The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2026-09-30 Planning & Transportation Commission Agenda PacketPLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Regular Meeting Wednesday, September 30, 2026 Council Chambers & Hybrid 6:00 PM Planning and Transportation Commission meetings will be held as “hybrid” meetings with the option to attend by teleconference/video conference or in person. To maximize public safety while still maintaining transparency and public access, members of the public can choose to participate from home or attend in person. Information on how the public may observe and participate in the meeting is located at the end of the agenda. Masks are strongly encouraged if attending in person. The meeting will be broadcast on Cable TV Channel 76, live on YouTube https://www.youtube.com/c/cityofpaloalto, and streamed to Midpen Media Center https://midpenmedia.org. Commissioner names, biographies, and archived agendas and minutes are available at http://bit.ly/PaloAltoPTC. VIRTUAL PARTICIPATION CLICK HERE TO JOIN (https://cityofpaloalto.zoom.us/j/91641559499) Meeting ID: 916 4155 9499 Phone: 1(669)900-6833 PUBLIC COMMENTS General Public Comment for items not on the agenda will be accepted for up to three minutes or an amount of time determined by the Chair. In-person comments will be heard at the beginning of the agenda and remote comments will be heard at the end of the agenda. All requests to speak will be taken until 5 minutes after the staff’s presentation. Written public comments can be submitted in advance to Planning.Commission@PaloAlto.gov and will be provided to the Commission and available for inspection on the City’s website three days before the meeting. Please clearly indicate which agenda item you are referencing in your subject line. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson's presentation will be allowed up to ten (10) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. The Chair may limit Public Comments to thirty (30) minutes for all combined speakers. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak for Study Sessions and Action Items to two (2) minutes or less to accommodate a larger number of speakers. PowerPoints, videos, or other media to be presented during public comment are accepted only by email to Planning.Commission@PaloAlto.gov at least 24 hours prior to the meeting. Once received, the Clerk will have them shared at public comment for the specified item. To uphold strong cybersecurity management practices, USB’s or other physical electronic storage devices are not accepted. Signs and symbolic materials less than 2 feet by 3 feet are permitted provided that: (1) sticks, posts, poles or similar/other type of handle objects are strictly prohibited; (2) the items do not create a facility, fire, or safety hazard; and (3) persons with such items remain seated when displaying them and must not raise the items above shoulder level, obstruct the view or passage of other attendees, or otherwise disturb the business of the meeting. TIME ESTIMATES Listed times are estimates only and are subject to change at any time, including while the meeting is in progress. The Commission reserves the right to use more or less time on any item, to change the order of items and/or to continue items to another meeting. Particular items may be heard before or after the time estimated on the agenda. This may occur in order to best manage the time at a meeting or to adapt to the participation of the public. CALL TO ORDER/ ROLL CALL AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS The Chair or Commission majority may modify the agenda order to improve meeting management. IN-PERSON PUBLIC COMMENT Members of the public may speak to any item NOT on the agenda. 1-3 minutes depending on number of speakers. In-person comments will be heard at the beginning of the agenda and remote comments will be heard at the end of the agenda. CITY OFFICIAL REPORTS 1.Director's Report, Meeting Schedule, and Assignments ACTION ITEMS Public Comment is Permitted. Applicants/Appellant Teams: Fifteen (15) minutes, plus three (3) minutes rebuttal. All others: Three (3) minutes per speaker. 2.Recommendation on an Ordinance Amending Various Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Chapters in Title 16 (Building Regulations), Title 18 (Zoning), and Title 21 (Subdivisions and Other Divisions of Land) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Replace Temporary Ordinances Implementing Senate Bill (SB) 9, SB 450, and Other State Housing Laws. CEQA Status: Exempt From the Provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.17 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3). 6:15 PM – 7:00 PM 3.South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity: Review of Preferred Design Alternatives and Network Enhancements for the Midtown Bicycle and Pedestrian Undercrossing; CEQA Status – Exempt Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15262. 7:00 PM – 8:00 PM 4.Bryant Street Bike Boulevard and Lincoln Avenue Traffic Calming Project Initial Design Concepts. CEQA Status: Exempt Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301: Existing Facilities. 8:00 PM – 8:45 PM COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS OR FUTURE MEETINGS AND AGENDAS Members of the public may not speak to the item(s). VIRTUAL PUBLIC COMMENT Members of the public may speak to any item NOT on the agenda. 1-3 minutes depending on number of speakers. In-person comments will be heard at the beginning of the agenda and remote comments will be heard at the end of the agenda. ADJOURNMENT OTHER INFORMATION The materials below are provided for informational purposes, not for action or discussion during this meeting’s agenda. Written public comments may be submitted in advance and will be provided to the Commission and availible for public inspection on the City’s website three days before the meeting. A.Public Comment PUBLIC COMMENT INSTRUCTIONS Members of the Public may provide public comments to teleconference meetings via email, teleconference, or by phone. 1.Written public comments may be submitted by email to Planning.Commission@PaloAlto.gov. 2.Spoken public comments using a computer will be accepted through the teleconference meeting. To address the Commission, click on the link below to access a Zoom-based meeting. Please read the following instructions carefully. ◦You may download the Zoom client or connect to the meeting in- browser. If using your browser, make sure you are using a current, up-to-date browser: Chrome 30, Firefox 27, Microsoft Edge 12, Safari 7. Certain functionality may be disabled in older browsers including Internet Explorer. ◦You may be asked to enter an email address and name. We request that you identify yourself by name as this will be visible online and will be used to notify you that it is your turn to speak. ◦When you wish to speak on an Agenda Item, click on “raise hand.” The Clerk will activate and unmute speakers in turn. Speakers will be notified shortly before they are called to speak. ◦When called, please limit your remarks to the time limit allotted. A timer will be shown on the computer to help keep track of your comments. 3.Spoken public comments using a smart phone will be accepted through the teleconference meeting. To address the Commission, download the Zoom application onto your phone from the Apple App Store or Google Play Store and enter the Meeting ID below. Please follow the instructions above. 4.Spoken public comments using a phone use the telephone number listed below. When you wish to speak on an agenda item hit *9 on your phone so we know that you wish to speak. You will be asked to provide your first and last name before addressing the Commission. You will be advised how long you have to speak. When called please limit your remarks to the agenda item and time limit allotted. CLICK HERE TO JOIN Meeting ID: 916 4155 9499 Phone:1-669-900-6833 Americans with Disability Act (ADA) It is the policy of the City of Palo Alto to offer its public programs, services and meetings in a manner that is readily accessible to all. Persons with disabilities who require materials in an appropriate alternative format or who require auxiliary aids to access City meetings, programs, or services may contact the City’s ADA Coordinator at (650) 329-2550 (voice) or by emailing ada@PaloAlto.gov. Requests for assistance or accommodations must be submitted at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting, program, or service. Item No. 1. Page 1 of 2 Planning & Transportation Commission Staff Report From: Planning and Development Services Director Lead Department: Planning and Development Services Meeting Date: September 30, 2026 Report #: 2609-6801 TITLE Director's Report, Meeting Schedule, and Assignments RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) review and comment as appropriate. BACKGROUND This document includes the following items:  Upcoming PTC Agenda Items PTC Meeting Schedule  PTC Representative to City Council (Rotational Assignments)  Commissioners are encouraged to contact Samuel Tavera (Samuel.Tavera@PaloAlto.gov) to notify staff of any planned absences one month in advance, if possible, to ensure the availability of a PTC quorum. PTC Representative to City Council is a rotational assignment where the designated commissioner represents the PTC’s affirmative and dissenting perspectives to Council for quasijudicial and legislative matters. Representatives are encouraged to review the City Council agendas (https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/City-Hall/City-Council/Council-Agendas- Minutes) for the months of their respective assignments to verify if attendance is needed or contact staff.  Prior PTC meetings are available online at https://midpenmedia.org/category/government/city- of-palo-alto/boards-and-commissions/planning-and-transportation-commission. UPCOMING PTC ITEMS Item 1 Item 1 Staff Report Packet Pg. 6 Item No. 1. Page 2 of 2 October 14, 2026 300 Homer Avenue: Use Permit Amendment for the Palo Alto Museum (PAM) Parking Programs Update and Downtown Parking Modernization Initiatives ATTACHMENTS AUTHOR/TITLE: Item 1 Item 1 Staff Report Packet Pg. 7 Planning & Transportation Commission 2026 Meeting Schedule 1 2 3 1 1 2026 Schedule Meeting Dates Time Location Status Planned Absences 1/14/2026 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular 1/28/2026 6:00 PM Hybrid Cancelled 2/11/2026 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular James 2/25/2026 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular Chang 3/11/2026 6:00 PM Hybrid Special James, Ji 3/25/2026 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular 4/8/2026 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular James, Templeton 4/29/2026 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular 5/13/2026 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular Hechtman 5/27/2026 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular 6/10/2026 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular Hechtman 6/24/2026 6:00 PM Hybrid Cancelled Chang 7/8/2026 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular James 7/29/2026 6:00 PM Hybrid Cancelled 8/12/2026 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular 8/26/2026 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular Templeton 9/9/2026 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular 9/30/2026 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular 10/14/2026 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular 10/28/2026 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular 11/11/2026 6:00 PM Hybrid Cancelled 11/18/2026 6:00 PM Hybrid Special Templeton 11/25/2026 6:00 PM Hybrid Cancelled 12/9/2026 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular 12/30/2026 6:00 PM Hybrid Cancelled 2026 Assignments - Council Representation (primary/backup) January February March April May June Bryna Chang Allen Akin Bart Hechtman Kevin Ji Todd James Forest Peterson Todd James Forest Peterson Cari Templeton Bryna Chang Allen Akin Bart Hechtman July August September October November December Council Cari Templeton Bryna Chang Allen Akin Bart Hechtman Kevin Ji Summer Break Kevin Ji Todd James TBD Cari Templeton Bryna Chang Item 1 Attachment A - 2026 PTC Schedule & Assignments Packet Pg. 8 Planning & Transportation Commission 2027 Meeting Schedule 9 0 2 6 2027 Schedule Meeting Dates Time Location Status Planned Absences 1/13/2027 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular 1/27/2027 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular 2/10/2027 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular 2/24/2027 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular 3/10/2027 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular 3/31/2027 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular 4/14/2027 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular 4/28/2027 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular 5/12/2027 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular 5/26/2027 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular 6/9/2027 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular 6/30/2027 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular 7/14/2027 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular 7/28/2027 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular 8/11/2027 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular 8/25/2027 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular 9/8/2027 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular 9/29/2027 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular 10/13/2027 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular 10/27/2027 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular 11/10/2027 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular 11/24/2027 6:00 PM Hybrid Cancelled 12/8/2027 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular 12/29/2027 6:00 PM Hybrid Cancelled Item 1 Attachment B - 2027 PTC Schedule Packet Pg. 9 Item No. 2. Page 1 of 10 1 0 2 2 2 Planning & Transportation Commission Staff Report From: Planning and Development Services Director Lead Department: Planning and Development Services Meeting Date: September 30, 2026 Report #: 2606-6497 TITLE Recommendation on an Ordinance Amending Various Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Chapters in Title 16 (Building Regulations), Title 18 (Zoning), and Title 21 (Subdivisions and Other Divisions of Land) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Replace Temporary Ordinances Implementing Senate Bill (SB) 9, SB 450, and Other State Housing Laws. CEQA Status: Exempt From the Provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.17 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3). RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC): 1. Recommend that the City Council adopt the draft ordinance (Attachment A), amending Titles 16, 18, and 21 implementing SB 9, SB 450, and other State housing laws. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY On January 13, 2025, City Council adopted Interim Ordinance 5645 amending Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Title 16 (Building Regulations), Title 18 (Zoning) and Title 21 (Subdivisions of Land) to implement California Senate Bill (SB) 450 (2024) and adopt Objective Design Standards for two-story houses. On January 12, 2026, City Council adopted an ordinance to extend Ordinance 5645 until December 31, 2026. With the benefit of two years of implementing the objective design standards, the draft ordinance (Attachment A) includes key modifications to the objective standards. These modifications improve clarity, further incentivize their use as an alternative to the Individual Review (IR) process for streamlining purposes, and incorporate the design standards directly into the code instead of by reference. The other provisions of Ordinance 5645 related to Section 16.64.040 (Calculation of [Development Impact] Fees) and 18.15 (Density Bonus) are proposed to be adopted with no changes, as staff have had no concerns with implementation or usability of them and they meet the requirements of State Law. Attachment A includes tracked changes that reflect both the temporary ordinance and further changes, as the PTC did not review the interim ordinance. Item 2 Item 2 Staff Report Packet Pg. 10 Item No. 2. Page 2 of 10 1 0 2 2 2 BACKGROUND Governor Newsom signed Senate Bill (SB) 9 into law on September 16, 2021. SB 9 created a streamlined process for homeowners to develop two-unit residential projects or subdivide eligible single-family lots into two parcels. In Palo Alto, this law applies to parcels zoned R-1, NV-R1, RMD, and RE. Palo Alto implemented SB 9 by adopting an interim ordinance (Ordinance 55381) in 2021 and later codified as Ordinance 55872 on June 12, 2023. In 2024, Senate Bill (SB) 450 was signed into law, which modified SB 9 in several ways, including the following key changes: Specified that projects only be subject to objective standards that apply uniformly in the underlying zone; and Required local agencies to review SB 450/SB 9 applications and urban lot split applications within 60 days of a complete submission, or the application would be deemed approved. Council adopted Emergency Ordinance 56413 and Resolution 102104 on December 16, 2024, to align the PAMC with the requirements under SB 450 among other housing laws. This included establishing a ministerial review process using the adopted objective design standards (ODS), requiring only projects that do not elect to meet the ODS to go through the discretionary Individual Review (IR) process. It also streamlined the objective design standards that were initially adopted to address SB 9 in an effort to encourage their use, reduce staff time required to review ODS projects, and clarify interpretation for certain standards. Ordinance 5641 has been extended twice by Ordinances 5645 and 5691, through December 2025 and December 2026, respectively. Since most of these ordinances were temporary ordinances implemented by Council, the PTC has not reviewed the SB 9 regulations since February 2023. There have been approximately 20 property owners that chose to utilize the ministerial review process for two-story homes, applying the objective standards to their site in-lieu of the Individual Review process for both SB 9 and non-SB 9 projects. Applicant Survey Given the limited use of the ODS in the past two years, as part of the adoption of the subject ordinance, and consistent with Council’s priority for government efficiency, staff has worked to identify where barriers to the use of ODS exist, and what might incentivize property owners to pursue that process as an alternative to Individual Review. To that end, the City prepared a survey (Attachment C) that requested feedback to inform improvements to the ODS and ODS 1 Ordinance 5538 is available online at: https://recordsportal.paloalto.gov/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=47783&dbid=0&repo=PaloAlto 2 Ordinance 5587 is available online at: https://recordsportal.paloalto.gov/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=48255&dbid=0&repo=PaloAlto