicts between the bikers and pedestrians. Bicycle parking remains, while
visual clutter created by bicycle lockers has been reduced.
Project Funding Status
The City created a Capital Improvement Program (CIP) project in the amount of $1,725,000 to
cover the costs of the project, including the reimbursable Valley Transportation Authority (VTA)
grant, and the local city match for the project and design costs.
The enhanced sidewalk widening and landscape elements of the project are estimated to cost an
additional $700,000 above the original project estimate. The City has identified a fund source to
cover the cost of the additional work through the new Vehicle Registration Fee (VRF) program
that is being administered by the VTA. In 2010 voters in Santa Clara County approved a $10 per
vehicle registration fee of which a population-based percentage is returned to each city within the
County. The City of Palo Alto is scheduled to receive $350,000 per year the over next 2 years.
The first disbursement of the VRF fee will be available this year. The City would then bank its
first year disbursement and use in combination with the second year disbursement to cover the
cost of the enhanced sidewalk widening and landscape treatments for the project. The remaining
capital and design costs of the project remain available within the existing project budget.
Additional funding will be required for the enhanced design elements, however, Staff will return
to the Council in the fall following approval of the new design to request up to an additional
$100,000 for the design phase from the Capital Improvement Program – Reserve Fund.
The City was awarded a $1,175,200 grant from the VTA in early 2011; however that funding had
to be deferred due to litigation over the environmental review which was recently resolved. Staff
expects that grant funding from the VTA - CDT program may be available for use by the City as
early as Summer of 2013 following approval of funding source requirements identified by the
VTA.
Project Implementation
The City anticipates continuing the detailed design phase of the project through the Spring 2013,
to allow opportunities for feedback by the Architectural Review Board and Parks & Recreation
Commission for the design of the Park Boulevard Plaza.
City of Palo Alto Page 5 of 6
Pending reinstatement of grant funding for the project this fall and completion of the design
phase by the Spring 2013, the City anticipates advertising the project for competitive bids in the
Summer 2013 with construction beginning in the Fall 2013.
RESOURCE IMPACT:
Funding for the design work is included in the Capital Improvement Program project PL-11002 –
California Avenue Transit Hub Corridor Streetscape Project. The Council has approved the
Capital Improvements Program (CIP) to fund the design phase and local match of the
construction phase for the project in the amount of $550,000. Reinstatement of deferred grant
funding from the Valley Transportation Authority in the amount of $1,175,000 is anticipated this
fall. The sidewalk elements of the detailed design will require an additional $700,000 capital
cost above the original project budget. The City has identified an outside fund source for the
project through the County Vehicle Registration Fee program. Staff anticipates allocating the
funding to the project as part of the FY2014 CIP Process.
An amendment to the design contract with the RBF Consulting Design Team will also be
required in the amount of $100,000 to complete the sidewalk widening design. Staff also expects
that an additional funding will be requested to provide for marketing and publicizing to assist
businesses during construction of the project. Street lighting enhancements were requested by the
community but not currently budgeted within the current project.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
The City’s Comprehensive Plan recommends that the City enhance the California Avenue
streetscape by upgrading the visual quality of the street to attract additional business and visitors
to the area. Consistent with those Comprehensive Plan goals, the proposed streetscape and
place-making improvements along California Avenue should ensure continued vitality of the
California Avenue Business District. The Comprehensive Plan also encourages a mix of
residential and non-residential uses at a scale of development that is comfortable for pedestrian
use. The Plan encourages improving the appearance of the street while preserving its “home
town” character. Also, Program L-18 specifically calls for street improvements that could make
a substantial contribution to the character of Commercial Centers, including narrowing travel
lanes.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
A preliminary Initial Study and the Negative Declaration - CEQA checklist for the project were
completed, circulated for public review in December 2010 and approved by Council on February
14, 2011. Litigation challenging the timing of that review was filed shortly thereafter, and the
Santa Clara County Superior Court ruled in Fall 2011 that the City should have completed
CEQA review prior to submitting the application for VTA grant funds. The City corrected this
by rescinding and reapproving the environmental review and associated approvals in the proper
order. In February 2012, the Court found that the City complied with CEQA. A second lawsuit
was filed in January 2012 challenging the city’s revised approvals, which the court dismissed in
its entirety in April 2012.
The City is now in compliance with CEQA and is free to proceed with the project. The Negative
City of Palo Alto Page 6 of 6
Declaration concluded that the project will not result in any significant environmental impacts
and may be reviewed online at www.cityofpaloalto.org/calave.
Prepared by: Shahla Yazdy
Project Manager
Reviewed by: Jaime O. Rodriguez
Chief Transportation Official
Department/Division Head Approval:
Curtis Williams, Director
Attachment A: October 17, 2011 Council Staff Report & minutes
Attachment B: Draft Alignment and Design for Sidewalk Widening options
Attachment C: Draft Design of the Park Blvd. Plaza
Attachment D: Project Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ’s)
1
Planning and Transportation Commission 1
Verbatim Minutes 2
July 11, 2012 3
4
DRAFT EXCERPT 5
6
California Avenue – Transit Hub Corridor Streetscape Improvements Project: 7
Recommendation Regarding the California Avenue Transit Hub Corridor Streetscape Project 8
including design status, location of proposed sidewalk widening opportunities, and plaza design. 9
10
Acting Chair Fineberg: So we are ready to open our Public Hearing. We have one item on our 11
agenda which is the California Avenue Streetscape Improvement Project. I’d like to start by 12
announcing that Commissioner Tuma is not present this evening because he is conflicted out of 13
participating in this project due to having a long term lease on California Avenue. We’ll start 14
this item with Staff’s presentation to be followed by Commissioner questions of the Staff, then 15
we’ll bring it back to public comment with three minutes per speaker and after that we’ll have 16
Commissioner discussion, motions, and recommendations. We’ll now hear the presentation 17
from Staff. 18
19
Curtis Williams, Planning Director: Thank you Chair Fineberg and Commissioners. I’m Curtis 20
Williams, Director of Planning and Community Environment, and we do note that there are but 21
four of you tonight, which is enough for quorum, but certainly less than whole Commission. 22
Your newest Commissioner to be is in the audience tonight, but is not able to join the full 23
Commission until August 1st so he’ll get educated before then about what’s going on here. And 24
just maybe to preface this I know the Chair did send an e-mail a little while ago about the fact 25
that there are only four of you so it does take three members to vote for an affirmative vote on 26
any action this evening and you have basically two actions before you, this and the minutes. 27
28
So we’re, we are here tonight to talk about the California Avenue Transit Hub Corridor 29
Streetscape and Improvement Project. Commission has seen this at least once previously but not 30
in a while and I’m gonna run through a little bit of background and context for you on the project 31
then turn it over to Jaime Rodriguez and our consultants to walk through the details of the 32
proposed design. 33
34
So the, the stated vision for the street, and this is largely language that comes from our, derived 35
from our Comprehensive Plan and City’s certainly recently, is consistent with our recent 36
adoption of the Bike and Pedestrian Plan, is to promote pedestrian bicycle safety, to complement 37
the adjacent land uses, provide for amenities on the sidewalk for pedestrians and cyclists and 38
others, to try to balance the needs of all modes of travel, the complete street concept, 39
implementing Comprehensive Plan and our pedestrian transit oriented development objectives. 40
The Comp Plan does call for pedestrian connections and encourage walkability for the California 41
Avenue area and it defines Pedestrian Transit Oriented Development (PTOD), or actually transit 42
oriented residential in the Comp Plan and then more specifically the PTOD and the zoning 43
ordinance as appropriate for this area to generate higher residential density supporting transit use, 44
especially Caltrain and walking. 45
46
Attachment C
2
The Complete Streets concept is one we’ve also discussed before this is something that actually 1
is now embedded in State law and cities are supposed to be developing Complete Streets 2
Programs in their Comprehensive Plan. Our Transportation Element is now under review by 3
Commission subcommittee and will be coming shortly to the full Commission and will embody, 4
be sure that we’re including these various concepts in there. So the intent of the Complete 5
Streets Program is to make the most efficient use of the right of way for all modes of travel and 6
in particular for this proposed project we do want to maintain efficient vehicle movements and I 7
know that there are concerns about the four lane to two lane issue, we have we believe addressed 8
those in that we will be maintaining vehicle movements as well as accommodating room for 9
pedestrians and bicyclists, various pedestrian improvements, amenities, as we’ve discussed 10
landscaping, trees, benches, parking for bicycles, perhaps some art, more public art, and outdoor 11
entertainment areas, etcetera, etcetera, and just generally improving the pavement aesthetics 12
along the street as well. 13
14
So in just a second I’ll turn it over to Jaime to walk through the specifics with you. I did want to 15
make a couple other comments. One is that as you know the California Avenue Fry’s Concept 16
Area Plan is under development at this time as well. You have seen a version of that some time 17
ago but you will be seeing it again in the fall and sort of preferred, or a couple of preferred 18
alternatives for that. We do believe that this, that regardless of what happens in that plan that 19
this is an appropriate treatment of California Avenue that we do believe that the, you know, the 20
attractiveness of the street and its potential to become a real corridor for pedestrians and in 21
particular to access the businesses as well as to access the train station and for community events 22
are all appropriate regardless of what happens in the rest of that development area. 23
24
Secondly, I also want to indicate that what you’re looking at tonight as Jaime will explain are 25
specific to direction from the Council to look at sidewalk widening options and potential plaza 26
improvements. So, we, there are a lot of design details that are still to come as far as where 27
landscaping goes, what kind, where benches are, and bike racks or trash receptacles, everything 28
else. But the other thing that’s certainly out there and we’re aware of is our commitment to 29
transition plan during construction to work with the merchants to be able to try to find a variety 30
of ways to help minimize impact during construction. We know that’s a very serious issue and 31
there are ways to phase project construction, ways to help with the marking of the business on 32
the street, assuring deliveries, both business deliveries and access for customers. All of those 33
things are items we have to deal with and take very seriously. I think the, you know, we’re not 34
probably at the point yet where we can have real detailed discussions of that and we’re trying to 35
nail down some of this design to move forward but we are prepared to have those discussions 36
once we do get to the next phase of the design. So with that I’ll turn it over to Jaime Rodriguez 37
our Chief Transportation Official. Thank you. 38
39
Jaime Rodriguez, Chief Transportation Official: Thank you Curtis. Chair Fineberg, Members of 40
the Commission, I’m glad to be here tonight. It’s been awhile I think since I’ve been to your 41
Commission and actually this is the first time that I think I’ve been here presenting this project to 42
you as well. Before I do get started though I do just want to take a minute to recognize some of 43
the members of the consultant team here, to my right is David Gates from David Gates and 44
Associates, as well as Kadnee Bahmani from RBF Engineers sitting in the back. They can 45
provide some technical information regarding the civil design of the project. I also do want to 46
3
take a moment just to recognize the work from some of the Transportation team members, 1
specifically Shahla Yazdy, the Project Manager for this project but she couldn’t be here tonight 2
being on vacation. So with that let’s just jump straight into the project. 3
4
So again where we’re looking at a transit streetscape focus type project on California Avenue, a 5
proportion of California Avenue between El Camino Real shown here where the cursor is on the 6
screen to the Caltrain, to the Park Boulevard Plaza near the Caltrain Station at California 7
Avenue. So this segment of California Avenue is the study area. It is worth just taking a 8
moment to kind of really recognize how much kind of effort has been put into this project. You 9
know this has been ongoing now for a little over a year and a half almost two years since we 10
kicked off the design effort now and one of the very first things we did when we awarded this 11
project with Council approval was Council asked us to really try and expand the project to 12
introduce additional sidewalk lighting opportunities, to introduce opportunities to provide more 13
streetscape elements for the corridor as an enhancement to the project. And upon selecting RBF 14
for this, for this team design we actually asked them to put together up to five different options 15
for us to then take back to the Council so that we could refine a preferred street alignment 16
because we can’t move forward with the civil design until we know what we want to build to. 17
And we also asked RBF to put together in conjunction with that street alignment concepts for 18
what the Park Boulevard Plaza could be. 19
20
And we held several community meetings over the last year and a half to help us try to figure out 21
that vision for the Council to consider and we will walk you through shortly all those previous 22
options that the Council saw and then kinda walk you through how we ended up with the 23
preferred alignment that we’re presenting to you here tonight. There are still of course a whole 24
lot of details that need to be worked out with the plan as Curtis mentioned and we do have a lot 25
more community meetings that we need to have. In addition to more merchants specific-26
meetings we also then need to get out and kinda reach to the other commissions, the 27
Architectural Review Board (ARB), the Parks and Recreation Commission, Palo Alto Bicycle 28
Advisory Committee (PABAC) has been useful in providing input on this project to date and he 29
has been a key stakeholder in helping us design the Plaza that you’ll see shortly as well as the 30
Art Commission. 31
32
So again, as a quick background the main elements that are really here to solicit your input on 33
tonight are the sidewalk lighting elements that we are recommending in response to the City 34
Council’s request to help expand the project and make it a little more whole and provide that 35
complete street vision that we see for the area. Now we also then also want to talk a little bit 36
about the Plaza and make sure that from your opinion we’re kinda taking this project in the right 37
direction as well. 38
39
So, let’s just talk about what’s on California Avenue today. What’s on this next slide is what 40
California Avenue looks like from an aerial view. Again, it is predominantly angled parking on 41
the street today, a majority standard 60-degree parking as well as some more acute parking down 42
closer toward the California Avenue end of, I’m sorry, El Camino Real Avenue end of the 43
corridor getting closer to about, you know, 45 to 55 degree angle parking. And, and not a lot of 44
green as you kinda see here, not a lot of trees, not too many like, public spaces for people to 45
kind of do outdoor dining those types of activities. And as a typical cross section of the street 46
4
you do have existing 10 foot wide sidewalks, angled parking varies between 13 degrees to, I’m 1
sorry, 13 feet to 15 feet depending on the angle again, 60 degree or something lower than that. 2
And there are four lanes of travel on El, on California Avenue today. And the on street parking 3
count throughout the corridor is 111 on street parking spaces. 4
5
When we went to the Council late last, early last year, we really showed them five options to 6
help us kind of guide what the vision for California Avenue could be and what I want to do very 7
quick is kinda walk you through those five options that they and the community saw. And one 8
option was just the street conversion of the corridor from angle parking to parallel parking. That 9
is probably the most intrusive thing you could do to parking because you really reduce the 10
parking space on the street by, you know, taking two or three cars that are the equivalent of one 11
car length and turning it into one space. But as you can see from this diagram here, we introduce 12
a lot of green areas, we introduce a lot of opportunities to do sidewalk widening, that green area 13
represents opportunities for sidewalk widening or opportunities for planting and other types of 14
streetscape treatments. A typical cross section for this type of a street configuration is shown 15
below and it provides a pretty consistent kind of goal that we had at Staff level to provide, you 16
know, fairly comfortable wide 15 foot lanes for vehicular travel. There’s a pretty standard eight 17
foot wide parking, parking configuration and then provides some kind of aesthetic treatments 18
with a pavement band to separate that parking use from the vehicle use but you see here again 19
the widened area and how it serves to provide outdoor streetscape type of amenities and 20
treatments or just in general kind of green treatments. 21
22
I should go back and just point out that under this type of a configuration there is a significant 23
parking impact of a reduction of about 37 spaces on the street and also includes a higher cost of 24
an additional $1.2 million to do this type of configuration because you’re building all the 25
sidewalk. We also looked at an option that was just all angled parking and we basically 26
maintained all the existing parking in its current configuration but to a current parking standard 27
and ended up with a parking neutral solution. Had some really nice green space opportunities 28
and it had a cost of about $700,000. And again below is a cross section of what that option looks 29
like. 30
31
We also looked at a hybrid option just trying to find the best areas to maximize for sidewalk 32
widening elements and planting tree opportunities proposed a hybrid concept that, that actually 33
added space, that says parking lot, so that’s actually a parking gain and it would cost a little 34
under $700,000 to implement. We also looked at, tried to do things that were kinda outside of 35
the box. You know we looked at concepts for what we’re calling a central plaza configuration, a 36
central plaza configuration looked at just providing green space opportunities through the center 37
of the core between Ash and Birch to do things like, you know, special events you know either 38
on an ongoing basis, permanent basis, or you know to provide on a seasonal use and that again 39
had no parking impact and had a cost of about $1 million. 40
41
This was actually one of the elements that the City Council had an interest in, they liked the 42
concept of that public plaza kind of public space usage, but did note that there was a pretty 43
significant parking impact with an option like this. We also looked at trying to implement those 44
visions for, for plaza kind of treatment areas, but on a seasonal basis only and shown here in 45
purple are areas where you could cone off or kind of barrier off parking aisles and create them 46
5
for public use, you know, for restaurant uses for public space on weekends those types of events 1
and that parking impact it would depend on what you did. If you, if you left all that space open 2
and weren’t taking advantage of that you’d have a parking surplus of 25 spaces, but if you were 3
taking all away then you take away, you know, about 40 spaces, and, but as you see there’s a 4
vision down here you gain a lot of public pedestrian use on both sides of the street. This was an 5
option again that the City Council did have a lot of strong interest in, but noted that if you looked 6
to the east of Birch there wasn’t a lot of activity happening as far as sidewalk widening 7
opportunities, planting kind of treatments, or streetscape amenities and thought that it lacked 8
kind of work on the east side of the corridor. 9
10
The last thing that we showed the Council was based off the previous presentation of this, of 11
those same five options combining community input, what the community told us that they liked 12
of all the previous five options and we showed them what was called kind of the community 13
input modified hybrid option. And this alternative tried to take the elements of things that people 14
liked the most and introduce them. One of the most significant issues here was the introduction 15
of parallel parking just on the first block of California Avenue between El Camino and Ash on 16
the south side. The predominant restaurant use of the corridor and this provided a net gain of 17
about 10 spaces at a cost of about $700,000. Again, strong interest by the City Council but as 18
you can see on this diagram not a lot of green improvement to the east of Birch Street and they 19
thought that because there was a lacking, a lacking vision. 20
21
So we’ll show you kind of where we ended up and I want to kind of walk you through the rest of 22
the public input process first also. So on the plaza we developed three options for the plaza. I’m 23
not gonna walk you through all the details here, we’re just gonna highlight for you what the 24
community input was. Really one that they did like kind of this option down towards the bottom 25
which was what we’re calling a curvilinear option that had more kind of aesthetic elements kind 26
of embedded within the plaza itself. They liked the concept of taking the location of the fountain 27
and kinda an art piece and kinda moving it a little bit more into the plaza so that the element 28
wasn’t too close to California Avenue or Park to allow people to kind of really use that and they 29
can enjoy the fountain without being close to moving vehicles. They did like the idea of kind of 30
providing more stones and seating to enjoy the fountain and other uses on the plaza. They 31
wanted to make sure that there was recognition and encouragement of bicycle use within the 32
plaza itself and that we weren’t restricting vehicles, bicyclists from kind of getting into the plaza 33
because bicyclists are one of the most predominant uses of that plaza every morning for 34
commute activities as well as coming home from school or coming home from work and so that 35
was a concern we had to respond to. 36
37
There was a strong statement from a lot of people that they just didn’t want this to be a Lytton 38
Plaza, they didn’t want to, they wanted it to be something a lot more different and that was a lot 39
more vibrant. They did like the opportunity of being able to use that plaza for seasonal uses such 40
as holiday trees during the holiday season, for gaming events during the day during lunchtime 41
breaks for people that work in that area, and more importantly that we provided good lighting 42
and tried to actually mask as much as possible the Caltrain facility. 43
44
So, here’s what we came up with in response to the community input and the City Council 45
request for more sidewalk widening options. This plan here shows in green the areas that are 46
6
added on top of the previous designs, so if you’re focusing a little bit kind of to the east of Birch 1
you see a lot of green added along the north side of California Avenue, which is the locations 2
where they can be now sidewalk widening, more planting material added, your also seeing the 3
maintenance of that parallel parking opportunity, some more, some more streetscape treatments 4
near El Camino Real a while before Birch. And you’re also seeing the introduction of the 5
maintenance of that seasonal barrier because again there was a strong interest by the Council to 6
have that ability to be able to during peak seasons such as spring and summer to be able to take 7
away some of the parking with community support and do more uses that are pedestrian and 8
bicycle focused in those areas. And this option here still has a gain of about 4 spaces during non-9
peak season, non-seasonal use of those barrier uses. Again a typical cross section is angled 10
parking because a lot of angled parking is maintained, but on one side of the street or another 11
you are adding some type of a sidewalk widening treatment element and this next image this is a 12
very quick transition if you want to pay attention. This shows all the green along the whole 13
corridor. So what you’re seeing now is you’re seeing all that kind of sidewalk widening and all 14
that planting opportunity that the Council asked us to kind of scatter throughout the corridor. I 15
think we did a pretty good job of clustering it here in the middle to support those kind of plaza 16
uses that the Council thought was important and then also kind of expand that kinda to both ends 17
of the corridor to provide opportunities to make statements for the community that there is an 18
identity area here occurring. And so with that I’m gonna let David, kind of, Gates walk you 19
through kind of some of the more specific details of the corridor and then I’ll bring it back and 20
close it out for us. 21
22
David Gates, Consultant: Thank you Jaime. Dave Gates, thank you for having me here tonight. 23
What I’d like to do is just kind of give you a little bit of sense of the vision as its drawn there to 24
get the cost estimate we actually took it down to paving patterns and seed walls and relocation of 25
bike racks and bike corrals and just to put it in context with the good community meetings it’s 26
actually a well-used part of the community. The public is very proud of it. It’s a little quirky 27
and it’s actually a very nice piece of urban design right now in that, you know, from Cambridge 28
down you have structured parking and you have alleyways to parking behind. So it’s actually a 29
very functional retail kind of place right now, so we’re hoping we’re making it more usable that 30
way. 31
32
So what you’re seeing here, and I’m just going to take you from west to east from El Camino, 33
you can see that the additional paving area is in that sort of sand color, so we’re getting a much 34
wider sidewalk all along, especially the south side. You can see the large green trees are new 35
trees versus the smaller green are existing which we’re preserving most of. So you can see the 36
little small squares there, maybe I can help here. That’s ok. So we’re getting additional seating, 37
we’re getting trees, we’re getting widened paving as per the Jaime showed you this cross section, 38
we’ve got existing bike racks, we have existing art. You can see the new trees. So, in all cases 39
here we’re gaining vitality, we’re gaining better pedestrian character, we’re gaining more 40
aesthetic usability, we’re shortening the crossing at T-intersections like Ash Street. We’re 41
getting a lot more greenery and vegetation which will help traffic calm by just scaling down the 42
street creating a little more shade. Moving then east, oops, sorry, I’ll let Jaime do it. So 43
basically this shows you a typical cross section not at a cross walk with a bulb out. It shows you 44
what we can gain typically along this entire zone. We’re basically gaining a planting area and/or 45
7
a seating area and you can see the nature of that and we’ll take it in key areas and put in 1
vegetation and other areas we make greater usability and a wider sidewalk. 2
3
This is just moving you down now between Ash and Birch. The sort of central zone if you will. 4
Again we’re getting additional planting, we’re pinching the street, relocated art elements, you 5
can see the rumble strip or that three foot band that actually separates the parking from the basic 6
bike circulation and the autos. Large area here of new paved area, great outdoor use space, you 7
can see the newspaper racks, the bike racks, the relocated art. This intersection gets a lot of new 8
vegetation, really show it down considerably and then you can see here again more paving 9
added, more greenery to the outer edge, reconfigured new median zone. Next image. There’s 10
the cross section at a bulb out, so we’ll actually get 12 feet of usable and then 14 more feet, 11
which again allows us to pull the tree out into center, kind of pinch down the sense of pavement 12
get a lot more shade and you can see in spades how we have that here with really nice bulb-out 13
and again we have T-intersections where we’re teeing in and getting a lot of greenery and 14
pavement. Next image then. 15
16
Just moving again, this is the central core and this is an optional where you can actually put in 17
bollards between Birch Street and block off the street, block off Ash again, and basically have a 18
farmer’s market or a large event space that could happen at key times. And again you can see 19
the great crossing, the plantings at the crossing to identify them. These will be enhanced 20
payment at all street crossings and we’re trying to look at a pattern in here to make this feel a 21
little less street like and a little more plaza like for when it’s blocked off. And you can see we 22
already have Starbucks. We already have an existing usable zone here we’re expanding and 23
adding on to. Next image. 24
25
These are just some of the components, these bollards, these are art pieces. I can’t guarantee we 26
will do this right now, but a simple way to get the local art community, this is very involved out 27
there now, these are just simple galvanized bollards with the fabricated art piece on top of it 28
which we’ve done on other projects, so it just shows you this very nice potential central blocked 29
off core. 30
31
Next image is just moving you easterly again. More of the same. You can see the enhanced 32
sidewalk, you can see the crosswalk. A tee intersection with a lot of vegetation again, shortening 33
the crossing, slowing the car, lots of additional paving on the far side in front of Mollie Stone’s 34
you know again pinching, highlighted cross walks with a lot of vegetation. Next slide then I 35
think will, ok then these are the pieces that the enhanced components that you’ll see in response 36
to the comments that we got from the Council you’re seeing the different pieces that we added 37
between the hybrid and this scheme which Jaime went over. This is the plaza itself. Jamie 38
covered a lot of this, but I think things that are working well here there is a sculpture being 39
commissioned right now to replace what’s out there, the comment was to create a large multiple 40
use space, have the fountain/water element/sculpture be an edge of that at a focal point that’s 41
highly visible as you look down to the east on Cal Ave it becomes the eye stop. You see the 42
holiday tree. We preserved the existing pastiche and actually added another line to sort of give a 43
better edge and it got a landscaped green and tree edge around the entire plaza so that it 44
contained so kids don’t get out on the street but keeping the visibility forced we’ve got shared 45
shade structures, we’ve got game activities, we have a bike lane that takes you out so that as you 46
8
come through the tunnel and you can come out and not have to cut through so there’s a reduction 1
in conflict between bike and pedestrian and we’ve got a very large pedestrian passive zone with 2
seat walls and benches and we have additional bike racks and other elements that, that keep bike 3
use here and we’ve done a, we’ve got a green screen/edge here k-rail to block views of the train 4
so that when you’re in the plaza you basically get a green edge. 5
6
I think the next images are really just kinda gonna give you a bit of the character. We did a 7
visual preference survey with the community and zoned in on elements they thought were more 8
appropriate for that particular piece of the community and this gives you a sense of those. This 9
is, by interactive we mean that the sculptural fountain water element you can sit on it, you can 10
touch it, you can move in and around it, we think it’s still gonna be pretty bulletproof 11
maintenance wise. And these are some of the further images that will be on the Ave. itself. 12
Places to sit, tree rack, tree grates, tree guards, so that it’s usable. You can walk across them try 13
to create a visual continuity that, that works, especially off of El Camino. The seat walls and 14
raised elements which create a separation between the pedestrian zones and the car movement 15
would be something like this with pots, the benches, and try to build on the newspaper racks and 16
of course a lot of bike storage and plenty of colorful and large shade tree plantings when 17
possible. 18
19
Mr. Rodriguez: Thank you David. So where are we now as far as next steps? Again we do want 20
to solicit your input tonight on kind of that alignment of the street the locations of those 21
widening opportunities, make sure we’re kinda heading in the way you believe might be the 22
