Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2000-08-07 City Council (11)
City of Palo Alto City Manager’s Report 1 TO:HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT DATE:AUGUST 7, 2000 CMR:351:00 SUBJECT:PALO ALTO INTERMODAL ALTERNATIVES TRANSIT CENTER DESIGN This report transmits information for a Council study session. Although staff, consultants, and Stanford have developed a Preferred Plan and an Alternate Plan, Council is not being asked at this Study Session to take any action with respect to these plans. Council input will be used, however, to guide completion of the Palo Alto Intermodal Transit Center (PAITC) design development and master planning process. BACKGROUND Palo Alto’s downtown train depot was opened in 1894, the year that the City of Palo Alto was incorporated. Palo Alto grew up around this station, which was also for many years Stanford’s transportation link to the wider region and nation. The environs of the University Avenue Caltrain station still comprise Palo Alto’s and Stanford’s transportation hub and a gateway to both downtown Palo Alto and the Stanford campus. Each weekday, nearly 3,300 passengers board or alight at the depot. Each day approximately 40,000 vehicles use the University and Alma interchange and about 30,000 navigate the E1 Camino Real and Palm Drive interchange. Nearly 600 transit buses visit the Caltrain station daily. At peak hour during a weekday count in January of this year, 240 pedestrians and 75 bicyclists used the University Avenue Alma/Caltrain undercrossing and 100 pedestrians and 110 bicyclists used the University/Palm Drive overcrossing of E1 Camino Real. These latter totals rise with mild weather. Nevertheless, navigating in this area can be challenging. There is lack of public green space and public art. Vistas are limited by the configuration of bridges and ramps that facilitate vehicle movement. No gateway feature celebrates this ~connection between town and gown. Rail and bus transit capacity is physically constrained, which limits the potential for growth in high occupancy vehicle use--a major policy objective for both the City of Palo Alto and Stanford. Walking or bicycling within the area is often difficult and sometimes unpleasant. CMR:351:00 Page 1 of 13 The increasing intensity of transit services and the proximity to downtown suggest that transit-oriented development opportunities may be available in the PAITC project area. The "Dream Team" charrette was held in 1993 to address these issues. Further work was undertaken in 1994 to refine the concepts that were produced at the charrette. This refinement became the basis for Scheme A, which is shown as Appendix 1. Subsequent independent work in 1997 by Jeffrey Tumlin was the starting point for Scheme B, which is displayed as Appendix 2. Both Schemes A and B were further developed and refined in the course of discussion at a public workshop on April 8, 2000 and during a Planning and Transportation Commission meeting on May 10, 2000. Materials from the April public workshop,, including an overall summary, a summary of "idea cards," and summary notes of small group plans developed at the Workshop comprise Attachments E-1 through E-3 of the May 10 Commission report (Attachment P). At the May 10 Planning and Transportation Commission (P&TC) meeting, the Commission accepted public testimony and offered comments on the two alternatives. Excerpts from the draft minutes for the meeting are included as Attachment Q. The following is an overview of the Commission comments. Access/Circulation: There was strong support for a roundabout at the intersection of E1 Camino Real and University Avenue as part of the project. The majority of the Commission agreed that a multi-lane roundabout would not be an appropriate solution under Scheme B at Alma and University, but supported an at-grade treatment without roadway overpasses or ramps. The Commissioners strongly supported including the provision for a more urban, four track platform at the Caltrain station in the final design under either Scheme A or Scheme B. The selected plan needed to accommodate and improve safe, direct pedestrian and bicycle circulation through the project area. In particular, the plans needed to show improved pedestrian connections to the project site across E1 Camino Real at Quarry and along E1 Camino Real between Quarry Road and Palm Drive. Some Commissioners commented that Scheme A offered more direct and clear lines of travel, especially for pedestrians and bicyclists, and a visual linkage between downtown and Palm Drive. Other Commissioners observed that Scheme B offers better opportunity for nlaximizing land uses and integration of the park space with adjacent uses. They also wanted to explore a hybrid scheme that grafted a roundabout at the E1 Camino/University interchange onto Scheme A’s oval park (shown as Attachment N). Land Use: Several Commissioners were concerned that the two alternatives (Schemes A and B) did not incorporate land uses and intensified density for transit-oriented development in the study area. Individual Commissioners spoke to the need for higher density along Alma Street outside the immediate study area and also appropriate transit-oriented development on CMR:351:00 Page 2 of 13 Stanford lands west of El Camino Real in the vicinity of Hoover Pavilion. It was also suggested that air rights projects could be incorporated into the plan. The Commissioners expressed concern that the project should meet the objective of protecting the integrity of nearby neighborhoods from the negative impacts of development. Appropriate street-front development along the proposed park was needed to decrease the area’s isolation and provide a safe and active environment day and night that would complement and support the public park space. Civic Space and Park Land: The Commissioners did not reach a consensus on a preference for the park space in Scheme A or Scheme B. Commissioners expressed concern that the park should not be an isolated parcel. Either scheme needed to include appropriate, active uses in the park and on adjacent lands. DISCUSSION Preferred Plan The design process to date has resulted in two complete alternatives, each of which is both technically feasible and responsive to project objectives. The original Schemes A, B and a variant of Scheme A were presented at the April 8 community workshop and May 10 Planning and Transportation Commission meeting. After review and comment by those two groups, Caltrain/Joint Powers Board (JPB) staff, Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) staff, and both the Development.Team and Steering Committee, the design team revised Scheme B. Revisions included eliminating one of the roundabouts, developing a hybrid scheme grafting a roundabout onto the oval park in Scheme A, and exploring the option of intensified land uses in the project area for both Schemes A and B (see Appendices 1 and 2 attached to this report). During the recent design’ phase a Preferred Plan and an Alternate Plan were developed out of Schemes A and B, respectively. Both plans would need to be phased to allow for the construction of the major elements of the plans, including new roadway configurations, new parks, and new bridge structures. During these activities (First Phase of each plan), the transit bus transit center would be expanded, but remain at-grade in the same general- location. During the Final Phase of each plan, when land is made available by the relocation of the existing bus transfer center, new transit-oriented development including residential, retail and office uses would be accommodated within the study area. In the Preferred Plan, the bus transfer center would be moved over under the Caltrain tracks. In the Alternative Plan, the transfer center would be placed directly below grade. In the Preferred Plan, the bus transfer center would be moved over under the Caltrain tracks. In the Alternate Plan, the transfer center would be placed directly below grade. The Preferred Plan, with the following salient characteristics, was developed out of Scheme A: CMR:35 l:00 Page 3 of 13 Provision for four tracks at the University Avenue Caltrain depot, with a central bus transfer facility directly beneath the tracks and passengers platforms. In Phase 1 of the Preferred Plan, the current at-grade bus transfer facility will be expanded. Development of a central passenger concourse with ancillary retail services at street grade level on the depot side of University Avenue (see Attachment A). Passengers boarding onto or alighting from trains will do so by via stairway, escalator, or elevator connections to the concourse. The concourse effectively extends the University Avenue street front. Creation of an oval public park by separating east and west bound University Avenue between Alma and E1 Camino Real (Attachment B). Development of a "transit village" in the Final Phase of the plan after the bus transfer area is placed under the Caltrain tracks. Civic Space and Park Land: A park 160 ft. by 960 ft. (three football fields long - similar in size to downtown San Jose’s Cesar Chavez Park) is created within the oval. The preliminary design for the park manifests itself in the form of the following: hedges placed along the edge of the park; flowering groves placed within a series of terraced berms; a circulation system of fine-grained path networks traversing the park; focal elements such as a pavilion with seating function to provide shade and a spot for refuge. This design is more of a test to see what fits and to engage public comment on the possible program for the park. As the park crosses E1 Camino Real on a widened overpass, it terminates at Palm Drive, which is the major ceremonial entry of Stanford and includes a public rose garden. Land Use: The Preferred Plan maximizes the potential land uses along the linear park between downtown and Stanford University. A mixed-use development has been created along the park that takes advantage of the change in grade between the new park level and existing elevations of both the hotel along the south and MacArthur Park restaurant to the north. This grade change allows for an additional level of office and retail to occur at the park/street level while maintaining the character of structures currently developed at the existing grade. Housing can be provided above the retail/office components along the park with auto access from the existing grade via Urban Lane. Provisions for preservation of the historic siting of the MacArthur Park restaurant were taken into account, leaving the structure intact while increasing its street presence on the CMR:351:00 Page 4 of 13 park. An inviting series of steps and retail uses have been created to activate the front along the park while providing auto access and valet service to the restaurant from University. An additional terrace overlooking the park has been created on the roof of the street- front retail that would provide a pleasant place for outside dining. A similar approach has also been developed at the train depot by creating a terrace at existing grade and placing retail below at the park level. In the Preferred Plan Final Phase, a new mixed-use "Main Street" has been created at the existing level of the train depot. The bus transit center is relocated to the lower concourse level of the train station. A careful balance of mixed uses and active "people spaces" would be designed with a goal of creating "a community" centered around transit. The focus of Main Street is the transit user and the people who will live and work there. Main Street is planned to follow the existing downtown street grid system parallel with the train tracks. Two linear mixed-use structures frame the street, providing a very efficient configuration that in turn defines a pedestrian-friendly streetscape with a scale and character similar to downtown Palo Alto. The primary use in both Buildings A and B is housing--a mixture of loft/live work and two-bedroom units locatbd on the upper levels. This housing component has been proposed to provide housing options for residents who would like convenient access to transit. An arcade of retail, restaurant and office uses occupy the ground floor level of Main Street. Office space also occupies a portion of the second floor level. The Preferred Plan Final Phase accommodates approximately 61,000 square feet of retail (15 percent of total development), 102,000 square feet of offices (25 percent of total development), and 246,000 square feet of housing in 230 units (60 percent of total development). The proposed balance of land uses was determined from a ratio that would support transit-oriented development appropriate for this site. A facility for the Red Cross could be included in the new development. Access and Circulation: o The rail line is expanded in the plan from two tracks to four to accommodate long-range rail passenger services expansion. Some commuter parking along Alma would be lost. The four-track configuration is considered desirable by both Caltrain and transit advocates. It allows Palo Alto to be a preferred stop for high-speed and other express trains, which have a limited number of stops. CMR:351:00 Page 5 of 13 Initially, the VTA bus transit transfer center will be expanded from five standard bays to six articulated (double-length) and six standard bays in its current location near the Caltrain depot. In the Final Phase, the bus transfer center will be relocated directly below the Caltrain passenger boarding platforms. This creates an opportunity to substitute a transit village in place of the former bus transfer center. Vehicle circulation is handled by transforming University Avenue between Alma Street and E1 Camino Real into a large one-way loop, around which all movements circulate. Bicycle and pedestrian circulation would occur at the periphery of the loop. More experienced bicyclists would also be accommodated on the loop road. An urban train station is created, consisting of two center platforms, reached from either a large underground transit concourse or a transit plaza at ground level. Each is ADA accessible and contains retail services for passengers. A station with four tracks would function differently from the existing two-track configuration. There would be two tracks heading in the same direction, which are boarded from a single inter-track platform between them. The new station, therefore, would have two inter-track platforms with a pair of tracks on both sides of each platform. These platforms would be accessible only by ramps, stairs or elevators from below. Trains could only be boarded by approaching from a plaza at the lower level and moving up. This is typical of urban train stations where there are numerous trains and tracks. This pattern of access to the tracks places an emphasis on the development of a transit plaza at the lower level, providing both able-bodied and mobility-impaired people access to trains, vehicle drop-off, tickets, various convenience services and small transit-user retail typical of train stations, as well as shelter from the weather. Currently, the bus transfer area is directly adjacent to the southbound platform, allowing passengers to move easily from bus to train. With a four-track station, all connecting bus and shuttle passengers would descend by ramp or stair to the transit plaza and then go back up to an inter-track platform for boarding. If the transfer area for buses and shuttles was moved directly under the tracks north of the transit plaza, passengers could have more convenient, efficient access to the transit plaza and the trains above. The major benefit of this stacked configuration would be to consolidate the trains, buses, shuttles and transit plaza in one efficient intermodal transit station with strong advantages for transit users in terms of access, convenience and clarity. CMR:351:00 Page 6 of 13 Compared to the current, constrained openings under the railroad tracks, the new arrangement will require that at least a portion of the four-track alignment be elevated several feet and supported on columns to allow space for the transit plaza and park. Increased Caltrans clearance requirements where University passes under the tracks are also met by slightly elevating the tracks. Including the bus and shuttle station under the tracks would roughly double the length of track supported on columns. The transit facilities could be built as a single project, independent of other development in the project area. Construction phasing for the buses is improved because the current facility could continue to operate while the new station is under construction. It would be desirable and possible to span the intermodal station with a vaulted roof structure to provide shelter to all transit users. The sides would be left open for ventilation at both the bus and train levels. The movement and vitality of transit use would be visible from downtown and would celebrate the creation of new connections and public spaces. A dramatic roof made of glass and translucent materials would not only create an exciting, memorable station inside but could become an inviting focal point as the main gateway and connection between Palo Alto and Stanford. The concourse level provides pedestrian connections between trains, buses, and shuttles. Retail uses, including the opportunity for a transit community market place, enliven the concourse level and provide quick service for transit users. The concourse level can be accessed from a series of plazas, with the main plaza entry from University along the new park. The second major access point is from the auto plaza between the depot and MacArthur Park, which connects by a series of grand stairs to the concourse below. Other pedestrian and bike connections provide direct routes into Main Street and the concourse from the park, across Alma at Lytton and Everett, and across E1 Camino at Quarry. An auto and taxi arrival plaza, accessed from University at the park, is created to sort out shuttles, taxis and private autos. Auto access to parking for Main Street is from the northbound E1 Camino on ramp off University. In the initial stages of implementation, buses would continue to have primary entry and exit off University Avenue, with an alternative being a bus-only entry and exit off E1 Camino Real. In addition, a potential bus entry, or entry and exit, could be created at Alma and Everett. In the Preferred Plan Final Phase there would be no bus entry from or exit onto University Avenue. Parking in the Preferred Plan Final Phase is provided in one-level below-grade structures created under the transit village. Merely for illustrative purposes, a 200-seat theatre was included in the Preferred Plan Final Phase as an optional feature of the transit village. Any such facility would likely require development on existing park land north of the CMR:351:00 Page 7 of 13 depot. It is probable that a much larger facility would be desirable, but a larger theater might require large reductions in the transit village. Parking demand excluding the theatre is estimated to be 899 spaces, 776 (or 86 percent) of which are provided within the two-level parking facility below the transit village. With the theatre, this demand increases to 1,099 and would be partially met by the same 776 spaces (or 71 percent of demand). It is important to note that there may be shared parking opportunities between evening theatre and daytime office and retail uses. In addition, proximity to bus and rail services, as well as convenient pedestrian and bicycle access to retail services on site, in downtown Palo Alto and in the Stanford Shopping Center will reduce the number of private vehicle trips and resulting demand for parking. The primary purpose .of Main Street is to create a pedestrian hub that provides easy access to the transit center and a strong connection between the downtown and Stanford. The character of Main Street is not intended to compete with retail along University or the Stanford Shopping Center, but to provide a link between the two centers. For example, Main Street’s retail component is geared to the transit user rather than the destination user. Main Street is anchored by two major civic uses--the new park to the south and a proposed small joint-use performing arts theater to the north. A large theater in the range of 800 to 1200 seats would likely eliminate space for transit-based housing and supportive uses. Along with the transit center and housing component, these two civic anchors will provide Main Street with 24-hour activity. Attachments C and D, respectively, display Preferred Plan Phase 1 and Preferred Plan Final Phase land use and circulation. Attachments E and F show the arrangement of vehicle parking, the bus transit transfer, and train boarding areas in the Preferred Plan Final Phase. Attachment G shows a cross section of the Preferred Plan at the park. Attachment H displays in cross section Preferred Plan potential housing and supportive retail uses just south of eastbound University Avenue near the Sheraton. Alternate Plan The Alternate Plan has the following salient characteristics: Provision for three tracks at the University Avenue Caltrain, with a central bus transfer facility directly beneath the tracks and passenger platforms. In the initial stages of