https://recordsportal.paloalto.gov/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=48140&dbid=0&repo=PaloAlto 3 Ordinance 5641 is available online at: https://recordsportal.paloalto.gov/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=48320&dbid=0&repo=PaloAlto 4 Res. 10210: https://recordsportal.paloalto.gov/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=62095&dbid=0&repo=PaloAlto Item 2 Item 2 Staff Report Packet Pg. 11 Item No. 2. Page 3 of 10 1 0 2 2 2 process. Staff distributed that survey to all applicants that have filed an Individual Review or SB 9 application in the last two years (July 1, 2024, through July 13, 2026). The survey opened on July 16, 2026, and closed July 31, 2026. Results of the Applicant Survey Requests for clarification of the applicability of the ODS. Suggestions for increased visibility and awareness of the process. Support for the fact that the ODS process is ministerial and therefore does not include neighbor input. A request to add illustrations to the standards, similar to the multiple-family ODS and Individual Review Guidelines. Requests for specific changes to standards that have been difficult to interpret, comply with, and/or inhibit the use of the ODS, including: o Clarify applicability of certain standards to corner lots. o Allow a two-car garage (20 feet wide) on the primary frontage, particularly for lots greater than 75 feet wide because the current limitation is 30% of the house frontage. o Allow more than 35% of the allowable FAR on the second story to fit three or more bedrooms on the second story. o Allow the standard daylight plane adjacent to single-story houses, particularly in flood zones, rather than a more stringent one. o Allow for taller building heights, particularly in flood zones. ANALYSIS Item 2 Item 2 Staff Report Packet Pg. 12 Item No. 2. Page 4 of 10 1 0 2 2 2 Process Changes The policy and process for building a two-story house using the ODS is proposed to be consistent with the interim ordinance and in compliance with SB 450. As a new proposal, text changes in PAMC Chapters 18.10, 18.12, and 18.13 which reference Individual Review, would be updated to reflect the ODS process first, and provide clarification framing IR as an alternative process when an applicant chooses not to meet the ODS. Objective Design Standards Changes In addition to the summary here, Attachment B provides a side-by-side comparison with the existing standards. The proposed standards, which were previously adopted in a separate resolution rather than incorporated into the code, are now included in the Draft Ordinance (Attachment A). Incorporating these into the code will reduce confusion caused by having two sets of standards that both apply but that are located in different locations (Resolution posted to the City’s website and the Zoning Standards that also apply in PAMC Chapter 18.12). These will also increase the visibility of these standards and make them easier to find. Staff recommends that the following existing standards be eliminated: A2: STUCCO TEXTURE: When stucco is used it shall be steel-troweled ‘Smooth’ or ‘Santa Barbara’ texture as described in the Technical Services Information Bureau, Chapter 5 - Plaster Textures & Acrylic Finishes (2011). For additions, stucco plaster texture on the addition shall be allowed to match the stucco texture of the existing house. A4: DRIVEWAY WIDTH: 18-foot maximum driveway width (inclusive of uncovered parking) within a front or street side yard setback. A5: PLANTING STRIP: A minimum two-foot wide, landscaped planting strip is required between a driveway and/or uncovered parking space and an existing interior lot line. A15: WINDOW TO WALL DETAILING: Window frames shall be recessed at least 2 inches from the exterior wall face or have trim at least 2 inches wide and 0.5 inches thick on all four window sides. Stucco over foam shall not be used as window trim. A16: WINDOW PATTERNS: Window fenestration with divided lite appearance shall have exterior applied muntin bars (i.e., true or simulated divided lites). B3: CONTEXTUAL FIRST FLOOR EAVE HEIGHT: The height of the first floor's street-facing roof edges (i.e., eaves or parapets) shall not exceed 18 inches above the height of the first-floor eave or parapet of the homes on the abutting lots at side lot lines as measured at those homes' eaves nearest the subject lot. This first-floor roof edge height limit shall also extend 15 feet back from the building corner. This standard shall be 24 inches within a flood zone if either of the abutting homes’ first-floor levels does not meet current flood zone regulations. This standard applies to the eave side of pitch roof forms and not the rake side such as at a gable. B4: CONTEXTUAL SECOND FLOOR EAVE HEIGHT: The height of the upper floor's street- facing roof edge (eave or parapet) shall not exceed 18 inches above either: (a) the average height of the upper floor street-facing eave or roof edge of homes to each side, or (b) in the case of only one home having a second floor, the height of that home's eaves. Item 2 Item 2 Staff Report Packet Pg. 13 Item No. 2. Page 5 of 10 1 0 2 2 2 Through implementation, staff has found these measures to be overly restrictive to residents without resulting in a meaningful change to the neighborhood character. In accordance with SB 450, standards that apply to SB 9 projects cannot be more restrictive than the standards for other projects, and these standards do not apply to one-story homes. The 18-foot driveway width requirement in particular is also more restrictive than requirements in other areas of the code, which limit driveways for single-family homes to 20 feet. Standards B3 and B4 add additional height restrictions based on the eave heights of the adjacent home(s). However, the height standards (A11 and E3) as well as the daylight plane (standard from the R-1 zone or through ODS C1) currently regulate this. It was also unclear how these two standards should be applied to corner lots. Other R-1 standards such as second-story equivalency in the FAR calculation also reduce frequency of substantially tall first floor heights. Some standards covering roof heights, garage door widths, balconies, and privacy screening are proposed to be retained but revised. Roof Heights A11: ROOF HEIGHT FOR VARIED ROOF PITCHES: Roof height shall be limited to 27 feet for roofs with pitches 9:12 or greater, 25 feet for roofs with pitches 3:12, up to 9:12, and 22 23 feet for roofs with pitches less than 3:12, inclusive of parapets on flat roofs. In flood zones, the maximum height is increased by one-half of the increase in elevation required to reach base flood elevations, up to a maximum increase of 30 inches. E3: EICHLER TRACT ROOF HEIGHTS: In mapped Eichler Tracts the maximum roof height shall not exceed 22 23 feet, as measured from existing grade to the roof surface. Properties in flood zones shall be permitted to increase building height by one-half foot for each foot that the base flood elevation exceeds the existing grade. To respond to feedback that a 22-foot height limit is overly restrictive, particularly in flood zones, staff propose to increase the height limit for flat and low-sloped roofs to 23 feet. This allows for two floors with up to 10-foot ceiling heights, and one foot for each the foundation, floor plate, and roof thickness. Some respondents asked staff to explore increasing all height limits in A11, however staff does not think this is appropriate for the character of the neighborhood and the intent of the Individual Review Guidelines, which has guided development in the R-1 zone for several decades. Garage Location A6: GARAGE LOCATION: Where the contextual garage setback does not apply, attached garages adjacent to the front setback must be located a minimum of 5 feet behind the forwardmost plane of the front facade or 3 feet behind the forwardmost plane of the street-side façade. The forwardmost façade plane may be a building wall or porch with posts/columns and must be at least 12 feet wide. In mapped Eichler neighborhoods (see Section E), this standard does not apply. Item 2 Item 2 Staff Report Packet Pg. 14 Item No. 2. Page 6 of 10 1 0 2 2 2 This change clarifies that the contextual garage placement is still applicable to projects using the ODS process, and aligns the text with standard A1. Garage Door Widths A7: GARAGE WIDTH: An attached garage or carport facing the street shall be no more than 30 percent of the total facade width facing that street, except that it may be 12 20 feet wide in any circumstance. Balconies B6: SECOND FLOOR BALCONY LIMITATIONS: No more than one second-floor deck/balcony shall be permitted per dwelling and shall: (a) only be permitted on a street-facing or rear facing facade, (b) be located at least 10 feet from any interior side lot line with a 5.5-foot-tall solid privacy wall or be located at least 30 feet from any interior side lot line, (c) be located at least 30 feet from the rear lot line, and (d) (c) be limited in size to no more than 40 50 square feet. B7: SCREENING LANDSCAPE: For two-story houses, plant screening trees with a species having a typical mature height of at least 25 feet and mature canopy width of 15 feet at a quantity of at least one per 25 linear feet along each interior lot line. Existing trees to be retained that are at least 25 feet tall and 15 feet wide count towards the required Item 2 Item 2 Staff Report Packet Pg. 15 Item No. 2. Page 7 of 10 1 0 2 2 2 planting. Three closely spaced tall screening shrubs with a mature height of at least 15 feet and a mature width of at least 3 feet may be substituted for one screening tree. B8: PLANTING TYPE AND SIZE: When required, screening trees and shrubs shall be specified by botanical name with at least 50 percent of screening trees and shrubs being evergreen. Screening trees shall be specified and planted at 24-inch box size or larger and 8 feet height or taller. Screening shrubs shall be specified and planted at 15-gallon size or larger and 8 feet or taller. All trees/shrubs shall be planted in a minimum two- foot wide planting strip. ADUs with Urban Lot Splits A maximum of two units, including an accessory dwelling unit or junior accessory dwelling unit created pursuant to Chapter 18.09, may be located on any parcel that is created by an Urban Lot Split under Chapter 21.10. Accessory dwelling units and junior accessory dwelling units shall not be permitted on any such parcel already containing two units. Objective Design Standards for Urban Lot Split Changes Remove the requirement for all lots greater than 200 feet deep use a flag lot configuration in an Urban Lot Split. Remove the shared driveway requirement. Item 2 Item 2 Staff Report Packet Pg. 16 Item No. 2. Page 8 of 10 1 0 2 2 2 2,550 square feet, and 35% of this is 892 square feet. Based on recent staff experience reviewing IR applications, primary bedrooms are around 200-250 square feet, while additional bedrooms are approximately 100-150 square feet. Bathrooms can be as small as 40 square feet, or over 100 square feet for a primary suite. Therefore, the current 35% limitation can generally accommodate a primary suite, two smaller bedrooms, and at least one smaller bathroom on the second story. However, if desired, the PTC could recommend a shift from 35% to 40%, so that houses could have up to 40% of their floor area on second story with at least 60% remaining on the first floor. Increase the floor area limitation from 800 to 1,200 square feet per unit for SB 9 projects that result in creation of three or more detached units on a single-family lot. Refine objective design standards and development standards based on experience with project applications. When new land use regulations, impact fees, or procedural changes are being considered by the Planning and Transportation Commission and City Council, the City shall prepare an analysis in the accompanying staff report detailing how the regulation may impact housing production, if at all, and provide recommended solutions to address those impacts. Item 2 Item 2 Staff Report Packet Pg. 17 Item No. 2. Page 9 of 10 1 0 2 2 2 increase density or increase available properties that may be developed, but intends to incentive development by reducing procedural difficulties. RESOURCE AND COMMUNITY IMPACT Item 2 Item 2 Staff Report Packet Pg. 18 Item No. 2. Page 10 of 10 1 0 2 2 2 relationship between objective standards, discretionary review, and public participation in the approval of new homes. STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS Recommend approval with specific modifications; Continue the item to a date (un)certain with specific direction, which may also include a recommendation for extension of the interim ordinance. Recommend denial and recommend Council extend the interim ordinance an additional year, with direction to staff on items to incorporate into a permanent ordinance; ATTACHMENTS Report Author & Contact Information PTC9 Liaison & Contact Information 9 Emails may be sent directly to the PTC using the following address: planning.commission@cityofpaloalto.org Item 2 Item 2 Staff Report Packet Pg. 19 ***NOT YET APPROVED*** 1 0160212_20260923_ay16 Ordinance No. _____ Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Various Chapters of Title 16 (Building Regula ons), Title 18 (Zoning), and Title 21 (Subdivisions and Other Divisions of Land) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Implement SB 9 and Related State Housing Laws The Council of the City of Palo Alto ORDAINS as follows: Sec on 1. Findings and Declara ons. The City Council ﬁnds and declares as follows: A. On September 16, 2021, Governor Newsom signed into law Senate Bill 9 (SB 9), which requires, among other things, that local agencies ministerially approve both two-unit construc on and urban lot splits on single-family zoned lots. B. On September 19, 2024, the Governor signed Senate Bill 450, eﬀec ve January 1, 2025. SB 450 amended SB 9 (California Government Code Sec ons 65852.21 and 66411.7) to create a 60-day meframe for approval or denial of an SB 9 applica on and to require that SB 9 projects be subject to only those objec ve standards that apply uniformly in the underlying zone. C. Addi onally, On September 19, 2024, the Governor of the State of California signed Senate Bill 937, eﬀec ve January 1, 2025. SB 937 allows housing developers to defer payment of impact fees un l issuance of a cer ﬁcate of occupancy and freezes fees at the level in eﬀect at the me of building permit issuance for certain designated residen al development projects. D. On September 19, 2024, the Governor signed Assembly Bill 2694, eﬀec ve January 1, 2025. AB 2694 expanded the deﬁni on of a “senior ci zen housing development” in the Density Bonus Law to include a residen al care facility for the elderly, as deﬁned. E. On September 22, 2024, the Governor signed Assembly Bill 3116, eﬀec ve January 1, 2025. AB 3116 added a deﬁni on of “student housing development” to the Density Bonus Law and amended provisions of the Density Bonus Law related to the percentage density bonus and incen ves or concessions certain student housing developments must receive. F. On January 13, 2025 and January 12, 2026, the City Council adopted interim ordinances 5645 and 5691 to address the above stated State laws. Item 2 Attachment A - Draft Ordinance Packet Pg. 20 ***NOT YET APPROVED*** 2 0160212_20260923_ay16 G. On October 10, 2025, the Governor signed Assembly Bill 1061, eﬀec ve January 1, 2026. AB 1061 narrows the extent to which proper es within historic districts are excluded from the use of SB 9. H. The City of Palo Alto now desires to make these temporary ordinances implemen ng state law permanent, to implement AB 1061, and to include modiﬁca ons to the objec ve standards to improve their usability. I. On September 30, 2026 the Planning and Transporta on Commission reviewed a dra permanent ordinance and recommended adop on of the ordinance to City Council. SECTION 2. Sec on 18.10.040 (Development Standards) of Title 18 (Zoning) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended as follows (addi ons underlined; dele ons struck- through); unchanged text omi ed by bracketed ellipses): […] (i) Individual Review Two Story Development in R-2 and RMD All construc on of a new singly developed two-story structure; the construc on of a new second story; or the expansion of an exis ng second story by more than 150 square feet shall meet the single-family objec ve design standards set forth in Sec on 18.12.045. Projects complying with the objec ve standards shall be subject to ministerial building permit review. However, applicants may choose to forgo one or more objec ve standards, in which case the project no longer qualiﬁes for ministerial review and will be subject to Individual Review as set forth in Sec ons 18.12.110(d) and 18.77.075. The Individual Review provisions of Sec on 18.12.110 of the Zoning Ordinance shall be applied to any single-family or two-family residence in the R-2 or RMD districts to those sides of a site that share an interior side lot line with the interior side or rear lot line of a property zoned for or used for single-family or two-family dwellings. The individual review criteria shall be applied only to the project’s eﬀects on adjacent single-family and two-family uses. A project that complies with the objec ve standards for two- story development adopted by the City Council shall not be subject to individual review. […] SECTION 3. Sec on 18.12.040 (Site Development Standards ) of Chapter 18.12 (R-1 Single-Family Residen al District) of Title 18 (Zoning) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended as follows (addi ons underlined); unchanged text omi ed by bracketed ellipses). 