right, the right direction for this particular project. we do plan on going to the City Council at 23
the end of the month so there are specific design enhancements that you feel would be 24
appropriate there is still time for us to kind of add those types of elements in so we’d encourage 25
you to have a discussion on that and really, we need to actually kind of get our City Council’s 26
consensus on the preferred alignments so we can actually complete the design. Kandee who’s 27
here from RBF, her piece starts when we know what the street alignments gonna be. She can 28
actually finish those design elements so that work hasn’t started. And it is, the simple part of the 29
project I actually look at it the civil side, you know the hard part is kind of getting us to the 30
vision and it has been a long journey to this date. 31
32
Funding wise it is very worth having a quick discussion where we are. We did do grant funding 33
that we received in 2010 from the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) 34
Community Design Transportation Program. We are scheduled to receive that money back this 35
fall. That should occur sometime before September, the September/October time frame, and we 36
have identified a fund source to cover the additional cost that these street alignment 37
improvements for the widening and additional green space will cost. Again that’s about 38
$700,000. That by chance just happens to be the equivalent of our two years’ worth of financing 39
that we’re receiving through a brand new vehicle registration fee program that was approved by 40
voters in Santa Clara County in 2010. And the 2011 disbursement came to us this year, we 41
banked that fund, we’re banking our 2012 disbursement and are recommending to take that full 42
$700,000 to apply it to cover the overall cost of the project. 43
44
Once we begin the final design process there’s still a lot of work to be done with community 45
input. We need to make sure that we can continue those discussions with the merchants, 46
9
merchants along the area, with residents along California Avenue or near California Avenue. 1
Talk about construction staging; try to get a sense of how fast the community wants us to build 2
this project or to minimize impacts. Talk about ways to minimize staging though say the use of a 3
shuttle kind of during peak hours of the day such as the lunch period. Talk a little bit about 4
getting the placement of some of those features David highlighted, opportunities possible but 5
that’s not set in stone. We want to hear from the community where they think those elements 6
might need to be. And then talk a little bit about an implementation schedule which earlier on 7
we were showing a potentially start an advertising of construction and over the summer for 8
construction to start first thing next year in the fall. So basically one year from now. And with 9
that we’d be happy to answer any specific questions you might have and thank you for listening. 10
11
Acting Chair Fineberg: Thank you. Also the City Attorney representative Melissa Tronquet, I 12
believe you were going to be giving us a brief on issues that relate to this project? 13
14
Melissa Tronquet, Sr. Deputy City Attorney: Yes, I did just want to update the Commission, you 15
may be aware that there was some litigation on this project. The City prepared a negative 16
declaration, a mitigated negative declaration for this project. Two lawsuits were filed; the 17
second has been dismissed in its entirety. For the first the Superior Court found that the City is 18
in compliance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). That case is currently on 19
appeal; however there is nothing that currently prohibits the City from moving forward with this 20
project while that case is on appeal. So. 21
22
Acting Chair Fineberg: Thank you. Commissioners are there any questions? We can start on my 23
left and head to the right. Commissioner Tanaka. 24
25
Commissioner Tanaka: just a quick question. It sounds like a lot of work went into this so thank 26
you to Staff and thank you to the community for all the input. Can you talk about all the 27
different community outreach meetings that you guys have had and maybe the number and 28
quantity and breath of them? 29
30
Mr. Rodriguez: Yes, thank you. We have had several meetings we had just since the time that 31
we, actually I’ll show you that slide really quick if I can, since the, I always give you too much 32
animation in a presentation by the way. There we go. So just, just since the initial request by the 33
City Council to try and add in that extra sidewalk widening space we’ve had four specific 34
meetings focused around sidewalk widening options, again plaza design. We have outreached 35
separately twice to merchants and had kind of different focus meetings with them as well. Prior 36
to this during the initial development of the project we had probably another four to five 37
additional meetings and again, by no means is that community outreach process complete. We 38
have a lot more work to do finalizing the plan just make sure that we have an alignment 39
containing treatments that really matter a lot that we want to hear from the community on. 40
41
Commissioner Tanaka: Thank you. 42
43
Commissioner Michael: So, prior to being on the Planning Commission I served on the 44
Infrastructure Commission along with Commissioner Tanaka and new Commissioner Panelli, 45
and this appears to be a significant improvement to our surface infrastructure so that is very 46
10
promising. I also see we have a very large number of speaker cards from the people in 1
attendance and I’m looking forward to hearing the comments and concerns of everybody who is 2
here tonight. And without stealing anybody’s thunder, we’re anticipating what you might be 3
commenting. I note that we’ve had a lot of comments have been submitted in writing of people 4
who are quite favorable on the project but some who are not and at the same time the Council 5
Direction appears to be not if this project would happen, but simply comment on the specifics of 6
the details. 7
8
So, one question I had was to the extent that they proposed improvements contemplate lane 9
reduction and part of the opposition to the project is a concern that the lane reduction would be 10
adverse to the interests of the, the merchants and the safety of the cyclists and whatnot. Could 11
you comment on the traffic flow, are we still gonna have stop signs where you move to more 12
sophisticated control of traffic flow with stop lights and timing of the movement of cars and 13
whatnot. Could you help me understand that? 14
15
Mr. Rodriguez: Sure, no problem. The proposed street alignment which I am slowly trying to 16
get to here, does preserve all of the existing all way stops that exist on the corridor, specifically 17
on California and Ash, California and Birch, as well as California and Park. So none of those 18
existing controls are proposed to be removed. When we were developing the traffic study for the 19
project which was part of the negative declaration that was approved by Council, we did look at 20
you know as many opportunities as we could to figure out would there be any impact with the 21
specific project. And we looked at both an intersection level of service to figure out at an 22
intersection with an all way stop if we took away a lane, what does that do to the capacity and we 23
measured capacity based off a measurement that’s called level of service where we assign a letter 24
grade between A, B, C, D, E, and F. A being extremely favorable, F being representing 25
congestion. And we never had any, any type of anticipated level of service impact at all along 26
the corridor. But intersection level of service was just one issue. 27
28
One of the major concerns we heard from the community was, you know, if you take a lane away 29
and people use that one lane to kinda to double park, if they’re doing something within a 30
business and dropping people off allowing to drive around them. And so we also looked at the 31
option of studying the corridor mid-block and look at level of service for street operation 32
ignoring the controls and found that there was no significant impact on level of service from that 33
standpoint either. The traffic study though did have some recommended mitigations as Melissa 34
mentioned, specifically at the intersection of El Camino Real because we go from two lanes to 35
one lane as you approach the intersection that we needed to extend the stacking capacity for the 36
right turn to get onto northbound El Camino as well as make sure we don’t block the access to 37
the left turn lane so you can get on to southbound El Camino. And that was one of the 38
recommended mitigations for the project that we preserve kind of access to those three lanes that 39
are maintained at El Camino Real and the project does that as well. 40
41
Commissioner Michael: So the analysis seems to be very complete and indeed maybe 42
impressive. The just the experience that I’ve had as a local resident and in other sort of 43
neighboring communities there are a number of other towns nearby who have a, sort of a single 44
lane, or a two lane district similar to California Avenue, you have Castro Street in Mountain 45
View, University Avenue even, maybe Laurel in San Carlos. And have you any comment of 46
11
what you’ve learned in terms of the study of those other neighborhoods and what work you did 1
in terms of best practices and how we’re adopting those? 2
3
Mr. Rodriguez: Yes, thank you and I’ll try and answer and maybe let Curtis chime in. we did 4
conduct an economic development kind of analysis of communities that had kind of gone 5
through similar kind of processes where they’ve done projects like this where they did a 6
reduction to provide a two lane corridor for business district and what we found through those 7
experiences were that those communities responded back saying that you know, their, that 8
conversion of the street use and design long term has actually been an overall benefit for those 9
communities because of the amount of pedestrian activity that it has created for the types of use 10
for bicycle access and overall people have seen an increase in their economic development as a 11
result. Curtis got any other thoughts on that? 12
13
Mr. Williams: Oh, I would just indicate that this we have not had a like an economist come in 14
and analyze that but we certainly you can that there have been a couple articles that we 15
forwarded from, one from the Valencia Street where they did narrow four lanes to two lanes San 16
Francisco and seeming success at that project and you know, you do look at most downtown 17
vibrant city streets and they tend to be the two lane with wider sidewalks and more amenities and 18
many cities have done those over the last twenty years or so and you know, been very, they seem 19
to be very successful so I think we’re comfortable. We listed some of those in previous reports. 20
21
Also from a traffic standpoint, in the traffic analysis when we presented it to the Commission 22
and then to the Council, we did indicate the traffic volumes on those streets and they are 23
generally three to four times the traffic volume that’s on California Avenue as well and 24
California Avenue clearly is a dead end street at the train station, so it was originally built as a 25
through street for many years and then with the changes to the Oregon Expressway and such it 26
closed off there at the tracks and so it doesn’t serve that through purpose anymore. But we do 27
think it’s, you know, it has well more than enough capacity to handle at two lanes handles the 28
level of traffic that it currently handles and more at four lanes. 29
30
Commissioner Michael: Ok. So just two more questions. One is I was really struck by the fact 31
that you, you kept some of the angled parking and added some parallel parking but you increased 32
the parking on the street and could you explain to me how the geometry works on that that you 33
achieved that that benefit? 34
35
Mr. Rodriguez: Sure the, the majority of the way which we gained space with this particular 36
project was really by actually adding parking in locations where it actually currently didn’t exist 37
in combination with at locations where we had more acute angled parking, something say below 38
60 degrees, again there were some locations that have 35 or 45 degree angled parking. You 39
know by making that a little bit more obtuse you actually increase the number of spaces you 40
could fit into an aisle but in locations where there is not parking today we’re actually, we are 41
introducing it is specifically over here in front of Palo Alto Central. There actually is no parking 42
currently provided for those residences that a little bit to the east of Park. We’re actually adding 43
spaces there. 44
45
12
We also convert parking that is currently parallel to angled in that same area near the park 1
because we do recommend as part of this particular project for the plaza improvement to remove 2
the angled parking that’s in the plaza and kind of shift that to the north side of the street for the 3
apartment complex on the other side and we still have an opportunity to gain even more space if 4
we can build a partnership opportunity with Caltrain to provide parking at this kind of dead end 5
area of the corridor. So again we’ve picked up a lot of parking, kind of toward that east end, 6
we’ve kind of changed the use from parking to get a more pedestrian space and outdoor seating 7
and dining areas for the locations on the west end on the south side, which was the heavy kind of 8
restaurant use area. 9
10
Commissioner Michael: Now I’m presuming for the cyclists safety issue you’re not gonna do 11
bike lanes. You’re gonna have the rumble strip and that will be the ideal solution. The other, 12
other issue that from a cyclist’s perspective I’ve recently, so we’ve had the, the topic of the 13
Pedestrian Bicycle Plan in the last couple of months. And presuming your consistent with, with 14
the recommendations there, any thought to tunnel improvements much like you did with the 15
Homer Tunnel and this tunnel under California is pretty narrow and dark and dingy and sort of 16
dangerous. Would that be breaking the budget to improve the tunnel? 17
18
Mr. Rodriguez: Well I guess this project is consistent with the recommendations for the type of 19
activity that was proposed on California Avenue itself, especially with it being kind of an 20
enhanced bike way with kind of wider streets, and get a sharrow markings for use. There is not a 21
rumble strip on the corridor. I just want to make sure that we’re clear there, that that band serves 22
two functions. The bank itself is an extension of the parking aisle, or the debt of a parking space. 23
It really provides a visual aesthetic breakup of the roadway to designate kind of the vehicle and 24
bicycle element area from the parking area itself. 25
26
We don’t have any immediate near term fund source to look at a improvements to the tunnel 27
itself underneath California Avenue kind of extending across Alma, but that is a recommendation 28
in the plan and this particular project though does not account for improvements underneath 29
there. There are though lighting improvements that are being planned now to add more LED 30
lighting through the corridor to have it be a little more comfortable for people that are traveling 31
through there and so we are doing other projects at this time. 32
33
Commissioner Michael: Ok, thank you. 34
35
Acting Chair Fineberg: Thank you for your questions Commissioner Michael, and Commissioner 36
Keller. 37
38
Acting Vice Chair Keller: Thank you so I just wanted to be clear, painfully clear that, that the 39
decision by the Council to reduce the number of lanes in each direction from two to one, total of 40
four lanes to two lanes, is not in scope for the Commission. That the decision has already being 41
made and that we should make our deliberations on the design assuming that decision. 42
43
Mr. Williams: That’s correct. 44
45
13
Acting Vice Chair Keller: And other street beautifications that might not involve reductions of 1
the lanes is also not in scope for us. What we’re doing in scope for us is, is the decisions, is the 2
beautifications that can come along with the reduction of lanes. 3
4
Mr. Williams: That’s right. The Council has directed that based on the options that Jaime 5
showed you that were presented to them for us to come back with a some kind of hybrid of the 6
concepts they liked from that in this design. That’s what’s before you. 7
8
Acting Vice Chair Keller: Thank you. And in response to Commissioner Michael’s questions 9
you have talked about the number of vehicles on Cal Ave. being considerably less average daily 10
traffic on it being considerably less than University Ave. which is a through street and Castro, for 11
example is a through street, but Cal Ave. is a, is a street that terminates at the Caltrain. To what 12
extent does the fact that some people have pointed out that traffic goes to, may go and come 13
around and, you know, traverse the street in both directions as opposed to going in one direction. 14
Does that affect the equation at all? Or is that already incorporated into your figures? 15
16
Mr. Rodriguez: That’s already incorporated into our figures. 17
18
Acting Chair Keller: Thank you. And one last question that I’ll have is, is the distribution of 19
parking roughly along Cal Ave. roughly the same as the distribution of parking now, or has it 20
been shifted from block to block and I notice of that, that there’s a change of four additional 21
parking spaces, but is that distribution, are the stores that have street parking near them, are they 22
have a similar amount of street parking or has it been shifted? 23
24
Mr. Rodriguez: It varies block to block Commissioner. So again, just looking at the first block 25
between El Camino and Ash, you know there is actually an increase in parking spaces along the 26
north side of the street, but there is a proposed shift of parking supply along the south side from 27
in front of the restaurant uses to provide that widened sidewalk use and kind of outdoor seating 28
opportunity and that gets shifted a little bit more to other areas of the plaza specifically toward 29
the east end. The center blocks really actually preserve their parking I would say for the most 30
part between Ash kinda and Birch and Park. But we’re shifting the parking kinda from that other 31
opportunity towards the from west to the east one of the good points that David did mention is 32
that one of the nice things about the California Avenue business district it’s really well supported 33
by parking. Today kinda behind Cambridge and down on Sherman there’s a really nice 34
walkways that are kind of help connect that parking supply to the area. We do know that there 35
are though, it’s worth noting there are concerns from merchants and other people in the area that 36
that parking spot is not enough during that peak period of the day which is really the lunchtime 37
crowd and that’s something that we’re committed to working with the businesses on as well. 38
39
Acting Vice Chair Keller: So you mentioned that the lunchtime, the peak parking demand is 40
during the lunch I guess from 12 to 2? 41
42
Mr. Rodriguez: That’s correct, about 11:30 to about 2:00. 43
44
Acting Vice Chair Keller: Ok. So that’s the peak time and that’s when parking is at a premium 45
and, but this doesn’t affect that because the number of parking spaces are roughly the same? 46
14
1
Mr. Rodriguez: At the end of the day we do add an additional four spaces that, and potentially up 2
to eight depending on if we can make the partnership work with the Caltrain. But we also 3
provide elements that don’t exist today. We do provide on street loading zones on California 4
Avenue. This plan actually highlighted a total of three areas that we kind of glossed over in the 5
presentation because we want to have more discussion with the business association that those 6
are located in the right location. So again, there is again a parking distribution there’s also kind 7
of access benefits that are being proposed with this project, the loading zone introductions. 8
9
Acting Vice Chair Keller: So the loading zones I take it will allow for trucks to park along the 10
curb and cars to go around them and not block the flow of traffic. 11
12
Mr. Rodriguez: That’s correct. 13
14
Acting Vice Chair Keller: Thank you. And just one last thing and that is I understand from, from 15
Curtis, you’d mentioned that you’re going to be working with the merchants, will you, Tommy 16
as well, Tommy Fehrenbach, in terms of, of a transition plan to try and minimize impacts on the 17
merchants. Is that the idea? 18
19
Mr. Williams: Yes, that is the idea we attempted to have some of that discussion and clearly it’s 20
too early in the process to do that right now, but that is definitely a commitment that we’ve 21
made. 22
23
Acting Vice Chair Keller: Thank you. 24
25
Acting Chair Fineberg: Thank you Commissioners. We will now have public comment. 26
Members of the public will have three minutes each to speak. If you would like to speak, please 27
complete a speaker’s card and turn it into Staff. We have about 15 speakers and we will start 28
with Shannon McEntee and then follow with Gil McMillon. And if the second speaker could 29
come to the front area so that we minimize the time between speakers that would be helpful. 30
Shannon McEntee please. 31
32
Shannon McEntee: Thank you I’m a resident of Evergreen Park so I’m just three blocks from the 33
area we’re describing and I bicycle through there all the time. I bicycled through there on my 34
way over here tonight. I just want to share that I attended most of the early and ongoing 35
discussions regarding this project and residents and business owners were consistently against 36
reducing the lanes and thank you for pointing out that that’s supposedly a done deal, but I still 37
want to register my displeasure with that. The, I feel like we’ve all been ignored this last almost 38
two years. The two lanes on University and on Castro Street are congested, they’re dangerous, I 39
would never ride my bike on those streets. 40
41
California Avenue is really a crossroads, both north/south and east and west for pedestrians and 42
bicycles in particular. And certainly we have lots of traffic in every direction from neighbors 43
and from workers on their way to the industrial park or to Stanford and so on. I know you’re all 44
familiar with that. It has a really healthy variety of businesses and I feel like these business 45
owners have been ignored in this process. They’ve consistently been against it and now you 46
15
have something new from them where they’ve all signed on to saying, “We don’t want two 1
lanes.” 2
3
So, I just want to end by saying, you know, I’ve lived here for 40 years and I’ve never felt so 4
alienated from our government here in Palo Alto. I think at best residents and business owners 5
have been ignored, and worst I think we’ve really been betrayed in this process. We haven’t 6
wanted these changes; you know why don’t we just improve that tunnel? Why don’t we plant 7
more trees and flowers? Fix it up. Sure. But this major change everyone, almost everyone has 8
been against from the very beginning. So I just feel really disturbed about it and I wanted to 9
have that be part of the public record. Thank you. 10
11
Acting Chair Fineberg: Thank you. Gil McMillon to be followed by Michael Ekwall, Ekwall. 12
13
Gil McMillon: I’ve heard the original plan with its various variations and I’m still left with some 14
questions. Why is this project necessary? Must all streets and designs conform to the gated 15
(interrupted) 16
17
Acting Chair Fineberg: Excuse me, could you speak into the mike please? 18
19
Mr. McMillon: Ok. I’ve heard the original plan along with its various variations and I’m still left 20
with questions. Why is this project necessary? Must all streets conform to the gated community 21
aesthetic, or that of megamalls? Would the Council fund this project if all the money had to 22
come from Palo Alto’s pockets? Where is the hub in the hub transit? Where is the transportation 23
in the transit grant? It seems to me that applying for that grant and applying it to this process is 24
near fraud. I’m from Jersey and if I were still in Jersey I’d be wondering whose getting paid. 25
Because this project just has no raison d'etre. There are vacancies on University Avenue. There 26
are vacancies on Castro Street in Mountain View. There are vacancies on Santa Cruz in Menlo 27
Park, but there are none on California Avenue and the parking lots on Cal are always full, not 28
just at lunch time. Try to park at dinner time, it ain’t fun then either. 29
30
What does the plan have to revitalize as someone was quoted in the paper. It’s a vibrant, 31
functioning economic place. As currently written the plan does not deal with how it will 32
increase economic activity on the Avenue or address the primary limit to growth there, which is 33
inadequate parking. There’s no plan to convert Cambridge and Sheridan to one way and have 34
angled parking to almost double the capacity of parking for almost no money. I’m not sure when 35
or why the planning community decided the automobile was their sworn enemy and I ask what is 36
wrong with more cars? Bicycles are great but the population is aging, and as the younger folk 37
create new families they will need personal forms of mini mass transit i.e. SUV’s and vans. 38
What is it that the planners have against cars? They pollute a lot less than they did and will 39
produce even less pollution in the future. Why not find some tech angels and sponsor 40
development of non-polluting, a non-polluting urban vehicle that might fold up when not in use. 41
These vehicles would clean the air, quiet the city and increase access to centers of activity for all. 42
43
If safety is the issue the most direct route to calm traffic on Cal Avenue is a pattern of 44
strategically placed speed bumps. A bike lane would help both those types of wheeled vehicles 45
as well as the pedestrians who are currently as much at risk from sidewalk cyclists as they are 46
16
from automobiles on the road. Moving the second lane will help neither, but when all is said and 1
done, we’re all just guessing. The prior traffic surveys did not include the newly occupied AOL 2
building, the existing law offices on the corner, the recently approved development on Park 3
Boulevard or Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG)’s plan to increase housing in the 4
City by 30%. To really know how this project will change the Avenue we need a live test of the 5
plan. It would take a month or so to plan and install and cost little to do. Other less expensive 6
and complicated projects have been tested. Why not this one? 7
8
Acting Chair Fineberg: Thank you. Excuse me. Michael Ekwall to be followed by Jessica Roth. 9
Thank you. 10
11
Michael Ekwall: Thank you, so I’m Michael Ekwall from La Bodeguita, we’re at 463, I’m not 12
sure if it’s South or California Avenue, but we’ve been located there for 15 years and I think the 13
difficulty we have with this project is that we support so much of it, but obviously we are 14
opposed and concerned with the lane reduction. It seems as though from our perspective that the 15
Planning and Transportation Department has never correctly or accurately conveyed the concern 16
of the merchants. So about four or five months ago we had 55 merchants sign on to opposition 17
for the lane change. So I don’t think that 55 out of probably whoever knows how many 18
merchants are there is a few merchants. That’s the majority I would say of people on the street. 19
20
I’ll only speak on behalf of myself and not speak for anyone else, but that’s our major concern. 21
We support a lot of the safety issues, the beautification issues with this project. We appreciate 22
the fact that the City has gone to the effort of finally doing something on California Avenue. We 23
think they’re going a little too far with the lane reduction, but I feel as though our voice hasn’t 24
been heard. I think Ms. McEntee was saying earlier is that it’s been glossed over and I just 25
would really like to focus on the point that in March there was a meeting with the merchants and 26
the Planning Department which they canceled because there was so much opposition. And again 27
it wasn’t a few people, it was 40 or 50 or 60 people there, everyone to a person against this 28
project, or at least against the lane reduction portion of it. 29
30
And following up with what Gil was saying, some of our concerns are the fact that you’re 31
actually trying to intensify use of that area while reducing access. That doesn’t seem to make a 32
lot of sense to us because realistically people that move into the area are going to have cars in 33
one form or another. So, we are asking for dialogue with the City. We’ve constantly asked that. 34
We’ve constantly asked for it with the Planning and Transportation Committee. I think that the 35
information that you’re receiving from them is not accurate in terms of the real opposition to the 36
lane reduction. 37
38
Quickly, dealing with parking and deliveries on this current plan, we don’t even see the areas for 39
delivery vehicles being acknowledged here and those will actually take up parking spaces that 40
this plan is supposed to be adding. Again, I would like to issue that in the back of our building at 41
least, between Sherman and California the parking spaces aren’t even to a legitimate parking 42
stall size. I think they’re six and a half or seven feet, so when people come and park there they 43
usually take up one and a half or two spaces, you know, probably reducing the capacity of that 44
lot by you know, 20 or 30%. 45
46
17
So, just in summary I would say that we really like to be collaborative and work with this City 1
but we feel as though no one is really listening to our side of the plea, and that we would like to 2
revisit the lane reduction. Thank you for your time. 3
4
Acting Chair Fineberg: Thank you. Jessica Roth to be followed by Jack Morton. 5
6
Jessica Roth: Hi there, I’m Jessica Roth. I am fourth generation business owner on California 7
Avenue. I also live in College Terrace. I spend 95% of my time in a one mile radius. I have 8
been to over 13 meetings over the last three years. I’ve tried to go to every single one of them 9
and I want to tell you how hard it is on this side to just be ignored and to kind of feel deceived. 10
There’s certain things that just, I had something prepared to, to say tonight but I just scrapped it 11
because I wanted to just reiterate two things. 12
13
Mr. Tanaka asked about how those meetings went. A direct question earlier and I don’t think he 14
got a very accurate answer to that. Those meetings there was a very large opposition at almost 15
all of them starting at the very first meeting in the Palo Alto Weekly offices almost three years 16
ago now. Then Mr. Michael asked about the City Council their decision on making it the two to 17
four lanes. Well, the City Council was never given a four lane option. They have always 18
consistently been given the two lane option. So that’s a little just, you know, we’re coming from 19
here and we appreciate your time and I know that this is pretty much a done deal. 20
21
Two more things I’m really concerned about, parallel parking coming directly off of El Camino 22
on California Avenue. Bad idea. People lunchtime hour, mom coming with groceries from 23
Country Sun, a baby and a two year old, someone’s gonna sit there and wait for her parking spot 24
for, you know, how long? And how long does it take to get in and out of parallel parking? A lot 25
longer than diagonal parking. Thank you. 26
27
Acting Chair Fineberg: Thank you. Jack Morton to be followed by William Ross. 28
29
Jack Morton: Chair Fineberg, before you start my time could I ask that Jaime put up the first 30
slide, first of the PowerPoint slides, the what do you call it, the project/site slide? Thank you. 31
So if you want… 32
33
Good evening, Chair Fineberg and Commissioners. I need to disclose to you that I’ve been on 34
the other side as a former Vice Mayor and an eight year Council Member. I also need to disclose 35
that I’m a member of Business Association of California Avenue (BACA), but I’m here to speak 36
as a member of the business community. 37
38
It’s hard to oppose something where the language seems so positive, so I want to give you a 39
dictionary of terms because in some ways there, there’s a kind of double speak that goes on here. 40
Staff uses “green” and talks about “green.” There’s nothing green about more cement and for us 41
the color should have been red because we think the risk is reduced sales tax. That’s the primary 42
source of revenue of what makes California work, certainly Palo Alto work. 43
44
Staff talks about traffic calming. In our view, what we think is potential is congestion producing. 45
Staff uses terms like there’s been “some opposition,” and “some concern” about language 46
18
reduction. I don’t have to tell you that 55 and more merchants published their point of view 1
because we just do not get through to Staff. Staff will say they met with us and it’s as if we 2
never, nobody talked when everybody opposed that. Staff talks about higher residential density 3
being, you know, this area and that strip of land up there that’s called Cal Avenue is now the 4
potentially the access for what will be the most dense part of Palo Alto if plans for Fry’s 5
development go through. 6
7
Even though Staff has not allowed, or Staff expressed that the Council has not given you the 8
option of talking about a four lane reduction, your responsibility is to think about this project 9
within the larger development and to express your concerns. While you may not be able to say 10
that you think that another version is better as Planning Commission advisers to the City Council 11
and were I still on the City Council I would want to hear about your concerns. And I would want 12
you to express the fact that we don’t want PR from this City during a construction period. What 13
we want clearly and we’ve asked for from the beginning is a trial of the lane reduction. Because 14
for us the, what they call Complete Streets, and they say efficiency for all modes of 15
transportation, we have delivery vehicles going down there, we have multiple shuttles, shuttles to 16
Stanford, shuttles to the, to the business park, and we have school kids going to school in the 17
morning through that area. Narrowing those streets will produce increased hazards for 18
everybody that uses that area. So let me, let me express my final concern that you express any 19