implementation of the Alternate Plan, the current at-grade bus transfer facility will be expanded. Development, as in the Preferred Plan, of a central passenger concourse with ancillary retail services at street grade level on the depot side of University Avenue. Creation of a semi-circular "gateway" park between University Avenue and MacArthur Park. A landscaped median and walkway (see Attachment I) would separate east- and westbound University Avenue. .Provision for transit-oriented development between Alma and Caltrain. CMR:351:00 Page 8 of 13 Development of a "transit village" west of the depot as the bus transfer area is placed directly below grade in the Alternate Plan Final Phase. Civic Space and Park Land: University Avenue is pushed to the south, to create a larger park that is not surrounded by traffic and that maintains easier gradients up into the station, as well as featuring the historic MacArthur Park building in a less formal park (Attachment I). The park passes under the new rail bridge and features enlarged sidewalks for cafes at University Circle. The park slopes up to Station Plaza with a curving entry road. This area is less formal and has the character of a rolling park with trees and broad expanses, as well as gently sloping surfaces to counteract the depth of the underpass. This offers a more gracious entry to MacArthur Park. A fountain is placed in the center of the E1 Camino roundabout to terminate the space and to orient visitors to Palm Drive and Stanford. The arrival plaza in front of the depot is celebrated with a fountain. Access and Circulation: The original Scheme B concept, which was the basis for the Alternate Plan, proposed roundabouts on University at both the E1 Camino and Alma intersections. Additional analysis determined that the University/Alma roundabout was only marginally acceptable due to physical constraints on its radius and because it would be sloping below the train tracks. The Alternate Plan provides signal control and signalized crossings at University and Alma. The roundabout at E1 Camino is grade separated from through traffic on E1 Camino (Attachment J). Three tracks are inserted into the existing station and the existing parking along Alma is retained in Phase 1 of the Alternate Plan. In the Alternate Plan Final Phase, this surface parking is replaced by housing, offices and retail space. As in the Preferred Plan First Phase, the bus transit transfer center in the Alternate Plan First Phase is initially expanded from five standard bays to six articulated (double- length) and six standard bays. Unlike the Preferred Plan, however, buses would only access the transfer center via E1 Camino Real. An auto, taxi, and shuttle bus loop is created off University, coming up into an arrival plaza which is separated from bus and truck circulation. CMR:351:00 Page 9 of 13 The train platforms are more like what exists, with one being kept intact next to the depot. A possible Paseo, which is a pedestrian passage or mall flanked by buildings, and transit village could be created to make a strong pedestrian connection between downtown Palo Alto and the Stanford Shopping Center. The Paseo has similar functions and uses as "Main Street" in the Preferred Plan Final Phase, but is planned to have a more unstructured, meandering quality of space. Rather than using a street grid configuration, it is intended to have a village character with smaller massing and multiple buildings. Utilizing smaller building footprints reinforces the village scale and quality but also restricts the number of potential housing units. Total estimated parking demand is 781 cars for the Alternate Plan Final Phase. In contrast, 520 parking spaces are provided, about two-thirds of demand as projected using conventional parking generation multipliers. As in the Preferred Plan Final Phase, however, close proximity to bus and rail services, as well as convenient pedestrian and bicycle access to retail services on site, in downtown Palo Alto, and in the Stanford Shopping Center, is anticipated to reduce private vehicle trips and resulting demand for parking in the Alternate Plan (Attacllment L). Land Use: This Alternate Plan is based on a three-track option for the transit center. Without the fourth track, the existing parking lots between Alma St. and the tracks are available for multiple-level, mixed-use development. This development effectively screens the transit center from downtown and creates a more urban edge along both sides of Alma. Mixed- use and possible hotel expansion is also proposed for the south side of the park between University and the proposed hotel (Attachment K). The proposed balance of land uses is the same ratio as the Preferred Plan Final Phase-- 60 percent housing, 25 percent office and 15 percent retail. The following square footage was created to maximize the site potential and the desired image: Housing 214,000 s.f. Office 89,166 s.f. Retail 53,500 s.f. Total 356,666 s.f. (200 units @ 1,070sqft avg. per unit) Attachment M displays an Alternate Plan cross-section at the Park. "Hybrid" Scheme In response to comments from the Planning and Transportation commissioners to explore another alternative that could calm traffic and better organize circulation ,staff developed a CMR:351:00 Page 10 of 13 "hybrid" scheme (see Attachment N). In the hybrid alternative, the E1 Camino roundabout from Scheme B is grafted onto Scheme A’s oval park. Traffic considerations of this roundabout show that pedestrians, bicycles, and autos will be handled differently than the more conventional use of stop lights in Scheme A. Rather than stopping and starting autos will, instead, slow down as they enter and travel through the roundabout. Pedestrians circulate on sidewalk or paths along the perimeter of the roundabout, and cross the streets that enter the roundabout in marked crosswalks near traffic yield signs. Cyclists have two options: 1) remain on the street and flow through the roundabout at the same speed as vehicular traffic (about 15 mph), or 2) dismount and use the pe, destrian paths and crossings around the outer perimeter of the roundabout. As the interaction among traffic, pedestrians and bicyclists is different that at conventional stop lights, and as there is no positive signaling of pedestrian walk times, some pedestrians and cyclists may feel uncomfortable. However, studies have shown that roundabouts do not compromise pedestrian and bicycle safety. From a traffic capacity standpoint, however, the roundabout is not a clear improvement over the configuration in Scheme A. Compared to the same roundabout in Scheme B, this one has more "spok, es" which need to be attached, as the park separates the approaching and departing lanes on University Avenue from one another. Due to the short distance between various turning movements around the circle, one-lane bypasses would be needed on both eastbound and westbound University. This creates more obstacles for pedestrians and bikes to cross. Civic Space and Park Lane: The hybrid scheme reduces the usable amount of park area shown in Scheme A by about 40 percent. The landscape space in the center of the roundabout is a visual showpiece of impressive scale but not safely accessible by pedestrians. RESOURCE IMPACT The City was awarded a $200,000 Petroleum Violation Escrow Account (PVEA) grant in 1997 to complete the work of creating a PAITC master plan and feasibility study. City staff workload precluded initiating this effort until late last year. The City and Stanford have each provided $75,000 to supplement the PVEA grant. The intent of the PAITC planning project is to prepare a detailed, feasible master plan to guide future funding decisions and project implementation. An economic analysis of the Preferred and Alternate Plans is also included for review as Attachment O. This analysis identifies potential benefits to transit operators, Stanford, the City, and community, as well as the potential for various alternatives to create opportunities for development that could help to fund capital or operating/maintenance costs for the proposed facilities. CMR:351:00 Page 11 of13 TIMELINE The original Intermodal Transit Center project schedule has been revised to reflect various changes in the scope of services, including an additional community workshop, two additional Development Team meetings, and revisions to the original two alternatives in response to comments from the Planning and Transportation Commission. After the City Council study session on August 7, Steering Committee members and the public will review the two alternatives. Taking into account input from the Steering Committee, Development Team, City Council, Planning and Transportation Commission, community workshop, and professional judgment, the consultants and staff will prepare a single alternative plan that addresses infrastructure, traffic and circulation, land use, urban design, economic elements and potential costs A financing plan and schedule for implementation of the preferred alternative will be developed and will include a description of the sources of funding for needed infrastructure and other capital improvements, the uses of those funds, and the next steps needed for implementation. The final plan will be documented by a study model and a report including text, graphics, drawings and photos, as needed to clearly convey the design concept and final cost estimates. The final report should be completed in January 2001. ATTACHMENTS A. Preferred Plan - Perspective Sketch B. Preferred Plan - Perspective View Of Park C. Preferred Plan - Land Use And Circulation - Phase 1 D. Preferred Plan - Final Phase E. Preferred Plan - Final Phase - Transit Plaza Parking Level 1 F. Preferred Plan- Cross Section G. Preferred Plan - Cross Section At Park H. Preferred Plan - Cross Section With Mixed-Use At Park I. Alternate Plan - Perspective View Of Park J. Alternate Plan - Land Use And Circulation - Phase 1 K. Alternate Plan - Final Phase L. Alternate Plan - Transit Plaza And Parking Level - Final Phase M. Alternate Plan - Cross Section At Park N. Hybrid Scheme - Traffic Circulation Appendix 1 - Scheme A Plan Appendix 2 - Scheme B Plan Appendix 3 - Scheme B Revised O. Economic Benefits of PAITC Development Alternatives P. May 10, 2000 Report To Planning And Transportation Commission Q. Excerpt Of May 10, 2000 Planning And Transportation Commission Minutes CMR:351:00 Page 12 of 13 PREPARED BY: Joseph Kott, Chief Transportation Official DEPARTMENT HEAD: CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: GAWF Director of Planning and Community Environment Assistant City Manager Planning and Transportation Commission PAITC Steering Committee and Development Team CMR:351:00 Page 13 of 13 ATTACHMENT A Preferred Plan Perspective Sketch ATTACHMENT B Preferred Plan Perspective View of Park ATTACHMENT C Preferred Plan- Land Use and Circulation- Phase 1 Palo Alto Intermodal Transit Facility Scheme A Land Use and Circulation Diagram Peter Walker and Partners ATTACHMENT D Preferred Plan Final Phase 1 ] ATTACHMENT E Preferred Plan Final Phase- Transit Plaza Parking- Level 1 Palo Alto Intermodal Transit Facility Future Scheme A - Combined Bus and Train Station - Level One Parking Peter Walker a~ld Parblars July, 2000Scale: 1" =40’-0" TOTAL PARKING: 776 (385 ON THIS LEVEL) TOTAL DEMAND, RESIDENTIAL: 345 @ 65 UNITSTOTAL DEMAND, OFFICE : 308 @ 31 1000 SFTOTAL DEMAND, RETAIL : 246 @ 4 / 1000 SFTOTAL DEMAND, THEATER : 200 ° @ 1 I SEAT 899 (EXCLUDING THEATEF1099" (INCLUDING THEATER ATTACHMENT F Preferred Plan Cross Section ATTACHMENT G Preferred Plan Cross Section at Park ATTACHMENT H Preferred Plan Cross Section With Mixed Use at Park ATTACHMENT I Alternate Plan Perspective View of Park -\ ATTACHMENT 3 Alternate Plan - Land Use and Circulation- Phase 1 Palo PJto Intermodal Transit Facility Scheme B Land Use And Circulation Diagram Peter Walker and Partners Jay, 2000 ATTACHMENT K Alternate Plan Final Phase ATTACHMENT L Alternate Plan - Transit Plaza and Parking Level- Final Phase ATTACHMENT M Alternate Plan Cross Section at Park ATTACHMENT N Hybrid Scheme Traffic Circulation Pato A~to Intermodat Transi~ Facility ’Hybrid’ Scheme A Peter Walker and Partners Palo Alto Inter’nodal Transit FacilityScheme A Petor WalP, ar ~,ncl psrtnem APPENDIX 1 Scheme A Plan Q APPENDIX 2 Scheme B Plan ©o APPENDIX 3 Scheme B Revised Pato Alto Intermodal Transff Facility Scheme B - Revised ATTACHMENT O ECONOMIC BENEFITS OF PAITS DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES The purpose of this memo is to provide the planning team with the results of our analysis of the economic benefits of the proposed PAITS Development Alternatives as they relate to the following: Impacts on employee and student retention and attraction, including impacts on Stanford University and other employment centers within the City of Palo Alto Qualitative impacts on non-quantifiable factors such as shortened commute times, lower gasoline consumption, etc. -~ ~-~. ¯Benefits of plans to transit operators in terms of potential to help expand the transit rider/user base []Benefits of potential real estate development for Stanford, City, and VTA Potential for various alternatives to create opportunities for development that could help to fund capital or operating/maintenance costs for proposed facilities Regarding these factors, the potential economic impacts of the two Schemes are similar. The discussion of economic benefits that follows is generally applicable to both Scheme A and Scheme B. Where specific differences can be identified between the impacts associated with the two different Schemes, this is called out below. Summary Overall, the proposed improvements at the PAITS will bring a host of benefits to the City of Palo Alto, Stanford University, the transit agencies that serve the station, transit riders and other members of the community, and other local property owners and employers. Some of these benefits can be quantified in dollar terms, while many other benefits are more difficult to quantify because they relate to quality of life issues, such as transportation equity, better air quality, less traffic congestion, and improved urban design and land use patterns. The two different PAITS design schemes each seek to accommodate essentially the same transit services, except Scheme A is drawn with four rail tracks whereas Scheme I~ is drawn with only three tracks. While the fourth track option would accommodate greater transit service improvements, we understand that there are not physical limitations that would prevent Scheme B from incorporating four tracks, with the exception of a potential reduction in the amount of private development along Alma Street. Based on this similarity, the two designs appear more alike than not in regard to the more qualitative economic benefits. These include improved urban design; revitalization benefits to surrounding properties in the City of Palo Alto and those owned by Stanford University; increased and more effective transportation options for local residents and workers and businesses; opportunities to attract increased transit ridership; and reductions in traffic congestion, smog, and fuel consumption. Both Scheme A and B are attractive, functional designs that achieve the broad objectives set out for the PAITS project and which represent significant improvements over the current conditions. From the standpoint of quantifiable economic benefits, the important question will not be whether the preferred Scheme is A or B, but to what extent the ultimate design incorporates private development opportunities on-site, and how the revenue generating potential of those opportunities may help to balance the considerable capital costs for the station area improvements. Preliminary estimates indicate that costs for the station area, park, bridges and infrastructure improvements will range between $90 and $120 million, and that this range will be applicable whether Scheme A, Scheme B, or a hybrid is ultimately selected as the preferred design. The cost 12 variance will be due to the inclusion or exclusion of certain design features (such as the fourth track) that can be considered as potential options for either of the two schemes. The costs do not include the performing arts theater or proposed mixed-use development. Following are more in-depth discussions of the different impacts associated with the two preliminawdevelopment schemes. PAITS Development Schemes Defined The two different PAITS development alternatives are known as Scheme A and Scheme B, as shown on the drawings prepared by Peter Walker and Partners. Scheme A This alternative is distinguished by the formal, rectangular park that extends from Alma Street to El Camino Real, along the University Avenue axis, with the two directions of travel along University Avenue split between the north and south sides of the park. A key consideration regarding the economic impacts of the two alternatives is their potential to accommodate new private development that could help to generate revenues either from land disposition (e.g., ground leases to developers) or from ongoing revenues that could be collected from occupants (e.g., common area maintenance charges or increased sales taxes) to help pay for station area maintenance. According to tabulations provided by Peter Walker and Partners, Scheme A would accommodate the following new development: Land Use Type Building Square Feet Retail 61,525Housing246,100 (230 units)Office 102,542 Sub-Total (Private}410,167 Theater 42,600 Total - New Development 452,767 Scheme BThis alternative is distinguished by the two roundabouts at each end of the University Avenue axis, and the park alongside the north side of University Avenue that incorporates curving shapes in its grassy areas and walkways and drives. Following is the estimated development potential for Scheme B. Land Use Type Building Square Feet Retail 53,500 Housing 214,010 (200 units) Office 89,150 Sub-Total (Private}356,660 Theater 42,600 Total - New Development 399,260 13 Improvement Costs Preliminary estimates of the PAITS improvement costs range from approximately $90 million to $120 million. Costs for either Scheme A or Scheme B may vary within this range depending on specific options and features that may be included in either of these Schemes, or which could be incorporated into a hybrid scheme. The major component of the improvement costs is expenses to reconstruct the railroad bridges, which are estimated at between $40 million and $45 million. Aside from a 25 percent contingency factor that is applied to the aggregate cost estimates, the next largest cost items are landscaping improvements, which are anticipated to cost between $11 and $13 million, and El Camino Real bridge improvements, which are estimated at between $6 and $7 million. Other c~ts include site work and paving, utilities and storm drainage, construction staging and traffic control, signage and striping, and design fees. Impacts on Employee and Student Retention and Attraction As of 1990, U.S. Census data indicated that among people living and working in Palo Alto, approximately three percent used transit to commute. More recent (1998) survey data compiled by Stanford University indicates that considering only commut=ng Stanford students, faculty, and staff, approx=mately 3.4 percent use transit. Based on current ridership levels, it appears that modest numbers of local students and workers would benefit from enhanced transit services at PAITS; however, with improvements, ridership levels are likelyto rise, compounding the transit benefits. Increased transit service offers more options for travel between home and school/work. Also, according to transit industry literature, if transit service is a viable substitute for car ownership, transit users stand to save money over owning, operating, and maintaining their own personal cars. Thus, transit improvements should have a marginal effect on the ability of Stanford University to attract and retain students and employees, and of other employers in Palo Alto to recruit and attract employees as commuters realize the benefits of havingadditional viable transportation options and the potential cost savings from avoiding car use. As traffic congestion worsens, this advantage should grow, particularly under conditions like the presenttight labor market in which employers must offer as many benefits as possible to lure and retain workers who have ample employment choices. Due to the acute shortage of housing in the region, the provision of additional housing opportunities in the PAITS area, as proposed in both Schemes, may have the indirect benefit of providing new opportunities for local students and employees to live in Palo Alto instead of commuting from greater distances. For some, the abilityto live closer to work or school would be seen as a quality of life improvement, which would make retention more likely. Scheme A would provide a slightly greater number of new units than Scheme B and again, this would be a benefit to both Stanford University and other private employers in the area. The PAITS area improvements’should make this part of Palo Alto much more attractive and functional. In turn, this should make adjacent properties more attractive and valuable, thus creating benefits for property owners. Finally, the improvements that the PAITS development schemes offer for facilitating the movement of bicycles and pedestrians between the Downtown Palo Alto area and the Stanford University campus should have qualitative benefits by making it easier for residents, students, and workers to travel between these major Palo Alto activity nodes. Qualitative Impacts On Non-Quantifiable Factors Such As Shortened Commute Times, Lower Gasoline Consumption, Etc. ~Annual Use Permit Report #11, Stanford University, page 16. Note: These data exclude employees of the Stanford Linear Accelerator as well as hospital patients and visitors, construction workers, vendors, delivery people, etc. The transit usage percentage is based only on a survey of use during the a.m. peak hour commute, so it excludes those student, faculty, and staff commuters who may use transit to commute at times other than the a.m. peak hours. 