HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-09-22 City Council (5)FROM:
City of Palo Alto
City Manageri2p t
HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT:
COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT
DATE:SEPTEMBER 22, 2003
SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF
MEASURES FOR
CORRIDOR
A PROPOSED SET
THE CHARLESTON/
CMR: 430:03
OF PERFORMANCE
ARASTRADERO ROAD
RECOMMENDATION
The Planning and Transportation Commission and staff recommend Council approval of
proposed the Charleston/Arastradero Road Corridor Plan Performance Measures contained
in Attachment A.
BACKGROUND
At its April 14, 2003 meeting, Council directed staff to prepare a plan of transportation and
urban design/landscape improvements for the CharlestordArastradero Road Corridor
(CMR:237:03). A map of the corridor is included as Attachment C. Council also directed
staff to return with a report on land use assumptions, to be included in projecting future
traffic conditions on the corridor before such predictions were undertaken (CMR:310:03).
The range of land use projections was reviewed by the Council on June 9, 2003. The
expected outcomes of the Charleston-Arastradero redesign include safer, more attractive
routes to schools, well-landscaped medians where possible, and pedestrian, bicycle, and bus
transit improvements all along the corridor. Other key purposes of the transportation plan
will be to provide safer traffic flow along the corridor and to reduce the incidence of vehicle
speeding, without reduction in vehicle travel times or causing diversion of through traffic to
other streets.
An initial set of performance measures for the CharlestordArastradero Road Corridor, based
on best practices in traffic engineering assessment, was presented for discussion at public
meetings on July 10 and July 15 (see Attachment D). A refined and expanded set of road
performance measures was then presented to an informal focus group of
Charleston/Arastradero Road stakeholders (representatives of several corridor neighborhood
associations, developers, an affordable housing advocate, and a Palo Alto Unified School
CMR:430:03 Page 1 of 5
District representative). The set of road performance measures was further refined and
expanded for presentation to the Planning and Transportation Commission.
DISCUSSION
The proposed Charleston/Arastradero Road operational perforrnance measures will provide
a basis for assessing how well the new road design meets the intended purposes. The design
alternatives are illustrated by the performance measures, which are metrics that quantify
performance in relation to targets. An agreed upon set of performance measures is helpful
in reducing the subjectivity and ambiguity that are inherent in assessment of any
transportation or other infrastructure project. Together, both will inform evaluation of the
corridor plan itself and its subsequent implementation as a project or series of projects.
It is important to note that the road design performance measures are not useful as traffic
standards for purposes of review of any future land development or redevelopment proposal.
Rather, they assess how well the corridor plan itself, as a program of transportation and
urban design improvements, meets Council expectations. These measures neither encourage
nor discourage any particular form of future land development or re-development anywhere
along the corridor.
The Corridor Plan will be tested by taking into account alternative future land use
development and re-development scenarios approved by Council on June 9, 2003, for use by
staff in computer simulation and projections of future traffic volumes and patterns. These
land use scenarios or assumptions include provision of additional housing, including
affordable housing, on the Charleston/Arastradero corridor. The proposed performance
measures guide preparation and assessment of the Corridor Plan so that street improvements
made to the corridor meet a variety of community transportation needs, while not negatively
impacting other important community needs, including provision of affordable housing or
economic vitality.
The proposed performance measures give a more comprehensive, comprehensible, and
useful picture of changes in the travel environment than does the more traditional vehicular
level-of-service (LOS) analysis, which will also be reported in the evaluation of the Corridor
Plan. Vehicular LOS does not include any information about travel conditions for cyclists,
pedestrians, and transit users; any data on travel safety or either point-to-point travel time
for any mode of travel or vehicle speeds; or any assessment of visual amenity on travel
corridor.
While the CharlestordArastradero Corridor Plan is a transportation and not a land use plan,
the Corridor Plan, and the performance measures proposed to assess the Corridor Plan, will
CMR:430:03 Page 2 of 5
be consistent with Comprehensive Plan Housing Goal H-l: "A supply of Affordable and
Market Rate Housing that meets Palo Alto’s share of Regional Housing Needs" and Goal B-
1: "A Thriving Business Environment that is Compatible with Palo Alto’s Residential
Character and Natural Environment."
BOARD/COMMISSION REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The Planning and Transportation Commission reviewed the performance measures at its
August 27, 2003 meeting (see Attachments F and G. The Commissioners expressed broad
support for the intent of the proposed performance measures, as well as approval of the
specific language proposed. Commissioner Holman urged that both peak and off-peak
vehicle speeds be measured (the original staff proposal called only for measurement of peak
period speeds) with the caveat that off-peak speeds only be measured in locations where
such measurements would be meaningful (i.e. not in the most congested sections of the
corridor). Commissioner Packer suggested that the performance measure for ’no increase in
travel time on each of the four sections of the corridor’ be inclusive of intersections. She
also asked that there be a clarification-that no increase in total travel time for through trips
from Fabian to Miranda is part of the travel time performance measure. The Commission
accepted these suggestions and clarifications.
Commissioner Cassel suggested that a performance measure be added to explicitly address
the need for accommodation of affordable housing along the corridor. Instead, the
Commissioners agreed that staff should make more explicit Council’s June 9, 2003 decision
to authorize use of a set of land use assumptions in preparation for the corridor plan,
including additional housing, for the purposes of forecasting future traffic levels on the
corridor. This was because the performance measures under consideration here are measures
of how the traffic generated by such development is handled. The accommodation of
housing and other regional traffic is an essential pre-condition of the project.
Commissioner Bellomo expressed concern about the possibility that one or more of the
performance measures may not be reachable, but the overall result for the entire set of
performance measures may be highly desirable for the community. Staff indicated that the
overall result was important and that should a given performance measure be close to, but
not at, attainment, while others were well above attainment, the overall result would be
weighed in comparison to the degree that the performance measure below attainment fell
short. In other words, the interpretation of results for the set of performance measures would
not be unduly rigid, in order to ensure both housing and business vitality objectives are
included in the balance.
Commissioner Holman moved and Commissioner Griffin seconded support of the
Charleston/Arastradero Corridor Plan Performance Measures, amended to include
measurement at appropriate locations of both peak and off-peak 85t~ percentile vehicle
speeds. Commissioner Packer offered a substitute motion suggesting replacing absolutes,
CMR:430:03 Page 3 of 5
such as no increase in corridor travel time, or either average or critical delay at intersections,
with a less strict term such as "minimize" increases in these variables. She also suggested
that staff prepare a preamble to the performance measures indicating that they are distinct
from and do not replace CEQA thresholds, for the purposes of assessment of the traffic
impacts of development. There were no seconds to this substitute motion.
The Commission voted 5 to 1 (with one Commissioner absent) in favor of Commissioner
Holman’s motion. Commissioner Packard expressed support for performance measures
regarding the Charleston/Arastradero Corridor Plan per se, but articulated concerns that the
proposed measures were "a bit too draconian" and would be "misinterpreted in the future for
other purposes". She further noted that had the proposed measures been stated with "a little
bit more flexibility," she would have approved them. Commissioner Cassel expressed her
support for the proposed performance measures but was concerned that they not result, as an
unintended consequence, in discouragement of affordable housing provision.
RESOURCE IMPACT
No additional resources are required by this recommendation. On April 14, 2003, the City
Council authorized an expenditure of $200,000 for preparation of the Charleston-
Arastradero Corridor Plan. The Corridor Plan itself will include a funding element,
comprising an assessment of a variety of financing options, including federal, state, and
regional grants, traffic impact fees, and other sources. The Corridor Plan will also include
estimate cost of any improvements and a phasing plan for implementation. Project
implementation after Council approval of a preferred plan for the corridor will proceed
within the context of the City’s capital improvements planning process.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
The Charleston/Arastradero Road Plan addresses the first five goals
Comprehensive Plan:
of the Palo Alto
¯T-l: "Less Reliance on Single Occupant Vehicles".
¯T-2: "A Convenient, Efficient Public Transportation System that Provides A Viable
Alternative to Driving".
¯T-3: "Facilities, Services, and Programs that Encourage and Promote Walking and
Bicycling".
¯T-4: "An Efficient Roadway Network for All Users".
¯T-5: "A Transportation System that Minimizes Impacts on Residential Neighborhoods".
In addition, the Corridor Plan should facilitate achievement of Policy B-19: "Use street
corridor improvements as catalysts for economic revitalization in selected Centers."
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
CMR:430:03 Page 4 of 5
In addition, the Corridor Plan should facilitate achievement of Policy B-19: "Use street
corridor improvements as catalysts for economic revitalization in selected Centers."
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
An environmental assessment will be prepared and presented to the Planrfi’ng Transportation
Commission and City Council for consideration along with the complete draft
Charleston/Arastradero Road Corridor Plan. Since the Corridor Plan is intended to
implement important provisions of the Comprehensive Plan, an important focus of the
Environmental Assessment will be consistency of Corridor Plan with the Council-adopted
Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan.
ATTACHMENTS
A. Proposed Charleston-Arastradero Corridor Plan Performance Measures
B. Proposed Performance Measures: Effects Matrix
C. Map of Charleston Road- Arastradero Road -Road Corridor
D Charleston-Arastradero Corridor Plan Public Meeting Notes, July 10 and July 15,
2003.
E. CMR:310:03, Charleston/Arastradero Corridor Plan Land Use Assumptions
F. August 27, 2004 Planning and Transportation Commission Staff Report
G: August 27, 2003 Planning and Transportation Commission Draft Minutes
PREPARED BY:
DEPARTMENT HEAD:
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
EMSLIE
Director of Planning and
Community Env~ment
"~EMILY HARRI~ON
Assistant City Manager
cc:CharlestordArastradero Corridor Plan Informal Input Group
CMR:430:03 Page 5 of 5
ATTACHMENT A
PROPOSED CHARLESTON-ARASTRADERO CORRIDOR PLAN
PERFORMANCE MEASURES
While accommodating a range of future local and regional growth projections, as
directed by the City Council on June 9, 2003, redesign Charleston and Arastradero
Roads to:
Objectives -
1)maintain existing travel time on the corridor to minimize diversion to other
residential streets
2) reduce accidents on the corridor
3) improve conditions for pedestrian and bicycle travel
4) improve the quality of life on the corridor
5) enhance visual amenity of the corridor
Performance Measures -
1)No increase in peak or off-peak motor vehicle travel time along the entire
Charleston-Arastradero corridor from San Antonio to Foothill Expressway
and between each of these points (inclusive of signalized intersections)
Charleston from San Antonio to Middlefield
Charleston from Middlefield to Alma
Charleston from Alma to E1 Camino Real
Arastradero from E1 Camino Real to Foothill Expressway
2)No increase in average motor vehicle delay and critical movement motor
vehicle delay at any Charleston Road or Arastradero Road Corridor Plan
intersection.
3)Reduce off-peak and peak (at appropriate locations) 85th percentile speeds by
at least 20 percent by 2010 at each of these locations:
Charleston between San Antonio and Middlefield (from 37.3 mph to 29.8
mph) [note current 50 percent = 33.4 mph]
Charleston between Middlefield and Alma (from 34.7 mph to 27.8 mph)
[note current 50 percent = 30.9 mph]
Charleston between E1 Camino Real and Alma (from 34.9 mph to 27.9
mph) [note current 50 percent ; 31.3 mph]
4)
5)
6)
7)
8)
9)
Arastradero between E1 Camino Real and Foothill Expressway (from 33.7
mph to 27.0 mph) [note current 50 percent = 29.1 mph]
Reduce accident rates (accidents per million entering vehicles) by at least 25
percent by 2010 between each of these points:
Charleston from San Antonio to Middlefield
Charleston from Middlefield to Alma
Charleston from Alma to E1 Camino Real
Arastradero from E1 Camino Real to Foothill Expressway
An average 20 percent increase in pedestrian crossing volumes (all
approaches) at all signalized intersections by 2010 and a 40 percent increase
by 2020.
An average 20 percent increase in bicycle volumes (all approaches) at all
signalized intersections by 2010 and a 40 percent increase by 2020.
An average 50 percent increase in daily public transit boardings during the
school year at all stops along the corridor by 2010.
Attainment of a cycling compatibility rating (BCI methodology1) of B by 2010
on each of the following sections of the corridor:
Charleston from San Antonio to Middlefield
Charleston from Middlefield to Alma
Charleston from Alma to E1 Camino Real
Arastradero from E1 Camino Real to Foothill Expressway
Attainment of a walking compatibility rating (Florida DOT methodology2) of B
by 2010 on each of the following sections of the corridor:
Charleston from San Antonio to Middlefield
Charleston from Middlefield to Alma
Charleston from Alma to E1 Camino Real
Arastradero from E1 Camino Real to Foothill Expressway
1 U.S, Department of Transportation, The Bicycle Compatibility Index: a Level of Service Concept,
Implementation Manual, http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/fourthlevel/pdfYoci.pdf
2 Florida Department of Transportation, Modelin~ the Roadside Walking Environment: A Pedestrian Level
of Service, http://www 11.myflorida.corn/ptanninglsystems/srn/los/pdfs/pedlos.pdf
2
lO)Attainment of a visual amenity rating (using a methodology to be determine~)
of B by 2010 on each of the following sections of the corridor:
Charleston from San Antonio to Middlefield
Charleston from Middlefield to Alma
Charleston from Alma to E1 Camino Real
Arastradero from E1 Camino Real to Foothill
3 Two possibilities are being considered by staff: 1.) requesting that a subcommittee of the Architectural
Review Board be convened as an expert panel to provide Visual Amenity ratings for the Charleston-
Arastradero Corridor and 2.) convening a focus group of Charleston-Arastradero corridor residents and
business people be convened for the same purpose.
3
ATTACHMENT B
Proposed Performance Measures: Effects Matrix
Performance
Measure
l.)Maintain
Peak/off-Peak
Travel Time
2.)No increase in
A verage/CriticaI
Movement
Vehicle Delay
3.)Reduce
Peak/off-Peak
Vehicle Speeds
4.)Reduce Crash
Rates
Description
No increase in
drive time during
or between
commute hours.
No added delay
for average
driver at
intersections/no
added delay in
the vehicle
movement most
likely to trigger
need for a longer
signal phase and
cycle.
A 20% reduction
in the higher end
vehicle speeds.
A 25% reduction
in the road crash
rate (vehicle-
vehicle, vehicle-
Measurement
Method
Computer
simulation of
plan; timed
driving trips when
plan is
implemented.
Computer
simulation, both
in plan stage and
when plan is
implemented.
Computer
simulation in plan
stage and radar
gun sampling or
counting tubes
(deployed in
pairs) data
collection when
plan is
implemented.
In plan stage,
computer
simulation for
street sections
Uses
Indicates
likelihood of cut-
through traffic
along an entire
roadway corridor
and creates
flexibility for
road design
(allows some
intersections to
operate less
efficiently if
others operate
more
efficiently).
Indicates
likelihood of cut-
through traffic in
a single location,
rather than
corridor-wide.
Needs to be
considered in
context of other
measures to
administer
design
flexibility.
Indicates safety
of road
environment for
all modes of
travel and
partially
indicates comfort
of cyclists and
pedestrians using
or crossing the
roadway.
Indicates safety
of road
environment for
all modes of
Alternative
Measurement
Intersection
delay (see #2
below).
Travel time
(see #1 above).
None. Vehicle
speeds can be
simulated by
computer or
directly
measured by
radar gun or
pairs on traffic
counting road
tubes.
None. Numbers
of road crashes
can be
simulated by
pedestrian,
vehicle-cyclists,
vehicle-fixed
object crashes
per million
between
intersections and
heuristics (i.e.
engineering
judgment) for
travel.computer,
predicted by
engineering
judgment, or
directly
5. )Increase
Pedestrian
Volumes
6.)Increase
Cycling Volumes
7.)Increase
Public Transit
Volumes
&)Improve
Cycling Level of
Service
vehicles using
the roadway).
A 20% increase
in pedestrians
along the
corridor by 2010
and 40% by
2020.
A 20% increase
in bicyclists
along the
corridor by 2010
and 40% by
2020.
A 50% increase
in public transit
riders on the
corridor by 2010.
A high standard
for bicycling
comfort and
safety on the
corridor by 2010.
signalized
intersections.
After plan
implementation,
actual crash data
obtained from
Palo Alto Police
and the State
Highway Patrol.
Computer
simulation or
engineering
judgment of plan;
manual counts of
pedestrians after
implementation.
Computer
simulation or
engineering
judgment of plan;
manual or road
tube counts of
bicyclists on bike
lanes when plan is
implemented
Computer
simulation or
engineering
judgment of plan;
manual counts at
stops or in
vehicles when
plan is
implemented.
Indicates
comfort and
safety of
pedestrians near
and crossing the
roadway. Also
indicates extent
of use of one
alternative to the
automobile.
Indicates
comfort and
safety of cyclists
along the
roadway. Also
indicates extent
of use of one
alternative to the
automobile.
Indicates extent
of use of one
alternative to the
automobile.
measured by
accident report
summaries.
can indicate
extent or transit
use, however.
Use of Federal
Highway
Administration
Blcjcle
Compatibility
Indicates degree
of comfort and
safety
experienced by
cyclists along a
Computer
simulation,
engineering
judgment, and
counts of
Pedestrian
Level of
Service (see #9
below) is a
partial
alternative, but
numbers of
pedestrians can
only be
simulated by
computer,
predicted by
engineering
judgment, or
directly
measured.
Bicycle Level
of Service (see
#8 below) is a
partial
alternative, but
does not
simulate or
measure use.
Numbers of
bicyclists can
be simulated by
computer,
predicted by
engineering
judgment, or
directly
measured.
None. Only
computer
simulation or
actual counting
9.)Improve
Pedestrian Level
of Service
10.) Enhance
Visual Amenity
A high" standard
for walking
comfort and
safety on the
corridor by 2010.
A high standard
for landscape and
streetscape by
2010.
Index" roadway
rating method to
determine needed
improvements in
plan stage and
periodic re-rating
after
implementation.
Rating attributes
include bike lane
width, and both
outside travel lane
vehicle speeds
and volumes.
Report card
format A through
F with B set as
performance
measure.
Use of Florida
DOT’ s Pedestrian
Level of Service
rating
methodology to
determine needed
improvements in
plan stage and
periodic re-rating
after
implementation.
Rating attributes
include sidewalk
and planting strip
width, and both
outside travel lane
vehicle speeds
and volumes.
Report card
format A through
F with B set as
performance
measure.
Expert judgment,
through an expert
panel, either a
subcommittee of
the Architectural
Review Board or
a volunteer panel
of residents and
architects), both
in plan stage and
after plan
implementation.
Report card
format to be
roadway.
Indicates degree
of comfort and
safety
experienced by
pedestrians near
and crossing a
roadway.
Indicates degree
of aesthetic
appeal of a
roadway, which
has implications
for quality of life
as well as for
attractiveness of
a roadway to
pedestrians.
bicyclists along
roadways can
indicate extent
of cycling but
not comfort or
safety as
reliably as the
Cycling Level
of Service
methodology
(Bicycle
Compatibility
Index).
Computer
simulation,
engineering
judgment, and
counts of
bicyclists along
roadways can
indicate extent
of cycling but
not comfort or
safety as
reliably as the
Pedestrian
Level of
Service
methodology
(Florida DOT).
Architectural
Review Board
review of a
corridor
improvement
plan in plan
stage. This does
not measure
success of
corridor plan as
implemented,
however.
developed: A
through F with B
set as
performance
measure.
Charleston Corridor
ATTACHMENT C
ATTACHMENT D
City of Palo Alto
Arastradero / Charleston Corridor Study
Community Meeting #1 - 7/10/03
Comments Summary
The comments summarized below were made by participants and recorded during the
course of the meeting. (R) indicates a response by City staff or consultants. "Sticky-
back" comments were added to study area plans by participants.
Open Discussion Comments:
¯Raised pedestrian crossings and medians are a good way to slow traffic.
¯Is there a school by the Elk’s club? (-R) Yes.
¯The intersection of Foothill and Arastradero is a serious problem which should not be
left out of the project study boundary. (R) We will include Foothill in our study area.
¯I am concerned that slowing traffic will increase commute times. (R) Not necessarily
the case. Many traffic calming measures make the flow of traffic more consistent and
efficient. One of our goals is to maintain trip time as it is, not increase it.
¯Turning left from Suzanne Drive onto Arastradero heading toward Gunn High School
is very difficult because there is no signal.
¯The current bike lane width is too narrow and unsafe. Many bikers ride double in the
lane. Also sometimes children have trouble staying within the lines if the lane is too
nalTOW.
¯Turning left from Arastradero onto Suzanne Drive is difficult and dangerous because
there is no signal. It is also difficult to get toBriones Park from Suzanne Drive.
¯If traffic is slower it may be easier to turn left onto Arastrdero from the side streets.
¯Turning left onto Los Palos is dangerous.
¯I am concerned that a traffic shift may occur behind Terman School onto Los Palos
and Pomona. (R) One solution to that problem may be to create an inviting drop-off at
Terman School.
¯I heard rumors that there may be parent-sponsored buses and a turn around at Terman
School. (R) There will be school buses transporting students from the hills. If there
is available capacity these may include additional students. The buses will unload
behind Terman at the park.
¯I am concerned that a traffic shift may occur at Maybell. What is the efficiency of a
roundabout? (K) High efficiency and safety, however not real popular in Palo Alto at
present.
¯Flashing light up signs before crosswalks are a potential solution to slow traffic. (R)
Agree.
¯What is the timeline for project implementation? (R) Implementation will occur in
phases over 5, 10, 20 years. It depends on available funding, much of which will
come from grants and redevelopment projects.
¯There is a Christian preschool between Gurm High and Terman School. It is difficult
to turn left onto Arastradero.
¯How do electronic speed signs work? (R) Believed to work very well and we intend
to implement more.
¯The Charleston Center near Nelson is a mess and needs traffic calming.
¯The Louis Drive crossing is dangerous. There is no visibility. There needs to be
signaling coming from San Antonio to Fabian alerting drivers to pedestrians.
¯Is the School Improvement Plan a priority? (R) Yes.
¯I tried biking with my kids to school and it was a scary and inconvenient experience.
¯Are there studies to determine if there is through traffic from U.S. HWY 101 to
Stanford Research Park? Why don’t people take the Oregon Expressway instead?
(R) There are no studies of this yet, but there will be in a few months. Our traffic
engineer suspects that there is a lot of through traffic on Arastradero / Charleston.
¯Page Mill Road is congested.
¯I live on the corner of Alma and Charleston and it is very difficult to get out of my
driveway.
¯Are school start times currently staggered? (R) Yes.
¯I believe that the majority of corridor traffic is through traffic. Commuters should
use the Oregon Expressway.
¯Walking across Arastrdero to Briones Park is very dangerous especially on Sundays
when traffic is less and cars go faster.
Sticky-Back Comments:
¯Are there funds available for more shuttles during school commute times?
¯How about a tram running down the center along the entire corridor? It could stop at
every street crossing to pick up and drop off. All traffic would stop to allow the
children to get safely to the side.
¯The influx and pattern of bikers and cars from the Foothill / Arastradero intersection
will influence your solution to the Gunn and Terman areas.
¯Traffic back-up on Arastradero west is greatly amplified by the Gurm High School
intersection. We need a good drop-off area and more lanes into Gunn as a first
priority.
¯Maybell- In the morning cars speed on this street and it is dangerous for people who
walk to Terman and Briones Parks, and for those who drive cars out of their garage.
¯I anticipate that morning Terman traffic will take Maybell west and make a left on
Coulombe and Donald. "No left turn" signs and some enforcement could help
prevent this.
¯There is a high level of red light violators at the Arastradero / Coulombe intersection
even when crossing guard is present. Major reason is that parents from Suzanne
Drive drive their children to Briones School.
¯We need better Sidewalks / pedestrian way on Maybell from Coulombe to E1 Camino
may help encourage more walking and biking to the elementary school.
¯During peak times there is no safe way for drivers to make the turn between
Arastradero and Suzarme Drive. Same for Greenacres 1 neighborhood.
¯I am concerned that there will be increased traffic on Maybell as a cut through to
Gunn and Terman. Also Maybell is not safe for cyclists or pedestrians.