18.12.040 Site Development Standards Item 2 Attachment A - Draft Ordinance Packet Pg. 21 ***NOT YET APPROVED*** 3 0160212_20260923_ay16 […] (m) In addition to the standards contained in and referenced in this Chapter, two-story single-family residential development, including the development of a primary residence and one or more accessory dwelling units and development pursuant to California Government Code Sections 65852.21 and 66411.7 shall comply with the single family objective standards for two-story development herein. However, an applicant seeking to deviate from the objective standards may submit an application for Single Family Individual Review pursuant to Section 18.12.110. SECTION 4. Section 18.12.040 (Single Family Objective Standards for Two-Story Development) of Chapter 18.12 (R-1 Single-Family Residential District) of Title 18 (Zoning) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby added as follows 18.12.045 Single Family Objective Standards for Two-Story Development (a) Site Planning and Architectural Details (1) FRONT SETBACK Where the contextual front yard setback does not apply, the front setback shall be no less than the average front setback of the homes on lots to either side of the subject lot, up to a maximum of 25 feet. Otherwise, the zoning minimum front setback or special setback would still apply. (2) CONTEXTUAL PORCH ENTRIES: If porches (i.e., roofed, street-facing porches with posts/ column(s) and more than 3 feet deep), occur on more than half of the houses on the same side of the block, including the subject site, the proposed house(s) with street frontage shall include a street-facing porch no less than 4.5 feet deep and 6 feet wide. (3) GARAGE LOCATION: Where the contextual garage setback does not apply, attached garages adjacent to the front setback must be located a minimum of 5 feet behind the forwardmost plane of the front facade or 3 feet behind the forwardmost plane of the street-side façade. The forwardmost façade plane may be a building wall or porch with posts/columns and must be at least 12 feet wide. In mapped Eichler neighborhoods (see Section E), this standard does not apply. (4) GARAGE WIDTH: An attached garage or carport facing the street shall be no more than 30 percent of the total facade width facing that street, except that it may be 20 feet wide in any circumstance. (5) GARAGE DOOR DESIGN AND MATERIALS: The garage door shall match the material, color, or panel design pattern of the entry door, window fenestration, Item 2 Attachment A - Draft Ordinance Packet Pg. 22 ***NOT YET APPROVED*** 4 0160212_20260923_ay16 or exterior cladding material. (6) GARAGE DOOR SIZE: When visible from the street, the maximum garage door width shall be 16 feet and the maximum garage door height shall be 8 feet. If two single-wide garage doors are used instead of one double-wide door, each door's maximum width shall be 9 feet and maximum height 8 feet. (7) ROOF DECK NOT PERMITTED: A roof deck (i.e., a deck above the first level of a single-story building or second level of a two-story building) shall not be permitted. (8) ROOF HEIGHT FOR VARIED ROOF PITCHES: Roof height shall be limited to 27 feet for roofs with pitches 9:12 or greater, 25 feet for roofs with pitches 3:12, up to 9:12, and 22 feet for roofs with pitches less than 3:12, inclusive of parapets on flat roofs. In flood zones, the maximum height is increased by one-half of the increase in elevation required to reach base flood elevations, up to a maximum increase of 30 inches. (9) GABLE ROOF FORMS: No more than three gable forms on an elevation facing a public street. (10) BAY WINDOWS: No more than two bay windows on an elevation facing a public street. (11) STREET-FACING WINDOWS: Each street-facing building elevation shall have at least 20 square feet of glazing in a large window, multi-panel window or glazed door, or bay window form, with minimum dimensions of 3 feet. In an Eichler tract, clerestory windows may have a reduced minimum dimension. (b) Second Floor Massing and Privacy (1) SECOND FLOOR LOCATION: The second-floor area shall not be permitted within the standard side or rear setbacks of the underlying single-family zoning district. (2) SECOND FLOOR SIZE: The maximum second-floor area shall not exceed 35 percent of the allowable gross floor area for the lot, or 400 sf, whichever is larger. (3) GARAGE HEIGHT AND MASS: Maximum height of a roof over an attached garage shall not exceed 15 feet in height as measured from existing grade. The maximum garage wall plate height shall not exceed 10 feet. (4) SECOND FLOOR BALCONY LIMITATIONS: No more than one second-floor deck/balcony shall be permitted per dwelling and shall: (a) only be permitted on a street-facing or rear facing facade, (b) be located at least 10 feet from any interior side lot line with a 5.5-foot-tall solid privacy wall or be located at least 30 feet from any interior side lot line, (c) be located at least 30 feet from the rear lot line, and (d) Item 2 Attachment A - Draft Ordinance Packet Pg. 23 ***NOT YET APPROVED*** 5 0160212_20260923_ay16 (c) be limited in size to no more than 40 50 square feet. (5) SCREENING LANDSCAPE: For two-story houses, plant screening trees with a species having a typical mature height of at least 25 feet and mature canopy width of 15 feet at a quantity of at least one per 25 linear feet along each interior lot line. Existing trees to be retained that are at least 25 feet tall and 15 feet wide count towards the required planting. Three closely spaced tall screening shrubs with a mature height of at least 15 feet and a mature width of at least 3 feet may be substituted for one screening tree. Privacy screening landscape shall be located to align with proposed second-floor windows and/or balconies across the side and rear lot lines and between windows at facing units on a single property. (6) PLANTING TYPE AND SIZE: When required, screening trees and shrubs shall be specified by botanical name with at least 50 percent of screening trees and shrubs being evergreen. Screening trees shall be specified and planted at 24-inch box size or larger and 8 feet height or taller. Screening shrubs shall be specified and planted at 15-gallon size or larger and 8 feet or taller. All trees/shrubs shall be planted in a minimum two foot wide planting strip. (7) PLANTING ADJACENT PUE’S: Where an easement such as a PUE exists along an interior lot line, privacy landscaping is required to be planted on the same side of the easement as the building, but not within the easement. (8) SECOND FLOOR WINDOW PRIVACY: For any window on an upper floor or in a stairway, facing an interior lot line that is located less than 20 feet from a side or rear lot line, one of the following shall be used: (a) permanent obscure glazing to at least 5 feet from the finished floor, or (b) exterior mounted permanent architectural privacy screens that block views more than 70%, or (c) windows with sills above 5 feet from the finished floor level. In a stairway, the finished floor is the height of the landing. This standard shall also apply to first-floor windows less than 6 feet from a property line where the finished floor height is 2 feet or more above grade. (9) SECOND FLOOR OPERABLE WINDOWS ALONG SIDE LOT LINES: Operable casement windows on the upper level with a sill height less than 5 feet above the finished floor and within 20 feet of an interior side lot line shall be hinged so the windows open towards the public street. Horizontal sliding windows shall not be permitted facing and within 20 feet of an interior side lot line, unless the windowsill height is at least 5 feet above the finish floor level. (c) New or Expanded Second Story Development Next to One-Story House(s) Item 2 Attachment A - Draft Ordinance Packet Pg. 24 ***NOT YET APPROVED*** 6 0160212_20260923_ay16 The following Standards apply when a project includes a new or expanded second story adjacent to an existing one-story house. (1) C1: SIDE DAYLIGHT PLANE CLEARANCE: Where a home on an abutting lot across a side lot line is single-story or has a second-floor area no more than 500 square feet, the side daylight plane shall be measured from 8 ft above average grade instead of 10 ft. In the case of an Urban Lot Split, the daylight plane only applies to the original property lines. In flood zones, the average grade for determining daylight plane is increased by one- half of the increase in elevation required to reach base flood elevations, up to a maximum increase of 30 inches. (2) SINGLE-STORY BUILDING FORMS: Where a home on an abutting lot across a side lot line is single-story or has a second-floor area no more than 500 square feet, all houses with frontage on the street shall have either: (a) a one-story building form (excluding garages) at least 6 feet forward of the second-floor wall face, and at least 10 feet wide; or (b) a protruding porch or one-story roof overhang at least 6 feet deep, and at least 8 feet wide. (d) Flag Lots and Substandard Lots PAMC 18.12.040(c) prohibits second floors on houses on substandard lots. Second stories are only allowed as a part of an SB 9 project, subject to Standard D1 below. (1) SECOND FLOOR AREA ON FLAG LOTS AND SUBSTANDARD LOTS: On lots that are flag lots (or similar lots without street frontage) and/or substandard lots prior to an Urban Lot Split, a second floor shall only be allowed to facilitate the minimum 800 sf unit size. (e) Eichler Neighborhoods The following ODS apply only in mapped Eichler Tracts, as listed on the map published in the Eichler Design Guidelines (2018) (1) EICHLER TRACT GARAGES: In mapped Eichler Tracts, a garage or carport may be located forward of the front facade plane of the house so long as the garage or carport is: (a) no more than 21 feet wide, (b) has a roof pitch of 3:12 (slope of 3 ver cal feet for every 12 horizontal feet) or less, and (c) has a maximum height of no more than 12 feet above exis ng grade. (2) EICHLER TRACT ROOF HEIGHTS: In mapped Eichler Tracts the maximum roof height shall not exceed 23 feet, as measured from exis ng grade to the roof surface. Item 2 Attachment A - Draft Ordinance Packet Pg. 25 ***NOT YET APPROVED*** 7 0160212_20260923_ay16 Proper es in ﬂood zones shall be permi ed to increase building height by one-half foot for each foot that the base ﬂood eleva on exceeds the exis ng grade. (3) ROOFLINES IN EICHLER TRACTS: In mapped Eichler Tracts rooﬂines shall meet the following: (a) roof pitches no more than 3:12, (b) gable, shed, bu erﬂy, or ﬂat roof forms, and (c) 2-foot minimum overhangs at eave and rake sides of roof forms for at least 50 percent of roof edges. (4) ROOFLINES IN EICHLER TRACTS: In mapped Eichler Tracts rooﬂines shall meet the following: (a) roof pitches no more than 3:12, (b) gable, shed, bu erﬂy, or ﬂat roof forms, and (c) 2-foot minimum overhangs at eave and rake sides of roof forms for at least 50 percent of roof edges. (5) EXTERIOR MATERIALS IN EICHLER TRACTS: In mapped Eichler Tracts, exterior wall cladding shall be ver cal board channel or ﬂush siding, wood tongue, and groove board siding, wood nickel-gap siding, smooth ﬁber cement panels, or metal panels. Board-form concrete, concrete block, or stucco may be used as a secondary material, but collec vely, these materials shall not account for more than 30 percent of all non-glazed wall surfaces. (6) ENTRIES IN EICHLER TRACTS: In mapped Eichler Tracts, a projec ng entry porch shall not be used. A covered trellis used as a colonnade or a side porch that does not project forward of the facade at the entry would not be considered an entry porch. SECTION 5. Sec on 18.12.110 (Single Family Individual Review) of Chapter 18.12 (R-1 Single-Family Residen al District) of Title 18 (Zoning) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended as follows (addi ons underlined; dele ons struck-through); unchanged text omi ed by bracketed ellipses): 18.12.110 Single Family Individual Review Two Story Development […] (b) Applicability The provisions of this Sec on 18.12.110 apply to the construc on that does not comply with the objec ve standards for two-story development adopted by the City Council. Such projects include construc on of a new singly developed two-story structure; the construc on of a new second story; or the expansion of an exis ng second story by more than 150 square feet in the R-1 single family residen al district. All second-story addi ons on a site a er November 19, 2001 shall be included in calcula ng whether an addi on is over 150 square feet. (c) Single-Family Objec ve Design Standards Item 2 Attachment A - Draft Ordinance Packet Pg. 26 ***NOT YET APPROVED*** 8 0160212_20260923_ay16 All construc on as described in Sec on 18.12.110 (b) shall meet the single family objec ve design standards set forth in Sec on 18.12.045. Projects complying with these standards shall be subject to ministerial building permit review. However, applicants may choose to forgo one or more objec ve standards, in which case the project no longer qualiﬁes for ministerial review and will be subject to Individual Review as set forth in Sec ons 18.12.110(d) and 18.77.075. (c d) Individual Review Guidelines The director of planning and development services shall issue guidelines to direct staﬀ and project applicants in implemen ng the goals and purposes and other provisions of this chapter. Guidelines establishing substan ve review standards for second story development shall be presented to the planning and transporta on commission for their comment prior to adop on or amendment by the director. (d) (1) Findings Neither the director, nor the city council on appeal, shall grant an individual review approval, unless it is found that the applica on is consistent with the individual review guidelines. (e) (2) Condi ons In gran ng individual review approvals, reasonable condi ons or restric ons may be imposed if appropriate or necessary to protect the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience, and to secure the purposes of this tle (Zoning). (f) (3) Applica on Review and Ac on Applica ons for individual review approval shall be reviewed and acted upon as set forth in Sec on 18.77.075. (4) Preliminary Mee ng with Planning Staﬀ Project applicants are strongly encouraged, before applying for individual review of a project, to meet with planning staﬀ to discuss designing a project that promotes the goals of this chapter and the individual review guidelines, and to discuss the proposed plans with their neighbors. Projects subject to ODS are also encouraged to meet with planning staﬀ for a preliminary mee ng to discuss compliance with the ODS standards before submi ng for building permit. (h) (5) Changes to Approved Projects Item 2 Attachment A - Draft Ordinance Packet Pg. 27 ***NOT YET APPROVED*** 9 0160212_20260923_ay16 The director may approve changes to a previously approved individual review project without following the procedure set forth in Sec on 18.77.075 if those changes do not aﬀect compliance with the individual review guidelines. Examples of such changes include: (1) (A) Reduc ons in window or door size, or reduc ons in the number of windows. (2) (B) Changes to aspects of the project not reviewed under individual review, such as materials or non-street-facing ﬁrst story windows. (3) (C) Changes that do not aﬀect privacy/streetscape. (4) (D) Increases in setbacks. (5) (E) Reduc ons in second ﬂoor mass that do not aﬀect privacy or streetscape. SECTION 6. Sec on 18.13.040(c) (Single-Family and Two-Family Uses) of Chapter 18.13 (Mul ple Family Residen al (RM-20, RM-30 And RM-40) Districts) of Title 18 (Zoning) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended as follows (addi ons underlined; dele ons struck-through); unchanged text omi ed by bracketed ellipses): (c) Single-Family and Two-Family Uses (1) The regula ons in Chapter 18.12 that apply to the R-1 district shall apply to sites in single-family use in the mul ple-family residence districts. The regula ons in Chapter 18.10 that apply to the R-2 district may be applied, at the applicant's discre on, to sites in two-family use in the mul ple-family residence districts, in lieu of the mul - family standards. (2) The Single Family Objec ve Design Standards shall be applied to any two-story single-family or two-family residence in the mul -family districts, to only those sides of a site that share an interior side lot line with the interior side or rear lot line of a property zoned for or used for single-family or two-family dwellings. (3) The Individual Review provisions of Sec on 18.12.110 of the Zoning Ordinance shall be applied to any single-family or two-family residence in the mul -family districts, to those sides of a site that share an interior side lot line with the interior side or rear lot line of a property zoned for or used for single-family or two-family dwellings. The Individual Review shall not be applied to adjacent uses other than single-family and two-family uses. […] Item 2 Attachment A - Draft Ordinance Packet Pg. 28 ***NOT YET APPROVED*** 10 0160212_20260923_ay16 SECTION 7. Sec on 18.42.180 (Standards for Two Units on Single Family Zoned Lots Pursuant to Senate Bill 9) of Chapter 18.42 (Standards for Special Uses) of Title 18 (Zoning) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is amended to read as follows (addi ons underlined; dele ons struck- through; unchanged text omi ed by bracketed ellipses): 18.42.180 Standards for Two Units on Single Family Zoned Lots Pursuant to Senate Bill 9. (a) Purpose. This sec on sets forth special regula ons applicable to the construc on of two dwelling units on single family lots in the R-1 (and R-1 subdistricts) and R-E zone districts, pursuant to California Government Code Sec ons 65852.21 and 66411.7 (SB 9, 2021). In the event of a conﬂict between the provisions of this sec on and the generally applicable regula ons of Chapters 18.10, 18.12, and 18.52-18.80, inclusive, the provisions of this sec on the more permissive provision shall prevail. (b) Deﬁni ons. As used in this sec on: (1) “Speciﬁc, adverse impact” means a signiﬁcant, quan ﬁable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objec ve, iden ﬁed wri en public health or safety or physical environmental standards, policies, or condi ons as they existed on the date the applica on was deemed complete. Inconsistency with the zoning ordinance or general plan land use designa on shall not cons tute a speciﬁc, adverse, impact. (2) “Suﬃcient to allow separate conveyance” means the two dwelling units cons tute clearly deﬁned, separate, and independent housekeeping units without interior access points to the other dwelling unit. (3) “Two dwelling units” means the development proposes two new units on a vacant lot or proposes to add one new unit to one exis ng unit on a lot. This does not include the development of a single dwelling unit on a vacant lot. (4) “Unit” means any dwelling unit, including, but not limited to a primary dwelling unit, an accessory dwelling unit, or a junior accessory dwelling unit. (c) Applicability. When an applica on is submi ed that includes both (1) the construc on of two dwelling units under this sec on and (2) other redevelopment work that is not integral to crea on of a new dwelling unit and would generally require discre onary review, only the por ons required for construc on of dwelling units shall be reviewed ministerially. In addi on, this sec on shall not apply in any of the following circumstances: (1) Parcels described California Government Code Sec on 65913.4, subdivisions (a)(6)(B) through (a)(6)(K) inclusive, as that sec on read on September 16, 2021. Such parcels include, for example, parcels located in wetlands, in very high ﬁre severity zones Item 2 Attachment A - Draft Ordinance Packet Pg. 29 ***NOT YET APPROVED*** 11 0160212_20260923_ay16 (unless the site has adopted certain ﬁre hazard mi ga on measures), and in special ﬂood hazard areas or regulatory ﬂoodways (unless the site meets certain federal requirements for development). (2) Parcels on which an owner of residen al real property has exercised the owner’s rights under state law to withdraw accommoda ons from rent or lease within the past 15 years. (3) The development would require altera on or demoli on of any of the following types of housing (A) Housing that is subject to a recorded covenant, ordinance, or law that restricts rents to levels aﬀordable to persons and families of moderate, low, or very low income. (B) Housing that is subject to any form of rent or price control through a public en ty’s valid exercise of its police power. (C) Housing that has been occupied by a tenant in the last three years. (4) The development would result in the demoli on of more than 25 percent of the exis ng exterior structural walls