14 A 1997 study titled "Dollars and Sense: The Economic Case for Public Transportation in America" was prepared by Donald Camph for the Community Transportation Association of America (CTAA), which is transit industry group. Although this study is not without critics, it summarizes a great deal of research regarding the economic benefits of transit. Overall, the study estimates that the national ratio of benefit to public costs for transit ranges between 4.0 and 5.1, meaning that for every public dollar invested in transit, the public receives four to five dollars in benefits. These benefits include mobility benefits, reductions in congestion costs, safety benefits, parking cost savings, social program inefficiencies, user cost savings, roadway-related costs and macro- economic effects of oil importation. A report titled 1996 Report: An Update, by the Federal Transit Administration, cites research by the firm of Hickling-Lewis-Brod, which supports the theory that transit significantly improves the overall point-to-point speed of travel for both transit riders and highway users, based on several highly congested urban travel corridors, including San Francisco. The research indicates that as motorists switched from automobile commuting to transit, congestion on highways lessened and highway travel time improved.= Thus, transit investments bring benefits not only to transit users, but also to the others who continue to use their own autos and benefit from the reduced congestion that results from those who do use transit. The Dollars and Sense study also noted several economic development benefits of transit, including attracting and focusing new development and increasing the transportation capacity in congested corridors. These benefits would certainly be applicable to the PAITS project. By increasing synergy among uses and relieving traffic congestion, transit projects can create significant benefits for existing development. The Dollars and Sense report cites studies by David Alan Aschauer, in which he estimates that every dollar in public infrastructure will lead to a 45 cent increase in private investment and that transit spending carries over twice4the potential to impact economic productivity as highway spending. Given the controversy over roadway system expansions, improving transit access is a sensible response to the increase in the number of people who must travel through the area. Transit improvements will be an effective way to provide benefits to existing developments by facilitating the movement of their employees and customers. The Federal Transit Administration report indicates that "America’s transit travel stops over 126 million pounds of hydrocarbons - a primary cause of smog - and 156 million pounds of nitrogen oxides - that cause respiratory disease and acid rain - from ever leaving the tailpipe of any automobile. Transit also reduces auto fuel consumption by approximately 1.5 billion gallons annually, lowering the nation’s trade deficit and reducing dependence on foreign oil."s If transit improvements at the PAITS makes transit use more attractive and viable for local residents, students, or workers, this could lead to personal cost savings. Todd Litman, a researcher with the Victoria Transport Policy Institute in British Columbia estimates that transit users will typically save between 5 and 10 cents per mile in transportation costs by using transit instead of a personal car, and even more if the availability of transit service allows them to reduce the number of cars owned by their household.’ Benefits of Plans to Transit Operators in Terms of Potential to Help Expand Transit Rider/User Base Both schemes call for mixed-use developmentto be integrated with the station area transit facilities. New residential, office, and commercial development will have the benefit of bringing residents, workers, and 1996 Report: An Update, Federal Transit Administration, 1996 3Public Investment and Private Sector Growth: the Economic Benefits of Reducing America’s Third Deficit, David Alan Aschauer, Economic Policy Institute, Washington, D.C., 1990 4 Transportation Spending and Economic Growth: the Effects of Transit and Highway Expenditures, David Alan Aschauer, September, 1991 ~Federal Transit Administration, 1996. ~ EvaluatingPubBc Transit Benefits and Costs, Todd Litman, 2 December, 1999. 15 shoppers into close proximity with the transit facilities. These people will all be potential transit riders who, because of the convenience to the transit services, will be encouraged to use transit as an option to private vehicle use for commuting, shopping, or pleasure trips. This should have a positive impact on ridership. In addition, commercial development at or adjacent to the transit station can serve as an amenity for system riders by providing opportunities for them to conveniently access retail shopping and/or office-based personal services in conjunction with their use of the transit system. For example, commuters can drop off items at a dry cleaner on a morning commute and then pick up the cleaning on the return home in the evening. Other conveniences that have proved enticing to commuters include coffee and pastries, newsstands, childcare facilities, take home foods, and other convenience goods and services. Providing such retail amenities for transit riders enhances the transit experience by allowing riders to accomplish more of their day-to-day business in conjunction with their commutes, encouraging ridershipo Benefits of Potential Real Estate Development for Stanford, City, VTA and the Private Sector Benefits to Pale Alto The real estate development at the PAITS would likely bring fiscal benefits to the City of Pale Alto because the new development would generate new revenues, While new development also increases service costs, our experience with other projects in the City of Pale Alto and elsewhere in northern California is that inflll projects that can take advantage of existing public services such as Police and Fire protection usually generate excess revenues to cities. Retail facilities are almost always revenue positive, and high value offices and residential uses also have potential to bring fiscal surpluses in this type of in-fill location. The residential component of the PAITS schemes may be viewed as a p~’oject benefit for the City also. This is because the opportunity to develop housing in the area would help to alleviate the severe housing shortage that pervades the Bay Area and the San Francisco Peninsula in particular. Each of the alternatives would help the City to meet its fair share regional housing needs obligations. State law will require Pale Alto to update the Housing Element of the Pale Alto Comprehensive Plan, and the provision of adequate sites for hew housing development, particularly for multifamily housing, will be a key factor in obtaining State certification of the Housing Element. The City may also realize some indirect benefits from the PAITS project. If the project is successful in improving the traffic circulation and urban design qualities of this entrance to downtown, adjacent properties may become more desirable, thus increasing property values and generating increased City property tax revenues. The PAITS development may serve as a catalyst to encourage additional private investment in the adjacent areas, which could lead to additional increases in the City’s tax base as well as greater financial returns to current property owners who may see greater demand for their PAITS area property. Benefits to VTA The principal benefits to VTA would likely be in the forms of increased rider base and improved passenger amenities, as discussed previously, as well as the improved functionality of the PAITS to accommodate current and future VTA operations. These benefits are qualitative in nature, and difficult to quantity in dollar terms, but it is clear that the station area improvements are integral to improving VTA service at the PAITS. Benefits for SamTrans would be similar to those anticipated for VTA, Benefits to Stanford As indicated previously, Stanford is the primary property owner in the PAITS area, and thus stands to reap much of the financial benefit from station area improvements, particularly through the improved utilization of the land adjacent to the station. Both schemes provide significant new development opportunities that the private marketplace should value highly, and demand will likely be strong for these sites. In addition to these direct benefits from land development opportunities, because the PAITS housing could be a source of housing for Stanford students and staff, the University should benefit from the new housing opportunities that would be made available in either of the development schemes. The role of this housing in student and ,employee recruitment and retention was discussed previously.~ ~ ,. 16 Finally, as the owner of property that lies on the west side of Et Camino Real, across the street from the PAITS area, Stanford University will likely realize benefits from better integration of this property with downtown Palo Alto. Both development schemes will have the effect of filling a void or "dead space" that currently exists between the edge of downtown and the edge of campus with new urban activity that can help to bridge the two locations. Combining this with the circulation improvements that will make it easier for pedestrians, and bicyclists as well as autos to travel between the two areas, there is greater potential for synergy between them. This should make Stanford’s frontage along El Camino Real more attractive for a range of different types of development in the future. An upgraded PAITS area can serve as an enhanced gatewayto both Stanford and the downtown area. Benefits to the Private Sector Numerous benefits to the private sector, including owners of existing development, have already been mentioned. These benefits include improved employee and customer access, reduced traffic congestion in the area, and the spin-off revitalization effects of the PAITS area improvements on other existing development on adjacent properties. Potential for Alternatives to Create Opportunities for Development That Could Help to Fund Capital or Operating/Maintenance Costs for Proposed Facilities As shown in the summary at the beginning of this memo, both alternatives would create opportunities for significant amounts of new private development in the station area. Scheme A would accommodate approximately 410,000 square feet of new commercial development, plus a 42,600 square foot community theater. Scheme B also shows the community theater but shows the potential for private development of approximately 357,000 square feet. Both alternatives create the opportunity to generate capital through the lease or sale of sites for development and/or the formation of an assessment district or a similar mechanism to help pay for station area improvements. Sale or Lease of Development Sites Private developers will be willing to pay a fair market value for sites within the PAITS area that can accommodate profit-generating residential, office, and commercial development. Stanford University is the primary landowner in the PAITS area. University policies dictate that land will be leased, rather than sold outright, so rather than generating a one-time lump sum payment from the sale of property, disposition of University-owned land will generate a long-term stream of lease payments. Nevertheless, for the purposes of this analysis, it is simpler to consider the land sale value as an approximation of the present value of such lease payments in order to provide a comparison with the estimated costs of completing the proposed PAITS area improvements. At this point, a complete evaluation of the potential value of PAITS area development sites has not been completed; however, based on work recently completed by BAE in conjunction with development activities at the NASA Ames Research Park in Mountain View, as well as work BAE completed in conjunction with the South of Forest Area Plan for the City of Palo Alto, land values are likely at least $125 per entitled square foot of development. In other words, a site that could accommodate 10,000 square feet of development would potentially support a land value of at least $1.25 million. It must be noted that this is a rough, preliminary estimate, which should be expected to vary substantially by type of land use (i.e., residential, office, retail, commun~ facility) and by location and a host of other factors. It should also be cautioned that there are indications that the area real estate market has spiked during the last six to nine months, but at the same time, volatile economic conditions, such as stock market fluctuations and interest rate changes, may significantly affect the future real estate market. If deemed appropriate at the time, a more in-depth analysis of land values can be prepared in conjunction with the preparation of the financing strategy for the preferred development scheme. Based on the preliminary land value estimate of $125 per entitled foot, the 410,000 square feet of private development in Scheme A might support a land value of approximately $51 million. The 347,000 square feet of private development in Scheme B would potentially support a land value of $47 million. This exercise demonstrates that there is considerable value in the private development opportunities that would be created through the comprehensive re-configuration of the area that would occur by implementing either Scheme A or 17 Scheme B. By streamlining transportation circulation in the area, optimizing the use of available sites, facilitating more intensive use of the available land, and creating better interfaces with surrounding land uses and the transit network, either of the two schemes will unlock considerable real estate value in the PAITS area. This value will accrue to the property owners (principally Stanford University), and will depend on the willingness and interest on their part to seek out the development opportunities that present themselves.~ In addition, benefits of this value to the PAITS development project will depend on the willingness of the property owners to invest a portion of these proceeds into the public improvements that are necessary to implement the plan. The owners must recognize the rationale to justify the use of land disposition proceeds to assist with public improvements that benefit not only the subject properties, but also other surrounding areas and the public in general. The forthcoming financing strategy analysis will seek to address this issue by exploring fair share cost-benefit allocations for station area improvements. From a return on investment standpoint, it appears that Scheme A may be slightly more efficient than Scheme based on the assumption that station area improvement costs would be comparable under the two schemes, but that Scheme A may accommodate somewhat more private development than Scheme B. This difference is attributable to the configuration of the mixed-use development that could potentially be built in the area between the MacArthur Park restaurant and the Quarry Road entrance to the PAITS. Under Scheme A, the development arranged in two parallel building "wings" permits a greater quantity of development than the smaller blocks of building space that are arranged along the diagonal "Paseo" in Scheme B. Ongoing Assessments for Public Improvement Capital Costs It may be possible to include the PAITS area development in some form of assessment district that would be formed to help pay for the costs of public improvements in the PAITS. Assessment district boundaries could potentially be drawn to include an area larger than the PAITS study area, based on the potential benefits to other existing development adjacent to the station which have already been discussed. If an assessment district is formed, the increased quantity of development possible under Scheme A would tend to be a positive factor, since the PAITS area itself would have a greater capacity to help finance debt. Ongoing Assessments for Maintenance of Public Facilities/Common Areas As with assessments for capital improvements, private development in the PAITS area could potentially serve as a funding source for ongoing maintenance of public facilities and common areas in the PAITS. implementation of this will depend on the management/ownership structure for private development in the PAITS area. It would likely be most efficient if all of the private development is managed by a single entity that is also responsible for maintenance of certain common areas. Then, through terms of their leases, the property manager could charge tenants a fee similar to a common area maintenance (CAM) charge in a shopping center. This fee could be collected along with lease payments and be used to maintain walkways, parking, landscaping, and other features that would be considered common areas. To assess property located outside the PAITS project area would likely require the formation of a public assessment district, such as a business improvement district. A key consideration will be how to allocate the maintenance costs equitably between the public transit agencies, the City of Palo Alto, Stanford University, and the private development. 18 ATTACHMENT P TRANSPOR TA TION DIVISION STAFF REPORT TO:PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION FROM:Joseph Kott DEPARTMENT:Planning AGENDA DATE: May 4, 2000 SUBJECT:PALO ALTO INTERMODAL TRANSIT CENTER REPORT IN BRIEF This report describes two design alternatives prepared as part of the Palo Alto Intermodal Transit Center (PAITC) design development project. The PAITC effort comprises creation of a conceptual design plan and feasibility study for the University Avenue passenger train depot environs bounded as follows: Alma Circle to the East, Palm Drive to the west, El Camino Park to the north, and Wells Street to the south. This project furthers Program T-5 of Palo Alto’s Comprehensive Plan: "Pursue development of the University Avenue Multi- modal Transit Station conceptual plan based on the 1993-1994 design study." The two alternatives are as follows: Scheme A, which is generally based on work done during and subsequent to the 1993 "Dream Team" planning charrette, and Scheme B which is loosely derived from a conceptual plan produced by Jeffrey Tumlin, then a Stanford transportation planner. Scheme A transforms University Avenue between Alma and Palm Drive into an oval enclosing a public green, with partial traffic circles at each end. Scheme B, in contrast, creates roundabouts at these two intersections and provides public green space on either side of University Avenue. The schemes also differ in their treatments of public bus and rail transport facilities and circulation, public parking, access to existing land uses in the study area, and potential for new land uses. On the other hand, both improve bicycle and pedestrian circulation, accommodate anticipated increases in bus and rail transit services, add significant public green space to the area, and open up the vista between downtown Palo Alto and Stanford. City of Palo Alto Page 1 of 8 H:/cmrs/p-tclPAITC 5-10-00.doc Each alternative has been reviewed by the project’s Development Team (a working group comprised of City of Palo Alto, Stanford, and transportation agency staff) and the Steering Committee (comprising senior management from the City, Stanford, and the transportation agencies, augmented by citizen representatives). Breakout groups at a public workshop also reviewed each alternative on Saturday April 8, 2000. After review by both the Planning and Transportation Commission and Council, these two alternatives will be refined into one conceptual design plan. This preferred plan will be either largely based on Scheme A or Scheme B, or created as a synthesis of design elements taken from each of the two alternatives. After further development, a draft, final plan will be presented for review by the project Development Team and Steering Committee, by interested citizens at a second public workshop, and by the both the Planning and Transportation Commission and Council. Council will be asked to formally adopt a Final Conce 9tual Design Plan for the Intermodal Transit Center. City of Palo Alto Page 2 of 8H:/cmrs/p-tc/PAITC 5-10-00.doc RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Commission review and comment on each PAITC design alternative and recommend one of them - or elements of each - as a preferred alternative to the Council. Staff also recommends that the final design accommodate four tracks at the University Avenue depot in order to facilitate future expansion of rail passenger services on the Caltrain corridor. Staff believes that each of the two schemes meet project objectives. All components of each are technically feasible. Staff does not at this time, however, recommend a roundabout at University and Alma. Staff is concerned about the required size of this facility (potentially three lanes) and the associated impact on adjacent properties, as well as bicycle navigation within a large roundabout. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Overview Palo Alto’s downtown train depot was opened in 1894, the year that the City of Palo Alto was incorporated. Palo Alto grew up around this station, which was also for many years Stanford’s transportation link to the wider region and nation. The environs of the University Avenue Caltrain station still comprise Palo Alto’s and Stanford’s transportation hub and a gateway to both downtown Palo Alto and the Stanford campus. Each weekday, nearly 3,300 passengers board or alight at the depot. Each day approximately 40,000 vehicles use the University and Alma interchange and about 30,000 navigate the E1 Camino Real and Palm Drive interchange. Nearly 600 transit buses visit the Caltrain station daily. At peak hour during a weekday count in January of this year, 240 pedestrians and 75 bicyclists used the University Avenue Alma/Caltrain undercrossing and 100 pedestrians and 110 bicyclists used the University/Palm Drive overcrossing of E1 Camino Real. These latter totals rise with mild weather. Nevertheless, the way finding and navigating this area can be challenging. There is lack of public green space and public art. Vistas are limited by the configuration of bridges and ramps that facilitate vehicle movement. No gateway feature celebrates this nexus between town and gown. Rail and bus transit capacity is physically constrained, which limits the potential for growth in high occupancy vehicle use--a major policy objective for both the City of Palo Alto and Stanford. Walking or bicycling within the area is often difficult and sometimes unpleasant. The increasing intensity of transit services and the easy access to downtown suggest that transit-oriented development opportunities may be available in the PAITC project area. The "Dream Team" charrette was held in 1993 to address these issues. Further work was undertaken in 1994 to refine the concepts that were produced at the charrette. This refinement became the basis for Scheme A, which is shown as Attachment A1. Subsequent City of Palo Alto Page 3 of 8 H’/cmrs/p-tc!PAITC 5-10-00.doc independent work in 1997 by Jeffrey Tumlin was the starting point for Scheme B, which is displayed as Attachment B 1. The City was awarded a $200,000 Petroleum Escrow Violation A~count (PEVA) grant in 1997 to complete the work of creating a PAITC master plan and feasibility study. City staff workload precluded initiating this effort until late last year. The City and Stanford have each provided $75,000 to supplement PEVA grant. The intent of the PAITC planning project is to prepare a detailed, feasible master plan to guide future funding decisions and project implementation. Members of the Development Team and Steering Committee that have guided project consultant activities thus far are listed in AttaChment C. Project objectives, as derived from the 1993 charrette and Palo Alto’s Comprehensive Plan, along with evaluation criteria endorsed by the Steering Committee, are contained in Attachment D. Materials from the April public workshop, including an overall summary, a summary of "idea cards," and summary notes of small group plans developed at the Workshop, comprise Attachment E. Historical background In the 1920s and 1930s the PAITC study area was the center of town. The train depot and environs were Palo A.lto’s civic centerpiec.e; a point of focus and interest, providing clarity for the community and orientation for visitors. Structures such as the Hostess House (now MacArthur Park, an historic building used originally for WWI veterans) were moved to this location as a place of prominence. With the advent of the car and increases of both car and train traffic, the original at-grade crossing of University became more difficult. Engineering solutions were implemented to grade separate Alma and the rail line from University Avenue. Together with the grade separation of E1 Camino Real and University Avenue/Palm Drive, these changes created a confusing "bird’s nest" of ramps and tunnels and visually cut offthe relationship between the University and the Palo Alto. While travel for other modes was becoming more complex, the rail station benefited in some ways during this period. The station was upgraded and integrated into a complex system of pedestrian underpasses and expanded platforms. The new station, now in the National Register of Historic Structures as a rare example of the Streamline Modem style, became the new focus--a kind of visual icon for Palo Alto--with its expanded size and architectural detailing (horizontal lines and curved comers, which imply speed and movement). The challenge of the PAITC project in this historical context is to restore the clarity and generosity of civic space while integrating an increasingly complex public transport system. City of Palo Alto Page 4 of 8 H:/cmrs/p-tc/PAITC 5-10-00.doc Scheme A Scheme A is a direct descendent of the 1993 Dream Team charette. Key attributes are: 1)The rail line is maximized in the plan from two lines to four, thus accommodating long- range rail passenger services expansion. Some commuter parking along Alma would be lost. 2)The bus transit transfer center is expanded from five standard bays to six articulated (double-length) and six standard bays. 3) Vehicle circulation is handled by transforming University Avenue between Alma Street and E1 Camino Real into a large one-way loop around which all movements circulate. 4) Bicycle and pedestrian circulation would occur at the periphery of the loop. More experienced bicyclists would also be accommodated on the loop road. 5) An urban train station is created, consisting of two center platforms, reached from either a large underground transit concourse or a transit plaza at ground level (each is ADA accessible and contains retail se.rvices for passengers). 6)An arrival plaza is created to sort out buses and autos. 7)Buses would continue to haveprimary entry off University unless a bus exit to E1 Camino Real were created. 8) A parkl60 in. by 960 in. (three football fields long),is created within the oval. 9) The preliminary design for the park manifests itself in the form of the following: hedges placed along the edge of the park; flowering tree groves placed within a series of terraced berms; a circulation system of fine-grained path networks traverse the park; focal elements such as a pavilion with seating function to provide shade and a spot for refuge. This design is more of a test to see what fits and to engage public comment on the possible program for the park. 10) As the park crosses E1 Camino Real on a widened overpass, it terminates the major ceremonial entry of Stanford, Palm Drive, and includes a public rose garden. Circulation of the various modes accessing the PAITC area in Scheme B is displayed in Attachment 132. Attachment B3 shows the proposed oval and parkland within the oval. Scheme B 1) Three tracks are inserted into the existing station and the existing parking along Alma is retained. 2) As in Scheme A, the bus transit transfer center is expanded from five standard bays to six articulated (double-length) and six standard bays, only it is entered only off E1 Camino. 3) An auto, taxi, and shuttle bus loop is created off University coming up into an arrival plaza which is separate from bus and truck circulation. 4) Roundabouts are used at each end of the major PAITC study area axisnUniversity and Alma to University/Palm Drive and E1 Camino Real. The roundabout at E1 Camino is grade separated from through traffic on E1 Camino. Attachment F contains general information on the design and function of roundabouts. City of Palo Alto Page 5 of 8 H/cmrs/p-tc/PAITC 5-10-00.doc 5)University Avenue is pushed to the south to create a larger park that is not surrounded by traffic and that maintains easier gradients up into the station, as well as features the historic building in a less formal park. 6)The .train platforms are more like what exists at present with one being kept intact next to the depot. 7) The arrival plaza in front of the depot is celebrated with a fountain. 8) The park passes under the rail bridge and features enlarged sidewalks for cafes at University Circle. 9) The park slopes up to Station Plaza with a curving entry road. This area is less formal and has the character of a rolling park with trees and broad expanses, gently sloping surfaces to counteract the depth of the underpass. This offers a more gracious entry to MacArthur Park. 10) A fountain is placed in the center of the E1 Camino roundabout to terminate the space and to orient visitors to Palm Drive and Stanford. Expansion of Scheme B 1) Public parking could be placed below grade, opening up at-grade space for more pedestrian-friendly uses. 2) A possible Paseo and transit village could be created to make a strong pedestrian .connection between downtown Palo Alto and the Stanford Shopping Center. POLICY IMPLICATIONS Cost An overarching policy implication is cost to implement either scheme. Total cost, which will be calculated for the preferred altemative, may exceed $50 million. Seeing this project through will require partnerships among many entities: the City of Palo Alto, Stanford, Caltrain/Joint Powers Board, the Valley Trarisportation Authority, Caltrans, and the private sector. A phased implementation over time will most likely be necessary. Transit Development Both Scheme A and Scheme B facilitate expansion of bus and rail transit capacity and services. Scheme B does not accommodate Caltrain’s long range planning for four tracks at the University Avenue depot, the second busiest (next to San Francisco 4th and King) station stop on the Caltrain system. Scheme A thus goes further in supporting Comprehensive Plan policy to enhance public transport as an alternative to the private motor vehicle. A downtown Palo Alto station able to accommodate high speed (as much as a 50 percent reduction in trip times over current operations), express service between San Francisco and San Jose, supported by expanded connecting bus services, could have a significant affect on commuting by Palo Alto residents and workers. City of Palo Alto Page 6 of 8H:/cmrs/p-tc/PAITC 5-10-00.doc Bicycle and Pedestrian Circulation Both Scheme A and Scheme B accommodate increased use of the bicycle and pedestrian modes of travel to, from, and within the PAITC area. The roundabout proposed in Scheme B for University Avenue and Alma, however, may present more difficulty to bicyclists than does the divided roadway, half-circle in Scheme A at the same location. Both schemes improve bicycle and pedestrian travel along the University Avenue axis of the PAITC area. In doing so, both further Comprehensive Plan policy to enhance bicycle and pedestrian travel in Palo Alto. Vehicle Circulation Both Scheme A and Scheme B clarify vehicle circulation and calm traffic on University Avenue between Alma and E1 Camino Real, thus open up opportunities for bicycling and walking as alternatives to motor vehicle use. Urban Design, .Civic Space, and Public Art Scheme A provides a large expanse of civic space. Both schemes create a gateway between the Palo Alto and Stanford and both offer many opportunities for public art and enhanced urban design in the PAITC study area. Transit-oriented Development Both Scheme A and B allow for transit-supportive uses to be developed in the PAITC area. The scale and nature of these uses is a policy question. Placing the bus transit plaza below grade could open up a significant and desirable area for such development. SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ISSUES Public Park Configuration and Program The location, size, design, and facilities of the proposed pubic park land in either Scheme A or B will determine much of the character of this physical and visual gateway between downtown Palo Alto and Stanford. Roundabouts or Half Circles on University Avenue Roundabouts offer better traffic calming potential, but the half circles require less right-of- way. The roundabout proposed for University and Alma may be difficult for bicyclists to navigate. The grade-separated roundabout at El Camino will be expensive and will require Caltrans approval and (potentially) funding. Palo Alto Train Station Scale A four-track University Avenue station would be an urban scale rail passenger facility more like BART and less like a small city commuter rail station. The new situation would be less intuitive to passengers, but more efficient for transit operations. City of Palo Alto Page 7 of 8H:/cmrs/p-tc/PAITC 5-10-00.doc Transit-Oriented Development The mix and intensity of uses will affect the visual character of the PAITC study area, traffic patterns, and transit viability. Opportunities may exist for affordable housing and/or a public performance facility which could offer joint efficient shared parking with weekday commuter transit as well as generate evening and weekend transit trips. Connection between Downtown and Stanford Shopping Center A below grade bus transfer center would open up more convenient pedestrian and bicycle connections between these two major business districts. Without that, conflicts with vehicles remain and require more circuity for both modes in making this connection. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW An Environmental Assessment will be prepared prior to implementation of the preferred design. ATTACHMENTS A1-4 B1-6 C D El-3 F Scheme A Design Alternatives Scheme B Design Alternatives Roster of Steering Committee & Development T+am Members Project Objectives and Evaluation Criteria Materials from April 8, 2000 Public Workshop Design and Function of Roundabouts COURTESY COPIES: Project Steering Committee Project Development Team Cindy Cagan, Chamber of Commerce Palo Alto Bicycle Advisory Committee Prepared by: Joseph Kott, Chief Transportation Official Jos~h Kot~, Chief T~ansp~ation Official Ci~ of Palo Alto Page 8 of 8 H:/cmrs/p-tdPAITC 5-10-00.doc i Palo Alto Intermodal Transit Facility Scheme A PM~ WaiSt end ATTACHMENT AI ATTACHMENT A2 ATTACHMENT A3 ATTACHMENT A4 Palo Alto Intermodal Transit Facility Scheme B P~tor Walk~ end p~dr~’~ ATTACHMENT B1 ATTACHMENT B2 ATTACHMENT B3 ATTACHMENT B4 ATTACHMENT B5 ATTACHMENT B6 I ~ -~ L~ ..... ATTACHMENT C~ PALO ALTO INTERMODAL TRANSIT CENTER STUDY , Development Team Greg Gleichman/Leslie Quintero Leonie Batkin Ruth Todd Lisa Grote Kent Steffens Bill Fellman Jim Lightbody Stanford University Stanford Management Company Stanford University Planning Office City of Palo Alto Planning Department City of Palo Alto Public Works Department City of Palo Alto Real Estate Division Valley Transportation Authority Steering Committee David Neuman Chris Christofferson Bill Phillips Kathy Schmidt Ed Gawf Glenn Roberts Jim Pierson Steven Hanson Ross Weir John Thomas Clement Chen David Jury Tony Carrasco Emily Renzel Barbara Gross Ellen Fletcher Stanford University Architect Stanford University, Facilities Stanford Management Company Palo Alto Planning Commission Palo Alto Planning Department Palo Alto Public Works Department Valley Transportation Authority, Planning Samtrans/Joint Powers Board Samtrans/Joint Powers Board Caltrans Business Neighbor, Sheraton Hotel Business Neighbor, Palo Alto Medical Foundation Community Member Community Member Community Member Bicycle Advocate Palo Alto Interrnodal Train Station Study 2/24/00 ATTACHMENT D PROJECT OBJECTIVES Dream Team Charette 1.Optimize the effectiveness of the mutli-modal transportation center in serving all of the surrounding communities. 2.Protect the integrity of nearby residential neighborhoods from negative impacts of urban development. 3.Create a gatewayto the downtown and university. 4.Clarify circulation in the study area while keeping in mind the larger picture and visionary goals of the Dream Team. 5.Protect open space, cultural and natural resources. Comp Plan Program L-26 6.Improve pedestrian, bicycle, transit, and auto connections to creat’e an urban linkbetween University Avenue/Downtown and Stanford Shopping Center. Create a major civic space at the Caltrain Station that links University Avenue/Downtown and Palm Drive. Infill underutilized parcels with a mix of uses such as shopping, housing, office, hotel, and medical facilities. Improve public park space. Protect views of the foothills by guiding building heights and massing. Comp Plan Program %5 11.Pursue development of the University Avenue Multi-Modal Transit Station conceptual plan based on the 1993-1994 design study. 12.Improve pedestrian and bicycle access to and between local destinations, including public facilities, schools, parks, open space, employment districts, shopping centers, and multi-modal transit stations. 13.Study projects to depress bikeways and pedestrian walkways under Alma Street and the Caltrain tracks and implement if feasible. EVALUATION CRITERIA Planning, Land Use and Urban Design 1.Is a major civic space created that links the University, downtown and Stanford Shopping Center? 2.Are the gateways to both the City and University improved? 3.Are infill opportunities created for new civic, residential and mixed-use development? 4.Are nearby residential areas protected from potential adverse development impacts? 5.Are parkland and natural resources enhanced? Transportation and Circulation 0 10° Does the proposed design balance urban design goals with transit needs? Is transit enhanced and do the transit agencies benefit from the proposed improvements? Are pedestrian, bicycle, auto and transit connections improved between the train station area and downtown, University, Stanford Shopping Center, and surrounding residential neighborhoods? Do the proposed transit facilities, parking and circulation meet current demands and have capacity for future needs? Does the proposed design increase safety for all modes of travel and accessibility for those With disabilities? Does traffic level of service meet standards set by the City of Palo Alto, Santa Clara County Congestion Management Agency, and Caltrans? 12. Is vehicular access to local businesses and residential neighborhoods maintained? Implementation 13. Has each represented agency approved the project concept? 14. Are local, state and federal programs identified to fund the project? 15. Can the project be developed in phases consistent with available funding? 