HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 6622
City of Palo Alto (ID # 6622)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 6/20/2016
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Midtown Connector Feasibility Study
Title: Midtown Connector Feasibility Study and Direction Regarding Potential
Bicycle and/or Pedestrian Paths Along Matadero Creek or Parallel Routes
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Council:
Adopt the Midtown Connector Feasibility Study; and
Direct staff to complete plans, specifications, and estimates (PS&E), for a shared-use
path along the Matadero Creek channel and through Seale Park between the planned
Ross Road Bicycle Boulevard and the US 101 creek undercrossing; and
Direct staff to work with the Santa Clara Valley Water District to provide seasonal access
for bicyclists and pedestrians through the US 101 creek undercrossing, and
Direct staff to complete an alternatives analysis, Project Study Report (PSR), and
environmental analysis for an Alma Street/Caltrain overcrossing/undercrossing at a
location somewhere between Colorado Avenue and Loma Verde Avenue.
Note: On May 25, 2016, the Planning and Transportation Commission recommended proceeding
with a hybrid shared-use and pedestrian path along Matadero Creek from US 101 to Alma
Street. Staff’s recommendation recognizes constraints west of Ross Road identified in the
Midtown Connector Feasibility Study, as well as input from the Midtown Connector Citizens
Advisory Committee and the Pedestrian and Bicycle Advisory Committee (PABAC).
Executive Summary
On November 9, 2015 City staff presented a preliminary constructability review to City Council
that identified unanticipated project constraints. Council directed staff to “analyze the
feasibility of a hybrid design that would incorporate portions of Matadero Creek and other on-
street facilities (where needed) to create a connection from the Caltrain tracks to US 101.” City
Council also directed staff to “identify the most practical alternative on a collector street
between Alma Street and West Bayshore Road.”
City of Palo Alto Page 2
On May 25, 2016, Staff presented the following options to the Planning and Transportation
Commission for review and recommendation:
Table 1: Options Presented to the Planning and Transportation Commission
Alignment
Option Evaluation Constraints Cost
Matadero Creek
Shared-Use Path
(some on-creek
and some on-
street sections)
Most costly
and
constrain-
ed option
On-street alignment required on El Carmelo
Avenue (parking removal required).
Right-of-way and parking lot reconfiguration
required at First Christian Church and Winter
Lodge properties (parking removal required).
On-street alignment required on Louis Road
and Maddux Drive to utilize existing path
through Seale Park.
Seasonal access only between Greer and
West Bayshore.
Railing required at locations where floodwall
is less than 42” high.
$4.8 M
Matadero Creek
Pedestrian-Only
Path
Feasible
with
minimal
constraints
Seasonal access only between Greer and
West Bayshore.
Railing required at locations where floodwall
is less than 42” high.
Would require over twice the amount
provided in Santa Clara County grant.
$3.3 M
Matadero Creek
Hybrid Option
(shared-use path
where possible)
Costly and
constrain-
ed option
Similar constraints to Matadero Creek
pedestrian-only path listed above.
$3.3-
$4.8 M
Loma Verde Ave
Class IV
(protected)
Bikeway
Feasible
Reduction in parking between Alma Street
and Bryant Street and between Louis Road
and West Bayshore Road.
Requires concurrence from Santa Clara
County regarding grant funding.
$1.9 M
No Project N/A This option would require returning $1.5 million
in Santa Clara County grant funds. $-1.5 M
Source: Midtown Connector Feasibility Study
Staff’s recommendation is to implement a segment of the shared use path option along
Matadero Creek, and address the two major across barrier connections for east-west travel: US
101 and the Alma Street/Caltrain corridor. Shared-use paths, pedestrian paths and bikeways
along additional segments of Matadero Creek and Loma Verde Avenue would not be advanced.
City of Palo Alto Page 3
Background
In November 2012, the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors unanimously approved $10.0
million in grants to fund pedestrian and bike path improvements proposed by Stanford
University and the City of Palo Alto. The $10.0 million included $1.5 million for a proposed
shared-use path along the levees of the Matadero Creek.
The grant application (http://bit.ly/1BroN5e) proposed the shared-use alignment along the
Matadero Creek channel levees and estimated a total project cost of $2.0 million. This project is
also identified in the Santa Clara County Trails Master Plan (http://bit.ly/11oO6oA), which was
last updated in 1995.
The feasibility study phase for the Midtown Connector Project was funded at $383,645 in the
City’s FY15 Capital Improvement Plan budget through CIP PL-14001 Midtown Connector
Project. Through a public procurement process, the City retained Alta Planning + Design to lead
a consultant team to prepare the study.
Initial efforts provided a high-level evaluation of five alternative alignments for a Midtown
Connector between Alma Street and US 101, including a Matadero Creek Trail concept,
Colorado Avenue, Loma Verde Avenue, California Avenue, and East Meadow Drive. Based on
the conditions established by the County Board of Supervisors, successful completion of the
Feasibility Study and concurrence by the Santa Clara Valley Water District is required prior to
beginning the next steps of environmental review, more detailed preliminary plans, permitting,
plans, specifications, and estimates (PS&E), bidding, and construction. If a different alignment is
selected as the locally-preferred alternative, City staff would need to consult with the County
staff to determine whether this alternative meets the requirements of the original grant award.
Significant deviations from the original creek channel alignment may require the revised project
to compete in a new competitive grant process established by the County Board of Supervisors.
Staff met with community members at resident association meetings in 2013 and at public
meetings on June 26, 2014 and April 14, 2015. Additional public comments were gathered
using an online map developed for the bicycle boulevards and enhanced bikeways program.
Comments made within the Midtown neighborhood were pulled out and analyzed separately
to help with the initial alternatives development and planning. A project-specific Citizen
Advisory Committee (CAC) was appointed in early 2015 for the purpose of increasing
community participation in the planning process to help define overall project objectives,
identify alignment alternatives, and to consider the criteria for evaluating alternatives. Eleven
members of the public, one Pedestrian and Bicycle Advisory Committee (PABAC) member, and
one Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) member comprise the CAC. Two CAC
meetings were held on February 26, 2015 and September 8, 2015. In addition, staff met one-
on-one with interested CAC members.
On November 9, 2015, after receiving recommendations from the CAC and Staff, Council
directed staff to “analyze the feasibility of a hybrid design that would incorporate portions of
City of Palo Alto Page 4
Matadero Creek and other on-street facilities where necessary to create a connection from the
Caltrain tracks to US 101.” City Council also directed staff to “identify the most practical
alternative on a collector street between Alma Street and West Bayshore Road.”
On May 17, 2016 the CAC met to hear a follow up presentation on the Midtown Connector
Feasibility Study, which included more details regarding the hybrid alternative and other on-
street alternatives as directed by Council. Many CAC members were not supportive of any of
the alternatives (see Attachment B for Feedback Summary). Members were generally
supportive of a shared-use path in concept, but did not feel that the alignments proposed were
worth the significant challenges and cost to implementation.
On May 25, 2016, the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) reviewed the Midtown
Connector Feasibility Study and the five alternatives. The PTC discussed the alternatives and
noted that the Loma Verde Avenue Class IV separated bikeway would provide only a marginal
benefit considering the cost. The PTC was not enthusiastic about any of the alternatives,
however it did not believe that “no project” was appropriate, given the grant funding
opportunity, and recommended that Council direct staff to pursue the hybrid alternative along
Matadero Creek, which would include a shared-use path where feasible, and a pedestrian-only
path where a shared-used path is infeasible.
Discussion
Midtown Connector Feasibility Study
Staff evaluated opportunities and constraints for installing a shared-use path along Matadero
Creek and on adjacent on-street facilities (where needed) between Alma Street/Caltrain
corridor and West Bayshore Road/US 101. The 1.5-mile-long creek corridor was broken up into
six segments for analysis:
Segment A – Alma Street to Waverley Street
Segment B – Waverley Street to Middlefield Road
Segment C – Middlefield Road to Ross Road
Segment D – Ross Road to Louis Road
Segment E – Louis Road to Greer Road
Segment F – Greer Road to West Bayshore Road/US 101
A strict technical feasibility analysis was performed on each segment of the creek using
minimum available width and property ownership to determine feasibility.
Additional considerations such as safety and security, mid-block crossings, utilities and public
input were also assessed and documented. The creek-side option was evaluated for use as a
shared-use path (i.e., a path that can safely accommodate both bicyclists and pedestrians) and
a pedestrian-only path that would restrict bicycle use. Where a creek-side option was
infeasible, on-street alignments were identified. These considerations are described below.
City of Palo Alto Page 5
For more information, see Attachment A - Midtown Connector Feasibility Study
a. Minimum Available Width
Shared-Use Path. For the purposes of this study, segments along Matadero Creek that provided
a minimum 12 feet of continuous clear width in accordance with design guidance provided in
the City of Palo Alto Bicycle + Pedestrian Transportation Plan (BPTP) were deemed feasible for
consideration as a shared-use path. Note: Minimum width was evaluated by existing physical
constraints regardless of property ownership, which was evaluated separately. In addition,
while 12 feet of clearance is the standard set in the BPTP, a narrower shared-use path is
feasible and other examples of narrower shared-use paths exist within the City.
The following segments successfully met the minimum standards for available width for a
shared-use path:
Segment B – Waverley Street to Middlefield Road
Segment C – Middlefield Road to Ross Road
Segment D – Ross Road to Louis Road
Segment F – Greer Road to West Bayshore Road/US 101
The following segments did NOT meet the minimum standards for available width for a shared-
use path:
Segment A – Alma Street to Waverley Street
Segment E – Louis Road to Greer Road
Segment A and E were further evaluated for on-street alignments (see below).
Pedestrian-Only Path. For the purposes of this study, segments along Matadero Creek that
provided a minimum six feet of continuous clear width in accordance with design guidance
provided in the BPTP were deemed feasible for consideration as a pedestrian-only path. Short
constrained sections (no longer than 250 feet) that were less than six feet wide, but greater
than five feet wide were deemed feasible in accordance with the Santa Clara Valley
Transportation Authority (VTA) Pedestrian Technical Guidelines and the Palo Alto sidewalk
standard. Note: Minimum width was evaluated by existing physical constraints regardless of
property ownership, which was evaluated separately.
The following segments successfully met the minimum standards for available width for a
pedestrian-only path:
Segment B – Waverley Street to Middlefield Road. No width constraint for a pedestrian
path.
Segment C – Middlefield Road to Ross Road. No width constraint for a pedestrian path.
Segment D – Ross Road to Louis Road. No width constraint for a pedestrian path.
City of Palo Alto Page 6
Segment E – Louis Road to Greer Road. Segment E contains a short constrained section
less than 6 feet, but greater than 5 feet near Louis Road.
Segment F – Greer Road to West Bayshore Road/US 101. No width constraint for a
pedestrian path.
The following segments did NOT meet the minimum standards for available width for a
pedestrian-only path:
Segment A - Alma Street to Waverley Street. At Waverly Street, the presence of two
private residences adjacent to the path provides no opportunity for any path alignment.
Alignment A was further evaluated for on-street alignments (see below).
b. Property Ownership
The Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) owns and maintains the Matadero Creek
channel to provide flood protection for area residents. The creek is channelized between Alma
Street and Greer Road with service roads and floodwalls along most the segments. The creek
and service roads are fenced off and include locked gates at cross streets. For much of the
corridor, a 12-foot-wide access road is available on one side of the creek. The SCVWD also
conducts periodic (every three to five years) maintenance activities such as excavation and
trash clearing that might require temporary path closures. The City would need to enter into a
Joint Use Agreement with the SCVWD in order to move forward with the shared-use path or
pedestrian-only path within the creek channel. The agreement spells out the specific
maintenance and legal responsibilities for the City and the SCVWD. The City is currently a party
to a Joint Use Agreement with the SCVWD for the Wilkie Way Bridge.
For the purposes of this study, segments along Matadero Creek that are owned by the City or
the SCVWD were deemed feasible for consideration as a shared-use or pedestrian-only path.
Segments that were owned by a public entity, but had property rights encumbered by
easements or other long-term lease agreements were deemed feasible with constraint.
Segments that were completely within private control were deemed infeasible.
The following segments successfully met the minimum standards for property ownership for a
shared-use path or pedestrian-only path:
Segment B – Waverley Street to Middlefield Road. This segment would require
negotiation with First Christian Church (2890 Middlefield Road), which holds an
easement along Matadero Creek with SCVWD. First Christian Church uses the eased
property for garbage access, ADA accessible loading, angled parking, and
storage/maintenance space for the Keys School located on its property. The shared-use
path option would require this right-of-way, however a pedestrian-only path option
could utilize the existing walkway through Hoover Park, between Southfield Apartments
and First Christian Church (7 feet wide) and along the existing sidewalk adjacent to
Middlefield Road.
City of Palo Alto Page 7
Segment C – Middlefield Road to Ross Road. This segment would require negotiation
with Winter Lodge (3009 Middlefield Road), which holds a long-term lease with the City
of Palo Alto. Winter Lodge uses the property along Matadero Creek for angled parking.
The shared-use path option would require a reconfiguration of part of the parking lot
(angled parking would become parallel parking for one drive aisle) and the removal of
approximately 6-8 parking spaces. The Pedestrian-Only option would not require any
loss of parking.
Segment D – Ross Road to Louis Road. This segment has no constraints related to
ownership.
Segment E – Louis Road to Greer Road. This segment has no constraints related to
ownership.
Segment F – Greer Road to West Bayshore Road/US 101. This segment has no
constraints related to ownership.
The following segments did NOT meet the minimum standards for property ownership for a
shared-use path or pedestrian-only path:
Segment A – Alma to Waverley. Two private residential properties are located adjacent
to Matadero Creek (opposite sides of the creek) at Waverley Street. There is no Water
District maintenance road for these two properties. Property maps were consulted and
neither property encroaches on Water District owned land.
c. Additional Considerations
Safety, Security & Privacy. In all segments except Segment F (Greer to West Bayshore) a
floodwall separates the potential path from the channelized concrete creek below. This
floodwall averages approximately 30 inches, but ranges in height from as low as 6 inches to as
high as 52 inches. Caltrans and VTA guidelines set a minimum height of 42 inches for a railing to
protect path users from drop-offs.1 Providing a separate fence or installing railing to raise the
height of the floodwall to 42 inches would need to be negotiated with the Santa Clara Valley
Water District in a Joint Use Agreement. The Water District has indicated willingness to permit a
fence be erected alongside the floodwall if installed in posts that would allow the fence to be
removed for maintenance operations.
Members of the Citizens Advisory Committee expressed specific concerns about crime,
including crime along the path and property crime at homes along the path. A safety and
security analysis was conducted that included a literature review, an analysis of crime reports
from Matadero Creek and existing paths in the Bay Area, and a review of Crime Prevention
1 Caltrans Highway Design Manual, 6th Edition (2015), Chapter 200, Topic 208, p. 200-40 and VTA Bicycle Technical
Guidelines (2012), Chapter 9, p. 9-12.
City of Palo Alto Page 8
through Environmental Design (CPTED) principles. The literature review indicated that,
nationally, paths have not been shown to increase criminal activity.
An examination of five existing Bay Area paths identified a total of 22 crimes over a six month
period for 40 miles of trails. In the same period, Matadero Creek experienced a single criminal
incident.
The vast majority of properties that abut the creek maintain privacy through the installation of
six-foot-high wood fencing. The City could consider installation of different styles of fencing or
higher fences for property owners that request additional privacy.
Mid-Block Crossings. Users on a shared-use path or pedestrian-only path would need to cross
Waverley Street, Cowper Street, Middlefield Road, Ross Road, Louis Road and Greer Road at
uncontrolled, mid-block locations. For low-volume residential street crossings, potential
crossing safety improvements may include:
Advance warning signs for drivers
Rectangular rapid flashing beacons (RRFBs)
Curb extensions
Raised and/or marked crosswalks
Further analysis and design would be required to identify how many of these treatments would
be appropriate at each crossing.
For higher volume crossings (e.g., Middlefield Road), a more robust approach would be
appropriate. This may include installation of a pedestrian hybrid beacon (HAWK), which acts as
a stop light when activated by path users, a median refuge island and raised crosswalk to calm
traffic. A new traffic signal may also be warranted, pending further analysis.
Utilities. Based on utility map research, surveying and field investigations, the Matadero Creek
Trail alignment would cross perpendicular utilities at street crossings. There are existing
underground water, gas and sanitary sewer crossings perpendicular to the creek. Other than
adjustments of valves and manholes to grade, no utility relocations are anticipated at street
crossings.
Overhead electric and communication utility lines cross the creek at Alma Street, Waverley
Street, Cowper Street, Ross Road, Louis Road and Greer Road. Impacts or relocation of
overhead utilities are not anticipated for the Matadero Creek corridor.
There is an existing 60kV electric line in a six-inch steel casing running longitudinally along the
creek north maintenance access road. The electric line is owned by the City and relocation is
not anticipated.
City of Palo Alto Page 9
Public Input. For the current phase of the Midtown Connector Feasibility Study, Staff hosted a
tactical urbanism event called “Greenway for a Day along Matadero Creek.” The event was held
on Saturday, April 23, 2016 and included display boards with information about shared-use
path feasibility, the opportunity to walk one segment of the creek (from Cowper Street to
Waverley Street), and an opportunity to provide comments on the trail. Over 200 individuals
participated in this event and Staff received 112 comment cards.
Comments received included:
General expressions of support: 58
Conditional Support: 26
o Increase privacy: 3
o Connect to Baylands: 9
o Do not add lighting: 4
o Connect across Alma Street: 8
o Improve safety conditions: 2
o Enhance midblock crossings: 4
General expressions against the proposed trail: 22
o Effect on wildlife: 2
o Aesthetics: 2
o Vagrancy: 3
o Privacy: 5
o Project cost: 10
o Lack of feasible connections: 2
o Safety: 9
o Other: 6
Also, six people showed support for a midblock crosswalk on Middlefield Road, regardless of
the trail project. Many comment cards included multiple reasons, so the number of comments
is greater than the total number of comment cards.
On-Street Alternative Analysis
Following the Council’s direction, staff also evaluated the feasibility of an on-street alternative.
To be consistent with the intent of this study, the on-street option focused on the development
of a Class IV separated bikeway, which provides greater separation for potential users than on-
street bicycle lanes.
Two potential routes were evaluated adjacent to the creek: Loma Verde Avenue and Colorado
Avenue. A Class IV separated bikeway along East Meadow Drive is being planned as a separate
project. Of the two options, only Loma Verde Avenue was carried forward. Colorado Avenue
has insufficient width (36 feet) to accommodate a Class IV separated bikeway without removing
all available on-street parking.
City of Palo Alto Page 10
Along Loma Verde Avenue the Class IV separated bikeway would be a two-way facility on the
south side of the street. The bikeway would require removing parking on one side of the street
from Alma Street to Bryant Street and from Louis Road to West Bayshore Road. From Bryant
Street to West Bayshore Road, night-time parking on the south side of the street would no
longer be permitted.
Two-way separated bikeways on two-way streets with a large amount of driveways can be
dangerous for bicyclists travelling in the opposite direction of adjacent traffic. Best practices in
bikeway design would support a one-way separated bikeway on each side of Loma Verde
Avenue. However, given the street width, removal of all on-street parking or elimination of one
travel lane would be required. Elimination of a travel lane could only be accomplished by
converting Loma Verde Avenue into a one-way street.
A parking occupancy study was conducted to determine the impacts of on-street parking
removal. Considering weekday, evening and weekend parking, all segments would remain
below 80-percent utilization, except for the segment between Greer Road and West Bayshore
Road, where four new parking spaces would be required. Without these new spaces, these
motorists would need to park on side streets or up to one block away from their current
parking space.
Alma Street/Caltrain and US 101 Crossings Assessment
While the extents for this project were Alma Street and West Bayshore Road, crossings of both
Alma Street/Caltrain and West Bayshore Road/US 101 were considered as part of this study.
Specific crossing opportunities included:
Providing connections to existing overcrossings/undercrossings using the planned
bicycle boulevard network,
Developing a new undercrossing of Alma Street/Caltrain using available public property,
and
Enhancing the existing creek undercrossing of US 101 to provide a seasonal
undercrossing.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends that, given the complexities and significant barriers to moving forward with
the hybrid creek alignment detailed in the Midtown Connector Feasibility Study (Attachment A),
that the most effective course of action is to move forward with a shared-use path along the
Matadero Creek channel between Ross Road and Louis Road, and through a portion of Seale
Park in a short segment where an on-creek shared-use path is infeasible. This would complete a
connection that is primarily on-creek with minimal constraints and is located between the
planned Ross Road Bicycle Boulevard and the US 101 creek undercrossing. This segment has the
fewest technical constraints and a conservative cost estimate of $1.7 million, which is a little
City of Palo Alto Page 11
higher than the grant allocation of $1.5 million. The cost could be significantly reduced by
selecting less aggressive roadway crossing treatments along the route.
While this is not the continuous creek channel shared-use path that was initially envisioned, the
recommended alternative provides important bicycle and pedestrian access to the Middlefield
Road commercial area, intersects with Seale Park, and improves access to existing multi-family
housing along the US 101 corridor. It also links existing and planned bicycle facilities and leaves
open the long-term possibility of completing the grander corridor vision if current constraints
change. In addition, as this segment would be a continuous shared-use path, it aligns closely
with the criteria for the county grant allocation.
Staff also recommends working with the Santa Clara Valley Water District to provide seasonal
access for bicyclists and pedestrians through the US 101 creek undercrossing. The draft VTA
county sales tax measure project list includes a US 101 creek overcrossing /undercrossing. The
estimated cost of this project is $1.5 million for a seasonal undercrossing, and $7.0 million for a
year-round crossing.
Finally, staff recommends moving forward with an Alma Street/Caltrain
overcrossing/undercrossing at a location somewhere between Colorado Avenue and Loma
Verde Avenue. This $13.0 million project is an Across Barrier Connection (ABC) identified in the
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Bicycle Expenditure Plan and also appears in the
draft list of bicycle and pedestrian projects that may be eligible for future county sales tax
funding. The three standalone projects recommended by Staff will further the City’s mobility
goals and connect planned bicycle boulevards and enhanced bikeways identified in the Bicycle +
Pedestrian Transportation Plan.
The above course of action will likely enable the City to retain the county grant allocation and
move forward with the most feasible segments of the Midtown Connector project, while
avoiding the segments that caused the greatest concern from neighborhood residents and
member of the Midtown Connector Citizens Advisory Committee.
Policy Implications:
The Bicycle + Pedestrian Transportation Plan identifies and prioritizes the development of a
trail along Matadero Creek. The plan objectives that are advanced by the development of a
recreational facility through Midtown include:
Objective 1: Double the rate of bicycling for both local and total work commutes by
2020 (to 15% and 5%, respectively).
Objective 2: Convert discretionary vehicle trips into walking and bicycling trips in order
to reduce City transportation-related greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions 15% by 2020.