¯A potential solution for pedestrians going to Briones Park from Suzanne Drive is an
on-demand crossing with flashing lights in the asphalt near the Clemo Avenue and
Suzanne Drive intersections.
¯Are there plans to make Arastrdero 2 lanes with center left turn lane and R/L turns at
major intersections?
2
¯There is no sign indicating the Alma intersection before the train tracks. Drivers turn
right without signaling.
¯Coming from Alma Street there is no left turn into Hoover School so drivers turn
right onto Nelson and make U-turns to get back onto East Charleston.
¯The Charleston Plan needs to incorporate some solutions for Middlefield between the
Llibrary and San Antonio. There is no bike lane to Cubberly Community Center.
Lunch drop-off traffic on Middlefield is a problem.
¯Northern Palo Alto has a lot of 4-way stop signs. Put these in on Arastradero /
Charleston. It slows traffic and allows access from side streets.
¯Ban all trucks from Charleston Road including city and PASCO that are from other
areas. San Antonio is a truck route and runs almost parallel to Charleston Road.
¯Middlefield is a death zone at the south end of Palo Alto.
3
City of Palo Alto
Arastradero / Charleston Corridor Study
Community Meeting #2 - 7/16103
Comments Summary
The comments summarized below were made by participants and recorded during the
course of the meeting. (R) indicates a response by City staffor consultants. Sticky-back
comments were added to study area plans by participants.
Open Discussion Comments:
¯ Are there plans to widen the street into people’s front yards? (R) There will be no
change in width between property lines.
¯Speeding is a problem on the corridor. The street looks like an expressway so people
drive fast. I bike to work in Los Altos. From Mumford to E1 Camino Real is
dangerous.
¯At Hoover Elementary better access accommodation is necessary.
¯Is there a possibility that Charleston will become two lanes with a left turn lane?
¯There are several intersections at Level of Service D: Alma, E1 Camino Real,
Middlefield, and Foothill. These are already a problem.
¯Illegal left turns at Hoover and Challenger Elementary back up traffic.
¯Will the Charleston / Arastradero project evaluate the new Ricky’s development?
These traffic models include numbers but not evaluation of the development. (R) The
current proposal is plugged into the model. The city is looking at a reduced scale
project as well. Plus schools and city growth projections are evaluated in the models.
¯Speed is a real issue on the corridor. South of Hoover the walks are used by cyclists.
Shouldn’t the walks and bike paths be separate?
¯The electronic flashing speed signs are good.
¯The E1 Camino Real crossing is scary.
¯The island at Louis and Charleston is very odd.
¯The Louis island was implemented by the neighborhood thirty or forty years ago to
stop through traffic to 101 south.
¯The island is ugly. (R) The island is functional, but ugly.
¯A gateway between the industrial and residential zones at the Fabian intersection
would be nice.
¯The effectiveness of the flashing signs has worn off.
¯If you scale down the street how will you prevent directing traffic to other streets?
(R) That’s part of the design challenge.
¯We need police to enforce the flashing speed sign. Can we have more police added to
the street before project implementation to monitor what is occurring?
¯There will be lots of added traffic with three new schools on Arastradero. There have
been no environmental studies of these future expansions.
¯There is a problem of Gunn students parking on nearby residential streets.
¯I disagree that traffic will not be deterred to other streets. We should discourage U.S.
101 to 280 through traffic. We need to seriously consider the possibility of a shift to
Page Mill Road and other streets.
¯We need more cooperation between the city and the school district. The schools
should encourage alternative means of transportation.
¯U-turns occur on Nelson and Carlson as a result of "no left turn" into Hoover and
Challenger School. This is a problem.
¯How is it possible to make such street modifications without increasing traffic? It
doesn’t add up.
¯In regards to performance criteria the intersection Levels of Service (LOS) should be
increased to "B." (R) We could make them all LOS "A," but the physical measures
necessary to attain the grade would be opposite of pedestrian and bicycle friendly.
¯Currently there is a moratorium, but new development will eventually add more
traffic. New development will add too much traffic. (R) The city will model a range
of scenarios.
¯The E1 Camino Real intersection is not bicycle friendly.
¯There should be a shuttle running up and down the corridor during the morning
commute.
¯I am proud to live in a community that can understand a counterintuitive traffic
program.
¯How about a bullet train? Is it possible to remove at-grade crossings? (R) They are
safer, but they are costly and were not reviewed positively in the Comprehensive Plan
process.
¯It’s hard to believe something good can be done without shifting traffic. It’s all going
to fall on Charleston. Shuttle use would be great. (R) The 4% bike trip rate in Palo
Alto can be improved.
¯Will there be a train station in the future? Where do the numbers for the traffic
models come from? (-R) There arel20 traffic model zones. They are posted on the
website. The city tests the maximum scenario per the current Comprehensive Plan
and Zoning designations.
¯School traffic requires cooperation from the school district. Heavy backpacks make
bikes hard to ride. The kids need lockers to store their books so they don’t have to
bring them home every day. At lunch time traffic from Gunn is wild. Should the
gates in back be closed?
¯Currently it takes 7-8 minutes to back out of my driveway onto Charleston. Will a
steady flow of traffic make this easier or more difficult? (R) We will need to create
gaps in the flow.
¯Currently less than 7 tons of truck weight is allowable on Charleston. However, this
law is not enforced. Large tracks use the corridor as a cross town cormection. Should
trucks greater than 3.5 tons be barmed from the corridor to reduce traffic?
¯The traffic signals on the corridor should be synchronized
¯In the future Caltrain use will increase as well.
¯In the UK, Netherlands, and Scandinavia they have ways to get the flow of traffic
moving efficiently. (R) In the Netherlands 30% of transportation is by bike, 20% by
public transit / walking, and 50% by car. No matter what people will still drive, but
we can do a whole lot better than 4% bike use in Palo Alto.
¯Charleston is ideal for bi-directional bike lanes on either one side or both sides of the
street. It would be safer for kids and more pleasant for all.
2
¯Turn lane striping from San Antonio onto Charleston is confusing. There are two
fight turn lanes, which is confusing and actually encourages traffic on Charleston.
¯We need a way to stop through industrial park traffic and make the neighborhood
more oriented to local residents.
¯Is the connection between Charleston and 101 south being considered?
¯From Alma to E1 Camino Real the LOS is actually E. It can take three lights to get
through. Thwarted drivers are dangerous. As a community we need to keep an eye
on the studies and stay involved in this process.
¯We need an alternative to Charleston. How about Page Mill instead? (R) County is
conducting a study of the expressway system, including improving Oregon and Page
Mill function.
¯In 2000 a study found there was Alma Street cut through traffic via side streets, so
this is already known.
¯Redwood Circle by Hoover Elementary is chaos in the morning.
¯Carlson and other residential streets are used to get to East Meadow. It’s absurd to
have a bike route there with traffic as it is.
¯The plan has to address an increase in traffic.
¯Foothill north traffic right turn lanes should be expanded to reduce travel time. We
need to do better than "jump lanes" for cyclists.
¯San Antonio is full in the morning. Low overhanging trees deter tracks from driving
on San Antonio.
¯In conducting the traffic models an extra 1,000 units should be added to be on the
safe side. (R) Proposed development as well as development allowed by current city
policy will be evaluated.
¯After September you should ride a bike at 7:15 a.m. from Fabian to Gunn to observe
how impossible it is.
¯A non stop shuttle is a great idea.
¯An under crossing is needed at Alma. It would slow cars relative to pedestrians and
bicyclists too.
¯A physical barrier of 2-3 feet high separating the bike lane from the street would be
nice.
¯How are the entrance / exits to the new developments addressed? Do you know
where they will be located? (R) The city will review the entrances / exits to the new
developments. The city is uneasy about more drives on Charleston, and Wilkie is a
concern as well.
¯Where will JCC exit? On Charleston? (R) A detailed site plan has not yet.been
prepared.
¯Will future development be considered? (R) Yes, plus background growth.
¯Should add East Meadow from Alma to Middlefield to the study. There should be a
school corridor. Check exits on Charleston.
¯Kids use walks as bi-directional bike lanes. There should be a rumble strip or raised
dots to separate the bike lanes from the street.
¯Would it be a good idea to install a street between the Elks Club and the Hyatt?
There are local concerns regarding drives onto Wilkie. Should the drives be located
on E1 Camino Real instead?
3
¯Alma Plaza will be the closest shopping destination. A "shopping shuttle" could be
helpful. 20 minutes or less headway is best.
¯Years ago there was a problem with cut through traffic on Montrose Avenue by Ford
employees. The problem was solved by establishing a relationship with the company
and its employees. With the new JCC the problem could start again. It would be
wise to establish a relationship early with the organization.
¯What will the end result of this study be? A proposed redesign? A traffic capacity
statement? (R) Yes!
¯Countybuses block Charleston at Middlefield on both sides. The city should work
with the county to improve bus system efficiency. The buses are empty! Loops that
work and include E1 Camino Real and Alma should be established. The current
express buses travel at high speeds and are very noisy.
¯The sidewalks are too narrow and overgrown. There need to be designated drop-offs
for schools and future shuttle drop-off.
¯There is no lighting at bus stops. Shelters with lighting should be implemented to
encourage children to wait at designated drop-offs. (R) The Valley Transportation
Authority (VTA) is adding new shelters with lights and advertisements.
¯A pedestrian median is needed at Park Boulevard and Charleston.
¯From 7:30 - 8:00 a.m. there is traffic backed up on Meadow. Many drivers go down
E1 Verano instead of Meadow.
Sticky Back Comments:
¯ When bike lanes are too wide drivers use them as right turn lanes. This is very
common at Charleston and Alma.
¯At Charleston and Alma cars make right turns in the bike lane.
¯When traffic backs up on Charleston cars turn right on Wilkie to school down Edlee
and cut in at Park.
¯Align Wilkie Way as it crosses Charleston. Use dots or lane striping to lead cars.
¯60 KV power lines can be under-grounded. It is done all over the country.
¯There are many accidents with traffic turning offLouis onto Charleston (both east
and west).
¯Traffic is bumper to bumper with a 3-4 signal wait on Alma south bound above East
Meadow and Charleston during the late afternoon rush.
4
ATTACHMENT E
TO:HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING
DATE:JUNE 9, 2003 CMR:310:03
SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL DIRECTION ON CHARLESTON
ROAD/ARASTRADERO ROAD CORRIDOR PLAN LAND USE
ASSUMPTIONS
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that Council review and provide direction to staff on assumptions
regarding future land development and re-development, to be used in traffic analysis during
preparation of the Charleston/Arastradero Road Corridor Plan.
BACKGROUND
At its April 14, 2003 meeting, Council directed staff to prepare a plan of transportation and
urban designflandscape improvements for the Charleston/Arastradero Road Corridor
(CMR:237:03). Attachment A displays a corridor map. Council also directed staff to return
with a report on land use assumptions to be included in projecting future traffic conditions
on the corridor before such predictions were undertaken.
One of the primary objectives of the Chadeston/Arastradero corridor plan is to provide
meaningful mitigation for traffic impacts from new and existing development. The plan will
focus on outcomes such as attractive and safe routes to schools, welMandscaped medians
where possible, and pedestrian, bicycle, and bus transit improvements all along the corridor.
Other primary objectives of the plan will be to provide safer traffic flow along the corridor
and reduce the incidence of vehicle speeding, without reducing vehicle travel times or
causing diversion of through traffic to other streets.
Future land development and re-development is likely to change traffic conditions on the
Charleston/Arastradero Corridor. Some of the impacts will likely derive, from the Hyatt-
Rickey’s project at E1 Camino Real and Charleston, the prospective re-development of the
Sun Microsystems site on Charleston between Fabian and San Antonio Road, and future re-
development of the Elk Club Site near Hyatt-Rickey’s. Not all of these changes were, or
indeed could be, anticipated during development of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan
Environmental Impact Report (EIR).
CMR:310:03 Page 1 of 4
This report describes the land use changes anticipated along the CharlestoniArastradero
Road corridor. Since land use and transportation are inextricably linked, assumptions about
future growth are crucial for reliable forecasts of future traffic. Even though Palo Alto is
developing one of the most advanced traffic forecasting models of any comparably sized
city in the nation, accurate traffic predictions are impossible without good assumptions
about future land use.
DISCUSSION
Individually and cumulatively, development and re-development on the Charleston/
Arastradero Road Corridor will produce additional traffic volume, potentially add delay to
motor vehicle trips, and increase the number of vehicle turning movements. The additional
vehicular traffic and turning movements onto each street will increase the amount of conflict
with, and exposure to, vehicular traffic for students cycling and walking along or across
these streets. This will make safe, multimodal transportation, as envisioned in the Palo Alto
Comprehensive Plan, more difficult to attain and preserve for these two important streets
and the intersecting streets.
Most of the land in the Charleston-Arastradero corridor is zoned and used for single family
use and little if any change in traffic generation is expected in those areas. Therefore, the
study focuses on those sites where change is proposed or expected. The City’s
Comprehensive Plan sets a range of permitted development intensities for each area and
these are the basis for this project’s land use planning assumptions. Existing zoning further
narrows the range of development on some sites. However, in some cases, requests for
changes, either in Comprehensive Plan designation or zoning, have been proposed or are
expected. This information has also been added to the database.
When the City adopted the Comprehensive Plan in 1998, it anticipated and accepted some
increase in traffic congestion at some intersections, including several in the Charleston-
Arastradero area. It did this in part because the City values multi-modal transportation and
maintenance of existing street scale. The full description of the anticipated congestion, and
the reasons for accepting it, are in Resolution 7780.
To analyze the sort of traffic that might be generated during the lifetime of the
Comprehensive Plan (1998 through 2010), the City prepared an EIR that used a range of
assumptions about probable development on particular sites. These were referred to as the
"low development," "high development, and "mid-range development" alternatives. The
City generally adopted land designations consistent with the mid-range alternative. Land
use is governed by the adopted Comprehensive Plan, not the EIR assumptions on future land
use on any particular site. However, the information provided by the EIR and Resolution
7780 is important in evaluating how accurate those predictions were, and whether the City is
still on the course anticipated when the Comprehensive Plan was adopted. Therefore, that
information is also included in the database for this study.
CMR:310:03 Page 2 of 4
As part of the Charleston Arastradero, traffic will be analyzed at "worst case" (the most
intense uses permitted under existing Comprehensive Plan designations, plus requested or
anticipated changes in those designations, with no transportation demand management), as
well as under assumptions of less intense development. The use of various transportation
demand management measures will be modeled. Traffic generated by development outside
the corridor area, whether by development in Palo Alto or outside of it, will be simulated in
the computer traffic model.
Attachment B shows anticipated future development sites along the corridor, compared to 1)
existing conditions at each site; 2) the assumptions for each site in the traffic forecasting
prepared for the Comprehensive Plan EIR; 3) known proposals or what can be built-out
under existing zoning at each site; and 4) the difference between what exists now and what
is either being proposed or could be built-out ender existing zoning. The "Known Proposal
or Build out Under Existing Zoning" list in Attachment B constitutes the important
Charleston/Arastradero Corridor land development assumptions for traffic forecasting
purposes.
RESOURCE IMPACT
On April 14, 2003 Council authorized an expenditure of $200,000 for preparation of the
Charleston/Arastradero Corridor Plan. The resources will be obtained through internal re-
allocation within the Planning Department budget and the City Manager’s Contingency
Fund.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
The Charleston/Arastradero Road Plan addresses the first five goals of the Palo Alto
Comprehensive Plan:
¯T- 1: "Less Reliance on Single Occupant Vehicles".
¯T-2: "A Convenient, Efficient Public Transportation System that Provides A Viable
Alternative to Driving".
¯T-3: "Facilities, Services, and Programs that Encourage and Promote Walking and
Bicycling".
¯T-4: "An Efficient Roadway Network for All Users".
¯T-5: "A Transportation System that Minimizes Impacts on Residential Neighborhoods".
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
An Environmental Assessment will be prepared and presented to the Planning
Transportation Commission and City Council for consideration along with the complete
draft Arastradero Road/Charleston Road ColTidor Plan. Since the Corridor Plan is intended
to implement important provisions of the Comprehensive Plan, an important focus of the
CMR:310:03 Page 3 of 4
Environmental Assessment will be consistency of the
Comprehensive Plan.
ATTACHMENTS
A. Map of Charleston Road- Arastradero Road-Road Corridor
B. Charleston-Arastradero Corridor Land Use Assumptions
Corridor Plan with the
PREPARED BY:
Chief Transportation Official
DEPARTMENT HEAD:
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
Debra Ju
Penny Ellson
Henry Lum
Tom Vician
Millicyent Hamilton
Martin Stone
Lee Weider
Mark Solit
Lydia Tan
S EMSLIE
Director of Planning and
Community Environment
x~VII LY HARRISON
Assistant City Manager
CMR:310:03 Page 4 of 4
iI °~
Charleston Corridor
Attachment A
Zo~SZ
~ o "
ATTACHMENT F
TRANSP OR TA TION DIVISION
STAFF REPORT
TO:PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
FROM:
AGENDA DATE:
Joseph Kott
August 27, 2003.
DEPARTMENT: Planning
SUBJECT:Proposed Charleston/Arastmdero Road Corridor Plan Objectives and
Performance Measures
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning and Transportation Commission recommend that the
City Council endorse the following objectives .and performance measures for the Charleston/
Arastradero Road Corridor Plan:
Objectives -
1)maintain existing travel time on the corridor to minimize diversion to other residential
streets
2) reduce accidents on the corridor
3) improve conditions for pedestrian and bicycle travel
4) improve the quality of life on the corridor
5) enhance visual amenity of the corridor
Performance Measures -
!) No increase in peak or off-peak motor vehicle travel time between each of these points:
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Charleston from San Antonio to Middlefield
Charleston from Middlefield to Alma
Charleston from Alma to E1 Camino Real
Arastradero from E1 Camino Real to Foothill Expressway
2)No increase in average motor vehicle delay and critical movement motor vehicle delay
at any Charleston Road or Arastradero Road Corridor Plan intersection.
3)Reduce off-peak 85th percentile speeds by at least 20 percent by 2010 at each of these
locations:
4)
5)
6)
7)
Charleston between San Antonio and Middlefield (from 37.3 mph to 29.8 mph) [note
current 50 percent = 33.4 mph]
Charleston between Middlefield and Alma (from 34.7 mph to 27.8 mph) [note current
50 percent = 30.9 mph]
Charleston between E1 Camino Real and Alma (from 34.9 mph to 27.9 mph) [note
current 50 percent = 31.3 mph]
Arastradero between E1 Camino Real and Foothill Expressway (from 33.7 mph to
27.0 mph) [note current 50 percent = 29.1 mph]
Reduce accident rates (accidents/million entering vehicles) by at least.25 percent by 2010
between each of these points:
Charleston from San Antonio to Middlefield
Charleston from Middlefield to Alma
Charleston from Alma to E1 Camino Real
Arastradero from E1 Camino Real to Foothill Expressway
An average 20 percent increase in pedestrian crossing volumes (all approaches) at all
signalized intersections by 2010 and a 40 percent increase by 2020.
An average 20 percent increase in bicycle volumes (all approaches) at all signalized
intersections by 2010 and a 40 percent increase by 2020.
An average 50 percent increase in daily public transit boardings during the school year
at all stops along the corridor by 2010.
City of Palo Alto Page 2
8)Attainment of a cycling compatibility rating (BCI methodology1) of B by 2010 on each
of the following sections of the corridor:
Charleston from San Antonio to Middlefield
Charleston from Middlefield to Alma
Charleston from Alma to E1 Camino Real
Arastradero from E1 Camino Real to Foothill Expressway
9)Attainment of a walking compatibility rating (Florida DOT methodology2) of B by 2010
on each of the following sections of the corridor:
Charleston from San Antonio to Middlefield
Charleston from Middlefield to Alma
Charleston from Alma to E1 Camino Real
Arastradero from E1 Camino Real to Foothill Expressway
10)Attainment of a visual amenity rating (Florida DOT methodology) of B by 2010 on each
of the following sections of the corridor
Charleston from San Antonio to Middlefield
Charleston from Middlefield to Alma
Charleston from Alma to E1 Camino Real
Arastradero from E1 Camino Real to Foothill
BACKGROUND
City Council has directed staff to prepare a plan of transportation and urban design!landscape
improvements for the Charleston/Arastradero Road Corridor. The plan is to focus on
outcomes such as attractive and safe routes to schools; well-landscaped medians where
possible; and pedestrian, bicycle, and bus transit improvements all along the corridor. Other
primary purposes of the plan will be to provide safer traffic flow along the corridor and
reduce the incidence of vehicle speeding without reduction in vehicle travel times or causing
diversion of through traffic to other streets. Council has directed that staff report back with
a recommended plan for Charleston and Arastradero Roads no later than the end of January
2004.
1 U.S. Department of Transportation, The Bicycle Compatibility Index: a Level of Service Concept. Implementation
Manual, http://safety, fhwa.dot.gov/fourthlevel/pdf/bci.pdf
2 Florida Department ofTr£nsportation, Modelin~ the Roadside Walkina Environment: A Pedestrian Level of
Service_, http://wwwl 1.myflorida.com/plannmg/systems/srn/los/pdfs/pedlos.pdf
City of Palo Alto Page 3
A preliminary list of objectives and performance measures was presented and discussed at
Charleston Road-Arastradero Road Corridor Plan public meetings on July 10 and July 15.
These were further refined at subsequent meetings of plan stakeholders and staff.
DISCUSSION
An agreed set of tangible, measurable benchmarks is essential in evaluating any plan or
project. Objectives specify the measurable aims of a plan for transportation (or any other
public infrastructure) improvements. Performance Measures providethe objective means
of determining whether or not the objectives of such a plan are being met. Without these it
is very difficult to determine whether and how much a plan succeeds in attaining its
purposes. The above performance measures evolved from a set of measures initially
proposed by staff at the first Charleston/Amstradero Corridor Plan public meetings held July
10 and July 15, 2003. The initial set of performance measures was further refined and
discussed at a subsequent smaller meeting of CharlestorgArastradero stakeholders, which
included neighborhood association .representatives and business people from the
Charlestort/Arastradero Corridor project area. They are based on engineering best practices
and are all measures that can be objectively verified.
The proposed Charleston/Arastradero Road Corridor Plan objectives and performance
measures are intended to guide the formulation of the plan and its success in being
implemented. Staff proposes to complete data collection for a complete set of performance
measure values under "existing conditions" and a subsequent set under "forecast conditions"
assuming plan implementation. Specification of the later values will require a combination
of computer simulation and professional judgement (i.e. using the heuristic method of an
"expert panel"). As the plan is implemented overtime, staff will collect and report a set of
performance measures based on actual results.
It should be noted that staff still needs to develop an adequate methodology for rating "visual
amenity". One possibility is to request that a sub-committee of the Architectural Review
Board undertake the role of "expert panel" in making this assessment.
NEXT STEPS
Staff will present the Commission recommendations regarding the Charleston/Arastradero
Road Corridor Plan to the City Council on September 22.
City of Palo Alto Page 4
ATTACHMENTS/EXHIBITS
Attachment A: CMR:237:03
COURTESY COPIES
City Council
Prepared by: Joseph Kott, Chief Transportation Official
Division Head Approval:
Jos~l~h Kot)t, Chief Transportation Official
City of Palo Alto Page 5
TO:
FROM:
HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND
COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT
14
DATE:
SUBJECT:
APRIL 14, 2003 CMR:237:03
APPROVAL OF ORDINANCE RESTRICTING NEW
DEVELOPMENT ALONG CHARLESTON-ARASTRADERO ROAD
CORRIDOR PENDING IMPLEMENTATION OF TRAFFIC PLAN
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that Council adopt the attached ordinance (Attachment A) restricting
new development along the Charleston-Arastradero Road corridor for a limited period of
time, pending implementation of the Charleston-Arastradero Road Corridor Traffic
Management and Safety Plan (Traffic Plan).
BACKGROUND
The Charleston-Arastradero Road corridor isa major school commute corridor in Palo
Alto. From Hoover Elementary and JLS Middle Schools on Charleston, to Gunn High
and the new Terman Middle Schools on Arastradero, school commuters of all ages
commute along and across these major streets. The predominant land use on both streets
is residential and both are classified as residential arterial streets in the 1998-2010 Palo
Alto Comprehensive Plan. An advisory panel of neighborhood associations and school
PTA traffic safety representatives has recommended that the Transportation Division
include each street as a school commute corridor, part of a citywide network of streets
important to school commuters. This proposal will be discussed at a meeting of the
City/School Traffic Safety Committee on April 24 and at the Planning and Transportation
Commission meeting of May 14.