16. Can the project be phased and implemented to minimize traffic disruption during construction? ATTACHMENT E 1 SUMMARY PAITS Community Workshop April .I 9, 2000 Workshop Format The community workshop was held on the sunny spring morning Of April 8= from 8:30 to noon at the Sheraton Hotel, the site of the original Dream Team Charrette. About 65 people attended the workshop, including citizens, transit users, four council people, four planning commissioners, and members of the project steering committee and development team. More than 20 participants took part in the first Dream Team workshop. The intent of the workshop was to present the alternative schemes to the community and solicit input ~ design team. The meeting started with introductions by Ed Gawf, CPA Planning Director, and Joe Kott, CPA Transportation Official. Background and history on the original Dream Team efforts were summarized by Stanford representatives Charles Carter and David Neuman along with City Councilperson Nancy Lytle. Rob Quigley and Maryanne Walton presented a summary of the scope and process for the current study and the format for this workshop. Tom Leader of Peter Walker’s office then presented the two alternative schemes - A) an oval traffic loop with the park in the middle and B) two roundabouts with a larger park to the north side -as well as a possible future scenario. Traffic and circulation diagrams, plans, sections, historical and aerial photos, and the original dream team scheme were pinned up on the walls. A "technical experts" table was staffed by the consultants, JPB, and VTA to explain the schemes in more detail and provide technical expertise as required. After the presentation of the alternative schemes, the workshop participants worked with volunteer facilitators in seven small groups to discuss the plans. In particular, they discussed what should happen in the study area, which scheme they preferred, and other ideas to consider. Each group presented their recommendations to the entire workshop and their comments were summarized by Rob Quigley. In addition, each participant could write or draw their thoughts on an "idea card" to document the two most important ideas they wanted the design team to consider. This summary is prepared for inclusion in the staff report to both the Planning and Transportation Commission and City Council. The same alternatives that were reviewed at the workshop will be presented at public hearings for both groups. After their review, the Steering Committee will meet with the project team and consultants to determine a single preferred scheme. That scheme will then be reviewed at another community workshop, and additional public hearings before the Architectural Review Board, Planning and Transportation Commission and City Council. Based on that input, the scheme will be finalized and an implementation plan will be prepared that outlines the steps and funding necessary for completion of the project. Summary of Small Group Presentations There was general consensus on the following issues: Circulation and Transportation ,Make all forms of transit safe, clean and pleasant. ¯Improved physical connections between the university, the community and shopping center are a priority. ,Providing safe bicycle circulation is a concern. =There needs to be additional focus and explanation on circulation especially for pedestrians, bicycles and autos. The flexibility to provide four railroad tracks in the future was seen as a positive move. Planning, Land Use and Urban Design The connection between Palo Alto and Stanford should have a civic quality. Aesthetic quality is important. There needs to be e reason to be in the park-it needs active use to be claimed by the community. The hierarchy for the desirable land uses in the study area is 1).housing, 2) retail that supports transit, and 3) office - "make it a transit village." Other Issues W’rthout Clear Consensus Some people prefer a more active perimeter along the edges of the open space. While some want to keep transit activities at grade, others want to put them underground. Long sight lines will help strengthen visual connections. -~ ~ -~ A concern for the acoustical quality of the different spaces was expressed. Accents are needed at the endpoints of each ~cheme to create gateways when entering Stanford or Palo Alto. Some people thought gateways should also happen for arrivel from the north end south. Several groups recommended including e new performing arts center. Public art should be incorporated into’the final scheme. Schemes A and B The groups were faidy evenly split on which scheme they preferred. In general, those who preferred A thought it provided better linkages and circulation access. Those who preferred B thought it provided the same things. Whichever scheme they preferred, they thought the less desirable scheme was more vehicle dominated and pedestrian/bicycle facilities needed more clarification. (More detailed responses to each scheme are listed on "Summary of Notes on Small Group Plans.~ The individual responses listed on each idea card are listed on "Summary of Idea Cards.’) ATTACHMENT E2 SUMMARY OF IDEA CARDS PAITS April Community Workshop April 19, 2000 Circulation and Transportation Quarry Road Bus access via Quarry under tracks to Alma/downtown =Either plan needs much greater emphasis on the Quarry Road connection (for pedestrians and bikes) between the shopping center and downtown. A straight line connection is needed between the intersection of University/Alme trod Quarry Road/ECR Connections¯ Not enough connection between PA and ;tanford. Need more clearly defined connections across tracks to make it more permeable and inviting to cross back and forth. Need more connection from Lytton or Everett to Stanford Shopping Center.¯Sketch shows direct connections between downtown, shopping center and Stanford entry¯Sketch shows oval with roundabouts at either end. Hierarchy for circulation: 1) bikes, 2) pedestrians, 3) train, bus shuttle, 10) cars. Palm Drive ¯ Change Palm Drive to 2 car lanes with center turn lane and 2 bike lanes (separated from pedestrians) Roundabouts = How about a roundabout at Arboretum Road and Palm Drive? ¯ Glass bottom for ECR roundabout fountain so we’re not duplicating dark underpass on ECR Bicycles/Pedestrians Improve bike access to north end of platform and across tracks Create pedestrian mall between depot, MacArthur Park and bus shelters Crossing tables should be used at all pedestrian crossings All pedestrian crossing should be raised crosswalks (tables) Raise all crosswalks at pedestrian crossing Give as much emphasis to pedestrians and bicycle traffic as autos. Separate but equall Improve bicycle/pedestrian circulation Make great clear pedestrian connections through this area. They must e safe and lively at all times. All pedestrian/bike access to station needs to be at grade - no under or overcrossings Strong pedestrian/bike crossing from Urban Lane into train station and from Lytton or Everett to Stanford shopping center BUSES¯Underground bus good idea but needs lots of circulation work. ¯No underground buses- this would be a very inhospitable environment for bus users, fumes would be anavoidable, users would be isolated from interesting views, sunlight, etc. (Train boarding at Union Station in Chicago is like this but it is awful.) ¯Seeing the buses reminds potential riders of this transit option. Out of sight, out of mind if they are underground. Buses are already the "mode of last resort" - don’t put them underground and make them even less desirable. Would require cavernous ramps to accommodate large buses. Bus transit center underground ,Submerge the bus station and free up very valuable land for performing arts or other active people-oriented facilities.¯Bus transit station must be beautiful and attractive Railroad¯ Since the railroad is the most fixed element of this plan, it is imperative that the plan make railroad usage as efficient as possible.¯Re-examine lowering the tracks.¯Definitely 4 train tracks- look to the futurel Transit = All trains should be met by frequent buses that feed all parts of the surrounding community at all hours.People should not have to wait more than a few minutes to catch a bus from the train or vice versa. Keep focus on long-term goal: public transit will be the major mode of transportation long-term (i.e,, train, bus, bike, foot) Miscellaneous Circulation Remove cars from University Avenue downtown all together and create a full pe~testrian/bike~matl/.pa, rk area.¯Scheme A has too many awkward intersections and potential for traffic problems and jams. Could be revised with modified roundabouts to keep the central park area. = What happened to the concept of reconfiguring El Camino parks, closing Alma at Sand Hill and connecting Quarry to Alma?¯What is the possibility of a Denver-like car-free downtown with no cars, or a St. Louis-type light rail, as per San Jose/Mr. View? Planning, Land Use and Urban Design Gateway =Perfect place for agateway ,Create better gateways from north and south on ECR and Alma Development¯ All development should be mixed-use, transit village, commercial/residential - it it’s all retail, there’s no activity or pedestrian safety after 9p.m.¯Consider mixed use with housing, office, and retail in area near Red Cross and across tracks ,Sketch shows concept of retail/hotel/possibly housing along the south side of University on either scheme¯Any new buildings should have gardens on their tops (for example, "future development" of scheme oB could retain community garden on its roof).¯If we already have a traffic problem due to jobs/housing imbalance, we should not impact that problemfurther with increased commercial uses on this planning area.¯Provide services to supporttrain and bus commuters, maybe some housing, too. =Housing over retail for residents who pledge not to own motor vehicles- so parking requirements should be waived.¯Bring housing (not retail) loserto transportation¯Putin performing arts¯Increase housing opportunities-not jobs/commercial opportunities.¯You should tie design to new garage being built on Alma, about 1/2 block south of University.¯Remove Red Cross building and move MacArthur Park over to just north of depot. Then develop remaining areas into park/public uses and/or housing clustered around park uses.¯Nomore retail¯Eliminate at grade parking lots on Alma and replace with buildings and underground parking.¯A performing arts center should be located here. That will provide audience members access to downtown restaurants before and after performances. Railroad Bridge ¯ Use "monumental sculpture" truss bridge for railroad tracks- benefits are increased clearance, less digging, visual interest¯Bridge should be a focal point with clock tower in the middle for t~ain station end town (see sketch) Depot¯Reclaim font door of train station as arrival plaza for taxi and drop-off¯Sketch shows visual reference point at intersections of University/ECR and University]Alma. =Underground bus could give space for performance center =Open, clean restrooms at train station¯Retain existing entry kiosk at Lytton Avenue to the underground passage to the train station (it is part of thenational register historic site). This kiosk ties the northbound tracks to the historic station on the southbound side of the tracks. Park =Useful park area¯Park should be a lunchtime destination- concerts? Food vending carts? Small group seating areas? Water features and shade?¯Sketch says keep trees along edge of linear park between them for visual connection. =Minimize pavement in park (cars are polluting, noisy, dangerous, and space is better used as park, not road). Emphasize the park aspect of Scheme A with traffic pattern of B by moving MacArthur Park building and pushing park north (see sketch).¯Make central park more accessible and usable on both plans¯Public parks must be improved through design. =Treesl Lots of trees and a variety- and a commitment to keeping them healthy =Make sure the park has enough to draw people- band shell, pops concerts ,We should use the center parking plan for many park activities like concert areas, small boat ponds Public Art = What a great opportunity for public art. Envision a sculpture garden from Palo Alto to Stanford - celebrating and enriching our cultural awareness. Public art should not be an afterthought. It should be a part of the pre-planning process.¯I’d like to see broad public input on any public art that’s installed. All too often, these pieces are hideous. =Would like to see lots of public art installations and art-type lighting installations, especially in evening (for safety, tun and celebrate life) Miscellaneous Make adequate guidance for the blind There should be clear marking for blind people, wheelchair access, etc. Let’s make a place of unique urban vitality for all to use and enjoy. Implementation You can’t have a fair comparison of circulation alternatives without a complete and consistent plan, including development and/or other sources of financing for the circulation plan, such as tax increment financing or sales tax. ATTACHMENT E3 SUMMARY OF NOTES ON SMALL GROUP PLANS PAITS April Community Workshop April 19, 2000 Scheme A -3 Groups preferred, one had mixed feelings Make the perimeter of the oval active use space Signal delays at University/AlmaLike access to tracks up stairs from oval Auto speeds will be fast around green Replace University/Alma intersection with roundabout Don’t allow cars to connect from loop to depot Buses should connect across Quarry Only need one road, not a loop, so park isn’t broken up by two roadsWill bus access at Quarry conflict with pedestrians? Keep buses away from depot access road, connect via Quarry Scheme B - 3 Groups preferred, one had mixed feelings 3 tracks doesn’t allow flexibility for future tracks, use Scheme A’s four-track scenario Roundabout is poor gateway to Stanford and not aesthetically linked to PA 0val park relates well to Stanford’s oval Need stronger bike/pedestrian connection on route from University/depot/Quarry Road Need stronger pedestrian access from University to Palm which is safe and usable What is traffic impact on new park? Need raised crosswalks with colored pavement at University/Alma roundaboutGood separation of depot and bus Land use opportunities between University and Sheraton No cars through park to MacArthur Park/depot, connect from ECRDon’t put roundabout at ECR Need a better visual connection between historical buildings and loop Put the connection from northbound ECR ramp under the loop so park extends all the way to the roundabout Circulation and Transportation Connections¯PA and Stanford need connection to PAMF¯Need direct pedestrian connection between undercrossing at Lytton or Everett and Quarry Road/ECR crossing ¯Need strong pedestrian/bike connection from PAMF across parkto train station Roundabouts¯Place vertical focal point in middle of roundabouts¯Could put roundabout at Palm/Arboretum =Roundabout at ECR should have glass bottom fountain to drive under¯Concerned about bike/pedestrian safetywith roundabouts BicycleslPedestrians Need bike lanes which are separate from autos Make sure there’s bike/pedestrian access to platforms Everett is future bike boulevard - make sure it connects under tracks Concerned about bike circulation, especially along ECR Need bike/pedestrian crossing at tracks (not at grade) Need excellent pedestrian connections to park Need strong pedestrian connection from tracks across Alma to University/downtown Raised sidewalks at Quarry Road/ECR intersection Buses¯Keep bus and trains at same grade¯No underground buses- fumes; out of sight, out of mind¯Putbuses underground Transit¯Shuttles are buses, notcars¯Need seating areas on platforms ¯Kiss and ride should happen at Alma parking lot Parking ¯Put additionaltransit parking next to Red Cross¯Replace MacArthur Park’s front parking lot with park land =Isthere enough parking? .No underground parking, attracts more traffic, impedimentto train use =Put all parking underground =Put MacArthur Park’s and Sheraton’s parking underground with park above Miscellaneous Circulation¯Be sure that wheel chair access is clearly marked and easily accessible, particularly around the train station Planning, Land Use and Urban Design Development¯Development shouldn’t happen in existing park land¯Put transit village development along Alma, El Camino and at southwest corner Of Quarry/ECR intersection .Performing arts center may not be well placed next to noisy, vibrating train ¯Must consider possible uses, such as performing arts center, to the north¯Don’t need more retail; other uses would be better (park, housing, etc.) =No hotel expansion- could be park or housing with parking below¯Next to Red Cross put mixed use or performing arts center with underground parking¯Mixed use and performing arts center nextto Red Cross¯Put mixed use, housing and office along Alma parking lots¯Put in a gym at Sheraton’s parking lot¯Need housing! Railroad Bridge ¯Make it a trestle bridge ¯Sculptural bridge truss, cable stay, wrought iron, glass Depot Retain historic entry features Park How will park be used? How can it be made a destination? .Need water to mask traffic sounds, like Yerba Buena =Urban park needs cascading water fountains, waterfalls, friendly open space, adequate seating for train waits, low impact amphitheater/seating, art exhibitions Miscellaneous . Should Red Crossstay? ¯ Need clearsignage ATTACHMENT F ROUNDABOUTS - DESIGN AND FUNCTION A roundabout is a circular shaped raised island that sits in the middle of an intersection. Each of the four approaches to the roundabout contains a median or "splitter" island to guide vehicle movement into the circle and provide pedestrian refuge. Roundabouts are extensively used in Europe, Australia, and New Zealand but have only recently been introduced in the United States (although a precursor, the traffic circle, has been used in New England for many years). Michael Walwork, a national expert on roundabouts who has consulted with City staff on a traffic calming plan for Embarcadero Road, estimates that there are now between 80,000 and 100,000 roundabouts in operation worldwide. Good Bay Area examples of modern roundabouts are in place in Petaluma and Davis. A motorist approaching a roundabout yields to the traffic within the roundabout going in a counter clockwise direction, makes a right turn merge (guided by the "splitter" island) into the traffic flow, and then another right to exit. The number of conflict points at a roundabout is reduced to eight (compared to 32 conflict points at a four-way intersection), thus reducing the potential for a(cidents and improving safety. Roundabouts are generally designed for slower speeds, which results in vehicle speeds of 25 mph or less, as well as fewer and less severe accidents than at conventional intersections. Pedestrian safety can be enhanced because, (a) the splitter islands at roundabouts, which channel traffic safely into the roundabout, act as refuge islands, (b) pedestrians have to look only one way,.(c) the crossing distance is small, about 12 feet, as a person is crossing only half of the street at a time, and (d) vehicle speeds are slow. Bicyclists are often able to circulate in the roundabouts at speeds equal to or faster than vehicles. While roundabouts seem to have many advantages, they are new and people are generally not familiar with them, which may create a new set of problems. General acceptance in Palo Alto is unknown (although staff observation of roundabouts in operation in both Davis and Petaluma suggests that Bay Area motorists are quite able to negotiate this type of intersection). Unlike traffic signals, roundabouts do not provide positive right-of-way- control, so that, for example, a pedestrian may need to use his or her judgment and be patient to make sure that drivers are going to stop prior to the pedestrian’s crossing. Two and three lane roundabouts are more difficult for bicyclists and pedestrians to negotiate than single-lane facilities. ATTACHMENT Q EXCERPT OF THE PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION VERBA TIM MINUTES MA Y I O, 2000 NEW BUSINESS. Public hearings: Intermodal Transit Center Design Development: Review and discussion of two design alternatives for environs of the University Avenue Caltrain station. Design elements include circulation, civic space, and transit-oriented development. Chairman Schmidt: Joe Kott, head of our Transportation Department will begin this. Mr. Joseph Kott, Chief Transportation Official: Thank you Madam Chair. We are here tonight to describe to you the work done to date to develop the design of an intermodal transit center for Palo Alto. This work, in a way, completes that which was begun in 1993 as part of a public planning and design process, familiarly known as the "Dream Team" process including public charrette. That work was continued on in 1994 with additional detail added. This particular endeavor was a joint one between the City of Palo Alto and Stanford and funded substantially through a petroleum escrow violation account grant seeks t6 create a design that is feasible from the standpoint of several engineering and traffic operations and accomplishes all the objectives that the Dream Team process set forth and that are called for in the Comprehensive Plan that Palo Alto had adopted in 1998. We have engaged in a public process including a public workshop. We have a steering committee and a Staff level technical team called the Development Team which is overseeing the work in this project. We intend to come back to this Commission after a Council meeting which looks to be scheduled for May 22, 2000, an additional public workshop and meetings of the steering committee and the Development Team. We’ll come back to with a very detailed, what I’ll describe as "preferred" alternative. At this point we have two substantially different alternatives all accomplishing the objectives we feel set forth in the Dream Team charrette process. All feasible from the standpoint of transportation operations and civil engineering but different in their approaches in how space is allocated and how circulation actually is done. So we will talk about that tonight. We hope very much to get your guidance and to receive from you a recommendation to City Council on directions to proceed. We are offering two alternatives, there could be a combination of the major elements of each to create a composite third alternative. We’d like to go forward from here with some pretty good idea of your thinking. We’ll gather that up and go to Council and receive direction from Council and then proceed with a lot of additional detailing work on a preferred alternative. The problems that this project really needs to address include navigation for bikes and pedestrians. It is very important in Palo Alto and very important at that location. Also, in some ways to clarify vehicular navigation. Certainly to improve way-finding or legibility. How in the world to I get where I want to go if I’m in a given location in the study area, be it over to the Page 1 of 21 shopping center, be it to the Stanford Campus, be it to the train station or Downtown. The positioning of a gateway or any kind of a public arch that celebrates the connections in that place between Stanford and Palo Alto. The positioning of civic open space. As mentioned earlier, the poor linkages in general, the legibility and poor linkages between Downtown, the shopping center and Stanford and of course the train station as a nexus amongst all those locations. There are some opportunities to provide for increases in transit capacity