Objective 3: Develop a core network of shared paths, bikeways, and traffic-calmed
streets that connects business and residential districts, schools, parks, and open spaces
to promote healthy, active living.
Objective 4: Plan, construct, and maintain ‘Complete Streets’ that are safe and
accessible to all modes and people of all ages and abilities.
City of Palo Alto Page 12
Objective 5: Promote efficient, sustainable, and creative use of limited public resources
through integrated design and planning.
In addition, the Comprehensive Plan goals, policies, and programs that support the
development of the Park Boulevard and Wilkie Way Bicycle Boulevard projects include:
Goal T-1: Less Reliance on Single-Occupant Vehicles
Goal T-3: Facilities, Services, and Programs the Encourage and Promote Walking and
Bicycling
Program T-19: Develop, periodically update, and implement a bicycle facilities improvement
program and a pedestrian facilities improvement program that identify and prioritize critical
pedestrian and bicycle links to parks, schools, retail centers, and civic facilities.
Policy T-25: When constructing or modifying roadways, plan for usage of the roadway space
by all users, including motor vehicles, transit vehicles, bicyclists, and pedestrians.
Resource Impact
Palo Alto has been allocated $1.5 million in grant funds from Santa Clara County to complete a
recreational trail along the Matadero Creek channel. The City would need to work with the
County to determine which of the proposed options (shared-use path, pedestrian-only path,
hybrid, or Loma Verde Avenue separated bikeway) would meet the terms of the grant
allocation. None of the options could be fully funded from grant resources. Both the shared-
use path and pedestrian-only path would require significant additional resources from the City
to complete design and construction. The proposed $13.0-million Alma Street/Caltrain
overcrossing/undercrossing and the proposed $1.5-million seasonal creek undercrossing of US
101 have been identified for funding by Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority as part of
the proposed county sales tax measure. Staff consulted with the Public Works Department to
assess the annual operation and maintenance costs associated with the existing Adobe Creek
seasonal bicycle and pedestrian undercrossing. The Public Works Department estimates an
annual cost of $24,680 for operations and maintenance of the Adobe Creek undercrossing, not
inclusive of utility costs for lighting. Negotiations with the Santa Clara Valley Water District by
way of a Joint Use Agreement for a new US 101 creek undercrossing would result in additional
operations and maintenance costs to the City.
Timeline
The preparation of plans, specifications and estimates (PS&E) for the shared-use path along the
Matadero Creek channel and through Seale Park between Ross Road and West Bayshore
Road/US 101 will likely take up to 24 months. A Joint Use Agreement with the Santa Clara
Valley Water District would need to be negotiated before final design could begin.
The preparation of plans, specifications and estimates (PS&E) for the seasonal undercrossing
City of Palo Alto Page 13
along the Matadero Creek channel at US 101 will likely take up to 12 months. A Joint Use
Agreement with the Santa Clara Valley Water District would need to be negotiated before final
design could begin and the undercrossing could be opened.
The completion of an alternatives analysis, Project Study Report (PSR) and envoronmental
analysis for the Alma Street/Caltrain overcrossing/undercrossing will likely take up to 24
months.
Environmental Review
A Negative Declaration for the Bicycle + Pedestrian Transportation Plan was adopted on
September 4, 2012. Each individual capital improvement project is subject to environmental
assessment after there is agreement on a conceptual design (i.e. Concept Plan Line) for further
study. Physical improvements proposed as part of the Midtown Connector project will be
subject to environmental review as part of the design phase, should the City choose to initiate
further design.
Attachments:
Attachment B - Citizens Advisory Committee May 17, 2016 Meeting Summary (PDF)
Attachment A - Midtown Connector Feasibility Study + Appendices (PDF)
Attachment C - DRAFT Planning + Transportation Commission Minutes (PDF)
ID #6622 Public Letters to Council (PDF)
Citizen Advisory Committee Feedback Summary: 05/17/16 Meeting
Midtown Connector
Advisory Committee Attendees: Bruce Anderson, Przemek Gardias (PTC liaison), Sheri Furman, David Greene, Robert
Neff (PABAC liaison), Julie Nolan, William Robinson, Dean Samos, Sherwin Wong
Project Team Members: Chris Corrao (City of Palo Alto, Senior Transportation Planner),
Hugh Louch (Alta Planning + Design), Jeff Knowles (Alta Planning + Design)
Hybrid Alignment along Matadero Creek:
Residents’ measurements are narrower than consultants along the route. Concern that the
width of the path does not meet the City’s standards for a shared use trail (12’).
Concerns about lack of continuity and usefulness of route.
Concern that bicycles will use pedestrian only segment.
Concern regarding impacts from flashing beacons at crossings in residential neighborhoods.
Concerns about any additional traffic restrictions on Middlefield/Alma as a result of this project.
Request for a parking study as part of this project, particularly by El Carmelo, and between Alma
- Romona near multi-family housing.
Questions about whether an evening closure of the path would be possible.
Concerns about heavy maintenance vehicles driving on proposed decomposed granite paths
during wet winter months.
Suggestion for “zig-zag” patterns for roadway crossings to eliminate need for flashing beacons.
Concerns about additional graffiti from increased access to flood channel walls.
o The water district is currently responsible for graffiti removal, yet long turnaround times
were noted by residents.
Suggestion to engineer a higher flood wall in the existing seasonal undercrossing to create a
year-around undercrossing.
Note that water district sprays vegetation with herbicides.
While no vote was taken, the majority of CAC members were opposed to a hybrid alignment
along Matadero Creek. While a variety of reasons were noted, the following were overarching
concerns:
o Lack of continuity along route (many deviations would not make it a useful path);
o Numerous obstacles to project feasibility;
o End result is not worth the expense and efforts required to implement; and
o Concern about the lack of a destination for a project of this scale.
Loma Verde Ave Alternative:
Concerns about driveways and proposal creating a chaotic situation.
Cyclist CAC member voiced concern about cycletracks being unsafe, based on their own internet
research.
Concern about loss of parking and whether parking utilization noted in report is accurate.
Question posed about whether other bike facility alternatives were considered. Concern that
the funding criteria are influencing proposals more than it should.
Suggestion to move two-way cycletrack to center of street to eliminate conflict with driveways.
Concern about loss of parking near bay shore in proximity to multi-family housing.
Concern about flashing beacon in neighborhoods.
Questions about why additional under-crossings are necessary.
Question about Caltrain undercrossing and its feasibility with proposed high speed rail.
Suggestion that California Ave underpass be improved as an alternative to a new underpass.
Suggestion to consider one-way streets with separated bike lanes as an alternative.
Other/General Comments:
Comment about dangerous cycling conditions in some parts of the City that need improvement.
o Churchill cited as a dangerous existing bike lane due to narrowness and proximity to
parking lane.
Question regarding why the City is building so many bike boulevards and why so many routes
are necessary.
Comment that the City has more traffic lately from new, larger homes being built with minimal
off-street parking and how it is making it less desirable for cyclists.
City of Palo Alto
Midtown Connector
Feasibility Study
PREPARED FOR:PREPARED BY:
JUNE 2016
On the cover: Residents walk along the Matadero Creek maintenance road at the
“Greenway for a Day” event held on April 23, 2016
Acknowledgements
The Midtown Connector Feasibility Study received thoughtful input and direction from numerous residents and other key
stakeholders over the life of the study. In addition, members of the Citizen Advisory Committee generously donated their time and
energy to the project.
Citizen Advisory Committee
Tamara Abrams
Bruce Anderson
Marc Cervellino
Sheri Furman
Robert Neff
Julie Nolan
Dean Samos
Transportation Division
Joshua Mello, Chief Transportation Official
Jarrett Mullen, Associate Transportation Planner
Consultant Team
Alta Planning + Design
Hugh Louch, Principal
Jeff Knowles, Associate Planner
Mary Stewart, Associate Designer
Laurentiu Dusciuc, Associate Engineer
David Greene
Larry Cuban
Kevin Stern
Sherwin Wong
Rob Robinson
Prezemek Gardias
Contents
Executive Summary .............................1
Chapter 1: Background and Process ...............5
• Study Introduction
• Overview of the Technical Review
• Overview of the Public Outreach Process
Chapter 2: Matadero Creek Feasibility Analysis ....11
• Description of the Feasibility Evaluation Process
• Assessment of Mid-Block Street Crossings
• Assessment of Caltrain, Highway, Utility Impacts
Chapter 3: On-Street Alternative Analysis . . . . . . . . . 23
• Evaluation of Potential Loma Verde Avenue On-Street
Bikeway
Chapter 4: Community & Other Considerations ....29
• Information on Trail Safety, Security, & Privacy
Chapter 5: Conclusions..........................39
• Planning-Level Cost Estimates for Project Options
• Considerations for Project Implementation
Appendices
Appendix A: Matadero Creek Opportunities and
Constraints Segment Maps
Appendix B: Matadero Creek Feasible Alignments
Appendix C: Loma Verde Avenue Conceptual Design
Appendix D: Loma Verde Avenue Parking Utilization Study
List of Tables
Table 1: Feasible Trail Options .....................1
Table 2: Outreach Timeline and Attendance..........8
Table 3: Summary of public input received
at the “Greenway for a Day” event on April 23, 2016..9
Table 4: Shared-Use Path Capital Cost Estimates ....39
Table 5: Pedestrian-Only Path Capital Cost Estimates 39
Table 6: Loma Verde Avenue Class IV
(Protected) Bikeway Capital Cost Estimates .........40
Table 7: Cost Estimates for US 101 and
Caltrain Undercrossings..........................40
Executive Summary
Midtown Connector Feasibility Study
MIDTOWN CONNECTOR FEASIBILITY STUDY ~ 1
Executive Summary
The City of Palo Alto’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation
Plan (BPTP) recommends and prioritizes the study of a
Class I (shared-use path) along Matadero Creek. The BPTP
envisions transforming what is currently a closed utility
maintenance road into a publicly accessible recreational
amenity that would provide access to parks, neighborhood
commercial centers, and larger regional destinations like the
Baylands.
In November 2012, the Santa Clara Board of Supervisors
unanimously approved $10.0 million in grants to fund
pedestrian and bike improvements proposed by Stanford
and the City of Palo Alto.
On November 9, 2015, City Council directed the project
team to analyze the feasibility of a ‘hybrid’ design that
would incorporate portions of Matadero Creek and other
on-street facilities (where needed) to create a connection
from the Caltrain tracks to US 101. Council also directed
the project team to identify the most practical alternative
on a collector street between Alma Street and West
Bayshore Road.
Table 1: Feasible Trail Options
Alignment Option Evaluation Constraints Cost
Matadero Creek
Shared-Use Path
Feasible with
constraints
• On-street alignment required on El Carmelo (parking removal required)
• Right-of-way and parking lot reconfiguration required at First Christian
Church and Winter Lodge properties (parking removal required)
• On-street alignment required on Louis Road and Maddux Drive to
utilize existing path through Seale Park
• Seasonal access only between Greer Road and W. Bayshore Road
• Railing required at locations where floodwall is less than 42” high
$4.8 M
Matadero Creek
Pedestrian-Only Path
Feasible with
minimal constraints
• Seasonal access only between Greer Road and W. Bayshore Road
• Railing required at locations where floodwall is less than 42” high
$3.3 M
Loma Verde Avenue Class
IV (protected) Bikeway
Feasible • Reduction in parking between Alma Street and Bryant Street and
between Louis Road and West Bayshore Road
• Bikeway crosses 67 driveways
$1.9 M
Figure 1: Matadero Creek was identified as a potential trail
connection in Palo Alto’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation
Plan.
This report presents two feasible hybrid creek/on-street
alignments and one alternative on-street alignment. Each
feasible option is summarized in Table 1 with respective
costs and constraints noted. Maps showing feasible
alignments for each option are shown on the following page.
2 ~ MIDTOWN CONNECTOR FEASIBILITY STUDY
SEGMENT A SEGMENT B SEGMENT C
SEGMENT D
SEGMENT E
SEGMENT F
Greer
Park
HooverPark
Seale
Park
Ohlone
School
El
Carmelo
School
FirstChristianChurch
WinterLodge
LO
U
I
S
AL
M
A
CA
L
T
R
A
I
N
RO
S
S
WA
V
E
R
L
E
Y
CO
W
P
E
R
MI
D
D
L
E
F
I
E
L
D
GR
E
E
R
COLOR
A
D
O
MADDUX
EL CARMELO
LOMA VER
D
E
SEGMENT A SEGMENT B SEGMENT C
SEGMENT D
SEGMENT E
SEGMENT F
Greer
Park
HooverPark
Seale
Park
Ohlone
School
El
Carmelo
School
FirstChristianChurch
WinterLodge
LO
U
I
S
AL
M
A
CA
L
T
R
A
I
N
RO
S
S
WA
V
E
R
L
E
Y
CO
W
P
E
R
MI
D
D
L
E
F
I
E
L
D
GR
E
E
R
COLOR
A
D
O
MADDUX
EL CARMELO
LOMA VER
D
E
Pedestrian-Only Path
Shared-Use Path
Potential Alignments
Feasible Segment F: Seasonal access onlyConstrained
Constraints
Feasible Segment B: Right-of-way
Segment C: Right-of-way
Segment E: On-street
Segment F: Seasonal access onlyConstrained
Constraints
MIDTOWN CONNECTOR FEASIBILITY STUDY ~ 3
Please see the appendices for more detailed information on each option’s constraints and opportunities, proposed
alignments, and parking impact on Loma Verde Avenue.*
Loma Verde Avenue Class IV (Protected) Bikeway
SEGMENT A SEGMENT B SEGMENT C
SEGMENT D
SEGMENT E
SEGMENT
F
Greer
Park
HooverPark
Seale
Park
Ohlone
School
El
Carmelo
School
FirstChristianChurch
WinterLodge
LO
U
I
S
AL
M
A
CA
L
T
R
A
I
N
RO
S
S
WA
V
E
R
L
E
Y
CO
W
P
E
R
MI
D
D
L
E
F
I
E
L
D
GR
E
E
R
COLOR
A
D
O
MADDUX
EL CARMELO
LOMA VER
D
E
Potential Alignments
Feasible
Chapter 1
Background and Process
MIDTOWN CONNECTOR FEASIBILITY STUDY ~ 5
Background and Process
In 2014, the City initiated a feasibility study for a trail along
Matadero Creek. A trail along Matadero Creek presents an
opportunity to complete an important segment of the Bay
to Ridge Trail in Santa Clara County, connecting two of the
Bay Area’s major trails. The connection was recommended
in the BPTP (Section 6.4.2).
Early analysis of the proposed trail identified potential
constraints for constructing a Class I (shared-use path)
trail along Matadero Creek. Following direction from City
Council in November 2015, this report details the technical
feasibility of two potential corridors:
1. A hybrid alignment for a recreational path along
Matadero Creek and other on-street facilities where
needed. Two options were evaluated: a shared-use path
(bicyclists and pedestrians) and a pedestrian-only path.
2. An analysis of an on-street alternative on a parallel
street. This option considered a Class IV (protected)
bikeway on Loma Verde Avenue.
Study Extent - Matadero Creek Options
The primary study area is the 1.5-mile Matadero Creek and
adjacent on-street facilities (where needed) between Alma
Street/Caltrain corridor and W. Bayshore Road/US 101.
The corridor was broken up into six segments for analysis:
Segment A – Alma Street to Waverley Street
Segment B – Waverley Street to Middlefield Road
Segment C – Middlefield Road to Ross Road
Segment D – Ross Road to Louis Road
Segment E – Louis Road to Greer Road
Segment F – Greer Road to West Bayshore Road/US
101
The creek-side option was evaluated for use as a shared-
use path (i.e., a trail that can safely accommodate both
bicyclists and pedestrians) and a pedestrian-only path that
restricts bicycle use. Where a creek-side option is infeasible,
on-street alignments were identified.
SEGMENT A SEGMENT B SEGMENT C
SEGMENT D
SEGMENT E
SEGMENT F
Greer
Park
HooverPark
Seale
Park
Ohlone
School
El
Carmelo
School
FirstChristianChurch
WinterLodge
SI
U
O
L
AL
M
A
CA
L
T
R
A
I
N
SS
O
R
YE
L
R
E
V
A
W
CO
W
P
E
R
DL
E
I
F
E
L
D
D
I
M
RE
E
R
G
COLOR
A
D
O
MADDUX
EL CARMELO
LOMA VER
D
E
Figure 2: Matadero Creek and adjacent streets were evaluated between Alma Street/Caltrain corridor and W. Bayshore Road/US 101.
6 ~ MIDTOWN CONNECTOR FEASIBILITY STUDY
Study Extent – On-Street Alternative
The on-street alternative considered two parallel routes,
Colorado Avenue and Loma Verde Avenue. Only Loma
Verde Avenue had sufficient width to accommodate a Class
IV (protected) bikeway. A protected bikeway provides
bicycle lanes with a physical separation (e.g., a raised curb)
from automobile traffic. This type of facility can better
serve the recreational purpose intended for this corridor.
A protected bikeway creates greater comfort for users of
all ages and abilities compared to existing on-street bicycle
lanes (Class II) that are present on Loma Verde Avenue
today.
Feasibility Analysis Approach
This study provides a strict, technical analysis of feasibility
focused on the width of the creek, property ownership, and
minimum safety criteria. Chapter 2 presents the technical
feasibility of the creek options and Chapter 3 presents the
feasibility of the on-street Loma Verde Avenue option.
In addition to these technical feasibility considerations,
Chapter 4 reviews several issues raised by the community
or otherwise identified as important considerations.
Specifically:
Providing a safe user experience. Creekside safety
solutions are identified in Section 4.1.
Maintaining landowner privacy. Privacy solutions are
identified in Section 4.2.
Designing safer street crossings. Options for developing
mid-block street crossings are identified in Section 4.3.
Evaluating connections across major barriers. Options
for developing connections across the Alma Street/Caltrain
corridor and W. Bayshore Road/US 101 are identified in
Section 4.4.
Avoiding utility conflicts. A summary of buried utility lines
and design issues is discussed in Section 4.5
Chapter 5 lays out capital and maintenance costs and
provides an implementations approach for feasible options.
Figure 3: On-street alignments were evaluated where space
was not available for a trail along the creek. In some instances
private property prevented access and in other locations
maintenance ramps and floodgates precluded access.
MIDTOWN CONNECTOR FEASIBILITY STUDY ~ 7
Public Outreach
Public input was gathered through the formation of a
Citizen Advisory Committee and through three public
events.
Citizen Advisory Committee
A twelve-member Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC) was
formed with one liaison from the City’s Pedestrian and
Bicycle Advisory Committee (PABAC) and Planning and
Transportation Commission (PTC). Several members of the
CAC own property adjacent to Matadero Creek and were
able to share their concerns throughout the study process.
Four CAC meetings were held as part of the study process.Figure 4: The CAC first met on April 26, 2015, providing input on
the suitability of different initial routes to cross Midtown.
Public Events
Three public events were held as part of the study process and over 275 residents provided input.
Figure 5: Following a presentation, participants at the second public meeting provided input to the project team at the public workshop.
8 ~ MIDTOWN CONNECTOR FEASIBILITY STUDY
Figure 6: A public meeting was held on April 14, 2015 at Palo Verde Elementary School.
Table 2: Outreach Timeline and Attendance
Date Activity Location Attendance
6/26/2014 Public Meeting Palo Alto Nursery School 42
2/26/2015 CAC Meeting Alma Community Room 12
4/14/2015 Public Meeting Palo Verde Elementary 32
9/8/2015 CAC Meeting Mitchell Park Library 12
3/10/2016 CAC Meeting Mitchell Park Library 12
4/23/2016 Public Meeting/Open Creek Event Matadero Creek/Hoover Park 200+
5/17/2015 CAC Meeting Lucie Stern Center 12
MIDTOWN CONNECTOR FEASIBILITY STUDY ~ 9
“Greenway for a Day”
For the current phase
of the Matadero Creek
trail feasibility study, the
City of Palo Alto held a
tactical urbanism event
called “Greenway for a Day
along Matadero Creek.”
The event was held on
Saturday, April 23, 2016
and included display boards
with information about trail
feasibility, the opportunity
to walk one segment of the
creek (from Cowper Street
to Waverley Street), and
an opportunity to provide
comments on the trail. Over
200 individuals participated
in this event and the City
received 112 comment cards.
Table 3: Summary of public input received at the “Greenway for a Day” event on April 23, 2016
Fully Supportive: 58 Conditionally Supportive: 26 Unsupportive: 22
Would support if project:
Connected to Baylands: 9
Connected across Alma Street: 8
Enhanced midblock crossings: 4
Did not add lighting: 4
Increased privacy: 3
Improved safety conditions: 2
Reasons for withholding support:
Project cost: 10
Concern for Safety: 9
Concern for Privacy: 5
Potential for Vagrancy: 3
Effect on wildlife: 2
Aesthetics: 2
Lack of feasible connections: 2
Other: 6
Figure 7: A ‘Greenway for a Day’ event was held in April 2016 that served as a public workshop with
information about the feasibility analysis and an opportunity to walk one segment of the creek.
Chapter 2
Matadero Creek Feasibility Analysis
MIDTOWN CONNECTOR FEASIBILITY STUDY ~ 11
This study evaluated each segment using a strict, technical
analysis of feasibility focused on the width of the maintenance
road, property ownership, and meeting minimum
safety criteria related to protection from falling into the
creek. Community concerns and other technical design
considerations are addressed in subsequent sections of this
chapter. Feasible alignments for a shared-use and pedestrian-
only path are presented in the last section of this chapter.
Minimum Available Width
Shared-Use Path
For the purposes of this study, segments along Matadero
Creek that provided a minimum of 12 feet of continuous
clear width in accordance with design guidance provided
in the BPTP were deemed ideal for consideration as a
shared-use path.
Constrained sections that were less than 12 feet wide
but greater than 10 feet wide were deemed feasible in
accordance with the Santa Clara Valley Transportation
Authority Bicycle Technical Guidelines (2012). For example,
the Highway 87 Bikeway in San Jose and the Wilkie
Way bridge in Palo Alto are constrinaed by the physical
environment, but provide invaluable connections for
pedestrians and bicyclists.
Pedestrian-Only Path
Segments along Matadero Creek that provided a minimum of
six feet of continuous clear width in accordance with design
guidance provided in the BPTP were deemed feasible for
consideration as a pedestrian-only path. Short constrained
2.1: Matadero Creek Feasibility Evaluation
sections (shorter than 250 feet) that were less than six
feet wide, but greater than five feet wide, were deemed
feasible in accordance with the 2003 Santa Clara Valley
Transportation Authority (VTA) Pedestrian Technical
Guidelines and the Palo Alto sidewalk standard.
Property Ownership
The Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) owns and
maintains Matadero Creek to provide flood protection for
area residents. The creek is channelized between Alma
Street and Greer Road with service roads and floodwalls
along most segments. The creek and service roads are
fenced off and include locked gates at cross streets. For
much of the corridor, a 12-foot-wide
access road is available on one side
of the creek.