concern that you have about the limitation and about how this fits in with the overall planning of 20
that area because you may be the decision that the Council relies on and you will effect a 21
significant amount of future residents in our community. Thank you. 22
23
Acting Chair Fineberg: Thank you. And I’d like to ask future speakers when the bell indicates 24
your time is up to please wrap up your sentence quickly so that I don’t have to ask you to stop. 25
Next speaker will be William Ross to be followed by Will Robinson. 26
27
William Ross: Good afternoon, good evening. My name’s William Ross, I’m a resident of 28
College Terrace. I utilize some of the businesses on California Avenue. I’m also an attorney; I 29
represent owners, businesses, and taxpayers on the project area. It’s almost two years since the 30
Transportation Officer indicated that when questioned about where the loading zones would be 31
that they delineated. I take issue with the statement tonight. Look at everything that’s before 32
you. Text and diagrams, there still isn’t any loading zone designation. The practicality of that is 33
emphasized in two ways. Suppose that a CF-40 or a CF-60 truck, which are the kind of trucks 34
that deliver to the businesses on California Avenue occupies one of the lanes that results from the 35
sidewalk widening and it happens all times a day, something else not brought to your attention 36
by Staff. Where do the emergency vehicles go? 37
38
Sometimes alleyways are referenced where deliveries would take place. You have an action 39
item before the ARB of not even a month ago where this came up. A very prominent and 40
respected developer came forward with a project at 260 South California for 27,000 square feet 41
of office. Now I don’t know what Staff told him, but he can’t take access from the front. Instead 42
he would take it from something called New Mayfield Alley, a one way, 22 foot, public way that 43
dead ends. It doesn’t go through the post office, that’s not a public right away. How do you get 44
access to this increased density that you’re authorizing? There’s a very pragmatic example of 45
where that’s not dealt with in the Staff Report, it’s certainly not in the negative declaration. 46
19
1
Additionally, the notice issue continues to be a problem. Neither of the, neither of the owners 2
were notified for that project. I take issue with what was represented by the City Attorney. You 3
are technically at risk if you proceed. The negative declaration does not mention priority 4
development area, neither does the Staff. The primary issue I’d say is where is the analysis here? 5
For the increased density that’s gonna be authorized here for access if it’s not gonna come off 6
California? 7
8
Finally your Assistant City Manager almost two and a half years ago said any configuration that 9
widens the sidewalk has to deal with a severe grade issue with respect to drainage. That’s not 10
dealt with anywhere. I think you should have a more thorough analysis. It appears from the 11
Staff Reports you have prejudged the project. 12
13
Acting Chair Fineberg: Thank you. Will Robinson to be followed by Robert Moss. 14
15
Will Robinson: Hi. Tough crowd tonight. I’m a bicyclist. I know many of you merchants, I buy 16
stuff from you. I miss the yogurt shop. I wish there was a hardware store; I’d be down there 17
more often. But I serve on the PABAC and I’ve spent five wonderful four hour periods counting 18
bicycles down at the Mollie Stone corner where in the morning I see 600 students coming and 19
going through the tunnel and businesspeople going north and south. So it’s a pleasure to use 20
California Avenue with a car or a bicycle. 21
22
I do want to clarify one question that was addressed to me from a neighbor in the audience here. 23
Anything that interferes with the tire of a bicycle is dangerous, so the rumble strips is the wrong 24
word I believe for those D marking things, assuming the design goes from four lanes to two lanes 25
that one remaining lane will be 40% wider than the 11 foot lanes that now exist so there’d be a 26
lot more room, a lot more safety for dodging a cyclist or minding somebody backing out. But 27
the surface of the colored pavement that you saw on the plan should not be interfering with 28
safety. Curbs and stones and bike lanes that confine something are inherently dangerous, so. 29
30
I want to point out that the Bicycle Plan was passed unanimously on Monday night. On Page 31
411, it’s available, downloadable, .pdf. You look at the traffic map, it’s gonna stay the same the 32
numbers will just get bigger so more bicycles will be needed. And if you look at Page 3.3, to 33
me, if you want to get a quick idea, visualize where the growth is gonna be, it’s certainly gonna 34
be left of the train tracks in the area. And California Avenue is right in the heart of it, so let’s 35
make it real and good. It’s a good place so really just want to make it better. 36
37
Acting Chair Fineberg: Thank you. Robert Moss to be followed by, I’m sorry, hard to read the 38
name. Brad Ehikian, Ehikian? My apologies. 39
40
Robert Moss: Thank you. As you may have noticed there’s a fundamental disagreement 41
between the Staff and the City Council’s vote and almost all the merchants on California 42
Avenue. And the best way to determine who’s right about the negative impacts of narrowing the 43
street would be to have a trial. Now, Staff keeps saying, “We can’t do that!” Bull. We did it on 44
Charleston, we're doing it on Arastradero, and let me remind you that those trials uncovered 45
serious defects which had to be fixed. So there is no physical reason why you can’t do a trial on 46
20
California Avenue. And let me point out California Avenue is not like University, it’s not like 1
Castro. We know it dead ends, but also there are no stoplights on California and there are mid-2
block crosswalks. The other streets don’t have it. So it’s not the same system. 3
4
Now, one of the things that hasn’t been mentioned is when the Housing Element, I’ve been very 5
much involved with over the last year and a half, two years, was adopted this week, it named 6
California Avenue as the City’s only preferred development area, which means according to 7
ABAG the number of housing units is going to more than double over 800 housing units added. 8
The number of jobs is gonna increase by about two thirds, over 3,000 jobs. And in fact, if you 9
look at the projects which have already been approved, or which are in the pipeline, I think 10
people may not realize it, but almost all the offices and retail from California Avenue toward 11
Mayfield site and even going up California along El Camino, are planned to be demolished and 12
replaced by over 300 homes in the next three or four years. And it’s another 89 homes have been 13
approved two developments south of California Avenue. That’s about half of the 800 that are 14
already, that are assumed to happen. So we are not going to have in three or four years the same 15
kind of traffic, the same kind of intensity of use, and the same kind of needs on California 16
Avenue that we have today. There’s a new office building going in right next to Keeble & 17
Schucket which isn’t even included in all of this. 18
19
So we don’t have the same system, the same environment going forward as we had previously. 20
Therefore it is perfectly reasonable for the Planning Commission to tell the City Council, well 21
wait a minute; we have much more information than you had when you reviewed this. We have 22
more options presented than you had presented. We think, based on our experience and our 23
knowledge, that you should hold off, study it further, and not approve it until after we’ve had a 24
successful test. 25
26
Acting Chair Fineberg: Thank you. Brad Ehikian to be followed by Todd Burke. 27
28
Brad Ehikian: Thank you. Good evening, my name is Brad Ehikian and I’m speaking out on 29
behalf of Premiere Properties. I would just like the Commission to know that we have been 30
properly notified and we have been consulted on numerous occasions. We welcome the project 31
and we think these improvements are going to be a great benefit to the Cal Ave. business district. 32
Premiere Properties, I don’t know if many of you know, have been actively involved with the 33
ownership, management, and development of over 15 properties in the downtown California 34
Avenue area. 35
36
Personally, I like to see investment to our community which can hopefully lead to economic 37
prosperity as we’ve seen in other cities such as San Carlos’ Laurel Street, Mountain View’s 38
Castro Street, San Francisco’s Valencia Street. All these case studies which I might add, most of 39
which, I’d read on, and there’s numerous case studies that are out there, all across the country, 40
only have two lanes. All these case studies have focused on how civic investment into physical 41
streetscape design can revitalize a downtown and dramatically improve the economic vitality of 42
the area. I mean, I really do, I love everyone to invest the time into reviewing those case studies 43
cause it is really important and I just want to thank Jaime Rodriguez and Curtis Williams as well 44
as Staff to working hard on this project to bring forth the positive change to our community. 45
Thank you. 46
21
1
Acting Chair Fineberg: Thank you, Todd Burke to be followed by Lynnie Melena. 2
3
Todd Burke: Thank you, my name’s Todd Burke. I live on California Avenue. I actually 4
overlook the plaza at the end of the street. I’m also the President of the Homeowners 5
Association at Palo Alto Central. I’m actually speaking on behalf of myself and many of my 6
neighbors who are in full support of the project. We’re in support of the streetscape renovation 7
as well as the lane reduction. We’re looking forward to the safety improvements that are gonna 8
come as a result of better pedestrian access in crossing the street, better bicycle access, a number 9
of the people who live in Palo Alto Central, most if not all of them to some extent use the 10
neighborhood by foot or by bike more so than they do by car. In fact most of us don’t even drive 11
down California Avenue and I would question concerns about future development because a lot 12
of people who live in the neighborhood don’t drive down the street. 13
14
I have some notes planned and I wasn’t, you know, like a couple of the other speakers I’m gonna 15
change my direction a little bit but one comment I want to make is I’ve been actively involved in 16
and sought input from the Staffers, Council Members, more Staffers regarding the project. I felt 17
like I’ve had a chance to speak my voice. I’ve been in these meetings with many of the business 18
owners who’ve recently, previously stated opposition to the project. I’ve felt like, and many of 19
my neighbors have felt like we’ve had the opportunity to have constructive input into the project 20
so I would counter that particular point. 21
22
There are a number of other additional points that were mentioned here by folks who are clearly 23
in opposition to the project. I respectfully disagree. I’m a patron of many of their businesses; I 24
often tell my friends that La Bodeguita is the best place to get a mojito in the Bay Area. I happen 25
to love that restaurant. However, I respectfully disagree with their position. I think this project 26
will actually dramatically improve their business, but we’ll ultimately see. 27
28
There’s a suggestion about a trial. I think a trail would probably not be a good idea because it’s 29
pretty obvious the neighborhood needs renovation. The opponents pretty much strictly talk 30
about a lane reduction, but if you’ve been on California Avenue where I happen to live and 31
overlook it needs a dramatic renovation on all aspects. Not just lane reduction but bike racks, 32
crosswalks, various forms of beautification. 33
34
Regarding the traffic it’s really hard for me to follow and understand the opposition to the traffic 35
numbers. I could go out there in the middle of the day and cook a pork chop on a hibachi and 36
probably not get hit by a car. So, I’m having a hard time understanding the opposition to the 37
traffic numbers. Not that I would do that since this is an official meeting. So I encourage you to 38
put into context a lot of the opposition because there’s a fair amount of hyperbole and a little bit 39
of melodrama in some of those statements. I think this is going to be great for all the businesses 40
involved and certainly for the residents and my neighbors, those of us who live on California 41
Avenue. Looking forward to the project and the lane reduction. Thanks. 42
43
Acting Chair Fineberg: Thank you. Lynnie Melena to be followed by Irvin Dawid and if anyone 44
else would like to speak please turn in your cards. 45
46
22
Lynnie Melena: Chairperson Fineberg and Members of the Commission. I’m here tonight to 1
encourage you to move forward with the California Avenue Streetscape Improvement Project 2
including the reduction to two lanes and the various design elements including sidewalk 3
widening. For 16 years I worked on Castro Street with a ground floor window looking out at the 4
Castro/Mercy intersection and observed how successfully that street served its users. The one 5
thing that Castro did not do well is provide for bicyclists and that has been a problem. The 6
proposed California Avenue design will do a much better job of that. 7
8
While working for the City of Mountain View I was a member of the Technical Advisory 9
Committee that advised the VTA on its Community Design and Transportation Manual and Best 10
Practices. This is a program that is the major funding source for this project and it is very 11
exciting to me to see the guidelines in this manual be implemented in such an ideal location in 12
Palo Alto. As a resident of Barron Park I’ve been shopping on California Avenue for 40 years 13
and I’m looking forward to this major facelift. And I just want to correct one statement. Castro 14
Street does have about three mid-block crosswalks. Thank you. 15
16
Acting Chair Fineberg: Thank you. Irvin Dawid to be followed by Terry Shuchat. 17
18
Irvin Dawid: Thank you Vice Chair Fineberg and Planning and Transportation Commissioners. I 19
just want to start by saying I actually biked, I just came from Burlingame and I had to bike down 20
California Drive from Broadway to Burlingame Avenue where I catch the train. That’s a four 21
lane street and it’s, even though they have sharrows on the street it’s not a particularly safe street 22
to bike on. With those two lanes you always end up being, end up biking a little too close to the 23
parked cars on the right. I actually did bike down University to get here and University is a lot 24
safer. It’s congested which is good as a bicyclist; you can take the entire lane. So I just needed 25
to get that out of the way. 26
27
A 15 foot lane, one lane in each direction on Cal Ave. is going to be wonderful for pedestrians, 28
bicyclists, even motorists, believe it or not. Let me start to actually address the issue because I 29
do appreciate Commissioner Keller what you said. I believe the orders are in; the lane 30
reductions are going in. The question then becomes the design issues. And my notes had to deal 31
foremost with parking. 32
33
I did just want to get one note out of the way. San Mateo, downtown San Mateo is about the 34
only downtown I’ve seen this where they had signage in the middle of the block saying against 35
the California Municipal Code to essentially if you’re driving down in one direction that you 36
can’t just cross the yellow line if you see a vacant spot and then park. That’s against the law, it’s 37
signed and I’ve actually seen the San Mateo PD ticket motorists. It’s the only place I’ve seen it. 38
I would urge something like that type of signage to happen because something like that presents 39
a danger that that motorists, to everybody on the street. 40
41
My main issue has to do with diagonal versus parallel parking. And as a previous speaker said, 42
the, the population is aging and I’ve got to tell you that when I see diagonal parking I tend to get 43
worried. There have been so many examples where it’s generally older motorists but sometimes 44
they can be younger, inexperienced motorists. They get in the car and they’re exiting or entering 45
a diagonal parking spot and they get the accelerator and the brake mixed up. I can point to you 46
23
right here Palo Alto Toy Shop, Performance Bike on El Camino in Mountain View, and there 1
was actually one, The Jewelry Store when I first moved to Palo Alto on Cal Ave. Once one of 2
those cars flies in the store can be shut down for a long time so please consider that parking 3
issue. Thank you. 4
5
Acting Chair Fineberg: Thank you. Terry Shuchat to be followed by Gordon Cruikshant. 6
7
Terry Shuchat: Hi there, I’m Terry Shuchat, I’m a property owner and business owner on 8
California Avenue and Jaime and David are probably not gonna believe this but I think this is a 9
great looking plan. I think it’s phenomenal on paper. I don’t think it’s real practical to put into 10
use. There’s been a large contingent of us who have been working with Curtis and encouraging 11
him to have a trial restriping of the street. What we’ve heard is, “Well, it really wouldn’t be 12
practical. It really wouldn’t work.” And our question has always been, “Well if it worked on 13
other streets why would it not work on California Avenue?” 14
15
What we’re being told tonight is that this plan would go into effect fall of 2013. That gives 16
plenty of time to restripe California Avenue. The City of Palo Alto knows how to restripe 17
streets, in fact a few months ago they tried restriping Middlefield by Mitchell Park Library. And 18
due to this big uproar of people within a matter of days it was restriped back to the way it was. 19
That’s a wonderful example of how striping can be change very rapidly. California Avenue the 20
lanes on California Avenue right now are very hard to see at times because the street is definitely 21
in dire need of redoing so we would just really like to say have the city prove to us, I would love 22
to see what they want work, but as a merchant and property owner I have a lot of doubt knowing 23
the number of delivery trucks. I agree, I don’t know where these loading zones are that are 24
supposed to be shown on this map. They may be there and if they’re not there now that’s gonna 25
result in reduced parking spaces. So what a bunch of us have been saying is Curtis please give 26
us a trial period. Let us, let us see it. Prove to us that this will work. 27
28
Acting Chair Fineberg: Thank you. Gordon Cruikshant to be followed by Ronna DeVincenzi. 29
30
Gordon Cruikshant: Good evening, Hans Gordon Cruikshant, my wife and I have been in, have 31
Leaf & Petal on California Avenue for more than 30 years. There seems to be, one thing is 32
regardless of the number of stripings, let’s get the speed of the automobiles down, make it a 33
speed limit of 15 miles an hour. That balances out with a bicycle. I lazy cyclist can do 12, so 34
it’s very close to that same speed. 35
36
Secondly, when this thing gets built, if it gets built, we’re very concerned about the impact it’s 37
going to have on our business. We have vendors, we have staff, we have ourselves, we have 38
landlords. I don’t think any of those people are going to give us discounts because of the effect 39
that this construction may have on our business. I suggest and really push for this that all the 40
work be done at night and let, let, let the people be during the day. We’re not open at night but 41
we’re open during the day and we’d really love to have that. 42
43
A couple other observations I mean the trial striping sounds like a great idea. The second or 44
third, I mean I don’t know about all this development and all these other housing things but 45
there’s such a, parking is such a mess a lunchtime. If you guys are in the planning business you 46
24
should be building four and five level parking structures. University Avenue has a couple of 1
them, I don’t know why California Avenue can’t have them. Thank you. 2
3
Acting Chair Fineberg: Thank you. Ronna DeVincenzi to be followed by Michael Eager. 4
5
Ronna DeVincenzi: Thank you. I have a disclosure too. I volunteered for California Avenue 6
Area Development Association (CAADA) as President and went to every single meeting for the 7
last 20 years up until January 2010. And the point was made that the City Council was not given 8
a four lane option and only a two lane option and I’ll tell you why. That was because it was in 9
the CAADA concept plan that the Streetscape Committee had worked on with Public Works in 10
collaboration brought it to CAADA and it was a unanimous decision by the CAADA board to go 11
to two lanes. And so that was the reason that four lanes was never an option. The reason for that 12
is it meets the goals which I’m looking at here where you have the vision for the street. Promote 13
pedestrian and bicycle safety. That was key. So it’s kind of like we’re talking about way back in 14
2005 and all of the meetings for CAADA were open and I actually even groveled to get people to 15
come but there was just no interest then. It’s unfortunate that now in 2012 there is and as of 16
2009 there has been, but that’s the reason for the two lane option. And the point is it met the 17
goals of the Streetscape Committee and we were an elected body that met for 20 years. 18
19
Everything that I’ve seen is excellent. It was done in collaboration with the City and since 2009 20
everybody has been made aware. I’ve talked to people on the street, customers, and there’s 21
nobody that says they have not been able to be heard. This is exiting because it’s like the Rolls 22
Royce version of the streetscape that we always, it always seemed out of reach. This design just 23
oozes City excitement. I applaud everyone for the time they spent on putting this together. I 24
urge the Commission to pass it as it is, recommend it to City Council and it be done ASAP 25
because that street needs attention. Thank you so much. 26
27
Acting Chair Fineberg: Thank you. Michael Eager to be followed by Joy Ogawa. I don’t see 28
Michael Eager. Joy Ogawa please to be followed by Lara Ekwall. 29
30
Joy Ogawa: Hi, good evening. I wasn’t planning on speaking but a couple of the earlier speakers 31
I think got me to stand up here tonight. 32
33
Acting Chair Fineberg: Excuse me, could you speak into the mike please? Thank you. 34
35
Ms. Ogawa: Ok. I guess I’m gonna have to back up a little bit. I wasn’t planning on speaking 36
but I think when Brad Ehikian said Premiere Properties has always been notified, I have to point 37
out Staff does this all the time. If you’re on Staff’s side, they make sure you get notified and 38
show up in support. And if you’re not on Staff’s side, you, you, maybe you’re not gonna get 39
notified. 40
41
And I was at the March 22nd merchants meeting and where the Staff had a meeting with the 42
merchants on California Avenue and, which I don’t think they really said, but as other speakers 43
have pointed out, every person who spoke at that meeting spoke against the lane reduction. I 44
remember also at that meeting Curtis promised that, you know, because Staff was saying you 45
can’t talk about this lane reduction at this meeting, we’re here to talk about, you know, how 46
25
we’re gonna plan for construction and, and but Curtis promised there was going to be a meeting 1
moving forward with the merchants to discuss this issue because there were a lot of very angry 2
merchants there and property owners. And there were several people, more than two people, 3
who said we specifically, it was mostly property owners, we specifically have not received 4
notice. And, so I mean I’m glad that Jim Baer gets his notice regularly, but there are people who 5
don’t receive notice. And just because Jim Baer gets his notices doesn’t mean Staff has been 6
good about giving everybody notice. 7
8
The other point was that Todd Burke spoke and said that, you know, he felt he had a chance to 9
get his, to be heard at these meetings and therefore, you know, it’s like everybody had a chance 10
to be heard and I think my point that I want to make here is, again, if you don’t agree with what 11
Staff and what the consultant has in mind about what they want to do you don’t get listened to. 12
And you know, you get listened to, but they don’t really react to you, it doesn’t really have any 13
effect on the plan. They’re going to go ahead with the plan that they want and they’re going to 14
pick and choose the people’s comments that they support their plan. And, you know, I just, it 15
just, I see this over and over again at so many meetings with so many issues, I just, you know, 16
when I, when these people spoke I just felt I had to say something about it because it never gets, 17
there’s never any rebuttal, you know? I, so, thank you. 18
19
Acting Chair Fineberg: Thank you. Lara Ekwall to be followed by Bob Davidson. 20
21
Lara Ekwall: Test, test? Ok. First of all my name’s Lara, I have a restaurant on California 22
Avenue. My husband spoke earlier so I apologize for being greedy with the, with the 23
microphone I’m going to hit bullet points in the form of a PS. I’m heavy, I’m assuming you’ve 24
all please seen this ad that we had to publish because we were having a hard time being heard. 25
And so Mark we submitted that with all the papers today so when you’re saying that there are 26
only a few people in opposition, I would ask you to reread this. There are 55 merchants, there 27
are several more who are afraid to go on the record or I didn’t have the time to reach out to 28
because I’m operating a business, but you have 55 businesses on the street that submitted today 29
in addition to our ad that we are against the lane reduction but for the beautification, so I would 30
like to correct your statement from earlier. 31
32
Next, regarding the history of CAADA and BACA, which is supposedly the new evolution of the 33
merchant’s association. For a long time CAADA did wonderful things so no disrespect to Ronna 34
or the people that dedicated their time, but I’ve been a business owner for 15 years and only once 35
did I feel like I was actually being helped by CAADA. When I walked the street to generate a 36
master e-mail list so you guys had an easier time contacting everyone to minimize frustration I 37
don’t know if those people had actually been contacted. E-mails went out I believe to Curtis and 38
Tommy. I walked the street hour and hour and hour along with many other people creating an 39
outreach list to minimize the tension. 40
41
Back to the BACA issue. CAADA does not speak for the neighborhood. It hasn’t in years. So 42
don’t be under some sort of like misunderstanding that there’s a merchant’s association speaking 43
for us. If you want to look to a group that actually willing to go on the record and says that they 44
are anti-lane reduction and pro, look at this because we’re very frustrated and no disrespect to the 45
plan because it’s beautiful, but no one is recognizing and you’re only going to get more and more 46
26
angry so I appreciate, poor Curtis at the meeting I feel like there should be a City Council person 1
or one of you attending the meetings because what we’re seeing and being present to is clearly 2
not being represented. So we would like to see a City Council Member or one of you at future 3
and please take into mind that there is not a BACA association that speaks for our businesses and 4
CAADA has not spoken for the neighborhood in years. 5
6
One more tease? If you could consider maybe putting a bike lane on one of the side streets 7
instead of the major. That’s it. 8
9
Acting Chair Fineberg: Thank you. Bob Davidson to be followed by Cedric de La Beaujardiere. 10
11
Bob Davidson: Ok, I’m Bob Davidson, property owner and business owner on California 12
Avenue since 1962. Probably for the last 10 years we’ve talked about, you know, fixing the side, 13
new sidewalks, vegetation, bike racks. We had bike racks until about 15 years ago and the City 14
of Palo Alto took them all out and never replaced them with anything. We’ve talked about trash 15
recycle bins. All of those things looked really good. I think the lane reduction here going from 16
four lanes down to two lanes I feel is driven by VTA’s $1.2 million. It’s kind of like a train to 17
nowhere out in the middle of Bakersfield. You know it seems like that wouldn’t get that free 18
money which never is free and the only way you can get that money is to have a lane reduction. 19
20
The community has been to the meetings. There has been a lot of oppositions to the lane 21
reductions but I feel that most of the meetings that I attended it was more like this is what we’re 22
gonna do and not asking anybody what they wanted to do. I can’t believe that we want to reduce 23
two lanes, which I think is 22 or 23 feet wide down to one lane that is 14 feet wide and put the 24
trucks, the cars, and the buses, and the bicycles all into 14 feet. In the morning I’m not sure if 25
that many people come and see it but our business opens at 7:00 in the mornings, from 7:00 until 26
9:30 in the morning except summertime there is a large number of small buses and vans coming 27
down from Stanford University, from Tesla Motors, from Hewlett Packard picking up passengers 28
from the train. I think it’s great, but that’s a lot of traffic. AT about the same time you have a 29
large number of young students who are going to school riding their bicycles down to go through 30
the tunnel. I think that’s too much traffic. 31
32
One thing about parklets. I was in San Francisco a month ago. They had a street full of parklets, 33
it took me three laps around the block to find a parking place so that I could check into a hotel. 34
Parklets are, that’s just taking away parking and much needed parking for any business 35
anywhere. Thank you. 36
37
Acting Chair Fineberg: Thank you. Cedric de La Beaujardiere to be followed by Philippe 38
LeHot. 39
40
Cedric de La Beaujardiere: Hi, thank you. My name’s Cedric de La Beaujardiere. I’m a, I 41
support the plan. I think it’s a very affordable plan. I was unfortunately wasn’t seeing the slides 42
on my way over here but listening on the webcast and I was quite impressed it was like $700K, a 43
to a million that you invest in a lot of good improvements. I’m a regular shopper on Cal Ave. I 44
go every week, almost every day. About a year ago I surveyed businesses personally because I 45
was hearing a lot of businesses say, “We don’t support this plan.” So I was like, is that true, you 46
27
know, so I went door to door to the businesses. You know I’m not, you know, beau trust or 1
whatever but, of the people I spoke with about a third of the business owners weren’t there or the 2
manager or whatever, I left literature. The remaining two thirds, just over half were in support 3
and just under half were in opposition. So it would be nice to maybe do an official survey of 4
businesses, you know, maybe anonymous, but it would be nice to get kind of real numbers 5
behind all these claims. 6
7
And, in terms of specifics I think we should widen the sidewalk in front of Joanie’s Café. Maybe 8
it’s been updated but the last iteration has the loading zone in front of Joanie’s but they get a lot 9
of business it would be great to get some seats out there and maybe do, in a survey you can ask 10
them, hey where would you like it to be widened, you know? I think the businesses could tell 11
you best where really the widening is most beneficial. 12
13
You can’t get more parking without the lane reduction and the lane reduction enables widening 14
of sidewalks. And then for the California Avenue exit from the tunnel for the bikes specifically 15
it would be nice to soften the angles when you’re coming out of that tunnel into the contraflow 16
bike lane. And it might be nice also to have maybe less or no diagonal parking along the edge of 17
that contraflow bike lane so that there’s less potential conflicts of cars swerving into the lane to 18
avoid people parking. So I think that’s it. I hope you will support this plan. Thank you very 19
much. 20
21
Acting Chair Fineberg: Philippe LeHot to be followed by Robert Neff, and if there’s anyone else 22
that would like to speak please turn in your card to Staff at the desk. 23
24
Philippe LeHot: Hello, my name is Philippe LeHot and I’ve owned and managed four, well since 25
1979, roughly the corner of California Avenue and Ash Street. And recently last year I moved 26
Joanie’s Café into the corner, that’s the building and I have about, well I have exactly four retail 27
stores there. Joanie’s Café, the other one is Zen Garden, and then you have a bookstore named 28
Know Knew Books and then you have the restaurant Spalti, and they’re all my tenants and I can 29
tell you and I’ve probably already told you because this is not the first time I speak to you that 30
just about nobody’s in favor of a lane reduction. We’re all in favor of putting trees, to reestablish 31
the trees which were stolen by the City what, two, three years ago without knew, without us 32
knowing. And I still sorry about the 35 foot Holly Oak which used to be right in front of the 33
property there. 34
35
But to make a long story short, we haven’t had any good communication with Curtis Williams 36
and I’m totally in agreement with the people who spoke before me. Last time we had a meeting 37
there with Curtis Williams I asked him point blank would you tell me how many businesses on 38
California Avenue have no access in the back in the service alleys and therefore require to have 39
those huge trucks which come and take one lane for deliveries. And he told me well, City Staff 40
has those details so I, there were some City Staff at the meeting nobody knew. So I know of one 41
for sure, which is not far away from my place. I know also about you could argue though that 42
Starbucks, Starbucks you know. 43
44
And, you know, the study for the traffic isn’t being done correctly and I’m not impressed by 45
what I’ve just seen and I would strongly urge the City Council to send back the City Staff to 46
28
make a correct study of traffic. I handled traffic studies when I was young, did traffic at the 1
airport and all that. I guarantee you this traffic is, traffic study which was made by whoever is a 2
fake, ok? Thanks for your time. 3
4
Acting Chair Fineberg: Thank you. Robert Neff will be our final speaker. 5
6
Robert Neff: Hi I’m Robert Neff. If you could bring up slide number 21 which shows the plan 7
for the park at the end of, where are we? There it is. So I’m a bicyclist I serve on PABAC but 8
mostly my input is about access to the California Avenue tunnel from California Avenue and 9
from Park coming from Stanford. And this contraflow bike lane I’m really concerned about for 10
two reasons. One is that the diagonal parking is, I can imagine someone backing out of that, the 11