both rail and bus which are very important in Palo Alto’s Comprehensive Plan Transportation Vision. And perhaps the opportunity to engage in some creative transit oriented development or create transit supportive and no impact trips at this particular location. We have something that we started on funding. The VTA has obtained some funding to substantially upgrade the bus transit center behind the train station. Caltrain has given us indications that as part of their capacity upgrade that they would likely replace the bridge over University Avenue, the rail-bridge, at their cost. So that is a substantial amount of money. Another area we’re quite interested in finding funding for is the possibility of a new wider bridge at E1 Camino and University at Palm Drive, the bridge over El Camino. We don’t have a good lead on funding for that. We are hopeful that Cal Trans with new leadership might be interested in that location as a demonstration of good faith and support of alternative transportation. I’d also like to note now of many issues in this project one fhat is of particular interest to us and maybe to some Commissioners is the question of roundabouts as alternatives to signalized intersections. There are some major benefits, there are some issues associated with them that. We have a couple of videos. They are short but may be too long for tonight. We would like to give an informal brown-bag luncheon presentation of the videos with discussion of roundabouts at some future date, after this Commission Meeting. However, if Commissioners wish to see all or parts of the videos we have we are willing to show them. One of them is a video about roundabouts. The second one is one that we took in Petaluma in the north bay which really shows how roundabouts work in the real world. That’s probably a too long overview of what we are doing tonight. If there are no questions I would like to turn the baton over to Maryanne Quigley who is the project manager for both ourselves and Stanford on this project. Maryanne works for Rob Quigley & Associates. Her job.is not unlike that of herding cats, I think. All of us are very opinionated people who are involved in this effort. Ms. Marganne Welton, Project Manager: Good evening. I’m going to give you a brief overview of the process that we’re in right now on this project. Our goal is to start with what was developed, especially the enthusiasm and excitement that was developed during the Dream Team charrette that was held seven years ago, to meet the project objectives which you have in your Staff report, and end up with a feasible plan that is feasible from the engineering standpoint, transportation that meets our design goals and that has an implementation plan that outlines how the project will be phased and identifies funding to pay for all of the different phases. So that’s the goal that we’re striving for. We are working with a design team that includes urban designers, Peter Walker & Associates, civil and structural engineers, transportation engineers and economic consultants because we were trying to cover all of the aspects of the project to make sure that we could end up with a plan that was feasible and could be implemented. Page 2 of 21 There is a chart that was in your Staff report that briefly outlines the phases that we are using on the project. The first was pre-design, gathering all the information about the existing conditions and getting input from people before we started working on the project. We are working closely with the transit agencies, Cal Trans, Caltrain, JPB, VTA, Sam Trans, Marguerite Shuttle, so that we could make sure we met all of their needs and requirements. Then we started looking at alternatives. You’ll see those presented in more detail later. That is the phase that we are in right now, looking at two alternatives, weighing the pros and cons of each one. We are developing cost estimates at this time so that we can see what impact there is. From a brief overview we think that both the schemes are pretty much similar in cost, One isn’t much more expensive than the other, but we’re in the process of developing those estimates to present to City Council. After the input from the steering committees and the development team meetings and the community workshop that we held on April 8th’ which some of you attended, your input and City Council input we will get together and recommend one alternative to go forward. At that time we will start looking in even more detail at how it works from all of those different standpoints, engineering and economics and urban design goals. So we will develop one scheme and finalize the drawings and develop the implementation plan that shows how we will make the project work. Community input was very important to us on this process. Besides the steering committee meetings which are open to the public we have two community workshops. One was already held and we will hold one to review the final scheme, the s~ime one that you will review. We also are presenting to the Architectural Review Board. We’ll present the final scheme to you and to the City Council. If you have any questions I’d be happy to answer them. Chairman Schmidt: Thank you. That was Marianne Welton. Maryanne, I think that we did not receive the schedule in our packets. Ms. Welton: You didn’t have this form? Okay. We’re just about in the middle of the project right now. We hope to come forward to you with the final scheme in September for you to give your input. Chairman Schmidt: Okay, thank you. Ms. Welton: At this point I’d like to turn it over to Tom Leader from Peter Walker’s office to present the alternatives to you. Mr. Tom Leader, Partner, Peter Walker & Partners: Good evening. I’m a partner at Peter Walker & Partners. I’m going to show you some slides. This is a condensed presentation and I’m going to go quickly. You’ll have to pardon my fast pace. Just a very quick history of the site. Back in 1910 through the 1920s the intersection of University and Alma and the rail route was a very simple place which was really the center of town. It was characterized by a fairly simple, elegant, gracious fountain and the buildings created an interesting crescent around that shape which is still there. The Hostess House which Page 3 of 21 was moved to this spot because of the importance of its location and its being the hub of central activity was moved here and an historic flagpole erected all as part of being the center of town. These spaces were characterized by a very simple gracious orientation to the pedestrian. It was about how people moved around on foot. As time moved along the number of trains and the number cars, the speed of cars continued to increase and some of those previous modes of public space interacting with transit began to change particularly the crossing of the railroad. On the left there is shows basically the procedure of changing what was originally kind of a plaza with an on-grade crossing of the railroad through a whole series of very complicated stages to the present crossing that we have. Next please. This occurred in about 1939 or so. At this point in time the car had become very important to people and mobility, movement, was of great interest and excitement. Both good and bad things came out of this period of time. One of the negative things in our view was the development of this major over-crossing here with a whole lot of ramps resulting in kind of a bird’s nest of ramps and tunnels. It became difficult to tmderstand the gateway between the City of Palo Alto and Stanford anymore. It became more of a barrier than a point of exchange. One of the good things that came out of it was of course the transit station which is one of the few examples of this Moderne style emphasizing movement, lines relating in a very strong way to the actual movement of trains. The goal of the Dream Team was to find a solution to this maze. It was really to establish a clarity and orientation of open space which created strong connections to transit and created a very strong connection between the City and Stanford. Next please. The first scheme that I’m showing you is basically a direct descendent of the Dream Team effort. What this really looked at is a major looping system which would convey vehicles, bikes and pedestrians in a two-way cutlet through the entire space taking in all traffic movements. All these things feed into here and you circulate around and then you find your place and get off. Caltrain is interested in expanding to basically four tracks versus the current two. Those are shown here. So there is quite a substantial expansion at the train station. Buses would be still be accommodated off of University and moving up through here and there would be quite an expanded bus facility accommodating six articulated and six standard bus venues. One of the most important things in terms of open space is the possibility of building a new railroad bridge in response to the four tracks which would allow an opening from here over to here so you can clearly see through. So the open space would move over the tracks and through so that people can use the walk and see from one side to the other. The open space is create inside is very long and more linear in character. We think it offers some interesting possibilities as a place that can be compartmentalized into a series of rooms broken down by hedges and embankments into something that is quite useful. Next please. The train station here is going to change its nature in this scheme. There are four tracks and the way they are accessed is by platforms in the center versus the current system where you basically come from the outside stand on the platform here and board the train. So there is much more capacity in this and the character is much more urban. There is a plaza with [a sliding roof] and Page 4 of 21 then you move through stairways and elevators this way onto the platforms. Now, there are spaces opened up undemeath the tracks which have the ability to contain shops and other useful space. There is a project like this in France, it was done beneath a viaduct. The system of separation of buses and autos is probably not optimal here. Both buses and autos still access University coming in. Buses continue on into a big loop like so. Autos will come in and pull close to the depot and have the ability to turn around and leave, also taxis. One of the problems of that of course is they are turning in the face of on-coming buses similar to the way they do now. Next please. The park they are showing, the park design in particular, is only a diagram intended to illicit comment. It was done primarily to understand the size of what we are dealing with. As I was saying, it has the ability to breakdown into a series of components, program items relating to performance, to casual seating and enjoyment of seasonal vegetation and so forth. The bridge that we are showing in here is graded up in several sections, there and there. It is as narrow as possible for the necessary structural components so that light can actually penetrate down through it. You know you are going through an underpass and you are going underneath a bridge. Next please. These are some of the activities we would propose to continue in the park both adult recreation and children’s playgrounds. Next. The park as it moves towards Stanford has a possibility of containing public display gardens, possibly a rose garden and terminating at Palm Drive with a fountain at a bit more of a garden . scale, something related to the whole composition. All of our elements are g6ing to be this kind of character which tends to hold the scheme together over long distance. Next. The edges of this loop will have an alley of trees similar to this which contains all of the pedestrian circulation moving from University to Palm Drive and also containing bike lanes for those that don’t want to ride down on the pavement. Next please. One of the things about this park is that it is contained within traffic on either side. The question is, is it really just an elaborate median strip? Just kind of a visual piece that doesn’t really have any functional benefit. So. we’ve overlaid Scheme A, it’s a little hard to see there, basically it is the same size as Caesar Chaves Park in San Jose which I know you are familiar with. Caesar Chaves Park is surrounded by four lanes of traffic. So we feel that the size of it is pretty good, that we can fit in things that we need to do and you’re not going to feel like you have traffic whizzing by. Next please. These are intended not as much to promote the design as to give you an idea how far it is from traffic on one side to traffic on the other. Next. Now, Scheme B takes a different point of view. It attempts to terminate University Avenue in a roundabout up here and to terminate Palm Drive in another roundabout here over at El Camino. The purpose of the roundabouts of course is to calm and slow down vehicle traffic so that it is safer for pedestrians and bicyclists to move back and forth through-this zone. Four tracks can be done in this scheme as well. One benefit of doing that is you maintain at least on this side the Page 5 of 21 conventional means of approaching the train where this platform is still usable and has kind of a classic relationship to the train. You walk up and you get on. University Avenue which connects kind of like a dumbbell the two roundabouts has been pushed to the right for the purpose of opening up a larger public park which is not cut through by large roadways and can roll up to both the Hostess House which is now MacArthur Park and the historic train station. Both of these structures are on the historic register. You can see that in this sketch here. One important feature of this scheme is that vehicles have been separated for the purpose of safety. We do have a one-way auto loop coming through the park which allows access only for autos and taxis to a much more elaborate vehicle plaza in front of the depot. Cars are parked. You loop around here, the fountain, and exit again along this loop. Buses then enter off of E1 Camino and they are complete the loop here, truck as well, and then leave there. So there is no overlap of cars and buses in this scheme which we think adds greatly to the safety. Next. This is an enlargement of the vehicle plaza here, bus turnaround like so. Then a quick sketch of the vehicle plaza depot. Next. Again, the bridge has been opened up to allow a park to roll through this area and to allow pedestrian movement in various locations. This gives you an idea of the elevation of the bridge. Next. The park itself has the benefit of a long distance by which the grade can gradually roll up to the station. In having this excavation for an under-crossing that is even deeper than it is now for Cal Trans purposes, it’s a great benefit to be able to have EDA access all the way up here using this very long gradient that this scheme allows because University has been pushed to the right. This is the one-way loop for cars which allows a nicer entry both to vehicle plaza and as well to MacArthur Park. They can locate their front door here and valet and so forth and they have the ability to have a substantial dining terrace which overlooks the park. Next. This would be the character of this kind of park. It’s not so much about compartments and heavy program as it is about rolling gentle lines, informal planting, public art. Next. Some of the character of the material. Again, the emphasis is on the informal and the seasonal. Next. Down at the end this roundabout has potential to really act as a counterpoint to the oval here at Stanford. So there is kind of a reciprocal relationship established there. And a very key axial alignment possible with the Palm Drive and the major fountain in the center roundabout. Next. Now, this is one variation. I’m sorry this is so hard to see. This is a variation on Scheme B where we can see the future. In the future it may be that the land becomes valuable enough that the circulation of buses is better off underground. It could be entered as an underground bus station taking up about this much area and actually cross underneath tracks using tunnels. This structure could also contain some parking for the area above. This would leave open then this entire area above for other public uses which are of a more enjoyable pedestrian nature besides Page 6 of 21 the activity of the buses themselves. There would have to vertical circulation up and down but it would also allow connection underground to the structures which allow access upward to the train station. Next. The possibility here is the development of a [paseo] which could direct traffic from the station over to the shopping center. Along this [paseo] would be basically a transit village including all the things that people need for the purpose of going to and from work. It is a mixed-use development, housing, retail, office and of course that would have to be defined what that would be and discussed quite a bit more. On the other side of the park there is also the possibility of a new development related to the hotel or possibly not to the hotel and a gateway over to that side coming up from University. One important feature of this scheme that I want to come back is regarding this roundabout. We’re including the use of walls along here and also along here so that we can basically compress the E1 Camino Real intersection into a smaller area opening up larger areas of park along E1 Camino. So that essentially you would circulate from this existing park here through a linear park that’s very substantial size around to the big park here and again along E1 Camino. So there is kind of a belt of parkway here along E1 Camino which would give it much greater continuity we feel. Next. These are the last slides to illustrate some of the nature of what the transit village could be. With the exception of the cars, I’m they’re in there, the inclusion of this bicycle which would be there, it is giving you an idea of kind of a mix of retail, office, hotising, so forth. Kind of the scale and intensity of the transit village. Now I’d like to tum this over to Jerry Walters who is going to talk in more detail about some of the features of circulation that I’ve kind of glossed over. Then you can understand how people would move back and forth between Palo Alto and University. Mr. Jerry_ Waiters, Fehr & Peers Associates: We have a multimedia show going on here and while that is rewinding to find the aerial photo I’ll introduce myself. I’m Jerry Walters with Fehr & Peers Associates]. The reason that I’d like to go back to the old aerial is I’d like to point to it. The other aerial photo is right behind you folks. Since Tom did such a good job of reviewing key elements of the circulation for bicycles, pedestrians, vehicles and transit is to highlight several of the key functional elements of those modes as well as traffic circulation as it works in the plans. I’d like to begin by condensing the transportation objectives that you see in your packet to three general objectives and tell you how they have led us to some of the conclusions that you see in the new plans. The first general objective is to accommodate the growth in transit service in this area including the additional buses for VTA and Sam Trans, additional articulated buses as well. As well as increased ridership on the Caltrain service in accordance with the Caltrain forecasts. With those additional services are going to come additional buses also drop off vehicles, pedestrians and bicycles. Our second overall objective is to improve the environment and circulation patterns for pedestrian and bicyclists through this area. Not only through the tunnel which is still there after all these years, I think you know it by the ramps and the very enclosed feeling and the Page 7 of 21 competition between bicycles and pedestrians through that tunnel, but to also take care of some of the potentially more subtle elements of the pedestrian and bicycle environment now and in the short-term future. One of those, as an example, would be the difficulty crossing from the north Caltrain tracks towards Downtown. This is generally an area where train deboarding occurs. This is a large or key desired line for pedestrians and there is no safe pedestrian crossing on Alma for that to occur. Another difficult area is of course the crossing among the many turning vehicles concentrated in this area to get across to Stanford, both for pedestrians and bicycles. Then there are two new connections that will enter at the edges of this area and be very important and have been very important in our planning. One is the Homer under-crossing that’s planned just offto the edge that will connect to an extended bicycle/pedestrian system along the tracks in this area. The other comes in from the other comer, the Quarry extension and signalized intersection that’s part of the Sand Hill Road projects. It will create new pedestrian and bicycle crossings at E1 Camino at that location. From that location it is certainly possible to connect in to the station area and into the multi-use path and trail on this side, connect over to Homer. But it also appears now to be feasible and desirable io create a pedestrian connection in this area here so that bicyclists can connect to some of the