The District conducts periodic
(three to five years) maintenance
activities such as excavation and trash clearing that might
require temporary trail closures. The City would need to
enter into a Joint Use Agreement with the Water District
in order to move forward with the Matadero Creek Trail.
The agreement spells out the specific maintenance and legal
responsibilities for the City and the Water District. The
City is currently a party to a Joint Use Agreement with the
Water District for the Wilkie Way Bridge.
For the purposes of this study, segments along Matadero
Creek that are owned by the City or the Water District
were deemed feasible for consideration as a shared-use
or pedestrian-only path. Segments that were owned by
a public entity but had property rights encumbered by
easements or other long-term lease agreements were
deemed feasible with constraint. Segments that were
completely within private control were deemed infeasible.
36’PrivateProperty PrivatePropertyCreek Channel
12’
Bike/PedPath
Figure 8: Minimum width conditions for Shared-Use Path.
12 ~ MIDTOWN CONNECTOR FEASIBILITY STUDY
SEGMENT A SEGMENT B SEGMENT C
SEGMENT D
SEGMENT E
SEGMENT
F
Greer
Park
Hoover
Park
Seale
Park
Ohlone
School
El
Carmelo
School
FirstChristianChurch
WinterLodge
LO
U
I
S
AL
M
A
RO
S
S
WA
V
E
R
L
E
Y
MI
D
D
L
E
F
I
E
L
D
GR
E
E
R
COLOR
A
D
O
MADDUX
EL CARMELO
Feasible Constrained Infeasible
Maintenance ramp and houses
limit access for bicyclists and
pedestrians along creek.
El Carmelo Ave is feasible
on-street alternative.
Easement limits access for
shared-use path.
Existing pedestrian walkway
available through Hoover
Park.
Shared-use path
feasible with Winter
Lodge parking loss.
Pedestrian path
feasible without
parking loss.
Shared-use path
fully feasible.
Maintenance ramp
limits access for
shared-use path
along creek.
Seale Park and
Maddux Drive is
feasible alternative.
Seasonal access
available only when
floodgates not
installed.
MATADERO CREEK TRAIL: FEASIBILITY OVERVIEW
SEGMENT A SEGMENT B SEGMENT C
SEGMENT D
SEGMENT E
SEGMENT F
Greer
Park
Hoover
Park
Seale
Park
Ohlone
School
El
Carmelo
School
FirstChristianChurch
WinterLodge
LO
U
I
S
AL
M
A
RO
S
S
WA
V
E
R
L
E
Y
MI
D
D
L
E
F
I
E
L
D
GR
E
E
R
COLORA
D
O
MADDUX
EL CARMELO
Feasible Constrained Infeasible
Maintenance ramp and houses
limit access for bicyclists and
pedestrians along creek.
El Carmelo Ave is feasible
on-street alternative.
Easement limits access for
shared-use path.
Existing pedestrian walkway
available through Hoover
Park.
Shared-use path
feasible with Winter
Lodge parking loss.
Pedestrian path
feasible without
parking loss.
Shared-use path
fully feasible.
Maintenance ramp
limits access for
shared-use path
along creek.
Seale Park and
Maddux Drive is
feasible alternative.
Seasonal access
available only when
floodgates not
installed.
MATADERO CREEK TRAIL: FEASIBILITY OVERVIEW
SEGMENT A SEGMENT B SEGMENT C
SEGMENT D
SEGMENT E
SEGMENT F
Greer
Park
Hoover
Park
Seale
Park
Ohlone
School
El
Carmelo
School
FirstChristianChurch
WinterLodge
LO
U
I
S
AL
M
A
RO
S
S
WA
V
E
R
L
E
Y
MI
D
D
L
E
F
I
E
L
D
GR
E
E
R
COLORA
D
O
MADDUX
EL CARMELO
Feasible Constrained Infeasible
Maintenance ramp and houses
limit access for bicyclists and
pedestrians along creek.
El Carmelo Ave is feasible
on-street alternative.
Easement limits access for
shared-use path.
Existing pedestrian walkway
available through Hoover
Park.
Shared-use path
feasible with Winter
Lodge parking loss.
Pedestrian path
feasible without
parking loss.
Shared-use path
fully feasible.
Maintenance ramp
limits access for
shared-use path
along creek.
Seale Park and
Maddux Drive is
feasible alternative.
Seasonal access
available only when
floodgates not
installed.
MATADERO CREEK TRAIL: FEASIBILITY OVERVIEW
SEGMENT A SEGMENT B SEGMENT C
SEGMENT D
SEGMENT E
SEGMENT F
Greer
Park
Hoover
Park
Seale
Park
Ohlone
School
El
Carmelo
School
FirstChristianChurch
WinterLodge
LO
U
I
S
AL
M
A
RO
S
S
WA
V
E
R
L
E
Y
MI
D
D
L
E
F
I
E
L
D
GR
E
E
R
COLORA
D
O
MADDUX
EL CARMELO
Feasible Constrained Infeasible
Maintenance ramp and houses
limit access for bicyclists and
pedestrians along creek.
El Carmelo Ave is feasible
on-street alternative.
Easement limits access for
shared-use path.
Existing pedestrian walkway
available through Hoover
Park.
Shared-use path
feasible with Winter
Lodge parking loss.
Pedestrian path
feasible without
parking loss.
Shared-use path
fully feasible.
Maintenance ramp
limits access for
shared-use path
along creek.
Seale Park and
Maddux Drive is
feasible alternative.
Seasonal access
available only when
floodgates not
installed.
MATADERO CREEK TRAIL: FEASIBILITY OVERVIEW
Figure 9: Matadero Creek Feasibility Overview Map
Safety Criteria
In all segments except Segment F (Greer Road to W.
Bayshore Road), a floodwall separates the potential path
from the channelized concrete creek below. This floodwall
averages approximately 30 inches in height, but ranges
from as low as six inches to as high as 52 inches. Caltrans
and VTA guidelines set a minimum height of 42 inches for
a railing to protect path users from drop-offs.1 Providing a
1 Caltrans Highway Design Manual, 6th Edition (2015), Chapter 200, Topic 208, p.
200-40 and VTA Bicycle Technical Guidelines (2012), Chapter 9, p. 9-12
separate fence or installing railing to raise the height of the
floodwall to 42 inches would need to be negotiated with the
Water District in a Joint Use Agreement. The Water District
has indicated willingness to permit a fence be erected
alongside the floodwall if installed with posts that would
allow the fence to be removed for maintenance operations.
Additional safety challenges were identified at each of the
mid-block street crossing locations. For more information
on proposed design solutions, see Section 4.3.
MIDTOWN CONNECTOR FEASIBILITY STUDY ~ 13
Segment Evaluation
Segment A – Alma Street to Waverley Street
Two private residential properties are located adjacent to
Matadero Creek (opposite sides of the creek) at Waverley
Street. There is no Water District maintenance road for
these two properties. Property maps were consulted and
neither property encroaches on Water District-owned land.
Additionally, the maintenance road is discontinuous as it
approaches Alma Street on the north side of the creek and
has limited width on the south side. Segment A was evalu-
ated for an on-street alignment on El Carmelo Avenue (see
Section 2.7 for more information).
Figure 10: In addition to the property issues on both sides of
the creek near Waverley Street, a maintenance ramp prevents
continuous access near Alma Street.
Figure 11: The sidewalk on El Carmelo Avenue could become a
shared-use path and serve as an on-street alignment for Segment
A between Alma Street and Waverley Street.
EXISTING CONDITIONS
WITH SHARED-USE PATH
14 ~ MIDTOWN CONNECTOR FEASIBILITY STUDY
Segment B – Waverley Street to Middlefield Road
This segment would require negotiation with First Christian
Church (2890 Middlefield Road), which holds an ease-
ment along Matadero Creek with SCVWD. First Christian
Church uses the eased property for garbage truck access,
ADA-accessible loading, angled parking, and storage/main-
tenance space for the Keys School located on its property.
The shared-use path option would require this right-of-
way; however, a pedestrian-only path option could utilize
the existing walkway through Hoover Park that is between
Southfield Apartments and First Christian Church (seven
feet wide) and along the existing sidewalk adjacent to
Middlefield Road.Figure 13: First Christian Church utilizes land adjacent to the
creek for garbage access, ADA loading/unloading, and storage for
Keys School.
Figure 14: A pedestrian-only option could utilize the existing
path between Southfield Apartments and First Christian Church
property and through Hoover Park.
Figure 12: To accommodate a shared-use path, the First Christian
Church parking lot would need to be modified; however, the trail
could be designed to share access with authorized vehicles to
maintain garbage access and ADA loading/unloading areas.
EXISTING CONDITIONS
WITH SHARED-USE PATH
MIDTOWN CONNECTOR FEASIBILITY STUDY ~ 15
Segment C – Middlefield Road to Ross Road
This segment would require negotiation with Winter Lodge (3009 Middlefield Road), which holds a long-term lease with
the City of Palo Alto. Winter Lodge uses the property along Matadero Creek for angled parking. The shared-use path
option would require reconfiguring part of the parking lot (angled parking would become parallel parking for one drive
aisle) and removing approximately six to eight parking spaces. The pedestrian-only option would not require any loss of
parking.
Figure 15: The Winter Lodge parking lot fence currently blocks access to the SCVWD maintenance
road beyond the ramp as shown in the existing conditions images above. Photo simulations display
potential design solutions for a pedestrian-only and shared-use path.
EXISTING CONDITIONS
SHARED-USE PATHPEDESTRIAN-ONLY PATH
16 ~ MIDTOWN CONNECTOR FEASIBILITY STUDY
www.altaplanning.com
Matadero Creek TrailWinter Lodge Parking Lot Access
Palo Alto, California
Oakland, California 94607100 Webster Street, Suite 300
p:510.540.5008 f:510.788.6465
DESIGNED:
REVIEWED:
DRAWN:
PROJECT NO.DATE
SCALE FILE
REVISIONS
NO DATE ITEM
1” = 30’-0”30’ 60’15’
EX
I
S
T
I
N
G
C
O
N
D
I
T
I
O
N
S
12
’
FENCE
FLOOD WALL
PA
T
H
C
O
N
T
I
N
U
E
S
MI
D
D
L
E
F
I
E
L
D
R
D
PARALLEL PARKINGPATH
FENCE
CANAL
FLOODWALL
10’12’12’
DRIVE AISLE
OPTION A - PROTECTED PATH
MATADERO CREEK CHANNEL (SCVWD)
10
’
PARALLEL PARKING
12
’
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
C
O
N
D
I
T
I
O
N
S
www.altaplanning.com
Matadero Creek Trail
Winter Lodge Parking Lot Access
Palo Alto, California
Oakland, California 94607100 Webster Street, Suite 300
p:510.540.5008 f:510.788.6465
DESIGNED:
REVIEWED:
DRAWN:
PROJECT NO.DATE
SCALE FILE
REVISIONS
NO DATE ITEM
1” = 30’-0”30’ 60’15’
EX
I
S
T
I
N
G
C
O
N
D
I
T
I
O
N
S
12’18
’
16
’
22’
6’
-
5
”
FENCE
FLOOD WALL
PA
T
H
C
O
N
T
I
N
U
E
S
MI
D
D
L
E
F
I
E
L
D
R
D
ANGLED PARKINGPATH
FENCE
CANAL
FLOODWALL
16’13’6’-5”
DRIVE AISLE
OPTION B - PEDESTRIAN-ONLY PATH
MATADERO CREEK CHANNEL (SCVWD)
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
C
O
N
D
I
T
I
O
N
S
www.altaplanning.com
Matadero Creek Trail
Winter Lodge Parking Lot Access
Palo Alto, California
Oakland, California 94607100 Webster Street, Suite 300
p:510.540.5008 f:510.788.6465
DESIGNED:
REVIEWED:
DRAWN:
PROJECT NO.DATE
SCALE FILE
REVISIONS
NO DATE ITEM
1” = 30’-0”30’ 60’15’
EX
I
S
T
I
N
G
C
O
N
D
I
T
I
O
N
S
12
’
FENCE
FLOOD WALL
PA
T
H
C
O
N
T
I
N
U
E
S
MI
D
D
L
E
F
I
E
L
D
R
D
PARALLEL PARKINGPATH
FENCE
CANAL
FLOOD
WALL
10’12’12’
DRIVE AISLE
OPTION A - PROTECTED PATH
MATADERO CREEK CHANNEL (SCVWD)
10
’
PARALLEL PARKING
12
’
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
C
O
N
D
I
T
I
O
N
S
www.altaplanning.com
Matadero Creek TrailWinter Lodge Parking Lot Access
Palo Alto, California
Oakland, California 94607100 Webster Street, Suite 300
p:510.540.5008 f:510.788.6465
DESIGNED:
REVIEWED:
DRAWN:
PROJECT NO.DATE
SCALE FILE
REVISIONS
NO DATE ITEM
1” = 30’-0”30’ 60’15’
EX
I
S
T
I
N
G
C
O
N
D
I
T
I
O
N
S
12’18
’
16
’
22’
6’
-
5
”
FENCE
FLOOD WALL
PA
T
H
C
O
N
T
I
N
U
E
S
MI
D
D
L
E
F
I
E
L
D
R
D
ANGLED PARKINGPATH
FENCE
CANAL
FLOODWALL
16’13’6’-5”
DRIVE AISLE
OPTION B - PEDESTRIAN-ONLY PATH
MATADERO CREEK CHANNEL (SCVWD)
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
C
O
N
D
I
T
I
O
N
S
Cross Section and Plan – Option A
Cross Section and Plan – Option B
Figure 16: A shared-use path would require a reconfiguration of the parking lot and a loss of six to eight parking spaces.
Figure 17: A pedestrian-only path would not require any loss of parking.
Segment C – Middlefield Road to Ross Road (continued)
MIDTOWN CONNECTOR FEASIBILITY STUDY ~ 17
Segment D – Ross Road to Louis Road
This segment is fully feasible.
Figure 18: There are no constraints that would prevent the development of a shared-use path
between Ross Road and Louis Road.
18 ~ MIDTOWN CONNECTOR FEASIBILITY STUDY
Segment E – Louis Road to Greer Road
This segment is feasible for a pedestrian-only path;
however, a pinch-point on the north side of the creek makes
a shared-use path design infeasible for this segment. An
on-street alignment through Henry W. Seale Park was
evaluated.
Figure 19: With access blocked on the south side of the creek,
the path narrows to less than six feet for a short distance near
a maintenance ramp and floodgate shown in the image above.
Segment E is feasible for a pedestrian-only path; however, an
on-street alignment was evaluated for a shared-use path.
Figure 20: An on-street alignment is feasible along Louis Road to
connect to an existing path through Seale Park and then on-street
along Maddux Drive.
MIDTOWN CONNECTOR FEASIBILITY STUDY ~ 19
Segment F – Greer Road to W. Bayshore Road/US
101
Unlike all other segments, a floodwall does not separate the
maintenance road from the creek. This segment of the creek
is also not channelized and requires seasonal floodgates at
Greer Road that prevent access during the rainy months.
Water access could be possible if the City assumed
responsibility for floodgate installation and removal, and
liability for any flooding.
The south side of the creek provides no access to or under
W. Bayshore Road and US 101. The north side of the creek
provides access up to W. Bayshore Road and could provide
access below US 101; however, the eight-foot vertical
height limit is a constraint for bicyclists. Potential design
approaches include lowering the path or making this a
dismount (pedestrian-only) section.
For more details on each of these segments, see Appendix
A: Matadero Creek Opportunities and Constraints Segment
Maps.
Figure 21: The segment between Greer Road and W. Bayshore
Road is seasonally accessible and a crossing to the Baylands is
possible for pedestrians.
20 ~ MIDTOWN CONNECTOR FEASIBILITY STUDY
Figure 22: A shared-use path is feasible using creek-side and on-street alignments; however, several constraints would need to be
overcome to provide a continuous user experience.
SEGMENT A SEGMENT B SEGMENT C
SEGMENT D
SEGMENT E
SEGMENT F
Greer
Park
HooverPark
Seale
Park
Ohlone
School
El
Carmelo
School
FirstChristianChurch
WinterLodge
LO
U
I
S
AL
M
A
CA
L
T
R
A
I
N
RO
S
S
WA
V
E
R
L
E
Y
CO
W
P
E
R
MI
D
D
L
E
F
I
E
L
D
GR
E
E
R
COLOR
A
D
O
MADDUX
EL CARMELO
LOMA VER
D
E
SEGMENT A SEGMENT B SEGMENT C
SEGMENT D
SEGMENT E
SEGMENT
F
Greer
Park
HooverPark
Seale
Park
Ohlone
School
El
Carmelo
School
FirstChristianChurch
WinterLodge
LO
U
I
S
AL
M
A
CA
L
T
R
A
I
N
RO
S
S
WA
V
E
R
L
E
Y
CO
W
P
E
R
MI
D
D
L
E
F
I
E
L
D
GR
E
E
R
COLOR
A
D
O
MADDUX
EL CARMELO
LOMA VER
D
E
Shared-Use Path
Pedestrian-Only Path
Figure 23: A pedestrian-only path is feasible using creek-side and on-street alignments and a continuous connection is possible except
where seasonal floodgates are installed.
2.2 Feasible Alignments
Feasible alignments for a shared-use and a pedestrian-only path were developed based on the opportunities, constraints,
and concerns discussed in the sections above. See Appendix B: Matadero Creek Feasible Alignments for more detailed
segment by segment conceptual plans, cross-sections, and renderings that visualize the proposed facility.
Feasible
Constrained
Feasible
Constrained
MIDTOWN CONNECTOR FEASIBILITY STUDY ~ 21
This page intentionally left blank.
Chapter 3
On-Street Alternative Analysis
MIDTOWN CONNECTOR FEASIBILITY STUDY ~ 23
The project team also evaluated the feasibility of an
on-street alternative to provide an east-west connection
through Midtown. To be consistent with the intent of this
study, the on-street option focused on the development
of a Class IV Bikeway (also called a cycle track, separated
bikeway, or protected bikeway) which provides greater
protection for bicyclists than on-street bicycle lanes.
Class IV Bikeways protect users from motor vehicle traffic
through the installation of a physical barrier such as flexible
posts, grade separation, inflexible physical barriers like
curbs or planters, or on-street parking. Requirements for
barrier width varies by type. Caltrans requires a minimum
bikeway width of eight feet where two-way travel is
planned.
Two potential routes were evaluated adjacent to the creek
– Colorado Avenue to the north and Loma Verde Avenue to
the south. (Note: East Meadow Drive was also evaluated for
a potential Class IV facility as part of a separate study.)
Colorado Avenue is typically 36 feet wide from curb to
curb and includes two travel lanes (one in each direction).
The street has one Class II Bike Lane installed on the south
side. The north travel lane includes sharrow markings to
indicate motor vehicles and bicyclists should share the lane.
Parallel parking is permitted on the north side of the street.
Bicyclists currently traveling along Colorado Avenue from
Alma Street to W. Bayshore Road cross 65 driveways and
18 intersections along the route.
3.1 On-Street Feasibility Evaluation
Parking lane
Sidewalk/
Planter
Sidewalk/
PlanterBike lane SNTravel laneTravel lane +
Sharrows
7’7'11'
36'
11'
P
Figure 24: Typical cross section of existing conditions on Colorado Avenue
24 ~ MIDTOWN CONNECTOR FEASIBILITY STUDY
Loma Verde Avenue is
typically 40 feet wide
from curb to curb and
includes two travel lanes
(one in each direction).
Between Bryant Street
and Louis Road, the street
has one Class II Bike Lane
installed on the south
side. Parking is permitted
in the bike lane between
7:00 PM and 7:00 AM.
A combined parking and
bike lane is installed on the
north side of the street.
No bike lanes are installed
on Loma Verde Avenue
between Alma Street
and Bryant Street, and
between Louis Road and
W. Bayshore Road. Street
parking is permitted on
both sides of the street in
these locations. Bicyclists
currently traveling along
Loma Verde Avenue
from Alma Street to W.
Bayshore Road must
cross 67 driveways and
17 intersections along the
route.
LOMA VERDE AVENUE: CROSS SECTIONS (40’ RIGHT-OF-WAY)
Existing Conditions
Alma Street to Bryant Street and
Louis Road to W Bayshore Road
11’12’N STravel Lane
40’
11’
Travel LaneParking & Bike Lane
6’
Bike Lane
P
Sidewalk/PlanterSidewalk/Planter
Existing Conditions
Bryant Street to Louis Road
LOMA VERDE AVENUE: CROSS SECTIONS (40’ RIGHT-OF-WAY)
Existing Conditions
Alma Street to Bryant Street and
Louis Road to W Bayshore Road
11’12’N STravel Lane
40’
11’
Travel LaneParking & Bike Lane
6’
Bike Lane
P
Sidewalk/PlanterSidewalk/Planter
Existing Conditions
Bryant Street to Louis Road
Figure 25: Typical cross section of existing conditions on Loma Verde Avenue
MIDTOWN CONNECTOR FEASIBILITY STUDY ~ 25
There is sufficient width along Loma Verde Avenue for a
Class IV facility for the entire distance, and driveway
and intersections crossings can be designed to maximize
safety. Between Alma Street and Bryant Street, and
SEGMENT A SEGMENT B SEGMENT C
SEGMENT D
SEGMENT E
SEGMENT F
Greer
Park
HooverPark
Seale
Park
Ohlone
School
El
Carmelo
School
FirstChristianChurch
WinterLodge
LO
U
I
S
AL
M
A
CA
L
T
R
A
I
N
RO
S
S
WA
V
E
R
L
E
Y
CO
W
P
E
R
MI
D
D
L
E
F
I
E
L
D
GR
E
E
R
COLOR
A
D
O
MADDUX
EL CARMELO
LOMA VER
D
E
Figure 26: Feasibility Overview - Class IV facility along Loma Verde Avenue
between Louis Road and W. Bayshore Road, parking
would need to be removed from one side of the street
(see Section 3.3 for more information about parking
impact).
26 ~ MIDTOWN CONNECTOR FEASIBILITY STUDY
The 40-foot width of Loma Verde Avenue provides enough
room for a two-way Class IV Bikeway on one side of the
street, including a buffer and a parking lane on the other
side of the street. This is similar to the current configuration,
but with the combined bicycle facility on one side of the
street with additional protection provided in the form of a
planting strip or other physical barrier. The bikeway could
be at the same grade as the current street or raised to
sidewalk level (Figure 28).
For more details, see Appendix C: Loma Verde Avenue
Conceptual Design. The plan set shows modifications
to Loma Verde Avenue and crossing streets and notes
connections to other proposed bicycle boulevards on
Bryant Street and Ross Road. It also identifies striping and
other safety measures for street and driveway crossings.
3.3 Parking Study
A parking occupancy study was conducted to determine
the parking impact a Class IV Bikeway design would have
on Loma Verde Avenue. Considering weekday, evening,
and weekend parking, all segments would remain below 80
percent utilization except from Greer Road to W. Bayshore
Road, where four more parking spaces would be needed
than are typically available. These individuals would need
to park on side streets or one block away where the study
indicates at least 20 surplus parking spaces will remain
available even after parking is consolidated.