of a site that has been occupied by a tenant in the last three years. (5) (4) The development is located within a historic district or property included on the State Historic Resources Inventory, as deﬁned in California Public Resources Code Sec on 5020.1, or within a site that is designated or listed on the City’s historic inventory. (6) (5) The building oﬃcial ﬁnds that the development would have a speciﬁc, adverse impact on public health and safety or the physical environment that cannot be feasibly mi gated or avoided. (d) Applica on Process. (1) The Director is authorized to promulgate regula ons, forms, and/or checklists se ng forth applica on requirements for the development of dwelling units under this sec on. (2) The City shall ministerially approve or disapprove an applica on pursuant to this sec on. (3) The director of planning shall consider and approve or deny an applica on for a proposed housing development pursuant to this sec on within 60 days from the date the City receives a completed applica on. If the director has not approved or Item 2 Attachment A - Draft Ordinance Packet Pg. 30 ***NOT YET APPROVED*** 12 0160212_20260923_ay16 denied the completed applica on within 60 days, the applica on shall be deemed approved. (4) If the director denies an applica on for a proposed housing development pursuant to this sec on, the director shall, within 60 days of receipt of the completed applica on, return in wri ng a full set of comments to the applicant with a list of items that are defec ve or deﬁcient and a descrip on of how the applicant can remedy the applica on. (e) Development Standards. (1) A project proposing two dwelling units on a parcel in the R-1 or RE districts shall be subject to the development standards set forth in Chapters 18.12 and 18.10, respec vely except as provided herein. (2) All construc on pursuant to this sec on shall comply with objec ve design standards adopted by the City Council for two-story development, except to the extent necessary to construct a unit of 800 square feet. However, an applicant seeking to deviate from the objec ve design standards (except to the extent necessary to construct a unit of 800 square feet) may elect to submit an applica on for under the base requirements of Chapters 18.10, or 18.12, including, if applicable, Single Family Individual Review. (3) If the applica on of any development standard or design standard would necessarily require that one or more proposed units be less than 800 square feet, such standard shall be relaxed to the minimum extent necessary to allow construc on of a unit or units of at least 800 square feet. The Director may publish regula ons governing the order in which objec ve standards shall be waived or relaxed in such circumstances. (4) Setbacks from side and rear property lines, including street-side property lines, shall be no less than four feet, except in the case of exis ng non-complying structures or structures reconstructed in the same loca on and to the same dimensions as an exis ng structure, in which case exis ng setbacks less than four feet may be maintained. No setback is required from an internal lot line newly created pursuant to Chapter 21.10, for adjacent or connected structures separated by the new lot line, provided that the structures meet building code safety standards and are suﬃcient to allow separate conveyance. (5) Oﬀ-street parking shall be provided pursuant to Chapters 18.52 and 18.54. (6) In the event that a project is proposed on a site that has been subject to an Urban Lot Split under Chapter 21.10, and the project would result in three or more detached units across the two parcels created by the urban lot split, any new units shall not exceed 800 square feet. Item 2 Attachment A - Draft Ordinance Packet Pg. 31 ***NOT YET APPROVED*** 13 0160212_20260923_ay16 (7) (6) Accessory structures, such as garages and shed are permi ed consistent with the provisions of the zoning district; however, no accessory structure shall have a ﬂoor area exceeding 500 square feet. (8) (7) The Director of Public Works may promulgate standards for adjacent public improvements, such as curb cuts and sidewalks, in rela on to development pursuant to this Sec on. (f) General Requirements. (1) A maximum of two units, including an accessory dwelling unit or junior accessory dwelling unit created pursuant to Chapter 18.09, may be located on any parcel that is created by an Urban Lot Split under Chapter 21.10. Accessory dwelling units and junior accessory dwelling units shall not be permi ed on any such parcel already containing two units. (2) On parcels that are not the result of an Urban Lot Split under Chapter 21.10, accessory dwelling units may be proposed in addi on to the primary dwelling unit or units, consistent with Chapter 18.09, provided, however, that ADUs associated with projects proceeding under this Sec on shall not receive any exemp on from Floor Area Ra o except to the minimum extent required by California Government Code Sec on 65852.2. (3) A rental of any unit created pursuant to this Sec on shall be for a term longer than 30 consecu ve days. (4) For residen al units connected to an onsite wastewater treatment system, a percola on test completed within the last 5 years, or, if the percola on test has been recer ﬁed, within the last 10 years. (5) Each unit shall have a permanent street address. (6) The owner and all successors in interest in the subject property shall agree to par cipate in any City survey of proper es that have constructed dwelling units pursuant to this Sec on. (g) Eﬀec ve Dates. This sec on shall remain in eﬀect un l such me as Government Code Sec on 65852.21 is repealed, or superseded, or invalidated by a court of competent jurisdic on, or its requirements for ministerial approval of no more than two units on a single family zoned lot are materially amended, whether by legisla on or ini a ve, at which me this sec on shall become null and void. Item 2 Attachment A - Draft Ordinance Packet Pg. 32 ***NOT YET APPROVED*** 14 0160212_20260923_ay16 SECTION 8. Chapter 21.10 (Urban Lot Splits) of Title 21 (Subdivisions and Other Divisions of land) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is amended to read as follows (addi ons underlined; dele ons struck-through): Chapter 21.10 PARCEL MAPS FOR URBAN LOT SPLITS IN SINGLE-FAMILY ZONES Sec on 21.10.010 Purpose Sec on 21.10.020 Deﬁni ons Sec on 21.10.030 Applicability Sec on 21.10.040 General Requirements Sec on 21.10.050 Applica on and Review of an Urban Lot Split Sec on 21.10.060 Eﬀec ve dates Sec on 21.10.010 Purpose This chapter sets forth special regula ons applicable to the subdivision of a single family lot in the R-1 district (and R-1 subdistricts) or R-E district into two new lots, pursuant to California Government Code Sec on 66411.7 (SB 9, 2021). Sec on 21.10.020 Deﬁni ons As used in this chapter: (a) “Ac ng in concert” means pursuing a shared goal to split adjacent lots pursuant to an agreement or understanding, whether formal or informal. (b) “Speciﬁc, adverse impact” means a signiﬁcant, quan ﬁable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objec ve, iden ﬁed wri en public health or safety or physical environmental standards, policies, or condi ons as they existed on the date the applica on was deemed complete. Inconsistency with the zoning ordinance or general plan land use designa on shall not cons tute a speciﬁc, adverse, impact. (c) “Unit” means any dwelling unit, including, but not limited to, a unit or units created pursuant to Sec on 18.42.180, a primary dwelling unit, an accessory dwelling unit, or a junior accessory dwelling unit. (d) “Urban Lot Split” means the subdivision of an exis ng legal parcel in the R-1 district (and R-1 subdistricts) or R-E district to create no more than two new parcels of approximately equal area, pursuant to this Chapter and California Government Code Sec on 66411.7. Item 2 Attachment A - Draft Ordinance Packet Pg. 33 ***NOT YET APPROVED*** 15 0160212_20260923_ay16 Sec on 21.10.030 Applicability The provisions of this chapter shall apply only to lots in the R-1 district (and R-1 subdistricts) or R-E zone district. Except as modiﬁed by this Chapter, all provisions of Title 21 shall apply to an applica on for urban lot split. An Urban Lot Split is not available in any of the following circumstances: (a) A parcel described California Government Code Sec on 65913.4, subdivisions (a)(6)(B) through (a)(6)(K) inclusive, as that sec on read on September 16, 2021. Such parcels include, for example, parcels located in wetlands, in very high ﬁre severity zones (unless the site has adopted certain ﬁre hazard mi ga on measures), and in special ﬂood hazard areas or regulatory ﬂoodways (unless the site meets certain federal requirements for development). (b) A parcel on which an owner of residen al real property has exercised the owner’s rights under state law to withdraw accommoda ons from rent or lease within the past 15 years. (c) A parcel that was created by prior exercise of an Urban Lot Split. (d) A parcel adjacent to a parcel that was created by prior exercise of an Urban Lot Split by the owner, or a person ac ng in concert with the owner of the parcel sought to be split. (e) The Urban Lot Split would require altera on or demoli on of any of the following types of housing: (1) Housing that is subject to a recorded covenant, ordinance, or law that restricts rents to levels aﬀordable to persons and families of moderate, low, or very low income. (2) Housing that is subject to any form of rent or price control through a public en ty’s valid exercise of its police power. (3) Housing that has been occupied by a tenant in the last three years. (f) The Urban Lot Split is located within a historic district or property included on the State Historic Resources Inventory, as deﬁned in California Public Resources Code Sec on 5020.1, or within a site that is designated or listed on the City’s historic inventory. (g) The building oﬃcial ﬁnds that the development would have a speciﬁc, adverse impact on public health and safety or the physical environment that cannot be feasibly mi gated or avoided. Sec on 21.10.040 General Requirements (a) The minimum size for a parcel created by an Urban Lot Split is 1,200 square feet. Item 2 Attachment A - Draft Ordinance Packet Pg. 34 ***NOT YET APPROVED*** 16 0160212_20260923_ay16 (b) The lots created by an Urban Lot Split must be of approximately equal area, such that no resul ng parcel shall be smaller than 40 percent of the lot area of the original parcel proposed for subdivision. (c) Where exis ng dwelling units on the property are to remain, no lot line may be created under this Chapter in a manner that would bisect any structure or that would result in more than two dwelling units on any resul ng parcel. (d) Newly created lot lines shall not render an exis ng structure noncomplying in any respect (e.g. ﬂoor area ra o, lot coverage, parking), nor increase the degree of noncompliance of an exis ng noncompliant structure Reserved. (e) Each parcel shall comply with any objec ve lot design standards for an Urban Lot Splits adopted by the City Council per Sec on 21.10.045 and consistent with Chapter 66411.7 of the Government Code. (f) U lity easements shall be shown on the parcel map, and recorded prior to, or concurrent with ﬁnal parcel map recorda on. (g) A covenant necessary for maintenance of stormwater treatment facili es shall be recorded prior to, or concurrent with ﬁnal map recorda on. (h) Exis ng driveways to be demolished shall follow the procedure(s) in 12.08.090 Elimina on of abandoned driveway. (i) A maintenance agreement shall be recorded to ensure shared maintenance of any shared access easements, stormwater treatment, landscaping and private u li es, prior to ﬁnal parcel map recorda on. Sec on 21.10.045 Objec ve Design Standards for an Urban Lot Split (a) Lot Typology. An Urban Lot Split shall meet one of the three typologies: (1) Side-by-side. One lot line shall divide the property from front to rear, with street frontages for both lots. (2) Flag Lot. Two property lines shall divide the property to create a new ﬂag lot. The “ﬂagpole” shall be at least 10 feet wide. (3) Flag Lot with Easement. Two property lines shall divide the property to create a new ﬂag lot. The “ﬂagpole” shall be an access easement at least 10 feet wide to create access to the rear lot. (b) New Lot Lines. One property line may be used to divide an exis ng lot into two side-by- side lots. Two property lines may be used to create a ﬂag lot. No more than two new lot lines may be added. The new lot lines, as far as prac cable, shall be parallel or at right angles to straight streets or radial to curved streets. Item 2 Attachment A - Draft Ordinance Packet Pg. 35 ***NOT YET APPROVED*** 17 0160212_20260923_ay16 (c) Minimum Street Frontage. The minimum street frontage for a side-by-side split shall be 25 feet wide per parcel. The minimum street frontage for a ﬂag lot split shall be 10 feet wide per parcel. (d) New Driveways must meet requirements of all applicable standards, including but not limited to Sec on 18.54 and Sec on 12.08. (e) If a shared driveway is proposed, it shall be no more than 20 feet wide regardless of the loca on of the new property line(s). A recorded access easement is required. Sec on 21.10.050 Applica on and Review of an Urban Lot Split (a) The director of planning is authorized to promulgate regula ons, forms, and/or checklists se ng forth applica on requirements for a parcel map for an Urban Lot Split under this Chapter. An applica on shall include an aﬃdavit from the property owner, signed under penalty of perjury under the laws of California, that: (1) The proposed urban lot split would not require or authorize demoli on or altera on of any of the housing described in Sec on 21.10.030, subdivision (e). (2) The proposed urban lot split is not on a parcel described in Sec on 21.10.030. (3) The owner intends to occupy one of the housing units located on a lot created by the parcel map as their principal residence for a minimum of three years from the date of the recording of the parcel map. (4) The rental of any unit on the property shall be for a term longer than 30 consecu ve days. (5) The resul ng lots will be for residen al uses only. (b) A parcel map for an Urban Lot Split must be prepared by a registered civil engineer or licensed land surveyor in accordance with Government Code sec ons 66444 – 66450 and this Chapter. Unless more speciﬁc regula ons are adopted by the director of planning, the parcel map shall be in the form and include all of the informa on required of a Preliminary Parcel Map by Chapter 21.12, as well as any addi onal informa on required of a Parcel Map by Chapter 21.16. In addi on, the face of the Parcel Map shall contain a declara on that: (1) Each lot created by the parcel map shall be used solely for residen al dwellings. (2) That no more than two dwelling units may be permi ed on each lot. (3) That rental of any dwelling unit on a lot created by the parcel map shall be for a term longer than 30 consecu ve days. (4) A lot created by a parcel map under this Chapter shall not be further subdivided. (c) Upon receipt of a parcel map for an Urban Lot Split, the director of planning shall transmit copies to the city engineer, chief building oﬃcial, director of u li es, chief of police, ﬁre chief, director of transporta on, and such other departments of the city, and any other agencies, as may be required by law or deemed appropriate. Item 2 Attachment A - Draft Ordinance Packet Pg. 36 ***NOT YET APPROVED*** 18 0160212_20260923_ay16 (d) The director of planning shall cause a no ce of the pending applica on to be posted at the site of the proposed Urban Lot Split and for no ce to be mailed to owners and residents of property within 600 feet of the property. (e) The director of planning shall ministerially review and approve a parcel map for Urban Lot Split if they determine that the parcel map applica on meets all requirements of this Chapter. The director of planning shall deny a parcel map applica on that does not meet any requirement of this Chapter. (f) The director of planning shall consider and approve or deny an applica on for an urban lot split within 60 days from the date the City receives a completed applica on. If the director has not approved or denied the completed applica on within 60 days, the applica on shall be deemed approved. (g) If the director denies an applica on for an urban lot split, the director shall, within 60 days of receipt of the completed applica on, return in wri ng a full set of comments to the applicant with a list of items that are defec ve or deﬁcient and a descrip on of how the applicant can remedy the applica on. (h) (f) The Director of Planning shall determine the appropriate fee required for an applica on for parcel map for an Urban Lot Split, which may be the fee currently established for a Preliminary Parcel Map or Parcel Map. Sec on 21.10.060 Eﬀec ve Dates. This chapter shall remain in eﬀect un l such me as Government Code Sec on 66411.7 is repealed or superseded or its requirements for ministerial approval of an Urban Lot Split on a single family zoned lot are materially amended, whether by legisla on or ini a ve, at which me this chapter shall become null and void. SECTION 9. Sec on 16.64.030 (Deferred Payment) of Chapter 16.64 (Development Fee and In-Lieu Payment Administra on) of Title 16 (Building Regula ons) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended as follows (addi ons underlined; dele ons struck-through): 16.64.030 Deferred Payment For residential development only, payment of a fee may be deferred to the date of final building inspection approval of the development, the development is approved for occupancy. If the development contains more than one dwelling, the fee shall be paid on a pro rata basis for each dwelling when it is approved for occupancy. The fees may be deferred only if provided the owner of the real property for which the fees are required enters into a recordable agreement with the city prior to issuance of the building Item 2 Attachment A - Draft Ordinance Packet Pg. 37 ***NOT YET APPROVED*** 19 0160212_20260923_ay16 permit for the development, which from the date of recordation, shall constitute a lien on the property and shall be enforceable against successors in interest to the property owner. The agreement shall provide that final occupancy approval shall not be given until the fees are paid. The director of planning and development services may execute the agreement on behalf of the city in a form acceptable to the city attorney. SECTION 10. Section 16.64.040 (Calculation of Fee) of Chapter 16.64 (Development Fee and In-Lieu Payment Administration) of Title 16 (Building Regulations) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended as follows (additions underlined; deletions struck-through; unchanged text omitted by bracketed ellipses): 16.64.040 Calculation of Fee A fee shall be payable at the rate specified in the council-adopted municipal fee schedule in effect on the date the fees are paid, except: (1) an that the applicant for a vesting tentative map for a development project shall pay the fees in effect on the date the application