preferred bicycle routes through Downtown including Everett. So what’s slightly offthe photo would be a connection from the Quarry crossing through the area under the tracks and potentially to Everett or Lytton for bicycles. So bike and pedestrian movement was another key foundational criteria in this evaluation. The third then is traffic movements. We are blessed with very high traffic volumes in this area today. Joe has used that word and likes that word "blessed." The traffic that is there today flows through the area with a little more ease than we would prefer to flow through the area. I think there is some degree of encouragement going on because of the way the system operates today and is fairly efficient. On the other hand I think, and our studies demonstrate, that it is not a good idea for us to attempt to unload this traffic into other areas, onto other routes or through other neighborhoods. It is generally flowing into the area because it wants to and needs to and because there are too many alternatives. This is the only full featured crossing of the railroad tracks for some distance. The Alma crossing further to the left as it reaches El Camino is not a full turn movement crossing point and brings you to this location anyway. Further south at Embarcadero there are connections but they are not complete connections for travel from Alma to Embarcadero. So the traffic that is in this area would divert possibly to areas that we don’t want it to be such as Downtown streets or intersections that are operating at very marginal levels of service if we forced it out. So that’s our challenge: to handle the traffic in a calmer, less intrusive way but to handle it nonetheless. One example of that challenge in traffic engineering terms is that this little web of connections at the moment carries about 45,000 vehicles a day, they are separated from one another and they wind around ramps but they are there. That’s roughly equivalent, or a little bit less, than the traffic that passes through the intersection of E1 Camino and Embarcadero today. So if we were to attempt to handle that traffic with a conventional intersection at a reasonable level of service it would look like an intersection as we have at Embarcadero and E1 Camino and that’s not in keeping with the other objectives of this study. Page 8 of 21 Now I would like to switch to some of the future schemes and we have enlargements here that talk about the transportation elements. They are fuzzier than the drawings but they establish the basic principles. This is the scheme inherited from the Dream Team. For traffic connections it does allow through traffic movements on Alma, four lanes of traffic on Alma, going through the area. University splits into this elongated oval one-way system, two lanes in this direction and two lanes in this direction, and at the intersecting points we have traffic signals. We also have traffic signals at this location. This is where the ramp from E1 Camino comes into the system and the ramp travels down to E1 Camino. There is a signal there and a signal here. They are for traffic calming purposes but they also provide protected pedestrian crosswalks at these locations. So crossing the park and getting in and out of the park is protected at these signals and at these signals. There is also an elevated pedestrian crossing at this location that is part of the platform system or at the same level as the platform system for the train. So for [Urban Lane] it is possible to walk across to the station and to this area here. Bicycles flow through the area. The experienced cyclist will follow the general path of traffic so it will flow in bicycle lanes through this system and through the intersections as you have now. There are also parallel multi-use paths as you saw on some of the renderings where the less experienced cyclist will have enough width to coexist with the pedestrians. We also illustrate the connection with this location from Quarry into the pedestrian system and the extension of the shopping center here connecting through under to either Lytton or to Everett. I’ll respond to your questions if you’d like more details on that. I’ll now switch over. These are the circulation schemes for the roundabout concept. I’ll just briefly state some of the advantages and disadvantages of roundabouts. As Joe mentioned we and Staff are available to talk and show much more illustrative material on roundabouts if you’d like. The research and the experience with roundabouts in this country and abroad in the last 10- 15 years does demonstrate that the modem version of roundabouts, which are different from traffic circles or rotaries that you might know, do offer advantages to traffic flow, they reduce delay. They do also carry greater levels of traffic safety, fewer left tur.n accidents, fewer broadside accidents. They are also effective at traffic calming. Other advantages, although these are somewhat qualified based on the perception of the user, is bicycle flow. Modem roundabouts allow experienced cyclists to flow through the system at their desired speed because traffic flow is reduced to that speed as well. Cyclists who don’t watch flow around the roundabouts can use the parallel bicycle and pedestrian off-street system. Pedestrian safety has generally been found to be better at roundabouts than at signalized intersections. Although there are perceptions among pedestrians until they get acquainted with them that they are less safe. The last advantage that I’ll cite to roundabouts in general is that public opinion has demonstrated that in this country once roundabouts have been installed and people have gotten used them public opinion is very much in favor of them. One example, there was a swing prior to installation of a roundabout 78% of the individuals using that area were opposed to the idea. After installation and use 73% were in favor of roundabouts. They preferred the concept. So those are the general advantages. Page 9 of 21 Disadvantages of roundabouts are that pedestrians are thrown off course a little bit. They have to walk around and cover a greater distance to get around a roundabout than in a conventional intersection. They also pose some challenges to the visually impaired because traffic flows and it doesn’t stop in regulated intervals. Roundabouts are also difficult when you have steep slopes. I’ll get back to that in a minute because we do have that problem here. Roundabouts are also adversely affected if you have back ups from other locations that feed into that area. We have a problem of that type in this area at the moment. The afternoon traffic flowing into Downtown tends to back up from the first two signals in Downtown, High Street in particular, and into this area. So traffic attempting to circulate on a roundabout at this location would be blocked by such a back up. There is one other disadvantage that I’ll cite in general terms. In cases where you have to go with a multi-lane roundabout, more than one lane circulating, as would be the case here and would certainly be the case here, they are less friendly to bicyclists than the one-lane roundabouts. There the bicyclist can mix with the flow and don’t have to weave in the traffic flow. So now let me explain some of the particulars of this scheme. This is a roundabout. Traffic enters from the conventional approaches but is slowed by a combination of a yield sign on each approach and what we call deflection which is the curvature needed to go through the S-curve in the mover to go around. That curvature has been shown to slow traffic down considerably even if there is no traffic already circulating on the rotmdabout. The original concept was to have a roundabout at this location as well. We see that as a very marginal location. It would operate in much the same way but because of the high traffic demand that I mentioned at this location, because of the large vehicles that do travel through this location including trucks and buses, because of the heavy flows of pedestrians that we’re expecting especially across this here and the effect that has on traffic flow in and out of a roundabout, we concluded that this is not the best location for Palo Alto to try its first heavy traffic roundabout. The alternative configuration integrates something of the other scheme at this location. That’s what’s illustrated here. This portion of this diagram looks the same as that portion of other concept. So we have Alma flowing directly through, this isn’t a roundabout. We have University splitting into a one-way system and we have signals and these two, locations. Immediately beyond the traffic returns to that alignment along this edge of the system so that the park and entryway treatments can occur near the transit terminal. We do have a roundabout at this location. So pedestrian and bicycle flow through this area as i described it earlier. Pedestrian and bicycle flow through this are involves bicyclists able to travel around at slowed traffic speeds, has a bicycle and pedestrian set of connections around the outer edges as well as conventional for roundabouts. We also have the connection across from Quarry potentially extending through to Alma. We have pedestrians able to cross on the platform level here. We have signal protection for pedestrians and bicycles at that location. I think I’ll stop there but I’m available for question and answer. At this point I’d like to turn it back to Joe. Mr. Kott: Staff and the consultant team are available to answer any questions you may have on these very sophisticated sdhemes. Page 10 of 21 Chairman Schmidt: Thank you very much. I’m sure there are questions and I know there are at least a couple members of the public who would like to speak to this. Would the Commission like to ask some questions at this point or hear from the public?. Right now I just have two members of the public if anyone else would like to speak to this item please fill out a card. The first speaker is Charles Carter. Mr. Charles Carter, 711 Maplewood Avenue, Palo Alto: Good evening. Tonight I’m representing Stanford. I work in the Planning Office of Stanford. We’ve been partners in this effort since 1973 and I’m here primarily to lend my support for the proposals that we’ve brought forward to you. I think the consultants and the Staff have done a good job of explainir~what the objectives are and how we intend to meet those. We generally concur with the conclusions that they have made tonight. I’d like to state and reiterate some of the things they said by explaining why this project is important to Stanford. Access to transit is important both to Stanford and the outer community. As we all know traffic is a big problem here in our area and any opportunity we see to increase access to transit especially at this particular location where a large number of individuals that. come to and from the campus use transit to get it, we wholly endorse. We love the idea of enhancing the gateway both to the City and to the campus in creating a civic space that helps to bring the two communities together. The connections that ~ire improved, both between the campus and the Downtown and the important commercial areas of the Stanford Shopping Center in Downtown we see as equally important. As well as the medical center with the improvements to the Quarry Road that are underway right now we see opportunity here for Quarry Road to become a much more important access point to the University and our commercial lands to the west and to provide another point of access to the transit center from Stanford lands. We think it is also important conceptually because this represents a great opportunity for the City and the University to plan cooperatively. We are moving ahead in our planning to respond to the planning that has been done here. We are looking at Quarry Road and the development of some transit oriented uses on Quarry Road that would benefit both from the improvements here at the transit center and the improvements to Quarry Road that make access to that transit center better. We think there are elements of both options that are attractive to us. We don’t have a preferred option at this time but I think I’ve already enumerated that the objectives and the measures that meet those objectives in both of these schemes. I’d be happy to answer any questions if the Commission has them of us. Thank you. Chairman Schmidt: Thank you. Are there questions for Mr. Carter? Then the next speaker is Bill Zaumen. Mr. Bill Zaumen, 912 Clara Drive, Palo Alto: I just want to make a couple of short comments. One is that I think it is very important to have four tracks through the train station with boarding in the center on the grounds that if there is express.service it will make a cross platform transfer possible which will speed up service considerably. It will also ensure that express trains stop in Page 11 of 21 Palo Alto which will increase the probability of that because it will become the natural place for that to happen. Of the plans, I’d have some qualms about the complete oval. The reason is that when I’ve been in the area around San Jose, one of the reasons the park works so well is that there are convention centers and auditoriums on one side and restaurants on the other. It is just a natural route to follow from one to the other. So if you get out of lunch ten minutes early, the park is a natural place to hang out for awhile before going back to your meeting. Without something equivalent there to generate pedestrian trips across the park I have a feeling that there is possibility that it could turn into a kind of a no-man’s land where it looks nice from a passing bus or a passing car but no one really uses it. Again, someone would really have to look at it in detail and get an idea of whether that is really valid or not, or whether usage would be different than I’d expect. For that reason I might slightly prefer to have the traffic circles at least over E1 Camino. In terms of bicycle safety I’d prefer to have the circle as small as possible simply to slow vehicles as much as possible and create as little speed differential between bike traffic and automobile traffic. That’s basically all I have to say on it. Chairman Schmidt: Thank you. Is there anyone else who wishes to speak on this? I’ll bring it back for questions from the Commission to all of the Staff and consultants who have presented here. I will close the public hearing prior to doing that. Questions? Pat. Commissioner Burt: Joe, I looked for the problem definitions and Owen pointed out to me a pretty good summary of them on page 3 of the May 4th Staff report. It is the last full paragraph on the bottom. I went through and tried to compare it to the Transit Study Summary and there is a good alignment between the objectives that were set out and the problems that were described there. There were a couple that I saw that didn’t seem to be explicitly mentioned in the problems. One showed up in the original [jean charrette] and that is protect the integrity of nearby residential neighborhoods from negative impacts of urban development. I think one of the speakers in a way alluded to that but I think it might be good to define that. Is that still one of the objectives? Mr. Kott: Absolutely, Commissioner Burt. The term we like use is we’d like the study area to internalize as many trips as possible as any additional transit oriented development would be serviced by transit pedestrian connections and so forth. We’re very keen, as Jerry mentioned, on avoiding any shift of traffic into the neighborhoods that would be occasioned by changing the circulation pattern on University Avenue, Palm Drive, or by any other change to do with the project. Commissioner Burt: Then there is a problem described as walking or bicycling within the areas is often difficult and sometimes unpleasant. My personal experience has been that it can also be unsafe. Is improving the safety of the pedestrian and bicycle traffic also one of the defined objectives. Page 12 of 21 Mr. Kott: Absolutely. In fact, the first principle that we work on is safety first. Bike and pedestrian safety are particularly important here because of the volumes of bikes and pedestrians in the area. Obviously the disadvantages those modes have are physical as compared to the automobile, truck and bus. Chairman Schmidt: Other questions? Commissioner Burt: In the plan B that was discussed there was a description of the potential of a pedestrian linkage across Quarry into this transit center but that would be a signalized crossing. I didn’t see anything in any of the plans that describes how there might be improved pedestrian bicycle linkage between the shopping center and the planned residential development around the old Hoover site, and the oval that’s going on here. Is that part of the plan to improve the pedestrian access there in a way that would not necessitate the use of the signalized crossing but instead would encourage passage through the roundabouts or the other methods, whichever may be chosen? Mr. Kott: I think the objective of the study is to give people choices and options including pedestrians and their crossings. Every crossing will be made as safe as physically possible. We don’t want to concentrate all crossings of E1 Camino in one location. As far as connections further in Stanford I’ll have to punt that one over to Charles Carter who’s not on the program but did come and speak. Charles do you have any comments alSout connections in Stanford in the study area? Mr. Carter: If I’m understanding Commissioner Burt’s question correctly I think if we look at the circulation diagram that’s kind of the fourth from the left at the bottom there there is a pedestrian connector at that location that could easily be brought up to Quarry Road to the planned housing sites and provide connection back to the central circulation and civic space without having to cross Quarry Road. Does that respond to your question? Is that the connection you were alluding to? Commissioner Burt: I’m more looking for a connection between the shopping center and the Quarry Road development and Palm as opposed to having to cross El Camino at Quarry. So that we would facilitate pedestrian traffic on the west side of E1 Camino from Quarry out to Palm. Mr. Carter: I think that the improvements to Quarry Road and to the shopping center with the Sand Hill projects provide full pedestrian crossings between the shopping center and Quarry Road at again signalized intersections on Quarry Road. There will be some signalized intersections added and there will pedestrian facilities developed on either side of that. So it will be possible for pedestrians to circulate from the shopping center along the west side of E1 Camino all the way over to Palm Drive. Chairman Schmidt: I have a couple of background questions. We have two basic alternatives presented here. I know this work came out of Dream Team ideas that were generated several years ago. Were there other major circulation systems that were considered or does it all kind of Page 13 of 21 really boil down to these two as being the only really viable kinds of circulation systems for this big complex area? Mr. Kott: We feel that the Dream Team work was really pretty good. Not only all the public process to do with the charette but the follow up work that was done by a consulting team. A lot of the major issues that we’ve addressed in the development of this project to date were addressed then very well. But we also were very interested in testing out the feasibility of one or even two roundabouts at this location. Because of our experience in the Embarcadero Road traffic calming project suggested some major advantages as Jerry Walters pointed out in the deployment of roundabouts. So that was added as a second. We are really building on a very, very good foundation. As I indicated earlier, certainly Scheme A is an elaboration of the Dream Team effort. I think actually both schemes do solve circulation problems in the study area. As you can tell from the presentation they solve them in different ways and probably balancing the equities a little bit differently among the modes. I think it is fair to say we believe circulation of all modes becomes somewhat safer and there are major advantages to the bikes and pedestrians in either scheme. Chairman Schmidt: I know that there are members of various transit authorities and commissions and so on that have participated in this process so far. Do they all feel that these schemes are both workable? Mr. Kott: We have worked very intensively with the two principal transit providers in our study area. That is the Valley Transportation Authority which operates bus mode to and from the area and JPB Caltrain. We have had many iterations of changes to our schemes. It is fair to say that both operators are comfortable with either scheme. Chairman Schmidt: Thank you. Owen. Commissioner Byrd: Joe, the way I read the report and the way I look at the two alternative schemes it seems that both are rightly driven by concerns around circulation patterns and concerns around design of the specific elements that would be incorporated into the center. But I think there is a missing piece and that’s land use. I’m wondering whether Staff might agree that one of the problems that the center’s design needs to acknowledge is the