See Appendix D: Loma Verde Avenue Parking Utilization
Study for a summary of results, methodology, and detailed
results by block segment.
LOMA VERDE AVENUE: VISUAL SIMULATION
Current Conditions
Visual Simulation of Loma Verde Avenue with a Proposed At-Grade Class IV (Protected) Bikeway
LOMA VERDE AVENUE: VISUAL SIMULATION
Current Conditions
Visual Simulation of Loma Verde Avenue with a Proposed At-Grade Class IV (Protected) BikewayFigure 27: Rendering to show what the protected facility might
look like including an example of a transition zone for a personal
driveway.
3.2 Proposed Conceptual Design
EXISTING CONDITIONS
WITH CLASS IV BIKEWAY
MIDTOWN CONNECTOR FEASIBILITY STUDY ~ 27
Figure 28: Proposed cross-sections illustrating a raised and street-level (at-grade) Class IV Bikeway
configuration
S SS
40’
Loma Verde (from Alma Street to W Bayshore Road)
7’N19’
Travelway
Sidewalk/PlanterSidewalk/PlanterParking
11’3’
2-way
Class IV
Bikeway
P
Raised
Median
Loma Verde (from Alma Street to W Bayshore Road)
40’
7’N 19’
Travelway
Sidewalk/PlanterSidewalk/Planter Parking
11’3’2-wayClass IV
Bikeway
P
Raised
Median
Loma Verde (from Alma Street to W Bayshore Road)
7’N Travelway
Sidewalk/PlanterSidewalk/Planter Parking
3’2-wayClass IV
Bikeway
P
Raised
Median
At Grade Class IV (Protected)
Bikeway Option Raised Class IV (Protected)
Bikeway Option
S SS
40’
Loma Verde (from Alma Street to W Bayshore Road)
7’N 19’
Travelway
Sidewalk/PlanterSidewalk/Planter Parking
11’3’2-wayClass IV
Bikeway
P
Raised
Median
Loma Verde (from Alma Street to W Bayshore Road)
40’
7’N 19’
Travelway
Sidewalk/PlanterSidewalk/Planter Parking
11’3’
2-way
Class IV
Bikeway
P
Raised
Median
Loma Verde (from Alma Street to W Bayshore Road)
7’N Travelway
Sidewalk/PlanterSidewalk/Planter Parking
3’
2-way
Class IV
Bikeway
P
Raised
Median
At Grade Class IV (Protected)
Bikeway Option Raised Class IV (Protected)
Bikeway Option
Chapter 4
Community and Other Considerations
MIDTOWN CONNECTOR FEASIBILITY STUDY ~ 29
Some of the most frequent concerns raised by community
members about a proposed trail along Matadero Creek
relate to safety and security. The concerns include:
Potential for crime along the trail to users and to
residents (e.g., burglary).
Risk of trail users falling into the drainage channel,
including the ability of individuals to get out of the creek
if they go in.
One basic safety measure required by Caltrans is a minimum
42-inch-high barrier. In some sections of the existing creek,
the flood walls are lower than this requirement, including
the segment from Cowper Street to Middlefield Road,
which has a flood wall that is less than five inches tall. The
public already experiences the situation of concern along
the creek, where the city street grid crosses the creek. In all
cases, existing walls and railings along streets are at least 42
inches. Opportunities to mitigate falling hazards include:
Safety devices such as netting or other implements that
would stop or break a fall. Devices have been used on
some bridges.
Careful railing design could be considered to keep users
away from the edge.
Signage provided at each entrance could identify trail
use rules and safety concerns.
Safety devices and signage would be explored through the
design process if the City made the determination to pursue
a trail along Matadero Creek.
To evaluate concerns related to crime, the study team
conducted the following analysis:
Reviewed existing literature on crime along trails
Reviewed crime data for nine communities with trails
adjacent to residential properties in the Bay Area
Developed recommendations for crime prevention that
follow Crime Prevention through Environmental Design
(CPTED) principles
4.1 Safety & Security
National Crime Research
Alta reviewed readily available literature on the impact of
trails on crime. The general conclusions of this research are
that trails do not increase crime. Specific findings include:
A review of crime data for 372 trails showed that crime
rates are often lower on trail networks than the overall
crime rate for the region in which they are located.1 These
studies include direct evaluation of crime data, interviews
with local police officers, and interviews with residents
along trail corridors.
Local and Regional Crime Research
Using CrimeReports.com, the project team evaluated six
trails throughout the Bay Area to understand the extent
of crime along similar local trails. CrimeReports.com was
selected because their data is supplied and regularly
updated by local law-enforcement agencies.2 The project
team also evaluated existing reported crime along Matadero
Creek.
1 Tracy, Tammy, and Hugh Morris. Rail-Trails and Safe Communities: The Experience on 372 Trails. Rails-to-Trails Conservancy, 1998. http://atfiles.org/files/pdf/safecomm.pdf
2 Crimereports.com provides data for the most recent six months available. It does not provide historic data, making a before-after comparison impossible for the existing trails.
Figure 29: Railing currently exists on every bridge that crosses
Matadero Creek to prevent falling into the creek.
30 ~ MIDTOWN CONNECTOR FEASIBILITY STUDY
Of the six trails evaluated, only four had reported criminal
activity totaling 22 incidents over a six month period; the
Matadero alignment had only one reported incident of
“drunk and disorderly behavior” which was located at the
intersection of Middlefield Road.
Looking at the data for all trails, the most common types
of crime reported along trails were disorder (43 percent
of crimes were non-violent disturbances, an unwanted
subject, or trespassing) and drug and alcohol use or distri-
bution (22 percent). There were two reported property
crimes (graffiti), and thefts in the six month period, and
one incidence each of robbery and breaking and entering.
Additional research is needed to better understand how
this reported activity compares to other non-trail areas in
each community.
The Palo Alto Police Department does not keep statistics
on the Bol Park Bike Path, a shared-use path adjacent to
residential property owners in the Barron Park neighbor-
hood. Conducting interviews with property owners and
regular Bol Park Path users may be another way to provide
anecdotal information.
Crime Prevention through
Environmental Design (CPTED)
Safety is a duty and obligation of all public facility managers
in the planning, design, and operation of public space.
No park or trail is immune to crime, but using multiple,
overlapping methods can greatly reduce opportunities for
crime on an urban trail. A combination of Crime Prevention
through Environmental Design (CPTED) principles,
public education, a strong maintenance program, and
programmatic and operational measures can minimize
potential conflicts among users, limit criminal activity,
and bestow positive impacts on adjacent land use and the
community as a whole.
CPTED is a proactive crime fighting technique in which the
proper design and effective use of the built environment
can lead to a reduction in the fear of and incidents of crime
and an improvement in quality of life.
The principles of CPTED include:
Natural surveillance. Increasing visibility by occupants
and casual observers increases the detection of
trespassers or misconduct at a facility.
Natural access control. The idea is to employ both real
and symbolic barriers—including doors, fences, and
vegetation—to define and limit access to a building or
other space.
Natural territorial reinforcement. This is the process
of establishing a sense of ownership, responsibility,
and accountability in property owners, managers,
or occupants to increase vigilance in identifying
trespassers.
11
5
4
2
1
0
Los Gatos Trail in San Jose, Campbell, and Los Gatos
Guadalupe River Trail in San Jose
Ohlone Greenway in Berkeley and El Cerrito
Joe’s Creek (de Anza Trail) in Saratoga
Matadero Creek in Palo Alto
Permanente Creek Trail in Mountain View and
Alameda Creek Trail in Fremont and Union City
Figure 30: Number of criminal incidents reported along trails
MIDTOWN CONNECTOR FEASIBILITY STUDY ~ 31
Maintenance. The basic upkeep, repair, and
maintenance of property. Neglected property can
create mistreatment, while maintained property
will elicit proper treatment. This strategy directly
impacts the fear of crime in a community due
to residents’ perceptions of responsibility and
caring in the neighborhood. Examples include the
immediate removal of graffiti or vandalism, landscape
maintenance, weed abatement, and painting worn
buildings. For the Matadero Creek Trail, this principle
will go into effect once the corridor is improved and
the facility constructed.
Lighting is not permitted for the Matadero Creek Trail
based on SCVWD requirements. Lighting of street
crossings and trail gateways on City of Palo Alto right-
of-way could be beneficial for safety. Lighting improves the
sense of security at access points to the trail, with emphasis
on roadway connections. Lighting the corridor after dark
encourages 24-hour use and requires increased patrolling.
Instead, the City will establish hours of operation from dawn
to dusk. Patrolling during the first six months of operation is
recommended.
Call boxes, security cameras, lockable gates, and other
target hardening strategies may be used to increase the
perception of security, but are not necessary if CPTED
principles are being used to design the trail. Target
hardening is not a CPTED principle, and should only be
considered if there is a considerable public concern or
known criminal activity.
To provide reasonable and ordinary safety measures, the
City of Palo Alto could develop and implement a Safety
and Security Program for trails, if not already in place.
This program should consist of well-defined safety and
security policies; the identification of trail management, law
enforcement, emergency, and fire protection policies; and a
system that offers timely responses to the public for issues
or problems related to safety and security.
4.2 Privacy
In most instances, residential property owners have wood
privacy fences installed along their property. The height
of most fences range between five and six feet. Providing
additional privacy fencing at a height greater than six
feet could be considered in the cost of development and
identified by communication with each property owner in
the design phase.
Figure 31: In addition to privacy fencing, vegetation can be used
to provide additional privacy for homeowners adjacent to the
proposed trail as shown in this image.
32 ~ MIDTOWN CONNECTOR FEASIBILITY STUDY
4.3 Mid-Block Crossings
As part of the feasibility study, the Alta team evaluated
potential mid-block crossings of City streets. Matadero
Creek sits roughly halfway between Colorado Avenue to
the north and Loma Verde Avenue to the south. Those
two streets are approximately 0.4 miles apart. There are
no controlled intersections (signal or stop sign) where the
creek passes below each cross-street.
Seven city streets cross Matadero Creek between Alma
Street and W. Bayshore Road. The crossing at Bryant Street
is for bicyclists and pedestrians only and is at a location
where a shared-use path is not feasible along the creek. For
the other six crossings (Waverley Street, Cowper Street,
Middlefield Road, Ross Road, Louis Road, and Greer Road),
Alta identified potential options for creating safer mid-block
crossings.
Crossing options range from signage and crosswalks to
flashing beacons or hybrid beacons that, when triggered,
act like a stoplight. Other options such as raised crosswalks,
bulb-outs, and median refuge islands may also be
appropriate.
The following figures provide examples for two types of
crossings:
A crossing of a higher-volume street that includes a
crosswalk, pedestrian hybrid beacon, median island,
and bulbouts (see Figure 32)
A crossing of a low-volume street that includes
crosswalks, flashing beacons, and bulbouts (see Figure
33)
Middlefield Road would likely require a higher volume
crossing, but most other crossings appear to have low
enough automobile volumes to use some version of the low
volume crossing. Actual crossings would be developed as
part of the design process if the City of Palo Alto chooses to
pursue a creek trail.
Figure 32: A Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon (sometimes called a HAWK signal) is recommended at Middlefield Road, a higher-volume
crossing location. Additional traffic calming measures such as a raised crosswalk or a pedestrian refuge island may also be appropriate
treatments to consider.
MIDTOWN CONNECTOR FEASIBILITY STUDY ~ 33
Figure 33: To create a safer crossing condition, Palo Alto could
consider installation of Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons and
other traffic calming measures illustrated here.
34 ~ MIDTOWN CONNECTOR FEASIBILITY STUDY
4.4 Caltrain/Highway 101
Crossing Assessment
A trail facility (shared-use or pedestrian only) along
Matadero Creek would ideally connect to other existing
bicycle and pedestrian facilities to the east and west. The
combination of US 101 and the Caltrain corridor present
significant barriers to making those connections.
Options for providing connections across these barriers
include:
Making connections to existing and proposed crossings
such as at Oregon Avenue, N. California Avenue, Adobe
Creek, and others.
Building a new undercrossing or overcrossing of Alma
Street and the Caltrain tracks.
Enhancing the current undercrossing along Matadero
Creek at US 101. There is approximately 7.5 feet of
vertical clearance available under US 101 that could
provide space for a pedestrian path after retrofit
Alma Street/Caltrain Crossing
Caltrain Standards for Design and Maintenance of
Structures specifies a minimum of three feet of vertical
clearance from the top of any undercrossing to the bottom
of track ties. Assuming 13 feet of vertical clearance
between the undercrossing walking surface and the bottom
of track ties (given an undercrossing height of ten feet),
the undercrossing would require approximately 260-foot-
long ramps at a grade of five percent. If undercrossing
alternatives are pursued, detailed underground utility
investigation would be necessary during the preliminary
design phase.
Figure 34 (right) identifies potential alignments for a
proposed undercrossing.
Alignment 1 assumes an at-grade crossing of Alma Street
at Matadero Creek, followed by an undercrossing of just
the Caltrain right-of-way. The ramps for this undercrossing
would run parallel to the train tracks and the west
side could exit through an existing City-owned power
transmission property. This alignment is unlikely because
of the constraints for developing a trail along Segment A of
Matadero Creek. At Alma Street, maintenance access ramps
make a creek trail infeasible.
Alignment 2 includes a ramp down from El Carmelo
Avenue to a tunnel under the Caltrain tracks, similar to the
ramp on N. California Avenue. Similar to Alignment 1, the
tunnel would exit at the power plant where an at-grade
pedestrian and bicycle connection would be provided.
Alternatively, a ramp could be located along Alma Street on
the north side between Matadero Creek and El Carmelo
Avenue shown as Alignment 2b.
Alignment 3 would cross Alma Street at-grade, followed by
an undercrossing of the Caltrain right-of-way. It is likely that
this alignment would require right-of-way purchase where
the tunnel daylights.
Alternatively, it may be possible to make a connection to
the power transmission property discussed in the first two
options. However, an additional 500 feet of path along
the Caltrain right-of-way would be required shown as
Alignment 3b.
Figure 35 (page 36) provides a conceptual view of
an undercrossing at El Carmelo Avenue. This style of
undercrossing is a prototypical approach and could
represent most locations identified in Figure 34. For all
three alignments, further investigation would be required
to determine the suitability of a path through the power
transmission property and in close coordination with
Caltrain.
MIDTOWN CONNECTOR FEASIBILITY STUDY ~ 35
0
50 150
100 200 feet
Legend
Conceptual Undercrossing Alignment 1 Conceptual Undercrossing Alignment 2
Conceptual Undercrossing Alignment 3
Conceptual At-Grade Connections Overhead Utilities Creek
Power Plant (City-owned property)
15’ min.15’ min.
Ramp to
channel bottom
60’
Ramp to
channel bottom
Power Plant(City-ownedproperty)
Vance BrownBuilders
Park AvenueMotors
40’
Park Blvd
Alma St
Caltrain CorridorCaltrain Corridor
El
C
a
r
m
e
l
o
A
v
e
La
m
b
e
r
t
A
v
e
El
D
o
r
a
d
o
A
v
e
Lo
m
a
V
e
r
d
e
A
v
e
Conceptual bridge over creek
2b
3
3b
2
Figure 34: Conceptual undercrossing configuration under Caltrain Corridor in the vicinity of Matadero Creek.
36 ~ MIDTOWN CONNECTOR FEASIBILITY STUDY
4.5 Utilities
Based on utility map research, surveying, and field
investigations, the Matadero Creek trail alignment
would cross perpendicular utilities at street crossings.
There are existing underground water, gas, and sanitary
sewer crossings perpendicular to the creek. Other than
adjustments of valves and manholes to grade, no utility
relocations are anticipated at street crossings.
Overhead electric and communication utility lines cross the
creek at Alma Street, Waverley Street, Cowper Street, Ross
Road, Louis Road, and Greer Road. Impacts or relocation
of overhead utilities are not anticipated for the Matadero
Creek corridor.
There is an existing 60Kv electric line in a six-inch steel
casing running longitudinally along the creek north
maintenance access road. The electric line is owned by the
City and relocation is not anticipated.
Midtown East - West ConnectorEl Carmelo Avenue Undercrossing Entrance
View along sidewalk on El Carmelo Ave View along undercrossing
El Ca
r
m
e
l
o
A
v
e
n
u
e
El Carmelo Avenue
Alma Street
Alm
a
S
t
r
e
e
t
ADA Landings
“LOOK” Warning Sign
“LOOK” Warning Sign
Bulbout
Figure 35: Conceptual undercrossing configuration from El Carmelo Avenue. A similar crossing approach could be available for Loma
Verde Avenue or along Alma Street.
MIDTOWN CONNECTOR FEASIBILITY STUDY ~ 37
This page intentionally left blank.
Chapter 5
Costs & Implementation
MIDTOWN CONNECTOR FEASIBILITY STUDY ~ 39
Palo Alto received a $1.5 million grant from Santa Clara
County to complete a proposed trail along Matadero
Creek. The City would need to work with the County to
determine which of the proposed options (shared-use
path, pedestrian-only path, hybrid, or Loma Verde Avenue
protected bikeway) would meet the terms of the grant.
None of the options could be fully funded from grant
resources. Both the shared-use path and pedestrian-only
path require significant additional resources from the City
to complete. Cost estimates for each option were developed
using the most recent bidding information available.
The estimates assume:
A trail surface of stabilized decomposed granite, which
is roughly the equivalent cost of concrete (asphalt
surface would result in some cost savings)
A drainage ditch to collect runoff along the trail would
be necessary for on-creek alignments
Curb extensions, raised crosswalks, additional street
lighting, advance warning pavement markings/signage,
and pole-mounted Rapid Flashing Rectangular Beacons
for all low volume mid-block crossings.
(Note: A safe but less costly option would include
advance warning markings/signage and beacons
without moving curbs or raising the sidewalk. This
option would reduce the estimated cost per mid-block
crossing from $130,000 to $30,000 per crossing.)
Median refuge island, raised crosswalk, additional
street lighting, advance warning pavement markings/
signage, and mast arm-mounted Pedestrian Hybrid
Beacon for one high volume mid-block crossing
(Middlefield Road).
(Note: A safe, but less costly option would include
advance warning markings/signage and Pedestrian
Hybrid Beacon without moving curbs or raising the
sidewalk. This option would reduce the estimated
cost from $290,000 to $125,000.)
5.1 Costs & Implementation
Matadero Creek Trail Cost Estimates
Table 4: Shared-Use Path Capital Cost Estimates
Matadero Creek - Segment A (El Carmelo)$750,000
Matadero Creek - Segment B (No. Side of Creek)$550,000
Matadero Creek - Segment C (So. Side of Creek)$380,000
Matadero Creek - Segment D (No. Side of Creek)$390,000
Matadero Creek - Segment E (Henry W Seale Park
& Maddux Drive)
$10,000
Matadero Creek - Segment F (No. Side of Creek)$440,000
Low Volume Street Crossings (5 locations)$650,000
High Volume Street Crossings (1 location)$290,000
Total Construction (above project sections)$3,460,000
Environmental (15%)$520,000
Design (15%)$520,000
Construction Management (10%)$350,000
Total $4,850,000
Table 5: Pedestrian-Only Path Capital Cost Estimates
Matadero Creek - Segment A (El Carmelo)$5,000
Matadero Creek - Segment B (Thru Hoover Park)$160,000
Matadero Creek - Segment C (So. Side of Creek)$310,000
Matadero Creek - Segment D (So. Side of Creek)$320,000
Matadero Creek - Segment E (Pedestrian Option
Thru North Side of Creek)
$330,000
Matadero Creek - Segment F (No. Side of Creek)$360,000
Low Volume Street Crossings (5 locations)$650,000
High Volume Street Crossings (1 location)$290,000
Total Construction (above project sections)$2,425,000
Environmental (15%)$360,000
Design (15%)$360,000
Construction Management (10%)$240,000
Total $3,385,000
40 ~ MIDTOWN CONNECTOR FEASIBILITY STUDY
Additional safety railing along the full length of the trail
(there may be sections where this is not necessary, thus
reducing costs)
Additional privacy fencing along the full length of the
trail (there may be sections where this is not requested
by adjacent property owner)
Maintenance & Operations
Based on costs provided by other trail managers in the Bay
Area and Northern California, a typical annual maintenance
cost of $15,000 per mile should be expected for the
Matadero Creek Trail. This cost includes vegetation and
graffiti removal and spot repairs to the trail surface.
Loma Verde Avenue Class IV
(Protected) Bikeway Cost Estimates
Table 6: Loma Verde Avenue Class IV (Protected) Bikeway
Capital Cost Estimates
Protected Bikeway on Loma Verde
Avenue
$1,400,000
Total Construction
(above project sections)
$1,400,000
Environmental (15%)$210,000
Design (15%)$210,000
Construction Management (10%)$140,000
Total $1,960,000
The estimate assumes:
The bikeway would be constructed at the existing
street level (not raised). A raised bikeway would be
more costly in terms of materials and redesigning the
roadway to accommodate stormwater drainage.
Maintenance & Operations
Typical annual maintenance costs of $10,000 to $13,000
per mile should be expected for the Loma Verde Avenue
Class IV Bikeway. This cost includes vegetation and graffiti
removal, pothole filling, irrigation for planted buffer strip,
sign replacement/repair, and pavement marking repairs as
needed.
Caltrain & US 101 Undercrossing Cost
Estimates
Conceptual alignments for crossing Alma Street and the
Caltrain Corridor are described in Chapter 2 and the cost
estimate could change based on the final alignment. Cost
estimates for enhancing the undercrossing at Highway 101
have been updated from the City of Palo Alto Highway 101
Over/Under Crossing Feasibility Study (2011).
Table 7: Cost Estimates for US 101 and Caltrain
Undercrossings
Alma Street/Caltrain Tunnel
Undercrossing*
$13,000,000
101 Undercrossing $1,500,000
Total Construction (above
project sections)
$14,500,000
Environmental (15%)$2,200,000
Design (15%)$2,200,000
Construction Management (10%)$1,500,000
Total $20,400,000
*Depending on final alignment, an undercrossing may require the
purchase of right-of-way (not included in this estimate)
MIDTOWN CONNECTOR FEASIBILITY STUDY ~ 41
Implementation & Phasing
A CEQA Negative Declaration for the BPTP was adopted
on September 4, 2012. Each individual capital improvement
project is subject to environmental assessment after there
is agreement on a conceptual design (i.e., Concept Plan Line)
for further study. Physical improvements proposed as part
of either Matadero Creek trail options or the Loma Verde
Avenue Class IV Bikeway will be subject to environmental
review as part of the design phase should the City choose to
initiate further design.
Matadero Creek Shared-Use Path
The Matadero Creek Shared-Use Path option would require
the City to negotiate and sign a Joint Use Agreement with
the Santa Clara Valley Water District. Right-of-way would
need to be negotiated with two properties where parking
removal would be necessary. Once right-of-way is secured,
the project would take approximately 24 months to design
and construct.