A traffic safety and management study of Charleston Road, completed in December
2000, identified a number of deficiencies in pedestrian and bicycle facilities (Attachment
C, CMR:188:01). In addition, concerns about travel safety and residential quality of life
have been expressed to Transportation Division staff at neighborhood association
meetings along the Charleston-Arastradero Road corridor, and by personal
communications from residents and parents of students commuting along or across the
corridor.
CMR:237:03 Page 1 of 5
A number of transportation initiatives have been undertaken to enhance safety for school
commuters and other road users on each street. The bicycle lane gap in the vicinity of Gunn
High School has been eliminated with installation of new bike lanes. The GO FAST trip
reduction program at Gunn High School has .encouraged students to use alternative modes
of transportation to and from school. Traffic signal improvements are planned for the
Arastradero-Donald intersection to serve the new Terman Middle School. Electronic speed
advisory signs are being deployed on both Charleston and Arastradero to show drivers their
current operating speed and the posted speed limit. Plans are being developed to re-
configure Charleston Road between Mumford and Nelson to enhance pedestrian and bicycle
safety.
Despite these improvements, school commuters on both Charleston and Arastradero Roads
continue to face serious challenges because of existing local and regional traffic. These
challenges will intensify due to future land development and re-development impacting the
Charleston-Arastradero Corridor. Some of the impacts will likely derive from the Hyatt
Rickey’s project at E1 Camino Real and Charleston, the prospective re-development of the
Sun Microsystems site along Charleston between Fabian and San Antonio Road and future
re-development of the Elk Club Site on E1 Camino Real near Hyatt Rickey’s. Individually
and cumulatively, these land use changes will produce additional traffic volume and an
increased number of vehicle turning movements along the Charleston-Arastradero corridor.
The additional vehicular traffic and turning movements onto each street will increase the
amount of conflict with and exposure to vehicular traffic for students cycling and walking
along or across these streets and cross streets. This will make safe, multimodal
transportation, as envisioned in the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, more difficult to attain
and preserve for these two important streets and for intersecting streets as well.
DISCUSSION
Staff proposes to develop and implement a Charleston-Arastradero Road Corridor Traffic
Management and Safety Plan to enhance school commute traffic safety, altemative modes
of travel, and residential quality of life, in response to current travel conditions as well as to
the cumulative transportation impacts of anticipated development within the corridor. It will
address the length of Charleston and Arastradero Roads from Fabian to Miranda. The
Traffic Plan will focus on transportation and urban design issues and, thus, will not be a land
use plan. Rather, it will implement existing Comprehensive Plan goals and policies.
One of the primary objectives of the plan is to provide meaningful mitigation for the traffic
impacts from new and existing development. The plan will focus on outcomes such as safe
and attractive routes to schools, well-landscaped medians where possible, and pedestrian,
bicycle, and bus transit improvements along the corridor.
Other primary objectives of the plan will be to provide safer traffic flow along the corridor
and reduce the incidence of vehicle speeding, without reduction in vehicle travel times or
CMR:237:03 Page 2 of 5
causing diversion of through traffic to other streets. The plan is not intended to delay
possible short-term improvements while longer-term solutions are explored. Short-term
improvements will proceed as identified and scheduled.
The requirements of all departments within the City and other agencies (including Caltrans)
will be acknowledged and addressed. The plan will be a shared and comprehensive effort
managed by the Transportation Division in collaboration with other City departments. Other
agencies and entities, including Caltrans, the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers
BoardlCaltrain, Palo Alto Unified School District, and the Santa Clara Valley Water District
will also be involved in plan development. Attachment B contains the proposed scope of
work.
The Traffic Plan is anticipated to be completed within six to nine months of initiation.
Completion of the Traffic Plan is necessary before permitting additional traffic-generating
development projects in this Corridor. The proposed ordinance would disallow
consideration of any new land development or re-development that: 1) is located within 440
yards of the Charleston Corridor; and 2) would result in the addition of one or more
residential dwelling units or more than 250 non-residential square feet to the conditions
existing on April 14, 2003. Individually developed single family dwellings and duplexes
are to be exempted from these provisions. The Director of Planning and Community
Environment and his staff will prepare implementation guidelines for this ordinance, subject
to approval as to form by the City Attorney. The ordinance requires a Council finding that it
is necessary for the preservation of the public health, safety, and welfare to implement the
Charleston Road Corridor Traffic Management and Safety Plan before permitting additional
traffic-generating development projects in the Charleston Road Corridor. The ordinance
would be effective immediately upon its adoption and would conclude on the earlier of the
expiration of the 18th month following the effective date, or the completion of
implementation of the Charleston Road Corridor Traffic Management and Safety Plan, as
determined by the Director of Planning and Community Environment.
The ordinance calls for expedited development of a Charleston-Arastradero Road Corridor
Traffic Plan including, but not limited to, allowing the City Manager to enter into
professional service or consulting contracts without formal or informal bidding, as
authorized by the Municipal Code. In addition, Council is asked in the ordinance to state
that it determines that it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that this
ordinance may have a significant effect on the environment. The ordinance is exempt from
the provisions of CEQA as a regulatory measure taken to assure the maintenance,
restoration, enhancement, or protection of the environment.
CMR:237:03 Page 3 of 5
RESOURCE IMPACT
The Plan will require a City expenditure of $200,000, to be reimbursed by development
contributions in the form of mitigation funding from prospective development and re-
development along the Charleston-Arastradero Road corridor.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
The Charleston-Arastradero Road Corridor Traffic Management and Safety Plan addresses
the first five Goals of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan:
¯T-l: "Less Reliance on Single Occupant Vehicles".
¯T-2: "A Convenient, Efficient Public Transportation System that Provides A Viable
Alternative to Driving".
¯T-3: "Facilities, Services, and Programs that Encourage and Promote Walking and
Bicycling".
¯T-4: "An Efficient Roadway Network for All Users".
¯T-5: "A Transportation System that Minimizes Impacts on Residential Neighborhoods".
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
An Environmental Assessment will be prepared and presented to the Planning and
Transportation Commission and City Council for consideration along with the draft
Charleston-Arastradero Road Corridor Traffic Management and Safety Plan. Since the
corridor plan is intended to implement important provisions of the Comprehensive Plan, an
important focus of the Environmental Assessment will be consistency of the corridor plan
with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan.
CMR:237:03 Page 4 of 5
ATTACHMENTS
A. Ordinance Implementing Traffic Plan Before Permitting Additional Traffic Generating
Development
B.Charleston-Arastradero Road Corridor Traffic Management and Safety Plan
Scope of Work
C.CMR:188:01, Charleston Road Corridor Traffic Management and Safety Study
D.Maps of the Charleston-Arastradero Road Corridor (Attached only to Council Member,
Lilarary and Office Copies)
PREPARED BY:
JOSEPH KOT’Ia~
~ortation Official
DEPARTMENT HEAD:
STEVE EMSLIE
Director of Planning and
Community Environment
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
EMILY HARRISON
Assistant City Manager
CMR:237:03 Page 5 of 5
ATTACHMENT A
ORDINANCE NO.
ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO
ALTO DECLARING COUNCIL POLICY TO IMPLEMENT THE
CHARLESTON ROAD CORRIDOR TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT AND
SAFETY STUDY BEFORE PERMITTING ADDITIONAL
TRAFFIC GENERATING DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS IN THE
CHARLESTON ROAD CORRIDOR AND DECLARING THE
URGENCY THEREOF
The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as
fol!ows:
SECTION I.
declares as follows:
The Council finds and
A. The Charleston Road Corridor comprises Charleston
and Arastradero Roads, from Miranda Avenue to Fabian Way.
B.The 1998-2010 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan
("Comprehensive Plan") designates this corridor as a residential
arterial because it carries large voltumes of through-traffic but
also has residential uses on both sides of the street.
C.The Comprehensive Plan states that the City’s
objective for residential arterials is to address the desires of
residents of these streets who would like to have slower speeds,
safer conditions for bicycles and pedestrians, and aesthetic
improvements.
D.The Comprehensive Plan states that this must be
done economically and without appreciably reducing traffic
capacity or diverting traffic onto local neighborhood streets.
Examples of improvements are "boulevard" treatments (landscaped
medians and planting strips), gateway features, and traffic
signal changes. In addition, improved alternate transportation
modes are supported.
E.In December 2000, the City received a report
entitled, Charleston Road Corridor Traffic Management and Safety
Study. This City-commissioned report identified several
findings and recommendations including:
The real and perceived unsafe conditions on
Charleston Road that compromise bicyclist safety;
The real and perceived unsafe conditions for
pedestrians crossing Charleston Road; and
Traffic diversion and speeding through
residentia! streets to avoid Charleston Road.
030409 sm 005323
F.The Charleston Road Corridor is a unique
transportation corridor in the City of Palo Alto because ofthe
concentration of school, recreational and otherpublic assembly
facilities on or immediately adjacent to the corridor. These
facilities-include Gunn Senior High School, Terman Park, Terman
Park Library, Jane Lathrop Stanford Middle School, Fairmeadow
Elementary School, Achieve School, Challenger Schoo!, Juana
Briones Elementary School, Juana Briones Park, Hoover Elementary
School, Robles Park, Mitchell Park, Mitchell Park Library,
Mitchell Park Community Center, Cubberley Community Center, Mid-
Peninsula Jewish Community Day School, and the new Terman Middle
School to be re-opened in the Fall of 2003. Moreover, while it
is. located just outside the current Charleston Corridor between
San Antonio Road and Fabian Way, the relocated Jewish Community
Center will create a major new community center and housing use
when it is developed on the former Sun Microsystems site. These
facilities serve a large segment of Palo Alto’s youth population
and therefore require safe pedestrian and bicycle access.
G.The Charleston Corridor is also unique in that
school commuters must cross several major intersections, such as
the state-controlled E1 Camino Real (SR 82), Alma Street,
Middlefield Road, and an at-grade Ca!Train rai! crossing.
The Charleston Road Corridor Traffic Management
and Safety Study further recognized that the corridor could be
classified as a "school corridor." "School corridor" would be a
new, specialized form of residential arterial with special
criteria and policies to address minimum levels of accommodation
for pedestrians and bicyclists, including bike lanes and bike
lane widths, sidewalks and sidewalk widths, minimum and maximum
distance between safe crossings of the corridor, crosswalk
design, pedestrian median refuges,and signal timing to
accommodate bicycles and pedestrians.
I.The 2003 Status Report: Comprehensive Plan
Implementation Plan indicates that the Charleston Corridor
residential arterial measures described in the Comprehensive
Plan have not been completed.
J.The City Council wishes to pursue implementation
of the Comprehensive Plan and Charleston Road Corridor Traffic
Management and Safety. Study before additional new deve!opment
exacerbates existing unsafe traffic conditions.
//
030409 sm 0053231 2
K.The City Council hereby finds and determines that
it is necessary for the preservation of the public health,
safety, and welfare to implement the Charleston Road Corridor
Traffic Management and Safety Study before permitting additional
traffic generating development projects in the Charleston Road
Corridor.
L.The City Council hereby finds and declares that
this Ordinance is necessary as an emergency measure because
pending and reasonably anticipated development applications will
cause serious, irreversible degradation to traffic conditions in
the Charleston road Corridor. This degradation will cause
immediate threats to the safety of school children and
pedestrian and bicycle commuters. Moreover, existing vehicular
traffic conditions wil! be substantially worsened.
SECTION 2. ~S~!CTIONS ON DK"4~LO~M~NT A~PLICATIONS.
No residential or non-residential application for a
discretionary or ministerial development permit of any kind
shall be formally considered, heard, or approved by the City or
any officer, employee, board or commission of the City, if, in
the sole judgment of the Director of Planning and Community
Environment, such application or permit, or any part of the
development contemplated by such application or permit, will be:
I) Located with 440 yards of the Charleston Corridor; and 2)
result in the addition of one or more residential dwelling units
or more than 250 non-residential square feet to the conditions
existing on April 14, 2003. Singly deve!oped single family
dwellings and duplexes shall be exempt. The Director of Planning
and Community. Environment may prepare implementing guidelines
for this ordinance, subject to approval as to form by the City
Attorney.
SECTION 3. ~M~L~2ATION PF~TOD. Section 2 of this
ordinance shall be effective during the implementation of the
Charleston Road Corridor Traffic Management and Safety Study,
commencing immediately upon adoption of this ordinance and
concluding on the earlier of the expiration of the eighteenth
month (18~h) following the effective date, or the completion of
implementation of the Charleston Road Corridor Traffic
Management and Safety Study, as determined by the Director of
Planning and Community Environment. The effective period of
Section 2 of this ordinance may be modified or extended by
resolution of the City Council, provided that in no circumstance
shall Section 2 be effective for more than thirty six (36)
months following the original effective date of this ordinance.
030409 sm 0053231 3
SECTION 4. ADMZNXS~%~%~I-9~ R~I~DXES. Any residential or
non-residential applicant aggrieved by this ordinance shall,
before seeking any judicial or other relief and within thirty
(30) days of initia! notification that this ordinance affects
their application, petition the Director of Planning and
Community Development for modification of, or relief from, this
ordinance. .Such petition shal! be in writing with a complete
description of the facts and reasons upon which modification or
relief is requested. Within sixty (60) days thereafter, the
Director of Planning and Community Environment shall forward to
the City Council his or her recommendations on the petition.
The City Council may take appropriate action on such petition by
resolution or as otherwise advised by the City Attorney. The
City Council’s action shall be deemed a legislative act.
SECTION 5. EXPEDITED IMPLEMENTATION. The City Manager
is hereby directed to take all actions necessary to carry out
this ordinance in an expedited manner, including but not limited
to entering into professional service or consulting contracts
without formal or informal bidding, as authorized by the
municipal code.This ordinance shall not be construed to
authorize any expenditure in excess of existing municipal code
authority.
SECTION 6. ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS. The City Council
has determined that it can be seen with certainty that there is
no possibility that this ordinance may have a significant effect
on the environment. This ordinance is exempt from the
provisions of CEQA as a regulatory measure taken to assure the
maintenance, restoration, enhancement, or protection of the
environment. The Director of Planning and Community Environment
is directed to cause filing and posting of appropriate notices
of exemption as required by law.
//
//
//
//
//
//
030409 sm 0053231 4
SECTION 7. This ordinance shall be~ effective
immediately upon its adoption as an emergency measure necessary
to protect the public peace, health, and safety.
INTRODUCED:
PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Mayor
APPROVED:
City Attorney City Manager
Director of Planning and
Community Environment
030409 srn 005323 !5
ATTACHMENT B
CHARLESTON-ARASTRADERO ROAD CORRIDOR TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT AND
SAFETY PLAN
Scope Of Work
Task 1: Existing Conditions and Plan Criteria
Data collection - Compile data on vehicle speeds and volumes, cycling and pedestrian
volumes, intersection level of service, cycling level of service, and crash data for the
corridor. Existing data may. need to be supplemented by additional data in order to
complete the required data set.
b)Road Safety Audit - Conduct road safety audit of entire corridor, including conditions
pertaining to safety of pedestrians, bicycles, and motor vehicles. Special emphasis should
be given to the needs of children, the elderly, and the mobility-impaired. Due attention
should be given to school commute travel barriers such as Caltrain tracks and major
intersections.
c)
d)
Data Analysis - Analyze existing and forecast (to the year 2025, the citywide computer
traffic model horizon year) motor vehicle traffic volumes, cycling and pedestrian
volumes, and both motor vehicle and cycling levels of service.
Residential Amenity Evaluation - Review urban design and landscape architecture
(including tree canopy, potential for landscaped center medians, and landscape strip
plantings) amenities of the corridor.
e)Performance Criteria - Prepare set of Corridor Performance Criteria, including target
motor vehicle level of service, pedestrian and cycling levels of service, target 85 percent
motor vehicle speeds, target alternative modes share of travel (school commuter and all
trip purpose) along the corridor, target reduction in corridor crashes, target improvements
in residential, landscape, and urban design amenity along the corridor, and target
minimum allowable traffic shift to other residential streets along the corridor due to plan
improvements. Performance criteria, based on input from residents and City staff, should
address effectiveness, cost, aesthetics, and level of community support, environmental
impacts, and measurable performance standards for transportation patterns after
implementation.
Task 2: Alternatives Development and Evaluation
a) Develop and evaluate alternatives to maintaining motor vehicle level of service while
improving cycling and pedestrian level of service, as well as residential, urban design,
and landscape amenity such as to meet or exceed performance targets. Alternatives may
include closure of bike lane gaps, creation of bulb outs (curb extensions) to shorten
crosswalk distances, a pedestrian/bicycle undercrossing of Caltrain, creation of median
refuges for pedestrian crossings, enhancement of crosswalk visibility through such
measures as pedestrian-activated pavement lighting, crosswalk pavement and painting
treatments, along with signage improvements. The Palo Alto Citywide Transportation
and Land (Nexus) Study findings, especially the Plan Line Study and multimodal
transportation forecast model upgrade components will inform this work.
b)Develop and evaluate various congestion mitigation altematives, including improved
traffic signal coordination, traffic signal timing and phasing improvements, cycling,
pedestrian, and transit improvements, new bicycle/pedestrian undercrossing of Caltrain,
and travel demand management efforts such as Gunn High School’s GO FAST program.
The Palo Alto Citywide Transportation and Land (Nexus) Study findings, especially the
Plan Line Study and multimodal transportation forecast model upgrade, will inform this
work.
c)Develop and evaluate various alternatives to traffic calming on the corridor in order to
manage vehicle speeds, improve travel safety, and enhance residential amenity.
Alternatives should include changes to the street cross-section as appropriate, deployment
of additional LED radar read-out electronic speed signs, consideration of innovative
forms of intersection control, traveler education and awareness programs such as Palo
Alto’s new Pace Car Program, and improvements in lane markings and delineation, as
well as signage. Emphasis should be given to maintaining vehicle progression at a
slower, but more consistent speed.
d)Develop and evaluate various urban design, landscape architecture, and public art
improvement alternatives to enhance residential amenity and aesthetics, including
landscaped center medians, landscape planting strips, enhancement to tree canopy, and
aesthetic improvements to street furniture and street lighting.
Task 3: Preliminary Concept Plans
Prepare and evaluate four preliminary concept plans. Prepare educational outreach materials and
conduct Community Forum #1. A creative approach to the allocation of space and treatment of
transportation needs and residential amenity and urban design requirements will be necessary for
success of the concept plans. Due consideration should be given to motor vehicle design speeds,
number of travel lanes, treatment of pedestrian crossings, width and placement of cycling lanes,
and lane widths.
a)The concept plans will be general, diagrammatic plans of measures applied along
segments of the corridor. They will be selected to represent the various right of way
widths and other site condition~ present. The concept plans will include design
approaches that can be applied either separately or in combination. These approaches
may address lane width, number and configuration of lanes, median islands, intersection
and traffic signal modifications, ADA access improvements, roundabouts, pedestrian
crossing improvements, a new bicycle/pedestrian undercrossing of Caltrain, street trees,
bulb-outs, special paving treatment, and public art. Preliminary cost estimates shall be
provided for each concept plan and all measures comprising each plan.
b)Evaluate the pros and of the comprehensive package of measures comprising each
concept plan using Performance Criteria developed in Task 1. Attention should be given
to trade offs amongst such attributes as effectiveness, .cost, and community acceptance.
Special emphasis should be given to the issue of minimizing traffic shift onto nearby
residential streets.
c)Explore a variety of urban design treatments with different character and aesthetic
qualities, and involve the community in developing a preferred overall urban design
concept for the corridor.
d)Develop presentation and educational outreach materials to inform the public about
relevant transportation and urban design principals applied in the concept plans.
e) Plan and conduct Community Forum #2 to review the concept plans.
Task 4: Design Alternatives
From the concept plans develop two design alternatives and conduct Community Forum #3 to
present and review both design alternatives.
Task 5: Draft Final Schematic Plan
Based on community and staff input prepare a draft preferred Final Schematic Plan for review of
the Planning and Transportation Commission.
Task 6: Final Schematic Design Plan and Final Report
Based on Planning and Transportation Commission input, draft a final schematic design plan for
City Council review. Based on Council review, modify the Final Schematic Design Plan and
prepare the Final Report.
Summary of Deliverables:
¢"Agendas and Minutes for all meetings.
"Meetings with City staff as needed
"Community forums
,/Existing Conditions and Plan Criteria Technical Memorandum
¢"Alternatives Development and Evaluation Technical Memorandum
"Preliminary Concept Plans
¢"Design Alternatives
,/Draft Final Schematic Plans
,/Educational Outreach materials
¢"Project updates for posting on the City Website
3
ATTACHMENT C
City. of Palo Alto
City Manager’s Report
TO:HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND
COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT
DATE:APRIL 9, 2001 CMR:188:01
SUBJECT:CHARLESTON ROAD CORRIDOR TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT
AND SAFETY STUDY
This is an informational report and no Council action is required.
BACKGROUND
At the request of the Charleston Meadow Neighborhood Association and the Green Meadow
Neighborhood Association, Transportation Division staffwas directed by the City Manager
to initiate a traffic management and safety study of the Charleston Road corridor. The study
began in June 1999 with formation of a Project Advisory Group (PAG), comprising the
following Palo Alto residents:
1.Deborah Ju 7.Myllicent Hamilton
2.Thomas Vician 8.Shirley Eaton
3.Jean Olmsted 9.Shirley Nanevicz
4.Marion Hill 10.Richard Geiger
5.Tom Crystal 11.Roger Kohler
6.Louise Herring
These neighborhood association representatives expressed concern about a number of traffic
issues on or impacting Charleston Road, including:
Speeding.
Traffic congestion on Charleston Road at Alma Street, E1 Camino Real, Middlefield
Road and other corridor intersections.
Pedestrian safety and the lack of pedestrian crossings.
Cycling safety, particularly for children commuting to schools on or near Charleston
Road.
Motor vehicle safety.
Cut-through traffic from Charleston Road onto adjacent neighborhood streets.
CMP.:I88:01 Page 1 of 6
Following a consultant selection process, Wilbur Smith & Associates, a national
transportation planning and engineering firm with offices in San Francisco, was selected to
work with City staff and the PAG.
The PAG, City staff, and the consultant worl~ed collaboratively to address these issues and
to develop recommendations to meet the following broad objectives:
¯Enhance travel Safety for all modes, with special emphasis on cyclists and pedestrians
commuting to and from school.
¯Reduce the impacts of traffic on residential neighborhoods.
¯Enhance multimodal travel choices for the Charleston Road corridor.
The Charleston Road Traffic Management and Safety Study Report of Findings
(Attachment A), was reviewed and approved by the Planning and Transportation
Commission on October 25, 2001.
DISCUSSION
Existing Situation
The Charleston Road Corridor study limits were E1 Camino Real to the west and Fabian
Way to the east. Charleston Road is a four-lane undivided arterial roadway with posted
speeds of 25 mph that serves South Palo Alto. In combination with Arastradero Road,
Charleston Road serves as an east-west connector to three of the region’s major north-south
roadways: Bayshore Freeway (US 101), Foothill Expressway, and 1-280. There is parking
on the north side of the roadway with fullfime bike lanes. On the southside there is a
daytime only bike lane that converts to a parking lane at night (7 p.m-7 a.m.). The street
.cross-section is 60 feet wide. Fronting land uses include single family residential, several
institutional uses (including Hoover Elementary School, the Unitarian. Church, the
Community Association for Rehabilitation, and the Stevenson House senior housing
complex). J.L. Stanford Middle School, Hoover Elementary School, and Challenger School
have driveway access onto Charleston Road.
Average daily traffic (ADT) on Charleston Road ranges from approximately 13,500 just
west of Fabian Way to over 14,000 just west of Middlefield and just west of Alma.
Intersection levels of service (LOS) range from B (Charleston Road at Nelson Drive and
Charleston at Wilkie Way) to D in the morning and E in the evening (Charleston at Alma).