diagonal parking you can see at the bottom right, left there, a car swerving around the car, the 12
automobile that’s backing out and straight into the counter flow bike lane in the evening when 13
it’s dark and maybe some bicyclist doesn’t have a front light on their bike. 14
15
And then as well the connection from the counter flow bike lane into the intersection looks really 16
terribly under designed. If you’re a bicyclist then you’re traffic if you’re in that lane and yet you 17
don’t have good visibility on a lot of the intersection it looks like, it looks like a poor way to 18
enter that intersection. And a lot of, a significant amount of traffic coming out of the tunnel is 19
heading up on toward Park Avenue going up north on this drawing and so they would be going 20
right across the traffic coming out from around the train station which might not be able to see 21
them very well. 22
23
We, the PABAC is on record as preferring a direct access out of the tunnel going, going up 24
across the park directly to the driveway on the I guess the north side of that park and that way the 25
bicyclists would be able to enter traffic in a, along the driveway that goes around the park and 26
enter the intersection at a place where people would expect bicyclists, would expect traffic to 27
enter the intersection. But you know, bicyclists don’t follow rules as well as automobile drivers 28
do and so I don’t doubt that many bicyclists would find an alternative that would seem less 29
dangerous to them then the counter flow bike lane as well. So if we provide a good sound 30
alternative then I’m sure bicyclists will take it, but if it’s not a good alternative then they’ll find 31
another route. Thank you. 32
33
Acting Chair Fineberg: Thank you. Appreciate all the feedback from members of the public. 34
What I’d like to do now is ask Staff to address some very specific questions that members of the 35
public have raised. I’m seeing also that Staff would like a moment and then after that we’ll take 36
a five minute break. Mr. Williams. 37
38
Mr. Williams: Yes, thank you. There are some overarching issues I’d like to address first and 39
then, then maybe that’ll answer some of your questions and then you can ask more specific ones. 40
So first, I think I have about four items. So first, maybe semantics here but there was a statement 41
made that our March meeting with the merchants was canceled due to the level of opposition 42
there. I would characterize that meeting as not being canceled. It was there, I certainly felt like I 43
was in a meeting for at least an hour or so and there was, and I would certainly agree that there is 44
substantial opposition that was at that meeting and that has shown up in one way or another 45
generally the group of merchants that you heard from tonight. So I would not minimize at all the 46
29
amount of opposition that is there and certainly apologize if we anyway characterized this as 1
minimal or just a few people or something like there. There is a substantial group of merchants 2
in opposition to this. We don’t, we don’t, sorry concur obviously with the opinions but, you 3
know they, they are in opposition and I would recognize that. 4
5
Secondly, or actually that was second. And then third the trial issue. So we have discussed that 6
an I do expect that we will be when we talk to the Council in a week and a half we will have 7
some discussion about the concept of doing a trial. These are the concerns that we have about 8
doing a trial and why it’s, and I’m sure Jaime has some other perspectives on it as well, but why 9
it’s not impossible to do one but it is problematic to do a trial. It doesn’t mean that we can’t do 10
something, but first of all to do a trial we need to pave, repave the roadway which is going to 11
cost some dollars and if the intent is to come back in a year and do these improvements we’re 12
going to have done that and have to redo that all again and whether that’s an efficient use of 13
funds. 14
15
Secondly it is difficult to replicate the environment that we’re trying to create out there. We can 16
restripe it, but how do we effectively replicate the sidewalk widening part of it, the aesthetic 17
enhancements and that, that are sort of the positive component of that, that, that, you know, it’s, 18
so it’s sort of like put up the, you know, repave, if you don’t get sort of the flip side of what’s 19
happening out there. 20
21
Thirdly I think the time, my one big concern I would have is the time that we would have a trial 22
there because we have essentially temporary improvements it’s hard to imagine that that is going 23
to be aesthetically pleasing on the street and my guess is that the merchants would complain 24
about the looks and it would detract from their business to have something that is not a high 25
quality type of environment in the area. 26
27
And fourthly I think that there would need to be some kind of agreement on sort of what, not 28
necessarily what success means with the trial, but what we’re measuring. Because what we hear 29
a lot of times in terms of traffic impacts in particular are sort of antidotal incidents and I, we 30
would have some concern about we can show that the congestion level is minimal or negligible 31
change from currently through engineering even getting a third party engineer or something like 32
that involved, but there are a lot of comments we hear about oh, well, you know at this point 33
there were three cars stacked at that intersection waiting to turn. Well is that a significant impact 34
in the light of all of this, and you know so trying to get a better handle on some commonalities of 35
what, what we would consider to be, you know, problems with the trial or successes with the trial 36
I think we could work towards that but I think that’s an obstacle out there to try to overcome. So 37
there’s a lot to think about in trying to do that. It’s certainly would be nice to do it but again I 38
think the, there’s a big difference between Charleston/Arastradero where it’s purely repaving, 39
restriping, that kind of thing and it’s not the aesthetic enhancements that go along with that, that 40
is such a major component of this and are so difficult to replicate. So, I don’t know if Jaime, if 41
Jaime wants to add to that or not. 42
43
And then the last comment I would make is I would take wholehearted exception with Ms. 44
Ogawa’s comments about the Staff notifying people who were in support of the project and 45
people who were not. we have tried very, very hard on this as well as all other projects we have 46
30
to, I mean we’re required by law to notify certain people, we have a system that notifies them, 1
it’s not who comes to knocks on our door or calls us or whatever it’s, it’s based on property 2
records that are that we have and people who have come to meetings and signed in, as Ms. 3
Ekwall mentioned and we really appreciate the list that she put together that was very helpful and 4
we do e-mail out to everyone on that list when we have a meeting coming up. There’ll be one 5
going out I think tomorrow about the Council meeting on Monday the 23rd, so I think that, you 6
know, if somebody feels that they don’t, didn’t get a notice we’d certainly be interested in 7
looking back and trying to find out if there’s some reason that they’re not showing up on the 8
property records, but it certainly has nothing to do with their position on the project. Thank you. 9
10
Acting Chair Fineberg: Thank you Mr. Williams. Mr. Rodriguez, did you want to add to that? 11
12
Mr. Rodriguez: I have nothing else to add. 13
14
Acting Chair Fineberg: Ok, thank you. I captured a few other items if Staff could also address 15
some of the issues raised by the community. There were numerous questions about the locations 16
of the loading zones and then the possibility of widening the sidewalk in front of Joanie’s, and 17
then the possibility of conducting the work at night, and lastly, the inadvisability of parallel 18
parking at the south side of El Camino right where Cal Ave. comes off El Camino due to the 19
nature of cars waiting for spaces to open. 20
21
Mr. Rodriguez: Sure, I’ll try and address both of those concerns for you. Specifically the issue 22
of the loading zones I’m gonna kind of walk you down the corridor where those loading zones 23
are shown. Their actually we’re showing them on the diagram we can definitely point them out. 24
So in front of Joanie’s that was a correct statement by the audience there’s a proposed loading 25
zone right at the corner of Ash and California Avenue. That is a proposal it was our attempt to 26
try to respond to some of the initial community concerns regarding a need for loading zones on 27
California Avenue. There is an opportunity to look at an additional loading zone kinda across 28
the street somewhere near Country Sun. We’ve highlighted it as an opportunity for a potential 29
bicycle corral, it was also something that we’d look at as an opportunity to relocate one of the 30
Stanford Marguerite Shuttle stop locations at so there’s a lot of opportunities. I think that’s one 31
of those things that we need to further refine during the design process and that’s, that’s the 32
process we’re trying to continue on after we get a conceptual approval of the concept alignment 33
of the street by the Council. 34
35
Kind of moving on down the corridor, there’s an opportunity for a loading zone near Birch 36
Street, kind of in front of the bus stop. We’ve identified that also as an opportunity for a bicycle 37
corrals or some other type of facility in front of Printer’s Cafe, we’d be open to having those 38
discussions with the businesses as part of the design improvement process for the meeting. We 39
do also show a loading zone in the area of Park Boulevard and California Avenue in this area as 40
well. 41
42
As to the question of can we do more of a sidewalk widening type of a treatment in front of 43
Joanie’s Café, I believe we’re definitely open to that type of an interest. Again if there’s a 44
community consensus for doing that, that’s something that we can continue to explore. There is 45
a bus stop in that area for the Marguerite system and we want to make sure that we’re trying to 46
31
minimize those impacts because it is such a heavily used line and that line does bring customers 1
to the area so we want to be sensitive and not to disrupt that interruption of that service as much 2
as possible, but again, that’s a detail we can definitely work out as part of the design process. So 3
ongoing. 4
5
The other question that you had, I’m sorry, was in relation to the angled parking on El Camino 6
Real. That to me is just a really good example how I really feel as Staff that we’ve really tried to 7
listen to the community from the very get go of this project and when we started this project 8
there was so many concerns from the community specifically regarding the angle parking on that 9
side of the street and how having angle parking there in a 60-degree configuration was not gonna 10
be beneficial to helping bicycles travel down that corridor as cars were coming off of El Camino 11
Real because they felt that cars in that area traveled a little faster so this was again an attempt for 12
a large part to try and respond to those community concerns and felt well that was probably then 13
a really good location for a conversion from angled to parallel to address that concern. And then 14
now we’re hearing the concern come back for the exact same reason, and so it’s, it’s a project 15
that’s really gone through a lot of iteration. 16
17
I do think that the recommendation for the parallel parking one in response to the initial concern 18
from the community and specifically the businesses about angle parking in that area and speed of 19
vehicles coming up El Camino Real and then also in response to the community concerns and 20
Council concerns regarding you know where it is, do we maximize the benefit of sidewalk 21
widening for merchants that really is the prime area of the whole corridor where we provide the 22
most benefit. 23
24
Acting Chair Fineberg: Thank you, and kindly the feasibility of work at night please? 25
26
Mr. Rodriguez: As far as constructability? You mean only build at nighttime? That is 27
something that is definitely doable. Again we haven’t had that discussion, we did try to have 28
that discussion, that was the focus initially of the meeting that we tried to have with the 29
merchants in March. We just haven’t been able to have had a discussion in that regard because 30
of the issue and concerns of the four to two lanes. And again we do want to make sure that we 31
try to provide a construction staging and building plan for the merchants that minimizes concerns 32
of only building this project but provides something that the community wants. 33
34
We really would prefer to do that and kind of put that into the design because when we bid the 35
project out if it’s bid knowing that it’s nighttime work we as a community get a better price 36
versus not stating that as a requirement up front during the bid documents and then trying to 37
come back to the contractor that we’ve awarded a project to and say, hey you know we really 38
want you to build it at nighttime, you know can you do it for the same cost they’re gonna say no. 39
And so it’s gonna cost a lot more money if we decide something like that later, so that’s a very 40
critical element of the ongoing design process that has to be have a discussion with the 41
businesses. 42
43
Acting Chair Fineberg: Thank you. With that I will close the Public Hearing. We will take a 44
five minute break, resume with the Commission discussions and entertainment of Motions or 45
recommendations. 46
32
1
Commission took a break. 2
3
Acting Chair Fineberg: Thank you, I’d like to call the meeting to order once again. We will 4
bring it back to the Commission for discussion, Motions, and recommendations by the 5
Commission. We’ll have five minutes each. I’d like to have a first round of discussion and 6
comments and questions and then we can go a second round and possibly entertain Motions and 7
recommendations. We’ll start with Commissioner Tanaka please. 8
9
Commissioner Tanaka: So I have a couple questions. The first question is how many businesses 10
are there on Cal Ave. 11
12
Mr. Rodriguez: You know I don’t have that information with me Commissioner. I don’t have 13
that. 14
15
Acting Chair Fineberg: Hold on, hold on please. The Chair recognizes a member of the public 16
Lara Ekwall, and I have to ask you to come speak in the mike and I will reopen the Public 17
Hearing. 18
19
Ms. Ekwall: Thank you. What was I speaking about? So anyway, several of us actually were 20
starting the process of trying to form a merchant’s association so that it was, we did have a 21
cohesive voice to interact with you guys and in the process we generated a master list and when 22
we actually wanted to create a tally count of the businesses it became an issue of do you have 23
retail, do you have professional offices, like do you have restaurants? So I actually have a 24
master list of all that information, so the numbers depend on whether you’re counting people 25
who have an individual massage therapy unit, or they have like massage, Heshmat has like a 26
large unit that employs many. So that number is gray, so I understand that they wouldn’t have 27
that, but at the same time they do have our master list of merchants that we’ve made a great 28
effort to update over the last year with current contact information phone numbers and e-mails. 29
30
Acting Chair Fineberg: Excuse me, could you come back to the mike just as a follow up? So can 31
you give us orders of magnitude for if you include everybody on the list how many, and if you 32
have just maybe the things that look like retail stores that customers walk into that sell 33
something? 34
35
Ms. Ekwall: I’m not comfortable giving you that. I’m happy to give you all of my data though 36
and the reason is I’m not sure if you’re looking at the people who are generating the largest sales 37
tax dollars, but if you look at the larger merchants on the street as well as the small merchants, I 38
was able in our short time to gather 55 merchants, businesses that were anti, and I found two that 39
were for. And so my effort in what we were doing was trying to create a clear percentage of 40
those people who were for and against because I don’t think it’s fair to our neighborhood to bully 41
the answer. And so I’m happy to forward that to you tomorrow when I get to my desk. 42
43
But I think, I’m sure you guys know already you’ve seen the letters that I was one of the people 44
that went to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) Board and spoke, and so 45
earlier when the gentlemen rightfully so, Todd was talking about all the case studies, the MTC 46
33
that day had over $500 million dollars they were looking at, the only thing that they put on hold 1
was that one ticket. And unfortunately I don’t recall the woman’s name, but she made a valid 2
point in front of everyone on the record that all of those case studies were not relevant to our 3
case because we were a dead end street. She was familiar with California Avenue and that’s 4
what led to the funding being put on hold. I’m also disappointed and sad (interrupted) 5
6
Acting Chair Fineberg: Thank you, excuse me, we need to ask you to stop you’ve answered the 7
question, thank you. 8
9
Commissioner Tanaka: Ok, the other question I had was I thought that there was talk about 10
having a VTA Rapid Transit Stop there. Can you talk about how that might change the 11
pedestrian traffic in that area? 12
13
Mr. Rodriguez: The VTA has a Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) project along El Camino Real to 14
connect, or provide enhanced bus service between downtown San Jose and the University Transit 15
Mall, California, the Caltrain Station. That project currently is on hold by the VTA but the 16
original concept was that there would be an enhanced BRT or Bus Rapid Transit station at the El 17
Camino Real and California Avenue intersection with enhanced stations in front of the Radio 18
Shack building on the northeast corner as well as in front of the Wells Fargo Bank on the 19
southwest corner. And so obviously with ridership projections from the VTA there would be an 20
increased capacity of pedestrians and bicycle traffic that would be using that stop to make a 21
connection to a facility like Caltrain near the Park Boulevard Plaza so we’d see an increase I 22
don’t have the numbers though of the ridership. 23
24
Commissioner Tanaka: Ok, I was just wondering if you had a gut feel whether this would change 25
the ratio of pedestrians versus cars on the Cal Ave. area. 26
27
Mr. Rodriguez: As far as a ratio I would imagine the bicycles actually would increase. As far as 28
the vehicular traffic, you know if you’re really going there you’re going there for a destination 29
for a purpose and so there isn’t anything that with the BRT route that would probably increase or 30
reduce the number of vehicle travelers on California Avenue or the project area itself. 31
32
Commissioner Tanaka: Ok. And then can you bring to the park, the, I forgot what you guys call 33
it, the end of where Park is the, plaza. Sorry. What wasn’t really clear to me is, can you explain 34
and maybe show with your pointer how the bike flows. 35
36
Mr. Rodriguez: So this particular concept, what we’re showing here is the actual road itself with 37
vehicles traveling counter clockwise around the park this direction. So, for bicycle access we 38
show two options, one is that there’s the share of the road and the second there is a contraflow 39
bike path for bicyclist existing the tunnel to get towards the California/Park intersection. 40
41
Oh, thank you, and I’m sorry we’re not sure where it was left off, but just to note again this is a 42
one way loop, counterclockwise of a roadway and for bicyclists they could follow that same 43
route around but the main concern that we’re hearing from the members of the audience is that, 44
that is just a heavy access point for the tunnel. And so for bicyclists coming down California or 45
from Park they could just stay on that same road, it’s gonna be about 12 feet wide which is really 46
34
comfortable and then be able to just turn, make a left into the plaza and make the right into the 1
actual tunnel. 2
3
Exiting the tunnel there’s really two options, a bicyclist can one, if they’re trying to get towards 4
El Camino or just down California Avenue what we had shown originally as a recommendation 5
from PABAC was a contraflow bike lane and a contraflow bike line by definition is a striped or 6
marked facility that allows a bicyclist to move in the opposite direction of the vehicles that 7
would normally be next to them. Remember when you have bicycle lanes that are in the same 8
kind of direction of vehicles adjacent to them in this case contraflow would be opposite. 9
10
We are hearing a concerns that are, that isn’t something that would be of preference to PABAC 11
anymore. We’re happy to remove that. That is actually ok with us. But if you’re exiting the 12
tunnel again there is an opportunity for people just to continue straight kind of ride though the 13
center of the plaza and move through. Some of the initial concerns from the community from the 14
non-bicyclists was that they didn’t want that interaction and that mix. It is, it is a public plaza 15
space where they’ll be a lot of uses. There are benefits to discourage bicyclists from traveling 16
through that path and the contraflow concept was an option or opportunity to do that. 17
18
Other opportunities can be for bicycles to kind of ride through kinda and around on the other side 19
of the bicyclists, of the plaza. You know, people want to follow the shortest distance right, that’s 20
usually what happens. And so you’re likely to see people kind of come in through this area and 21
continue to ride through. Another option can be and this was talking to some gentleman in the 22
audience was that you know these existing Birch trees we don’t want to touch them. But there 23
can be an opportunity to maybe look at in between the Birch trees providing a paved path so that 24
bicyclists could then ride straight kinda get onto the roadway as well. So that, that’s a detail that 25
I think we’ll still work out during the design process. 26
27
Commissioner Tanaka: Ok great thank you. But on the contraflow lane right now so you have 28
bikes coming into the tunnel and bikes coming out and they’re gonna be there’s like two separate 29
lanes then, one lane for going one direction, the other lane going… 30
31
Mr. Rodriguez: With the contraflow operation not so much a lane but an area for people to kind 32
of like, we would encourage a dismounting on the, on the actual tunnel, we wouldn’t encourage 33
for people to be riding their bicycle and that is something that we would identify during the final 34
design process is sign and mark that area as a dismount because it is shared by both bicyclists 35
and pedestrians and there are kind of barriers kind of down into the tunnel that would require you 36
to dismount anyway. And so how that interaction works would be like two separate wraps that 37
can be painted, kind of like the Hallberg Tunnel is today for those of you that are familiar with 38
that area, there’s kind of ways to kind of guide you with markings to which side of the tunnel to 39
be on if you’re riding. 40
41
Commissioner Tanaka: Ok, and in terms of, I’ll take the rest of my questions later then. 42
43
Acting Chair Fineberg: Thank you. Commissioner Michael. 44
45
35
Commissioner Michael: So this was an impressive outpouring of public comment this evening 1
and I want to thank everybody who participated and then I would certainly urge the Council 2
Members prior to their meeting on the 23rd to, to take the chance to read the verbatim minutes of 3
the public comment that we’ve heard tonight because it will be instructive for them and would 4
imagine that many, if not most of the people who participated at our session would have the 5
energy to participate at the Council Meeting as well. 6
7
You know just as a comment as the role of the PTC with design review. I have some humility or 8
even reluctance after just a brief public hearing on my part to propose major changes in you 9
know serious professional effort to come up with a design for the, the California Avenue street 10
so, but at the same time I do have questions and I think just, just to pick on one that we were 11
talking about with the plaza. So I’m a pretty avid cyclist and you know I’ve since my childhood 12
I’m familiar with the neighborhood. This is a 50 year period and I’m not on the street every day 13
like many of the people who spoke this evening, but I think if you, if you construct the plaza 14
improvements as proposed you’re gonna be stuck with the tunnel. And I don’t think you’re 15
gonna be happy with that. So I think that the, sort of the modifications to the tunnel should be 16
undertaken if ever, now. Because they should be integrated with whatever you do with the plaza. 17
18
And the, you know, the idea that people dismount, you know I hesitate to admit that when I go 19
through the tunnel I don’t dismount and I watch people on their cycles and they don’t dismount. 20
And so the assumption that that’s gonna be the way people behave is, is, it’s idealistic but the if 21
you do have a means of getting people to dismount then you probably don’t need the contraflow 22
bike lane. You can have, they’ve dismounted they’re walking, you can have them walk right 23
across the plaza and if you provide that means for that to get into the right direction then this 24
design is probably not optimal. 25
26
So, the other thing that I’m very eager to participate in hearing information about the California 27
Avenue Concept Plan so I think that the, the information about what you do with California 28
Avenue sidewalks and street and plaza looks actually pretty interesting. It’s obviously gonna be 29
traumatic in a lot of respects and has to be managed very carefully if it proceeds as planned, but 30
to me it’s incomplete. It’s incomplete because you don’t have an understanding of what’s gonna 31
happen with the parking off the street, which I think is very, very important. When I go to 32
California Avenue at peak times I never park on the street because it’s, the parking is kind of, I 33
always park in the surface lots behind. And I think the idea of increasing parking capacity with 34
parking structures maybe a significant cost, but would be, you know, wonderful investment for 35
the infrastructure of the City as part of the overall Concept Plan, particularly as it integrates with 36
the Housing Plan and the possibility of increased density overall. 37
38
So, the, the idea that the Council is gonna vote on the street in isolation to me seems a little bit 39
narrowly focused. Or incomplete without the benefit of integrating it with a discussion more 40
broadly of some specific details of the concept Plan and if the Council were so inclined, 41
particularly given the, the energy that we heard from the, the merchants in particular this might 42
be something if the Concept Plan is on their agenda in just a few months’ time to have some 43
study session or other agenda that would enable all of these things to be taken as a, as a holistic 44
project. And those are my main concerns. 45
46
36
Mr. Williams: Can I just briefly respond? 1
2
Acting Chair Fineberg: Mr. Williams please. 3
4
Mr. Williams: That’s a very good point as far as the Concept Plan relationship. I, and I know 5
you were not on the Commission at the time that they did have some at least preliminary look at 6
the Concept Plans and alternatives that were [unintelligible], but I’ll tell you that as far as, you 7
know, developing parking for the whole area, in particular that issue I mean I think every 8
alternative that we had had at least one parking structure back along, you know, Sherman, along 9
the Sherman area and perhaps intensifying, you know, some of the structures elsewhere as 10
options so it’s definitely on the radar and as I mentioned I do think we will be coming to you in 11
the fall with that so we’ll create more context and it does show specifically Cal Avenue as part of 12
that so there can be some more discussion in connection with both of them at that time. 13
14
Acting Chair Fineberg: Thank you. Commissioner Keller. 15
16
Acting Vice Chair Keller: Thank you. So firstly I echo the comments of my fellow 17
Commissioners in thanking the members of the public for coming out and meeting and also 18
thanking Staff for their diligent work here and I appreciate that even those people who are 19
opposed to the transition from four lanes to two lanes, that change, find that the plan is an 20
attractive one and a beautiful one although they have, I think they have questions on whether it’s 21
a feasible, an improvement for traffic point of view. And I think that that sort of in some sense 22
may feel like a slap in the face to some of the business owners and people there after Public 23
Works overnight sort of cutting down all the trees and so, so feel like California Avenue might 24
be a stepchild in that way sort of being ignored in terms of your points of view and I can 25
certainly sympathize with that sentiment. 26
27
And certainly construction there are impacts from construction going on and also there’d be 28
simply impacts from doing all that’s necessary to repave the street, although those would be 29
somewhat less. But even repaving a street does have construction impacts that would have to be 30
considered. 31
32
One thing I would like to understand if there were to be a striping trial is what is the goal? What 33
are the metrics that one would measure to see whether the striping trial were successful? Is it 34
traffic impacts, that’s a question that one could determine, whether that’s the goal. Is it impact 35
on businesses? Well, if its impact on businesses the problem is, is that you can’t measure that 36
without the beautification. But is it impact on car, on trucks stopping and blocking traffic when 37
they’re unloading. So I think that I would encourage the Staff to talk to the neighborhood to 38
better, the community is opposed to this and is proposing a trial to better understand what a trial 39
would be and what it is to measure because in order to better understand the feasibility of a trial 40
you have to understand why you’re doing a trial and what, how you measure the outcome. 41
42
I think that’s there is the question of how to beautify California Avenue. Certainly there is a 43
desire to do that. And, you know, I think somebody might rightfully wonder did the degree to 44
which the beautification would happen, you know, without widening but that’s not really our, 45
sorry without widening the sidewalks that not’s really our purview here but, but you know 46
37
there’s considerable amount of monies being spent here by the City in addition to money being 1
spent on the grant. 2
3
I have a long term concern which has nothing to do with this project but I just want to recognize 4
it. It’s actually related to the project but not directly. It’s not a direct cause of the project but, 5
the, the improvements to the California Avenue here, have a potential to improve businesses over 6
a long run, but the real issue is what is the impact of redevelopment in terms of the kind of 7
discussions of PTOD which already is in place? In terms of the California Avenue Concept 8
Plan, the impact of that redevelopment intensification is not only in terms of people and traffic, 9
that’s not what I’m talking about, the issue is that if buildings on California Avenue are torn 10
down and replaced by taller buildings, more expensive buildings, that real estate will be more 11
expensive. And those stores that are renting that space will be replaced by, they’ll be displaced, 12
they’ll be replaced by more expensive stores. 13
14
And what we’ve seen happen on University Avenue in terms of, you know 20 years ago there 15
were shops on University Avenue that a lot of people in Palo Alto shopped at and now instead 16
we’re finding that the people in Palo Alto typically shop on Cal Ave. and on Midtown because 17
those are stores that sell things that we buy as opposed to more boutiques and things like that are 18
more geared to tourists and people like that. So I’m sort of, I’m sort of concerned with the issue 19
of not this particular plan’s impact, but sort of the overall vision’s impact on this to be able to 20
think about what the redevelopment of California Avenue will cause in terms of a mix of 21
businesses on California Avenue and the impact of that on that as a vibrant street that serves Palo 22
Alto as opposed to being a, you know, tourist trap kind of, kind of environment. So I think that 23
that’s a, I don’t know how to answer that, but it’s, it’s a concern I have of mine of the long term 24
intensification of California Avenue. 25
26
Acting Chair Fineberg: Thank you. The Public Hearing remains open and Commissioner Keller 27
asked a question of how the public might measure a success of a trial. There’s a member of the 28
public, Mr. Shuchat who seemed eager to give some input. I’m sorry. My vision to the back of 29
the room, there’s a gentleman in the back of the room who had raised his hand. My apologies 30
for the wrong name, but if you could come down and… so the, the recording secretary will 31
recognize that there’s a joke and a chuckle. Could you please state your name and then very, 32
very briefly just, … 33
34
Mr. Davidson: Yeah, my name’s Bob Davidson, I own the building at 360 California Avenue 35
and California Paint. As far as the trial period, I don’t understand why we’d have to repave the 36
street. As a non-engineer I would think that if you measured from the back of the parking, we 37
have the parking parallel, like so the sidewalk’s here, the cars come out. If you measured from 38
there to how wide the lane’s going to be whether that’s 15 feet or 16 feet and you know those 39
orange cones that they glue to ground, if you cut out the whole center section of the street with 40
those orange cones all the way down from one end to the other and that part would not be in use 41
by anybody, you know, that would be my idea. 42
43
Acting Chair Fineberg: But let me ask you, again, not how would you structure a trial, but how, 44
if there were to be a trial, how would the City measure whether it’s successful? Would there be 45
extensive traffic counts, would it be antidotal, would it be you’re happy? 46
38
1
Mr. Davidson: Traffic, I think traffic counts. Yeah, I think its traffic count. The beautification, 2
the sidewalks and those effects we’re not, you know, thinking on those effects. We want, we 3