Matadero Creek Pedestrian-Only Path
Matadero Creek Pedestrian-Only Path requires the
negotiation of a Joint Use Agreement with the Santa Clara
Valley Water District and would take approximately 24
months to design and construct.
Matadero Creek Hybrid Path
The final alignment could also be designed to accommodate
a shared-use path on some segments and pedestrian-only
path on other segments. While a discontinuous experience
for bicyclists, this hybrid option could provide additional
off-street connectivity between destinations and could
prove useful for short distance trips.
PHASING
Segment D – Ross Road to Louis Road has no constraints
for a shared-use path or pedestrian-only path and could
serve as a demonstration section to begin the project.
Similarly, the first portion of Segment B from Waverley
Street to Cowper Street could serve as the first phase
of implementation. If the City moved forward with the
pedestrian-only path alignment, then all segments and
mid-block crossings can proceed. The project cost will
increase if more phases are added.
The shared-use path alignment will require the
reconfiguration of El Carmelo Avenue (Segment A), the First
Christian Church and Winter Lodge parking lots (Segments
B and C), and a short section of Louis Road near Seale Park
(Segment E) to create a continuous user experience. Short
usable sections are less appealing for bicyclists, however,
the project could be split into two phases given the right-
of-way constraints and high cost of implementation. Phase
1 could start at Middlefield Road and run to W. Bayshore
Road and Phase 2 could start at Middlefield Road and run to
Alma Street.
Loma Verde Avenue Class IV Bikeway
The Loma Verde Avenue Class IV (protected) Bikeway is
located completely within public right-of-way and would
take approximately 18 months to design and construct. The
project would be implemented as one phase.
Chapter 6
Conclusions
MIDTOWN CONNECTOR FEASIBILITY STUDY ~ 43
Three east-west alignments in Midtown Palo Alto have
been closely evaluated using a strict feasibility analysis with
varying degrees of feasibility identified for each.
A shared-use path will accommodate the greatest diversity
of users and provide a recreational path that is largely
protected from motor vehicle travel. This is also the most
costly option and will require a successful negotiation with
two private landowners in order to gain necessary right-
of-way. Safety and privacy concerns have also been noted
by the public.
Table 8: Feasible Trail Options
Alignment Option Evaluation Constraints Cost
Matadero Creek
Shared-Use Path
Feasible with
constraints
• On-street alignment required on El Carmelo Avenue (parking
removal required)
• Right-of-way and parking lot reconfiguration required at First
Christian Church and Winter Lodge properties (parking removal
required)
• On-street alignment required on Louis Road and Maddux Drive
to utilize existing path through Seale Park
• Seasonal access only between Greer Road and W. Bayshore
Road
• Railing required at locations where floodwall is less than 42” high
$4.8 M
Matadero Creek
Pedestrian-Only Path
Feasible with minimal
constraints
• Seasonal access only between Greer Road and W. Bayshore
Road
• Railing required at locations where floodwall is less than 42” high
$3.3 M
Loma Verde Avenue
Class IV (protected)
Bikeway
Feasible • Reduction in parking between Alma Street and Bryant Street
and between Louis Road and West Bayshore Road
• Bikeway crosses 63 driveways
$1.9 M
A pedestrian-only path designed for walkers and joggers
would be easier to implement at a slightly lower cost than
a shared-use path. Safety and privacy concerns have also
been noted by the public.
A Class IV (protected) bikeway on Loma Verde Avenue
would enhance the east-west bicycling connection through
Midtown Palo Alto at a lower cost than either creek-side
option and require no additional right-of-way. This concept
makes minimal improvements to existing pedestrian infra-
structure. The primary challenge for this option is the large
number of driveways that must be crossed by the two-way
cycle track.
City of Palo Alto
Midtown Connector Feasibility Study
APPENDIX A
Matadero Creek Opportunities & Constraints Segment Maps
PREPARED FOR:PREPARED BY:
JUNE 2016
AL
M
A
S
T
MATADERO CREEK
EM
E
R
S
O
N
S
T
RA
M
O
N
A
S
T
BR
Y
A
N
T
S
T
SO
U
T
H
C
T
WA
V
E
R
L
E
Y
S
T
EM
E
R
S
O
N
S
T
RA
M
O
N
A
S
T
BR
Y
A
N
T
S
T
SO
U
T
H
C
T
MATADERO CREEK
CA
L
T
R
A
I
N
C
O
R
R
I
D
O
R
MATADERO
CREEK
WA
V
E
R
L
E
Y
S
T
EL CARMELO AVE EL CARMELO AVE
Matadero Creek - Segment A: Alma St - Waverley St
Opportunities and Constraints (with photos)(E) Section
(P) SectionVicinity Map
40’N SMaintenanceAccess
Creek Channel
12’
PrivateProperty
3’
Maintenance Access
Ramp with Fence and Gate
40’NS
Private Property Creek Channel
2’
Private Property
CONSTRAINT I & II
5’-6”
A BCD E F
Ramp and pinch point. Existing flood
wall located on property line
I.
CREEK
II.
Existing maintenance path, 5’-6” wide
III.
Maintenance road width 11’
I.
CA
L
T
R
A
I
N
C
O
R
R
I
D
O
R
I
MATADERO CREEK - SEGMENT A: ALMA STREET TO WAVERLEY STREET
TRAIL FEASIBILITY
Feasible
Pedestrian Only / Feasible with Constraints
Not Feasible
Floodwall adjacent to private property
IV.
V.
Floodwall located on property line
A B
A
B CONSTRAINT IV & V
I.II.III.IV.
V.I.
El Carmelo Avenue
WA
V
E
R
L
E
Y
S
T
KI
P
L
I
N
G
S
T
CO
W
P
E
R
S
T
TOWLE WAY
MI
D
D
L
E
F
I
E
L
D
R
D
MATADERO CREEK
HOOVER PARK
TOWLE WAY
MATADERO CREEK
WA
V
E
R
L
E
Y
S
T
Segment B: Waverly St to Middlfield Rd
Opportunities and Constraints (with photos)(E) Section
(P) SectionVicinity Map
MATADERO CREEKMATADEROCREEKA
I
40’N S
Private PropertyCreek Channel11’
PrivateProperty Maintenance Rd
MaintenancePath Parking Lot
11’ wide maintenance road Impassable due to private property
I.
I.
II.
II.
III.
Existing 7’ pedestrian path connects
Middlefield Road to Hoover Park
Floodwall height 6 inches
Path narrows to less than 4’
A
A
B CONSTRAINT III & IV
TYPICAL CONDITION
40’NS
Private Property
Creek Channel4’
PrivateProperty
B
TRAIL FEASIBILITY
Feasible
Pedestrian Only / Feasible with Constraints
Not Feasible
A B C D E F
MATADERO CREEK - SEGMENT B: WAVERLEY STREET TO MIDDLEFIELD ROAD
Church easement with water district
used for parking lot
IV.
I.II.I.
III.IV.
II.
TOWLE WAY
MI
D
D
L
E
F
I
E
L
D
R
D
LP HTROWSLLE
CLARA DR
RO
S
S
R
D
WINTERGREEN
MATADERO C
R
E
E
K
TENNIS CLUB
CLARA DR
CL
PRICE CT
Segment C: Middlfield Rd - Ross Rd
Opportunities and Constraints (with photos)(E) Section
(P) SectionVicinity Map
I.
Winter Lodge parking lot fence abuts
Water District access ramp and
floodgate
Maintenance path width narrows to 4’
II.
I.
III.
Maintenance path width 5’Maintenance path width 12’-8”
WINTERGREEN
CLARA DR
TOWLE WAYTT
I
40’N S
Winter LodgeParking Lot
Creek Channel4’
Private Property
A
A
B TYPICAL CONDITION
CONSTRAINT I & II
40’NS
Private Property
Creek Channel12’
PrivateProperty
B
TRAIL FEASIBILITY
Feasible
Pedestrian Only / Feasible with Constraints
Not Feasible
4’A B C D E F
Rampand Floodgate
10’
Maintenance Rd MaintenancePath
MATADERO CREEK - SEGMENT C: MIDDLEFIELD ROAD TO ROSS ROAD
I.I.II.III.
CLARA DR
DR
S
S
O
R
WINTERGREEN WAY
CLARA DR
DR
S
I
U
O
L
MATADERO C
R
E
E
K
LP ARDN
CLARA DR
DAVID AVE
CLARA DR
DR
S
I
U
O
L
Segment D: Ross Rd - Louis Rd
Opportunities and Constraints (with photos)(E) Section
Vicinity Map
II.
II.
Maintenance road width 12’-8”
of property boundary
A TYPICAL CONDITION
40’SNMaintenanceRoad
Creek Channel PrivatePropertyMaintenancePath
12’
A
I.
I.
Floodwall located on property lineMaintenance road width 12’
MATADERO CREEK - SEGMENT D: ROSS ROAD TO LOUIS ROAD
A B C D E F
1’
I.I.II.II.
LP
ARDN
CLARA DR
CLARA DR
I
TRAIL FEASIBILITY
Feasible
Pedestrian Only / Feasible with Constraints
Not Feasible
LO
U
I
S
R
D
HENRY W SE
A
L
E
P
A
R
K
GR
E
E
R
R
MADDUX D
R
CREEK
MATADERO C
R
E
E
K
GR
E
E
R
R
D
NS
P
L
MATADERO C
R
E
E
K
MADDUX D
R
TC SREIP
DAVID AVE
CLARA DR
Segment E: Louis Rd to Greer Rd
Opportunities and Constraints (with photos)(E) Section
(P) SectionVicinity Map
Existing floodwall located within a foot
of property boundary
III.
B
40’SNPrivateProperty
Creek Channel 2’
PrivateProperty
5’-4”
Ramp &Floodgate
A
B TYPICAL CONDITION
CONSTRAINT I & II
40’S N
MaintenancePath
Creek Channel 12’
PrivateProperty MaintenanceRoad
2’
A
I.
II.
Path narrows to 5’4” at access ramp
and floodgate
Existing floodwall located on property
boundary
A B C D E F
MATADERO CREEK - SEGMENT E: LOUIS ROAD TO GREER ROAD
Maintenance road width 12’
I.
MaintenancePath
10’
PrivateProperty
NS
PL
CREEKCC
DAVID AVE
TRAIL FEASIBILITY
Feasible
Pedestrian Only / Feasible with Constraints
Not Feasible I
I.I.II.III.
GR
E
E
R
R
D
MADDUX D
R
US
1
0
1
MATADERO C
R
E
E
K
GRE
E
R
R
D
W
B
A
Y
S
H
O
R
E
R
D
MATADERO C
R
E
E
K
MADDUX D
R
W B
A
Y
S
H
O
R
E
R
D
Segment F: Greer Rd - W Bayshore Rd
Opportunities and Constraints (with photos)(E) Section
(P) SectionVicinity Map
B
B
A CONSTRAINT I & II
CONSTRAINT III & IV
A B C D E F
MATADERO CREEK - SEGMENT F: GREER ROAD TO W BAYSHORE ROAD
US
1
0
1
MATADERO C
R
E
EK
MADDUX D
R
M
IIV.
III.
Path narrows to 5’ at Water District ramp
and low clearance below W Bayshore Rd
Impassable below W Bayshore Road
40’N SMaintenanceRoad & Floodgate
Creek Channel12’
Private Property
MaintenanceRoad &Floodgate
12’
A
TRAIL FEASIBILITY
Feasible
Pedestrian Only / Feasible with Constraints
Not Feasible
Water District ramp and seasonal
floodgate
Water District access ramp and
seasonal floodgate
I.
II.
40’S NMaintenancePath
Creek Channel12’
Private Property MaintenanceRoad
5’10’
AccessRamp
I.II.III.IV.
City of Palo Alto
Midtown Connector Feasibility Study
APPENDIX B
Matadero Creek Feasible Alignments
PREPARED FOR:PREPARED BY:
JUNE 2016
AL
M
A
S
T
KEERC OREDATAM
EM
E
R
S
O
N
S
T
RA
M
O
N
A
S
T
BR
Y
A
N
T
S
T
SO
U
T
H
C
T
WA
V
E
R
L
E
Y
S
T
EM
E
R
S
O
N
S
T
RA
M
O
N
A
S
T
BR
Y
A
N
T
S
T
SO
U
T
H
C
T
KEERC OREDATAM
CA
L
T
R
A
I
N
C
O
R
R
I
D
O
R
OREDATAM
CREEK
WA
V
E
R
L
E
Y
S
T
EVA OLEMRAC LE EVA OLEMRAC LE
Opportunities and Constraints (with photos)(E) Section
(P) SectionVicinity Map
MATADERO CREEK TRAIL- SEGMENT A: ALMA STREET TO WAVERLEY STREET
Private
Property
Private
Property
7’
Travel LanesClass I
Shared Use Path Planted
Buffer
Parking
7’15’ 3’ 18’
Sidewalk
P
I.
CA
L
T
R
A
I
N
C
O
R
R
I
D
O
R
I
POTENTIAL ALIGNMENTS
Feasible
Feasible with Constraints
See Typical Intersection for
Low Volume Street
A
B
Visual simulation of sidewalk on the north side of El Carmelo expanded to become a
shared-use path with raised crosswalks and planted buffer
A BCD E F
Private
Property
Private
Property
7’
Travel LanesClass I
Shared Use Path Planted
Buffer
Parking
7’15’ 3’ 18’
Sidewalk
P
5’6’5’
Travel Lane Refuge
Median
Travel LanePlanting
10’10’
Planting
10’
Cycletrack
10’10’
SidewalkSidewalk
Proposed ConditionA Proposed ConditionB
Proposed ConditionProposed Condition
Existing ConditionExisting Condition
I.
WA
V
E
R
L
E
Y
S
T
KI
P
L
I
N
G
S
T
CO
W
P
E
R
S
T
TOWLE WAY
MI
D
D
L
E
F
I
E
L
D
R
D
KEERC OREDATAM
KRAP REVOOH
TOWLE WAY
KEERC OREDATAM
WA
V
E
R
L
E
Y
S
T
Segment B: Waverly St to Middlfield Rd
Opportunities and Constraints (with photos)(E) Section
Vicinity Map
MATADERO CREEK TRAIL - SEGMENT B: WAVERLEY STREET TO MIDDLEFIELD ROAD
I
I.
POTENTIAL ALIGNMENTS
Feasible
Feasible with Constraints
See Typical Intersection for Low Volume Street
See Typical Intersection for High Volume Street
Visual simulation showing potential shared use path connection from Middlefield Road along First Christian Church
and Hoover Park
30’PrivateProperty PrivatePropertyCreek Channel
11’
Bike/PedPath
Proposed Condition
Ped-only
path
Park Lawn Park Lawn
8’ - 10’
Existing Condition
B
A
A BCD E F
A BI.
Proposed ConditionProposed Condition
Existing ConditionExisting Condition
TOWLE WAY
MI
D
D
L
E
F
I
E
L
D
R
D
LP HTROWSLLE
CLARA DR
RO
S
S
R
D
WINTERGREEN
W
MATADERO C
R
E
E
K
TENNIS CLUB
CLARA DR
CL
PRICE CT
Segment C: Middlefield Rd to Ross Rd
Opportunities and Constraints (with photos)(E)
S
e
c
t
i
o
n
(P)
S
e
c
t
i
o
nVicinity Map
MATADERO CREEK TRAIL- SEGMENT C: MIDDLEFIELD ROAD TO ROSS ROAD
Visual Simulation of Option A: 12' wide shared-use path through parking lot,
parking converted to parallel spaces
Visual Simulation of Option B: 6.5' wide pedestrian only path through parking lot, no
parking modifications
WINTERGREEN
CLARA DR
TOWLE WAYTT
I
I.
34’PrivateProperty Creek Channel
4’
Maintenance
Path
12’ 12’12’ 10’
Maintenance Ramp
Bike/PedPath Parking Drive Aisle ParallelParking
34’PrivateProperty Creek Channel
4’
Maintenance Path
12’ 6.5’13’ 16’
Maintenance Ramp Ped-onlyPath Parking Drive Aisle AngledParking
Proposed Shared-Use Path
Proposed Pedestrian-Only Path
I.
POTENTIAL ALIGNMENTS
Feasible
Feasible with Constraints
See Typical Intersection for Low Volume Street
See Typical Intersection for High Volume Street
A BCD E F
BA
A
B
I.
Proposed ConditionProposed Condition
Existing Existing
ConditionCondition
CLARA DR
DR
S
S
O
R
WINTERGREEN WAY
CLARA DR
DR
S
I
U
O
L
MATADERO C
R
E
E
K
LP ARDN
CLARA DR
DAVID AVE
CLARA DR
DR
S
I
U
O
L
Opportunities and Constraints (with photos)
II.
II.
I.
MATADERO CREEK TRAIL- SEGMENT D: ROSS ROAD TO LOUIS ROAD
36’PrivateProperty PrivatePropertyCreek Channel
12’
Bike/PedPath
Proposed Condition
A
A
LP
ARDN
CLARA DR
CLARA DR
I
POTENTIAL ALIGNMENTS
Feasible
Feasible with Constraints
See Typical Intersection for
Low Volume Street
I.
I.
A BCD E F
I.
Proposed ConditionProposed ConditionExisting ConditionExisting Condition
Visual simulation showing potential shared use path along
Matadero Creek. The trail could include additional privacy
fencing, railing options along the floodwall, and different trail
surface options such as asphalt, concrete or crushed granite.
LO
U
I
S
R
D
HENRY W SE
A
L
E
P
A
R
K
GR
E
E
R
R
MADDUX D
R
CREEK
MATADERO C
R
E
E
K
GR
E
E
R
R
D
NS
P
L
MATADERO C
R
E
E
K
MADDUX D
R
TC SREIP
DAVID AVE
CLARA DR
Segment E: Louis Rd to Greer Rd
B
A
III.
View to Seale Park
Crosswalk from the trail in Seale Park across
Maddux Drive
A B C D E F
View through Seale Park
I.
III.
Entrance from Louis Road to the trail in Seale Park
MATADERO CREEK TRAIL - SEGMENT E: LOUIS ROAD TO GREER ROAD
6’6’
Travel Lanes w/
Class III Bike Route
Parking Parking
8’8’ 23’
Sidewalk
Private
Property
Private
Property Sidewalk
P P
I.
II.
IV.
II.
III.IV.
NS
PL
CREEKCC
DAVID AVE
I
POTENTIAL ALIGNMENTS
Feasible
Feasible with Constraints
See Typical Intersection for
Low Volume Street
I.
44’PrivateProperty PrivatePropertyCreek Channel
5-15’7’
Maintenance Path Pedestrian-Only Path(constraint near Louis Road)B Proposed Condition
Proposed ConditionA
GR
E
E
R
R
D
MADDUX D
R
US
1
0
1
MATADERO C
R
E
E
K
GRE
E
R
R
D
W
B
A
Y
S
H
O
R
E
R
D
MATADERO C
R
E
E
K
MADDUX D
R
W B
A
Y
S
H
O
R
E
R
D
Segment F: Greer Rd - W Bayshore Rd
noitceS )E()sotohp htiw( stniartsnoC dna seitinutroppO
Vicinity Map
MATADERO CREEK TRAIL - SEGMENT F: GREER ROAD TO W BAYSHORE ROAD
II.
A B C D E F
year
I.
View of the existing maintenance path under the 101/Bayshore Freeway and
Bayshore frontage roads
7’ 6” clearance
available
62’PrivateProperty PrivateProperty12’16’
Maintenance Road(does not continue under 101)Bike/PedPath
I.
TRAIL FEASIBILITY
II.
Feasible with Constraints
See Typical Intersection for Low Volume Street
A
A Proposed Condition
City of Palo Alto
Midtown Connector Feasibility Study
APPENDIX C
Loma Verde Avenue Conceptual Design
PREPARED FOR:PREPARED BY:
JUNE 2016
LOMA VERDE AVENUE: VISUAL SIMULATION
Current Conditions
Visual Simulation of Loma Verde Avenue with a Proposed At-Grade Class IV (Protected) Bikeway
LOMA VERDE AVENUE: CROSS SECTIONS (40’ RIGHT-OF-WAY)
Existing Condition
11’12’N STravel Lane
40’
Loma Verde (from Alma Street to Bryant Street and from Louis Road to W Bayshore Road)
11’
Travel LaneParking & Bike Lane
6’
Bike Lane
P
Sidewalk/
Planter
Sidewalk/
Planter
LOMA VERDE AVEN
U
E
LOMA VERDE AVENUE
BR
Y
A
N
T
S
T
R
E
E
T
SO
U
T
H
C
O
U
R
T
WA
V
E
R
L
Y
ST
R
E
E
T
KI
P
L
I
N
G
S
T
R
E
E
T
CO
W
P
E
R
S
T
R
E
E
T
LOMA VERDE AVENUE
A
L
M
A
S
T
R
E
E
T
E
M
E
R
S
O
N
S
T
R
E
E
T
RA
M
O
N
A
S
T
R
E
E
T
B
R
Y
A
N
T
S
T
R
E
E
T
DESIGN TO BE COORDINATED WITH PROPOSED
BRYANT STREET BICYCLE BOULEVARD
0 100'50'
0 100'50'
LOMA VERDE AVE: ALMA ST TO BRYANT ST
LOMA VERDE AVE: BRYANT ST TO COWPER ST
LOMA VERDE AVENUE LOMA VERDE AVENUE
M
I
D
D
L
E
F
I
E
L
D
R
O
A
D
TO
R
R
E
Y
A
C
O
L
O
M
A
V
E
R
D
E
P
L
A
C
E
R
O
S
S
R
O
A
D
DESIGN TO BE COORDINATED WITH PROPOSED
ROSS ROAD BICYCLE BOULEVARD
LOMA VERDE AVENUE
LO
C
O
W
P
E
R
S
T
R
E
E
T
A
V
A
L
O
N
C
O
U
R
T
F
L
O
W
E
R
S
L
A
N
E
M
I
D
D
L
E
F
I
E
L
D
R
O
A
D
LOMA VERDE AVE: COPWER ST TO MIDDLEFIELD RD
0 100'50'
0 100'50'
LOMA VERDE AVE: MIDDLEFIELD RD TO ROSS RD
LOMA VERDE AVENUE
L
O
U
I
S
R
O
A
D
VE
R
N
O
N
TE
R
R
A
C
E
V
E
R
N
O
N
T
E
R
R
A
C
E
G
R
E
E
R
R
O
A
D
LOMA VERDE AVENUE
R
O
S
S
R
O
A
D
MA
N
C
H
E
S
T
E
R
CO
U
R
T
D
A
V
I
D
A
V
E
N
U
E
M
U
R
R
A
Y
W
A
Y
L
O
U
I
S
R
O
A
D
L
O
M
A
V
E
R
D
E
C
O
U
R
T
0 100'50'
0 100'50'
LOMA VERDE AVE: ROSS RD TO LOUIS RD
LOMA VERDE AVE: LOUIS RD TO GREER RD
G
R
E
E
R
R
O
A
D
MA
D
D
U
X
D
R
FA
L
L
E
N
L
E
A
F
S
T
W
B
A
Y
S
H
O
R
E
R
D
SIGN TO BE COORDINATED WITH PROPOSED
ROSS ROAD BICYCLE BOULEVARD
0 100'50'
LOMA VERDE AVE: GREER RD TO W BAYSHORE RD
City of Palo Alto
Midtown Connector Feasibility Study
APPENDIX D
Loma Verde Avenue Parking Utilization Study
PREPARED FOR:PREPARED BY:
JUNE 2016
Loma Verde Parking Occupancy Study
The City of Palo Alto is examining the potential for an on-street facility that could serve the same recreational
purpose as the trail proposed along Matadero Creek. Loma Verde Avenue was identified as the feasible
option for an on-street facility, given available width. To serve a recreational function similar to the proposed
trail, the City considered a Class IV (Protected) bikeway that separates bicycles from automobile traffic.