for the vesting tentative map is deemed complete., and (2) an applicant that defers fees for a designated residential redevelopment project, as defined in California Government Code Section 66007, may elect to pay the fees in effect at the time of building permit issuance. SECTION 11. Section 18.15.020 (Definitions) of Chapter 18.15 (Density Bonus) of Title 18 (Zoning) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended as follows (additions underlined; deletions struck-through; unchanged text omitted by bracketed ellipses): 18.15.020 Definitions […] (w) “Senior ci zen housing development” means a Development consistent with the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (Government Code Sec on 12900 et. seq., including 12955.9 in par cular), which has been “designed to meet the physical and social needs of senior ci zens,” and which otherwise qualiﬁes as “housing for older persons” as that phrase is used in the federal Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988 (P.L. 100-430) and implemen ng regula ons (24 CFR, part 100, subpart E), and as these phrases are used in California Civil Code Sec ons 51.2, 51.3, and 51.12. For purposes of this Chapter, “senior ci zen housing development” includes a shared housing building development and a residen al care facility for the elderly, as deﬁned in California Health and Safety Code Sec on 1569.2. […] Item 2 Attachment A - Draft Ordinance Packet Pg. 38 ***NOT YET APPROVED*** 20 0160212_20260923_ay16 (y) “Shared housing unit” means one or more habitable rooms, not within another dwelling unit, that includes a bathroom, sink, refrigerator, and microwave, is used for permanent residence, that meets the “minimum room area” speciﬁed in Sec on R304 of the California Residen al Code (Part 2.5 of Title 24 of the California Code of Regula ons), and complies with the deﬁni on of “guestroom” in Sec on R202 of the California Residen al Code. If a local ordinance further restricts the a ributes of a shared housing building beyond the requirements established in this sec on, the local deﬁni on shall apply to the extent that it does not conﬂict with the requirements of this sec on. “Shared housing unit” for purposes of a residen al care facility for the elderly, as deﬁned in California Health and Safety Code Sec on 1569.2, includes a unit without an individual kitchen where a unit may be shared by unrelated persons, and a unit where a room that may be shared by unrelated persons meets the “minimum room area” requirements speciﬁed in Sec on R304 of the California Residen al Code. (z) “Student housing development” means a development that contains bedrooms containing two or more bedspaces that have a shared or private bathroom, access to a shared or private living room and laundry facilities, and access to a shared or private kitchen. (y)(aa) "Total units" or "total dwelling units" means a calcula on of the number of units that: (1) Excludes a unit added by a density bonus awarded pursuant to this sec on or any local law gran ng a greater density bonus. (2) Includes a unit designated to sa sfy an inclusionary zoning requirement of a city, county, or city and county. For purposes of calcula ng a density bonus granted pursuant to this sec on for a shared housing building, "unit" means one shared housing unit and its pro rata share of associated common area facili es. (z)(ab) "Very low vehicle travel area" means an urbanized area, as designated by the United States Census Bureau, where the exis ng residen al development generates vehicle miles traveled per capita that is below 85 percent of either regional vehicle miles traveled per capita or city vehicle miles traveled per capita. For purposes of this paragraph, "area" may include a travel analysis zone, hexagon, or grid. For the purposes of determining "regional vehicle miles traveled per capita" pursuant to this paragraph, a "region" is the en rety of incorporated and unincorporated areas governed by a mul - county or single-county metropolitan planning organiza on, or the en rety of the Item 2 Attachment A - Draft Ordinance Packet Pg. 39 ***NOT YET APPROVED*** 21 0160212_20260923_ay16 incorporated and unincorporated areas of an individual county that is not part of a metropolitan planning organiza on. SECTION 12. Section 18.15.030 (Density Bonuses) of Chapter 18.15 (Density Bonus) of Title 18 (Zoning) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended as follows (additions underlined; deletions struck-through; unchanged text omitted by bracketed ellipses): 18.15.030 Density Bonuses This sec on describes the density bonuses that will be provided, at the request of an applicant, when that applicant provides restricted aﬀordable units as described below. [...] (c) The city shall grant a thirty-ﬁve percent (35%) density bonus when an applicant for a student housing development of ﬁve (5) or more dwelling units seeks and agrees to construct in accordance with the requirements of this sec on and Government Code Sec on 65915: (1) At, in which at least twenty percent (20%) of the total dwelling units will be restricted and used for lower income students. For each one percent (1%) increase in the percentage of restricted lower income units between twenty and twenty- four percent (20-24%) of total units, a development will receive an addi onal three and three-quarters percent (3.75%) density bonus up to ﬁ y percent (50%) of the maximum residen al density. (2) (1) For purposes of calcula ng a density bonus granted pursuant to this subparagraph, the term “unit” as used in this subparagraph means one rental bed and its pro rata share of the associated common area facili es. The units described in this subparagraph shall be subject to an aﬀordability restric on of 55 years, which shall not e any rental bed reserved for lower income students to a speciﬁc bedroom. Notwithstanding any other law, an aﬀordability restric on provision, state or county law or policy, or property management policy shall not prevent a lower income student from sharing a room or unit with a non-lower income student. Any a empted waiver of the requirements of this clause is void as against public policy. (3) (2) All units will be used exclusively for undergraduate, graduate, or professional students enrolled full me at an ins tu on of higher educa on accredited by the Western Associa on of Schools and Colleges or the Accredi ng Commission for Community and Junior Colleges. (4) (3) The applicant must submits evidence that the applicant entered into an opera ng agreement or master lease with one or more ins tu ons of higher Item 2 Attachment A - Draft Ordinance Packet Pg. 40 ***NOT YET APPROVED*** 22 0160212_20260923_ay16 educa on for the ins tu on(s) to occupy all units of the student housing development with students from that ins tu on(s) or has established a system for conﬁrming its renters’ status as students to ensure that all units of the student housing development are occupied with students from an ins tu on of higher educa on. (5) (4) The rent provided in the applicable units of the development for lower income students shall be calculated at thirty percent (30%) of sixty-ﬁve percent (65%) of the area median income for Santa Clara County for a single-room occupancy unit type. (6) (5) The applicant will provide priority for the applicable aﬀordable units for lower income students experiencing homelessness. A homeless service provider, as deﬁned in paragraph (3) of subdivision (e) of Sec on 103577 of the Health and Safety Code, or ins tu on of higher educa on that has knowledge of a person's homeless status may verify a person's status as homeless for purposes of this subclause. (6) The student housing development must not be located on a site that pursuant to Sec on 65915(c)(3) of the California Government Code would require replacement units for projects with greater than a 35 percent density bonus. […] (i) An Except as provided in subsec on (c)(6) of this Sec on, an applicant (or project) shall be ineligible for a density bonus or any other incen ves or concessions under this chapter if the housing development is proposed on any property that includes a parcel or parcels on which rental dwelling units are located or, if the dwelling units have been vacated or demolished in the ﬁve-year period preceding the applica on, have been subject to a recorded covenant, ordinance, or law that restricts rents to levels aﬀordable to persons and families of lower or very low income; subject to any other form of rent or price control through the City’s valid exercise of its police power; or occupied by lower or very low income households, unless the proposed housing development replaces those units, and either of the following applies: (1) The proposed housing development, inclusive of the units replaced pursuant to this paragraph, contains aﬀordable units at the percentages set forth in Sec on 18.15.030. (2) Each unit in the development, exclusive of a manager’s unit or units, is aﬀordable to, and occupied by, either a lower or very low income household. Item 2 Attachment A - Draft Ordinance Packet Pg. 41 ***NOT YET APPROVED*** 23 0160212_20260923_ay16 […] SECTION 13. Sec on 18.15.050 (Development Concessions and Incen ves) of Chapter 18.15 (Density Bonus) of Title 18 (Zoning) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended as follows (addi ons underlined; dele ons struck-through; unchanged text omi ed by bracketed ellipses): 18.15.050 Development Concessions and Incen ves This sec on includes provisions for providing concessions or incen ves pursuant to Government Code Sec on 65915. (a) By right parking incen ves. Upon request by the applicant, a development that is eligible for a density bonus may provide parking as provided in this subsec on (a), consistent with Government Code Sec on 65915(p), inclusive of parking for persons with a disability and guests: (1) Zero to one bedroom unit: one on-site parking space; (2) Two to three bedroom unit: one and one-half on-site parking spaces; (3) Four or more bedroom unit: two and one-half parking spaces.; (4) One bedspace in a student housing development: zero parking spaces. If the total number of spaces required results in a frac onal number, it shall be rounded up to the next whole number. For purposes of this subsec on, this parking may be provided through tandem parking or uncovered parking, but not through on-street parking. […] (c) Other incen ves and concessions. A development is eligible for other concessions or incen ves as follows: (1) One concession or incen ve for a development that makes at least ten percent (10%) of the total dwelling units aﬀordable to lower income households; or at least ﬁve percent (5%) of the total dwelling units aﬀordable to very low income households; or at least ten percent (10%) of the total dwelling units aﬀordable to moderate income households in a development in which the units are for sale; or at least twenty percent (20%) of the total units in a student housing development for low income students, as provided for in 18.15.030(c). Item 2 Attachment A - Draft Ordinance Packet Pg. 42 ***NOT YET APPROVED*** 24 0160212_20260923_ay16 (2) Two concessions or incen ves for a development that makes at least seventeen percent (17%) of the total dwelling units aﬀordable to lower income households; or at least ten percent (10%) of the total dwelling units aﬀordable to very low income households; or at least twenty percent (20%) of the total dwelling units aﬀordable to moderate income households in a development in which the units are for sale; or at least twenty-three percent (23%) of the total units in a student housing development for low income students, as provided for in 18.15.030(c). […] SECTION 14. If any section, subsection, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion or sections of the Ordinance. The Council hereby declares that it should have adopted the Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid. // // // // // // // // // // // // Item 2 Attachment A - Draft Ordinance Packet Pg. 43 ***NOT YET APPROVED*** 25 0160212_20260923_ay16 SECTION 15. The Council finds that the Ordinance is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that updating the municipal code to implement existing changes in preemptive state housing law will have a significant effect on the environment. SECTION 16. This ordinance shall be effective on the 31st day after its adoption. INTRODUCED: PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: Assistant City Attorney City Manager Director of Planning and Development Services Item 2 Attachment A - Draft Ordinance Packet Pg. 44 Two-Story Development Objective Design Standards February 2025 Page 1 of 6 Attachment B Proposed Changes to the Adopted Two-Story Development Objective Design Standards A1: FRONT SETBACK Where the contextual front yard setback does not apply, the front setback shall be no less than the average front setback of the homes on lots to either side of the subject lot, up to a maximum of 25 feet. Otherwise, the zoning minimum front setback or special setback would still apply. No change. A2: STUCCO TEXTURE: When stucco is used it shall be steel- troweled ‘Smooth’ or ‘Santa Barbara’ texture as described in the Technical Services Information Bureau, Chapter 5 - Plaster Textures & Acrylic Finishes (2011). For additions, stucco plaster texture on the addition shall be allowed to match the stucco texture of the existing house. Eliminate, as it is overly prescriptive. This change makes the standards more consistent with what is applicable to single- story homes to comply with SB 450. A3: CONTEXTUAL PORCH ENTRIES: If porches (i.e., roofed, street- facing porches with posts/ column(s) and more than 3 feet deep), occur on more than half of the houses on the same side of the block, including the subject site, the proposed house(s) with street frontage shall include a street-facing porch no less than 4.5 feet deep and 6 feet wide. No change. A4: DRIVEWAY WIDTH: 18-foot maximum driveway width (inclusive of uncovered parking) within a front or street side yard setback Eliminate. The code already restricts the driveway to a maximum of 20 feet. A5: PLANTING STRIP: A minimum two-foot wide, landscaped planting strip is required between a driveway and/or uncovered parking space and an existing interior lot line. Eliminate, as it is overly prescriptive. A6: GARAGE LOCATION: Attached garages adjacent to the front setback must be located a minimum of 5 feet behind the forwardmost plane of the front facade or 3 feet behind the forwardmost plane of the street-side façade. The forwardmost façade plane may be a building wall or porch with posts/columns and must be at least 12 feet wide. In mapped Eichler neighborhoods (see Section E), this standard does not apply. Text Change: A6: GARAGE LOCATION: Where the contextual garage setback does not apply, attached garages […] This clarifies application and aligns with standard A1. A7: GARAGE WIDTH: An attached garage or carport facing the street shall be no more than 30 percent of the total facade width facing that street, except that it may be 12 feet wide in any circumstance. Text Change: A7: GARAGE WIDTH: An attached garage or carport facing the street shall be no more than 30 percent of the total facade width facing that street, except that it may be 12 20 feet wide in any circumstance. This allows for a standard two-car garage. A8: GARAGE DOOR DESIGN AND MATERIALS: The garage door shall match the material, color, or panel design pattern of the entry door, window fenestration, or exterior cladding material. No change. Item 2 Attachment B - Objective Design Standards Revisions Packet Pg. 45 Two-Story Development Objective Design Standards February 2025 Page 2 of 6 A9: GARAGE DOOR SIZE: When visible from the street, the maximum garage door width shall be 16 feet and the maximum garage door height shall be 8 feet. If two single-wide garage doors are used instead of one double-wide door, each door's maximum width shall be 9 feet and maximum height 8 feet. No change. This is the width of a standard two-car garage door. A10: ROOF DECK NOT PERMITTED: A roof deck (i.e., a deck above the first level of a single-story building or second level of a two- story building) shall not be permitted. No change. A11: ROOF HEIGHT FOR VARIED ROOF PITCHES: Roof height shall be limited to 27 feet for roofs with pitches 9:12 or greater, 25 feet for roofs with pitches 3:12, up to 9:12, and 22 feet for roofs with pitches less than 3:12, inclusive of parapets on flat roofs. In flood zones, the maximum height is increased by one-half of the increase in elevation required to reach base flood elevations, up to a maximum increase of 30 inches. Text change: A11: ROOF HEIGHT FOR VARIED ROOF PITCHES: Roof height shall be limited to 27 feet for roofs with pitches 9:12 or greater, 25 feet for roofs with pitches 3:12, up to 9:12, and 22 23 feet for roofs with pitches less than 3:12, inclusive of parapets on flat roofs. In flood zones, the maximum height is increased by one-half of the increase in elevation required to reach base flood elevations, up to a maximum increase of 30 inches. This allows for increased flexibility in flood zones. A12: GABLE ROOF FORMS: No more than three gable forms on an elevation facing a public street. No change. A13: BAY WINDOWS: No more than two bay windows on an elevation facing a public street. No change. A14: STREET-FACING WINDOWS: Each street-facing building elevation shall have at least 20 square feet of glazing in a large window, multi-panel window or glazed door, or bay window form, with minimum dimensions of 3 feet. In an Eichler tract, clerestory windows may have a reduced minimum dimension. No change. A15: WINDOW TO WALL DETAILING: Window frames shall be recessed at least 2 inches from the exterior wall face or have trim at least 2 inches wide and 0.5 inches thick on all four window sides. Stucco over foam shall not be used as window trim. Eliminate, as it is overly prescriptive. Staff has also been informed that these are not standard trim dimensions. A16: WINDOW PATTERNS: Window fenestration with divided lite appearance shall have exterior applied muntin bars (i.e., true or simulated divided lites). Eliminate, as it is overly prescriptive. Section B: Second Floor Massing and Privacy B1: SECOND FLOOR LOCATION: The second-floor area shall not be permitted within the standard side or rear setbacks of the underlying single-family zoning district. No change. B2: SECOND FLOOR SIZE: The maximum second-floor area shall not exceed 35 percent of the allowable gross floor area for the lot, or 400 sf, whichever is larger. No change. Item 2 Attachment B - Objective Design Standards Revisions Packet Pg. 46 Two-Story Development Objective Design Standards February 2025 Page 3 of 6 B3: CONTEXTUAL FIRST FLOOR EAVE HEIGHT: The height of the first floor's street-facing roof edges (i.e., eaves or parapets) shall not exceed 18 inches above the height of the first-floor eave or parapet of the homes on the abutting lots at side lot lines as measured at those homes' eaves nearest the subject lot. This first-floor roof edge height limit shall also extend 15 feet back from the building corner. This standard shall be 24 inches within a flood zone if either of the abutting homes’ first-floor levels does not meet current flood zone regulations. This standard applies to the eave side of pitch roof forms and not the rake side such as at a gable. Eliminate, as it is redundant with A11 and C1/the standard daylight plane. The application of this standard and standard B4 was also unclear for corner lots. B4: CONTEXTUAL SECOND FLOOR EAVE HEIGHT: The height of the upper floor's street-facing roof edge (eave or parapet) shall not exceed 18 inches above either: (a) the average height of the upper floor street-facing eave or roof edge of homes to each side, or (b) in the case of only one home having a second floor, the height of that home's eaves. See above. B5: GARAGE HEIGHT AND MASS: Maximum height of a roof over an attached garage shall not exceed 15 feet in height as measured from existing grade. The maximum garage wall plate height shall not exceed 10 feet. No change. B6: SECOND FLOOR BALCONY LIMITATIONS: No more than one second-floor deck/balcony shall be permitted per dwelling and shall: (a) only be permitted on a street-facing facade, (b) be located at least 10 feet from any interior side lot line with a 5.5-foot-tall solid privacy wall or be located at least 30 feet from any interior side lot line, and (c) be limited in size to no more than 40 square feet. Text Change: B6: SECOND FLOOR BALCONY LIMITATIONS: No more than one second-floor deck/balcony shall be permitted per dwelling and shall: (a) only be permitted on a street-facing or rear facing facade, (b) be located at least 10 feet from any interior side lot line with a 5.5-foot- tall solid privacy wall or be located at least 30 feet from any interior side lot line, (c) be located at least 30 feet from the rear lot line, and (d) (c) be limited in size to no more than 40 50 square feet. Balconies were cited as a major reason why applicants do not choose the ODS process. The changes proposed above set privacy limitations for balconies which are in line with the IR Guidelines, and propose usable area without a significant impact to neighbors. B7: SCREENING LANDSCAPE: For two-story houses, plant screening trees with a species having a typical mature height of at least 25 feet and mature canopy width of 15 feet at a quantity of at least one per 25 linear feet along each interior lot line. Existing trees to be retained that are at least 25 feet tall and 15 feet wide count towards the required planting. Three closely spaced tall screening shrubs with a mature height of at least 15 feet and a mature width of at least 3 feet may be substituted for one screening tree. Text Change: […] Privacy screening landscape shall be located to align with proposed second- floor windows and/or balconies across the side and rear lot lines and between windows at facing units on a single property. Item 2 Attachment B - Objective Design Standards Revisions Packet Pg. 47 Two-Story Development Objective Design Standards February 2025 Page 4 of 6 Privacy screening landscape shall be located to align with proposed second-floor windows across the side and rear lot lines and between windows at facing units on a single property. B8: PLANTING TYPE AND SIZE: When required, screening trees and shrubs shall be specified by botanical name with at least 50 percent of screening trees and shrubs being evergreen. Screening trees shall be specified and planted at 24-inch box size or larger and 8 feet height or taller. Screening shrubs shall be specified and planted at 15-gallon size or larger and 8 feet or taller. Text change: […] All trees/shrubs shall be planted in a minimum two foot wide planting strip. This is for clarification with the elimination of A5. B9: PLANTING ADJACENT PUE’S: Where an easement such as a PUE exists along an interior lot line, privacy landscaping is required to be planted on the same side of the easement as the building, but not within the easement. No change. B10: SECOND FLOOR WINDOW PRIVACY: For any window on an upper floor or in a stairway, facing an interior lot line that is located less than 20 feet from a side or rear lot line, one of the following shall be used: (a) permanent obscure glazing to at least 5 feet from the finished floor, or (b) exterior mounted permanent architectural privacy screens that block views more than 70%, or (c) windows with sills above 5 feet from the finished floor level. In a stairway, the finished floor is the height of the landing. No change. This standard shall also apply to first-floor windows less than 6 feet from a property line where the finished floor height is 2 feet or more above grade. B11: SECOND FLOOR OPERABLE WINDOWS ALONG SIDE LOT LINES: Operable casement windows on the upper level with a sill height less than 5 feet above the finished floor and within 20 feet of an interior side lot line shall be hinged so the windows open towards the public street. Horizontal sliding windows shall not be permitted facing and within 20 feet of an interior side lot line, unless the windowsill height is at least 5 feet above the finish floor level. No change. Section C: New or Expanded Second Story Development Next to One-Story House(s) The following Standards apply when a project includes a new or expanded second story adjacent to an existing one-story house. C1: SIDE DAYLIGHT PLANE CLEARANCE: Where a home on an abutting lot across a side lot line is single-story or has a second- floor area no more than 500 square feet, the side daylight plane shall be measured from 8 ft above average grade instead of 10 ft. In the case of an Urban Lot Split, the daylight plane only applies to the original property lines. No change. In flood zones, the average grade for determining daylight plane is increased by one-half of the increase in elevation required to reach base flood elevations, up to a maximum increase of 30 inches. Item 2 Attachment B - Objective Design Standards Revisions Packet Pg. 48 Two-Story Development Objective Design Standards February 2025 Page 5 of 6 C2: SINGLE-STORY BUILDING FORMS: Where a home on an abutting lot across a side lot line is single-story or has a second-floor area no more than 500 square feet, all houses with frontage on the street shall have either: (a) a one-story building form (excluding garages) at least 6 feet forward of the second-floor wall face, and at least 10 feet wide; or (b) a protruding porch or one-story roof overhang at least 6 feet deep, and at least 8 feet wide. No change. Section D: Flag Lots and Substandard Lots PAMC 18.12.040(c) prohibits second floors on houses on substandard lots. Second stories are only allowed as a part of an SB 9 project, subject to Standard D1 below. D1. SECOND FLOOR AREA ON FLAG LOTS AND SUBSTANDARD LOTS: On lots that are flag lots (or similar lots without street frontage) and/or substandard lots prior to an Urban Lot Split, a second floor shall only be allowed to facilitate the minimum 800 sf unit size. No change. Section E: Eichler Neighborhoods The following ODS apply only in mapped Eichler Tracts, as listed on the map published in the Eichler Design Guidelines (2018) E1: EICHLER TRACT GARAGES: In mapped Eichler Tracts, a garage or carport may be located forward of the front facade plane of the house so long as the garage or carport is: (a) no more than 21 feet wide, (b) has a roof pitch of 3:12 (slope of 3 vertical feet for every 12 horizontal feet) or less, and (c) has a maximum height of no more than 12 feet above existing grade. No change. E3: EICHLER TRACT ROOF HEIGHTS: In mapped Eichler Tracts the maximum roof height shall not exceed 22 feet, as measured from existing grade to the roof surface. Properties in flood zones shall be permitted to increase building height by one-half foot for each foot that the base flood elevation exceeds the existing grade. Text Change: E3: EICHLER TRACT ROOF HEIGHTS: In mapped Eichler Tracts the maximum roof height shall not exceed 22 23 feet, as measured from existing grade to the roof surface. Properties in flood zones shall be permitted to increase building height by one-half foot for each foot that the base flood elevation exceeds the existing grade. Staff received feedback stating this was an overly restrictive height, the proposed change to 23 feet brings it in line with standard A11. E4: ROOFLINES IN EICHLER TRACTS: In mapped Eichler Tracts rooflines shall meet the following: (a) roof pitches no more than 3:12, (b) gable, shed, butterfly, or flat roof forms, and (c) 2- foot minimum overhangs at eave and rake sides of roof forms for at least 50 percent of roof edges. No change. Item 2 Attachment B - Objective Design Standards Revisions Packet Pg. 49 Two-Story Development Objective Design Standards February 2025 Page 6 of 6 E5: EXTERIOR MATERIALS IN EICHLER TRACTS: In mapped Eichler Tracts, exterior wall cladding shall be vertical board channel or flush siding, wood tongue, and groove board siding, wood nickel- gap siding, smooth fiber cement panels, or metal panels. Board- form concrete, concrete block, or stucco may be used as a secondary material, but collectively, these materials shall not account for more than 30 percent of all non-glazed wall surfaces. No change. E6: ENTRIES IN EICHLER TRACTS: In mapped Eichler Tracts, a projecting entry porch shall not be used. A covered trellis used as a colonnade or a side porch that does not project forward of the facade at the entry would not be considered an entry porch. No change. Item 2 Attachment B - Objective Design Standards Revisions Packet Pg. 50 Single-Family Objective Design Standards Survey 2026 Submitted on 16 July 2026, 3:06pm Receipt number 1 Related form version 1 Questions 1. What is your familiarity with Palo Alto’s Individual Review Guidelines? I have completed construction on a project using the Individual Review Guidelines 2. What is your familiarity with Palo Alto’s Single-Family Objective Design Standards? I have heard of the Objective Design Standards, but have not used them 3. Did you know that you can use the Single-Family Objective Design Standards for any two-story single family house project? Yes 4. Which process do you prefer for two-story single family house projects? Single-Family Objective Design Standards 5. What barriers, if any, have limited your use of the Objective Design Standards? Specific standard(s) which are difficult to comply with or understand 6. Would certain changes make you more likely to use the Objective Design Standards in the future? Yes 7. Please describe your experience, particularly citing any specific standards or process requirements that you see as a barrier to Objective Design Standards use: I am a licensed architect and have worked on numerous two- story homes in Palo Alto. Based on my experience, I believe the current objective standards do not adequately account for the additional constraints of building in flood zones. For example, the allowable eave height difference between a proposed home and neighboring homes can become overly restrictive when a new home must be elevated approximately 5 feet to comply with flood zone requirements. Even well-designed homes that are compatible with the neighborhood can struggle to meet these standards because of the required elevation. I encourage the City to consider incorporating provisions or exceptions for projects located within special flood hazard areas so that the objective standards better reflect these unique conditions. If you would like to discuss this further, please feel free to email me at 1 of 2 Item 2 Attachment C - Survey Results Packet Pg. 51 8. Would incorporating the ODS directly into the Zoning Code Chapter 18.12 Development Standards (rather than as a separate document/web location) increase your use of the Objective Design Standards? No 2 of 2 Item 2 Attachment C - Survey Results Packet Pg. 52 Single-Family Objective Design Standards Survey 2026 Submitted on 16 July 2026, 3:49pm Receipt number 2 Related form version 1 Questions 1. What is your familiarity with Palo Alto’s Individual Review Guidelines? I have submitted project(s) using the Individual Review Guidelines 2. What is your familiarity with Palo Alto’s Single-Family Objective Design Standards? I have heard of the Objective Design Standards, but have not used them 3. Did you know that you can use the Single-Family Objective Design Standards for any two-story single family house project? Yes 4. Which process do you prefer for two-story single family house projects? Individual Review 5. What barriers, if any, have limited your use of the Objective Design Standards? Lack of familiarity with the process 6. Would certain changes make you more likely to use the Objective Design Standards in the future? No 7. Please describe your experience, particularly citing any specific standards or process requirements that you see as a barrier to Objective Design Standards use: We don't know too much about Objective Design Standards. We used IR when we started design our house. 8. Would incorporating the ODS directly into the Zoning Code Chapter 18.12 Development Standards (rather than as a separate document/web location) increase your use of the Objective Design Standards? No 1 of 1 Item 2 Attachment C - Survey Results Packet Pg. 53 Single-Family Objective Design Standards Survey 2026 Submitted on 16 July 2026, 3:52pm Receipt number 3 Related form version 1 Questions 1. What is your familiarity with Palo Alto’s Individual Review Guidelines? I have completed construction on a project using the Individual Review Guidelines 2. What is your familiarity with Palo Alto’s Single-Family Objective Design Standards? I have heard of the Objective Design Standards, but have not used them 3. Did you know that you can use the Single-Family Objective Design Standards for any two-story single family house project? Yes 4. Which process do you prefer for two-story single family house projects? Single-Family Objective Design Standards 5. What barriers, if any, have limited your use of the Objective Design Standards? Specific standard(s) which are difficult to comply with or understand 6. Would certain changes make you more likely to use the Objective Design Standards in the future? Yes 7. Please describe your experience, particularly citing any specific standards or process requirements that you see as a barrier to Objective Design Standards use: Second floor size shall not exceed 35% of the floor area for the lot - is very restrictive. Many families want a master bedroom suite and two kids' bedrooms upstairs. Also, the contextual eave heights are difficult to comply with, particularly in a flood zone area (extra 6" is simply not enough). The excessive focus on the homes immediately to either side of the proposed lot rather than the block as a whole is very limiting. 8. Would incorporating the ODS directly into the Zoning Code Chapter 18.12 Development Standards (rather than as a separate document/web location) increase your use of the Objective Design Standards? No 1 of 1 Item 2 Attachment C - Survey Results Packet Pg. 54 Single-Family Objective Design Standards Survey 2026 Submitted on 16 July 2026, 5:15pm Receipt number 4 Related form version 1 Questions 1. What is your familiarity with Palo Alto’s Individual Review Guidelines? I have completed construction on a project using the Individual Review Guidelines 2. What is your familiarity with Palo Alto’s Single-Family Objective Design Standards? I have heard of the Objective Design Standards, but have not used them 3. Did you know that you can use the Single-Family Objective Design Standards for any two-story single family house project? Yes 4. Which process do you prefer for two-story single family house projects? Single-Family Objective Design Standards 5. What barriers, if any, have limited your use of the Objective Design Standards? Lack of familiarity with the process 6. Would certain changes make you more likely to use the Objective Design Standards in the future? Yes 7. Please describe your experience, particularly citing any specific standards or process requirements that you see as a barrier to Objective Design Standards use: There might be challenges for some irregular lots to meet all requirements. 8. Would incorporating the ODS directly into the Zoning Code Chapter 18.12 Development Standards (rather than as a separate document/web location) increase your use of the Objective Design Standards? Yes 1 of 1 Item 2 Attachment C - Survey Results Packet Pg. 55 Single-Family Objective Design Standards Survey 2026 Submitted on 16 July 2026, 6:01pm Receipt number 5 Related form version 1 Questions 1. What is your familiarity with Palo Alto’s Individual Review Guidelines? I have completed construction on a project using the Individual Review Guidelines 2. What is your familiarity with Palo Alto’s Single-Family Objective Design Standards? I have completed construction on a project using the Objective Design Standards 3. Did you know that you can use the Single-Family Objective Design Standards for any two-story single family house project? Yes 4. Which process do you prefer for two-story single family house projects? Individual Review 5. What barriers, if any, have limited your use of the Objective Design Standards? Specific standard(s) which are difficult to comply with or understand 6. Would certain changes make you more likely to use the Objective Design Standards in the future? Yes 7. Please describe your experience, particularly citing any specific standards or process requirements that you see as a barrier to Objective Design Standards use: The objective standards are too restrictive. Height limits are too low. 8. Would incorporating the ODS directly into the Zoning Code Chapter 18.12 Development Standards (rather than as a separate document/web location) increase your use of the Objective Design Standards? No 1 of 1 Item 2 Attachment C - Survey Results Packet Pg. 56 Single-Family Objective Design Standards Survey 2026 Submitted on 16 July 2026, 6:59pm Receipt number 7 Related form version 1 Questions 1. What is your familiarity with Palo Alto’s Individual Review Guidelines? I have completed construction on a project using the Individual Review Guidelines 2. What is your familiarity with Palo Alto’s Single-Family Objective Design Standards? I am working on designing a project using the Objective Design Standards but have not submitted it for review 3. Did you know that you can use the Single-Family Objective Design Standards for any two-story single family house project? Yes 4. Which process do you prefer for two-story single family house projects? Single-Family Objective Design Standards 5. What barriers, if any, have limited your use of the Objective Design Standards? Specific standard(s) which are difficult to comply with or understand 6. Would certain changes make you more likely to use the Objective Design Standards in the future? Yes 7. Please describe your experience, particularly citing any specific standards or process requirements that you see as a barrier to Objective Design Standards use: The garage placement and side setbacks 8. Would incorporating the ODS directly into the Zoning Code Chapter 18.12 Development Standards (rather than as a separate document/web location) increase your use of the Objective Design Standards? Yes 1 of 1 Item 2 Attachment C - Survey Results Packet Pg. 57 Single-Family Objective Design Standards Survey 2026 Submitted on 17 