(LOS A represents average stopped delay per vehicle of 5 seconds or less and LOS E
represents average stopped delay from 40 to 60 seconds per vehicle. LOS E is the Santa
Clara County Congestion Management Program minimum standard for intersection
operation. LOS D is the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan LOS threshold.)
ClVIR:188:01 Page 2 of 6
Charleston Road 85t~ percentile speeds’ (the speed at which 85 percent of traffic is traveling
at or below and 15 percent is traveling above) range from 34 mph just west of Fabian Way
to 39 mph just west of Middlefield. The width of Charleston, in combination with. relatively
unimpeded vehicle flow on long stretches between intersections, probably induce these 85t~
percentile speeds ranging from 9 mph to 14 mph above the posted speed limit.
Peak periodbicycle volume counts on the Charleston Road corridor range from 119 from 7
a.m. to 9 a.m. between Nelson Drive and Carlson Circle (in the vicinity of both Hoover
Elementary and JLS Middle School) to 33 just east of Middlefield Road. There is evidence
of a significant amount of wrong-way riding and riding on sidewalks. During the morning
peak period, for example, 80 of the 119 bicycles counted between Nelson Drive and Carlson
Circle were either tiding the wrong way on a bike laneor riding on the sidewalk.
The study documented cut-through traffic between Alma Street and Charleston Road via
Lindero Drive and Carlson Circle, via Ely Place and Mumford Place, and at other locations
in neighborhoods flanking Charleston Road east of Alma Street. Anecdotal evidence was
collected on cut-through traffic from Charleston Road to Louis Road.
The study also documents 139 accidents on Charleston Road between and including the
intersections of Fabian Way and E1 Camino Real. Over one-third of these (49) were rear-
end collisions that tend to occur on roadways with relatively high vehicle speeds and
without turn pockets to remove turning vehicles from through lanes. There were 17
documented vehicle collisions with cyclists or pedestrians. It should be noted that these data
include only those accidents resulting in injury, thus exclude collisions involving property
damage only or near misses.
There are long stretches on Charleston Road without a pedestrian crossing, including about
a 1,100-foot gap in crossing opportunity between Wilkie Way and Alma Street. Bicycle
lanes on Charleston terminate on Alma Street. As indicated previously, even in the presence
of bicycle lanes, a large number of cyclists use sidewalks instead. Relatively high vehicle
speeds on Charleston are likely to deter some cyclists from using existing bicycle lanes.
The study recommendations based on thes~ findings were as follows:
Traffic Management and Safety Plan: Phase I
A. Policies
Develop criteria to differentiate arterials and collectors that are school commute
corridors from other arterials and collectors, as well as a framework for reducing
motor vehicle traffic impacts on such corridors. These criteria should emphasize
appropriate traffic speeds and volumes (both existing and projected based on regional
CMR:188:01 Page 3 of 6
growth and land development occurring on or near the corridor) for a school
commute corridor. ~
o Once school commute criteria are established, consider the suitability of Charleston
Road as a school commute corridor.
Establish a comprehensive, periodic data collection and evaluation program on
school commute corridors, including information on vehicle speeds and volumes,
accidents, and bicycle and pedestrian volumes. Data should be collected frequently
enough for seasonal variations in transportation behavior to be documented. The
existing Fairview School Accident Reporting System should be considered for
integration with these data sets. School and PTA involvement in supplementary data
collection should be encouraged.
Increase enforcement of traffic laws on Charleston/Arastradero and East Meadow
corridors. Use of radar enforcement on weekdays when children are present is
enforceable when a street is posted with the school area speed limit of 25 mph, as is
the case for Charleston Road.
B. Projects and Programs
Evaluate the extent and impact of vehicle speeds and cut-through traffic on Louis
Road from vehicles turning into Louis from Charleston Road, and develop
appropriate mitigation measures for these impacts.
Develop and implement, in conjunction with the Palo Alto School District and the
PTA, a school commute trip reduction program for the Charleston/Arastradero Road
corridor and the East Meadow corridor, which parallels Charleston Road. The City’s
Commute Coordinator would be involved with this effort.
Develop enhanced aduk supervision of children commuting to school along the
Charleston/Arastradero and East Meadow corridors through increased involvement of
parent volunteers as well as City crossing guards. A particularly worthy idea for
school-PTA consideration is the "walking school bus" approach, which teams adults
and children in safe walking groups to and from school.
Devote resources from the City’s new Traffic Safety Education campaign toward the
Charleston/Arastradero and East Meadow corridors.
Traffic Management and Safety Plan - Phase II
Evaluate roadway design alternatives to provide enhanced pedestrian crossing and motor
vehicle safety on Charleston Road between Nelson Drive and Carlson Circle. This work
CMR: !88:01 Page 4 of 6
would be undertaken during Fiscal Year 2001-2002 and would take place in consultation
with affected stakeholders, including residents, neighborhood associations, parent-teacher
associations, schools, cyclists, and commuters. Staff would return to the Planning and
Transportation Commission and Council with results and recommendations from this work.
Implementation of Recommendations
Due td workload and resource constraints, staff has decided to implement only a portion of
the short-term recommendations contained in the Safety Study Report. In response to these
findings and recommendations, staff will be implementing the following with respect to the
Charleston Road Corridor:
1.Develop criteria to-differentiate arterials and collectors that are school commute
corridors from other arterials and collectors and to propose a framework for reducing
motor vehicle traffic impacts on such corridors.
2.Once school commute criteria are established, staff will evaluate the suitability of
Charleston Road as a school commute corridor.
3. Establish comprehensive, periodic data collection and evaluation on school commute
corridors, including in_formation on vehicle speeds and volumes, accidents, and bicycle
and pedestrian volumes.
4. Evaluate the extent and impact of vehicle speeds and cut-through ~affic on Louis Road
from vehicles turning into Louis from Charleston Road and develop appropriate
mitigation measures for these impacts.
5. Develop and implement, in conjunction with the Palo Alto School District and PTA, a
school commute trip reduction plans for the Charleston Road and parallel East Meadow
corridors.
6. Develop and implement, in conjunction with the Palo Alto School District and PTA, a
plan for enhancing - through volunteer effort as well as paid personnel - the supervision
of children commuting to school along the Embarcadero and East Meadow corridors.
7. Conduct traffic safety education outreach efforts focused on Charleston Road drivers,
pedestrians, and cyclists.
8. Evaluate roadway design alternatives to provide enhanced pedestrian crossing and motor
vehicle safety on Charleston Road between Nelson Drive and Carlson Circle.
This work will begin in the ftrst half of fiscal year 2001-2002. Staff will prepare
recommendations for review by the Planning and Transportation Commission and Council
in the latter half of fiscal year 2001-2002.
RESOURCE IMPACT
Phase I activities are all achievable with current resources. Phase II work would require
either re-prioritization of Transportation Division activities during fiscal year 2001-2002 or
additional staff resources.
CIVfR:188:01 Page 5 of 6
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
The Transportation Element of the 1998-2010 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan contains
numerous policies related to traffic safety and traffic intrusion, including the following:
Policy T-30: "Reduce the impacts of through-traffic on residential areas by designating
certain streets as residential medals."
Policy T-39: "I’o the extent allowed by law, continue to make safety the first priority of
citywide transportation planning. Prioritize pedestrian, bicycle, and automobile safety over
vehicle level-of-service at intersections."
Policy T-40: "Continue to prioritize the safety and comfort of school children in street
modification projects that affect school travel routes."
ATTACHMENTS:
A: October 25, 2000 Staff Report to the Planning and Transportation Commission
B: Charleston Road Corridor Traffic Management and Safety Study
PREPARED BY: Joseph Kott, Chief Transportation Official
Director of Planning and
0 Commm}ity Enviroumem
" - Lg-HARPdSON
Assistant City Manager
cC:Planning and Transportation Commission
Charleston Road Advisory Committee
City-School Traffic Safety Committee
ClVIK:188:01 Page 6 of 6
ATTACHMENT A
TRANSPORTATION DIVISION
STAFF REPORT
TO:PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
FROM:
AGENDA DATE:
SUBJECT:
DEPARTMENT:Planning
October 25, 2000
CHARLESTON ROAD CORRIDOR TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT
AND SAFETY STUDY
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning and Transportation Commission recommend that the
City Council:
1.Adopt, in concept, the Charleston Road Traffic Management and Safety Plan Phase I
and Phase II; and
2.Direct Staff to implement Phase I of the Charleston Road Traffic Management and
Safety Plan.
Should Phase II be approved in concept by Council, staff will prepare requests for
funding a detailed conceptual plan and cost estimates for Charleston Road redesign,
including roundabouts and lane reductions, as well as for neighborhood traffic calming
plans called for in Phase II. These traffic-calming requests will be made as part of the
City’s new Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program. Both the Charleston Road redesign
and neighborhood traffic calming plans would be submitted to the Planning and
Transportation Commission for review and to the Council for approval.
BACKGROUND
At the request of the Charleston Meadow Neighborhood Association and the Green
Meadow Neighborhood Association, Transportation Division staff was authorized by the
City Manager to initiate a traffic management and safety study of the Charleston Road
HAcrm-skP-TC\Chmrleston Study 1 .doe Page 1
corridor. The study began in June 1999 with formation of a Project Advisory Group
(PAG), comprising the following Palo Alto residents:
1.Deborah Ju 7.Mylhcent Hamilton
2.Thomas Vician 8.Shirley Eaton
3.Jean Olmsted 9.Shirley Nanevicz
4.Marion Hill 10.Richard Geiger
5.Tom Crystal 11.Roger Kohler
6.Louise Herring
These neighborhood association representatives expressed concern about a number of
traffic issues on or impacting Charleston Road, including:
Speeding.
Traffic congestion at Alma, E1 Camino Real, Middlefield and other
intersections.
ca Pedestrian safety and the paucity of pedestrian crossings.
Cycling safety.
Motor vehicle safety.
Cut-through traffic from Charleston onto adjacent neighborhood streets.
corridor
Following a consukant selection process, Wilbur Smith & Associates, a national
transportation planning and engineering f’n-m with offices in San Francisco, was selected
to work with City staff and the PAG.
The PAG, City staff, and consultant worked collaboratively to address these issues and-to
develop recommendations to meet the following broad objectives:
¯Enhance travel safety for all modes, with special emphasis on Cyclists and pedestrians
commuting to and from school.
¯Reduce the impacts of traffic on residential neighborhoods.
¯Enhance mulfimodal travel choices for the Charleston Road corridor.
The work of staff, the PAG, and consultant is now complete. A Draft Report of Findings
and Recommendations is appended as Attachment 1. The PAG has endorsed the
complete set of recommendations presented in detail in the Draft Report and summarized
in a later section of this staff report.
DISCUSSION
The Charleston Road Corridor study limits, as identified on Figure 1, were E1 Camino
Real to the west and Fabian Way to the east. Charleston Road is a four-lane undivided
arterial roadway with posted speeds of 25 mph that serves South Palo Alto. In
H:kcmrskP-TC\Charleston Study 1.doc Page 2
CHARLESTON ROAD CORRIDOR TRAFFIC STUDY
JCC, Gunn
High School
~VVILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES
Turning Movement CountsIntersection
Bicycle Counts
Average Daily Traffic Volume Counts
Speed Survey
Fairmeadow Elementary School
Challenger School
Hoover Elementary School
Figure 1
LOCATIONS OF DATA COLLECTION
343010\Lot of Data Collection-7/5/2000
Expressway, and 1-280. There is parking on the northside of the roadway with fnlltime
bike lanes. On the southside there is a daythne only bike lane that converfs to a parking
lane at night (7 p.m-7 a.m.): The street cross-section is 60 feet wide. Fronting land uses
include single family residential, several institutional uses (including Hoover Elementary
School, the Unitarian Church, the Community Association for Rehabilitation, and
Stevenson House senior housing complex). J.L. Stanford Middle School, Hoover
Elementary School, and Challenger School have driveway access onto Charleston Road.
Average daily traffic (A-DT) on Charleston Road ranges from approximately 13,500 just
west of Fabian Way to over 14,000 just west of Middlefield and just west of Alma.
Intersection levels of service (LOS) range.from B (Charleston at Nelson and Charleston
at Wilkie Way) to D in the AM and E in the PM (Charleston at Alma). lit should be noted
that LOS A represents average stopped delay per vehicle of 5 seconds or less and that
-LOS E represents average.stopped delay from 40 up to 60 seconds per vehicle. LOS E is
the Santa Clara County Congestion Management Program minimum standard for
intersection operation. LOS D is the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan LOS threshold.]
Charleston Road 85t~ percentile speeds (the speed at which 85 percent of traffic is
traveling at or below and 15 percent is traveling above) range from 34 mph just west of
Fabian Way to 39 mph just west of Middlefield. The wide cross-section of Charleston, in
combination with relatively unimpeded vehicle flow on long stretches between
intersections, probably induce these 85t~ percentile speeds ranging from 9 mph to 14 mph
above the posted speed limit.
Peak period bicycle volume counts on the Charleston Road corridor range from 119 from
7 a.m. to 9 a.m. between Nelson and Carlson (in the vicinity of both Hoover Elementary
and JLS Middle School) to 33 just east of Middlefield. There is evidence of a significant
amount of wrong-way riding and riding on sidewalks. During the morning peak period,
for example, 80 of the 119 bicycles counted between Nelson and Carlson were either
riding the wrong way on a bike lane or riding on the sidewalk.
The study documented cut-through traffic between Alma and Charleston via Lindero and
Carlson Circle, via Ely Place and Mumford Place, aud at other locations in
neighborhoods flanking Charleston Road east of Alma. Anecdotal evidence was collected
on cut-through traffic from Charleston to Louis Road.
The study also documents 139 accidents on Charleston Road between and including the
intersections of Fabian Way and E1 Camino Real. Over one-third of these (49) were rear-
end collisions that tend to occur on roadways with relatively high vehicle speeds and
without turn pockets to remove turning vehicles from through lanes. There were 17
documented vehicle collisions with cyclists or pedestrians. It should be noted that these
data include only. those accidents resulting in injury, thus exclude collisions involving
property damage only or near misses.
H:~cmrs~P-TC\Charleston Study 1 .doc Page 3
There are long stretches on Charleston Road without a pedestrian crossing, ’ including
about a 1,100-foot gap in crossing opportunity between Wilkie Way and Alma. Bicycle
lanes on Charleston terminate on Alma. As indicated previously, even in the presence of
bicycle lanes, a large number of cyclists use sidewalks instead. Relatively high vehicle
speeds on Charleston are likely to deter some cyclists from using existing bicycle lanes.
Recommendations of the Traffic Management Plan
The Traffic Management and Safety Plan contains recommendations-to address
problematic travel conditions on Charleston Road. The recommendations fall into
several categories: policies, projects and programs, roadway design and operation, and
residential traffic ~alming. The Plan is presented in two phases. The first phase can get
underway immediately. The second phase will require additional time for development
(including design and construction where applicable) and, in some cases, securing funds
for capital investments. Taken together, the two phases comprise a comprehensive
approach to Charleston Road transportation management, .including engineering,
enforcement, education, and travel demand management measures.
The following elements comprise Phases I and II of the proposed Charleston Road
Traffic Management and Safety Plan:
Traffic Management and Safety Plan - Phase I
A. Policies-
Develop criteria to differentiate arterials and collectors that are school commute
corridors from other arterials and collectors, as well as a framework for reducing
motor vehicle traffic impacts on such corridors. These criteria should emphasize
appropriate traffic speeds and volumes (both existing and projected based on regional
growth and land development occurring on or near the corridor) for a school commute
corridor.
2.Once school commute criteria are established, consider the suitability of Charleston
Road as a School Commute Corridor.
3.Establish a comprehensive, periodic data collection and evaluation program on School
Commute corridors, including information on vehicle speeds and volumes, accidents,
and bicycle and pedestrian volumes. This should be undertaken in conjunction with
development of an Annual Report on Transportation Conditions and Trends in Palo
Alto, which Council has akeady mandated be developed by the Transportation
Division. Data should be collected frequently enough for seasonal variations in
transportation behavior to be documented. The existing Fairview School Accident
H:kcmrs’,P-TC\Charleston Study 1 .doc Page 4
So
Reporting System should be considered for in(egration with these data sets. School
and PTA involvement in supplementary data collection should be encouraged.
Encourage use-of Page Mill and San Antonio/El Monte Road between Foothill
Expressway and 1-280, rather than Arastradero Road, through use of directional
signage. [In Phase II, more active measures are proposed.]
Increase enforcement of traffic laws on Charleston/A.rastradero and East Meadow
corridors. Use of radar enforcement on weekdays when children are present is
enforceable when a street is posted with the school area speed limit of 25 .mph, as is
the case for Charleston Road.
B. Projects and Programs-
1.Evaluate the extent and .impact of vehicle speeds and cut-through traffic on Louis
Road from vehicles mining into Louis from Charleston Road, and develop appropriate
mitigation measures for these impacts.
o Develop and implement, in conjunction with the Palo Alto School District and the
PTA, a school commute trip reduction program for the Charleston/Arastradero Road
corridor and the East Meadow corridor, which parallels Charleston Road. The City’s
Commute Coordinator will be involved with this effort.
Develop enhanced adult supervision of children commuting to school along the
Charleston/A_rastradero and East Meadow corridors through increased involvement of
parent volunteers as well as City crossing guards. A particularly worthy idea for
school-PTA consideration is the "walking school bus" approach, which teams adults
and children in safe walking groups to and from school.
4.Devote resources from the City’s new Traffic Safety Education campaign toward the
Charleston/Arastradero and East Meadow corridors.
Traffic Management and Safety Plan - Phase II
A. Roadway Design and Operations -
Restripe Charleston Road to have one through lane in each direction between, but not
including, Middlefield and E1 Camino Real and between, but not including,
Middlefield and Fabian Way. Provide left turns at the following intersections: Alma,
Wilkie Way, Carlson Road, Nelson Road, Louis Road and Fabian Way. A level of
service analysis showed that this would have no negative impacts on Vehicular level
of service at these six intersections (existing and furore LOS are depicted in Table 1
H:\cmrs~P-TC\Charleston Study 1.doe Page 5
of Attachment 1). Charleston.Road at E1 Camino Real and at Middlefield Road
would need to retain two approach lanes in order to maintain acceptable levels of
service. This redesign would also have a traffic calming effect by changing the look
of Charleston Road from a wide medal/expressway feel to more of a neighborhood
collector street in anticipation of it being designated a school corridor.
Benefits of Recommendation II.A.I:
~ No adverse effect on vehicular level of service;
~ Improved pedestrian safety due to center median (raised or striped) facilitating
_ pedestrian crossings between signalized intersections;
~ Provides bike lane in between the through lane and right turn lane at Alma Street;
x Provides exclusive left-turn lanes at Wilkie, Carlson, and Nelson; Left-turn phasing
can either be protected or permitted. 1
Advantages of protected left-turn phasing: the pedestrian phase is a separate phase from the left turn phase, reducing or
eliminating the poss~ility of left-tum.ing vehicles seeing a gap in opposing traffic and speeding up to make it through the gap,
only to f’md a pedestrian in the crosswalk. Disadvantages of protected left-turn phasing are that the overall phase length is
longer, causing more delay for the pedestrians waiting for the pedestrian WALK phase.
H:~cmrskP-TC\Charleston Study l.doc Page 6
Intersection
Wilkie Way
Alma Street
Carlson Circle
Nelson Drive
Table 1
CHARLESTON ROAD
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE
WITH LANE MODIFICATIONS
Existing Lane
Configuration
13.5 03)
39.8 (D)
16.8 (C)
11.203)
PM
14.403)
41.3 (E)
12.603)
9.803)
Modified Lane
Configuration
9.1 03)
31.4 ~)
PM
7.703)
31.8 (D)
4.6(A)
6.9(B)
xx.x (Y)= Delay in seconds (Level of Service)
Source: Highway Capacity Manual, 1994 Updated Version
Description Of
Lane Modifications
To Charleston
Road
One through lane,
one left turn lane
One through, one
left turn lane, one
right turn lane plus
bike lanes; change in
phasing from split
phase to protected
left-turn phase
One through lane,
one left turn lane
One through lane,
one left turn lane
Note: The intersection of Charleston/Louis Road is not signalized, and movements are
restricted due to the median; it is not anticipated that the lane modifications would
significantly impact the LOS at this intersection.
Wilbur Smith Associates, February 15, 2000
If Recommendation II.A. 1 were implemented, the following improvements would also be
possible to improve pedestrian and bicycle safety and slow traffic down to the posted
speed limit:
2.Provide a raised median refuge at locations where pedestrian crossings are to be
channeled such as west of Park Boulevard and at Sutherland Drive.
3.Provide a raised median at signalized intersections at Nelson Drive and Carlson
Circle.
4.Bulb-outs for pedestrians could be added at spot locations.
5.Separate right-turning traffic from bike lanes at Alma Street by providing a separate
right-turn lane and placing the bike lane to the left of the right-turn lane.
H:kcmrskP-TC\Charleston Study 1.doc Page 7
Other measures affecting roadway operations include:
o Re-evaluate striping at Fabian/Charleston to encourage use of Fabian Way to access
San Antonio. Increase signage to direct cars to Fabian Way.
Consider planting trees to improve the aesthetics of the street and slow traffic.
These could be either in a median or in a widened planter strip.
Evaluate the poss~ility of replacing signals at Willde, Carlson, and Nelson with
roundabouts. If replaced, consider pedestrian signals if necessary, to provide an
adequate gap in the traffic for pedestrians to safely and conveniently cross
Charleston Road.
10.¸
Restripe or otherwise rectify the problem caused by the mis-ahgnment of Park Blvd.
at Charleston Road so that the northbound cars turning from Park Boulevard onto
Charleston Road are not blocked by the queue of cars at Alma. Northbound cars
currently block the bike lane to budge into the stopped queue of traffic.
Provide eight-foot wide bike lanes, which may reduce the incidents of sidewalk bike
riding by children.
Provide bike lanes on Charleston Road east of Middlefield Road.
Convert part-time bike lane to be a fulltime bike lane on the northside of Charleston
Road between Wright Place and the bike path to JLS Middle School. The bike lane
is currently daytime only (7 a.m. to 7 p.m. bike lane). There would be no impacts to
adjacent property owners since no homes front onto this side of Charleston Road.
13.Evaluate the effectiveness of the 4-way stop at East Charleston Road at
Grove/Sutherland.
B. Residential Traffic Calming -
Issues:
Cut-through traffic on Lindero/Wright/Carlson Circle and Greenmeadow/Nelson to
avoid congestion at Charleston Road and Alma.
Speeding and cut-through traffic on other local streets, to avoid the eastbound backup
at Alma. For example, Wilkie Way is used to access Whitclem Drive and Edlee
Avenue. These two streets are wide and straight with rolled curbs and parallel
parking. The parking is sparse, yielding a wide-open vista which makes it very
conducive to speeding.
1. Develop a traffic calming plan for Lindero/Wright/Carlson Circle.
2. Develop a traffic calming plan for Ely/Mumford Place.
H:kn-nrskP-TC\Charleston Study 1 .doc Page 8
3. Develop a traffic calming plan for Green Meadow Way and Nelson Drive.
4. Develop a traffc calming plan for Louis Road.
There are several traffic-calming strategies that could help alleviate the problems of
speeding and cut-through traffic. The specific strategies used should be chosen in
conjunction with affected neighbors. The most promising traffic ~alming strategies are:
¯Stripe shoulder or parking lane to narrow roadway;
Retain lack of center line;
Install traffic circles at all intersections and/or speed humps or tables midblock;
Consider one-lane choke points or rumble strips;
If speeding is still a problem, install a peak hour barrier on a timer, that would
close the street midblock only during a few hours a day, for example 7:00 a.m. to
8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.
,Phasing and Implementation
The recommended projects vary in the timeframe in which they can be implemented and
also in the entities that need to be involved. Table 2 presents the primary entity or
entities that would need to be responsible for implementation of each of the
recommendations, including the Planning Division, the Transportation Division, the City
Council, the school district and the Police Department. The recommendations have also
been assigned to three phases. Projects in Phase I can be implemented with existing
resources within the next 12 months. Projects in Phase II require City Council action for
additional budget allocation and could be implemented within one to three years. Projects
in Phase III would also require City Council action for additional funds (capital
improvement program, grants, interagency agreements, cost sharing) and would probably
take several more years to implement.