This technical report describes an evaluation of the potential impact of parking removal on local residents
for a Class IV facility.
Existing conditions.
Loma Verde Avenue is a 1.5 mile long street connecting Alma Street and W. Bayshore Road, with 0.9 miles
of bicycle lanes installed between Bryant Street and Louis Road and no bicycle facilities from Alma Street
to Bryant or from Louis Road to W. Bayshore Road. From Bryant Street to Louis Road, the bicycle lanes
on the North side of the street are shared with parking (one wide striped lane accommodates parking and
bicycles). On the South side of the street, the bicycle lanes are time of day restricted. No parking is
permitted between the hours of 7:00 AM and 7:00 PM, but parking is allowed overnight.
Parking Occupancy
Parking occupancy was examined separately for three were considered for three segments of the corridor
(Alma Street to Bryant Street, Bryant Street to Louis Road, and Louis Road to W. Bayshore Road), based
on the variation in existing conditions.
Alma Street to Bryant Street
On Loma Verde Avenue from Alma Street to Bryant Street, there are 1,294 feet of parking space, or
59 parking spaces. On average, 14 of these spaces (24 percent) are typically used. The block from Alma
Street to Emerson Street has the highest rate utilization rate at 38 percent of spaces typically in use.
The new design for this segment will require the removal of 34 spaces or 58 percent of available spaces.
The expected utilization will increase from 24 percent to 56 percent.
Bryant Street to Louis Road
The proposed Class IV (Protected) bikeway will consolidate the existing bike lanes on the south side of the
street as a two-way cycletrack. There is no impact on the North side of the street – all parking would
remain. On the South side of the street, no parking would be permitted, eliminating overnight parking. One
overnight count was taken along this section and no cars were observed.
Converting the existing overnight parking restriction to an all-hours parking restriction on the south side of
Loma Verde between Bryant Street and Louis Road is expected to have no parking impact.
Louis Road to W. Bayshore Road
From Louis Road to W. Bayshore Road, there are 2,549 feet of parking space, or 116 parking spaces. On
average, 33 percent of the parking spaces are typically in use. The most heavily utilized blocks are between
Greer Road to W. Bayshore Road, especially east of where Maddux Drive connects to Loma Verde. On
average, this block is 49 percent utilized.
The proposed design for this segment would remove 61 parking spaces, or 53 percent of available spaces.
Expected utilization would increase from 30 to 72 percent. The segment from Greer to
Two-hundred feet of Maddux Drive was also evaluated to gauge available overflow parking. On average,
an additional 12 parking spaces are typically available (7 of 19 spaces are typically in use along the first
200 feet of Maddux Drive) to accommodate some overflow parking.
Table 1 summarizes the parking impacts for the two impacted segments.
Table 1. Loma Verde Avenue Parking Summary
Segment
Available Parking Spaces
(#)
Average Vehicles Observed
(#)
Current Utilization
(%)
Proposed Parking Spaces
(#)
Parking Spaces Removed
(#)
Expected Utilization
(%)
Reduction in Spaces
(%)
West
(Alma to
Bryant)
59 15 24% 25 34 56% 58%
East
(Bayshore
to Louis)
116 38 33% 54 61 70% 53%
Total 175 52 30% 79 95 66% 54%
Methodology
The selected on-street parking study method, outlined in the City of Atlanta’s complete streets design
manual, required robust data collection over four distinct observation periods and the estimation of average
on-street parking utilization of all impacted travelways.1 The City of Palo Alto’s Parking Facility Design
Standards in the Municipal Code requires a minimum length of twenty (20) feet for parallel parking spaces.
For the purposes of this study it is assumed the average unmarked parallel parking space is twenty-two
(22) feet long, which should prevent underestimating available parking spaces. The prevalence of compact
cars observed in the study area further supports a conservative estimation of 22 feet for the typical parking
space.
Observations were taken twice during weekdays between the hours of 10:00 AM and 3:00 PM to capture
daytime parking needs. Observations were taken on each roadway segment in the evening between the
hours of 7:00 PM and 6:00 AM to capture overnight parking needs as well once on weekends. Taken in
composite, these four observations reflect typical parking needs (daytime non-commuters, commuters, and
weekend use) for each roadway segment. The estimate of existing parking utilization was calculated by
dividing the total number of available parking spaces by the average number of observed parked cars. The
existing parking utilization was then compared to the proposed parking utilization. The proposed utilization
reflects how current parking needs may change if available spaces are reallocated in order to install traffic
calming measures as part of the potential improvements.
Table 2 presents detailed data by roadway segment for the east and west segments.
1 http://www.atlantaga.gov/modules/showdocument.aspx?documentid=18418.
Day
#1
Day
#2 Weekend Evening
West Segment 1,294 59 8 12 19 12 14 24%25 34 56%11
Alma to Emerson 402 18 6 5 7 7 7 38%9 9 78%2
Emerson to Ramona 480 22 2 6 7 5 5 23%10 12 50%5
Ramona to Bryant 412 19 0 1 5 0 2 11%6 13 33%4
East Segment 2,549 116 25 29 42 50 38 33%54 61 70%16
Louis to Stockton 641 29 1 1 3 2 2 7%16 13 13%14
Stockton to Greer 649 30 4 8 8 10 8 27%14 15 57%6
Greer to W Bayshore 1,259 57 20 20 31 38 28 49%24 33 117%(4)
TOTAL 3,843 175 33 41 61 62 52 30%79 95 66%27
Survey Times
Daytime #1 was surveyed on March 24, 2016 at 10:00 am (between 8am and 5pm)
Daytime #2 was surveyed on March 29, 2016 at 10:00 am (between 8am and 5pm)
Weekend as surveyed on March 26, 2016 at 11:00 am (between 8am and 5pm)
Evening was surveyed on March 29, 2016 at 8 pm (between 7pm and 6am)
Notes
1) Survey on-street parking by block segment and side of street. See Move Atlanta Design Manual for counting instructions.
2) Parking Availability must exclude driveways, fire hydrants, the visibility triangle at intersections, and other no parking areas.
3) For survey times, see Chapter 2 of the Move Atlanta Manual. Survey times are based on land use &functional classification.
4) Loma Verde Ave is no parking on the east side of the street from 7 am - 7 pm.
Proposed
Parking
Surplus
(Deficit)
Table 2: Detailed Parking Occupancy Data
Cars Observed
Block Segment
Feet of
Parking
Space
Existing
Parking
Spaces
Average
Cars
Observed
Current
Percent
Used
Proposed
Parking
Spaces
Spaces
Lost
Percent
Used
(After
Removal)
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Planning and Transportation Commission 1
Draft Verbatim Minutes 2 May 25, 2016 3 4 EXCERPT 5
6
Review and Recommendation to the City Council for bicycle or pedestrian paths along 7
Matadero Creek as detailed in the Midtown Connector Feasibility Study 8
9
Acting Chair Gardias: We would like to, we would like to come back to the session. So let's get 10
started. Let's get started. It’s 9:34. The Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) is back 11
in session. The next item is its review and recommendations to the City Council for bicycle or 12
pedestrian paths along Matadero Creek as detailed in the Midtown Connector Feasibility Study. 13
14
Joshuah Mello, Chief Transportation Official: Yes good evening. I’m Josh Mello the City's Chief 15
Transportation Official. I came in this evening on my vacation just to help you with the Maybell 16
decision and also present our draft Feasibility Study for the Midtown Connector Project also 17
known as (AKA) the Matadero Creek Trail. With me this evening is Jeff Knowles who is with our 18
consulting firm Alta Planning and Design has been working on this project for roughly a year 19
and a half/two years now. You may be familiar with this project. If not you'll be very familiar 20
with it by the end of our presentation. This is the draft Feasibility Study that was directed by 21
City Council and we're also going to Council with this in June 20th after we present to you and 22
get a review and recommendation. So Jeff's going to go ahead and jump into it and outline 23
where we are today. And then we have five possible recommendations that we’ve suggested 24
that you may want to consider in the staff report. 25
26
Jeff Knowles, Alta Planning and Design: Great. Thanks, Josh. Yeah, I’m Jeff Knowles, Alta 27
Planning and Design. Thank you so much Commissioners for allowing me to present the draft 28
Feasibility results. So our agenda tonight I want to go through a just brief introductions, a quick 29
background of the project, where we've come from, where we're going, talk about the directive 30
from City Council, and then release the evaluation options and answer it up for a question and 31
answer (Q&A) with you. 32
33
So our purpose and this next phase or Phase 2 of the Midtown Connector Feasibility Study was 34
really coming out of a directive directly from City Council was to go back in November of 2015 35
to reevaluate or reexamine the opportunity for looking at a hybrid alternative along the creek. 36
This would mean using on street road options where a feasible option would not be permitted 37
along the creek and then also to look at an alternative on street connection and through 38
midtown. So that was our process. This allowed us to look at a couple different things as 39
directed by staff. One would be the provision for a shared use path. The second would be 40
provision for a pedestrian only path, and then the on street collector would be looking at 41
something similar to a Class 4 Bikeway which would be a separated or protected bikeway 42
simulating a trail. 43
44
So our first analysis focused on Matadero Creek. As part of our criteria we looked at available 45
width. We looked at property ownership along the creek. We looked at safety standards and 46
City of Palo Alto Page 2
most notably the provision of a railing to connect and protect people from falling into the creek 1
along with utility conflicts. As part of those minimum width requirements we referenced the 2
City's own bicycle and pedestrian standards. We also wanted to keep in mind the funder's 3
standards as well. They show that there is a available for a trail width between 10 and 15 feet. 4
The City standards is set at 12 feet a minimum for a shared use path. For a minimum path we 5
were looking at 6 feet no less than five feet at constrained areas. 6
7
I have broad overview of the feasibility I’ll walk through. We broke down the corridor between 8
Alma and West Bayshore. It's a one and a half mile corridor into six different segments, A 9
through F. Segment A is Alma to Waverly. As you can see in this key this section looking at an 10
on street or on Creek alignment was not feasible for pedestrians or for bicyclists. In this 11
provision we looked at a different on street alignment along El Carmelo. 12
13
Segment B, Waverley to Middlefield, this section was feasible for pedestrians and for bicyclists; 14
however, there is a constraint at the First Christian Church regarding property ownership that 15
I’ll get into in a minute. Segment C, Middlefield to Ross, this is another section where it is 16
feasible technically for pedestrians and bicyclists; however, there would be a constraint at the 17
Winter Lodge property that we need to be overcome to make that a feasible alignment. 18
Segment D, from Ross to Louis, is completely feasible for pedestrians and bicyclists. 19
20
Segment F would not be feasible for bicycles a shared use path, but there would be availability 21
enough right of way for a pedestrian only path for this section. Again we look at an on street 22
alternative, a hybrid option for Segment F that I’ll get into in the next slide. Finally, Segment F, 23
Greer to West Bayshore, the 101 and into Baylands this would be seasonally accessible. There 24
is a flood gate at this Greer Road which needs to be in place for flood protection six months out 25
of the year. So this again would be feasible certain times of the year. 26
27
So walking through our alignment that we felt that could be technically feasible. The first 28
starting at El Carmelo we believe that a this section could, sorry. Sorry about that. El Carmelo 29
could provide an on street alternative by using the sidewalk expanding that out and creating a 30
Class 1 Trail, it's a shared use path for pedestrians and bicyclists. If you wanted to do just a 31
shared, a pedestrian path that could just stay on the sidewalk. 32
33
Segment B again could use would have to actually overcome a right of way constraint at the 34
First Christian Church. First Christian Church uses an easement that they have with the Water 35
District for storage for Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) drop off and access, for garbage 36
access, and it's additionally a part of their parking lot. So in order to overcome this constraint 37
the parking lot would have to be reconfigured. And then discussions with First Christian Church 38
that would be a major sticking point for them. So at this point in their minds they would have 39
to have further discussion with the City about resolving that. 40
41
Same would be true about Winter Lodge in Segment C. To fit a shared use path [unintelligible] 42
with you need a parking lot would need to be reconfigured for Winter Lodge and removal of 43
parking of approximately six spaces. At this point that's a negotiating item that they're not 44
willing to discuss. 45
46
City of Palo Alto Page 3
Segment D. is completely feasible you could build this tomorrow without any problems 1
whatsoever. Segment E for a shared use path there is a constraint where there is a utility ramp 2
for the Water District to access the creek. It pinches the trail down to a point of approximately 3
six feet. This would not be wide enough for a shared use path. To provide a shared use path 4
you could provide something on Louis all the way to an entrance into Seale Park there is right 5
now an existing trail through Seale Park that would bring you up to Maddox and then Maddox 6
could bring you back up to the creek. 7
8
Again Segment F is wide enough. There is room for a shared use path; however, again this 9
would be seasonally accessible only unless the City wanted to take on liability for installing and 10
removing the floodgates ahead of storms or at certain times of year. For a pedestrian only path 11
you have a much brighter picture in front of you. This would essentially allow the El Carmelo to 12
be used, the existing sidewalk. You would not need to go through First Christian Churches’ 13
easements. You could use Hoover Park expanding or using the existing sidewalk there and the 14
existing sidewalk that is between First Christian Churches’ property and the South 15
[unintelligible] Apartments. It's seven feet wide. Again, not wide enough for a shared use path, 16
but currently provides pedestrian access. The Winter Lodge property is not an issue as we 17
could provide pedestrian access without reconfiguring or losing parking spaces in winter launch 18
and you would not need to go through Seale Park and Segment E for a pedestrian only path. 19
The seasonal access only would still prevent full use of the pedestrian access from Alma to 20
Bayshore. 21
22
We also looked at the midblock crossings at each one of these segments you would need to 23
cross a pedestrian or a streets at the midblock, so areas where that's not signalized. We 24
created some concepts to do this safely. This included on lower volume streets essentially 25
everything except for Middlefield Road. You could do curb bump outs, a raised crosswalk, and 26
also provide rapid flashing beacons which we know are effective in slowing and stopping traffic. 27
This is an example of a rectangular rapid flashing beacon, also a curb extension that would 28
reduce the distance for people to cross. At higher volume crossing in Middlefield Road you 29
could also again provide a raised crosswalk. You could provide a pedestrian refuge island and 30
also the inclusion of a pedestrian hybrid beacon also called a hawk signal. This is essentially 31
gives trail users the ability to create a red light situation for oncoming traffic and allow them to 32
cross safely. 33
34
We heard from many people in the community this was a very robust public process. In our 35
most recent public process a few Saturdays ago we had over 200 people come out for an event 36
that was held on the creek itself and received over 112 comment cards that were provided and 37
part of your staff report. Privacy concerns and safety concerns for people along the creek we 38
heard again and again. We did some safety and some security analysis looking at other creek 39
side trails that go behind people's homes in the Bay Area and provided that in the staff report 40
as well. As far as privacy goes there were many different levels of privacy fences between the 41
access road and homes. Some of them were low, four to five feet. Some privacy fences were 6, 42
8 feet and vegetation goes up to 12 feet. So there are many different ways that could be 43
addressed in the design of this trail if it were to move forward to provide additional privacy for 44
homeowners. 45
46
City of Palo Alto Page 4
We evaluated costs for both options. A shared use path would come in at $4.9 million at the 1
planning level estimates. Pedestrian only at $3.4 million. 2
3
Going to the second item that City Council directed us to evaluate was the provision of an on 4
street alternative. We looked at Loma Verde for this section. We evaluated Colorado. We 5
evaluated Loma Verde and we also heard from staff that East Meadow Drive could have been 6
an additional option, but that's being evaluated as a separate project. Colorado from initial 7
glances 36 feet from curb to curb there is an existing bicycle lane on one side of the street; 8
however, there is a parking lane and a shared use lane for bicycles and cars on the north side of 9
the street. Creating a trail like situation on a Class 4 would mean the full removal of parking on 10
the whole length of Colorado from Alma to Bayshore so we felt that wasn't a feasible option for 11
evaluation. 12
13
So we looked instead to Loma Verde, a wider street, 40 feet from curb to curb in a typical 14
situation. Between Bryant Street and Louis for the most of the corridor 0.9 miles you have a 15
situation where you have a shared parking lane and bicycle lane on the north side, two 11 foot 16
travel lanes for cars, and a time restricted bicycle lane on the south side. This is a bicycle lane 17
during the daytime and overnight it's available for parking. At the either ends between Alma 18
and Bryant and Louis and West Bayshore there is no bicycle lanes. It's a 20 foot travel lane and 19
parking lane on either side. 20
21
Our proposed cross section for evaluating a on street alternative is to create a raised median, a 22
barrier protected bicycle/cycle track. So this would mean that the parking lane would be 23
retained on the north side of Loma Verde. The bicycle lane that currently exists it's shared with 24
that parking lane would be consolidated with the bicycle lane on the south side of the street. 25
The travel way would be narrowed to 19 feet. You would have a three foot raised median and 26
this could take many different forms including plantings. Essentially this would be a curb that 27
would protect bicyclists from motor vehicles and then an 11 foot two way bicycle path. 28
29
This is a visual simulation of what this could look like. Again, I mentioned that the median could 30
take many different forms and that would be something that would be developed later in the 31
design process. I did want to call out that there are exit at this point bicyclists who travel along 32
the bicycle lanes from Alma to West Bayshore cross 67 driveways. This would be the same 33
number of driveways that bicycles cross in this situation; however, they would not be doing it 34
on the north side they would be doing it in both directions on the south side. Cars pulling in 35
and pulling out of driveways would as they are today have to look both ways for pedestrians 36
crossing at the sidewalk and one way of bicycle traffic. With this design cars would have to look 37
in both directions for the additional bicyclist moving and at the different direction. This is a 38
treatment that comes out of a national design guide that talks about color treatments. You can 39
also do different textures in the pavement to alert bicyclists and cars and motorists that you 40
have this conflict point at those driveways. 41
42
Additional detail has been provided in the staff report. I'm calling out a couple sections here 43
where the Loma Verde design would interact or interface with the bicycle boulevards that City 44
Council approved recently. Those would need to be looked at again to find a way for these two 45
designs to, to integrate more seamlessly. The concepts met for providing a Class 4 protected 46
City of Palo Alto Page 5
bikeway on Loma Verde from Alma to Bayshore would be approximately $1.9 million. And at 1
this point I’d be happy to take questions. 2
3
Acting Chair Gardias: Thank you. So it's time to… this concludes staff presentation I understand, 4
right? 5
6
Mr. Mello: Yes. If you'd like I could go over the recommendations that we've outlined in the 7
staff report. 8
9
Acting Chair Gardias: We can. Yes please. 10
11
Mr. Mello: Ok. 12
13
Acting Chair Gardias: But then we go to the public hearing. I think we have a couple of cards so. 14
15
Mr. Mello: Ok, so we have five options that we'd like you to consider. The first is to 16
recommend the shared use path that combines some on creek and some off on street sections. 17
This is the most costly and constrained option. The second alternative is to recommend the 18
pedestrian only path. That's primarily on creek, but includes some on street sections. This is 19
much less constrained than Option 1, but would require over twice the amount provided in the 20
Santa Clara County grant. The third potential alternative is a hybrid option that includes a 21
shared use path where possible. Costs would be similar to Option 1 in constraint similar to 22
Option 2. The fourth alternative is to recommend the Class 4 separated bike way on Loma 23
Verde Avenue. This is the least costly option, but we would need to receive concurrence from 24
Santa Clara County to use the $1.5 million grant for an on street bikeway. And then the fifth 25
alternative is to accept the study and recommend that we do not pursue any of the alternatives 26
in which case we would forego the [$1.5 million] from Santa Clara County. 27
28
Acting Chair Gardias: Thank you. So this will, this concludes staff presentations. So we have 29
let's move to the… Let’s hold on with the questions. Let's hear from the public. Public is staying 30
with us for this late hour so we have to respect that too. 31
32
Acting Vice-Chair Waldfogel: Great, so five minute comments starting with David Beach and 33
then Stephanie Beach. 34
35
David Beach: Commissioners, thank you for taking your time to be here tonight and to solicit 36
public comments. Palo Alto is a wonderful bicycling community. We've got a community, a 37
culture that appreciates bicycles. We've got perfect weather. We've got beautiful scenery and 38
we've got flat terrain. 39
40
I'm here to advocate the Loma Verde option because I think it offers automatic separation of 41
pedestrians and bicycles and my experience is that mixing them is problematic very often. I 42
think it offers the best safety for inexperienced riders, for schoolchildren because they are 43
streets that already exist, intersection crossings that are already understood, and it eliminates 44
midblock crossings which I believe despite the mitigating suggestions made by the staff are still 45
very problematic. There are many, many stop signs in Palo Alto so many that they are run very 46
City of Palo Alto Page 6
often. And if you add more if I get, if I drive for instance on Ross to Clara Drive I stop at the stop 1
sign there, I go over the creek, I have another stop sign situation in about 50 or 60 feet. I think 2
I'm going to have trouble being patient with all of that. 3
4
I also want to recommend the Loma Verde option because I think it offers more flexibility. We 5
already have sidewalks and streets in place. If anything comes out of this which results in 6
learnings that might change things for the future it would be much easier to redirect and relay 7
out an excellent facility for the benefit of bicyclists and pedestrians. 8
9
And finally I want to point out that the number of mitigating factors along the creek all, all of 10
the options there is significant and the cost is significantly higher. I've been a bicycle commuter 11
for over 50 years, a recreational rider for about 20. I have a lot of experience in Palo Alto. In 12
my experience particularly going to and from school during the same hours that schoolchildren 13
do that the driveways issues has not been important to me. It's not threatened my safety. 14
What has is when there are business parking lots that intersect. So at the intersection of 15
Middlefield and Colorado for instance that's the place where I feel most likely to have some 16
kind of a safety issue even as a very experienced rider. 17
18
So let me just reiterate I think there are good reasons for the Loma Verde alternative and they 19
are first and foremost safety and next flexibility in future planning and next automatic 20
separation of pedestrians and bicyclists and finally cost. Thank you very much for taking your 21
time here this evening. 22
23
Acting Vice-Chair Waldfogel: Thank you very much. Stephanie Beach followed by Evelyn 24
Guernsey. 25
26
Stephanie Beach: Good evening and again thank you for staying to this late hour and hearing 27
our comments. I'd just like to say that I am an unalterably opposed to the Matadero Creek 28
Trail. To designate it as a creek trail envisions bucolic areas and it is not. It is a drainage ditch. 29
It's a flood control ditch; however, that aside my major objections are safety. Currently if you 30
were to go to the creek and fall in there is no way that you can safely get out of the creek. The 31
sides are too steep. There's all concrete. There are no handholds. There are no footholds. So 32
opening this up to the public I think is just really inviting disaster. 33
34
The second major concern is one of street crossings. The trail would go diagonally across Louis, 35
diagonally across Clara, and diagonally across Middlefield. The notion that somehow we could 36
put stop signs or stop lights or flashing lights on Middlefield between Colorado and Loma Verde 37
I think is really tempting fate. People leave Colorado they're just passing Safeway, they've just 38