July 2026, 9:01am Receipt number 8 Related form version 1 Questions 1. What is your familiarity with Palo Alto’s Individual Review Guidelines? I have submitted project(s) using the Individual Review Guidelines 2. What is your familiarity with Palo Alto’s Single-Family Objective Design Standards? I have heard of the Objective Design Standards, but have not used them 3. Did you know that you can use the Single-Family Objective Design Standards for any two-story single family house project? No 4. Which process do you prefer for two-story single family house projects? Single-Family Objective Design Standards 5. What barriers, if any, have limited your use of the Objective Design Standards? Lack of familiarity with the process 6. Would certain changes make you more likely to use the Objective Design Standards in the future? Yes 7. Please describe your experience, particularly citing any specific standards or process requirements that you see as a barrier to Objective Design Standards use: Not familiar 8. Would incorporating the ODS directly into the Zoning Code Chapter 18.12 Development Standards (rather than as a separate document/web location) increase your use of the Objective Design Standards? Yes 1 of 1 Item 2 Attachment C - Survey Results Packet Pg. 58 Single-Family Objective Design Standards Survey 2026 Submitted on 17 July 2026, 9:22am Receipt number 9 Related form version 1 Questions 1. What is your familiarity with Palo Alto’s Individual Review Guidelines? I have completed construction on a project using the Individual Review Guidelines 2. What is your familiarity with Palo Alto’s Single-Family Objective Design Standards? I have submitted project(s) using the Objective Design Standards 3. Did you know that you can use the Single-Family Objective Design Standards for any two-story single family house project? Yes 4. Which process do you prefer for two-story single family house projects? Single-Family Objective Design Standards 5. What barriers, if any, have limited your use of the Objective Design Standards? Lack of client interest 6. Would certain changes make you more likely to use the Objective Design Standards in the future? No 7. Please describe your experience, particularly citing any specific standards or process requirements that you see as a barrier to Objective Design Standards use: We used the objective design standards for an SB9 project, It was vaguely understood during our review that the same process may technicly be available for single family units. If this is now being encouraged as an alternate path to IR, I think encoding it in 18.12 would make that more clear. I only say no to #8 because of my previous SB( experience. Worth clarifying: Is the use of ODS still tied to the addition of a housing unit, or can I use ODS for a demo/replacement or a significant remodel as well? 8. Would incorporating the ODS directly into the Zoning Code Chapter 18.12 Development Standards (rather than as a separate document/web location) increase your use of the Objective Design Standards? No 1 of 1 Item 2 Attachment C - Survey Results Packet Pg. 59 Single-Family Objective Design Standards Survey 2026 Submitted on 17 July 2026, 2:09pm Receipt number 10 Related form version 1 Questions 1. What is your familiarity with Palo Alto’s Individual Review Guidelines? I have completed construction on a project using the Individual Review Guidelines 2. What is your familiarity with Palo Alto’s Single-Family Objective Design Standards? I have not heard of the Objective Design Standards 3. Did you know that you can use the Single-Family Objective Design Standards for any two-story single family house project? No 4. Which process do you prefer for two-story single family house projects? Individual Review 5. What barriers, if any, have limited your use of the Objective Design Standards? Lack of familiarity with the process 6. Would certain changes make you more likely to use the Objective Design Standards in the future? No 7. Please describe your experience, particularly citing any specific standards or process requirements that you see as a barrier to Objective Design Standards use: have not used it yet 8. Would incorporating the ODS directly into the Zoning Code Chapter 18.12 Development Standards (rather than as a separate document/web location) increase your use of the Objective Design Standards? Yes 1 of 1 Item 2 Attachment C - Survey Results Packet Pg. 60 Single-Family Objective Design Standards Survey 2026 Submitted on 19 July 2026, 6:56am Receipt number 11 Related form version 1 Questions 1. What is your familiarity with Palo Alto’s Individual Review Guidelines? I have submitted project(s) using the Individual Review Guidelines 2. What is your familiarity with Palo Alto’s Single-Family Objective Design Standards? I have submitted project(s) using the Objective Design Standards 3. Did you know that you can use the Single-Family Objective Design Standards for any two-story single family house project? Yes 4. Which process do you prefer for two-story single family house projects? Single-Family Objective Design Standards 5. What barriers, if any, have limited your use of the Objective Design Standards? Lack of client interest Specific standard(s) which are difficult to comply with or understand 6. Would certain changes make you more likely to use the Objective Design Standards in the future? Yes 7. Please describe your experience, particularly citing any specific standards or process requirements that you see as a barrier to Objective Design Standards use: I am pleased that the City has decided to incorporate these Objective Design Standards, as they provide a more streamlined and predictable path toward obtaining a building permit. I also appreciate that this process helps reduce delays or objections from neighbors who may simply oppose a two-story home being built adjacent to their property, rather than raising concerns based on objective standards. I have now worked on several projects utilizing the Objective Design Standards, and overall, my experience has been positive. That said, I believe there is still some room for improvement. Given that these standards are relatively new, it is understandable that it will take some time for both staff and applicants to become fully familiar with the process and identify areas that may benefit from refinement. Based on my experience with past projects, I have the following 1 of 2 Item 2 Attachment C - Survey Results Packet Pg. 61 feedback: * **Corner Lots:** It would be helpful to add language addressing corner lots within the applicable guidelines. Corner lots have unique site conditions, and some of the standards can be difficult to interpret or apply without specific guidance. * **A7 ODS – Garage Width:** The garage-width standard feels somewhat too restrictive. For example, on a 75-foot-wide lot, even if the house is maximized from setback to setback, the home would be approximately 63 feet wide. Under the current 30% standard, the maximum garage width would be only 18.9 feet. Once exterior wall thickness is taken into account, the resulting interior width becomes fairly tight for a functional two-car garage. As a result, even relatively large properties in neighborhoods where two-car garages are the predominant pattern may have difficulty accommodating a properly sized two-car garage. I would encourage staff to revisit this standard and consider increasing the maximum garage width to approximately 35%– 40% of the building frontage, or potentially incorporating some flexibility based on lot width and the prevailing neighborhood pattern. * **B2 ODS – Second-Floor Size:** The maximum permitted second-floor area also feels somewhat restrictive, particularly for smaller lots. For example, a 6,000-square-foot lot would allow only approximately 892 square feet on the second floor, which can make it difficult to accommodate a typical three-bedroom second-floor layout, including a primary suite. Staff may want to consider increasing the allowable percentage to 40%, or establishing a tiered standard based on lot size. For example, lots of 6,500 square feet or less could be permitted up to 40%, while lots larger than 6,500 square feet could remain subject to the current 35% standard. This would provide additional flexibility for smaller properties while still maintaining the overall intent of the Objective Design Standards. Basically, the smaller lots we won't be able to use ODS, because clients want the 3 bedrooms upstairs. 8. Would incorporating the ODS directly into the Zoning Code Chapter 18.12 Development Standards (rather than as a separate document/web location) increase your use of the Objective Design Standards? No 2 of 2 Item 2 Attachment C - Survey Results Packet Pg. 62 Single-Family Objective Design Standards Survey 2026 Submitted on 20 July 2026, 8:29am Receipt number 12 Related form version 1 Questions 1. What is your familiarity with Palo Alto’s Individual Review Guidelines? I have submitted project(s) using the Individual Review Guidelines 2. What is your familiarity with Palo Alto’s Single-Family Objective Design Standards? I have submitted project(s) using the Objective Design Standards 3. Did you know that you can use the Single-Family Objective Design Standards for any two-story single family house project? Yes 4. Which process do you prefer for two-story single family house projects? Single-Family Objective Design Standards 5. What barriers, if any, have limited your use of the Objective Design Standards? Specific standard(s) which are difficult to comply with or understand 6. Would certain changes make you more likely to use the Objective Design Standards in the future? Yes 7. Please describe your experience, particularly citing any specific standards or process requirements that you see as a barrier to Objective Design Standards use: The process is too slow and takes too long. And the outside help being used by the city miss their deadlines consistently and focus on nonsense to keep the process going rather than help get the projects approved quickly. Probably a billable hours thing who knows... 8. Would incorporating the ODS directly into the Zoning Code Chapter 18.12 Development Standards (rather than as a separate document/web location) increase your use of the Objective Design Standards? Yes 1 of 1 Item 2 Attachment C - Survey Results Packet Pg. 63 Single-Family Objective Design Standards Survey 2026 Submitted on 20 July 2026, 12:49pm Receipt number 13 Related form version 1 Questions 1. What is your familiarity with Palo Alto’s Individual Review Guidelines? I have submitted project(s) using the Individual Review Guidelines 2. What is your familiarity with Palo Alto’s Single-Family Objective Design Standards? I have not heard of the Objective Design Standards 3. Did you know that you can use the Single-Family Objective Design Standards for any two-story single family house project? No 4. Which process do you prefer for two-story single family house projects? Single-Family Objective Design Standards 5. What barriers, if any, have limited your use of the Objective Design Standards? Lack of familiarity with the process Lack of client interest Specific standard(s) which are difficult to comply with or understand 6. Would certain changes make you more likely to use the Objective Design Standards in the future? Yes 7. Please describe your experience, particularly citing any specific standards or process requirements that you see as a barrier to Objective Design Standards use: I thought Objective Design is for multifamily units? why is this applied to the single family? 8. Would incorporating the ODS directly into the Zoning Code Chapter 18.12 Development Standards (rather than as a separate document/web location) increase your use of the Objective Design Standards? No 1 of 1 Item 2 Attachment C - Survey Results Packet Pg. 64 Single-Family Objective Design Standards Survey 2026 Submitted on 29 July 2026, 11:06AM Receipt number 14 Related form version 1 Questions 1. What is your familiarity with Palo Alto’s Individual Review Guidelines? I have completed construction on a project using the Individual Review Guidelines 2. What is your familiarity with Palo Alto’s Single-Family Objective Design Standards? I have heard of the Objective Design Standards, but have not used them 3. Did you know that you can use the Single-Family Objective Design Standards for any two-story single family house project? Yes 4. Which process do you prefer for two-story single family house projects? Individual Review 5. What barriers, if any, have limited your use of the Objective Design Standards? Specific standard(s) which are difficult to comply with or understand Other: It was a bit difficult to comprehend. Checklist is too long 6. Would certain changes make you more likely to use the Objective Design Standards in the future? Yes 7. Please describe your experience, particularly citing any specific standards or process requirements that you see as a barrier to Objective Design Standards use: greater flexibility for flood zone in terms of height and daylight plane. Like the design feedback component of the IR, not sure if that will dissappear with ODS. 8. Would incorporating the ODS directly into the Zoning Code Chapter 18.12 Development Standards (rather than as a separate document/web location) increase your use of the Objective Design Standards? Yes 1 of 1 Item 2 Attachment C - Survey Results Packet Pg. 65 Single-Family Objective Design Standards Survey 2026 Submitted on 29 July 2026, 11:11AM Receipt number 15 Related form version 1 Questions 1. What is your familiarity with Palo Alto’s Individual Review Guidelines? I have submitted project(s) using the Individual Review Guidelines 2. What is your familiarity with Palo Alto’s Single-Family Objective Design Standards? I am working on designing a project using the Objective Design Standards but have not submitted it for review 3. Did you know that you can use the Single-Family Objective Design Standards for any two-story single family house project? No 4. Which process do you prefer for two-story single family house projects? Single-Family Objective Design Standards 5. What barriers, if any, have limited your use of the Objective Design Standards? Lack of familiarity with the process Specific standard(s) which are difficult to comply with or understand 6. Would certain changes make you more likely to use the Objective Design Standards in the future? Yes 7. Please describe your experience, particularly citing any specific standards or process requirements that you see as a barrier to Objective Design Standards use: It is a very painful process to work with City of PA. There is an active effort to make it harder for home owners to get permits. 8. Would incorporating the ODS directly into the Zoning Code Chapter 18.12 Development Standards (rather than as a separate document/web location) increase your use of the Objective Design Standards? Yes 1 of 1 Item 2 Attachment C - Survey Results Packet Pg. 66 Single-Family Objective Design Standards Survey 2026 Submitted on 29 July 2026, 11:23AM Receipt number 16 Related form version 1 Questions 1. What is your familiarity with Palo Alto’s Individual Review Guidelines? I have completed construction on a project using the Individual Review Guidelines 2. What is your familiarity with Palo Alto’s Single-Family Objective Design Standards? I have not heard of the Objective Design Standards 3. Did you know that you can use the Single-Family Objective Design Standards for any two-story single family house project? No 4. Which process do you prefer for two-story single family house projects? Individual Review 5. What barriers, if any, have limited your use of the Objective Design Standards? Lack of familiarity with the process 6. Would certain changes make you more likely to use the Objective Design Standards in the future? Yes 7. Please describe your experience, particularly citing any specific standards or process requirements that you see as a barrier to Objective Design Standards use: I am experienced in IR review process but not too familiar with the objective design standard. Would like to know more about what it entail. 8. Would incorporating the ODS directly into the Zoning Code Chapter 18.12 Development Standards (rather than as a separate document/web location) increase your use of the Objective Design Standards? Yes 1 of 1 Item 2 Attachment C - Survey Results Packet Pg. 67 Single-Family Objective Design Standards Survey 2026 Submitted on 29 July 2026, 11:38AM Receipt number 17 Related form version 1 Questions 1. What is your familiarity with Palo Alto’s Individual Review Guidelines? I have submitted project(s) using the Individual Review Guidelines 2. What is your familiarity with Palo Alto’s Single-Family Objective Design Standards? I have not heard of the Objective Design Standards 3. Did you know that you can use the Single-Family Objective Design Standards for any two-story single family house project? No 4. Which process do you prefer for two-story single family house projects? Individual Review 5. What barriers, if any, have limited your use of the Objective Design Standards? Lack of familiarity with the process 6. Would certain changes make you more likely to use the Objective Design Standards in the future? Yes 7. Please describe your experience, particularly citing any specific standards or process requirements that you see as a barrier to Objective Design Standards use: The usage of diagram and illustration will help designers getting a holistic understanding of this standard. 8. Would incorporating the ODS directly into the Zoning Code Chapter 18.12 Development Standards (rather than as a separate document/web location) increase your use of the Objective Design Standards? Yes 1 of 1 Item 2 Attachment C - Survey Results Packet Pg. 68 Single-Family Objective Design Standards Survey 2026 Submitted on 29 July 2026, 12:21PM Receipt number 18 Related form version 1 Questions 1. What is your familiarity with Palo Alto’s Individual Review Guidelines? I have completed construction on a project using the Individual Review Guidelines 2. What is your familiarity with Palo Alto’s Single-Family Objective Design Standards? I have not heard of the Objective Design Standards 3. Did you know that you can use the Single-Family Objective Design Standards for any two-story single family house project? No 4. Which process do you prefer for two-story single family house projects? Single-Family Objective Design Standards 5. What barriers, if any, have limited your use of the Objective Design Standards? Lack of familiarity with the process Lack of client interest Specific standard(s) which are difficult to comply with or understand 6. Would certain changes make you more likely to use the Objective Design Standards in the future? Yes 7. Please describe your experience, particularly citing any specific standards or process requirements that you see as a barrier to Objective Design Standards use: I have submitted one application for a IR review since the ODS had come into force. At that time I was not aware of the existence of the ODS. I would have appreciated if the technician handling the application had reminded me of the ODS. This could have been done at the first moment when the Development Center has learnt of the application, so even before the intake meeting. Incorporating the ODS into the PAMC would have the benefit of it becoming more visible. I am consulting the PAMC almost daily and I believe I would have seen it there. I have submitted about 10 applications for IR review over the years and I am not sure whether any of them would have qualified for the ODS. The main reasons why my projects would not have qualified are the following two: 1. The 2nd floor area would have been more than 35% of the 1 of 2 Item 2 Attachment C - Survey Results Packet Pg. 69 allowable floor area on the lot 2. The daylight plane and form limitations next to single story neighbors are more stringent in the ODS My projects may have been in conflict with the ODS in other ways as well, but I believe that my clients would have been agreeable to modifying the design in order to comply with the ODS. The above mentioned two issues are real roadblocks. 