Existing city and state programs also dovetail with the recommendations of this report.
These are described below:
The City of Palo Alto has begun a citywide Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program.
The City is also currently working on the Downtown North Traffic Calming Study.
Funding is available for $100,000 worth of traffic calming improvements for local and
collector streets.
The City has also begun a Residential Arterial Traffic Calming Program, the ftrst phase
of which was an Embarcadero Road study. It may be possible to further develop the
H:kemrskP-TC\Charleston Study 1.doc P~ge 9
long-term solutions under the next phase of this study, if Charleston Road is studied
under this program.
The State of California has developed a grant program for Safe Routes to School, and all
of the improvements in this document have benefits for school commuting, especially the
recommendations for Charleston Road.
POLICI~ES
Recommendation
Table 2
Summary of Recommendations
Agencies
School Corridor Designation
Data Development and Sharing
Encouragement of Page Mill/
San Antonio Road
Land-Use Decisions
Speed Limit Enforcement
PROJECTS AND PROGRAMS
Evaluate Louis Road
School Commute TDM Plans
Routes to School Supervision
City Council
Transportation Division, PAUSD
Transportation Division
Planning Department
Transportation Division,
Transportation Division
Transportation Division,
PAPD, PAUSD, PTA
Motorist Awareness Transportation Division,
ROADWAY DESIGN AND OPERATIONS
Reconfigure Charleston Rd.Transportation Division
Raised Pedestrian Refuges Transportation Division
Bike Lanes Transportation Division
Roundabouts and bulb-outs Transportation Division
TRAFFIC CALMING
Traffic Calm Residential StTeets Transportation Division,
Affected Neighborhood
*PAPD = Palo Alto Police Department
**PAUSD = Palo Alto Unified School District
PAPD
PAUSD*
PAPD**
Phase
1
1
1
Ongoing
Ongoing
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2,3
2,3
ALTERNATIVES TO THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Alternatives to the proposed Charleston Road Traffic Management
include the following:
and Safety Plan
Defer any action until completion of a planned residential arterial traffic calming
study for the Charleston/Arastradero corridor. No funding or timetable, however, has
been established for this study.
H:Xcmrsh~-TC\Charleston Study t.doc Page 10
Authorize and implement Phase I recommendations, evaluate results, then return to
both the Planning and Transportation Commission and Council with staff
recommendations for fitrther action, if any.
o Recommend that City Council authorize and staff ".implement both phases of the
Traffic Management and Safety Plan without a second round of Commission and
Council hearings on a detailed Conceptual Plan for the re-configuration of Charleston
Road. It is important to note that staff does not yet have a sufficiently detailed
program for the re-configuration from which to present reliable cost estimates to
Council. Additional detail on location, size, and other aspects of proposed
improvements will also create a better information base for the public, Commission,
and Council to evaluate the benefits and impacts of the re-configuration.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
The Transportation Element of the 1998-2010 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan contains
numerous goals, policies, and programs related to traffic safety, traffic calming, trip
reduction programs, and encouragement of bicycling and walking as travel modes.
Goal T-l: "Less Reliance on Single-Occupant Vehicles"
Policy T-3: "Support the development and expansion of comprehensive, effective
programs to reduce auto use at both the local and regional levels."
Program T-8: "Create a long-term education program to change the travel habits of
residents, visitors and workers by informing them about transportation alternatives,
incentives and impacts. Work with the Palo Alto Unified School District and with
private interests, such as the Chamber of Commerce, to develop and implement this
program."
Goal T-3: "Facilities, Services, and Programs that Encourage and Promote
Walking and Bicycling"
Policy T-14: "Improve pedestrian and bicycle access to and between local destinations,
including public facilities, schools, parks, open space, employment districts, shopping
centers, and multi-modal transit stations."
Policy T-40: "Continue to prioritize the safety and comfort of school children in street
modification projects that affect school travel routes."
Goal T-5: A Transportation System with Minimal Impacts on Residential
Neighborhoods."
H:~crra-skP-TC\Charleston Study 1.doc Page 11
Policy T-30: "Reduce the impacts of through-traffic on residential areas by
designating certain streets as residential arterials."
Policy T-34: "Implement traffic calming measures to slow traffic on local and collector
residential streets and prioritize these measures over congestion management. Include
traffic circles and other traffic calming devices among these measures."
Program T-4.1: -"The following roadways are designated as residential arterials. Treat
these streets with landscaping, medians, and other visual improvements to distinguish
them as residential streets, in order to reduce traffic speeds Charleston/Arastradero
(between Miranda and Fabian Way)."
Goal T-6: "A High Level of Safety for Motorists~ Pedestrians and Bicyt:lists on Palo
Alto Streets."
Policy T-39: ’q’o the extem allowed by law, continue to make safety the first priority
of citywide transportation planning. Prioritize pedestrian, bicycle, and automobile
safety over vehicle level-of-service at intersections."
Program T-47: "Utilize engineering, enforcement, and educational tools to improve
traffic safety on City roadways."
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
.An Environmental Assessment will
calming project
be prepared prior to implementation of a traffic
ATTACHMENTS/EXHIBITS:
1. Charleston Road Corridor Traffic Managemem and Safety Study: Draft Report
COURTESY COPIES:
City Council
Charleston Road Corridor Study Advisory Committee
Prepared by: Joseph Kott, Chief Transportation Official
Reviewed by: G. Edward Gawf, Director of Planning and Community Environment
Division Head Approval:
J o~e~-Kott,v Cl~ief Transportation Official
H:kcmrskP-TC\Charleston Study 1.doc Page 12
ATTACHMENT G
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
-’MEETINGS ARE CABLECAST LIVE ON GOVERNMENT ACCESS CHANNEL 26 ,
Wednesday, August 27, 2003
REGULAR MEETAVG- 7:00 PM
City Council Chambers
Civic Center, 1st Floor
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, California 94301
ROLL CALL:
Commissioners:
Michael Griffin - Chair
Phyllis Cassel- Hce-Chair
Karen Holman
Patrick Burt
Bonnie Packer
Annette Bialson - absent
Joseph Bellomo
Staff."
Steve Emslie, Planning Director
Lisa Grote, Chief Planning Official
Wynne Furth, Senior Assistant City Attorney
Joseph Kott, Chief Transportation Official
Carl Stoffel, Transportation Engineer
Olubayo Elimisha, Staff Secretary
AGENDIZED ITEMS:
Review of Proposed Performance Measures for Charleston-Arastradero Corridor
Plan.
Study Session on the Citywide Transportation Impact Fee Study and Proposal.
Chair Griffin: I would like to reconvene our group and welcome you to the Planning and
Transportation Commission regular meeting for Wednesday the 27th of August. Would the
Secretary please read the roll? Thank you.
I would like to invite members of the public to speak at our Oral Communications item with a
limitation of three minutes per speaker. If you would please print your name on a speaker card it
would make it a lot easier for us to pronounce your name properly. I have three cards but I see
that they are for item number one so I will save those for agenda item one.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS. Members of the public may speak to any item not on the agenda
with a limitation of three (3) minutes per speaker. Those who desire to speak must complete a
speaker request card available from the secretary of the Commission. The Planning and
Transportation Commission reserves the right to limit the oral communications period to 15
minutes.
City of Palo Alto Page 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
Chair Griffin: In the meantime we do not have any cards for Oral Communications so I will
close that item.
CONSENT CALENDAR. Items will be voted on in one motion unless removed from the
calendar by a Commission Member.
AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS. The agenda may have additional
items added to it up until 72 hours prior to meeting time.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS.
Public Hearings: None.
Other ltems: None.
Chair Griffin: We will move to New Business opening the public hearings for agenda item
number one, which is Review of Proposed Performance Measures for Charleston-Arastradero
Corridor Plan. Would the Staff please make a presentation?
NEW B USINESS.
Public Hearings:
Review of Proposed Performance Measures for Charleston-Arastradero Corridor
Plan. SR Weblink: http:/Avww.cit¥ofpaloalto.org/cityagenda/publish/plarmin~-
transportation-meetings/2343.pdf
Mr. Steve Emslie, Planning Director: I am going to ask Joe Kott, Chief Transportation Official,
to give you some background and present the Staff Report and then I will conclude with some
comments.
Mr. Joe Kott, Chief Transportation Official: Thank you very much, Steve. Good evening Chair
Griffin and members of the Planning and Transportation Commission. I am glad to be here this
evening to discuss some proposed performance measures for the Charleston-Arastradero
Corridor Plan directed by City Council to address various transportation and urban design issues
along the Charleston-Arastradero Road Corridor.
The question is always asked, what is the purpose of doing a plan and how can you judge
whether or not that purpose has been fulfilled. What we like a lot about performance measures is
that it allows for the tracking of achievement of objectives. Really performance measures
operationalize objectives. Of course objectives are supposed to specify in more detail goals.
Performance measures generally create success tests or at least tests of whether or not a project,
program or plan is working or has worked or if not what needs to be adjusted so that it does
work. Again, it is very important to have tangible, measurable, at least in our view, test of
whether or not something is going well.
The Charleston-Arastradero Plan itself was directed by Council in April of this year as part of a
moratorium on development along the Charleston-Arastradero Corridor. The Corridor is defined
City of Palo Alto Page 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
by Council in an ordinance to be a quarter of a mile from the centerline of each roadway with the
exception of Alma Street where that corridor section bulges out to half a mile presumably to
include the Albertson’s site.
The objectives of the corridor plan I think are fairly stated by Council in the legislative findings
of their ordinance. Those legislative findings speak a lot to issues around school commute safety
and around the need to enhance cycling and walking and in general travel safety along
Charleston-Arastradero without unduly impacting any other roadway particularly residential
streets. One very important point made by Council in the ordinance is that there really shall be
no meaningful or significant traffic shift onto cross-residential streets or parallel residential
streets. So that whatever is done to make Charleston-Arastradero Road more friendly to
bicyclists and pedestrians and in general a safer more pleasant environment for travelers that it
not cause through an unintended consequence a traffic shift onto streets like Meadow.
We are supposed to report to Council by the end of January, toward the end of January, with a
plan. We will come back to this Commission with some conceptual alternatives, some
alternative plans if you will. We will come back once again to the Commission with a final plan.
So the Commission will have other opportunities to appraise what is being proposed for
Charleston-Arastradero Corridor.
What we are asking the Commission to do this evening is to recommend to Council a set of we
think achievable and meaningful objectives for this plan. In other words a plan will not be
created in some kind of vacuum. There will be tests, some of them I suppose will be litmus tests
of how well the plan achieves Council’s stated objectives, which we assume also to be
community objectives for these roadways. Elements of the Charleston-Arastradero Corridor
Plan and the Commission will receive detail on how these elements are addressed in alternative
plans as well as a final plan. They will involve changes to the roadway cross-section itself, in
some cases creation of safe crosswalks in between signals, provision of left-turn pockets, raised
center medians when and where the capacity is available to do so. It will involve making sure
that all the bike lanes are continuous and are wide enough for safe comfortable cycling, make
sure our sidewalks along the corridor are continuous and wide enough and where possible
separated from vehicular traffic, again where possible, by a planting strip and so forth.
A big emphasis I should say in this plan will also be to optimize or make most efficient the
operation of our traffic signals. We think we have a great opportunity to improve travel
conditions for everyone on these roadways including drivers. In other words not unduly
penalizing driver or not penalize drivers at all while other changes beneficial to cyclists and
pedestrians and beneficial to community aesthetics, if you will, or at least to the visual amenity
of the roadway take place. So a big promise available we think on signal timing and other signal
changes for the better.
Again, Council has instructed us to hold other residential streets, across and parallel, if you will
harmless. So that there isn’t a shift of traffic onto those streets which arguably are even less able
to absorb additional traffic because the nearby streets, across and parallel streets, are not arterial
streets as are Charleston and Arastradero.
Some objectives. These are culled from if you will legislative findings in the Council’s
ordinance but they are made more explicit by Staff. One is not to increase travel time along the
City of Palo Alto Page 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
corridor. We will talk about operationalizing this objective in a moment but it is very important
because a big inducement to cut-through traffic and to shift your route onto streets that may not
be especially suited for through traffic is delay. If you sense or experience a longer trip you are
liable to rethink your route. We would like to minimize that effect and in fact not have it happen
at all if possible.
Another objective, and this is by the way kind of a prime directive anyway, is to enhance travel
safety. This is particularly important on the Charleston-Arastradero Corridor because of the
presence of schools. A new school just opened this week, the Turman Middle School. We have
had the Hoover School and JLS is nearby and of course Gunn High School is on Arastradero.
We have parks, we have other community serving uses along or near Charleston-Arastradero. So
there seems to be a special need and possibly a special obligation to provide as safe as possible
environment for all travelers here with particular emphasis here because of the uses along this
corridor for cyclists and pedestrian. Many of these will be children not all but many.
Another important objective, and this is another important one for the whole City really as is
safety, but to do what we can to improve the quality of life. The quality of life in a community
like Palo Alto which does value aesthetics and amenity includes visual amenity, having the
roadways if you will look better, be more pleasing to be on, be more pleasing to view and to ride
along or walk along.
To operationalize these. The objectives are general statements and these performance measures
get very particular very fast. The kind of thing that makes people who go before public
commissions a little bit nervous because I will have to come back later and testify as to why we
may or may not be able to meet all of these in as timely a way as we might. We think
nevertheless that these performance measures, I am going to layout ten for you, are both
attainable and meaningful. That is, they are not trivial. They are important and meaningful. We
think based on what we know of the corridor and the changes we can make for the better on the
corridor are ones all measures we can achieve and we can report our achievement back to you.
First is no increase in peak or off-peak travel time on the corridor. We have defined the corridor
in four major sections but for all practical purposes most people going from any point A to any
point B on the corridor should know that their travel will not be delayed. In the case of cyclists
and pedestrians it actually may be somewhat better. In terms of drivers we are saying no
increase in travel time. There may even, especially if we are fortunate in our signal
improvements, be some improvement in travel time for drivers. Keep in mind though that we
don’t want to make travel time for vehicles just so good that we draw other through traffic from
other arterials in the City onto Charleston-Arastradero. So we need a balance that fits the current
travel profile of this corridor but achieves the other objectives.
The second one is a bit redundant actually. It says no increase in average vehicle delay at
signalized intersections or critical movement delay. As this Commission may remember critical
movement delay is that delay, that movement at intersections, that is most likely to cause a
change in the overall cycle time or overall length of time that the signal operation has to cycle
through. We want to avoid that because we want to be as efficient as we can and not extend red
time in any direction. So the critical movement, if it is held harmless, should allow for efficient
operations at the intersection. I should say that if we attain the first we don’t need to worry about
the second. We will attain the first, my view only, through much better intersection operations.
City of Palo Alto Page 4
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
45
46
47
48
1 In between intersection, where we can, we would like to create opportunities for new crosswalks.
2 We would like to create some opportunities for raised medians, landscaped medians with some
3 turning pockets. We will inevitably in those portions have to reduce the cross-section of these
4 streets from four lanes to threes lanes. I hasten to add that we can’t do this in a lot of places as
5 you all know driving each one of those roadways. But where we can that is what we are looking
for. In those sections with three lanes even though we will have left turning pockets which
operate very well and efficiently in getting the turning traffic out of the through lanes we will
compel drivers to slow down somewhat. The driver in the remaining through lane will set the
pace. You won’t be able to bypass that driver very easily in those three lane sections.
The third in terms of speeds rather we would like to reduce prevailing speeds or these 85t~
percentile speeds, those speeds that tend to be design speeds for the roadway by 20%. In terms
of safety we would like to reduce crashes by at least 25% to the year 2010. We would be
delighted to do much more than this but 25% we think is meaningful and attainable. We would
like to increase the pedestrian volumes first by 20% that is based on a base year I think of 2002 is
what we reported to you and 40% by 2020. Increase bicycle volumes by the same percentages
and the same years, 20% by 2010 and 40% by 2020. These are important increases and will
signify a reverse in the downward spiral in cycling and walking. Please do remember these are
school commute corridors. A lot of these Cyclists and walkers will be kids. We have
experienced in Palo Alto and nationally a long-term secular decline in walking and cycling. So
we are really saying we are out not only stop the decline we are out to reverse it. If we do better
than 20% and 40% we will be delighted and we think it is possible that we will.
We would like to increase transit boardings, particularly during the school year and particularly
using our palo Alto Shuttle, which has been very useful, and I think very successful in town, by
50% to the year 2010.
Number eight is a reference to something that the Commission has already reviewed, the idea of
bicycle level of service. We proposed the bicycle level of service standard as one of our
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) thresholds for transportation to this Commission.
I think the Commission received it very well. We have gone back to the drawing board as you
know on all of our CEQA standards. We will come back to this Commission we hope in a few
months with a set of revised standards including bike and pedestrian levels of service. The bike
level of service talks a lot about how to assess bike level of service by the methodology we are
proposing which is the same one this Commission has reviewed. Bike level of service is a
function of the width given to bicyclists at the edge of the roadway. Bike lanes are wide outside
curb lanes. It is function of the speed and the volume of the traffic on the lane nearest to the bike
lane and it is a function of the continuity of the bike lane, if there are any breaks in the bike lane
particularly at busy intersections. All those things get assessed similarly pedestrian level of
service.
We have not yet proposed a methodology to this Commission but we are going to. The
methodology will include as assessment indicators for pedestrians whether or not the sidewalks
are continuous and on both sides of the roadway, how wide the sidewalks are, whether the
sidewalks are obstructed, whether there is a planting strips that protects pedestrians from
vehicular traffic, whether or not there is curbing to protect pedestrians from vehicular traffic and
so forth. They are physical, measurable, observable indicators. As they sum up the level of
service, as we have more of these and they are better the level of service rises for pedestrians on
City of Palo Alto Page 5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
a roadway. For both bikes and pedestrian comfort is very important particularly vis-a-vie
vehicular traffic.
I think I reversed us. Lastly, this is the one I needed some help with, we would like to be able to
assess visual amenity. This is the wrong department for that, at least the wrong division for
visual amenity. I am lucky if I can match my socks up in the morning, the right colors that is.
We are thinking either of asking a panel of our Architectural Review Board or perhaps a focus
group of citizens or residents of Palo Alto to do an assessment for us of amenities in a proposed
plan and amenities as they are built into the roadway and whether or not those amenities attain a
quality level of at least B. Don’t ask me at this point what B is, we have to flesh that one out.
We have very well defined methodologies in mind for the others but we didn’t want to leave
amenity out because it is a very important concept. It is certainly somewhat elusive to people
like me but an attractive roadway contributes to the community in a lot of different ways. It
actually does induce more people to want to get out and walk and bike. Those are much better
ways to appreciate your surroundings than driving along especially in cities.
How are we going to use these measures? Well before anything is built we have to do some
more creative things. Most of these we can actually simulate by computer particularly levels of
service changes and speeds and travel times. There is even a new computer methodology for
assessing crash rates and likely crash rates in road cross-sections of different kinds that we are
going to try to use in this plan and see how it works. The third thing is a rule of thumb, expert
rule ofthurnb, heuristics. In terms of visual amenity we do need heuristics here, we need an
expert panel to work with us. In terms of bike and pedestrian level of service we will be able
through expert judgment to determine whether or not the bike lanes meet standard or exceed
standard, the sidewalk width and so forth. Those are kind of practical technical matters that are
binary, either they are there or they are not. So I put that in category of expert judgment or
heuristics. So all three of these methods are good I think in appraisal before something is built.
After it is built you go out and measure what is really happening out there in the world, speeds
and travel times. Travel time is a great thing because you can send out what are called probe
vehicles in the trade but any citizen, any resident, can track this too. If we tell them that travel
time hasn’t changed they can do their own recording and reporting both peak and off-peak hours.
So we would be much more in the mode of, after things get built, whether or not things are
phased on this corridor, phase one, phase two, phase three or whether or not we are lucky to be
able to do pretty much everything at once. So after the project is built we can determine whether
or not it has met its performance measures or you might say its operationalized objectives.
Next Steps. We would like to go to Council with your recommendation on performance
measures for the Charleston-Arastradero Corridor Plan. These are very important because these
are the kind of pass/fail test for the whole plan. We are on a fast track. We would much like and
much appreciate Commission recommendation this evening to attain our January schedule for
our final plan. We would like to apply the Council-agreed, Council-approved, performance
measures to alternative conceptual plans and report to this Commission and Council how well
the alternatives meet the performance measures or are likely to meet the performance measures.
Then alter the project is put in, if it is done in phases or all at once, we think it is good practice to
go back annually and in effect fill out an annual report card and see whether the plan is still
meeting objectives and inducing more bike and pedestrian travel, more shuttle usage, still
making the roadway look good to everybody who uses it, making the roadway safer, not
degrading travel time or level of service on the roadway and all the other objectives.
City of Palo Alto Page 6
1
2 So that is kind of the long of it. We would very much appreciate Commission feedback. We are
3 really breaking some new ground in trying to operationalize very carefully and in a way that is
4 tangible, that is real whether or not a transportation plan is meeting community needs and
5~community objectives.
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Steve is reminding me about this. Actually I had been on vacation this week and I came in for
this meeting so I am not quite as sharp as I would ordinarily be. In terms of how these got
derived, these performance measures. They are mostly from our own heuristics, our own
knowledge on the Transportation Staff of Charleston Road and Arastradero Road. The
Commission may recall we did a study of Charleston Road in 2000 and we do a lot of work on
Arastradero Road and Charleston Road in terms of operations. We did a new signal at Turman
Drive as the Commission may know. We extended the bike lanes in front of Gunn. We have a
lot of experience and knowledge about both of these roadways. Christopher Tenay is working
with us. Christopher is a consultant who is helping us on this plan. He actually worked for our
division for six years. He and I essentially set out a set of good performance measures based on
best professional practice. We did go to the public in meetings on July 10 and 15 with an initial
set of these performance measures. We hadn’t fleshed them all out yet but it was mostly what
you saw up on the screen. We got some feedback I think generally positive. I think the only
negative that came out of the public meetings was there was some skepticism on the part of
several people that we could attain all of these performance measures. Some of them seemed to
be almost at cross-purposes or counterintuitive, which of course we like very much. We like to
achieve some counter-intuitive results. In general the feeling was that we touched all the bases.
We do, and I didn’t give the Commission in the packet, we do have a set of completely recorded
public comments from both of those meetings, the July 10 and July 15 meetings. If any
Commission Members would like I can post those to your email or else hard copy. We had some
discussion with a small stakeholders group we have, folks who represent residents associations, a
person who is involved with affordable housing, some of the development interests and so forth
and even a group with disparate and diverse interests came together pretty well on this set of
performance measures. Actually we were somewhat surprised that we did more or less get
consensus. I think there may be one member of our kind of informal working group who may
testify to some differences that she may have with this perhaps being a little bit too ambitious a
list. In general we began with professional judgment, we refined our judgment through
interaction with the public and through the stakeholders group and we hope to continue to refine
our judgment and our proposal through interaction with this Commission. Thank you very
much. I’ll be glad to answer any questions the Commission might have.
Mr. Emslie: I would just like to take the opportunity to hone in a couple of issues that Joe
mentioned as you consider the proposal. First of all this is a unique opportunity. This type of
comprehensive evaluation of the potential for improvement of a major residential arterial is rare
in planning circles. We think we have assembled some very far-reaching and very appropriate
measures that are going to enable us to design a roadway section that will achieve a myriad of
objectives as Joe reviewed with you in great detail. So I want you to keep in mind that this is a
finer grain of analysis than you are normally used to for typical traffic engineering and traffic
studies. We get to focus in on measures that relate back to actual quality of life. How quickly
you travel through the corridor and how safe you are in riding your bicycle or walking along the
corridor are issues that we have heard repeatedly are strong desires for improvement in the
corridor. Another thing to keep in mind is the corridor really doesn’t meet today’s standards. It
City of Palo Alto Page 7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
45
46
47
48
was designed in the 1950s and 1960s when residential arterials didn’t pay a lot of attention to the
things that we pay attention to today like bicycle, like transportation, like pedestrian facilities.