want a traffic count and congestion to see if it’s gonna be congested on the street or not, how 4
long it takes to get from one end of the street to the other end of the street. That’s the concern. I 5
mean tonight when I’m coming down here University Avenue was a parking lot from one end to 6
the other and that’s something that the merchants don’t want. And I think that’s, I think out of 7
the reduction part of it I think that’s the biggest part is traffic flow on and off the street. If you 8
have, you know, if you have customers or we have customers that are coming to the street and it 9
now takes them 20 minutes to get to a parking space then you know they’ll think of a closer 10
place or some place that’s easier to park at and go to there. You know, that’s what I think. It’s a 11
traffic flow that the merchants are, you know, worried about. Not so much the sidewalk. All of 12
those things are great. 13
14
Can I add one more quick thing? Shortly. If we go forward with this the loading zones that they 15
pointed out there are all in front of businesses who have alley parking so I do hope that they look 16
for loading zones in front of businesses who do not have alley parking. The alleys go to about 17
70% of the businesses for loading zone, but there is 25% of the businesses that get merchandise 18
loaded off of California Avenue which blocks traffic when the trucks are there. 19
20
Acting Chair Fineberg: Thank you, I appreciate that feedback. Ok, so for my comments now. 21
This project has had many years and many meetings and many steps forward and steps 22
backwards. There’s some things about it I think are absolutely magnificent and there’s some 23
other things about it that give me great pause. So let me try and cover kind of the top ones. 24
25
In terms of what Council has asked us to do, which is look at the design, look at the areas where 26
the sidewalk is widened and give feedback to them if this was to proceed I’m gonna focus my 27
comments. I’m very pleased that this design pulls the best elements out of the multiple options. 28
There were the five options that Council said to look at in their Motions. There’s a mix of 29
parallel and diagonal parking, which yields a net gain of four spaces. That’s a good thing. It 30
maintains the central plaza option with the option of having a gathering place without the 31
negative of losing parking or ignoring the eastern end. It has sidewalk widening in some 32
locations, which is beneficial to the overall project whether those are in the correct location, if 33
Staff is gonna be examining that during the design phase I trust that we know there’s some areas 34
but we may not know exactly which ones. 35
36
The Park Boulevard Plaza it’s just absolutely lovely compared to what’s there now. Again 37
there’s some issues with I don’t know if that contraflow bike lane is right, I don’t know if the 38
mix of pedestrians and bicyclists or cars coming around, but we’re not at that level of detail in 39
the design yet and there’s gonna be lots of opportunities to either, you know, bless it or revise it. 40
And then also if I read this properly the seasonal barrier possibility allows us to have the street 41
closures without the negative impacts of some of the ways it was looked at before. So I just 42
think it’s marvelous that we’ve pulled the best things out of the multiple alternatives. 43
44
I’ve talked about a few of the things that absolutely need more review and refinement as design 45
stage if it continues. Another thing, you know members of the public have talked about it, we’ve 46
39
talked about it, we need to make sure that the locations of the loading zones is in the right place. 1
The locations of the sidewalk widening and all of the amenities, bike racks, magazine racks, 2
benches, those haven’t been dropped in and we need to make sure those are done right and at this 3
stage we don’t know that yet. 4
5
I am very, very concerned that the public feels they’ve not been heard. I’ve sat through meetings 6
where we’ve had the discussion, we looked at the environment analysis, and the Commission as 7
a body felt that the traffic on the street would not be negatively impacted by the reduction to two 8
lanes. I was part of supporting that decision, I think it might have been 2009 or 2010, and I 9
haven’t heard anything that tells me that that was a wrong decision, but yet I hear from the public 10
that there’s a strong voice that that was the wrong decision. We’re not revisiting that decision 11
tonight, but I think we’re still left with the impact of the public doesn’t believe what we’re 12
saying and that’s not a good position for the City to be in and I think we need to work to resolve 13
that however the outcome is. That needs to be fixed. 14
15
The last point is that we are looking only at streetscape improvements; we are not looking at 16
what’s happening in the greater area plan, the Concept Plan that’s going on for the wider 17
neighborhood. And I don’t know yet how I would feel about charging ahead with this versus 18
waiting if the area plan is out in two months waiting and then letting them catch up and move 19
through process together. I don’t know right now whether delaying this is good or it can and 20
should move independently so I’d be interested if my other Commissioners would share their 21
thoughts on that as we go into the next round. Ok. Commissioner Tanaka. 22
23
Commissioner Tanaka: Thank you. I also wanted to acknowledge all the members of the public 24
who took time out of their schedule to speak tonight and stay for this session. Just to address, let 25
me first say that I agree with all the points that the Chair made about putting together all the 26
great elements from the different alternatives given we’re looking at tonight. I wanted to ask, 27
and I think Curtis talked a little bit about this but maybe this could be explained a little bit better. 28
I think what I heard is that by the time this project starts we would have had actually reviewed 29
the Concept Plan, the Cal Ave. Concept Plan. Is that correct? 30
31
Mr. Williams: Yes, by the time the project starts, I think to get back to what the Chair was just 32
talking about I think we would have difficulty meeting our time schedule for funding and such if 33
we delayed this, moving ahead with this more detailed design until there was some decision on 34
the Concept Plan certainly. 35
36
Commissioner Tanaka: Ok, so it sounds like there’s two things. One is we will actually review 37
the Concept Plan before this starts, and the second is if we delay it we could lose funding for this 38
project as well. Is that correct a correct summary? 39
40
Mr. Rodriguez: On the funding side the funding path that we’re looking is work with the VTA to 41
return funding and it would actually be available to us early next year which means that we’d 42
actually have sort of two years to actually spend the money so if we delay the project beyond our 43
anticipated start date of the fall we risk not being able to meet the funding commitments of the 44
grant source that would be returned back to us. 45
46
40
Commissioner Tanaka: I see, great, thank you. One other issue that I heard earlier was drainage 1
issues and I actually heard that I think on early review. How does this, the widening of the 2
sidewalks affect the drainage issue? 3
4
Mr. Rodriguez: In this particular case that is still one element that we’re gonna finalize as part of 5
the design process but as we’ve been designing this preliminary concept we have had that 6
discussion regarding drainage and the concept today is that we actually do maintain a lot of the, 7
actually almost all of the existing drainage in that locations and slopes towards that existing flow 8
line so we don’t actually see a significant impact in the drainage areas. Now I will point out in 9
the seasonal barrier the little red dots that you kind of see just to the east of Ash Street there, that 10
is the area where the curb does begin to go away and we get away with the curb and have more 11
of a valley gutter but again drainage is maintained in the same flow that it does today. So from a 12
drainage perspective we don’t see a very significant impact because we preserve it. You have 13
impact when you have to add new storm drainage and that’s not the case here. 14
15
Commissioner Tanaka: Ok, and I assume if, you know as we, as the Concept Plan gets formed 16
then as there’s perhaps increased density on the street, is the, there would be some sort of 17
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) done to see, well now that the street is two lanes instead of 18
four whether certain projects can be approved given that kind of environmental impact. Is that 19
correct? 20
21
Mr. Rodriguez: It is and I just want to make a quick point on that note there. And again, I’m not 22
as versed in the specific plan as say Curtis is, but when we look at traffic flow around the 23
specific plan area such as this, you know, the biggest impact is where’s the traffic coming from 24
and where does it leave to at the end of the day? And the, the main arteries that feed into the 25
area of this California/Fry’s specific plan area is actually Oregon Expressway, Page Mill Road, 26
El Camino Real, and we look at the places where communiting can happen it’s actually focusing 27
a majority of that traffic on El Camino Real and Page Mill. And so again, California Avenue 28
again doesn’t have, it ends, it’s a dead end street at the Caltrain Station and it will continue to be 29
that even into the specific plan so the land use changes will occur but the main arteries that feed 30
traffic into the area are actually still all at the same levels as today and so we don’t anticipate a 31
significant change of the overall traffic volumes even with the changes in land use to the specific 32
plan. 33
34
Commissioner Tanaka: What I was just wondering is, you know, let’s say it goes from four to 35
two whether that has to be factored in as the new development happens. And so if it adversely 36
affects the traffic rate I would imagine that would have to be factored into the project’s approval. 37
38
Mr. Williams: Yeah, if this is where your question is headed, a project that’s approved the area 39
plan when it’s approved there will be traffic analysis of any individual project of the area plan. 40
41
Commissioner Tanaka: The current configuration which would then be two-lane. 42
43
Mr. Williams: That would, right. We would use the two-lane and look at that and look at the 44
impact on that. 45
46
41
Commissioner Tanaka: Ok, that makes sense. And then it’s been awhile since I wrote in the 1
numbers. Can you recall the numbers of pedestrian traffics versus vehicle traffic on Cal Ave.? 2
Do you remember what the number what the numbers are like daily traffic numbers? 3
4
Mr. Rodriguez: Yeah, what I remember we didn’t bring that slide here today was you know the 5
volume of vehicular traffic starting with vehicles first really significantly drops down as you 6
progress east around the corridor. So on average daily traffic basis we were looking at closer to 7
around 5,000 on the block between El Camino and Ash, and when you went down to Ash to 8
Birch it kinda drops down to about the 4,000 kind of, kind of average daily traffic volumes. 9
Birch to Park, you know, about a little over 3, but by the time we kinda got down towards the 10
end of the, between the Park Boulevard’s east north and south and the Plaza’s south we were 11
looking at a little over 2,000, 2,500 vehicles a day. It was not a significant amount of vehicles 12
and comparing that to say a larger arterial like University that holds closer to 25 to 30,000 13
vehicles a day so a significant difference. 14
15
Commissioner Tanaka: And how much pedestrian traffic do we have on Cal Ave? 16
17
Mr. Rodriguez: I don’t have that. I don’t remember the numbers off the top of my head. A 18
majority of the activity does happen during the day, so the peak hours in the morning there’s a 19
lot more bicycle traffic, we were counting about a hundred bicyclists kind of coming down from 20
the El Camino path all the way down to the plaza. Park Boulevard though has some much more 21
significant vehicular, bicycle volume and some of the members of the audience kind of noted 22
counting up to 600 bicyclists during peak hour times and that’s pretty consistent with 23
(interrupted) 24
25
Commissioner Tanaka: Yeah, I just seem to remember the pedestrian traffic actually being 26
higher than the car traffic and I was just wondering if I’m recalling wrong or if that’s correct. 27
The pedestrian traffic was actually higher than the vehicle traffic. 28
29
Mr. Rodriguez: During the day especially the peak hour that definitely true. 30
31
Commissioner Tanaka: Ok, so there’s actually more pedestrians using Cal Ave. than vehicle 32
traffic. 33
34
Mr. Rodriguez: That’s correct, yeah. 35
36
Commissioner Tanaka: Ok. One thing I wanted to ask is the placement of the bollard stuff for 37
the temporary closure for the central plaza. I like the barriers, the removable barrier idea, but 38
one thing is every Sunday there’s a farmer’s market there and they have kind of like the cheesy, 39
you know, plastic signs. Is there, is there thoughts about having those kind of removable 40
barriers, like kind of where the current Cal Ave., where those temporary signs are right now? 41
42
Mr. Rodriguez: We haven’t entered into any type of a discussion with any specific use as to what 43
could take advantage of a central plaza concept, but by all means though the farmer’s market is 44
definitely one option to look at that use on a regular basis. We would not want to see any type of 45
42
use in there with the barricades that you’re referring to. And so yes, definitely we’d want it to 1
see something a little more aesthetically as we’re recommending. 2
3
Commissioner Tanaka: I guess my, sorry, my question was right now the placement of the, the 4
farmer’s market signs is near the entrance of Cal Ave. near El Camino and right now you have 5
the barriers kind of at Ash Street and California Ave. and I was wondering would it not make 6
sense, because it seems like every Sunday there’s a farmer’s market just about to have removable 7
barriers kind of closer to the entrance of Cal Ave.? 8
9
Mr. Rodriguez: If I could try to answer, we wouldn’t be able to do any type of improvement at 10
that specific intersection to say add a barrier like that. 11
12
Commissioner Tanaka: A removable one. 13
14
Mr. Rodriguez: A removable one, with or without the consent of Caltrain, you know, person so 15
we try to avoid that when we’re introducing this kind of concept but focusing on the local street 16
that’s within the jurisdiction of Palo Alto. And so, but can you do it? Yes, physically it’s 17
possible but it might be a little more difficult to implement. 18
19
Commissioner Tanaka: Ok, great thank you. 20
21
Acting Chair Fineberg: Commissioner Keller has a quick follow up and then we’ll move to 22
Commissioner Michael. 23
24
Acting Vice Chair Keller: Yes, my quick follow up question is, is the intent to move the farmer’s 25
market between the removable barricades so that’s a little further away from El Camino, or does 26
it into to leave the farmer’s market where it is? 27
28
Mr. Williams: I believe that what we want to present here is something that has the flexibility to 29
do it either way. I think we still have to have those conversations with the farmer’s market and 30
merchants exactly how that all plays out but what we’re doing is creating an area that’s more 31
centralized on the street that could be used for any number of purposes and events. It may allow 32
us to, you know, extend the farmer’s market down some, or it, either away from El Camino or 33
keep it at El Camino and have, but have it nice, neat, and closed off. So I think this provides 34
flexibility for going in different directions but we haven’t had those discussions and need to as 35
part of the detailed review of you know how that would work. 36
37
Acting Vice Chair Keller: Thank you. 38
39
Acting Chair Fineberg: Commissioner Michael. 40
41
Commissioner Michael: So, harking back to a point made by Commissioner Keller earlier, the, 42
the scope of uses before the planning commission tonight are not as complete as maybe some of 43
us would like them to be or as some of the people in the community would like them to be. But I 44
think that to the extent that you’re looking at street beautification and then to help one of the 45
plaza, the plan is, and comparing this to the status quo, seems to reflect progress although there 46
43
would be inevitable disruption in implementing the plan and a lot of uncertainty as to what the 1
benefits and adverse impacts might be. 2
3
But, you know, I’m struck by the number of issues that seem to be open. And in no particular 4
order of priority I think the issue of the location of the loading zones vis-à-vis the alleys and 5
access to some businesses that may be feasible from the rear of the building doesn’t seem to be 6
of made as explicit as, as it could be or need be or should be. I think that the comment about the 7
placement of parallel parking in the first block exiting El Camino is a, a serious concern that I 8
would have relative to safety. I think the as an avid cyclist, and you know respecting the input 9
from the cycling community which I think you’ve done a good job of outreach to them. The 10
plaza tunnel contraflow lane I think is the wrong solution. It looks good on paper but I don’t 11
think it works. 12
13
And, and I really think that at the level of the Council and respecting the input from the 14
community and importance as articulated by Commissioner Keller, I think the opportunity for a 15
long term redevelopment of the California Avenue area is pretty exciting. I mean I’ve been a 16
long term, you know, patron of the area and I love it, but at certain times of day or times of night 17
it seems to be just a huge wasted opportunity. It could be so much more vitality, so many more 18
people patronizing businesses, and this may come about through more development, more 19
height, more intensification, and change which is traumatic, but progress is like that. But I think 20
to, to pass on this without putting it in that context to me is troubling. So, you know, I think if 21
the in the wisdom of the Council if they you know could exercise at least a month or two of 22
patience or maybe pull those things together, you know they might placate some of the legitimate 23
concerns of the, of the merchants and residents. 24
25
I think that they idea of reducing the lanes from four to two seems to me to be, you know, 26
obviously it’s not unanimous but it looks like it is viable. But two things can happen with the 27
lane reduction. One is some traffic’s gonna be displaced, where’s it gonna go? So this is my 28
question about adjacent parallel streets which are not before us this evening, and some people 29
will be even more frustrated than people are now by traffic in Palo Alto or part of Palo A lot and 30
they’ll go someplace else. So, again the idea of passing on this one street beautification idea or 31
concept in isolation is, seems to me problematic. 32
33
And I would imagine that, that retaining four way stops versus putting in traffic signals is less 34
expensive, but I think you could probably achieve, and I’m not an expert in this traffic flow 35
control with signals that would deal with all the magic of technology. You could actually have a, 36
that might be a worthwhile investment to make. 37
38
And then I think that the, you know, headlines every, every week are what’s happening in high 39
speed rail, we’ve got the Rail Corridor Study that we’ve recently looked at which was quite well 40
down and the Pedestrian Bicycle Plan and all these things suggest that California Avenue is like 41
right in the midst of all of these issues and we need to encourage the Council to get it right when 42
they meet on the 23rd so, assuming there are a lot of open issues on this. 43
44
Acting Chair Fineberg: Commissioner Keller. 45
46
44
Acting Vice Chair Keller: Thank you. So firstly one of the members of the public mentioned the 1
possibility of angled parking and converting the side streets to one way. I’m not sure if that’s a 2
good idea or a bad idea, but it’s something that could be explored particularly since it’s a cheap 3
way of adding additional parking. And I’m not suggesting we, you know, deal with that now, 4
but just something to put on the list. 5
6
The impact of the California, the Priority Development Area is something that actually has an 7
interesting history with respect to a submission that happened by the former City Manager that 8
was ratified by the City Council at the last minute so I don’t think that that process had a full 9
vetting, it certainly did not have a vetting before the Planning Commission prior to going to the 10
City Council. 11
12
One particular improvement that I would like to add is the mid-block crossings be slightly raised 13
as a way of improving their safety. In particular you see that in certain places on the Stanford 14
Campus and elsewhere on Campus Dive there’s certain places where the crosswalks not at stop 15
signs are raised and I think that would slow traffic appropriately as well as improve pedestrian 16
safety. If it can be done in such a way that it’s more like a speed table, not a speed bump, a 17
slight increase. 18
19
I too have concerns with the contraflow bike lane. If you go to that map I’ll get to it in a 20
moment. I agree that the idea of working with the community in terms of the location of the 21
loading zones is something that requires additional study and try to refine that with respect to 22
where they’re optimally placed. It is useful that they’re on the diagram because that shows that 23
they take up the appropriate amount of space but the relocation might make sense. 24
25
I am strongly opposed to angle parking located next to valley gutters because living where there 26
are valley gutters in my neighborhood people park on the sidewalk half the time making it hard 27
to, if I understand what valley gutters are, the rolling curb. People park on the sidewalk in my 28
neighborhood so you can’t really walk around there. You have to walk around sometimes to get 29
there and particularly when you have people who don’t know how to drive very well and use the 30
what people, what people inappropriately call the braille method of parking, they expect the curb 31
to stop them and if they don’t they wind up in the storefront that was possibly mentioned so I 32
think that’s a really bad idea fundamentally. 33
34
I don’t know if there are warrants for traffic signals or not, there probably aren’t but the issue is 35
to the extent that traffic flow is slowed down by all this it might be a potential for adding a traffic 36
signal at say Park, and, not Park I mean at Birch and California Avenue if it makes sense to 37
improve traffic flow, I don’t know if it does but it’s one thing that could be added to the mix. 38
You know, I don’t know enough the warrants for doing that. 39
40
Getting to the issue of contraflow bike lane what’s interesting to me about the contraflow bike 41
lane is good concept, bad implementation. And the concept is really how do you get bicycles 42
from the bike tunnel to the intersection of Park Boulevard and, and California Avenue in a 43
straight and efficient manner. And part of the problem is that what’s done is to create a 44
contraflow bike lane that is actually part of the through lane in the other, sort of eaten away from 45
the through lane in the other direction which I think is problematic. However, if what you do 46
45
instead is you make the contraflow bike lane actually be part of the plaza and move the trees in 1
slightly so that the contraflow bike lane is actually elevated on the raised plaza and then when 2
you get down to where the lowing of the plaza comes down to the street level, the bikes can exit 3
on there you essentially have a narrow width that is part of the plaza, you can widen the plaza if 4
you want to take, take to make that contraflow bike lane work, but by raising it up and making it 5
logically part of the plaza you have increased safety and separated those bikes from the other 6
traffic and kept the problem of the traffic going around of cars avoiding cars exiting and entering 7
a parking space from interfering with, you now, driving into the contraflow lane. An appropriate 8
lighting I think would help as well, but I think that’s a, that treatment is minimally changed but I 9
think would dramatically improve safety. 10
11
I think that, that the issue of a striping trial. Let me just if I may finish the idea of the striping 12
trial. I think that there may be opportunities to figure out a striping trial but I don’t think that 13
that should hold up the design process. I think that we should proceed along with this process 14
based on the comments and suggesting that people have made for how to improve it and continue 15
design and continue with the, with the, continue with the, the application of the grant. But I do 16
think it is possible to create a, a striping trial that may involve, I wouldn’t suggest rocking out the 17
middle of the street, that’s, I’m not sure that’s gonna work. I was suggested that maybe putting 18
temporary, moving the cars in temporarily to whey they might belong with temporary those little 19
barricade things that block the street, you know, those little curb things might be a way to 20
temporarily do that and appropriate painting and striping. 21
22
Obviously it would not involve the beautification, it was suggested to me that this might involve 23
trying to figure out how long it takes for people to find a parking space. Well, the parking’s 24
gonna be all changed so that doesn’t make sense to measure. But I think it might be possible to 25
measure the nature of the congestion with a relatively inexpensive trial that sort of mimics the 26
way that the streetscape is, the curb ends have changed and put parking spaces well marked as to 27
where they will go. 28
29
And the issue for me is not so much to change the decision. But I think that the fact that there’s 30
a significant amount of the community that is up in arms about this and feels that they have not 31
adequately been heard, I would feel that the investment of doing that would be worthwhile to 32
prove that either it was working there the impacts are minimal, or to avoid spending millions of 33
dollars on a plan that is a disaster. And so I’m hoping that there’s a way to do that in a way that 34
will either convince the community that it is doable or, or make us come back to square one and 35
revisit that, but I think it is worthwhile to, to move forward because of the time element and I 36
think we could do this in a way that doesn’t impact the schedule. 37
38
Acting Chair Fineberg: Ok, I want to quickly touch on something Commissioner Keller said and 39
also echo that almost everything my fellow Commissioners have said tonight I would agree with 40
and so there’s no need to repeat. 41
42
As far as the diagonal parking into the rolled curbs, I absolutely agree. If you utilize that you’ve 43
got to create some kind of barrier so that the front, those little cement thingies maybe, so that 44
people don’t use the valley as the place to put their front wheels which would mean the front end 45
of the car’s obstructing the sidewalk. Living in an area where we have those, everyone in the 46
46
neighborhood knows how to park properly in the rolled curbs and all of us have guests who 1
come in and put the car up on the sidewalk and obstruct pedestrians and people on the sidewalk. 2
So that will need special treatment. 3
4
I’m coming to a place where I think I’d like to see some kind of recommendation that we move 5
forward to Council that this continue on the path and receive funding. Receive the ability to be 6
funded. I don’t see that there’s anything in the surrounding concept plan that would negatively 7
impact or be negatively impacted by this work on Cal Ave. If anything the narrowing of Cal 8
Ave. will bring down intensity of the development in the Concept Area Plans when those get 9
analyzed and the environmental reports that we’ve looked at in the past were really equivocal on 10
the excess capacity of the street under existing conditions so I’d like for us to have some real 11
concrete suggestions about areas to focus, things to analyze. We’ve all talked about that so far. 12
And then move ahead with allowing this to proceed. 13
14
I think Commissioner Keller’s comment that it’s worth the investment and time and a trial is just 15
absolutely spot on. I know there are costs to that and there needs to be some tradeoffs of things 16
that we might have to remove. We might have to do a slightly less beautiful job in the plaza and 17
then find some additional funds later, but if we can get the public support that it works and then 18
proceed my concern would be and I don’t know if a trial can be engineered in a way that will 19
actually have a chance of functioning because if the trial is something that’s so doomed to fail 20
just because you, you pull up and there’s a saw horse and a two by four and a concrete wall and a 21
garbage can, and you look at it and it’s a normal driver with normal assumptions you can’t figure 22
out where’s the parking space in that mess. Or, what am I allowed to drive on and then one guy 23
decides to park parallel but it was really supposed to be diagonal. 24
25
I just, I don’t know and I heard from Staff and maybe they can speak more to it, but is there any 26
practical way to make a working trial where your average motorist, your average cyclist, would 27
have a clue of how to use the trial? Because I want a trial. I want to know that it’ll work so we 28
don’t go down a road we ought not. But, you know, can we, if Mr. Rodriguez can address this 29
maybe, can we engineer, or Mr. Williams, can we engineer a trial that, that’s even remotely 30
functional? 31
32
Mr. Rodriguez: As far as a trial, that just put in two lanes that is, like I think you’ve heard from 33
the audience not a very difficult thing to do. The difficult thing to replicate in a trial is unlike the 34
other trials we’ve done throughout the community like Charleston/Arastradero Road and other 35
areas is that, you know, the operation of two lanes is just one small piece of what you would 36
want to see implemented as part of a program and that is probably one of the most minor 37
elements that we see from the traffic study would have an impact overall in the project. We’ve 38
proven that in the traffic studies. 39
40
The real concern, the benefits that we see as a City are to the public improvements that come 41
with that type of a widening that cannot be replicated in a trial and I think Curtis did a good job 42
of trying to explain that a little earlier. It’s very hard to provide that same environment, you 43
know, with the trees which would provide the extra sidewalk environment with, you know, the 44
replicated sidewalk widening that doesn’t throw away a very significant capital cost later when 45
you actually implement the improvements. Those things are extremely difficult to measure they 46
47
are more subjective than qualitative and we’re looking at trials we really try our best to measure 1
the qualitative elements that we can measure. And I think the traffic studies that we have already 2
done really do a very good job demonstrating that the impacts from the lane reduction are not 3
there. There is no impact and so, you know, we can’t really replicate those other benefits in any, 4
in any one way because everybody will have a different opinion of it. You know there will be 5
people that just don’t want to see the trial go through, they want to keep things the same and 6
even admit that overall visit to the area may see a benefit that one person will not and, and I 7
think it’s very difficult to measure a trail along the corridor. 8
9
Acting Chair Fineberg: Thank you. Ok, so we’ll go for another round and hopefully one of, 10
actually Staff has a comment. Mr. Williams? 11
12
Mr. Williams: Well I just wanted to suggest in terms of maybe trying to move towards what 13
we’re hearing kind of from you is that what might be appropriate is something that moves the 14
project forward with a couple of categories of comments going along with that. Some are details 15
of that, that we should be looking at as we go by, go on with that like the loading zones. 16
Looking at that parallel parking in that first block type of thing. The diagonal parking and valley 17
gutter kind of issue. Those, those details that we, you think the Council should be sure that we 18
are directed towards looking at within the sort of context of the overall concept. 19
20
And then perhaps some comments about the context that you think the project should be 21
approved. So for instance, if you Commissioner Michael’s comments that the Council needs to 22
be aware of how this as the California Avenue Area Concept Plan comes forward that will be 23
another opportunity and we need to, you know, discuss this in light of that as it comes forward so 24
the two things are sort of joined at that point in some way. Oh, and then contraflow lane was 25
another one of those details kinda to look at as well and maybe this you also on the tunnel thing 26
that that’s an integral part of how this all works and that we really should have a plan developed 27
if it’s not with this project at least know what we’re doing there and, you know, be moving 28
forward to address that parallel track or whatever thing would be and if you all have a comment 29
on trying to look at a trial or you want to forward something to the Council relative to that, I 30
think that would not be inappropriate either. Just thoughts. 31
32
Acting Chair Fineberg: Thank you. In the interest of allowing our public that’s present tonight to 33
be heard, there’s a member of the public who has raised his hand and I will recognize him for a 34
brief comment and then I will close the Public Hearing. Just one moment please. 35
36
Mr. Williams: Well, whether it’s closed or not, well, it’s fine you invited him up now, does 37
everybody get to speak again? I guess that’s the concern. 38
39
Acting Chair Fineberg: Ok. I’m sorry, on a technicality I guess I’m not able to recognize you. 40
Hang on. Let me just open the Public Hearing and then it’s ok and then, go ahead. I’ll open the 41
Public Hearing and then close it again and we’ll return to the Commission. 42
43
Mr. Ekwall: Very good so I’ll just make this brief. Again, just speaking on behalf of ourselves 44
and going back about two years a trial period was discussed seriously in the merchant meetings 45
and then it’s dropped off the radar since. So at every merchant meeting that we’ve attended 46
48