lack of a true transit oriented development land use pattern surrounding the center to support and reinforce the transit and walking and bike options that its supposed to enhance. If Staff would agree that that was an additional problem presented in this part of the City would it then be appropriate to add as an objective for this center to identify land uses surrounding it, and I can’t yet say where that boundary is, that would support and reinforce that pattern? Mr. Kott: We very much agree with that Commissioner Byrd. As you know the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan supports transit oriented development. We feel this location has major advantages for creation of such a transit village. After all, we can foresee by the termination date of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan 2010 as much as it doubling our transit capacity, combining bus and rail seats at that location. This offers just wonderful opportunities for Page 14 of 21 internalizing a lot of trips, increasing the amount of activity but not increasing the number of cars. If there is a good location in California, if there is an optimal location this is pretty close to it. Commissioner Byrd: I agree with you and yet I’m struck by the aerials at how the density of the area surrounding this most heavily used center south of Fourth and Townsend is mostly lowish density and there is a variety of historic reasons for that that in fact constrain the ability to add density surrounding it. But the Comp Plan does call for increased density around the transit center and so I think it would be appropriate to have the plan formally state that as a problem and that as an objective. As an aside, and this may be for Lisa, I realize that the area along Alma on the other side of Alma into the Downtown is not formally part of the transit area but lately two projects have been undertaken. One at the former Ellison’s and the other down the street next to Northface. That looked to me like they are locking in through new investment a fairl.v low intensity of use for a significant number of years on two prime parcels that are within a stone’s throw of the train station. Are we missing an opportunity here? Ms. Grote: Both of those projects that were recently approved are at their maximum FAR allowed in the zoning district along that part of Alma which is a CDS Downtown Commercial Zoning. They are both commercial only projects. They are at their maximum FAR as to what is allowed right now. In the urban design guide which is a guideline, it’s not a policy document, it does call for higher densities along that portion of Alma Street. We would need to look at some sort of rezoning to actually get the floor area ratios higher but it does call for higher densities or suggests the possibility of higher density and that that’s one of the areas that could support higher densities. Commissioner Byrd: So it may be appropriate for the plan for the center to reinforce some of the policy direction that is in the Comp Plan around that and we’ll get to that rezoning when we rewrite the zoning code. Ms. Grote: I don’t think it would be inconsistent. I think it probably would be appropriate. That’s right. Mr. Kott: If I may add Commissioner Byrd, it appears to me that this location would ideal as a transit oriented development or transit village overlay zone. Commissioner Byrd: Last question on this subject. Do you think there might be opportunity for air-rights projects in the area of the center itself as opposed to along Alma and in surrounding or nearby areas? Mr. Kott: Yes. We haven’t schemed any out but it certainly would be a logical thing to do. Chairman Schmidt: Pat, it looks like you have another question. Commissioner Burt: Toward the end of the Staff reports we were presented with a modification of Plan B that talked about substituting the AlmafUniversity roundabout with a signalized Page 15 of 21 interchange. There wasn’t any discussion of whether Alma should be maintained as an overpass at that location if a roundabout isn’t effective. Are there reasons that you’ve moved away from consideration of Alma continuing as an overpass there? Mr. Kott: There are advantages, we feel, to the at grade. If you make at grade crossing for bikes and pedestrians safe there are advantages to doing that rather than have ramping systems for bikes and pedestrian navigation. Secondly, the elimination of ramps allows some excavation out as the Team has talked about so that the vistas get opened up all the way toward the Stanford campus. So it creates some pretty exciting opportunities in terms of urban design. And we feel it enhances safety for bikes and pedestrians. So we are interested in an at grade solution and we believe Fehr & Peers has come upon one. We are very concerned, as we indicated in the Staff report, that we not cause undue delay and backups Downtown, or cause traffic shifting. We want that intersection to operate efficiently but on the other hand we want it to operate in a way that facilitates bike and pedestrian movement. We think that the scheme that Jerry presented here, Scheme A prime or B prime I’m not sure which, solves important circulation problems at Alma and University without keeping a ramping system. Chairman Schmidt: Any other questions? Owen. Commissioner Byrd: One follow up on land use. One of the speakers from the public mentioned the fear that the first scheme would create a no-man’s land 6f what would end up being pretty passive open space because it is separated on both sides by traffic. One of the ways to design around that would be to increase building volume on either side. Now, on the north side you’ve got MacArthur Park and there is not much we can or should do there. On the south side if brought building mass up to the oval it would help define that space. Is this an issue that’s been considered in these conversations? I see some nodding heads. Mr. Kott: What you say is certainly logical. It would bring pedestrian generators right by the park. It would certainly facilitate pedestrian activity which is what we want. We have discussed that issue. We’ve had discussions with property owners and it is fair to say that there is not a keen interest at this point in doing any intensifying in that area. Although the logic is clear and we would certainly support that. Chairman Schmidt: Looks like there are no more questions so we will begin our discussion. I’d like to say a couple of things. First, I’ve been fortunate to be on this steering committee for this project and there has really been a lot of good hard work that has gone into this. I’ve gone to the meetings and gone to the public workshop and I think with each presentation the ideas are more clear. I think the presentation this evening was excellent with the slides that show examples of what the areas could look like. This is just an incredibly important opportunity for Palo Alto and Stanford and to really make an impact, change a situation that is fairly awful and really make something that works. So I think our comments and thinking about this are really important too. There are a couple of ways we could approach our discussion. They could be to discuss the couple of schemes and break them down by circulation and transportation as has been done in Page 16 of 21 the various notes and report areas. Or to just discuss those different categories: circulation, transportation, land use, and so on. Owen. Commissioner Byrd: I propose to stand our usual process on its head and ask the Chair to speak first. I’m really interested in what you think about this given the amount of time you’ve invested in it so far. Chairman Schmidt: Okay. I gave a few of my thoughts to start out with saying this is an incredibly important opportunity. I think that what has been done is indeed in both schemes are aiming at a lot of things of clarifying the pedestrian and bicycle connections, certainly clarifying the auto and bus connections and working to improve the train connections. I think trying to create a wonderful public space between Stanford and Palo Alto and to connect the two spaces is just a great opportunity. Both of those spaces have good points and less good points. I think that you, Owen, hit the nail on the head in my opinion by asking about land use surrounding the area. In participating in these things I’ve really been looking at the transportation and it really is complicated, even presented in a more organized format. It is still complicated and hard to know how it would work. But I think the thing that is missing here is to look at more of the land use around here. I think as the member of the public and as Owen commented and as people at the workshop commented that this could be a beautiful no-man’s land. I think either one of the park ideas could be if they do not feel safe, if they do not have appropriate uses around them that are active. ! think that these areas need to be active spaces and’need to have something to do in them and something that feel accessible and not just something that is very attractive and makes a beautiful statement. It needs to be active and really make a connection that people want to participate in at any time of day or night. Those are my basic thoughts about these. Commissioner Byrd: Do you have an early preference between the two schemes? Chairman Schmidt: It is interesting that my initial preference was the scheme where the park was attached to the MacArthur Park side. Then my later preference seemed to be more toward the more open connection. Possibly the more open connection could be achieved with either scheme that the connection, if the park is attached to the MacArthur Park side, could perhaps be treated in the more formal rather than informal paths. I think bikes and pedestrians want to have a clear direct line across there. The more informal park is meandering and I think some people might want to meander but I think a lot of people want to get from here to there. Those are my thoughts. Also I think a good clear bike/pedestrian connection over to the shopping center is really important. Both of them could augment the connections. Commissioner Byrd: I don’t mean to put you on the spot but can I ask one more question? What do you think of roundabouts? Chairman Schmidt: Our consultants and experts say that they work. It is interesting to hear tonight that they would not recommend a roundabout at the University/Alma. That seemed like a difficult intersection in any case. It seems like it possibly would at the Stanford end. The area in the middle of the roundabout would probably not be very used. That would be a beautiful potential park-like area but probably not be used by pedestrians. I think its possible it would Page 17 of 21 work. I would personally want to go see some of the roundabouts that have been mentioned in area to see how they feel. Those are my thoughts. Commissioner Bialson: I would suggest we have some more process with each of the Commission Members as perhaps the best way to approach this discussion. I’m looking down at that end. Commissioner Byrd: I came here with a fairly strong preference for the roundabout scheme for a couple of reasons that I’ll describe. But one of the most telling slides to me was the one that overlaid the oval configuration on Caesar Chaves Park. That’s a place I really like and know. That suggests to me that with the right mix of uses and the right mix of activities in the oval and the right mix of surrounding land uses and the right design, it could work. I think the advantages to the Scheme B or B Prime not with the roundabout at University/Alma but with a full roundabout on the Stanford side, are that I do like the narrowing of the travel lane between the two. I like narrowing that traffic lane. I like very much that it expands the public open space between MacArthur Park and the travel lane. I like the fact that that’s wider and therefore more usable and that it’s not isolated from surrounding uses by two lanes. Everything that I’ve heard and read so far says roundabouts can work. This being Palo Alto we’ll probably have referendums and lawsuits and every other thing before we conclude that we really like this. It’s good to be creative. If I had to decided tonight, and fortunately we don’t, I would lean toward the second scheme with the modified intersection configur~ition at Alma and University. I think it provides the greatest number of opportunities for maximizing the use of the land within the center as well as rationalizing the circulation pattern. Commissioner Bialson: Since people are not rushing to speak I’ll volunteer at this time. My preference would be for essentially a combination of the two plans. First of all ! feel either plan must address the necessity for four railroad tracks. There is no question in my mind. That’s a given. I like the at grade solution at Alma. I don’t think we should have something other than that. I see the parkland being much more usable, people feeling safe in it and attracted to it if it is somewhat like the plaza which you have in Plan A. I think it can be made to be an active park where people come to whether it be a children’s area for some participation in that sort of activity, chess area, coffee kiosk, something there that would attract and I think just by its greenery might be enough attraction. In line with that I want to mention that I don’t see where those people using this as a park might, if they dare to, come by car park those cars. So I would like to see a designation of some of the parking for some of the transit uses also be available for those people who are coming to use the park. I do think they’d feel safer with a park that has roads around it and some visibility. I like landscaping but I think having that be visible works and beyond the example of similar size down in San Jose, Caesar Chaves, we have a lot of parks similar to this in shape and in the proximity of roads to it in Europe. I’ve seen them all very heavily used. With regard to making it more of an active park because we have intense housing nearby, it seems to me Stanford has the land that is close by that might attract that sort of residential build up. I really recommend Stanford look at an intensive use of that area around Hoover Hospital for intense housing. This is the perfect place for it. I know there are some arboretum sort of things here but we are talking about a very small portion of the arboretum. I’d like to see Stanford have intensified housing there. Page 18 of 21 I do like the idea of a roundabout on the Stanford side. I think that roundabouts are definitely the way to go to slow traffic. The configuration of the road as shown in Plan A towards Stanford is going to lead to higher speed than we would want especially given our desire to make the park more pedestrian attractive and useful. A roundabout there, from what I can see of other roundabouts I’ve seen and all the presentations I’ve had, would be the perfect solution for both traffic calming and making this more friendly for pedestrians. I think that it would provide a very good and clear connection between Stanford University and all the other things that are going to be nearby between the Quarry Road housing and Stanford Shopping Center. I think the possibility of having a coffee kiosk or something that will attract both the workers from the shopping center, from the hotel, and Downtown into that area before and after work. Musicians who now like to play in some of the smaller parks or Lytton Plaza might find themselves brought there if we built some sort of facility that would provide them a venue. This is not to say that if you build it they will come but I think there is some pent-up demand. I think the Plan A with some slight modifications is the most attractive to me. Chairman Schmidt: Jon or Pat? Pat. Commissioner Burt: I concur with a lot of the points made by previous Commission Members. I also would like to see a roundabout at the E1 Camino and University interchange but I do like the oval park configuration over the Attachment B configuratiofl. So I’ve been flipping the pages trying to envision if there is a way to integrate those two concepts. I hope that there may be. It looks to me like it’s possible to do that. I would not support additional parking for use of the park. I think that we are going to have additional Downtown garage right on High Street in addition to what we already have in Downtown parking. I’d hope that this park would be predominantly pedestrian and transit traffic. We have a great deal of Downtown parking currently and Downtown use as well as the shopping center use that I think would feed this park. So I’d prefer that we did not increase parking for the park per se. Finally, I’d just like to really make sure that there is a strong direct pedestrian linkage, as Kathy had mentioned, through this area and to the shopping center and the new housing that is intended along Quarry Road. I think that is an aspect that we don’t see here. I believe it is intended but I’d like to see it integrated with the plan. Chairman Schmidt: Jon. Commissioner Schink: I would agree with almost all the comments of my colleagues. I would agree with a preference for Attachment A but modified with the roundabout. Unfortunately that’s an easy thing to say without actually seeing the design in front of us. But it seems from everything that we’ve heard and looked at that would probably be my preference. I believe Owen has emphasized an essential point in all of this, that we need to look closely at the land use designations surrounding this for it to be truly successful. Otherwise I think it will be a peopleless park and it won’t serve the function of being a model transit center. It is a wonderful start. I think we’ve got the potential to be truly a model transit center if we look at the land uses around it and do a good job with this park. Page 19 of 21 Chairman Schmidt: Owen. Commissioner Byrd: One small piece I missed is that Attachment B-5 which shows submerged bus circulation and the ability to put a plaza above that bus area which could create a muse or a paseo leading over to Quarry Road and to the center is extraordinarily attractive to me. Both because it creates intensity of use there that reinforces the transit and also because I just think it would be a really beautiful and functional addition to Downtown. It would help create the bridge. So regardless of whether we go with Scheme A or Scheme B I think we should absolutely look to uses of that sort in that design at that location if we can figure out how to pay for putting the buses underground. Chairman Schmidt: That is just exactly what I was going to mention. I have a couple of copies of an article that I’ve passed on to Maryanne that are from a recent architectural magazine that shows a transit center with bus and train traffic on different levels. It shows a very open glassy structure that connects the two so that one is not the dark dank underground area but is a very bright open and a visual queue as to here is a big transit event. So it really helps attract people. It helps people see what’s there. I thought the idea of putting buses underground and opening the area for other uses would be a terrific idea. Pat. Commissioner Burt: I have one other comment, not so much on the design but a recommendation on kind of a problem-solving methodologp. I would like to see the problems defined clearly perhaps in a table format with an alignment next to them of a restatement of that problem in terms of an objective and then next to that a restatement of the evaluation criteria by which to judge whether the objectives have been achieved and whether they align with the original problem. That is approximately here but I think it helps to bring clarity to the process to do that. Chairman Schmidt: Are there other comments? Jon. Commissioner Schink: On my recent travels I visited a community that had numerous traffic circles and I thought they worked very well. So I’m an enthusiast now. Chairman Schmidt: Do we need to have a motion on this or do we pass forward our comments as they are? Mr. Kott: We could convey to Council Chair Schmidt, your and the Commission’s desire some areas of consensus or if you prefer to formalize that in the form of a motion we’ll convey that too. Chairman Schmidt: If we did a motion wewould just say we move that our comments be forwarded to Council so we wouldn’t make any specific motion about anything. Owen. Commissioner Byrd: I’m look at the Staff recommendation and I realize we missed one other point. Staff is recommending that the final design accommodate four tracks and I think that’s a good idea. Page 20 of 21 Chairman Schmidt: Annette mentioned that and I definitely agree that we need to accommodate a lot of transit here. Four tracks would be absolutely necessary. So we will forward our comments and thank the Staff and all the consultants very much for all the work that’s gone into this. I also want to comment that Commissioner’s Packer and Cassel did not participate in this for same reason that they did not participate in Item 1, due to their relationship with Stanford through their husbands. Thank you very much and we look forward to seeing this develop further and look forward to seeing it begin implementation in this decade. Mr. Kott: Thank you very much. Page 21 of 21