Coupled with the fact that this serves the majority of our schools it provides again the unique
opportunity to use far reaching and very meaningful standards rather than standards that apply
across the board and need to be adapted for a variety of circumstances. We have the opportunity
to really focus in on how this works aesthetically, operationally and physically in terms of the
cross-section. So I want to have the Commission keep that in mind as it goes through this. One
other important factor of this is what is enabling all this to happen, what is enabling us to be able
to give you this kind of high level of prediction of what will happen to this corridor in the future
if you do decide to make some physical changes to the corridor is the traffic model, the computer
model that Joe and his staffhave been putting together. This again is an unprecedented level of
tool, transportation-planning tool that this City will have. It is typically reserved for much
broader areas. Much larger cities will use this type of transportation modeling. It is now
becoming more affordable for cities of our size to afford this type of analysis. So it really will
enable us to look well into the future, apply different conditions to the corridor and predict with a
high degree of sophistication how traffic will function decades from now. So these are tools that
we are bringing to this study that I think are very exciting and I think coupled with the
performance measures that Joe and his staff and the consultant team that have been working on
this have hammered out I think are very worthwhile and are very strongly supported by Staff and
I would encourage the Commission to consider them as such.
Chair Griffin: Thank you for the presentation. Now we will bring it back to the Commissioners
for questions. With my colleagues consent I am going to ask for the first clarification if I might,
Joe. On the first page of the Staff Report you talk about the objectives, one through five, and
you talk about enhancing visual amenities and improving the quality of life and improving
pedestrian and bicycles, etc. Yet when it comes to vehicles we are talking about "maintain." So
I am asking for clarification here. What you are trying to do is just to maintain the vehicular
efficiency of the road while at the same time bringing up all of these alternative modes. Is that
correct?
Mr. Kott: Yes that is right, Commissioner Griffin. Do keep in mind though this is in context of
a very steady rise citywide and nationwide in traffic volumes and use of vehicles. So typically
on a roadway like Charleston-Arastradero we would expect a one to two percent annual growth
rate in vehicular traffic. So that is one thing. We are saying that we will as best we can
accommodate reasonable levels of traffic growth increase and this would have to include
regional traffic growth increase that we have nothing to do with it just arrives at our doorstep. At
the same time not degrading conditions for drivers either in their travel time or their progression
through intersections.
Secondly, we are pledging if you will to increase the safety of vehicular operation. Those crash
rates also involve vehicles it is not just crashes involving cyclists and pedestrians they are also
vehicle-to-vehicle crashes. When you consider property damage and the health effects of
vehicularcrashes any decrease in the level of crashes is a major public benefit.
Chair Griffin: Right, I understand. I was just trying to clarify this item of how much carrying
capacity flexibility is going to be built into this plan because it implies that we are just
maintaining what we have. Now you did say that we are anticipating a two percent vehicular
growth and that will be built into this design or is that not correct?
City of Palo Alto Page 8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
45
46
47
Mr. Kott: Commissioner Griffin I was speaking genetically. A rule of thumb in our business is
that on any given arterial given normal times, not like Phoenix recently where the main pipeline
providing automotive fuel to the whole region broke and there are long lines at gas stations and
traffic volumes decline precipitously and some people in Phoenix started using the bus, but in
normal economic times you would expect one to two percent growth on any given arterial
roadway. Now there may be special conditions. A major closure of a plant in some industrial
city or you may have a major huge shopping center being built on an arterial roadway which
would mean an higher than or lower than depending on the case traffic growth or traffic decline.
As Steve mentioned we are going to do something much better on the corridor plan. We are
going to take into account regional traffic and our own traffic specific to this corridor in terms of
not only existing employment and existing housing along this corridor in Palo Alto but projected
new employees and new housing units due to anticipated growth. Council has already approved
some land use programs if you will that the effect of which we are setting out to computer
model. What is important about that is combining Palo Alto generated growth, existing traffic of
Palo Altoans and expected regional traffic growth, which we are learning about and receiving
and importing into our model from VTA. We will be able to anticipate traffic patterns well into
the future as Steve has said not only on these two streets but also on competing arterial streets
and our expressway system. I am thinking about Oregon Expressway, San Antonio and
Embarcadero. Also cross streets so that when we say hold harmless as far as cross streets and
parallel collectors like Meadow we will be able to computer simulate how well we are holding
those volumes harmless. So we are taking into account all the patterns of future growth not just
using the rule of thumb of one to two percent annual growth rate.
Chair Griffin: Bonnie.
Commissioner Packer: I was going to ask a question that I think you are beginning to answer for
me. It would really help my understanding of this whole report. First of all I want to say I am
looking forward to seeing Charleston-Arastradero become a safer pedestrian, bicycle friendly
place and there is a lot of great stuff in here. My confusion and you are beginning to answer to it
is how the plan of roadway improvements which is what these objectives would be measuring
fits in with the projected development for this area. When you say no increase in vehicle delay
or critical movement delay at intersections what is the baseline? Is the baseline going to
accommodate some of the projected growth for the area and say given that growth our roadway
improvements will not increase the vehicle delay? what happens is when we see the EIR is that
when you have a development close by inevitably it increases an LOS or a critical movement
delay and in some areas they are already at an almost unacceptable rate and changes can’t be
made. So how are you dealing with that dilemma of development and having no increase?
Mr. Kott: In order to do traffic forecasting we do need to assume, and Council has helped us a
lot by doing our assumptions for us, we do need to assume what is going to be in the future.
What growth will occur, what development or what redevelopment will occur. On the
transportation side I always tell people we are somewhat neutral about it. We have to basically
work with whatever happens. We do need to have a pretty good idea of what is going to happen
in order to forecast traffic. There is just no way to do that otherwise, when we say hold
harmless the travel time we mean from right now, likewise with delay, average delay and the
delay in the critical movement. We are saying they won’t degrade and neither will travel time.
City of Palo Alto Page 9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
45
46
47
48
That will be assuming regional growth and assuming growth on this corridor per the Council
vetted or approved land use program.
Now how this gets to be somewhat interesting and intriguing is it does imply the need to wring
out some efficiencies in how we move vehicles through. Our belief is, and we are going to test
this belief pretty carefully as we go through the conceptual plan alternatives, is that there is great
room for improvement in the operation of our whole string of traffic signals along Charleston
and Arastradero. Now it is not all that easy to make sure these signals are working optimally
because you do have worry about cross streets and we have some pretty important cross streets
including E1 Camino Real and Alma. We also have Cal Train. Our view is that there is great
room for improvement in making vehicle progression more efficient along Charleston-
Arastradero, those movements that are through and that turn onto and from those two roadways.
Enough efficiencies so that we believe, and we will have to test this belief, that we can not only
change these roadways in between some of the signals but not all but we can accommodate
future growth and still hold travel time harmless and hold critical movement delay and average
delay harmless. It is pretty ambition and we will have to get major improvements in how
efficiently our signals operate. They will have to be much smarter. We are saying without doing
that without making them much more efficient we cannot meet our performance measures. So
our baseline is now and it does take into account future growth.
Chair Griffin: Wynn, did you wish to comment?
Ms. Wvnne Furth, Senior Assistant Ci_ty Attomey: I was going to say in response to
Commissioner Packer’s comment about when we look at project EIRs we see more traffic, we
see more delay, we see more congestion. That is our normal experience on project EIRs but if
you remember looking at either the GUP EIR or the Comprehensive Plan EIR or even the EIR
for the Stanford Medical Center expansion for the ambulatory care cancer treatment center as
those went out into the future they showed traffic congestion decreasing because they assumed
system improvements. So this is a system improvement project essentially. So this doesn’t have
the same kind of profile of results that we get when we see a relatively small project which either
has a short timeline or which doesn’t have any attendant improvements that really get at
fundamental problems.
Mr. Kott: I would like to add one last comment. We do address alternative modes in the plan at
least we will so that if we do increase shuttle boardings by 50%, if we go from 20% to 40%
increases in cycling volumes and pedestrian volumes that will make a difference too to drivers.
That will in fact convert some vehicle use into alternative modes use. You see this particularly
in the morning but also you see some of it in the evening. So there will be two effects, more
efficient intersection operations getting cars through and lessening a needed delay and also the
pull of folks from cars into alternative modes. We think we can do enough of both of those
things to accommodate future growth as well as meet these really stringent performance
standards.
Chair Griffin: Lisa.
Ms. Lisa Grote, Chief Planning Official: Thank you. I also wanted to mention in response to
Commissioner Packer’s question about the land use we did do some very specific analysis on
sites along the corridor and adjacent to the corridor where we know that there are proposed
¯ City of Palo Alto Page 10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
applications for development or we know that there are underutilized sites that under the existing
Comprehensive Plan and zoning there could be additional square footage or a change of uses in
the future. So we did analyze that and factor that into the traffic model. So the specific land uses
that we know about or anticipate would be accounted for along the corridor.
Chair Griffin: Phyllis.
Vice-Chair Cassel: I sat in on some Staffmeetings and evaluation of this process where they
were doing the timing models for making these traffic patterns move better. It was very
interesting to watch and indeed it looks like with better planning you can get much better traffic
flow. I guess I am still concerned with a question that Bonnie has brought up and that is what
happens, we haven’t been given any numbers for what might be put into those potential housing
developments and what happens if a neighborhood group decides that we aren’t meeting our
models and so we can’t do this? They say to us you are not meeting your models so you can’t
put in any new development in that spot. How do you handle that?
Ms. Furth: This is a model not a regulation. These are goals for this particular street, which the
Staff is suggesting they believe is meaningful and attainable. So these are goals. In order to
work on a design where you are trading off a lot of different sometimes competing, sometimes
complimentary values you need a set of standards to aim for. Staff is suggesting that these are
good ones. These are significant improvements in the existing road and they are possible to do
in the context of our existing land use regulation. When those models are run and when those
proposed improvements are presented and costed out then the Council with recommendation
from you is going to have to decide whether this is a project that it is a good idea to proceed
with, whether the cost benefit ratio makes sense, whether this is going to improve the quality of
life for people in a way that is desirable. But this isn’t a land use study and this isn’t a land use
regulation. This is a road redesign. Remember on June 9 the Council approved land use
assumptions that the Planning Division had worked out and looking at a range, because the
future is unpredictable, looking at a range of guesses about how the City might develop and the
area might develop. So once they have done that we have the land use assumptions, we have the
traffic model and now we need to know what the goals are for this street. That is what this
evening’s discussion is about.
Chair Griffin: Pat.
Commissioner Burt: Let me try to make sure I understand the answers to these last couple of
questions. The goals and the measurements are goals and measurements that would be used for
purposes of the corridor study as opposed to goals and measurements that necessarily would be
used after the study as a basis for approving developments or not approving them. They may or
may not be incorporated.
Ms. Furth: They would have to be transformed into regulations or land use changes or
something like that. They can’t become the standard simply by being a road design standard for
this project or a road design goal.
Mr. Kott: I would like to add that we are strongly convinced that this is just simply a best
practice. We are pleased to be able to present these. We think it is a very good idea when
producing a plan particularly a transportation plan that it be evaluated as to how well it meets its
City of Palo Alto Page 11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
purposes or its objectives. The way we think is it pretty much has to be tangible and it has to be
empirical as much as possible. Fortunately because of the tools we have developed and are
developing we can do a lot of this now that years past we were not able to do. The plan itself
will be judged on these performance measures. We would definitely tweak plan alternatives in
order to meet performance measures. So they will be a major guide in the design or redesign of
this roadway and its transportation infrastructure and its traffic operations as well as a good way
for the public to track whether or not this whole plan is worthwhile in pursuing. So in our view
it is just good public policy to advance a meaningful test of whatever is being proposed. So we
can appraise not only during discussion of plan alternatives but even as we implement if we have
to make adjustments and changes during implementation particularly in phases these measures
will be really invaluable.
Commissioner Burt: So I just want to make sure that we are all on the same page about the
process that is occurring here. IfI can attempt to boil down what has been said it is that we have
this set of proposed objectives and measurements for purposes of the corridor study. Based on
whatever set of objectives and measurements are adopted the study then goes forward and then
you determine whether there is a design for the corridor that is capable of meeting all or some or
most of these objectives and measurements. Out of that there may be then some ordinance that
would be adopted by the Council that would reflect a set of policy decisions on what would be
then both the action for a corridor design and potentially impacts on development?
Ms. Furth: I think that, and Steve can comment on this more extensively but, not quite. You
said it is a performance standard for a road redesign. We could have a parking garage standard
that said we want 200 spaces, that is simpler to understand, for me anyway. This is a road
standard so it is measured in terms of different kinds of transportation modes and also making
this a more attractive place to live and be generally. You look at the designs .and you see if they
can achieve this goal. One of the goals is to accommodate this steadily modifying and changing
background rate of traffic that it needs to accommodate and you see how much it costs. Then the
Council decides whether this is a project worth pursuing. So they wouldn’t really adopt an
ordinance. They might by resolution adopt a Charleston corridor design plan because this is all
on public property, this entire plan. But no, we would not anticipate that it would lead to other
kinds of standards for other parts of the City because this is specific to this street. If it turns out
not to be attainable then you have to think about if you can improve it but not this much is that
worth doing? There are a lot of choices they can make but this is not analogous to the situation
where you size the water pipeline or the sewer line to control growth. This is how do you treat
this particular existing street in a way to better manage the flow that you assumed based on your
land use decisions.
Chair Griffin: Joe.
Commissioner Bellomo: Wynne, to follow up on that, then therefore these objective measures
are adopted and you have a development that is preceding or is released to proceed wouldn’t a
traffic analysis then be inclusive of these objectives and measures? And when you are weighing
a traffic analysis of a particular project or a right-of-way or how the roadway is developed that
each project looks at those goals and analyzes how it can work to those objectives?
Mr. Kott: Wyrme will be jumping in here but I have a comment too, Joe.
City of Palo Alto Page 12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
45
46
47
48
Commissioner Bellomo: So what is the point of it if that is not the case?
Ms. Furth: The point of it is to redesign Charleston-Arastradero, a road that is perceived to have
a lot of problems, to be a better road. And of course that is not too hard to understand if we are
talking about one day but we are not. We are talking about ten, 20, 30, 40, 50 years. Actually I
think we are only talking about 25 years. That is the timeline that we are analyzing.
Commissioner Bellomo: But it starts with each and every development because that is the
progression of the developed space.
Ms. Furth: That is not the variable. In this particular project the data, the input that these people
have is a lot of information about existing traffic patterns and a series of assumptions about
future traffic patterns. Some of those traffic patterns, here is where I am probably going to get it
wrong, come from regional data sources and some of them come from our own existing land use
decisions that have been made.
Commissioner Bellomo: If you want shuttle stops along a corridor and if there is a development
being preceded or engaged with the City you encourage those right-of-way amenities to be
encouraged or implemented or mandated.
Ms. Furth: Absolutely. I was misunderstanding what you were saying. The second part of it is
how do you build it, how do you fund it, do you need more right-of-way. Yes, a lot of this is to
accommodate existing development but to the extent it accommodates new development,
absolutely. I am sorry I misunderstood. They would be contributing to the solution.
Commissioner Bellomo: Right. My question again is every traffic analysis or development
standard for each and every project along this corridor would be scrutinized to these objectives
and measures for a continuum for a 25-year plan.
Mr. Kott: I think you are right.
Ms. Furth: Yes, so that would be how you would calculate how are they going to contribute to
this, how much should they contribute to this7 You are right.
Mr. Kott: That is all important but I do need to add that whatever our CEQA standards are
prevailing they would need to be met in terms of traffic, in terms of if this Commission adopts
standards on bike and pedestrian LOS.
Commissioner Bellomo: So these measures and goals might not supercede those CEQA
standards but could be added to them because you have a corridor standard.
Mr. Kott: I think that is a fair way of putting it. Wyrme may have other things to say but I think
it is.
Ms. Furth: You are going to get a lot of important unprecedented information from this study. It
is going to inform everything you think about. How it is going to ripple through the rest of the
kinds of decisions you make we don’t know yet.
City of Palo Alto Page 13
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
45
46
47
48
Commissioner Bellomo: I think that is how you encourage it. That is how you start
implementing it is through development.
Mr. Kott: This might not be exactly fair but I’ll say it anyway. In 1956 had these kinds of
measures been put onto our interstate highway program if we looked at interstate highways as
corridors our country would be dramatically different.
Commissioner Bellomo: I am trying to think of the future and not the past but maybe it’s lessons
learned.
Vice-Chair Cassel: I want to go back to this process question. You are telling us about how
wonderful this is going to be and I have no question about whether this is going to be a
wonderful analysis and where we are going on that for our goal. My question is are we
approving tonight a performance standard for this study or a performance standard that is going
to go on into the future? Are we going to do this performance standard and then evaluate it and
see if it is crazy or if something is wrong with it and then adopt a performance standard that then
works with our CEQA program?
Mr. Kott: Commissioner Cassel, when we come back to you with altemative conceptual plans
for this corridor that will have more or less of the different elements I talked about, crosswalks,
raised medians, signal improvements, bike lanes, bike lane widths, sidewalk widths and whatnot,
you will use these measures and we will report to you our forecast of how well these plans would
do based on these measures. You will use these measures to appraise whether or not plan A is
better than plan B. It is not going to be the only thing because you will use your own judgment
about all the other values we didn’t capture in that list often performance measures. But without
some good idea of how well these two plans will meet the purposes to which they are supposed
to serve the Commission in our view will have a lot weaker basis to make a decision of plan A
over plan B. As far as the future this Commission may wish to consider recommending some of
these performance measures as part of CEQA standards. But we are not proposing that tonight.
Tonight we are proposing these as tests for our plans for Charleston-Arastradero whether or not
these plans meet a sufficient standard of community good.
Chair Griffin: Karen.
Commissioner Holman: One thing that I noticed in the Staff Report is LOS for vehicles is kind
of glaringly absent. I was wondering what the purpose of that is, what the reason for that is,
because it is the standard that we have kind of universally been using. The other is traffic
volumes are not addressed. One could assume that traffic volume might be reduced when it
comes to alternative modes of transportation you could assume that perhaps traffic volumes
would be reduced but traffic volumes specifically are not addressed and the Comp Plan does call
for a ten percent trip reduction by the year 2010. So could Staff comment on those two things,
please?
Mr. Kott: On the second one we don’t think traffic volumes per se, I am speaking for our
division here or maybe me more than anyone else, are a sufficiently direct measure of how well a
roadway performs based on all these things we have just been talking about. You can have a
higher volume or a lower volume and it can still be bike-unfriendly, ped-unfriendly, not transit
conducive. It can still if there is still too much traffic induce traffic shift onto residential streets
City of Palo Alto Page 14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
45
46
47
48
and all those other things. Whereas the measures we have proposed in terms of travel time and
not additional delay, no increase in average critical movement delay, go directly to the operation
of the roadway, how well or badly as well as the other bike and ped things.
In terms of the LOS when we say no increase in average delay and no increase in critical
mov.ernent delay that means no degradation in the existing vehicular level of service at any
signalized intersection and no change, no degradation even down to the seconds of critical
movement delay, we are saying no increase in that delay. So there should be at least a hold
harmless in vehicular level of service. We think we will have to improve vehicular level of
service in order to meet the travel time objective. In practice we will end up having to slow cars,
and we want to slow cars in between some of these intersection because going too fast, but at the
intersections we want people to progress through more efficiently and not to have to wait so
long. That implies, the strong implication is an increase in vehicular level of service. Frankly,
another reason is vehicular level of service is a construct. It is nothing you can really experience.
We can show you a picture of a roadway and you kind of get that but the intermediate grades are
constructs. They are based on calculated statistics on an average basis. Whereas a motorist
knows darn well how long it takes to go from A to B and knows about travel time. We think
measure like that is more meaningful, more direct. Although we are not recommending in that
furore meeting we have on CEQA standards abandoning vehicular LOS. We think that travel
time an no increase in delay at signalized intersections are the most direct measures for vehicles
of whether or not this roadway is performing as it should.
Commissioner Holman: Having heard all that and appreciating all that I guess my comfort level
is that LOS be addressed and referenced because that is the standard of measure that we use at
the same time appreciating what you just said. The other thing is we are talking about quality of
life here and traffic volume does address quality of life. Efficiency of roadway, yes I agree with
what you are saying but there is a quality of life when it comes to air pollution and noise that
traffic volume does impact. So I think that is something that should be added here.
Chair Griffin: Wynne.
Ms. Furth: I do think it is hard to get our minds around the fact that this is a roadway project not
a traffic-generating project. It is how you deal with the space in which traffic moves. Traffic
volumes are essentially, this is not entirely true but they are the input that tells us how the street
works. As Joe was saying if you make this a really fabulous street you may start drawing cars
from other areas and start generating internal volume because it is not only the fastest but the
prettiest way to get there and that is why they don’t want to make it too wonderful. The traffic
volumes are really pretty much the input not the output. When the Council on June 9tu approved
the land use assumption range that we are to analyze it is where the jobs are and where the
people are that gives us those traffic volumes. You can tweak those things by making a road
really bad or really good but we are not trying to do either one of those things. We are not trying
to draw traffic onto this street from elsewhere or send it somewhere else into the neighborhoods
because it is so bad.
Commissioner Holman: I am truly not trying to be argumentative here but I was reading the
CMR’s that had gone to Council previously traffic volumes were mentioned numerous times so
that is why I am still slightly confused here.
City of Palo Alto Page 15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Mr. Kott: There will be a hard threshold for traffic volumes on this street once we determine
how much regional and local traffic will come to us based on the reasonable assumptions out
there. The regional traffic from VTA’s reasonable assumptions on regional growth and also on
our own reasonable assumptions based on the Council adopted programs we are supposed to
traffic forecast or model on. Once we have those and once we deal with them in terms of signal
changes and road redesign there will be a hard ceiling on traffic volumes. We won’t be able to,
and I am not willing to give you that number yet because I don’t know what an optimized signal
system like for this corridor yet. Once we have that and wring out every last bit of efficiency
from our signals and we cannot meet all of our performance objectives and perhaps some of
these have to do with a lot of volume that we cannot process through then I think that implies a
volume cap if you will. People have often asked me on these roadways what is that cap. We
have a generalized understanding of what that is but until we do careful analysis of how we can
optimize what we have I think it is premature to talk about that cap.
You are certainly right that volume matters. Just a couple quick points on volume as regards
noise and pollution. It certainly does matter for both. I must say though that air quality
modeling for roadway corridors is a long way from being ready to be useful. That is why we
really are not proposing a standard. We are not even confident about regional air quality
modeling. In terms of noise modeling we are not quite confident about that either on a corridor
wide basis. What we do think is that as more people cycle and walk and as more people have
less stop and start, accelerate/decelerate, braking noise and so forth, more even traffic flow those
effects will make this roadway somewhat less noisy and will contribute to quality of life and also
somewhat less polluted.
Chair Griffin: Commissioners, I would like to give the public an opportunity to comment here.
again, I am going to invite people in the audience if you would like to fill out a speaker card,
printing your name, we would be happy to hear you. Each speaker will have five minutes and
we have quite a number of cards now all of a sudden. If you wish to use less than your five
minutes that would be greatly appreciated. Our fist speaker is Audrey Jacob to be followed by
Tony Carrasco. Welcome Audrey.
Ms. Audrey Jacobs, Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce: Thank you. Good evening Chair Griffin
and Commissioners. I am the Director of Government Relations for the Palo Alto Chamber of
Commerce. There is a letter at your places drafted by our Chair, Tony Carrasco and I will just
go over the high points of that.
We wholeheartedly agree that the purpose of the Charleston-Arastradero Plan is to make the
Charleston-Arastradero Corridor safer and more amenable for bicyclists, pedestrians and
children. Our concern is that the plan remains a traffic calming study and not a land use
planning tool to unreasonably limit business and residential development along the corridor. We
particularly want you to take into consideration the Charleston Plaza Shopping Center. To this
end we strongly urge the inclusion of a sixth objective plan which would be to evaluate the
capacity of the roadway to accommodate future residential development and business vitality as
adopted by the Comprehensive Plan. I think that that’s what is going to happen and I hope it
does. We want to make sure that the performance standards do not preclude this. In closing we
ask for your thoughtful consideration of including this objective in the performance measures
and objectives. Thank you.
City of Palo Alto Page 16
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
Chair Griffin: Thank you, Audrey. Our next speaker is Tony Carrasco followed by Heather
Trossman. Welcome, Tony.