we’ve addressed the issue of a trial period. For us we realize all the other aspects of this project 1
that can’t be replicated, but it is very straightforward and simple to restripe the existing street to 2
identify the lanes of traffic and the new parking that would be offered. That’s not a difficult 3
thing at least in our sense to do. 4
5
And we would much rather suffer some short term impact and realize maybe we were wrong in 6
our decision we should be supportive of the reduction or maybe we were right and it’s changing 7
the public’s behavior in terms of those that use automobiles to get to California Avenue. So we 8
do agree with the idea of a Comprehensive Plan for the entire neighborhood, not just kind of a 9
piecemeal let’s do California Avenue but let’s not address the overall issue of parking, let’s not 10
do a trial period. So we do support that. 11
12
Acting Chair Fineberg: Thank you. Ok, I officially close the Public Hearing. So let’s go for 13
another round of comments and hopefully I’ll hear a Motion out of a fellow Commissioner. 14
Three minutes each, Commissioner Tanaka. 15
16
MOTION 17
18
Commissioner Tanaka: Ok so I’ll make a Motion. So, I think I hear a consensus that in general 19
we’re interested in moving this forward in the context that we have it tonight which is to look at 20
the design, location of proposed sidewalk widening areas, and plaza design, and not necessarily 21
the four to two lane issue. And I, I think it’s important to move this forward and I actually think 22
it’s actually important to move relatively quickly because I think if anyone has walked down 23
California Avenue you can definitely see that a lot of tender loving care is needed on that street. 24
And I think if we have significant delays the economic vitality of the street gets delayed and so I 25
think it’s actually important to move forward. 26
27
So what I’d like to do is make a Motion that, that we move this, this project forward to Council. 28
But I’d like to of course have Amendments from my fellow Commissioners along the lines that 29
Director Williams mentioned so that we can, you know, handle some of the issues about the 30
loading zones, about the counter flow, counter flow parking, or counter flow bike lanes and other 31
issues. 32
33
SECOND 34
35
Acting Vice Chair Keller: Second. 36
37
Acting Chair Fineberg: Ok, Commissioner Tanaka would you like to speak to your Motion? 38
39
Commissioner Tanaka: I kinda did already, but I’ll maybe just get into some of the things that I 40
was thinking about. So first of all I do like Acting Vice Chair Keller’s idea about having a raised 41
counter flow. That seems to make sense to me, I don’t, I’m not necessarily an engineer so that 42
has to be studied. 43
44
Mr. Williams: You raised counter flow, I think you didn’t raise crosswalks? 45
46
49
AMENDMENT 1
2
Commissioner Tanaka: Oh, no I was talking about both things. Well, actually I liked that too, I 3
liked the raise crosswalk, but I also liked the idea about having the… let’s make it an 4
Amendment, yes. I make the Amendment to that Motion; it seems to make sense to me. I’m not 5
married to the idea, so I think it should be studied, I’m not sure it necessarily has to be done. 6
7
Acting Vice Chair Keller: Raised crosswalks are seconded. 8
9
Acting Chair Fineberg: And counter flow. 10
11
Commissioner Tanaka: Crosswalk and counter flow. I also think that the loading zones as part 12
of the design process is already being anticipated needs to be carefully located to areas where 13
there isn’t alleyway parking. And I didn’t hear much about this but I think, you know, parking 14
still gonna be a big issue here so having way finding to the park I know that the parking structure 15
in there, kind of like the Park Boulevard area tends to be less full than other ones so having way 16
findings so people know where parking is, I think is going to be important. 17
18
And I didn’t hear much about parklets in terms of sometimes on Cal Ave. some of those areas 19
get converted to parklets and how that would work, so maybe as that gets developed that could 20
be explored. 21
22
Acting Chair Fineberg: Please continue. 23
24
Commissioner Tanaka: Those are the ones I had, I think my fellow Commissioners are probably 25
gonna have other possible Amendments. 26
27
Acting Chair Fineberg: Commissioner Keller, care to speak to your second? 28
29
Acting Vice Chair Keller: Yes, thank you. So, so a couple of things, so first of all I will say that 30
I appreciate the members of the public participating in this discussion and the work being done 31
by Staff and I think that we can proceed along with the design of this project along with perhaps 32
a, a trial, I’ll be making an Amendment to that effect in a moment. So I’m going to suggest a 33
slight rewording of some of your things. So, the first thing is that… 34
35
Acting Chair Fineberg: Commissioner Keller, I’m sorry, is that a friendly Amendment? 36
37
FRIENDLY AMENDMENT 38
39
Acting Vice Chair Keller: That is a friendly Amendment to the Amendments that he has made, 40
I’m basically suggesting rewording some of the, to clarify the wording of some of the 41
Amendments. So firstly I would suggest that we simply say, “raised mid-block crosswalks” and 42
keep that separate. The second this is that I would suggest improving the contraflow bike lane, 43
for example raised as part of the Park Plaza. And the reason I’m saying “for example” is I don’t 44
think that I haven’t thought that through very clearly, I think that’s the kind of thing that can be 45
considered. I wouldn’t say do that as part of the Motion, but improving it is part of the Motion. 46
50
But you know, “example of raised as part of Park Plaza” is an example as part of the Motion. 1
The next thing is simply saying, is consider, instead of your wording of the loading zones, I 2
would suggest that “considering in consultation with the neighborhood where loading zones 3
should be placed.” Ok? That’s a little bit less restrictive and more clear. 4
5
And I think you talked about way finding. Way finding to parking? Is that something that 6
should be part of the Motion or is that something that is, is really at a different level? 7
8
Mr. Rodriguez: I think that’s definitely an element of the overall plan, so I think that’s fine. 9
10
Acting Vice Chair Keller: So can we not have that as part of the Motion? Great. Well yeah, 11
they’re gonna do it anyways, so ok. And how does Staff feel about exploring parklets? 12
13
Mr. Williams: I think we thought that would be part of the option, I mean what we’re looking at 14
is creating a situation that is flexible that would allow for that, but that would probably be 15
something that, you know, there may be some locations that we suggest identifying those, there 16
may be other options for businesses to propose them and you know, have that so that’s 17
something that’s definitely on our radar to be looking at as part of the detailed design. 18
19
Acting Vice Chair Keller: So, let me suggest that we, that I’m going to suggest a rewording of 20
that if it’s ok, which is “explore parklets” and I’m also gonna suggest “exploring bike corrals” as 21
part of that because that’s something that has been considered elsewhere and these are the things 22
to be considered for where we want them and so that can be added. So do you accept my 23
Amendment, my revisions of your Amendments? 24
25
Commissioner Tanaka: They sound good, thank you. 26
27
FRIENDLY AMENDMENT 28
29
Acting Vice Chair Keller: Good. Thank you. There’s one further friend, there’s two further 30
friendly Amendments I’d like to make. One friendly Amendment is to remove from the design 31
valley gutters. 32
33
Commissioner Tanaka: I guess I would say that, I think there’s ways to solve valley gutters or 34
you could put a post in there to stop cars from going, I don’t’ know which is a better maybe we 35
could let Staff comment about that to see is it better to have valley gutters and posts, or have 36
curbs and I don’t know. 37
38
Mr. Rodriguez: If I may, if I may just try to explain what the concept was. One of the concepts 39
of providing an actual plaza that really has interactive public uses in it, and that is accessible is 40
that when you have that space open for public use you have the parking spaces blocked off for 41
daytime use over the spring and summer you don’t want to provide that barrier of a curb, so there 42
is benefit in not having the curb for this specific flexible use. 43
44
So one of the concepts was that to provide though the safety for the barrier is to do exactly things 45
that you have all been talking about and the things that we didn’t’ really highlight are that within 46
51
the design we are already showing the use of bollards that would be used to say, stop a vehicle 1
that, you know, actually wanted to move forward. Of course parking blocks would be another 2
appropriate use of a type of a treatment in that case when parking is in use and the flexible space 3
as public plaza is not in use and so those can also be physically removed, but again, you know, 4
when, when you have it open for public space you don’t want to provide a barrier or else it’s not 5
really there for people to use. So I think that’s definitely a design element that we can continue 6
to work out. There’s a lot of ways to provide those barriers and more aesthetic treatments. It 7
doesn’t have to be a ball; it could be a nice seating bench that’s made of stone, those types of 8
treatments, etcetera. There’s definitely more of a design treatment element. 9
10
Acting Vice Chair Keller: So let me amend, restate, retry again with a different friendly 11
Amendment which is that any valley gutters are coupled with appropriate car stops. Is that fair? 12
13
Commissioner Tanaka: Sounds good to me. 14
15
FRIENDLY AMENDMENT 16
17
Acting Vice Chair Keller: Ok, and the last thing is, is with respect to a trial. And what I’m going 18
to suggest as an Amendment is that “Staff solicit from the merchants and the community a 19
proposal for a trail and for Staff to consider implementation of such a proposal.” Yes? 20
21
Commissioner Tanaka: So I’ve actually been through two trials in College Terrace. One is the 22
traffic calming trial and the other one is a residential permit parking trial and trials take a long 23
time. And one thing I’d like to hear from Staff about this is do we lose funding, is there an issue 24
with that? And also, there’s also, it kind of went with what Acting Chair Fineberg talked about 25
there’s incredible disruption if you do it really kind of haphazard where you put a cone there and 26
you do this and that and it kind of, I think it hurts their vitality if you do something for extended 27
period of time. And so I’m worried about the economic dominate to the businesses with some 28
sort of hokey trial that might happen. So I don’t know if maybe perhaps Staff might comment 29
about that. 30
31
Mr. Rodriguez: You know, I’ll try to comment from the perspective of the issue of the funding. 32
You know, we deferred our grant source voluntarily for a year while we worked out some of the 33
issues with kind of the active ligation that was occurring as well as trying to kind of finalize 34
some of these issues here with design so we could come to you tonight. But we did that 35
voluntarily because you know the VTA worked with us knowing that there was some concerns 36
from the community. If we can’t, if we get the money back and then we want to now say we’re 37
not ready because we’re doing something else I can’t speak for the VTA or the funding agency 38
but my thought is just having worked with that agency for the last 15, 16 years is that we would 39
likely give it up and we would have to then in the future not have a secured fund source or be 40
forced to be reapplying for a grant to recover that fund source. 41
42
Mr. Williams: If I could just add, I would just suggest that if there’s language like what’s been 43
suggested that it basically be that you recommend and its again a majority of you recommend, 44
that you recommend that the Council direct Staff to do those things that you said, to solicit, 45
etcetera and to, I don’t know if you used the word consider, but to consider a trial because I don’t 46
52
think, you know, and I don’t think you were saying you should do it, necessarily do a trial just 1
because somebody’s proposed it to, we have to consider it and ultimately we’d probably have to 2
go to Council to do it then. 3
4
Acting Vice Chair Keller: Yes and I certainly, this is a recommendation to Council and my, my 5
suggestion was to consider implementation not to go ahead and implement it, but to consider 6
implementation of the trial. I thought that, I’m not saying that, we have to. Firstly we have to 7
evaluate the proposal that comes back and determine what the metrics are and all that. But that I 8
think that it is a good idea to give the neighborhood an opportunity to propose something and 9
then you’ll have something on the table so that you actually know what it is they’re proposing. 10
Because I think that, that right now a trial is an amorphous kind of, kind of concept and it’s, you 11
know, different people have a different idea of what a trial might entail or what it might not 12
entail and without having specific proposal of a trial on the table it’s hard to, it’s hard to evaluate 13
whether that’s a good thing or not. 14
15
Commissioner Tanaka: so I sort of like the spirit of trials and I’m a big fan of trials in general. 16
And I think if we could, if there’s a way to structure it where we don’t endanger our funding 17
source, because I think this area needs, needs money right now. I think that’s pretty clear. And 18
it’s not like the City has money laying around otherwise. 19
20
But I also think we don’t, I think we’ve gone through a pretty long process. I think, and as I said 21
earlier I think speed’s important. I think kinda getting through this quickly and doing it right is 22
important. And having it drag out for another couple of years is not necessarily a good thing for 23
anyone. So I think, if you in terms of an Amendment maybe perhaps we could add a adder to 24
your Amendment, or an Amendment to your Amendment which is perhaps having it not 25
endanger our funding source, and not delaying implementation if there’s a way to do that. I 26
think that would be the way, that’s the way to make it kind of a win/win situation versus having 27
you know significant delays we lose the money and then there’s not enough money for the, for 28
the improvements to Cal Ave. I think that would be, perhaps a better way of doing it. 29
30
Acting Chair Keller: So in the spirit of what you have said, I’m going to, and based on the 31
suggestion I have from Staff, that part of the Motion is to recommend that Council direct Staff to 32
solicit from the merchants a proposal for a trial for Staff to consider implementation of that trial 33
in a manner that does not endanger the funding source and does not endanger, does not delay the 34
schedule for permanent implementation. 35
36
Commissioner Tanaka: Just a quick question for Staff. Does that sound reasonable? Ok. Yeah, 37
sure that sounds good to me. 38
39
Acting Chair Keller: Thank you, so with that I hope that this will be a successful project and I 40
hope that we’ll in this way have the community on board and that’s my dearest hope for this 41
improvement on California Avenue and I look forward to coming in several years and seeing 42
happy merchants and happy shoppers. A couple of years from now is two years. Yeah, exactly, 43
great. 44
45
53
Acting Chair Fineberg: Ok, so Commissioner Michael do you have any comments or 1
Amendments or other actions? 2
3
FRIENDLY AMENDMENT 4
5
Commissioner Michael: So one Amendment, a Friendly Amendment that I propose there’s been 6
some comments about the value of consulting with the neighborhood merchants in particular and 7
we’ve also talked about suggestions about different changes to the details of the, of the design 8
and I think I would propose that we have a, a public meeting scheduled after the design changes 9
or the proposed design changes, or the proposed final design is available for discussion that that 10
be scheduled to have a public meeting to, to inform everybody who’s interested about what those 11
changes might be and if you have any feedback from that meeting, you know, great. So that 12
would be the one amendment that I would propose. Separate meeting with the public that you 13
would outreach. You’d have a meeting. 14
15
Mr. Williams: Yeah, we’re, we have, we’re going to have a number of meetings with the public 16
as we move along through the design. 17
18
Commissioner Michael: Ok, but I’m just so I know that all these things we’re talking about 19
tonight once you have them kind of penciled out, you will definitely (interrupted) 20
21
Mr. Williams: Have a community meeting. 22
23
Commissioner Michael: Ok. Alright, well maybe that Amendment is not needed in that, if that’s 24
part of the plan already. 25
26
Mr. Williams: It, we probably think it isn’t needed but it doesn’t hurt either because we’re going 27
do it, so. 28
29
Commissioner Michael: Ok, let’s schedule public meeting to full air, all Staff’s design changes. 30
As a comment, so earlier this evening I was, as a Friendly Amendment. 31
32
Commissioner Tanaka: Yeah, sounds good. 33
34
Acting Vice Chair Keller: I’m simply going to suggest that its Staff to schedule the public 35
meeting, etcetera, etcetera. 36
37
Acting Chair Fineberg: Ok, Maker and Seconder have accepted that Friendly Amendment. 38
Commissioner Michael. 39
40
FRIENDLY AMENDMENT 41
42
Commissioner Michael: Yeah. It’s fine. So earlier this evening I was, I was strongly in favor of 43
a trial and then I’ve been thinking about it and listening to what everybody has to say and I think 44
the feasibility of a trial of an adequate duration to provide meaningful data without 45
compromising the funding source is a, is undesirable. But also I think I’m not sure what a, how 46
54
to design a trial. I think painting different stripes on the ground is not necessarily a proper 1
experiment in terms of how the public is gonna react, what the impact on the businesses would 2
be. Because you’re going to constrain access to the street without any counter veiling attraction 3
to bring people to the street and beautification is really an attraction, and the constraint on the 4
lanes and the change in parking is, it’s not gonna be meaningful, I think it will put the project in 5
jeopardy of funding and if you just hypothetically if you, assume that the public funding wasn’t 6
available let’s say you made an assessment, a special assessment of all the merchants to pay for 7
this benefit, would they pay? Would that be popular? 8
9
There might be some thinking about, you really want to benefit the merchants, the shoppers, the 10
neighborhood. And so I think doing a trial of simplify the adverse impact of constraining the 11
lanes isn’t to me, give you anything. You could simulate that result and you could know what 12
the result’s gonna be, people are gonna be frustrated. So I would personally believe that’s not a 13
useful activity. 14
15
On the one thing you’ve talked about the issue of the, the design of the parallel parking in that 16
first block off of El Camino on the south side of California Avenue. If the issue is people 17
coming off of El Camino and then somebody sort of holding, delaying, waiting for somebody to 18
exit if you reverse the parallel parking to the north side of California in that block you avoid that 19
problem. And also it looks like, I’m looking at you, you’re the sheet if you put the diagonal 20
parking on the south side you’d pick up quite a few more spaces. So, I would actually propose 21
an amendment that that diagonal parking relationship in that first block be reconsidered. 22
Friendly Amendment? 23
24
Acting Chair Fineberg: Staff would like to respond to that if they could before we discuss that 25
further. 26
27
Mr. Rodriguez: You know, again one of the things we mentioned that really the bigger concern 28
we heard from the community when we really started the project and it’s been going on now a 29
couple years was that there was just concern about angle parking operations at 60 degrees in the 30
first block. And so the reason why we have this recommendation for parallel parking is one 31
because that is just the ideal location for sidewalk widening for the existing land uses that are 32
there and because that will continue and the widening really supports those types of restaurant 33
activities and uses, and secondly it really, it did respond to the community concern. And I think 34
he did it in a very good way. And when you’re talking about the amount of traffic that’s coming 35
onto California Avenue that is gonna be moving through that area unlike other areas, you know, 36
you really meter your traffic as an entry to California Avenue from El Camino Real. One you’re 37
either coming because your turning left coming from downtown and that’s a small amount of 38
traffic that enters, you know, up to 5 or 6 cars at a time, you know, on a green. You have cars 39
that are coming on a right turn from north El Camino come from Page Mail that’s a very short 40
amount of vehicles, you know, a certain amount of time. Or you have cars that are coming from 41
College Terrace across El Camino Real. So there’s never a scenario where you have a 100 cars 42
entering the street all at once on that street. That never occurs. You already naturally meter 43
traffic because they enter California Avenue because of the El Camino traffic signal. 44
45
55
So the concern that, you know, there will be a significant amount of delays and backups, I don’t 1
think that that will be the case. And that was specifically one of the elements that we looked at 2
with, with the traffic study very early on was kinda this friction that exists on a roadway when 3
you have cars kinda entering angled parking spaces or other types of spaces so I don’t think that 4
is a concern that we need to change the design as you’ve seen today. I think that the merits of 5
the benefits that you see with the parallel parking on that south side I think outweigh those 6
concerns and then the amounts and operation vehicle, the roadway itself kinds negates the 7
concerns as well. 8
9
Commissioner Michael: Well, if I can just respond to that. So I defer to your expertise, but just 10
as a parker it doesn’t make sense to me. I would, the language was to have it be reconsidered. I 11
didn’t say change it, but I would seriously urge that you make a new look at that because just 12
going up and down streets where there is parallel parking such as University or diagonal parking 13
I think that the behavior of motorists, my behavior is such that there’s a much bigger potential 14
for delay with the parallel parking. It’s just a more complex maneuver and it, people get hung up 15
doing that, but if there a diagonal spot that’s open people sort of zip out and zip in. And I think 16
your comment about sidewalk widening is, you know, you’re gonna be able to widen your 17
sidewalk on one side or the other. Yeah, so. So Friendly Amendment to consider or reconsider 18
that orientation. 19
20
Commissioner Tanaka: So, I, because it’s to consider and I think Staff will do the analysis and 21
figure out which way makes, makes the most sense. I think to me it sounds fine to reconsider it 22
because I understand your point of view from a parker’s point of view and it’s at the entrance. 23
So I think for staff to reconsider it’s probably not a bad idea. 24
25
Acting Vice Chair Keller: so I’m assuming that the working of that amendment is to consider, to 26
reconsider whether there should on the first, on the portion between El Camino and the first, I’m 27
sorry, between El Camino and Ash Street, the which side has parallel parking and which side has 28
angled parking. That’s I think the Motion. Good right? 29
30
Commissioner Tanaka: Yep. 31
32
Acting Vice Chair Keller. Great, so I will accept that Friendly Amendment. I just want to point 33
out in terms of considering that Friendly Amendment that it affects the length of the three lane 34
stacking for right turns thought traffic and left turns approaching El Camino from the east. And 35
that stacking may be, how that stacking works out maybe different depending on the nature of 36
that because it might shorten the left turn lane, so. I don’t know that’s, that’s one of the 37
considerations have to be and I’m not making that out as part of the amendment, but I’m just 38
pointing out that that’s one of the considerations that needs to be done when considering that 39
amendment. Thank you. 40
41
FRIENDLY AMENDMENT 42
43
Acting Chair Fineberg: Ok. I’m gonna make a couple quick comments and then I think I’ve 44
captured most of the Motion but we will have the benefit of having verbatim minutes and also 45
56
other people. I know I missed the first two items that Commissioner Tanaka proposed so I’m 1
gonna need some help getting those back in. 2
3
Ok, my comments. On the last item I have no object that there be something saying consider 4
these to parallel versus diagonal parking on the south side of El Camino. However, the reason 5
it’s now parallel is because it was perpendicular before and there were safety issues about cars 6
backing up so in reverse, cars coming from El Camino at a fairly high rate of speed onto Cal Ave 7
and then a diagonal parker with possibly limited or no visibility depending on how capable the 8
driver is backing up into the flow of oncoming traffic. So either way, you either get people who 9
can’t back up properly casing accidents or you get parking trolls blocking the flow of traffic 10
waiting for, you know, I was guilty of it the mom with the stroller that takes five minutes to load 11
up the car and there’s somebody who can’t drive 10 feet to the next parking space in front. 12
13
So neither solution is ideal. Now the solution may be that you get rid of parking spaces and 14
make it really safe and get everybody into Cal Ave. but reducing parking spaces isn’t a good 15
choice either. So you know maybe that’s a place where there’s some additional widened 16
sidewalks and that’s where the parklet goes and we have some tradeoffs of taking a parklet from 17
somewhere else, but we can’t answer that, what the ideal solution is right now. So I trust and I 18
know, you know I had to learn through the years of being commissioner that the initial stage of a 19
project there just isn’t information that you want. There isn’t that sense of certainty that it’s 20
gonna work and then later in the design stages when $100’s of thousands are spent and the 21
details are drawn then you have the detail and you can say it’s good, or it’s not good. And we 22
just aren’t there yet. So I’m in that place where I’m happy that Staff will examine it and the 23
decisions of what the right answer is will be made later. 24
25
So, one additional Friendly Amendment. We talked about the tunnel improvements at Park 26
Plaza so I’d like to add a Friendly Amendment that we explore future tunnel improvements as it 27
comes up in Park Plaza especially relating to the contraflow bike lane. 28
29
Commissioner Tanaka: Is that in the scope of this project, the tunnel? At all. 30
31
Mr. Williams: No, the design it isn’t in the design scope but I don’t know that I heard that being 32
the suggestion was I think to sort of put that on our agenda for something to look at as a priority 33
to because we need to connect. 34
35
Acting Chair Fineberg: No, I’m actually not thinking of the entire tunnel so I’m not saying 36
agendized it as a different item, but I’m envisioning that somewhere within the tunnel is s ramp 37
that comes up into the plaza. At some point it can either go straight right or left and then do we 38
raise it, lower it? And there’s a gazillion options for how to properly handle it. We talked about 39
the idea before of maybe part of it being raised. But whether it should come up and go right, left 40
straight, around, make a U-turn be in bollards, be in the roadway with a contraflow. I’m seeing 41
the expiration as more what does it do when it’s very close to hitting grade? 42
43
Mr. Rodriguez: If I could just provide a quick response I think all the comments that you’re, 44
you’re mentioning Commissioner is part of the design process that we will go through anyway. 45
And so I think that, you know, the response, the comments that that we heard from the 46
57
community as well as the Commission I think that we do need to spend a lot more time looking 1
at the plaza design and how the interaction happens in and out of the tunnel onto the plaza itself 2
so, nothing from the suggestion? The Amendment that you mentioned to me has a concern. 3
4
Acting Chair Fineberg: Ok, so let me change that then to “explore the future tunnel ramp exit.” 5
So it kind of puts an end on how deep we go. So explore future tunnel exit ramp improvements 6
in the Park Plaza. 7
8
Commissioner Tanaka: Sounds good. 9
10
Acting Vice Chair: I think it’s fine I’m just suggest one word change, which is “explore the 11
future of, of future tunnel exit improvements in the Park plaza design. In other words when 12
you’re doing the design take into account what changes might happen to a future tunnel so that 13
we don’t have to completely redo the design of the Park Boulevard Plaza but that we’ve 14
anticipated those changes and they could be made without too much impact. That’s the idea. 15
Thank you. 16
17
Acting Chair Fineberg: So adding the word “design” at the end. I’m fine with that if the maker 18
and seconder accept it. 19
20
Commissioner Tanaka: Accepted. 21
22
Acting Chair Fineberg: Ok, let me try and recap. I think I’ve captured most of them but I do 23
need some assistance with the first two. The Motion is that we move the project forward to 24
Council with a review of the issues relating to the design phase. If Staff, does Staff have the first 25
two items that Commissioner Tanaka mentioned? 26
27
Mr. Williams: One was look at raised crosswalks and counter flow. And second was loading 28
zones. Loading zones. Looking at loading zones relative to where the, there are not, is not alley 29
access. 30
31
Mr. Rodriguez: That’s what I had also. 32
33
Acting Chair Fineberg: Ok. So the Motion is as I initially stated before and the items to be 34
considered would be consider the loading zone locations in consultation with the neighborhood, 35
improve the counter flow bike lanes with it being possibly raised. I will leave it to Staff to add 36
the correct verbs for consideration, evaluate… raise mid-block cross, raised mid-block 37
crosswalks, explore parklets and bike corral locations, valley gutters to be coupled with car 38
stops, Council to direct Staff to solicit from merchants a trial as long as, a proposal for trial as 39
long as it does not jeopardize funding sources or cause delays. 40
41
Mr. Williams: Merchants and the community. 42
43
Acting Vice Chair Keller: Yeah, I think that that’s Staff, Council to request Staff to solicit from 44
merchants and community a proposal for a trial and Staff to consider implementation in a 45
58
manner so that it does not endanger funding source or delay permanent implementation of the 1
project. 2
3
Acting Chair Fineberg: I’m seeing appropriate heads nodding. Staff to schedule at least one 4
public meeting to present the design proposals and that would be outside of Planning 5
Commission hearings that are required. Consider the use of parallel versus diagonal parking 6
along the southern end just off El Camino. And finally, explore future tunnel exit ramps 7
improvements in the Park Plaza design. Do I see any comments from Commissioners about 8
other items that have been missed? Commissioner Keller. 9
10
Acting Vice Chair Keller: I’m just going to slightly amend, correct I think the wording of what 11
you stated. It was with respect to the, the west most block of California Avenue and it’s not just 12
on the south side, it’s on the north side because you would swap which is parallel and, and so we 13
have to be considering both sides, not just one side. 14
15
Acting Chair Fineberg: Ok, so strike the mention to the side of the road and that would be just 16
“consider the use of parallel versus diagonal parking on both sides at the block at El Camino.” 17
18
Acting Vice Chair Keller: Thank you. 19
20
Acting Chair Fineberg: Do I see any, Commissioner Tanaka? 21
22
Commissioner Tanaka: Yeah, I, after hearing Commissioner Michael’s comment about the trial I 23
actually share a lot of those reservations because I’ve been through two trials and they’ve both 24
been extended and it’s really hard to do a good trial so, but I’m ok with an amendment being in 25
there but I just want to see if Commissioner or Acting Vice Chair has a different opinion after 26
hearing Commissioner Michael’s thoughts. 27
28
Acting Vice Chair Keller: Well I’m certainly sympathetic with the difficulty that, that a trial 29
presents but I think that if it is possible for the, for the merchants and community to propose a 30
trail that’s actually workable and that can be measured in a reasonably short period, reasonably 31
short period of time so that we can see that, that the traffic impacts and I think that the issue is 32
that the traffic impacts should not be horrendous. It might, I would expect that traffic might slow 33
down a little bit, and so if we have metrics that say that the traffic is, you know, doesn’t get to 34
LOS-D or whatever the right, you know, whatever the appropriate measure of that is. But if we 35
understand that it will slow down traffic, that they will be in some increased congestion, but if 36
the amount of increased congestion from a trial is not such that it makes the street impassable 37
and it makes it impossible for the people to get to and from, that’s the kind of thing we’re talking 38
about. And so, I think if they can propose something and Staff can implement it I think that 39
would be good, I’m not saying that Staff has to implement it, but give the community the 40
opportunity to propose something. 41
42
VOTE 43
44
Acting Chair Fineberg: Ok, seeing that we have no more Amendments, let’s vote. All 45
Commissioners in favor of the Motion? It passes unanimously with Commissioner Tanaka, 46
59
Commissioner Fineberg, Commissioner Keller, and Commissioner Michael. And absent is 1
Commissioner Martinez and not participating is Commissioner Tuma. Thank you. We will 2
continue, let’s take a three minute break and we will continue with some Commission business 3
matters. 4
5
MOTION PASSES (4-0-0-2, Martinez, Tuma absent) 6
July 2012
CALIFORNIA AVENUE – TRANSIT HUB CORRIDOR STREETSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS
PROJECT
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS
What is the California Avenue ‐ Transit Hub Corridor Streetscape Improvements Project?