hit their stride, they're getting in third gear, they're not going to slow down and stop for a 39
pedestrian crossing at the middle of the block and Matadero Creek. I think that's a fantasy. 40
41
So I have two points. It's and only actually one point and that is safety. The safety as the creek 42
exists right now it's dangerous from a water safety point of view. There's no way to get out. 43
And secondly the street crossings. So thank you 44
45
Acting Vice-Chair Waldfogel: Thank you very much. Evelyn Guernsey followed by Penny Ellson. 46
City of Palo Alto Page 7
Evelyn Guernsey: Hi. Thank you for allowing us to make comments. I agree with everything the 1
Beaches just said. What they didn't say is we both live on the creek on Clara. And I object to 2
any sort of pedestrian or bike path on Matadero Creek not only for safety issues, but also for 3
noise of having all these people behind our homes all of a sudden. Who's going to clean up the 4
trash? Who's going to clean up the graffiti? You can’t have lights, the Water District has made 5
that very clear. So there are safety issues with people being out there at night. Are students 6
going to start partying back there? The police isn't going to want to have to patrol that on top 7
of everything else they do and I'm sure there's no budget for that because that has been talked 8
about in some of the community meetings. 9
10
The cost you were given a $1.5 million. This is a $5 million project and that's a minimum. We 11
all know construction projects go over. So what is the overage really going to do to the budget 12
and to the City? 13
14
I have a lot of concerns about the crossing of the creek on all the different roads especially 15
Louis. There's already a stop sign at Seale Park which is just a few hundred yards from where 16
the creek crosses. People blow that sign every day all the time. I walk through there all the 17
time and people rarely stop at that stop sign. So now you’re going to ask them stop there and 18
then stop 100 yards more. It doesn't work. Just as you said it doesn't work on Ross, it doesn't 19
work on Louis. 20
21
I do support the Loma Verde. I do understand the need to have a cross connection. I think 22
Loma Verde would be a great place to start because you already have parking on only one side 23
of the street, there's already bike paths, and people are used to using that as a bike path. So I 24
hope you do consider that and negate the whole idea of putting anything on the creek. Thank 25
you. 26
27
Acting Vice-Chair Waldfogel: Thank you. Penny Ellson and then Robert Neff. 28
29
Penny Ellson: Hello. My name is Penny Ellson and I'm speaking as an individual, not as a 30
representative of many organizations tonight. So generally speaking I like the idea of a cross 31
midtown connector, but I did have one concern that I wanted to raise tonight which is I looked 32
at the two way cycle track on Loma Verde. This is a school route used by many kids and the 33
idea one of the top reasons kids get hit by cars at Palo Alto is riding wrong way. Kids are short. 34
A car backing out of a driveway can't see them and driveway and a driver doesn't have the habit 35
of looking the wrong way for a fast moving bicyclist. And I'm not sure it's a great thing to train 36
kids to ride the wrong way. But all of that said this has lots and lots of intersections which are 37
where the kids get into trouble. It has lots of driveways. If there is extra right of way on Loma 38
Verde it seems to me it would make more sense to provide a wider bike lane or some better 39
facility on both sides of the street so we can keep the kids at least moving the right direction. 40
Thanks very much. 41
42
Acting Vice-Chair Waldfogel: Thank you and then Robert Neff. That's the last card. I don't… 43
that's everybody in the room. 44
45
City of Palo Alto Page 8
Robert Neff: Well, well played indeed. I'm Robert Neff and I've been involved with the Citizens' 1
Advisory Committee (CAC) for this project also. I personally favor moving forward with the 2
hybrid pedestrian path option along the creek. This project has become much more concrete 3
since about last summer when we finally started saying what exactly could you build on the 4
creek instead of it being a sort of this imaginary project. And I'm really appreciative of the City 5
staff and the consultants for figuring out exactly what we can get and how much it will cost to 6
build it along this corridor. 7
8
I think, let's see, I think this corridor can add pedestrian and recreational opportunities 9
including the seasonal connections to the Baylands which would which will be welcomed by the 10
community. It will improve our active transportation network especially for pedestrians and 11
young or timid bicyclists who'd rather, who would prefer to stay off the streets or whose 12
parents would prefer to have them stay off the streets. Obviously we, obviously we now know 13
how much this might cost so instead of concluding we cannot afford it I think we should see 14
how we can develop the funding to get it done. And specifically I prefer the third option which 15
seems to give the most benefit at the best cost point. 16
17
The last point I want to make is that on the demonstration day which was a terrific event we 18
had, people were able to give comments about what they thought of the project and 75 19
percent of those who made comments were generally in favor, partially or completely in favor 20
of the Matadero Creek [unintelligible]. Thanks. 21
22
Acting Vice-Chair Waldfogel: Thank you very much. 23
24
Acting Chair Gardias: Thank you, Acting Vice-Chair. So with this we going to, this concludes our 25
public hearing. So again I would like to ask my colleagues to share their thoughts with among 26
ourselves or maybe ask staff the questions. And I see lights from Commissioner Waldfogel. 27
28
Acting Vice-Chair Waldfogel: Just one quick informational question, could you remind us what 29
the bike bridge alignment over 101 might be and how that would connect to any of these, these 30
trail alignments? 31
32
Mr. Mello: So the Adobe Creek/101 over crossing project? 33
34
Acting Vice-Chair Waldfogel: Right. 35
36
Mr. Mello: That would be at the end of Fabian kind of where Fabian becomes West Bayshore. 37
Where Adobe Creek, I can pull up a map if you like? 38
39
Mr. Knowles: Actually I don't think I can. 40
41
Mr. Mello: I don't think we have the ability to. It would basically be I think about a mile south 42
of Segment F that’s shown in the PowerPoint. 43
44
Acting Vice-Chair Waldfogel: And just how, how would a cyclist connect to that? I mean I 45
assume part of the intent is to provide Bay access. 46
City of Palo Alto Page 9
Mr. Mello: So if you can see the cursor on the map there this is the alignment here. So we have 1
a bike boulevard project along Ross Road that would connect East Meadow which has existing 2
bike lanes and then a cyclist could head over the over crossing via East Meadow. And then we 3
also have a bike boulevard project along Greer Road. So there'd be a short section of Louis 4
that's not identified as a bike corridor that you would need to use to get to Fabian. 5
6
Acting Vice-Chair Waldfogel: Thank you. 7
8
Acting Chair Gardias: But it needs to be said also that this proposed a connector gets to this 9
underpass under 101 that’s seasonally closed of course, but seasonally it's open. So half a year 10
it’s open, half a year it’s closed. So that connects with the existing underpass connection to the 11
Bay, to the Baylands. So while we waiting for the comments from my other colleagues. Ok, 12
Commissioner Alcheck. 13
14
Commissioner Alcheck: What's the like extent of access right now to the creek? I mean do 15
people have any business being back there? 16
17
Mr. Mello: No. It's gated and fenced. There's only maintenance vehicle access currently. 18
19
Commissioner Alcheck: You know I really appreciate this concern about access to the creek 20
because at least my encounters… it's not, it's not as visible, right? So you’re inviting individuals 21
to spend more time there by virtue of sort of suggesting this is a route. And I'm a little 22
concerned that that the lack of visibility of the creek will create some of the potential for the 23
problems. I don't think they're going to be throwing parties back there, but I am a little 24
concerned that there could be some negative interactions. There could be some property 25
damage. There could be issues with respect to cleanup and… Can you, would you mind sort of 26
highlighting where those, where the creek segments are exactly? 27
28
Mr. Knowles: More specifically where the creek segments could be for a pedestrian only path or 29
a shared use path? 30
31
Commissioner Alcheck: I would prefer to discuss the shared use path. I mean I'll just say this, I 32
really think it would be… I'm interested in a shared path because I think that the bed, I imagine 33
there are a lot more cyclists that can benefit from this effort than there are pedestrians. And so 34
if we're going to spend a great deal of money my preference is that we create a path that can 35
be used by cyclists. I think that’s a little more realistic. So maybe you could just go over that 36
shared path. Just so I understand it. 37
38
Mr. Knowles: Absolutely. So for the shared use path what we're talking about is that a portion 39
of Segment B, Waverley to Cowper, a portion of Segment C, Winter Lodge Property to Ross, the 40
entirety of Segment D, Ross to Louis, and then essentially no sections of E as a shared use path 41
along the creek and then along the creek on Segment F. 42
43
Commissioner Alcheck: Is this, is the blue representative of the creek and so you're on one 44
(interrupted) 45
Mr. Knowles: The blue is the represent of the creek, yes. 46
City of Palo Alto Page 10
1
Commissioner Alcheck: So you’re on one side of the creek and then you switch to the other side 2
of the creek? 3
4
Mr. Knowles: Yes. 5
6
Commissioner Alcheck: You had mentioned this, a point earlier about the City taking on liability 7
for closures? 8
9
Mr. Knowles: That would be only if you wanted to resolve that seasonal access. 10
11
Commissioner Alcheck: How? So what does that look like? In your mind they’re opening it up 12
when the water is low? 13
14
Mr. Mello: So we already do that for the Adobe Creek undercrossing. City crews actually install 15
and remove the gates. So it's basically just the City would decide when the season warranted 16
installation of the gates based on weather forecasts and typical rainfall patterns instead of the 17
Water District making that decision. 18
19
Commissioner Alcheck: Oh. So in theory maybe it would the season would last a little bit 20
longer. 21
22
Mr. Mello: Yeah. 23
24
Commissioner Alcheck: It's not a sort of ongoing management on a daily basis or weekly basis? 25
26
Mr. Mello: No. It’s two points in time, the installation of the gates and the removal of the 27
gates. 28
29
Commissioner Alcheck: So potentially a slightly shorter season because we would be a little bit 30
more involved than the Water District which is probably overwhelmingly conservative. 31
32
Mr. Mello: Yes. 33
34
Commissioner Alcheck: Ok. So is would you mind also sort of just discussing this Loma Verde 35
option? Is there, is other than being cheaper and maybe the loss of some parking is there, are 36
there other relevant issues that are, that don't like one of the things I sort of find interesting 37
about the staff report is it’s not really suggesting an order of preference which makes this a 38
little harder for us if we don't have personal experience with this particular route. So is there a 39
reason why the Loma Verde route which just seems to be the least complicated hasn't risen to 40
the top? 41
42
Mr. Mello: So Loma Verde is a very appealing corridor because it parallels the creek for the 43
entirety between Alma and West Bayshore. It also lines up very neatly with 44
Margarita/Matadero Bike Boulevard on the west side of Caltrain. So if we were able to create 45
some kind of over crossing or under crossing of Caltrain you could feasibly create an east/west 46
City of Palo Alto Page 11
bike corridor across the entire City from West Bayshore all the way to the ballpark path in 1
Barron Park. In an ideal world we would be able to create two dedicated one-way bike ways on 2
Loma Verde which are operationally much safer for cyclists, but because the roadway is only 40 3
feet wide and there's an existing parking lane, all day parking lane that we don't want to 4
completely remove that leaves us with only the ability to install a two-way separated bikeway 5
which was shown in the rendering. Those are potentially dangerous for cyclists because half of 6
the cyclists will be travelling in the wrong direction on a two-way street and motorists will not 7
be typically looking to their right when they pull out of a driveway for a cyclist. That being said 8
it's a residential street. 9
10
Commissioner Alcheck: Right. 11
12
Mr. Mello: These are very low volume driveways and the majority of the people using the 13
driveways will know that there is a two-way cycle track there. It's not as though this is a 14
commercial corridor where there are people visiting that are unfamiliar with the corridor. So 15
we think the risk is a little less because it's a residential street with a two-way facility on the 16
two-way street. However that's one of the major concerns I think and you heard that from Mr. 17
Neff and from Ms. Ellson. 18
19
Commissioner Alcheck: Right. Ok, so well, I don’t know. There’s… I think just the notion that 20
the route would essentially be seasonal and all the connections that involve the creek make the 21
creek just not that appealing because it's just [unintelligible] I mean it's not as if it's just the end 22
section. It would be several connections that would, what would happen if let's say we 23
suggested, let’s say we pursued the an alternative one of the options that utilized creek access. 24
What is, what do we anticipate would happen during a seasonal closure for several months? 25
How would they, would that make essentially the route unusable? 26
27
Mr. Mello: Well, I don't think access to the Baylands was really the driving force behind this 28
project. The majority of the comments we received throughout this process was folks seem to 29
be more interested in bridging Alma and Caltrain to the west and connecting to the west side of 30
the City. I think the Baylands access is kind of an added benefit, but I don't think that's the 31
main driving force behind the Midtown Connector project. 32
33
Commissioner Alcheck: Ok, but we, you had mentioned that it would, you would have you’d be 34
in the creek in the portion a Segment B, a portion of Segment C, all of Segment D. So in theory 35
individuals that were anywhere east of Middlefield they're using a different route seasonally, 36
right? Am I missing something? If I'm sorry; If we use it, if we’re, I’m talking about a shared use 37
path, right? 38
39
Mr. Mello: Yeah. Sorry. Only Segment F would be seasonal. 40
41
Commissioner Alcheck: Got it. 42
43
Mr. Mello: The other segments could be open year round. 44
45
City of Palo Alto Page 12
Commissioner Alcheck: Ok. Ok, thank you for that clarification. I did not understand that. Ok, 1
so I'll just say this. I recently had the experience of riding up the West Side Highway in New 2
York. I was doing the Citi Bike I rented a Citi Bike while I was in New York in October which is so 3
long ago now, but and it was a it was two-way traffic, right? I mean we were we were 4
separated from the, from the traffic, the car traffic and… I'll just say this, I think sort of perfect 5
is the enemy of good here. So I would imagine the Loma Verde path that incorporated bike 6
traffic in two directions in closer proximity than maybe the perfect solution would otherwise 7
have I was, I would support that option. Because I didn't feel particularly unsafe on that route 8
and there were actually a lot of driveways, commercial driveways actually, along that route that 9
you had to encounter sort of pedestrian stops. I think in this particular instance you had 10
mentioned it's a residential area and we're talking about 57 homes, right? You said 57 11
driveways, is that right? Sixty-seven. I mean I think there's something to be said for the fact 12
that these would be repeat users of that space so maybe they hit someone… No, I’m just 13
kidding. I think there's an idea here that you have you know your own driveway, right? And so 14
if you're going to pull out of your own driveway you have to look both ways and if you, if you, if 15
we create a… First of all, pedestrian traffic would go both ways anyways. So although cyclists 16
traffic will be faster so you just have to be more careful. 17
18
So I don't want to take more time. I guess I would say that the Loma Verde option seems to me 19
to be the most appealing since I think that connection is strong. And I think my biggest 20
reservation is this notion of inviting access to the creek, which is I can imagine it right now that 21
people… if some individuals were behind your back fence in the creek today you'd probably call 22
the police and say hey, there's something funny going on. That phone call will be a little 23
different once we invite individuals to sort of use that space 24 hours a day and if I'm not 24
suggesting it's like can only be used in a nefarious way, but there's this element that it's sort of 25
visually hidden I think to some extent that will invite… it’s like the back of a shopping center. If 26
you can't see it sometimes it invites negative behaviors. 27
28
So anyways I'm not suggesting I couldn’t support one of the other options. That's just my 29
general feeling. Sorry for taking so long. 30
31
Acting Chair Gardias: Thank you. Commissioner Tanaka. 32
33
Commissioner Tanaka: Well I almost every day except when it rains and I have Commission 34
meetings I bike actually cross town. So I definitely understand the need for this kind of project 35
and I applaud staff for moving forward and all the work that all the citizens have done on it. So 36
I think that's great. 37
38
Kind of in my analysis it seems like there's no easy decision here. It seems like they all have 39
pros and cons and so the best this makes the decision very difficult so I can understand why 40
staff brought it to us to deliberate. So, but I am actually curious to know based on staff's 41
knowledge thus far and all of the outreach that's been done what does staff personally believe 42
is the best option given all the pros and cons? 43
44
Mr. Mello: You’re asking my personal opinion? Professional opinion or personal opinion? 45
46
City of Palo Alto Page 13
Commissioner Tanaka: Let's hear both. 1
2
Mr. Mello: My professional opinion I think I would likely recommend pursuing some version of a 3
hybrid option. Maybe starting with the easiest segment which would be Segment D and then 4
focusing on the connection to the Baylands and maybe advancing a connection across Alma and 5
Caltrain. Not jumping full in, but maybe building some of the segments that are fairly easy. 6
When we had our Greenway for a Day event a couple Saturdays ago folks were very excited to 7
get out and walk along the creek and a lot of the feedback I heard was that they would really 8
appreciate this amenity in their neighborhood. And that was only one segment that we opened 9
up. And I walked out with my son and it was really nice to be out and have a place to walk off 10
street. There are sidewalks in the majority of the neighborhoods abutting the creek, but it 11
doesn't provide that same kind of off street feeling. 12
13
I do think we would need to look very closely at privacy. There were a couple places where you 14
could see directly into backyards and windows of abutting homes so I think we need to look 15
very closely at security fencing. But I think there is a… and I think Loma Verde is worth looking 16
at, but I do think we need to look very closely at the driveway conflicts and the intersection 17
conflicts and not forget that that could be a potential safety if we’re going to advance Loma 18
Verde. Do you have anything to add maybe? 19
20
Commissioner Tanaka: Ok, so I think the grant money I mean that’s significant, $1.5 million. I 21
applaud staff for getting that. That's actually really key. So in Loma Verde scenario is that 22
totally off the table? It look like it's maybe on the table, maybe not. I guess you guys had to 23
check. Can you talk more about that? 24
25
Mr. Mello: So the grant application specified that this would be a recreational facility 26
connecting the Foothills Trail to the Bay Trail. There's a master plan of trail connections with 27
Stanford and Palo Alto and that east/west connection was one of the key. I think we could 28
make the argument that a separated bikeway meets the standards of a recreational facility and 29
the adjacent sidewalk serves pedestrians. So I think we can make that argument. I don't think 30
it's farfetched. The County would have to approve ultimately, but I don't think that's a stretch 31
at all. 32
33
Commissioner Tanaka: So, but with other options it's kind of a slam dunk and the Loma Verde 34
would be probable, but not a slam dunk. Is that what you’re saying? 35
36
Mr. Mello: Yes. 37
38
Commissioner Tanaka: Ok. For the for the creek option it's rather expensive though, right? And 39
the grant money doesn't even come close to covering all of it. So where would staff get the rest 40
of the money? 41
42
Mr. Mello: So this project has been rolled into a Capital Improvement Project (CIP) called 43
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan Implementation starting in fiscal year 2017. That CIP has a total of 44
$20 million programmed over the next five years. We've already committed a lot of that to the 45
City of Palo Alto Page 14
Bike Boulevard Project so if we decided to move forward with a more expensive shared use 1
path option this project would eat up a fairly significant portion of that CIP budget. 2
3
Commissioner Tanaka: Ok. Ok and then I think this has been brought up by fellow 4
Commissioners and the public as well, but I think security concerns is a significant concern, 5
right? Especially for people who backyard faces like privacy, security, and we don't want this to 6
be a breeding ground for criminal activity of course. So what measures and negations do you 7
think… I mean is the police going to patrol this like every day? I mean what's going to happen? 8
Like are cameras going to be put up? I mean lighting is going to be kind of a hard to put there 9
from what I understand. So I guess what, what measures are going to be taken to really make 10
sure that this becomes like the what everyone hopes it will be which is beautiful area to walk, 11
kind of secluded, all that kind good stuff. But how do we, how do you make sure? 12
13
Mr. Knowles: So I can answer I guess two sides of this coin that Commissioner Alcheck also 14
brought up about safety and security concerns. So we also had heard that very loud and clear 15
from the public whenever we did outreach and so we did some analysis of safety and security 16
along creekside trails that go behind residential properties and other trails in the Bay Area. 17
Looking at the crime reports, essentially data that's provided by police departments from the 18
City of San Jose, Saratoga, Mountain View we looked at El Cerrito, we looked at things up on 19
the East Bay as well along the along Ohlone Greenway. So we looked at six months of available 20
police reported data about incidents on those creeks that again go behind people's homes. 21
What we found was that there were incidents that you talk about; incidents of graffiti, of 22
property damage, vagrancy. Very few incidents of assault or kind of personal injury, but what 23
we found was and we also looked at Matadero Creek what's going on in the last six months on 24
Matadero Creek? There was one incident of vagrancy and that's really the number one thing 25
that you kind of invite is that if it's, if it's left open like any park that the City of Palo Alto 26
operates today dawn to dusk hours which is what I think this typically could allow for that's 27
what you're going to be probably faced with so dealing with vacancy issues. 28
29
What we know at a national level looking at trails across the country is that I cannot tell you 30
that a trail is going to make those properties safer, but what I can tell you from looking at 31
national literature this is something that every community faces when they talk about building 32
trails, is that trails invite legitimate users into places like a creekside corridor that typically at 33
this point right now only is being used by illegitimate users. And so it provides people with eyes 34
on their property and they provide additional surveillance and security. So that's something 35
where if you invite those legitimate users they can actually provide additional safety and 36
security. The national ligature says that trails along homes has no increase in incidents of 37
crime. I can't tell you that it's going to make that safer, but doesn't increase incidences. So 38
that's what the national literature show us and that's who I think can tell us from looking at 39
crime that’s along creek trails and also a block or two away is that you're not going to see any 40
sort of correlation higher or lower along creeks. 41
42
So then what do we do? How do we safeguard to make sure that we put in place a design that 43
keeps it that way? And so in the staff report we go through something called CPTED which is 44
crime prevention through environmental design. There are a lot of principles that landscape 45
architects are looking at to improve safety and security just on the way you design a trail. So a 46
City of Palo Alto Page 15
lot of that is managing vegetation making sure that there's no place for people to hide so that 1
people aren't ambushed along the creekside trail. The idea of safety cameras and security 2
additional patrols that's something that absolutely needs to be looked at and discussed with 3
the police department. And I’d be also interested to see how they currently patrol things like 4
the Bol Park Trail which currently goes behind residences in Palo Alto. When I spoke with the 5
police department about incidences there they didn't have any data to provide to talk about 6
any instances they could recall. 7
8
Commissioner Tanaka: And the topic of lighting, there can't be lighting there. It just kind of has 9
to be all dark. Is that (interrupted) 10
11
Mr. Knowles: So yeah, so unfortunately since this is a first and foremost a flood protection 12
facility it secondly provides habitat for different species and so the Water District is not 13
permitting lighting because it will interfere with habitat essentially. 14
15