Mr. Tony Carrasco, 4216 Darlington Court, Palo Alto, Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce:
Chairman Griffin, members of the Commission I have lived halfa block away from this corridor
for over 20 years so I know it intimately. It has sort of changed over the years since I have had a
daughter and the safety of this child has become more important to me. I now can put myself in
the shoes of other people who watch kids cross the street and I am truly appreciative of the safety
issues that you are looking at. I also wanted to really consider adding a sixth condition, the
condition that Audrey Jacob just mentioned, that is that we have to in looking at the future of our
kids here leave them the legacy of the economic engine and the economic vitality that we have
now and we have grown to enjoy. We have services unsurpassed by other communities and the
reason for this is because of the products that come from this area. I think in deciding how this
study should go we should not limit that ability for the future of our kids to be able to enjoy the
same product as we have. Thank you.
Chair Griffin: Thank you.
Ms. Heather Trossman, 769 Garland Drive, Palo Alto, Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce: Good
evening members of the Planning and Transportation Commission. I am the Chair of the
Government Action Council of the Chamber of Commerce and also serve on the Citizens Action
Committee for the community development block grant program, which advises City Council in
the allocation of federal funds to low income housing projects in Palo Alto.
It is clear to me from direction given by the City Council, and I trust it is to you as well, that the
Charleston Corridor Traffic Study is intended to focus on traffic claming measures to make the
corridor safer and more attractive for bicyclists, pedestrians and school children. The study is
not intended to be used as a planning tool to reduce appropriate infill development either
business or residential along the corridor. The resolution adopted by the City Council
specifically refers to the adopted Comprehensive Plan development scenarios, which include
low, medium and high-density development options to be considered in any traffic analysis. We
recognize that some traffic calming measures can slow or restrict vehicular traffic in order to
better accommodate pedestrians and bicyclists and to promote better safety. We applaud such
measures. At the same time we consider it paramount that future residential and business
development as envisioned in the City’s adopted Comprehensive Plan be incorporated as integral
assumptions in the study. The Chamber of Commerce is concerned about existing and future
business vitality in our City. Business sales tax, not property tax, is the primary source of funds
for the City services that we value highly and sometimes take for granted. Both the Chamber of
Commerce and the CDBG Housing Committee are very concerned about the lack of affordable
housing for low and moderate-income Palo Alto residents. The traffic study performance criteria
must be evaluated in light of these very important considerations both of which contribute
profoundly to our quality of life in Palo Alto. Thank you.
Chair Griffin: Thank you, Heather.
Deborah Ju and Millicent Hamilton.
Sally.
Our next speaker is Sally Probst and following Sally will be
So Sally I didn’t give you much notice there. Welcome,
City of Palo Alto Page 17
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Ms. Sally Probst, 735 Coastland Drive, Pal0 Alto: Hello Commissioners. I am speaking for
myself. As I had mentioned to Joe a couple of weeks ago I am going to talk to you tonight
because I have some concerns about this process. I have great confidence in Joe’s ability and
goals and sincerity but I still have concerns.
I firmly believe that community good is served when we make room for people, when we assure
a diverse housing supply and when we maintain a business environment that can help provide the
many services that Palo Altoans expect. I would liketo call to your attention, remind you, of the
May 23, 2003 letter from the California Department of Housing and Community Development to
our City Manager. It found our Housing Element in compliance with state law and it
commended the City for many of its policies. Referring to this corridor study it said, "The City
should ... track the progress of the study and monitor any impacts on Palo Alto’s ability to
accommodate its share of the regional housing need." So they were concerned about the possible
impact as am I. I really have serious questions about the impact of the corridor plan objectives
and performance measures presented to you tonight that they will have on housing and business.
Let me just say that nobody can disagree with the good objectives, safe routes to school, safer
traffic flow, reduce traffic speeding, well landscaped medians, no diversion of through traffic to
other streets, reduced crashes, increase walking and bicycling and bus usage. That is great and I
think that a lot of these things will be accomplished. In early City Manager’s reports policies in
the Comprehensive Plan and the Housing Element were specifically referred to. But on the other
hand there is no reference in the objectives you have in front of you and the performance
measures to those policies. So I picked up the Chamber’s letter tonight and I would improve
their suggestion a little bit. I would strengthen it and say point six, ensure that the capacity of the
roadway provides for housing and business viability. Let’s not forget it by leaving it out.
Now when I look at point one in your plan on the first page, no increase in peak or off-peak
motor vehicle travel time between points, I realize that there is really not in here any reference to
the consideration of increased Cal Train traffic. We do expect more trains. We expect bullet
trains. We want transit to improve so we can take cars offthe road and with more trains that will
mean more crossing gate down time. This will effect travel time certainly from Alma to E1
Camino Real so I think that particular segment is particularly difficult to say there will be no
increase in traffic times. I would suggest that you change point one to say minimize increase in
motor vehicle travel time between each of these point.
Then let’s go on to point two which is on your page two. No increase in average motor vehicle
delay and critical movement motor vehicle delay at any Charleston Road or Arastradero Road
corridor plan intersection. I would delete that entirely. No amount of tinkering, in my opinion,
with stop lights and new equipment that we will be buying is going to make this a feasible
performance measure. There will be increased regional traffic as Mr. Kott mentioned today as
the region continues to grow. You know that the projections for the next 25 years are really
quite large. There may well be, I sincerely hope there will be, jobs returning to Palo Alto when
the economy recovers and unemployed parents returning to work and maybe using Charleston
Road. I think what number two really says in artful language is no more housing or business
anywhere near the Charleston Road - Arastradero Road Corridor and that is unacceptable.
The Staff Report in front of you says on page four that the initial set of performance measures
was further refined and discussed at a subsequent smaller meeting of Charleston-Arastradero
stakeholders which included neighborhood association representatives and business people from
City of Palo Alto Page 18
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
45
46
the project area. Point two was not in those discussions. And that is the implication - that it
was. So I hope that you will consider carefully the unintended consequences that may result
from some of these more drastic measures. Thank you.
Chair Griffin: Thank you, Sally. Deborah Ju to be followed by Millicent Hamilton. Welcome,
Deborah.
Ms. Deborah Ju, 371 Whitclem Drive, Palo Alto: Thank you. Good evening everybody. I am
President of the Charleston Meadows Neighborhood Association. I have been invited by Staff to
participate in the by-weekly input meetings for the Charleston Corridor Study along with other
residents from the corridor, developers and Sally Probst representing the League of Women
Voters. We worked with Staff to create the performance measures which are set forth in the
Staff Report.
The Charleston Corridor Study was undertaken because of concern about the unprecedented
level of future growth along a single corridor, which is the busiest school corridor in the City.
There is a potential of more than 970 new housing units from the Hyatt, Elks and Campus for
Jewish Life properties and numerous smaller potential projects. Underlying the study is the
fundamental question of how much more growth the corridor can absorb safely and without
worsening the gfidlock. We look forward to the time when the study will squarely deal with that
issue.
The study needs to address two preexisting conditions. First Charleston and Arastradero are
already totally unsafe for children walking and bicycling to school. I don’t live far from Gunn
and I can tell you none of the kids in my neighborhood ride their bikes or walk to school. They
are all driven. The second point is that vehicular traffic along some parts of the corridor already
experiences gridlock during peak commute hours. You have to sit and wait for the light cycle to
go through three changes before you can get through the Alma intersection at peak times. The
study will recommend various ways to redesign the roadway to make it safer for children to walk
and bicycle to school such as improving bike lanes and adding medians. There will also be
recommendations to narrow the number of lanes and add left turn lanes to improve the flow of
traffic. In order for the study to be successful and to gain public acceptance it is imperative that
travel times not increase along the corridor or at the intersections. If travel time were to increase
it would raise the level of driver frustration which is already very high resulting in more
speeding, more read light running, more cutting off of bicycles and pedestrians and other
reckless behavior. Drivers are already forced to wait in long queues to get through some
intersections on the corridor during peak commute hours. Any increase in critical delay at
intersections would create widespread opposition to the redesign features aimed at increasing
school commute safety. Increased travel time would also worsen the problem of cut-through
traffic on local neighborhood streets. The study cannot achieve safety improvements if traffic
delay is increased because the reckless driving and the cut-through traffic will make the corridor
even more unsafe than it is now. The public will not accept the roadway redesign, when I say
public I don’t necessarily mean people that live along the corridor. I mean people that use the
corridor, they will not accept the roadway redesign and all of the time, effort and money spent on
this study will have been wasted.
City of Palo Alto Page 19
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
The performance standards are an interwoven web. It is critical that they be approved in their
entirety. Any watering down of the standards would undermine the success of the study. Thank
you.
Chair Griffin: Deborah, we may have a question.
Vice-Chair Cassel: The question I have is from a different angle. Several times we have
developed programs and made recommendations with groups and we get to the end and nothing
happens because one group has proposed doing something and then all of sudden people show
up and object to it. Do you have any ideas on how neighbors and people in this region can be
encouraged once this program is established to work with this program and give it a chance?
Ms. Ju: I have actually thought a lot about that because it is going to be very controversial if you
talk about narrowing a road from four lanes to three lanes. I have talked with other leaders of
neighborhood associations down on the corridor and I think that education is important. I think
that education coming through neighborhood associations can be more effective possibly than
coming from the City because it is more approachable for people. I think that if it feels local
people may trust it more. I know that we plan to do very active outreach and education in our
neighborhood and I have talked to other neighborhood leaders who plan to do the same. I think
that one thing that we have talked with Joe and Steve about is I think it is really important to
implement these changes on a six month trial because I think people are more willfng to accept
something if they know that if it really doesn’t work then you are not trapped forever in it. So I
think that education. People right now are desperate for a solution and sometimes you have to
try something. If you don’t try anything you are not going to get anywhere. So that is what I
would advocate is making it a trial so that people aren’t so afraid and then educating people.
People really want to feel safe when their children are commuting to school. So that is what I
would recommend.
Vice-Chair Cassel: Thank you.
Chair Griffin: Our next speaker is Millicent Hamilton and Penny Ellson is the next speaker.
Penny if you could come down front so we can speed up our process here and then followed by
Betsy Allyn. Welcome, Millicent.
Ms. Millicent Hamilton, 4014 Ben Lomond Drive, Palo Alto: Thank you. Good evening. I am
delivering a prepared statement on behalf of the Green Meadow Community Association, which
has been approved by the Green Meadow Board.
The Green Meadow Community has approached growth with a careful eye on its long-term
sustainability. Our primary question consistently has been how much can our infi’astmcture
support. We are glad that the City has chosen to carefully study one of our top concerns traffic
safety impacts on the Charleston-Arastradero School Corridor. Palo Alto has chosen to locate a
critical mass of schools on Charleston-Arastradero Road. Hundreds of kids from around the
Midtown and South Palo Alto come to schools on the corridor by bike, on foot and by car every
day. Add to that thousands of cross town commuters in a hurry to get to work. We have a very
unsafe situation. It is unfommate that a road that is functionally a primary school corridor for the
City also is asked to function as cross-town expressway but that is what we are dealing with.
City of Palo Alto Page 20
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
South Palo Alto bears the burden of both school commute and Research Park traffic. Our
children have to fight rush hour traffic crossing four lanes to get to school every day.
So first and foremost Green Meadow wants Charleston Road designed to be safe for our children
to cross on their commute to school. In response to perceived unsafe conditions on Charleston
residents on both sides of the corridor have begun driving. This has forced more cars onto the
road and ironically made the situation even worse. Reducing the 85th percentile speeds by at
least 20% will go a long way toward making the road feel and actually be safer. One in six
drivers should not be speeding at 39 miles per hour in a school zone as they currently do on some
parts of Charleston Road.
Community designs demand that resources on the super block must be accessible by bicycle and
foot. Aside from being consistent with the Comprehensive Plan policies that require us to
maintain a walkable/bikable community this is necessary because South Palo Alto already is
designed for it to be passable for residents on foot and bicycle to get to the other side to access
services like the library and Mitchell Park. Everyone south of Charleston must cross the corridor
to get to the schools, park, library and community center on the super block, which do not have
adequate parking for people who drive there.
Now I am going to turn it over to Penny who is going to finish the statement.
Chair Griffin: Thank you.
Ms. Penny Ellson, 513 E1 Capitan Place, Palo Alto: Good evening. I will complete Millicent’s
statement for Green Meadow. Improving bicycle and pedestrian volumes and BCI and
pedestrian LOS goals and the performance measures will ensure that cyclists and pedestrians
have the necessary safe passage to prevent bifurcation of our community.
An increase in transit boardings would reduce traffic and provide safe transit passage for our
older kids to get to Gunn High School. Car commuters will not stand for increased commute
times. If this plan is to work we need to make sure that the road is functional for drivers as well
as pedestrians. Long lines of idling cars pollute our air. Increased travel time adds up to more
frustrated commuters some of whom already drive erratically and create unsafe conditions. They
also become more motivated to try alternate routes through residential streets and we all know
what that can mean down the line.
For all of these reasons the measures that address vehicle travel time and vehicle delay at
intersections are especially important. The proposed performance measures look to improving
the capacity of the road for all transportation modes, autos, bikes, pedestrians, shuttle and bus
without increasing travel delays or obstructing traffic perpendicular to the corridor. This is why
bike and pedestrian metrics were included as well as travel times and net intersection delay.
Removing any one of these components from the performance measures would undermine the
success of the plan as a whole. The development of these performance measures is a first step in
making Charleston a safe school corridor. As we consider adding high density housing the
question we must ask is how do we manage this growth sustainably creating an environment
where residents of all ages can safely walk or bike to primary destinations? These performance
measures are a good first step toward making Charleston Road what it must be a safe, pleasant,
multi-modal school corridor especially if this part of Palo Alto is to continue to grow in a healthy
City of Palo Alto Page 21
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
45
46
47
48
stable way for incoming and present residents alike. On behalf of Green Meadow Community
Association I encourage you to approve these performance measures in their entirety. This plan
will only work if it addresses the multi-modal nature of the school corridor. Eliminating any one
of the measures would undermine effectiveness of the plans we hope to generate. Thank you for
that.
I just would like to add as I was reviewing the performance measures with a group of residents
on Sunday a request was made by residents of Green Meadow that in number three under
performance measures they asked if we would consider adding peak and off-peak to number
three. The reason that they gave for that is we see very high speeds between Middlefield and
Alma which is the primary crossing point for Green Meadow kids even during peak hours. We
think what has happening is cars get backed up between E1 Camino and Alma and then they gun
it because they see three lights ahead of them before Middlefield. What we do know from the
previous Charleston study is that the fastest speeds on Charleston Road occur in that small space
just around Nelson Drive and Middlefield Road. So that is something that I hope you will
consider this evening. That’s all, thank you.
Chair Griffin: Thank you, Penny. Our last two speakers are Betsy Allyn followed by Doug
Moran. If there are any other speakers they should fill out a card shortly. Welcome, Betsy.
Ms. Betsy Allyn, 4186 Willmar Drive, Palo Alto: Good evening. I live across from Turman
School in the Green Acres II neighborhood. First I would like to thank Joe Kott and Steve
Emslie and Gayle Likens for their courtesy and their positive support for open discussions with
neighborhood representatives and interested parties along the Charleston-Arastradero Corridor.
An important objective in the study is that there be no increase in travel time along the total
corridor. That the study looked at four major segments of the road separately is important should
one segment deteriorate. No increase in average motor vehicle delay at any Charleston or
Arastradero intersection will allow comparisons for future conditions to current data.
The design of the corridor is extremely important also as it sends a consistent message to drivers
as to what speeds will be acceptable. Other critical performance standards are always bicycle
and pedestrian safety and they will depend upon the above objectives.
I sincerely hope as this study continues that the contiguous and adjacent neighborhoods so
directly affected will not be subjected to accusations of NIMBYism. Nothing could be further
from the math. We will be the receptors of your decisions. The unintended consequences of
unchecked growth and traffic volume abrogate safety and quality of life. There is still time to
save this corridor and to designate it as a school commute corridor. Thank you.
Chair Griffin: Thank you, Betsy. Our next speaker is Doug Moran.
Mr. Doug Moran, 790 Matadero Avenue, Palo Alto: Hello. I live in the Barron Park
neighborhood. This is not a prepared statement but a reaction to what I have heard going on
here. A lot of the people in my neighborhood who have children going to Turman and crossing
the roads have long given up the normal ways of getting to middle school and to high school.
What I hear was looking at these targets was the worry that having goals would create
expectations among residents of South Palo Alto as to what sort of service would be there and
City of Palo Alto Page 22
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
that these expectations would then interfere with things to overload the route. We are trying to
see just exactly how good we can get it. We are trying to maximize the carrying capacity of this
road that has been long neglected. The notion that gee, if we can’t get it good enough then tough
we are going to make it bad again. So we heard from the Chamber that development was
"paramount" to these features, which mainly are safety, but they are usability for the existing
residents. We heard from another person that there should be a requirement that ensures that the
roadway carry the amount needed for all future anticipated development even if that means
hurting safety, impeding residents who are already there, not having service for the existing
people. We are hearing the objections are that future development takes precedence over
existing residents. We need to prioritize that the existing residents get a level of service that they
should expect. We are trying to go with the best we can do, get the most capacity on that street
and I would encourage you to look at those as the primary goals of this program. Thank you.
Chair Griffin: Thank you. Now I do have a last card from Lane Liroff. Welcome, Lane.
Mr. Lane Liroff, Wilkie Way, Palo Alto: Thank you. Nice to see you, it has been some time. I
won’t take my five minutes. I think this is a very forward-looking proposal. I think that we
should commend Planning for doing what they should be doing which is trying to seek ways to
improve our community. I live in South Palo Alto, I think it is apparent by the comments of
everyone today that they have serious problems because of the congestion and also the
congestion that causes safety risks for children. I don’t think that is acceptable and I don’t think
that is something that we should allow to enter into a dialogue of growth versus economic
security versus the lives of our children or the ability of our citizens enjoy levels of service that
every other street in the community has learned the right to expect. I think it is unfortunate that
this has been seen as a stealth measure to create expectations among residents that they have a
right to levels of service. I don’t think that is what it is supposed to do and your Council has
advised you rather that this is a setting of priorities or goals. I guess all things unusual do
happen. I am starting to agree with the representatives from the Chamber of Commerce because
as was said by one, we shouldn’t allow unreasonable restrictions to prevent growth. I agree with
that. I also agree with the comment that said that we should ascertain the carrying capacity of
this roadway. If that could be included in one way or another I think that would commend you.
Then you would know are you considering this to be a growth proposal or something answering
providing relief to a community that is crying for some help. If we are wrong and if Joe Kott is
wrong and the level of service ratings that we have seen are wrong and in fact we can take a ton
more capacity then we should and Ms. Probst could be happy with that. But if we are at the
point of our glass being full then now is the time for the Planning Department to make intelligent
decisions so that we can accommodate this area for the future. If there is going to be some
growth we have to have smart growth. Thank you very much. I appreciate your attention.
Chair Griffin: Thank you to all the speakers. I will now close the public hearing and bring the
discussion back up to Commissioners. I am going to ask would Commissioners be interested in
taking a break at this stage or shall we carry on. It would be helpful I hear so let’s indeed take a
five-minute break.
I am now reconvening the meeting and we are back at the desk here for Commissioners to
discuss and/or ask further questions of Staff. Pat, did you have any further questions that you
would like to ask of Transportation Staff?.
City of Palo Alto Page 23
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
45
46
47
Commissioner Burt: I have a few. What baseline year is used for both the current speeds as well
as what baseline year will be used for the no net increase criteria?
Mr. Kott: We would like to use 2003 as a baseline.
Commissioner Burr: And the data that you would have in measurement number three which
cites current off-peak speeds, what year was used for those numbers?
Mr. Kott: It may be referenced in a footnote and if not I should have. That was referenced in
our annual Traffic Engineering and Speed Surveys. That data I think is actually 2001. So we
need to update that information probably this fall. We are not as good as we should be as far as
updating our speeds data. We describe them as annual but we generally do them on a bi-annual
basis.
Commissioner Burt: Thank you. Then Joe, earlier you referred to the difficulty in establishing
the visual criteria but in the report it references the Florida DOT methodology. Is that an
established methodology?
Mr. Kott: No it is certainly not and I realize I made a typo. God forbid that Florida or any other
DOT ever sets out to establish standards for visual amenity. We really need to look for other
authority to do that I think and I suggested a couple of possibilities.
Commissioner Burt: The anticipated development that is being used for this study, is that the
low, median or high end of the ranges of development that are anticipated for individual sites?
Ms. Grote: On those sites where there are actual proposals made we used the proposal that is in
front of us currently with the exception of the Hyatt Rickey’s site where we did look at an
alternative which was a reduced alternative from what they have currently proposed. On the
sites that we don’t have current proposals but we know that there is some capacity left under the
existing Comp Plan and zoning district we did use a theoretical maximum.
Commissioner Burt: Thank you.
Mr. Emslie: Excuse me. I did want to mention that we did have a request from one
Commissioner that we provide copies of the land use table and those are being made so we will
have those for you momentarily.
Commissioner Burt: Great. There was also I think an offer by Joe Kott to provide the
Commission in the future with the public meeting summaries. I was able to attend a good
portion of one of the meetings but I think that would be very beneficial.
Mr. Kott: Very glad to do that. We have that in Acrobat file format but if any Commissioners
have trouble downloading Acrobat files we can provide that in hardcopy too.
Commissioner Burt: Staff alluded to I think it was the June 9tu Council Meeting. Is that
reflected in Attachment A? Is that the ordinance?
City of Palo Alto Page 24
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Ms. Grote: The June 9tu meeting is when the Council reviewed the land use assumptions. I
believe the land use assumptions were Attachment B and that is what we are having prepared for
you. I believe Attachment A was the map of the corridor.
Mr. Kott: The ordinance was adopted by Council on April 14tu.
Commissioner Burr: Okay so the ordinance that is Attachment A that was adopted April 14th.
Mr. Kott: Yes, Commissioner Burt.
Commissioner Butt: Just one clarifying point under Section E-1 there. I frankly struggled with
some of the wording here in that there are findings and then the sentences didn’t seem to be
necessarily structured as findings or recommendations. The first one under E referred to real and
perceived unsafe conditions on Charleston Road that compromise bicycle safety and I need just a
little clarification. I think it is the perceived unsafe conditions might impact bicycle use but not
bicycle safety. I think we want to address both of those issues because perceptions that unsafe
conditions could retard use just as much as real unsafe but the linkage is I think in that way.
Then the stakeholders group, what stakeholders, not necessarily the individuals but what are the
stakeholder groups that are represented in that?
Mr. Emslie: It is a group of approximately ten to 12 individuals representing residential
neighborhood associations, development interests, the Chamber of Commerce was recently
added to the group, housing activists, the League of Women Voters were represented. Joe, catch
me up if I have omitted anybody.
Mr. Kott: Generically that is the whole list. We wanted to make sure it was a workable group.
That is workable in the sense of size so we can have meaningful discussion and meaningful
conversations but have people at the table that had meaningful stakes in the corridor itself.
Commissioner Burr: Finally.
Commissioner Holman: Pat, could I ask a follow up to that, please?
Commissioner Burt: Sure.
Commissioner Holman: Thank you. I was noticing and kind of curious why there wasn’t some
school representation on this since it is a school corridor.
Mr. Emslie: Yes, they are included in that too. I did omit them from my comments but they are
part of the group, yes.
Commissioner Burt: Maybe as a follow up in information provided to the Commission we could
get a listing of that in the future. Thank you for informing us.
Then there were a couple of impacts that were not stated in the Staff Report and I wanted to
make sure were going to be included somehow in the evaluation. That is what will be the impact
of the additional Cal Train service and the disruption on flow across the tracks as a result of that.
City of Palo Alto Page 25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
45
46
47
48
Then second I think when we last discussed this as a Commission we appreciated that there is
some degree of a trade-off between improved signalization and a more constant flow of traffic
and the impact of that on the ability of residents on the corridorto be able to back out of
driveways especially during peak hour. So I wanted to make sure that was part of the
consideration. Thank you.
Chair Griffin: I am wondering if you are going to be in a position to discuss this question of the
Cal Train and the impacts and even from that standpoint on into grade separations. Although
you have previously told us Joe that grade separations aren’t on the list from the standpoint that
it is not an item in the current Comp Plan and therefore grade separations are not being actively
considered in much of your program, if I understand you correctly. Nevertheless I would be
interested in your comment or your response to Pat’s question about Cal Train.