The project includes streetscape enhancements along California Avenue between El Camino Real and
the Park Boulevard Plaza such as: enhanced raised crosswalks, new sidewalk seating areas, upgraded
sidewalk amenities (benches, bike racks, trash receptacles, news racks, and information kiosks), new
street light fixtures, new gateway signs and monuments, street repaving, and redesign of the Park
Boulevard Plaza, including implementation of a new public art fountain, outdoor seating areas, and
enhanced bicycle parking facilities. The project also includes reduction in vehicle travel lanes from
four lanes to two to accommodate sidewalk expansion and traffic calming features. For more
information, please visit: www.cityofpaloalto.org/calave.
Where did this plan come from and how does the City’s Comprehensive Plan align with this project?
Comprehensive Plan policies and programs frequently emphasize “street improvements that could
make substantial contributions to the character of Centers, including widening sidewalks, narrowing
travel lanes, creating medians, restriping to allow diagonal parking, and planting street trees”
(Program L‐18 and Policies T‐22 and T‐23). The California Avenue – Transit Hub Streetscape Project
is expected to result in the following benefits:
• provide improvements for pedestrian, bicyclist and automobile safety;
• enhance the overall appearance of the street and encourage pedestrian activity;
• revitalize the plaza area for public use; and
• maintain high levels of service for vehicle use
These improvements serve to support retail vitality along the street, create a sense of identity, and
encourage new pedestrian/ transit oriented residential development that will patronize the local
businesses and support the use of public transportation, especially Caltrain.
What is the schedule for the project?
Preliminary design, which includes sidewalk widening options, will continue through September
2012. The final design phase will continue through Summer of 2013 with construction beginning in
the Fall of 2013. Additional outreach meetings will continue to be scheduled for community input
on the final design.
Mar ‘12 Jun ‘12 Sept ‘13 Dec ‘13
Preliminary Design Final Design Fall ’13 Construction
Attachment D
California Avenue Streetscape FAQs Page 2
What is the status of funding for the project?
The City of Palo Alto deferred its $1.2 million grant funding for the project until 2013, but expects to
receive renewal of the funding in early 2013. The design phase of the project is locally‐funded with
final design in the Summer of 2013. Construction is anticipated in the Fall of 2013.
Does the project include a reduction of the number of travel lanes on California Avenue?
Yes. The project includes a restriping of California Avenue that provides two travel lanes (one per
direction). At intersections, turn lanes and some driveways, turn lanes are maintained to help
maintain roadway capacity.
How long has the Streetscape project been in development? Has a two‐lane approach been part of the
prior plans?
The City has been pursuing improvements within the California Avenue Business District since 2004.
Funding for improvements has been contingent upon grant‐funding opportunities. The City pursued
four different grant funds since 2004 and was awarded a $1.8M grant in 2010 from the Valley
Transportation Authority (VTA). The City agreed to defer the funding available in 2012 until 2013 to
allow pending litigation to be completed. All grant submittals pursued by the City prior to the current
grant included a two‐lane approach, generally with the support of the California Avenue Area
Development Association (CAADA) as it was comprised at that time.
How will the reduction in travel lanes affect traffic on California Avenue? Wasn’t the street designed
for four lanes?
No significant traffic impacts are expected. California Avenue was originally designed as a four‐lane
arterial street, providing access across the railroad tracks to Alma Street and beyond. Upon creation
of Oregon Expressway /Page Mill Road and its accompanying grade separation in the early 1960s,
the grade crossing was eliminated and California Avenue now ends at Park Blvd., eliminating
through traffic.
Santa Cruz Avenue ‐ Menlo Park, California
California Avenue Streetscape FAQs Page 3
Has a traffic analysis been considered for the reduction to two lanes? How does traffic compare to
streets that were narrowed in other cities?
A traffic study of the project was completed in 2010 as part of the grant application process and
determined that there would be no significant impact from the lane reduction to two lanes.
A complete copy of the traffic study is available at www.cityofpaloalto.org/calave . Data below
compares traffic volumes on California Avenue with those on streets with two–lane configurations
in nearby “downtowns” and current daily traffic volumes (ADT) for those streets, all of which are
about 3 times the volume of California Avenue.
City Street ADT
Palo Alto California Ave. 5,280
Palo Alto University Ave. 18,700
Menlo Park Santa Cruz Ave. 15,445
Mountain View Castro Street 14,297
Los Gatos Santa Cruz Ave. 16,000
Will the two‐lane configuration handle traffic in the future, such as that envisioned in the California
Avenue/Fry’s Area Concept Plan and pending developments in the area?
Each individual project within the California Avenue/Fry’s Area Specific Plan may, depending on its size
and location, require a separate traffic study to evaluate its project impacts, including traffic and other
environmental factors. The City’s traffic study for the California Avenue ‐ Transit Hub Streetscape
project analyzes future project volumes necessary before any significant impact under a two‐lane
operation may be realized, and anticipates that there would be no significant impact (exceeding
acceptable levels of service), even with substantial new development in the area. The basis for this
conclusion is that the roadway capacity is considerable (see comparisons above to other similar
streets), and that trips from most new development will probably use roads other than California
Avenue for access. The traffic report is available at www.cityofpaloalto.org/calave.
Why is a two‐lane road preferable to the current four lanes?
The lane reduction will help improve pedestrian and bicyclist accessibility and safety and will provide
for current on‐street parking to be brought to current design standards. The proposed project will
allow for a “Complete Street” design concept that expands sidewalk opportunities for pedestrians
(including sidewalk widening, bulbouts and safer crossings) and allows for the development of a new
sense of place, enhancing the existing community experience and enhancing economic vitality.
Castro Street – Mountain View, California
California Avenue Streetscape FAQs Page 4
What benefits are expected from the streetscape project and lane reduction on California Avenue?
Where has this been done before?
The project is expected to create a new, more vibrant place. The street modifications reduce the
extent of asphalt and landscape to allow for more tree plantings, pedestrian amenities, and public
art. Vitality is improved as more seating is available for restaurants and cafes, and as the street
evolves to a “place” comfortable for public gatherings both on a daily basis or for special events
bringing the public to the area. In addition to local examples of two‐lane “main” streets on the
Peninsula (Los Gatos, Menlo Park, Los Altos, Mountain View, etc.), some further examples can be
found in:
Mill Avenue in Tempe, Arizona: (www.planning.org/greatplaces/streets/2008/millavenue.htm);
Bird Rock area of La Jolla near San Diego:
(www.sandiego.gov/planning/documents/pdf/trans/birdrock.pdf) and
Valencia Street in San Francisco: (www.sfdpw.org/index.aspx?page=1174)
More information can be found on the project website at: www.cityofpaloalto.org/calave.
Does the project result in a loss of parking along California Avenue?
No. The latest Concept Plan shows a net gain of 4 additional on‐street parking spaces. Further
opportunities for additional parking may be available as design is finalized. The final design will
include sidewalk and pedestrian‐scale lighting improvements that will affect the final on‐street
parking count.
Does the project affect existing trees planted along California Avenue?
No. All existing trees will be preserved. Additional landscaping, including more trees, is proposed at
the Park Plaza and throughout the project limits as space permits.
Will tables and chairs on the sidewalk be available to adjacent restaurants?
Yes. The City will work with merchants to locate seating areas and tables in locations beneficial to
restaurants, and will relocate other streetscape features, such as newsracks and bikeracks, so they
are not obstacles to patrons.
Mill Avenue ‐ Tempe, Arizona
California Avenue Streetscape FAQs Page 5
What will the City do to minimize impacts on California Avenue businesses during construction?
City staff will be scheduling meetings with California Avenue business and property owners to
discuss construction staging and operations to minimize impacts during the construction of the
project. The purpose of the meetings will be to gather input from merchants and businesses
regarding critical business hours (e.g., deliveries, events, peak business, etc.), retaining access for
customers and deliveries, and providing City assistance in marketing/publicizing area businesses
during construction.
What effects will the lane reduction have on loading and unloading for businesses on the street? Do
the plans provide for loading spaces?
California Avenue currently does not have any designed loading zones marked on the street. The
current draft design for the project includes the addition of 3 loading zones along California Avenue at
Ash Street (north side), Birch Street (south side), and Park Boulevard (south side). Requests for
additional loading zones will continue to be considered. The existing loading zones located on New
Mayfield Lane and on alleys behind existing businesses will continue to be available for merchants.
Over 80% of the street blocks on California Avenue have existing alleys behind their businesses.
Has the City communicated the plans to the merchants on the street and nearby?
Since the beginning of the design phase of the project, the City has held a total of six (6) community
meetings with surrounding residents and businesses to present design plans and collect input on the
plaza design and the streetscape elements of California Avenue Streetscape project. In addition, City
staff held two (2) merchant focused meetings to discuss comments on the proposed plans and to
discuss construction phasing. Additional meetings will be held as the project is advanced through the
design phase. Additional input will be requested from the community and business merchants as the
design plans are finalized.
Main Street – Hendersonville, North Carolina
Preferred Street Alignment Plan
El Camino Real to Ash Street
South Side Sample Widening
Attachment E
Preferred Street Alignment Plan
Ash Street to Birch Street
Sample Bulb-Out Widening
Attachment E
Preferred Street Alignment Plan
Ash Street to Birch Street – Seasonal Barrier
Attachment E
TRASH
REMOVABLE BOLLARDS BOLLARDS
PLINTH AND POT -TYP
REMOVABLE BOLLARDS
TRASH
Palo Alto
& Herbal
Medicine
Preferred Street Alignment Plan
Birch Street to Park Blvd
Added Enhancement Areas
In Response to Council
Attachment E
CALIFORNIA AVENUE TRANSIT HUB PALO ALTO, CA APRIL 2O12
PLAZA
0 5 10 20
SCULPTURAL ELEMENT WITHSEAT ROCKS SURROUNDING
BOLLARDS
BOLD FOLIAGE & COLOR PLANTING BENCHES
BOLD FOLIAGE
& COLOR PLANTINGAS UNDERSTORY
BIKE RACKS
INTEGRAL COLOR CONCRETEPAVING PANELS WITHCONTRASTING BANDS
POTENTIAL PARKING
(4 STALLS)
FLOWERING TREES
G
PO
(4
GREEN SCREENAT K RAIL
Minor, Beth
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Robert Moss <bmoss33@att.net>
Tuesday, July 17, 2012 5:00 PM
Council, City
Williams, Curtis; Yazdy, Shahla
12 JUl '8 AH 9: 59
Subject: Reconfiguring California Avenue -Try Before We Buy
Mayor Yeh and Councilmembers July 17, 2012
Reconfiguring California Avenue -Try Before We Buy
The proposals to reconfigure California Avenue by widening sidewalks, improving landscaping and reducing
traffic lanes from four to two was recommended for approval by the Planning and Transportation Commission
with some clarifications requested. This project has been under consideration for almost three years and still
has some major issues that must be resolved before any permanent changes are made to California Avenue.
The biggest is whether the lane reduction will have any negative impacts on traffic, parking, or commercial
viability of businesses. The only way to really see the impact of lane reductions is to test it first and to delay
permanent changes until the test is complete.
Improving and upgrading the California Avenue business district has been a topic of discussion for years.
CAADA considered the situation more than four years ago and decided that the best approach was widening
sidewalks, adding landscaping and trees, allowing restaurants to expand seating onto the widened sidewalks,
and improving transit to and from the area. They took their proposals to city staff and councilmembers
resulting in a series of meetings of the PTC and Council to develop plans for improvements. Many business and
property owners became upset when they learned of these plans as they didn't feel that they had been
consulted or that their concerns were being heard. Nevertheless the CAADA proposals were accepted as the
desire of property owners and businesses along California Avenue and adopted by staff. Getting the
$1,175,200 grant from VTA for modifying California Avenue solidified the staff position that this was a
functional and desirable change to the street.
In fact many business owners were not on board with the change. They felt left out ofthe discussions and
decision making by CAADA and staff. Letters, full page ads in local papers, and comments at Planning
Commission and Council meetings by many business owners in the California Avenue area make it clear that
they feel ignored and that their very real concerns were arbitrarily dismissed. Planning commissioners .'
acknowledged this inadequate treatment of businesses when they recommended a trial of the lane reduction
before it is finalized. This is very reasonable and will somewhat address the concerns of the many people that
doubt reduCing California Avenue from four to two lanes won't have negative impacts.
Improving the appearance and landscaping of California Avenue is a relatively minor controversy. Everyone
agrees that street improvements would be nice. The major issue is traffic impacts, and how much sidewalk
widening and modification is acceptable before negative traffic impacts occur. Staff raised legitimate concerns
that a trial of the lane reduction won't be fully accurate since the sidewalk and landscape changes won't be
included and can't be evaluated. That is correct, but not a major impediment to the traffic impact study. A
trial that simulates widening sidewalks with temporary bollards or parking bumpers and restriping the street
to represent the proposed two-lane configuration should allow traffic and business impacts to be determined.
The wider sidewalk area could accommodate rented potted trees and plants to represent upgraded
1
,landscaping. Restaurants could be allowed to place tables outdoors in the wider sidewalks, and location of
loading zones could be verified as adequate or troublesome.
Traffic impacts can be quantified by taking before and after traffic counts on California, Cambridge, Grant,
Sherman, Sheridan, Ash, Birch and Park. Measure travel times both ways along these streets, and report
accidents on those streets since 2005 and during the test. If problems such as wrong loading area location,
increase in accidents in a specific area, or congestion at intersections are identified during the test
modifications can be made and the impact ofthe changes evaluated. The trial should last at least 6 months,
probably longer so that seasonal traffic variations are accounted for.
Impacts on businesses can be estimated by asking participating businesses to compare income pre and post
trial. A more quantitative evaluation would be sales tax revenues before and after during the same time
periods. While this won't give data on service-oriented businesses it will give valid data on retail store impacts.
Unfortunately the trial won't show the impacts of developments due to the designation of California Avenue
within Yz mile ofthe CalTrain station as our only Preferred Development Area, but those changes probably
won't be significant until 2014 or later. However the baseline data on traffic flow and retail sales can be used
to evaluate the impacts offuture developments in the California Avenue PDA when compared with current
conditions with four lanes for traffic and the two-lane simulation before significant development occurs in the
area.
Please adopt the recommendation of the Planning Commission and dozens of businesses in the California
Avenue area and approve a traffic study that includes simulation for widened sidewalks, loading zone
locations, and lane reduction from four to two lanes. It should last at least six months, but a one-year trial will
give data over the normal range of business and shopping activity.
Yours sincerely,
Bob Moss
4010 Orme St.
650-493-2178
2
Minor. Beth
From:
Sent:
":t,,)",,·, "":\.--
Pat Marriott < patmarriott@sbC910b~i~~f?/·gLr;~F; ~~ i~i~1'c~~
Wednesday, July 18, 2012 9:48 AM .
To: catt188@gmail.com 12 JUl 18 M~ Q: t; I
Council, City; Keene, James; Williams, Curtis; Rodriguez,1ai'rn~
RE: From Mollie Stone's Market requesting a painted line test
Cc:
Subject:
NO, they will not. You have to send to city council@city.palo-alto.ca.us
Cc: ja meso keene@cityofpaloalto.org; cu rtis. williams@cityofpaloalto.org; ja im e.rod riguez@cityofpaloalto.org
From: catt188@gmail.com [mailto:catt188@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2012 9:24 AM
To: Pat Marriott
Subject: Fwd: From Mollie Stone's Market requesting a painted line test
Fyi Will council members see this see addressed to shahla yazdy?
----------Forwarded message ---------
From: David Bennett
Date: Wednesday, July 18,2012
Subject: Fwd: From Mollie Stone's Market requesting a painted line test
To: "catt188cmgmail.com" <catt188cmgmail.com>
FYI
Dave Bennett
Begin forwarded message:
From: David Bennett <dbmollie@gmail.com>
Date: July 18,20126:15:23 AM PDT
To: "Yazdy, Shahla" <Shahla.Yazdy@CityofPaloAlto.org>
Subject: From Mollie Stone's Market requesting a painted line test
Hello Shahia,
Do any of the other projects mentioned in the frequently asked questions have a supermarket that survived this
lane reducing project at the end of a dead end street? Are all the other projects mentioned thru streets? If so, I
will contact the other supermarket operators to see how it affected their business over time.
We are the property owner and our own tenant. Please explain to the public the risk oflosing the supermarket to
enhance the benefits for bikes and restaurant seating. I would encourage the City of Palo Alto to do a test with
painted lines in the street as part of this process.
When we began to operate our market here in 1990 we and subsequently purchased the property, we never
dreamed the access for the grocery store would be limited in favor of bicycles, pedestrians, farmers markets and
restaurants.
This letter may be self serving, as our property has been selected for additional housing in Palo Alto, but for
now, we do wish to continue operating our market. The survival of our business does not depend on only local
residents. We need customers from much further away.
1
David Bennett
Owner
Mollie Stone's Markets
On Ju117, 2012, at 3:12 PM, "Yazdy, Shahla" <Shahla.Yazdy@,CityofPaioAlto.org> wrote:
Interested Resident, Merchant, and or Property Owner,
The Director of Planning and Community Environment has asked that staff provide you with the attached copy
of a list of Frequently Asked Questions (F AQs) and responses related to the California Avenue Streetscape
Project in advance of next Monday's City Council meeting. The staff report and attachments for the meeting
will be available on the City's website at the end of the day on Wednesday, July 19th,
at: http://www.cityofpaloalto.orglgov/agendas/council.asp.
Thank you.
Shahla Yazdy
Transportation Engineer
City of Palo Alto
650.617.3151
<Cal Av FAQ's. July 2012_Final.pdf>
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email and any attachments are for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and contain information that may
be confidential and/or legally privileged. Any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of this communication by someone other than the
intended recipient is prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender by reply email and delete the message.
Thank you.
2
Gonsalves. Ronna
From: Pat Marriott < patmarriott@sbcglobal.net>
Monday, July 16, 2012 1:58 PM Sent: \ 2 JUl I 6 P M t~ ~ 05
To: Council, City; Planning Commission
Cc: Keene, James
Subject: n ••• public that doesn't believe what we're saying ... "
Council Members and Commissioners:
From the Palo Alto Weekly re California Avenue: ... I think we're still left with the impact of the public that doesn't believe what we're
saying, " Fineberg said, referring to the decision to shift the street to two lanes.
http://oaloaltoonline.com!news!show story.php?id=26074
Thank you for recognizing the problem, Commissioner Fineberg. The public has good reason for disbelief:
1. Traffic study
This is the club brought out to silence anyone concerned about lane reduction.
Palo Alto's analysis concluded that the lane reduction would have a "less than significant" traffic impact. "In this case, the
personal observations consist only of speculative lay opinions challenging a highly technical traffic engineering report, "Stump
wrote. http://paloaltoonline.com/news/show story.php?id=24726
"So far, the city's traffic analysis showed that the lane reduction would not impact traffic levels, Rodriguez said .... "The traffic
studies we've done do a good job demonstrating that the impacts from the lane reduction aren't there," he said. "There is no
impact." http://oaloaltoonJine.com!news!show story.php?id=26074
And yet, if you look at the traffic consultant's report: www.cityofpaloalto.org/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?Blob1D=25743 PDF
3, page iii
"According to the City of Palo Alto, there are no pending projects or planned projects in the
foreseeable future. Therefore, traffic volumes on California Avenue between EI Camino
Real and Park Boulevard will remain unchanged with the current land uses."
This is clearly not the case, since the city has long planned for development along the California Avenue transit-oriented corridor
and it is the city's only PDA. This misinformation led to a dubious conclusion:
''The intersection LOS analyses show no significant impact from the proposed lane
reduction along California Avenue. The roadway segment LOS analyses also show no
significant impact from the proposed lane reduction along California Avenue."
Even ifthere's a lane reduction trial, it will not be representative of area traffic in the next few years.
2. Grant funding delay
"Rodriguez said last night that the city deferred the funding for a year voluntarily, so the city could work out the issues with the
merchants." Daily Post 7-12-12
Yet Rodriguez's boss, Curtis Williams blamed merchant lawsuits for the delay: "The MTC won't move forward until we clear the
lawsuit." ... it looks like the project will be pushed forward by at least six months to a year, Williams said .... Williams called the
delay "disappointing," ... http://paloaltoonline.com/news/show story.php?id=24726
1
If Rodriguez wanted more time to work with merchants, why didn't he announce it before the grant was withheld-and before
plaintiffs Shuchat, Ogawa and Davidson were vilified for supposedly causing the loss of grant money?
3. Who's in charge?
California Avenue streetscaping has been bounced around for at least six years. Revisionist history and personal attacks abound.
Who's ultimately responsible?
On May 10, 2012, I emailed Tommy Fehrenbach of Economic Development: liThe California Ave. debate about lane reduction
seems to revolve around the number of businesses for and against. I know that 55 businesses opposed to lane changes paid for
an ad in the local paper several weeks ago. Can you tell me the total number of businesses in the CA Ave business district?"
Fehrenbach forwarded my email to Curtis Williams, asking him to IIhave the admin staff send the list of businesses/ property
owners" to me.
Williams forwarded the request to Shalha Yazdy, the CA Ave. Project Manager, cc'ing Jaime Rodriguez: liDo we have a list of
California Avenue businesses? Or the total number?"
Yazdy emailed me: III unfortunately don't have a list of all businesses along California avenue. I can get you the mailing
addresses of all the businesses along California Ave and surrounding streets, if this would help?"
Yazdy did send me lithe list of California Avenue businesses that we use for our mailings," which is a spreadsheet titled "CA Ave
business assessment district mailing list." The list does not include any business names and most of the owner/name fields
simply say IIBusiness Owner."
After much buck-passing, it appears that no one involved in this project even has a list of the stakeholders they're supposedly
working with.
4. Communication: still problematic
June 22nd article re Immersions nightclub building: "Local attorney William Ross said he was concerned about the lack of
outreach to California Avenue property owners. "This is a very significant project," Ross told the board. "None of the property
owners or businesses had any idea what it would be." http://www.paloaltoonline.com/weekly/story.php?story id=17085
On June 23rd I sent an email to Fehrenbach: IITommy, I fear that all the old problems that occurred with the tree cutting will be
repeated. Ronna Devincenzi, as president of CAADA, claimed to speak for all business owners, which was not the case. Now
there is a pseudo organization called BACA and Bob Hayes says he is president. You should find out how many merchants are
actually part of BACA, because I bet it's a very small number. If you are assuming Hayes speaks for all merchants, you are
mistaken. (I do not know Bob, but I do know merchants who specifically are NOT members of BACA.)"
If you, council members and commissioners, were merchants on California Avenue would you believe City Hall?
There are many smart people in the city government, but there has long been a culture of rarified air in City Hall. Accountability
seems to be a scarce commodity, as demonstrated by the above examples.
I commend Commissioner Fineberg for pointing out that this is II ... not a good position for the city to be in and I think we have to
work to resolve that." It is rare for anyone on the inside to admit to problems. I hope she will be taken seriously and that you will all
start this work soon.
Pat Marriott
Palo Alto property owner
Frequent CA Ave. shopper
2
Gonsalves, Ronna
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Patti Regehr <peacefam@gmail.com>
Wednesday, July 11, 2012 6:19 PM
Council, City 12 JUL I 3 At1 8: I 3
California Ave.-please listen to Merchants and compromise
Regarding California Street Plans:
I really hope that you listen and work out a compromise with the Businesses on California Ave.
Compromise and listening are somewhat harder to accomplish than it is to just following a plan.
I urge you to realize that you have more in common with the Businesses on California Street and
to have compassion to their needs. I have been coming to California Ave to shop because of the
merchants, the joy I have by riding my bike there, and feeling like it is a community.
Thank you,
Patti Regehr
1
Gonsalves. Ronna
From:
Sent:
To:
Williams, Curtis
Wednesday, July 11, 2012 6:44 PM
Council, City
tHY CLERt\'S OFFlfE
J 2 JUL I 3 af1 8: J 3
Cc:
Subject:
Planning Commission; Keene, James; Emslie, Steve; Fehrenbach, Thomas; French, Amy
RE: SVBJ: "Jay Paul Offers Palo Alto a Deal""
Council Members,
I understand that the link to the article we sent may require a subscription to access. I've embedded the a rticle below if
you couldn't view it. Sorry for the confusion.
Curtis S. Williams I Director of Planning and Community Environment
250 Hamilton Avenue I Palo Alto, CA 94301
D: 650.329.2321 I E: Curtis.williams@cityofpaloalto.org
PALO
ALTO
Please think oj the environment before printing this email-Thank you!
From: Williams, Curtis
Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2012 1:59 PM
To: Council, City
Cc: Keene, James; Emslie, Steve; Fehrenbach, Thomas; French, Amy
Subject: SVBJ: "Jay Paul Offers Palo Alto a Deal""
Mayor and Council Members,
The City Manager asked that I forward to you a recent article in the Silicon Valley Business Journal regarding the Jay Paul
Company's proposal for Palo Alto. Please let Mr. Keene or me know if you have questions. Thanks.
Jay Paul offers Palo Alto a deal
Premium content from Silicon Valley / San Jose Business Journal by Eli Segall, Reporter
Date: Friday, June 22, 2012, 3:00am PDT
Related:
Commercial Real Estate, Palo Alto
Enlarge Image
1
Courtesy rendering
Expansion: Jay Paul Co. wants to build two four-story office buildings next to the building it owns at 395 Page
Mill Road, where AOL is located.
Eli Segall
Reporter-Silicon Valley / San Jose Business Journal
Email
Bay Area developer Jay Paul Co. Jay Paul Co. Latest from The Business Journals Massive campus to hit
Mountain ViewSobrato project is the latest sign of spec restart Sobrato project is latest sign of spec restart
Follow this company has big plans for Palo Alto, but getting them completed will require more than just the
usual green light from City Hall.