Commissioner Tanaka: But doesn't like darkness invite crime? Because unlike a park where 16
there's lights, right, darkness means it’s dark, right? And… 17
18
Mr. Knowles: Correct. And you could also install lighting along any of the bridges that cross the 19
creek as well as those entrance points as well. 20
21
Commissioner Tanaka: Ok, but I'm just curious to know whether that I mean do other creekside 22
trails do they also have the same issue where they can't have lighting or would this be the only 23
unlit creek side? 24
25
Mr. Knowles: No. Many of them are along Santa Clara Valley Water District properties which 26
also do not have lights which are also operated dawn to dusk. 27
28
Commissioner Tanaka: I see. And you actually found that there's no increase in crime, no 29
increase of graffiti or homelessness or stuff like that? 30
31
Mr. Knowles: More than the streets that are adjacent to it? No. 32
33
Commissioner Tanaka: Ok. So ok so a lot of the fears are kind of unfounded? 34
35
Mr. Knowles: Correct. 36
37
Commissioner Tanaka: Ok, great. Thank you. 38
39
Acting Chair Gardias: Thank you very much. So I'm going to take a couple of minutes myself 40
and I'm going to just share my perspective as I was part of this. Of the I was a delegated PTC 41
representative and Greg Tanaka our Chairman on the prior term designated me for this or 42
proposed me for to join this team. 43
44
So the perspective that I would like to offer you is different and if you remember before the 45
Council changed its course and pretty much directed the staff to consider, to consider the creek 46
City of Palo Alto Page 16
as opposed to a connector that was [unintelligible] maybe creek or maybe other route, right? 1
And this was at the time Josh when you, when you came, when you joined this Palo Alto and 2
you were this was maybe your second day. And then… it was his first day and you were rushing 3
to catch a train to Burlingame. If you remember I talked to you back then and also I shared this 4
perspective with the CAC members that I envision totally differently. And then somehow a 5
couple of months later the City Council proposed this direction that’s aligned with my proposal 6
which was pretty much this was a vision of recreational route that would be a park and then it 7
would also span through the entire City. And from this reason when I think about this now 8
when Council directed us just to explore this option. 9
10
I think that there are no benefits that are named on the presentation sheet it is because the 11
Council directed you to do this between 101 and El Camino. However, what it needs to be said 12
that there is an opportunity to establish a route across the City or maybe even start thinking 13
farther and then open or create recreational routes along the natural routes which are pretty 14
much the streams and the creeks that come from the Foothills to the Bay which other 15
municipalities have. Sunnyvale has one. San Jose has one. I think that Burlingame has one. So 16
pretty much everybody has one, but we. So that’s the opportunity to fix it. Of course there are 17
constraints because those creeks, historical creeks, are being a converted into the flow control 18
zones. So that's going to be much harder than it than other municipalities achieved it, but I still 19
think that this is the opportunity. 20
21
So from the perspective of your presentation and options that I would choose personally would 22
be to enhance the thinking and expand this study to crosstown connectors that will follow all 23
the natural paths, not only this creek, but we know that we have San Francisquito that’s maybe 24
also under East Palo Alto jurisdiction partially so for this reason we don't have access to the 25
Bay, but there is an opportunity to work with East Palo Alto. And then we have two other 26
creeks so and then we have of course [in Barron] overflow that follows the same zigzag route as 27
this one. Where pretty much that wider path switches from one side of the creek to the other 28
one, right? And we talk about this at the meetings. 29
30
So I think about this as a great opportunity and also I would like to relate to the retail that we 31
have along El Camino. Have we opened the route across Alma and allow people to take bike 32
tour to El Camino that then we would allow those merchants to even blow, bloom more than 33
they do today because maybe families would be just taking their bikes to go to El Camino to 34
have a meal or supper and dinner and then come back later on to their homes. So and then it 35
would open some enormous opportunities that we don't even talk today about. And so I think 36
that for the next step what I would like to see I would like you to establish some potential 37
benefits with opening this route to the community. 38
39
And then of course my preference would be to continue this route along the creek, open it at 40
some segments where it may be opened. Consider possibility of crossing Alma at the level of 41
the street today because we know that before we just dig any tunnel or some other underpass 42
is going to take years. So there is a possibility to open it very cheaply and rather quickly maybe 43
within maybe a year or two some crossing, some Alma crossing. Also explore possibility to 44
open crossing too in the Baylands that would be not only six months, but longer and we talk 45
about some potential wall that may be built to secure the bike route from the creek that would 46
City of Palo Alto Page 17
allow to maybe staying it open longer. So I think that there are some low tech opportunities 1
where this can be resolved faster than we think. Then eventually there could be second phase 2
of just spending more millions of dollars for some underground access tunnels or something 3
like this. 4
5
But nevertheless the summaries like this that my proposal is that you think in a larger scale. 6
Maybe you think perspectively about other creeks and then you think about just connecting 7
entire town to the Bay and then this part of the town to the amenities along El Camino and 8
Barron Park. So thank you for your time. So with this I think that we have Commissioner 9
Waldfogel. 10
11
Acting Vice-Chair Waldfogel: [Let me just do something quickly] since I just asked that one 12
question. So here's what I'm struggling over with this, which is I think there's two things going 13
on here that are slightly at odds with each other. One is a transportation connection and this 14
second one is a recreational connection. And I mean I think I would support a Loma Verde 15
alignment for a transportation connection, but I think that might be a slightly less complex 16
configuration then this fully separated lane, which I think would just be a less disruptive. I also 17
would support a recreational connection along the creek alignment especially if there was if we 18
had budget somewhere to really reclaim that creek bed and do what Los Angeles (LA) has done 19
in the LA River, but I'm not sure that that's I don't think that's going to happen in our lifetimes. 20
21
So that's why I'm just struggling a little bit over whether it's worth doing any of these things 22
because like I said I would strongly support a Loma Verde transportation connection especially 23
if we can clarify between what and what. But I mean the recreational connection I'm getting is 24
a little fuzzy because it's seasonal to the Bay and I don’t quite know what the Foothill Skyline 25
Trail connection looks like on the other side of this. Strongly support the idea of being able to 26
go from the Bay up to Skyline, but I'm not sure I see from this presentation how this, how this 27
advances that objective. So I don't know. Do you have any thoughts on any of those 28
comments? 29
30
Mr. Mello: I agree that there's probably two divergent themes here, the recreational theme and 31
the transportation theme. I would say transportation wise though we need to think about all 32
types of cyclists and all types of pedestrians. A lot of folks that are already cycling today are 33
probably comfortable using Loma Verde in its existing condition, but I think one of the calls of 34
this project is to provide a higher quality semi-separated or completely separated bikeway that 35
provides that east/west connection. So I think there are ways we could improve Loma Verde in 36
its existing configuration, but I don't necessarily know that we're going to capture any new 37
riders or new cyclists. 38
39
As far as the connection between the Foothills and the Baylands if you can imagine projecting 40
Loma Verde to the west it lines up directly with Margarita Avenue and Matadero Avenue which 41
connects to the Bol Park Path. That gets you almost all the way to Foothill Expressway. From 42
there it would be some type of trail connection up the Foothills, but I mean there's already a 43
pretty decent connection that gets you all the way to Foothill Expressway that exists today. 44
Matadero and Marguerite are a bike boulevard corridor. We've made some improvements 45
there through a resurfacing project in the last year and a half. So I think that's where that 46
City of Palo Alto Page 18
connection is and there is a larger map that shows kind of the grand vision of the and we can 1
include that in the Council presentation if you think that would be helpful for them. 2
3
Acting Vice-Chair Waldfogel: Yeah, I think that just that reminder would be helpful because 4
Alma and Caltrain do look like obstacles the way that this is presented. 5
6
Acting Chair Gardias: Thank you. So just listening to this different comments I think that I don't 7
know if you expect any prioritization of those items for your benefit and for conveying this to 8
the Council or this was you heard from the discussion it's enough to formulate some 9
takeaways? If you expect any vote we can of course give it to you, but just before you just 10
suggest anything I’ve been just listening to my colleagues I think that they support a shared use 11
path, but also they support a the bikeway along Loma Verde. So I think it would be a good 12
summary and I think that also I heard Commissioner Waldfogel just supported my thoughts 13
about just larger thinking. Does this adequately summarize our discussion? No, no. I just I 14
zeroed out on Number 1 and Number 4. 15
16
Commissioner Alcheck: [Unintelligible]. 17
18
Acting Chair Gardias: We can do this. 19
20
Mr. Lait: So just so we’re clear. So we're looking for a recommendation that the this 21
Commission would forward on to the to the Council. 22
23
Acting Chair Gardias: Ok. 24
25
Acting Vice-Chair Waldfogel: I mean I'm not sure that I unconditionally would say go forward on 26
any of these. I mean I want to say yes, but I'm just having trouble. I'm having trouble seeing 27
that any one of these as it's presented meets all the objectives. I guess is where, is what I’m 28
struggling over and it's just probably not budget to do something that would meet all the 29
objectives. I'm not sure what that would be, but so that's what I'm struggling over a little bit is 30
what recommendation to forward given that none of these seem to meet the connectivity and 31
recreational objectives. 32
33
Acting Chair Gardias: Thank you. Commissioner Alcheck. You want to [unintelligible]. You 34
don’t want to say anything, that’s fine. 35
36
Commissioner Alcheck: No there's a part of me that wishes that we had a full Commission here 37
to discuss this because there are some other viewpoints that I guess I would really have 38
appreciated hearing, particularly from some of our Commissioners who are more avid bike 39
users locally. Yeah, I mean I think… I wonder if there's a way for us to put forward a Motion 40
where we suggest the attributes that we find most appealing? I mean do you think that that 41
would work? Like for example I think that we've got if I think from a, I'm going to speak on our 42
behalf for a minute. I'm not necessarily saying that, but if for example we suggested that we 43
would support options of spending this capital that included both bike and pedestrian paths 44
and that we had a strong preference for… and our concerns, and these were our concerns. I 45
mean is there a way for us to? 46
City of Palo Alto Page 19
1
Mr. Lait: So yeah, I mean I think I mean I think so, sure. I mean you, we’ve presented some 2
options. If you feel like there's a hybrid or bits and pieces that you want to choose from to 3
articulate where your interests are what you think would be helpful that would be better than 4
nothing. 5
6
Commissioner Alcheck: Alright. So I can try to make a Motion real quick. Before I… Oh, go 7
ahead. 8
9
Commissioner Tanaka: Ok, so yeah. I don't think this is it's like an easy slam dunk decision here 10
because there’s so many pros and cons to each of these options, but for myself here's my 11
thinking and I'll share with the Commissioner [unintelligible] could think about like where this 12
alignment to your own thinking. So with Loma Verde I've actually like that quite a bit so I mean 13
it is bikeable. I mean people bike it today. And sure we could have a lane separation which 14
would be a good step up, but it's not that different from what it is today and we lose parking 15
which is another issue, right? And so if we think about like how do we like if we're going to 16
spend money how do we make it significant? How do we actually, how do we actually kind of 17
make a real difference? The thing that the creek gives us is it gives us a way to reclaim land 18
that we, that otherwise gets idled. That doesn't really being, it's not really being used, right? 19
And so I like that option a lot. The thing I don't like is the price, right? Because we don't have 20
the money for it, but the City I think is forecasting to run a deficit next year which is not good. 21
So it's not like we have money laying around, but if we have to balance that with well if we are 22
going and this is not saying that we're going to put this above all the projects. I think City 23
Council will do that, but for us to evaluate of these different options I think for me it's I think we 24
have to go with an option that involves the creek somehow because if we don't it's like what 25
are we doing here? We're just making a small increment of what's there ready. 26
27
I don't know where the money's going to come from though. I think that's an issue in my mind. 28
And so I'm actually leaning with the Chief Transportation Officials’ professional opinion of the 29
hybrid because I think it reclaims the land. It uses land that we would otherwise be idled. It 30
makes a substantial difference from what we have today. You know, recreational 31
[unintelligible] covered recreational as well as transportation needs. But there are a lot of 32
issues, right? I meant there’s privacy, security, money, right? There’s a lot of cons here but, it 33
does make a big difference in terms of what's it makes it's a it's a incremental step up, not just a 34
small increment. And that's why I like that option even though it's challenging. So that's my 35
opinion. 36
37
Acting Chair Gardias: Just for clarity when you say hybrid, right, you’re alluding to the third 38
bullet point, right? 39
40
Commissioner Tanaka: Correct. 41
42
MOTION 43
44
Acting Chair Gardias: Which [unintelligible] hybrid of the bike and pedestrian. So just I think 45
that Commissioner Alcheck would like to continue, but before I just pass a mike to him I would 46
City of Palo Alto Page 20
like to second the comment that that my colleague, Greg Tanaka, just said. That option along 1
Loma Verde it’s from the expense perspective truly doesn't bring much of the value and then 2
there are some problematic aspects those 67 or 69 driveways that would be crossing those that 3
the bike those might be maybe private driveways and people may know what they do, but I 4
may easily find a counter-argument just saying that if you just do something mechanically every 5
day you may easily just miss somebody coming from your left or right and that's maybe easier 6
riskier than just coming from unknown areas. So that argument may not be true. 7
8
And then just didn't feel well when I was looking at the picture with the planters and thinking 9
that this separation would be, would be truly punctured every several yards pretty much. So 10
from the perspective of the cost and benefit I don't think that there would be [must of] lot of 11
return on the investment. So that's would like that with this comment I wanted to support the 12
thought that my colleague had. 13
14
And… I should make a Motion? Me? That’s fine. So I can make a Motion, but just let’s see so if 15
so I think that the Motion would be like this: that the preference that Commission preference is 16
to continue route along with the creek with the budget constraint, with addressing the budget 17
or the cost constraint. And I think that would be the entire Motion. And I can speak about this 18
what's the budget constraint. It’s like we heard it from Greg Tanaka. 19
20
Mr. Mello: So just to clarify, so it would be a hybrid shared use path option that uses the creek 21
corridor where possible, but is a lower cost than what is shown in the staff report. 22
23
Acting Chair Gardias: I think yes, but it could be addressed differently. My address may be 24
different than then Greg so I will allow him just to speak in a moment, but I would I would 25
propose it to structure it this way that maybe perspectively we will achieve the goal that 26
Commissioner Waldfogel was from talking about when he said about the route Foothill to the 27
when he spoke about a route from Foothills to the Bay. And that doesn’t have to happen 28
within the next couple of years. Maybe it's going to happen within the next several years. That 29
would be my perspective about spreading cost. I don’t know… 30
31
Commissioner Tanaka: So here's what I think we should do. I think our Chief Transportation 32
Official has thought about Hybrid 3. He thinks it’s the best. I listened to all the pros and cons 33
and I actually agree with him. I think it’s probably correct. So I think we can make a Motion to 34
say Bullet 3 and then if there's modification that we should say what the modifications are that 35
we want to that. Or if we want to do something different we should say it, but you have to be 36
pretty specific. If it’s not one of these five bullets we’re going to be pretty specific as to what 37
we’re recommending to City Council. 38
39
Acting Chair Gardias: Yeah so I mean my recommendation was, would be to pretty much 40
continue study that would be a crosstown study that would allow Commission or would allow 41
the whole visibility of the benefits and the cost of the entire route crossing the town, but the 42
implementation would be spread out throughout the years when the certain routes open. So I 43
think that maybe you can just think about this differently that we will just establish a policy to 44
just to build this route, but when it would be accomplished physically it may take pretty much 45
years. 46
City of Palo Alto Page 21
1
Mr. Mello: So Bullet 3 is a hybrid that would include both pedestrian paths and shared use path. 2
We would fit basically whatever is feasible in on each segment. That would likely be phased 3
over a period of time. We wouldn't construct the entire thing all at once. We'd look for 4
opportunities if the Water District is reconstructing a segment then maybe we can work with 5
them to put in a shared use path instead of just a pedestrian path. So that's kind of the outline 6
of Bullet 3. 7
8
I mean assuming Council makes a recommendation when they adopt this our intent would be 9
to move directly into concept planning which would be kind of 15 percent design which is how 10
we've handled the bike boulevard projects. And then after that we would move into final 11
design. So I think what you're recommending is kind of a greater economic cost benefit study 12
which would kind of be separate from the concept planning and the design work that would 13
naturally follow from this. 14
15
Acting Chair Gardias: Yes. 16
17
Mr. Mello: Ok. 18
19
Commissioner Tanaka: So are you making a Motion? 20
21
Acting Chair Gardias: Yes. I think that yes, so this was the Motion. So… 22
23
Commissioner Tanaka: Ok. I mean do you… Ok. Do you want to… Are you looking for a second 24
or are you, is this is concise enough? I mean does everyone understand what the Motion is? 25
26
RESTATED MOTION 27
28
Acting Chair Gardias: Yeah. If it’s not concise enough I can make it shorter. So the Motion 29
would be to recommend to the Council hybrid option, Bullet 3, and expand it as a potential 30
crosstown connector with the long term perspective. 31
32
SECOND 33
34
Commissioner Alcheck: I’ll second that Motion. Can I speak to that second? So I would just I 35
would like our recommendation or our report to reflect that among the five options among the 36
four options that do not include returning the money which I assume not very many people 37
have an appetite for, but among the four options that the hybrid option that we're talking 38
about right now is, has the has the most appeal. I would just like to add that we as I think I 39
speak for all of us and we have a little bit of a concern here about the issues related to privacy 40
and safety. And I think there is a little discomfort here with sort of standing up in strength in 41
support of this option without really taking into consideration those issues. And I guess to 42
some extent we're punting this, but I think that I would like that I would like to… I think that the 43
Council when they make this decision needs to consider very carefully whether or not it's worth 44
that whether or not the benefits are worth the potential issues involved with those concerns. 45
City of Palo Alto Page 22
And that would be in my comment that I hope somehow can be reflected in staff report from 1
the perspective of the Commission. Does anybody have a problem with that? 2
3
Acting Chair Gardias: Would you like to speak? Commissioner Tanaka. 4
5
Commissioner Tanaka: So yeah, so I think, I think that Motion sounds reasonable. So I’ll 6
support that Motion. And I think the problem here is that they all have strong pros and they all 7
have strong cons so it's not like easy to make, but I think to me this seems like the best option 8
of all of them. And but I think I agree with my colleagues that we have to figure out how do we 9
mitigate some of these issues like cost, security, all that kind of stuff, but we've talked about 10
that. 11
12
VOTE 13
14
Acting Chair Gardias: Thank you. With this we have a Motion on the floor. So all in favor? So 15
it's passed unanimously. Thank you. 16
17
MOTION PASSED (4-0-3, Commissioners Downing, Fine, Rosenblum absent) 18
19
Mr. Mello: Thank you. 20
21
Acting Chair Gardias: So this concludes our hearing on this topic. 22
23
Commission Action: Commissioners voted for hybrid approach that would use portions of 24
Matadero Creek and the use of a shared use path where possible. 25
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/6/2016 8:35 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Anne Gregory <xagregoryx@yahoo.com>
Sent:Thursday, June 02, 2016 2:55 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:nolans@nolanhome.net; clerk.council@cityofpaloalto.org; Planning Commission;
Corrao, Christopher; parksrec.commission@cityofpaloalto.org
Subject:comments on Midtown Connector
Dear City Council Members,
I attended the May 19th Midtown Residents Association meeting, where P.A. City staff and consultant
presented plans for possible Midtown Connector(s) using Matadero Creek and/or Loma Verde Ave. Since I am
a cyclist and live on Loma Verde Ave near Middlefield I was very interested to see what is being cooked
up. Currently I commute to my job at PAMF on Loma Verde, Bryant, the Cal Ave underpass, Park Ave to the path behind Paly. I also cycle in the Baylands using the Embarcadero bike ridge and many roads west of Palo
Alto in the foothills. My comments:
Matadero Creek: I just don't see this project as being practical. As a cyclist I want the quickest and most
direct route to my destination. The plans presented showed the "Connector" meandering back and forth between blocks because of all of the technical and right of way issues. As a pedestrian I don't find myself
attracted to walking along a cement waterway. Many at the meeting were asking "What is the point?",
especially given the $5M expense and uncertainty of making the idea work. I see that the PTC voted 4-0 to
support a "hybrid" option. I'm not sure what that is but I'm skeptical.
Loma Verde Ave: I was intrigued by the plans for the Class IV separated bikeway since I use Loma Verde to
commute. In particular it would make the east bound commute much safer. West bound, I don't see myself
crossing busy Loma Verde to get to the separated bikeway and then crossing back over when I want to turn
right on Bryant. Also, someone asked if it would still be legal for cyclists to ride in the auto lanes with the implementation of the Class IV and the answer was yes. We also have children cycling on the sidewalk since the road is perceived as unsafe, in fact my neighbor's son was hit by a car exiting Philz Coffee as he rode on the
sidewalk. That raises the specter of bikes in the separated bikeway, car lanes and sidewalk at the same
time. Would it possible to just paint the existing Loma Verde bike lanes green and make them 24 hour instead
of adding a lot of expensive road furniture? This could mitigate some of the sudden unsignaled U turns in our driveways by Philz customers trying to find parking. As a driver I don't want traffic restricted on Loma Verde Ave for those of us who are obeying the speed limit and stop signs. Loma Verde Ave. has already gotten two
new stop signs recently. Can't we have more enforcement?
Here's my cycling wish list:
Bridges and underpasses for Alma and 101 that don't require cyclists to dismount, as was done with the
Homer underpass.
All bike lanes painted green with "NO STOPPING NO PARKING BIKES ONLY" etc. signage.
Figure out a way to make the Middlefield/Loma Verde Ave intersection much safer for cyclists and pedestrians.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/6/2016 8:35 AM
2
Improve the bike lane pavement quality at the Churchill and N. California approaches to Alma and on
Park. It is atrocious. I spoke to someone in city govt. about this three years ago but it has only gotten
worse; unsafe actually.
ASAP electrification of Caltrain so that cyclists and peds aren't breathing diesel train exhaust when
using the path behind Paly, T&C and PAMF.
More enforcement of speed limits, stop signs and other traffic laws on Loma Verde Ave. and
Middlefield, really, all over town.
Also at the MRA meeting, Ms. Sheri Furman recommended that I contact the city when I mentioned that
Google buses are traversing Loma Verde Ave. now. Is this legal?
Thank you for listening,
Anne Gregory