Mr. Kott: Well just in terms of Cal Train I will go out on a little bit of a limb, and Steve don’t be
too nervous about this one. Over the long haul it may be a requirement for all the communities
on the Cal Train corridor to take another look at grade separations. I will just leave it at that.
We do not have a policy mandate or a policy direction to pursue vehicular grade separations. It
is clear there are some clear trade-offs and certainly some benefits and disadvantages to it.’
In terms of Cal Train, we have had some discussions with them in the past. They know our
views about delays at grade crossings. They have assured us that s we are working on better
signal operation for ourselves they are working on optimizing their detection of train presence
and activation of their gate arm so that they minimize the time the gate arm is activated without
compromising safety. So arguably in many locations the gate arm doesn’t need to be down quite
as long. I think that will have some mitigating effect but clearly we need especially at Alma we
need to consider furore train operations. That is one of the inputs in the signal timing analysis
that is being done now. We don’t have the results of that Commissioner Griffin but my own
view is that that’s not necessarily a deal breaker for our performance measures. We think there
are some ways we can address that problem short of vehicular grade separations. One last note,
bike/ped grade separations are of course part of our Comp Plan mandate.
Commissioner Butt: As a follow up to that, thank you for mentioning the bike/ped separations,
will you be looking at the impact ofbike/ped separations on the incentive to utilize bikes and
peds as a result of increasing a better efficiency for their flow versus vehicular flow?
Mr. Kott: Yes, exactly right. That is why the bike/ped undercrossings and any kind of dedicated
facility for bikes and peds that gives them the advantage is so important to induce more usage. It
effects travel time and safety both.
Commissioner Bellomo: I am not exactly sure how to word this but in respect to new
development along the corridor is there verbiage that was considered as an objective that would
evaluate new development in respect to this performance measure? Not necessarily the effects of
it but the integration of it or is it out of bounds this idea of how this dovetails? In a sense it
seems like it is voided. This is conversation. It is not in the front nmning because the obvious
progress or development is inevitable.
Mr. Kott: Commissioner Bellomo I think for all the design professions the light bulb has really
gone off in a big way about transportation and land use integration. Not in the old fashioned go-
City of Palo Alto Page 26
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
45
46
47
48
1 go 1980s way of we need to accommodate all the vehicles we can and to develop all these
2 shopping centers. But in a way that means that we can have a sustainable community as one of
3 the presenters said tonight. So clearly there will be opportunities as properties get developed and
4 redeveloped for them to take advantage of the corridor plan vision and provision of sidewalks,
5 provision of bike lanes, provision of crosswalks. A lot of.oppommities will be present and they
will all the thought through.
Mr. Emslie: Let me just tag on to Joe’s comments. The Attachment B that was just passed out is
a critical piece of work. In fact it was so critical it was really the first order of business in order
to initiate this study. If that gives you any indication of how seriously Staff is taking the land use
assumptions. A great deal of effort went into preparing these and making them as accurate as
possible and modeling a number of different scenarios to provide you the Commission who will
be recommending to the City Council with a proper comparison at the greatest level of detail so
that you can make the value choices based on the best information that we have and the best
analysis that we would prepare that uses this information to give you the information to make the
proper choices and value judgments based on the assumptions and the performance measures
that we have been discussing. To be very frank it would be irresponsible of us to not provide the
study, the input, that provided the full range of build-out. We need this. it is absolutely essential
to the prediction of transportation impacts far into the future. So I guess my comment is that this
is very much a part of the study. It is integral to it and it is part of what you will be evaluating in
light of the performance measures. So in light of the comments from the Chamber we agree that
these performance measures do need to take into account the assumptions and they already have
been established, they have been approved by the Council and with the adoption of the
performance measures we will be ready to go and bring back data and analysis that will help
assist this Commission in making its judgments about the ultimate configuration of the corridor.
Chair Griffin: Karen did you want to ask any further questions?
Commissioner Holman: Yes. I would like to know if Staff could respond to a question that I
had. Why the 85t~ percentile and additionally why 20% reduction of that by 2010 as that doesn’t
get us to the current speed limit of 25 miles per hour? Especially given that this is a school
corridor and that if there are accidents the survival rate beyond 25 miles reduced significantly.
Then lastly with that would be how does the current condition relateto the Comp Plan EIR and
how would the proposed suggestions or recommendations that you are making comply with the
Comp Plan EIR?
Mr. Kott: In terms of speeds we consider 85t~ percentile speeds as being de facto workable
design speeds for a roadway. So when we observe when we do our speed surveys we observe
the 85t~ percentile. That is pretty much what the road is designed for. There is a not a whole lot
of difference really, a few miles an hour, between the average speed and the 85t~ percentile. Our
view is the 85t~ is more meaningful for design or redesign purposes. In terms of the 25-mile an
hour speed limit as a practical matter if the roadway is designed for 25 miles an hour we will end
up having a roadway that will not meet the other performance measures. I am being very blunt
here, probably more blunt than I ought to be but I will be. We think the traffic diversion effect
will be significant if that happens.
Commissioner Holman: How does that relate then with safety given that it is a school corridor
and then there is the Comp Plan EIR question.
City of Palo Alto Page 27
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Mr. Kott: I think in terms of safety let’s address bicycling. My workable rule of thumb is
heuristic on biking and vehicle speeds is that you have to keep vehicle speeds at the 85±
percentile to under twice bike operating speeds. In other words bike operating speeds rule of
thumb is about 15 miles per hour in urban conditions not downhill in the mountains. You have
to keep 85t~ percentile speeds below 30 to be effective, to create a safe environment for cyclists.
Not only that cyclists need enough space, enough separation from motor vehicles, wide bike
lanes. On Charleston-Arastradero we want continuous bike lanes with 24-hour operation in wide
bike lanes. We need more moderate speeds and you will tend to have somewhat even slightly
more moderate speeds on the curb lane adjacent to the cyclist. We think that will create the kind
of good environment cyclists need. In terms of pedestrians, pedestrians need frequent and safe
crossings that are highly visible, that provide some protection mid-crossing for the reasons we
have discussed in the past with the Commission and they need to have approaching vehicles
approach them more slowly. I think probably a good rule of thumb is approaching vehicles at
the 35tu percentile under 30 miles per hour with mid-crossing refuge, highly visible crossing and
enough pedestrian demand you can create much safer walking conditions. But if vehicle speeds
go up, you don’t have refuges, you don’t have visibility all that is gone so it is an interesting
dynamic. It is not just about vehicle speeds though.
Commissioner Holman: Wyrme is maybe going to comment on the EIR aspect.
Ms. Furth: One of the things that we have to keep in mind is you don’t comply with EIRs. The
Comp Plan EIR was an informational document that the City used in making decisions about
what land use designations and other terms to put in the Comprehensive Plan in 1998. Then it is
our duty to comply with the Comprehensive Plan as adopted not the Comprehensive Plan EIR.
They are separate things. Another way of thinking about your question though is how does that
Environmental Review relate to this Environmental Review. Basically this is a project level
environmental analysis. This is intended to be a purely benign project. If it is a purely benign
project and it has no significant adverse impacts then it will be a negative declaration.
Commissioner Holman: One more question. You are right, I should have not used the term
"comply with the EIR." BCI and DOT why were those methodologies chosen and why B?
Mr. Kott: I in particular like the BCI methodology for a couple of reasons. It is the only one that
I can find that has been validated through actual testing by bicyclists. The validation is bicyclists
at different cycling ability levels review a videotape of different roadway conditions, cycling
conditions on roadways. So it is a transferable validation and it is very fine. One of the main
authors of the BCI, Alex Horton, teaches at Northwestern is someone I respect and admire too
and that is a factor. This Commission did get a briefing on the BCI during our CEQA
discussions with some background material. We will be returning to the Commission when we
come back with CEQA recommendations and we will have further discussion on BCI.
Pardon me, Commissioner Holman, B is very good. We think it is attainable and meaningful.
We would love to A and in some cases we will have A. We are saying the whole corridor, all
four sections, must at least reach B. We would hope that some will be A maybe all but at least
B.
Chair Griffin: Bonnie any further questions?
City of Palo Alto Page 28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
45
46
47
48
Commissioner Packer: Going back to the issue of the land use assumptions that the City Council
approved and the relationship of at least the first two performance standards, the no increase in
the time traveled and the delay at the intersections. By the way, did you mean just signalized
intersections because it doesn’t say so in ourreport?
Mr. Kott: Yes.
Commissioner Packer: We definitely should add that. I am confused how this is going to work
because the baseline for the data is 2003 and these developments haven’t happened yet. Are you
going to look at the baseline to make some assumptions about the impact that the developments
will have on the various intersections and some where EIRs have been done you have that
information. Look at the roadway improvements and see if those roadway improvements can
bring those level of service changes back to where it is a zero change? And if it cannot then
what? Does that mean you say well you can’t do it like the Alma-Charleston intersection even in
the EIR there was a statement of overriding consideration saying we can’t change the lane
configuration to change the level of service problem here. So I am just really confused whether
you can really do this. You can’t ignore these developments and you are starting with 2003,
which is a recession, and so we are starting with a low traffic situation to begin with and then
you are saying no increase. It seems to me what some members of the public said, that you are
saying no to growth. That you are making it impossible for any growth to happen, making it
impossible for us to implement these exciting ZOU things like mixed use and transit oriented
development, making it impossible to have development which raises the transit fee that is next
on the agenda. The question is how can you have one standard for roadway development and a
different standard for developments that are going to happen and accomplish this goal of no
increase?
Mr. Kott: Let me try it this way. This Commission recently considered a big corridor plan for E1
Camino Real. It was very nice work, very, very nice work. I am strongly supportive of it but in
terms of the traffic forecast what was done was let’s say one to two percent per year annual
traffic growth. And let’ not consider what is happening on any cross streets or any regional
development or regional growth so on and so forth. From that narrow standpoint, not the broad
standpoint of the excellence of that plan, from the narrow standpoint it is not a good way to do
traffic forecasting. What we are suggesting is an application of our new citywide traffic forecast
model, which is imbedded into the big regional models at VTA and even NTC. So we are taking
into account traffic patterns and flows through and to and from Palo Alto, all the regional effects.
Further we are traffic modeling, and you have the whole list from Bonnie the Attachment B from
the June 9th CMR. We are modeling several different land use futures if you will or land use
programs. Philosophically the future is unknowable but that is not good enough for us. We have
to have a pretty good idea of what might happen in order to tell you what the traffic might be. So
these models andwe might have to have a workshop on these, they are called four step models or
gravity models for big street and roadway networks. They take into account attractions,
attractions between areas. They take into account travel time between areas and alternate routes
to get from one area to another and they use certain rules or heuristics. One being driver seeks
shortest time path. The computer knows a lot because of all the data that has been input to it
about what those shortest time paths are. We have also input into the computer regional travel
flows and expected growth that is generated by the regional growth that is expected as well as
our own growth. Now the forecast that we are doing will be up to the year 2025 and in five-year
City of Palo Alto Page 29
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
increments beginning with 2005. So we are pretty confident that when you see the results you
will be more comfortable. In terms of whether we can meet the performance measures and not
stifle growth our view and this is [apriori] because we haven’t done the work yet, we haven’t
done the plan yet, our view is yes we can do that. We can meet these performance measures and
create a much safer roadway environment for all travelers. There is a bit of counter-intuition
about all this stuff. We are talking about a region that is growing. We are talking about growth,
which will occur in Palo Alto. Even if we rebound we are going to get more traffic. We just feel
that there are tremendous opportunities to make our roadways operate much, much better than it
has in the past. The proof will have to end up being in the pudding. We do know if we relax the
performance measure on travel time we will have significant, how significant depends on how
much the measure is relaxed, traffic diversion onto nearby residential streets which will cause a
lot of problems including some safety problems where they don’t exist now. We are setting a
hard task for ourselves but we wouldn’t propose these things if we didn’t think they were doable.
We can’t guarantee we will be able to achieve all this. It would be kind of silly if we did. I think
Wynne mentioned this body may be in a position at some point in the future in saying given all
the tweaks that you have done, and we can do a lot of tweaks on all the signals, we can tweak the
locations where we change the cross-section. We may limit the amount of changes in the places
we do the changes. Given all the tweaks we can’t meet all the measures. At some point this
Commission may be in a position of saying we will accept it is close to but quite enough on this
one but you have over-achieved on this one. You might have a balance that works for you.
What we are saying upfront we are going to do our best to attain all these and we think all ten are
attainable.
Chair Griffin: While you ponder that I am wondering if Pat you had a follow up question?
Commissioner Burt: Yes connected with that it goes back to our questions before the public
speakers. I just want to make sure that everyone is clear that what we are going to be voting on
tonight is recommending that Staffgo forward with a study to determine whether they can in fact
reconcile these things. Whether they can achieve these objectives given the projections on
growth. Then we look at the outcome of that study and there will be policy decisions at that time
not at this time.
Chair Griffin: Phyllis.
Vice-Chair Casset: Based on the discussions that we have had up until now that we are going to
be doing all this work with housing and the capacity to include that. Can we include a sixth
objective that indicates, I wrote it here as "include" instead of what the Chamber or Sally did?
Include in the capacity of the corridor a way to provide future residential development and
business vitality. Can we make that a sixth objective because you are going to do that anyway?
Mr. Emslie: It has already been done and it is redundant.
Vice-Chair Cassel: What happens is when you read this and you are a housing type person my
turned red and my hair stood on end because it is not there, it is not evident. So in some way it
needs to be included in this so that people understand that that’s included.
Mr. Emslie: Right. I think what we could do is explain that better. We can explain that this
study is based on land use assumptions and that is what is being plugged in. So we can talk
City of Palo Alto Page 30
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
about that in the preamble to this to make that clear. Not that I think it is inappropriate to be an
objective because it is basically a statement of fact. It is the existing Comp Plan land use
policies that we are required to have for development in this corridor and throughout the City. I
think what we could do is explain it a little bit better so there is some context.
Vice-Chair Cassel: It has to be obvious that that’s considered and I think you will lose a lot of
objections that way.
Chair Griffin: I am going to say in particular when you look at this CMR dated June 9 and you
look at the 20 different projects, page after page of them, and you have to say wow how are we
going to accommodate 20 projects over there and keep this carrying capacity flat. So some
explanation of how we are going to get from here to her would be beneficial. I support Phyllis’s
concern. Do you have more questions?
Commissioner Packer: My question is more a technical one so I can understand about no
increase in the travel time on those four sections. Does it include just the time between the
intersections or also going over the intersections that divide the four sections?
Mr. Kott: They would include intersections. The idea we have is that we would just simply send
out a probe vehicle peak and off-peak and record progression times over each one of those
sections. In each one of those sections are intermediate signals. Remember it is not only each
one of the sections but all of them have to meet. So all the intersections have to behave very
well in order for you to meet your travel time objective as you progress through in your vehicle.
Commissioner Packer: The objective isn’t clear that you are also going to measure the total time
from San Antonio to Foothill as well.
Mr. Kott: You are right Commissioner Packer. It is certainly implied because we are saying all
four sections. We ought to say through trips too not just intermediate trips. We are trying to
reassure people if they take intermediate trips for a portion of the corridor that they won’t be
delayed.
Commissioner Packer: Yes, because some of the sections are very short. I tried to be a probe
today to see and then I got stuck in Turman traffic. That is another story.
One other question. If there are going to be more transit boardings will that also effect the travel
time in a negative way just because you would have more of these slower vehicles that are
stopping? On E1 Camino you have the issue with the buses and there is no room for these curb
things that go in so I don’t know how that would interrelate. We want to encourage more transit
but if it is going to slow the traffic that may be something think is okay because it is better to
have the transit.
Mr. Kott: As you know, Commissioner Packer, one of the counter measures on that is a so-
called bus duck-outs where you have room to provide a space for the bus to layover briefly. One
saving grace on our shuttle service is we don’t have any time loss transacting fares because it is
free.
City of Palo Alto Page 31
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Chair Griffin: I am going to have Joe ask a small question and then I am going to be looking for
a motion here. Joe.
Commissioner Bellomo: With the assumptions of land use, the developments coming up, and
with your performance measures did you struggle with words "no increase?" Did you look at
"minimal?" Or did it feel like that was a community goal issue? Do you feel wholeheartedly in
that word, no, or did. you vacillate on that?
Mr. Kott: I am typically not all that rigid. I am not rigid in the way I think unusually and I think
that, and I am just speaking for myself here so please accept it like that, if on some of these
measures the performance is close then that ought to be considered particularly if the plan
overachieves on others that may be very important.
Commissioner Bellomo: Thanks.
Chair Griffin: Karen.
MOTION
Commissioner Holman: I would like to make a motion. That motion would be for the Planning
and Transportation Commission to endorse the objectives and performance measures as put forth
in the Staff Report with one change. That is on number three to add, "peak to off-peak" 85th
percentile speeds.
Chair Griffin: Sorry, that was on the objective or on the measurement?
Mr. Kott: I hope this is not out of order Chair Griffin. May I make one comment on
Commissioner Holman’s suggestion?
Chair Griffin: Please.
Mr. Kott: We are very glad to do that and we have had the conversation with Penny Ellson who
was very keen on this point. We would like to add the caveat though in some sections really they
are so congested, I am thinking about the approach to Cal Train in the morning eastbound on
Charleston near Alma, that it is somewhat meaningless to measure speeds there. But we would
be measuring speeds in open sections and in reverse directions.
Commissioner Holman: Yes. I think the assumption in my motion would be where it is
applicable and where it is reasonable you would apply it and where not you wouldn’t.
SECOND
Commissioner Butt: I’ll second that.
Chair Griffin: Would you like to speak in support of your motion?
Vice-Chair Cassel: Can I have a clarification on the wording change and where it is exactly?
City of Palo Alto Page 32
1 Commissioner Holman: Yes. Under performance measures, number three, where it says reduce
2 off-peak 85t~ percentile it would read, "reduce peak and off-peak 85± percentile." As Mr. Kott
3 spoke in places where that would be reasonable to do then you would study that and then places
4 where it isn’t because the traffic congestion is high enough then you would not study that.
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Ms. Furth: If you would be willing to say reduce off-peak and selected peak 85t~ percentile
speeds then we will be able to implement your direction.
Commissioner Holman: Selected I presume would be the same thing essentially as appropriate?
Ms. Furth: Just a shorter version.
Commissioner Holman: Sure I can accept that.
Chair Griffin: Would you like to speak any more on your motion?
Commissioner Holman: I think there has been probably pretty good public discussion and
Commission discussion of the reasons for doing this and how it will and will not impede future
development and how it will and hopefully will improve safety along the corridor. So I think
that is enough said.
Chair Griffin: Pat.
Commissioner Burt: I will just say that I am interested in seeing the Transportation Stafftake on
this challenge of achieving these objectives and I think it will tax your ingenuity and creativity
and I am hopeful that you will be successful in being able to bring back a plan that will achieve a
variety of objectives simultaneously.
Chair Griffin: Joe.
Commissioner Bellomo: I just want to publicly say to Staff of course and Joe Kott in particular
the articulate way that you describe these measures with the community goals in mind and the
balancing of development of course is looked at. I want to say that it is a real educational
experience. Thank you.
Chair Griffin: Bonnie.
AMENDMENT
Commissioner Packer: I would like to propose an amended motion, I don’t know if it is friendly
or not. I would like to propose is some changes in the wording in the performance measure both
one and two. Rather than saying no increase in those things to say to minimize increases in peak
and off-peak motor vehicle travel time, etc. And minimize increase in the average motor vehicle
delay and critical movement vehicle delay. That is one. I have various amendments but should
we do just that one? Would accept that?
Commissioner Holman: If you want to do them one at a time. Actually I wouldn’t accept that
because it is very hard to define "minimize" for one and the other is these are thresholds and it is
City of Palo Alto Page 33
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
45
46
47
48
a study so I don’t think it is really necessary based on Staff’s explanation during the course of
our discussion.
Commissioner Packer: I would like to make a substitute motion.
Chair Griffin: Go ahead.
SUBSTITUTE MOTION
Commissioner Packer: My substitute motion that we endorse objectives and performance
standards for the specific roadway improvements that would come out of the Charleston-
Arastradero Road Corridor Plan with a very clear explanation that these performance standards
are not CEQA thresholds for the purposes of development and that that be clearly expressed in a
preamble. That we add objective six that was presented by the Chamber of Commerce, which
reads that we evaluate the capacity of the roadway to accommodate future residential
development and business vitality as, adopted in the Comprehensive Plan. That we change the
wording in the performance standards one and two to say rather than no increase say minimize
increases. And to clarify in item two that it is for signalized intersections only and only for
intersections that today are operating at LOS D or worse.
That is my substitute motion.
Chair Griffin: Are there any seconds to that? I am not hearing any seconds to that substitute
motion so we return back to the main motion. We had had three of us speak to it. Do you have
any further discussion on the main motion?
Commissioner Packer: Well, I cannot support the main motion for the reasons that it doesn’t
contain what I had proposed in my substitute motion. That is with a great deal of reluctance
because I do believe that it is appropriate to have good performance standards for Charleston-
Arastradero. I just think some of these are a little bit too draconian and would be misinterpreted
in the future for other purposes. If there was a little bit more flexibility in the way they were
stated then I could approve this but without that I feel that we are setting a tone that really
disturbs me about future development in the City.
Chair Griffin: Phyllis.
Vice-Chair Cassel: I am going to support it basically based on what Pat has commented on.
First I want to indicate that we have had at least three studies with this same basic group of
neighbors working on these issues. Some few little items passed and some didn’t thus my
concems if something comes to fruition that we really can do how are we going to really make it
happen. I am also concerned about the items that Bonnie mentioned but I am satisfied that the
Staff will reword some of their future work to include some of those concerns. I was absolutely
floored when the critical turn movement for the Opportunity Center we had four additional
traffic vehicles in that critical hour and it changed the significant thresholds on that intersection.
So that makes me very apprehensive. But I think since this is a study I am willing to go along
with it and see where you are going and proceed with that. I presume that you will be adding
into your Staff Report in a predominant way the comments concerning the fact that this will in
fact be including in its study the development that is going to go on. No one wants huge
City of Palo Alto Page 34
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
development in town but some modest amounts of development I think are to be expected.
Some cannot be stopped. And we don’t want to have our property owners held totally to a
standard which we can’t even control because people outside the community can’t do that, just
dump extra traffic on us.
I commend for trying this and to work it out. I have sat in on some of the studies that deal with
the capacity of moving traffic straight through. Indeed we can move a great deal of traffic
through according to those models and studies with three lane roads and turn lanes and things of
this sort. So I have great hopes that we can do a great deal of what we want to do here and we
will have a much-improved road to work with.
Chair Griffin: I will be supporting the motion. I will say that I have great empathy for those
folks that have signaled a concern in regard to Cal Train and the impacts on the future volumes
that we are going to see on Charleston. I am not sure where to go with that except just to waive
the red flag again that I think we need to really be watching that and dial that into our
calculations as best we can. Saying that we will vote on this item.
Commissioner Burt: Are we voting on Bonnie’s motion?
Chair Griffin: No, we are voting on the main motion.
Commissioner Burt: Excuse me, I misunderstood then.
MOTION PASSED (5-1-0-1; Commissioner Packer voted no and Commissioner Bialson was
absent.)
Chair Griffin: So can we now vote on the main motion? All those in favor. (ayes) Opposed?
The motion carries with the exception of Commissioner Packer and with Commissioner Bialson
absent. We are about to be finished with this item although Karen you wanted to make a
comment.
Commissioner Holman: I wanted, and maybe there is other Commission support for this, to
suggest that when this goes to Council in September that there be included in the report to them a
discussion of LOS and traffic volumes and that the comments and discussion fi’om the public
meetings be included in the Staff Report to Council as well.
Chair Griffin: Pat.
Commissioner Burt: Just an additional thought on that subject. As there was a struggle that
Commissioner Packer and I think others were having about whether the absolute of no impact
was too severe the thought occurred to me whether a threshold that is near none might be no
degradation in LOS. So I just wanted to suggest that for future consideration by Staff and the
Commission as way that we might in the future have a definition of something that is near no
impact.
Chair Griffin: I think that takes care of agenda item one.
City of Palo Alto Page 35 ,