The company has submitted plans to build a pair of four-story office buildings next to a complex it owns on
Page Mill Road, and to build an apartment complex, a park and a parking garage off California Avenue nearby.
If approved, these would be Jay Paul's first development projects in Palo Alto.
However, the developer faces zoning restrictions on building the new office space on Page Mill. As a
compromise, Jay Paul has proposed building part of Palo Alto's public-safety headquarters across the street.
In the meantime, Jay Paul doesn't own the land it hopes to develop near California Avenue. The city owns those
properties, and Jay Paul must wait to see if City Hall is willing to part with them.
If the public-safety swap is approved, Jay Paul would bring an additional 311,000 square feet of office space to
one of Silicon Valley's hottest real estate markets. City officials could also consolidate much of their
emergency-service operations in a building that's expected to cost $45 million to $50 million to construct.
The plans are far from finalized, though city officials say they're interested. City Council members briefly
discussed Jay Paul's proposal to help build the public-safety building at a June 13 study session, and officials
plan to take a deeper look during a Sept. 10 hearing.
2
As part of the plans, the San Francisco-based developer would more than double its square footage at the office
complex site, 395 Page Mill Road, to more than 530,000 square feet. The site currently has the maximum
allowed office square footage, but Jay Paul could build more ifthe City Council finds the company is also
providing public benefits, said Palo Alto planning director Curtis Williams.
Williams said under current discussions, Jay Paul would build the shell of the public-safety building and its
adjacent parking garage. The company would finance about 60 percent -or $27 million to $30 million -of
the total construction costs, Williams said. The city would pay for the rest and build its interior. In addition, the
city might reimburse Jay Paul for some ofthe costs of building the garage.
He described it as a "creative and innovative" proposal, saying it could prove easier for the city than selling
bonds. He also said other companies have helped finance affordable housing projects and donated undeveloped
land in Palo Alto, but none has offered to help pay for "a major facility like this."
"It's very different," he said.
Ray Paul, executive vice president of the firm named for his brother, said it wouldn't be the first time his
company built a public facility as part of a private development. For instance, he said the firm built a Santa
Clara Valley Transportation Authority Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Latest from The
Business Journals Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority throttles down rapid bus plansLocal politics
keep transit ideas in limboVTA awards Mission/Warren freight job to RGW Follow this company light-rail
station near its seven-building Moffett Towers complex in Sunnyvale.
Paul said they've never built a project in Palo Alto, and the company owns only one building in that city, the
one on Page Mill.
By California Avenue, the firm wants to build a parking garage with 6,600 square feet of retail space, a park
and a 116-unit apartment complex. He said the company would have to buy some ofthat land from the city,
though Jay Paul could also function as a contractor of sorts for some of it.
According to Paul, city officials haven't said whether they want to sell him the properties.
"We'll follow the city process if they're interested," he said.
Tight market
Jay Paul purchased the Page Mill building - a 3-story, 219,000-square-foot structure -in 2006 for a reported
$98.5 million. Its notable tenant, AOL Inc., has its West Coast headquarters there.
David Conklin, managing broker with Renault & Handley in Mountain View, said there aren't many places to
build "large blocks" of Class A offices on the peninsula, especially in Palo Alto. But the city's leasing market is
strong, with numerous high-tech tenants that in many cases are gobbling up more space, and Conklin pointed
out the Page Mill property is a few blocks from a Caltrain station and other California Avenue amenities.
"I'd imagine there would be quite a bid of demand for additional space," he said.
Palo Alto's current police headquarters, located downtown on Forest Avenue at the City Hall site, has been
criticized as too small and structurally unsafe. The new public safety facility would include police headquarters
as well as fire department administration, 9-1-1 dispatch and the city's Emergency Operations Center, said
Dennis Bums, Palo Alto's police chief and interim fire chief. The building is expected to be 45,000-square-feet
In SIze.
3
He said Jay Paul's proposal still needs to be "flushed out," though at this point it's "more than conceptual" and
could benefit the city and the developer.
"This one seems to have some legs and potential," he said.
Eli Segall covers finance, law, sports business and economic development at the Business Journal. His phone number is
408.299.1829.
4
Gonsalves. Ronna
Ci TY CLERK'S OFFICE
From: michael ekwall <michael@labodeguita.com>
Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2012 2:00 PM 12 JUL I 3 A~" 8: I 4
To: Council, City
Subject: cal ave
Attachments: July 11 Planning Meeting.docx; ATTOOOO1.htm
CALIFORNIA
AVENUE ...
WHAT'S IN THE
WORKS
Small Improvements Can Make the
California Avenue Business District
Even More Successful and Vibrant.
As businesses in the California Avenue Business District, we are
eager for the long delayed and much needed improvements to
California Avenue. Many of the improvements would make the
area more attractive and improve safety for pedestrians, cyclists
and automobiles. We have encouraged the City to provide better
parking for cars and bicycles, repaving and restriping the streets,
1
and creating raised and brightly marked crosswalks. We are also
in favor of thoughtful and sustainable planting, better lighting,
and more recycling/rubbish stations.
The businesses represented here have all raised serious concerns
about the short-and long-term impact if the lanes on California
A venue are reduced from four to two. The current lane reduction
plan has bikes sharing the same one lane with cars, emergency
vehicles and delivery trucks. Many of our customers arrive by car,
and we believe that traffic backups with two lanes would be
inconvenient, potentially dangerous, and detrimental to business.
Also, this would likely have an unintended congestion impact on
our surrounding neighborhoods.
The California Avenue Business District is already successful due to
its unique character and the longevity of its local small businesses.
We hope that the City continues with safety and beautification
efforts for the District, but leaves the existing lane structure intact.
We truly want what is best for everyone: for businesses, for the
people who live and work here, and for those who come visit us.
PAID FOR BY BUSINESSES
CONCERNED WITH THE FUTURE
OF CALIFORNIA AVENUE.
Accent Arts (Since 1970)
Anatolian Kitchen (Since 2010)
Antonio's Nut House (Since 1972)
2
Avalon Art & Yoga Center (Since 2002)
Baume Restaurant (Since 2010)
Beauty Spa by Ereeda (Since 1992)
Birch Street-Bistro Elan (Since 1995)
Brite n' Clean (Since 1996)
Cafe Brioche (Since 1995)
California Ave. Norge Village Cleaners
(Since 1961)
California Paint (Since 1946)
Campus Barber Shop (Since 1999)
Cho's Dim Sum (Since 1979)
Cigar House (Since 2010)
Country Sun Natural Foods (Since 1971)
Cut Color Style Pro Salon (Since 2011)
Demetra Paras Therapy (Since 2005)
DiPietro Todd Salon (Since 1998)
European Cobblery (Since 1942)
Farmer's Insurance (Since 1967)
Hairshaper's Club (Since 2010)
Heshmat Pain Management (Since 2006)
Ingrid's Suntanning (Since 1985)
Izzy's Bagels (Since 1996)
Jinsho Japanese (Since 2007)
Keeble & Shu chat (Since 1965)
La Bodeguita del Medio (Since 1997)
La Jolie Nail Spa (Since 2007)
3
Law Office of Peter N. Brewer (Since 1995)
Leaf & Petal (Since 1978)
LeHot Properties (Since 1979)
Lotus Thai Bistro (Since 2008)
Marty Klein, Ph.D., Licensed Marriage &
Family Therapist (Since 1987)
Massage Therapy Center (Since 1981)
Maximart Pharmacy (Since 1972)
Meffert Investment LLC (Since 1988)
Mollie Stone's (Since 1990)
Morton CPA (Since 1980)
No Knew Books (Since 1988)
Office of Dr. Kenneth Seeman (Since 1970)
Office ofM. Goldeen (Since 1965)
Palo Alto Eyeworks (Since 1998)
Palo Alto Baking Company (Since 1982)
Palo Alto Sol Restaurant (Since 1992)
Ramona's Too Pizza (Since 1976)
Space Age Publishing Company (Since 1977)
Spalti Restaurant (Since 1996)
Stanford Mortgage (Since 1993)
Szechzuan Cafe (Since 2008)
Taqueria Azteca (Since 1986)
The Industry Hair Artists (Since 2008)
Uzumaki (Since 2008)
Yin, Vino, Wine (Since 1985)
4
Zen Garden Nail Salon (Since 2010)
Zombie Runner (Since 2008)
5
July 11, 2012
City Council and Planning Committee,
We continue to be in support of the long overdue repaving, safety
upgrades, increased parking and aesthetic improvements to the California
Avenue Business District. However, along with the majority of merchants in
the area, we are strongly opposed to the lane reduction. In addition, we
feel as though these long overdue upgrades are being postponed because
of the opposition to the lane reduction plan.
We now have an additional concern regarding the increase in high-density
housing that has already been approved in our district. Any increase in
residents and businesses will exacerbate our parking problems and
potentially disrupt the existing businesses in the district that are largely
dependent on automobiles and the availability of parking. There is no logic
in creating a higher density residential community within the district while
at the same time, reducing access to the area. The fact is that Palo Alto is a
suburban neighborhood that is served by many forms of transportation, but
generally automobiles provide the majority of visits to the area. While we
don't disagree out of hand the possibility of increasing housing density;
that, in conjunction with more residents, agues against reducing access to
this area via {(lane reduction".
*** Did the citizens of Palo Alto vote to create a PTOD in the area?
*** If the city is so confident regarding this path of development, perhaps a
referendum on the November ballot regarding both the scale and
comprehensive details surrounding the evolution of California Avenue
should be addressed in a comprehensive manner-let the citizens of the City
of Palo Alto decide.
The City Council continues to rely on the misconception that CAADA, and
now BACA speaks on behalf of the merchants in the area. CAADA (and now
BACA) has not represented the neighborhood merchants in many years-just
ask the merchants. Although we are optimistic for some sort of merchants'
association, our district is currently unrepresented. If you ask the 55
businesses who have gone on the record with the ((Cal Ave Works"
statement, many do not believe they are represented by BACA.
At the March 22, 2012 meeting, Curtis Williams promised merchants a
meeting to discuss options OTHER THAN a lane reduction. No one to my
knowledge from the city has conducted any outreach that is open to all
merchants/businesses. Many merchants were in favor of a City Council
member being present at all future meetings to insure the facts, opinions
and frustrations of the merchants is accurately represented to those
making the final decisions. It is as though the overwhelming disapproval of
the lane reduction has been misrepresented to the Council. This seems to
present a continued disconnect between planning and city council.
In summary, from the beginning of public discussion, most merchants have
been vocally against the lane reduction. At the original merchant outreach
meetings in the fall of 2010, only 2 merchants expressed any support for
the lane reduction. The majority of those in attendance and those unable
to attend, supported the much needed an overdue upgrades but were
AGAINST the lane reduction. We are concerned that initially, the city
council was not provided with an accurate description of the merchant
feedback or chose to ignore it in favor of (a bike group and other outside
interests that do not work here, pay taxes here, et~ .... ).
Here are a few questions that have yet to be answered:
Whatever happened to the trial period of lane reduction?
What happened to the follow up meeting with ALL merchants that was
promised in March 2012?
Who is the business development manager? S/he has not been in
touch with anyone that is opposed to the lane reduction (to our
knowledge).
We generated a comprehensive email contact list of businesses and
merchants in the area to assist the city with their communications. There is
no acceptable for us not to be updated. Has the list been added to the city
contacts re: Cal Ave issues? Often we are not receiving responses?
The attitude of the city is slightly ironic. It wasn't too long ago that Palo
Alto wholeheartedly supported the idea of high-speed rail and the
possibility of a terminal in town. Once the true nature of the plans were
discovered, the City did an abrupt about face and now is involved in legal
actions against high speed rail...We feel the same way about California
Avenue. Again, we ask you to reconsider .... put yourselves in our shoes and
do what is right for our city and our district...do not be the high-speed rail
commission!
California Avenue is a successful and charming business district brings a
substantial amount of revenue to the city through both property and sales
taxes. Improvements to our district are being delayed by this lane
controversy. Please make all of the necessary improvements (repaving,
recycling, safer lighting ... and then discuss the NEED for increased parking
and access) ... let us move on ... If you are looking for a consensus about this
issue from the businesses, look to the ad we had to place so you could
"officially" hear where the overwhelming majority of merchants stand.
Michael Ekwall
La Bodeguita del Medio
463 California Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94306
T 650.326.7762 x 11
F 650.323.2822
www.labodeguita.com
Page 1 of 1
file:11 IC:/U sers/rgonsall AppDataiLocallMicrosoft/Windows/Temporary%20Internet%20Fil... 7/12/2012
Gonsalves. Ronna
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Hello,
f":'1'( m r't\LQ i\U(§!X'I'~
michael ekwall <michael@labodeguit'\~c:p'rf1:CLUUrS OfFICE
Wednesday, July 11, 2012 2:11 PM
Planning Commission , 2 JUL '3 Mi 8: \ 4
Council. City
California Avenue
July 11 Planning Meeting.docx; A TTOOOO1.htm; CaIAve-Ad-Post_MS.pdf; A TT00002.htm;
CaIAve-Ad-Post_MS.eps; ATT00003.htm
My letter was bounced ... please accept resubmission.
1
July 11, 2012
City Council and Planning Committee,
We continue to be in support of the long overdue repaving, safety
upgrades, increased parking and aesthetic improvements to the California
Avenue Business District. However, along with the majority of merchants in
the area, we are strongly opposed to the lane reduction. In addition, we
feel as though these long overdue upgrades are being postponed because
of the opposition to the lane reduction plan.
We now have an additional concern regarding the increase in high-density
housing that has already been approved in our district. Any increase in
residents and businesses will exacerbate our parking problems and
potentially disrupt the existing businesses in the district that are largely
dependent on automobiles and the availability of parking. There is no logic
in creating a higher density residential community within the district while
at the same time, reducing access to the area. The fact is that Palo Alto is a
suburban neighborhood that is served by many forms of transportation, but
generally automobiles provide the majority of visits to the area. While we
don't disagree out of hand the possibility of increasing housing density;
that, in conjunction with more residents, agues against reducing access to
this area via ((lane reduction".
*** Did the citizens of Palo Alto vote to create a PTOD in the area?
*** If the city is so confident regarding this path of development, perhaps a
referendum on the November ballot regarding both the scale and
comprehensive details surrounding the evolution of California Avenue
should be addressed in a comprehensive manner-let the citizens of the City
of Palo Alto decide.
The City Council continues to rely on the misconception that CAADA, and
now BACA speaks on behalf of the merchants in the area. CAADA (and now
BACA) has not represented the neighborhood merchants in many years-just
ask the merchants. Although we are optimistic for some sort of merchants'
association, our district is currently unrepresented. If you ask the 55
businesses who have gone on the record with the ((Cal Ave Works"
statement, many do not believe they are represented by BACA.
At the March 22, 2012 meeting, Curtis Williams promised merchants a
meeting to discuss options OTHER THAN a lane reduction. No one to my
knowledge from the city has conducted any outreach that is open to all
merchants/businesses. Many merchants were in favor of a City Council
member being present at all future meetings to insure the facts, opinions
and frustrations of the merchants is accurately represented to those
making the final decisions. It is as though the overwhelming disapproval of
the lane reduction has been misrepresented to the Council. This seems to
present a continued disconnect between planning and city council.
In summary, from the beginning of public discussion, most merchants have
been vocally against the lane reduction. At the original merchant outreach
meetings in the fall of 2010, only 2 merchants expressed any support for
the lane reduction. The majority of those in attendance and those unable
to attend, supported the much needed an overdue upgrades but were
AGAINST the lane reduction. We are concerned that initially, the city
council was not provided with an accurate description of the merchant
feedback orchose to ignore it in favor of (a bike group and other outside
interests that do not work here, pay taxes here, etc .... ).
Here are a few questions that have yet to be answered:
Whatever happened to the trial period of lane reduction?
What happened to the follow up meeting with ALL merchants that was
promised in March 2012?
Who is the business development manager? S/he has not been in
touch with anyone that is opposed to the lane reduction (to our
knowledge).
We generated a comprehensive email contact list of businesses and
merchants in the area to assist the city with their communications. There is
no"acceptable for us not to be updated. Has the list been added to the city
contacts re: Cal Ave issues? Often we are not receiving responses?
The attitude of the city is slightly ironic. It wasn't too long ago that Palo
Alto wholeheartedly supported the idea of high-speed rail and the
possibility of a terminal in town. Once the true nature of the plans were
t: •••
nail Improvements Can Make the
3lifornia Avenue Business District
len More Successful and Vibrant.
)usinesses in the California Avenu'e Business Districtt we are
er for the long delayed and much needed improvements to
fornia Avenue. Many of the improvements would make the
~ more attractive and improve safety for pedestrians t cyclists
automobiles. We have encouraged the City to provide better
<ing for cars and bicyclest repaving and restriping the streetst
creating raised and brightly marked crosswalks. We are also
Nor of thoughtful and sustainable plantingt better lightingt
more recycling/rubbish stations.
businesses represented here have all raised serious concerns
'Ut the short-and long-term impact if the lanes on California
nue are reduced from four to two. The current lane reduction
1 has bikes sharing the same one lane with carst emergency
icles and delivery trucks. Many of our customers arrive by cart
we believe that traffic backups with two lanes would be
mvenientt potentially dangerous t and detrimental to business.
)t this would likely have an unintended congestion impact on
surrounding neighborhoods.
PAID FOR BY BUSINESSES
CONCERNED WITH THE F
OF CALIFORNIA AVENUE.
Accent Arts (Since 1970)
Anatolian Kitchen (Since 2010)
Antonio's Nut House (Since 1972)
Avalon Art & Yoga Center (Since;
Baume Restaurant (Since 2010)
Beauty Spa by Ereeda (Since 1992;
Birch Street -Bistro Elan (Since 19
Brite n' Clean (Since 1996)
Cafe Brioche (Since 1995)
California Ave. Norge Village Clea
(Since 1961)
California Paint (Since 1946)
Campus Barber Shop (Since 1999)
Cho's Dim Sum (Since 1979)
Cigar House (Since 2010)
Country Sun Natural Foods (Since
Cut Color Style Pro Salon (Since 2C
Demetra Paras Therapy (Since 200
DiPietro Todd Salon (Since 1998)
European Cobblery (Since 1942)
Farmer's Insurance (Since 1967)
Hairshaper's Club (Since 2010)
Heshmat Pain Management (Since
Ingrid's Suntanning (Since 1985)
Izzy's Bagels (Since 1996)
Jinsho Japanese (Since 2007)
Keeble & Shuchat (Since 1965)
La Bodeguita del Medio (Since 19S
La Jolie Nail Spa (Since 2007)
Law Office of Peter N. Brewer (Sir
Leaf & Petal (Since 1978)
LeHot Properties (Since 1979)
Lotus Thai Bistro (Since 2008)
Marty Klein, Ph.D., Licensed Marri
Family Therapist (Since 1987)
Massage Therapy Center (Since 1 S
Maximart Pharmacy (Since 1972)
Meffert Investment LLC (Since 198
Mollie Stone's (Since 1990)
Morton CPA (Since 1980)
No Knew Books (Since 1988)
Office of Dr. Kenneth Seeman (Sin
Office of M. Goldeen (Since 1965)
Palo Alto Eyeworks (Since 1998)
Palo Alto Baking Company (Since .
Palo Alto Sol Restaurant (Since 19(
Ramona's Too Pizza (Since 1976)
Space Age Publishing Company (S
Thank you,
Michael Ekwall
Page 1 of 1
file:1 I le:1U sers/rgonsall AppData/LocallMicrosoft/Windows/Ternporary%20Intemet%20Fil... 7/1212012
1
Betten, Zariah
Subject:FW: July 23 meeting about CA Ave.
From: Pat Marriott [mailto:patmarriott@sbcglobal.net]
Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2012 5:56 PM
To: Keene, James; Rodriguez, Jaime; Yazdy, Shahla; Fehrenbach, Thomas; Williams, Curtis
Subject: July 23 meeting about CA Ave.
All:
Dave Price wrote an editorial on Monday, 7/16, that included this bit:
In addition to gathering traffic data before and after the trial, we also need to quantify what “vitality”/“vibrancy” means
and what it costs. To do that, we must understand and quantify the current economic situation and set quantifiable
goals for the planned improvements. Otherwise, the city will spend $2.4 million (and growing) while possibly driving out
some existing businesses.
Wayne Martin posted the following at http://paloaltoonline.com/news/show_story.php?id=26011 .
Let’s pursue this issue of “revitalizing the business district”. On face value, this might seem like a worthwhile thing for a City to
want to do—providing that it knew what to do to achieve this sort of “revitalization”.
But how many City Council members have ever revitalized a business, much less a whole business district? If the answer is none—
what makes any/all of their comments meaningful? Even with their endorsement, will any of them be responsible in any way if
the business climate on this short street segment does not wildly improve?
Pushing this point just a little, did anyone on the Council ask any meaningful questions, such as:
o) How does the City define “vibrant”, in terms of measurable economic activity?
o) How many people utilize this business district today?
o) How many people will utilize this business district after the project is completed.
o) How many business are in this business district today?
2
o) How many businesses does Staff believe will be drawn to the Business District because of this street reconfiguration?
o) How big is the current economic base, in terms of dollars?
o) How big will the economic base be, after the street configuration, in terms of dollars?
o) How much money does the City receive today from sales taxes in this district?
o) How much will the City received after the reconfiguration?
Wayne’s questions provide a good beginning for before and after measurements. I hope these will be addressed at the
July 23rd meeting.
Thank you,
Pat Marriott
1
Betten, Zariah
From:Yazdy, Shahla
Sent:Wednesday, July 18, 2012 10:52 AM
To:Betten, Zariah
Subject:FW: From Mollie Stone's Market requesting a painted line test
Cal Ave letter
Shahla Yazdy
Transportation Engineer
City of Palo Alto
650.617.3151
From: David Bennett [mailto:dbmollie@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2012 6:15 AM
To: Yazdy, Shahla
Subject: From Mollie Stone's Market requesting a painted line test
Hello Shahia,
Do any of the other projects mentioned in the frequently asked questions have a supermarket that survived this
lane reducing project at the end of a dead end street? Are all the other projects mentioned thru streets? If so, I
will contact the other supermarket operators to see how it affected their business over time.
We are the property owner and our own tenant. Please explain to the public the risk of losing the supermarket to
enhance the benefits for bikes and restaurant seating. I would encourage the City of Palo Alto to do a test with
painted lines in the street as part of this process.
When we began to operate our market here in 1990 we and subsequently purchased the property, we never
dreamed the access for the grocery store would be limited in favor of bicycles, pedestrians, farmers markets and
restaurants.
This letter may be self serving, as our property has been selected for additional housing in Palo Alto, but for
now, we do wish to continue operating our market. The survival of our business does not depend on only local
residents. We need customers from much further away.
David Bennett
Owner
Mollie Stone's Markets
On Jul 17, 2012, at 3:12 PM, "Yazdy, Shahla" <Shahla.Yazdy@CityofPaloAlto.org> wrote:
Interested Resident, Merchant, and or Property Owner,
The Director of Planning and Community Environment has asked that staff provide you with the
attached copy of a list of Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) and responses related to the
California Avenue Streetscape Project in advance of next Monday’s City Council meeting. The
staff report and attachments for the meeting will be available on the City’s website at the end of
the day on Wednesday, July 19th, at: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/agendas/council.asp.
2
Thank you.
Shahla Yazdy
Transportation Engineer
City of Palo Alto
650.617.3151
<Cal Av FAQ's. July 2012_Final.pdf>
1
Betten, Zariah
From:Yazdy, Shahla
Sent:Wednesday, July 18, 2012 10:52 AM
To:Betten, Zariah
Subject:FW: Reconfiguring California Avenue – Try Before We Buy
Cal Ave
Shahla Yazdy
Transportation Engineer
City of Palo Alto
650.617.3151
From: Robert Moss [mailto:bmoss33@att.net]
Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2012 5:00 PM
To: Council, City
Cc: Williams, Curtis; Yazdy, Shahla
Subject: Reconfiguring California Avenue – Try Before We Buy
Mayor Yeh and Councilmembers July 17, 2012
Reconfiguring California Avenue – Try Before We Buy
The proposals to reconfigure California Avenue by widening sidewalks, improving landscaping and reducing
traffic lanes from four to two was recommended for approval by the Planning and Transportation Commission
with some clarifications requested. This project has been under consideration for almost three years and still
has some major issues that must be resolved before any permanent changes are made to California Avenue.
The biggest is whether the lane reduction will have any negative impacts on traffic, parking, or commercial
viability of businesses. The only way to really see the impact of lane reductions is to test it first and to delay
permanent changes until the test is complete.
Improving and upgrading the California Avenue business district has been a topic of discussion for
years. CAADA considered the situation more than four years ago and decided that the best approach was
widening sidewalks, adding landscaping and trees, allowing restaurants to expand seating onto the widened
sidewalks, and improving transit to and from the area. They took their proposals to city staff and
councilmembers resulting in a series of meetings of the PTC and Council to develop plans for improvements.
Many business and property owners became upset when they learned of these plans as they didn’t feel that
they had been consulted or that their concerns were being heard. Nevertheless the CAADA proposals were
accepted as the desire of property owners and businesses along California Avenue and adopted by staff.
Getting the $1,175,200 grant from VTA for modifying California Avenue solidified the staff position that this
was a functional and desirable change to the street.
In fact many business owners were not on board with the change. They felt left out of the discussions and
decision making by CAADA and staff. Letters, full page ads in local papers, and comments at Planning
Commission and Council meetings by many business owners in the California Avenue area make it clear that
they feel ignored and that their very real concerns were arbitrarily dismissed. Planning commissioners
acknowledged this inadequate treatment of businesses when they recommended a trial of the lane reduction
before it is finalized. This is very reasonable and will somewhat address the concerns of the many people that
doubt reducing California Avenue from four to two lanes won’t have negative impacts.
2
Improving the appearance and landscaping of California Avenue is a relatively minor controversy. Everyone
agrees that street improvements would be nice. The major issue is traffic impacts, and how much sidewalk
widening and modification is acceptable before negative traffic impacts occur. Staff raised legitimate concerns
that a trial of the lane reduction won’t be fully accurate since the sidewalk and landscape changes won’t be
included and can’t be evaluated. That is correct, but not a major impediment to the traffic impact study. A
trial that simulates widening sidewalks with temporary bollards or parking bumpers and restriping the street
to represent the proposed two‐lane configuration should allow traffic and business impacts to be
determined. The wider sidewalk area could accommodate rented potted trees and plants to represent
upgraded landscaping. Restaurants could be allowed to place tables outdoors in the wider sidewalks, and
location of loading zones could be verified as adequate or troublesome.
Traffic impacts can be quantified by taking before and after traffic counts on California, Cambridge, Grant,
Sherman, Sheridan, Ash, Birch and Park. Measure travel times both ways along these streets, and report
accidents on those streets since 2005 and during the test. If problems such as wrong loading area location,
increase in accidents in a specific area, or congestion at intersections are identified during the test
modifications can be made and the impact of the changes evaluated. The trial should last at least 6 months,
probably longer so that seasonal traffic variations are accounted for.
Impacts on businesses can be estimated by asking participating businesses to compare income pre and post
trial. A more quantitative evaluation would be sales tax revenues before and after during the same time
periods. While this won’t give data on service‐oriented businesses it will give valid data on retail store
impacts.
Unfortunately the trial won’t show the impacts of developments due to the designation of California Avenue
within ½ mile of the CalTrain station as our only Preferred Development Area, but those changes probably
won’t be significant until 2014 or later. However the baseline data on traffic flow and retail sales can be used
to evaluate the impacts of future developments in the California Avenue PDA when compared with current
conditions with four lanes for traffic and the two‐lane simulation before significant development occurs in the
area.
Please adopt the recommendation of the Planning Commission and dozens of businesses in the California
Avenue area and approve a traffic study that includes simulation for widened sidewalks, loading zone
locations, and lane reduction from four to two lanes. It should last at least six months, but a one‐year trial will
give data over the normal range of business and shopping activity.
Yours sincerely,
Bob Moss
4010 Orme St.
650‐493‐2178