8. Would incorporating the ODS directly into the Zoning Code Chapter 18.12 Development Standards (rather than as a separate document/web location) increase your use of the Objective Design Standards? Yes 2 of 2 Item 2 Attachment C - Survey Results Packet Pg. 70 Single-Family Objective Design Standards Survey 2026 Submitted on 29 July 2026, 3:28PM Receipt number 19 Related form version 1 Questions 1. What is your familiarity with Palo Alto’s Individual Review Guidelines? I have completed construction on a project using the Individual Review Guidelines 2. What is your familiarity with Palo Alto’s Single-Family Objective Design Standards? I have not heard of the Objective Design Standards 3. Did you know that you can use the Single-Family Objective Design Standards for any two-story single family house project? No 4. Which process do you prefer for two-story single family house projects? Single-Family Objective Design Standards 5. What barriers, if any, have limited your use of the Objective Design Standards? Lack of familiarity with the process 6. Would certain changes make you more likely to use the Objective Design Standards in the future? No 7. Please describe your experience, particularly citing any specific standards or process requirements that you see as a barrier to Objective Design Standards use: I wasn't familiar with Objective Design Standards, so haven't tried to use them. 8. Would incorporating the ODS directly into the Zoning Code Chapter 18.12 Development Standards (rather than as a separate document/web location) increase your use of the Objective Design Standards? Yes 1 of 1 Item 2 Attachment C - Survey Results Packet Pg. 71 Item No. 3. Page 1 of 16 Planning & Transportation Commission Staff Report From: Planning and Development Services Director Lead Department: Transportation Meeting Date: September 30, 2026 Report #: 2605-6389 TITLE South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity: Review of Preferred Design Alternatives and Network Enhancements for the Midtown Bicycle and Pedestrian Undercrossing; CEQA Status – Exempt Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15262. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommend the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) review: 1. The two preferred design alternatives for a grade separated bicycle and pedestrian rail crossing in the vicinity of El Dorado Avenue, also known as the Midtown Bicycle and Pedestrian Undercrossing (Attachment A); 2. The assessment of those alternatives (Attachment B); 3. The initial circulation study (Attachment C); and 4. Draft network enhancements (Attachment D). In addition, staff recommend the PTC take action to provide a recommendation to the City Council on up to two preferred design alternatives to advance to 15 percent design and endorse the accompanying network enhancements for refinement and presentation during the next phase of community engagement for the South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity project. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The City of Palo Alto is conducting the South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity project (project) to assess ways to improve bicycle and pedestrian access across the Caltrain rail corridor south of Oregon Expressway. The project responds to a longstanding east-west connectivity barrier and advances City policy direction to expand safe, comfortable, and direct active transportation connections, particularly in south Palo Alto. Consistent with the City Council direction provided on December 1, 2025, staff have refined two preferred conceptual design alternatives for a Midtown Bicycle and Pedestrian Undercrossing near El Dorado Avenue: Item 3 Item 3 Staff Report Packet Pg. 72 Item No. 3. Page 2 of 16 Alternative A1 – El Dorado Avenue Tunnel + Alma Street Signal: A bicycle and pedestrian tunnel beneath the Caltrain tracks, with users crossing Alma Street at a new signalized crossing at El Dorado Avenue. Alternative A2 – El Dorado Avenue Tunnel Under Alma Street: A fully grade-separated bicycle and pedestrian tunnel beneath both the Caltrain tracks and Alma Street Since the December 2025 City Council meeting, staff has further refined both alternatives, evaluated design variants, assessed planning-level tradeoffs, and prepared draft network enhancements to connect the proposed crossing to surrounding neighborhoods. This meeting is intended to obtain PTC feedback on the two alternatives and associated network enhancements, and, if the PTC chooses, a recommendation to the City Council on up to two alternatives to advance to 15 percent design. Staff requests that the PTC review: 1. The two preferred design alternatives near El Dorado Avenue (Attachment A); 2. The planning-level assessment of those alternatives (Attachment B); 3. The initial circulation study (Attachment C); and 4. Draft network enhancements (Attachment D) for the Midtown Bicycle and Pedestrian Undercrossing as part of the South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity project. The City Council is the final decision-making body for the project. Staff expect to complete this phase of community engagement and return to the City Council for consideration in late 2026. Following City Council direction, staff would prepare 15 percent conceptual designs, revise the draft network enhancements as appropriate, and develop a funding and implementation plan for further community review through a public draft report. BACKGROUND On January 22, 2013, the City Council approved the Palo Alto Rail Corridor Study (2013)1 which identified a need for additional grade-separated bicycle and pedestrian crossings, particularly in the southern portion of the City. This need was reiterated on November 13, 2017, when the City Council adopted the 2030 Comprehensive Plan.2 The Comprehensive Plan includes Program T1.19.3 to "increase the number of east-west pedestrian and bicycle crossings across Alma Street and the Caltrain corridor, particularly south of Oregon Expressway." On June 2, 2025, the City Council also adopted the Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A) Safety Action Plan3 which includes, “Additional Bicycle and Pedestrian Crossings Along the Caltrain 1 Palo Alto Rail Corridor Study, Approved January 22, 2013; https://www.paloalto.gov/files/assets/public/v/1/planning-amp-development-services/new-development- projects/parc-130122-final-report.pdf 2 City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan 2030, Adopted November 13, 2017, Amended December 19, 2022; https://www.paloalto.gov/files/assets/public/v/4/planning-amp-development-services/3.-comprehensive- plan/comprehensive-plan/full-comp-plan-2030_with-dec19_22-amendments.pdf 3 City of Palo Alto Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A) Safety Action Plan, Adopted June 2, 2025; https://www.paloalto.gov/files/assets/public/v/1/transportation/projects/ss4a-safety-action-plan/palo-alto- safety-action-plan_final_june_2025.pdf Item 3 Item 3 Staff Report Packet Pg. 73 Item No. 3. Page 3 of 16 Corridor” as one of many strategies to help eliminate transportation fatalities and serious injuries by 2035. 7 to serve as the City’s comprehensive vision and action plan to create a comfortable, connected, and safe multimodal network for users of all ages and abilities. The previous 2012 BPTP identified the 1.3-mile distance between the California Avenue Bike/Pedestrian Tunnel and Meadow Drive as the longest stretch of track barrier in Palo Alto and recommended a grade-separated pedestrian and bicycle crossing of the Caltrain corridor and Alma Street in the vicinity of Matadero Creek/Park Boulevard or between Margarita Avenue and Loma Verde Avenue. The 2026 BPTP update recommends the Midtown Bicycle and Pedestrian Undercrossing (CROSSING_10), a new bicycle and pedestrian undercrossing of Caltrain/Alma Street in the vicinity of El Dorado Avenue with enhanced neighborhood approaches, as a near-term priority project. 8 which provided a framework for accommodating 6,086 new housing units by 2031 to meet State requirements. Maintaining quality of life while accommodating growth reinforces the need for convenient and high-quality pedestrian and bicycle facilities that address everyday trips and free up roadway capacity. 9 10 The project scope, which is being undertaken collaboratively with City staff, includes: 7 City Council, June 15, 2026; Action Item #24; https://recordsportal.paloalto.gov/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=887144&dbid=0&repo=PaloAlto&searchid=b58d9af 9-1e8f-4dbe-8e51-592decbca911 8 City of Palo Alto 2023-2031 Housing Element, Adopted April 15, 2024, Certified August 20, 2024; https://paloaltohousingelement.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/Palo-Alto-Housing-Element.pdf 9 Santa Clara Countywide Bike Plan, May 2018; https://www.vta.org/projects/santa-clara-countywide-bike-plan- update-2018 pp. 32, 27, 61. 10 City Council, September 9, 2024; Consent Calendar Item #7; https://recordsportal.paloalto.gov/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=6496&dbid=0&repo=PaloAlto&searchid=5ceb3b7e- 41e9-4bf1-9ad4-fb0749407a24 Item 3 Item 3 Staff Report Packet Pg. 74 Item No. 3. Page 4 of 16 Background review and analysis of existing conditions; Community outreach and engagement; Development of design priorities and evaluation criteria; Development of preliminary conceptual alternatives; Initial assessment of conceptual alternatives; Identification of two locally preferred locations and concepts; 15% design of the locally preferred alternatives for new grade-separated bicycle/pedestrian crossings, plus context-sensitive pedestrian and bicycle enhancements that link to the existing or planned transportation networks; Development of an implementation plan and funding strategy; and Securing funding for future project phases, including preliminary engineering, environmental documentation, final design, and construction. On December 1, 2025, the City Council passed a motion for the South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity project that directed staff to continue focusing evaluations on two bicycle and pedestrian rail crossing concepts in the vicinity of El Dorado Avenue (also called Alternatives A1 and A2, with a preference for Alternative A2): Alternative A1 with a signalized crossing of Alma Street at El Dorado Avenue. Alternative A2 with a tunnel under both Alma Street and the Caltrain tracks in the vicinity of El Dorado Avenue. 15 ANALYSIS The following tasks have been undertaken so far: Background review and analysis of existing conditions Community outreach and engagement Development of design priorities and evaluation criteria Development of preliminary conceptual alternatives Initial assessment of conceptual alternatives Identification of two locally preferred locations and concepts The community outreach and engagement efforts are described in the Stakeholder Engagement section below. Efforts related to existing conditions, design priorities and evaluation criteria, preliminary conceptual alternatives and initial assessment of conceptual alternatives were 15 City Council, December 1, 2025: Action Item #18; https://recordsportal.paloalto.gov/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=83952&dbid=0&repo=PaloAlto&searchid=d9f09a55 -fa77-4887-8005-bb508af17995 Item 3 Item 3 Staff Report Packet Pg. 75 Item No. 3. Page 5 of 16 presented at the PTC meetings on May 14, 2025,17 and September 10, 2025.18 Efforts related to design of two locally preferred bicycle/pedestrian rail crossings alternatives and accompanying network enhancements are described below. El Dorado Avenue Tunnel + Alma Street Signal (Alternative A1) El Dorado Avenue Tunnel under Alma Street (Alternative A2) A2a: Ramp on South Side of El Dorado Ave with One-Way Vehicle Travel (Alternative A2) A2b: Cul-de-sac on El Dorado Ave at Alma St A2c: Straight Ramp next to Alma St (within existing landscape strip) A2d: Access from Matadero Creek A2e: Switchback Ramps next to Alma St 17 Planning and Transportation Commission, May 14, 2025; Study Session Item #4; https://recordsportal.paloalto.gov/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=7648&dbid=0&repo=PaloAlto&searchid=953eac3d- 214a-4cea-a77b-5cfa3921c24f 18 Planning and Transportation Commission, September 10, 2025; Study Session Item #4; https://recordsportal.paloalto.gov/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=7671&dbid=0&repo=PaloAlto&searchid=cc55f36b- 8916-4c57-a84c-1aa231dab86e Item 3 Item 3 Staff Report Packet Pg. 76 Item No. 3. Page 6 of 16 A2f: Narrow Pedestrian-only Tunnel To balance user experience, accessibility, utility constraints, and neighborhood impacts, Alternative A2a was selected as the representative design concept among six explored variants. Additional information on the exploration of these variants as well as concept drawings for Alternatives A2a, A2b, and A2c are presented in Attachment B. On the east side, El Dorado Avenue would be converted to a 13-foot-wide, one-way westbound street with right-turn-only operations onto Alma Street. The design assumes a slight narrowing of Alma Street to compress the overall footprint, though it requires longer below-grade structures and deeper excavation than Alternative A1. Several design variations remain available for further evaluation as design advances for both Alternatives A1 and A2, including, but not limited to, refinements to the tunnel height, width and alignment, portal locations, approach configuration, ramp grades and widths, pedestrian and bicycle separation, and streetscape integration. Figure 1: El Dorado Avenue Tunnel + Alma Street Signal (Draft Alternative A1) Item 3 Item 3 Staff Report Packet Pg. 77 Item No. 3. Page 7 of 16 Figure 2: El Dorado Avenue Tunnel Under Alma Street (Draft Alternative A2) Initial Assessment of Preferred Conceptual Alternatives The conceptual designs for Alternatives A1 and A2 were evaluated against a subset of planning- level evaluation criteria derived from the prior Alternatives Analysis,21 community feedback, and direction from the City Council. The purpose of this assessment (Attachment B) is to compare the two alternatives and support selection of up to two preferred concepts to advance to 15% design. Because both alternatives remain conceptual, the assessment is intended to compare relative advantages, disadvantages, and risks at a planning level. Additional design, technical analysis, agency coordination, and community engagement would be needed as the selected concept advances. Table 1 presents a summary of the results from the evaluation of Alternatives A1 and A2. A high (most desirable) score indicates stronger alignments with community values, and a low (least desirable) score indicates weaker alignment. Note that the results of these evaluations are one of several considerations in the process of seeking locally preferred alternatives. Additional information is presented below and in the Alternatives Assessment (Attachment B). 21 South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity – Alternatives Analysis, September 2, 2025; https://www.paloalto.gov/files/assets/public/v/1/transportation/projects/southern-palo-alto-bikeped-railroad- crossings/spabpc_alternatives_analysis_final_20250902.pdf Item 3 Item 3 Staff Report Packet Pg. 78 Item No. 3. Page 8 of 16 Table 1: Preferred Conceptual Alternatives Assessment Summary Evaluation Criteria A1. El Dorado Ave Tunnel + Alma St Signal A2. El Dorado Ave Tunnel Under Alma St Personal Security Utility Impacts Construction Cost Construction Duration Parcel Impacts Traffic, Parking, and Driveway Emergency Access Notes: Alternatives are scored using design priorities and evaluation criteria developed in the previous project phase based on community input, engineering expertise, and professional judgement. A high (most desirable) score indicates stronger alignment with community values and a low (least desirable) score indicates weaker alignment. Note that the results of these evaluations are one of several considerations in the process of seeking locally preferred alternatives. High (most desirable)Low (least desirable) Personal Security: Both options align with Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) principles and current safety standards. Alternative A1 offers a shorter tunnel but introduces sharp ramp turns, whereas Alternative A2 provides a straighter alignment with fewer sightline obstructions but a longer enclosed length. Utility Impacts: Based on readily available information, Alternative A1 anticipates no major utility conflicts as excavation is limited to the rail corridor. Alternative A2 involves significant utility risks beneath Alma Street, potentially requiring complex relocations or deeper excavation. Construction Cost: Total project costs are estimated at $72M for Alternative A1 and $87M for Alternative A2 (in 2026 dollars with estimated escalation for future construction). The $15M variance stems from Alternative A2’s larger structural footprint, increased excavation, complex shoring/dewatering, and higher utility relocation risks. Construction Duration: Alternative A2 requires a longer, more disruptive construction period due to extensive staging across Alma Street and into the El Dorado Avenue neighborhood, whereas Alternative A1 limits off-corridor impacts. Property Impacts: Alternative A1 requires partial property impacts on the west side only. Alternative A2 requires partial west-side impacts plus the full acquisition of two east-side properties containing four residential dwelling units (110–130 and 178 El Dorado Avenue). Traffic, Parking, and Driveways: Alternative A1 preserves two-way traffic on El Dorado Avenue, while its signal turn restrictions would redistribute approximately 40 peak-hour vehicle trips. Alternative A2 converts El Dorado Avenue to one-way westbound, redistributing 40 peak-hour trips, restricting driveway access for three parcels to right- in/right-out, altering access for two parcels to left-in/left-out, and removing direct Item 3 Item 3 Staff Report Packet Pg. 79 Item No. 3. Page 9 of 16 driveway access for two parcels. Both options remove fewer than 25 parking spaces in the west-side lot. Alternative A2 eliminates an additional 10 on-street spaces along El Dorado Avenue. Additional parking adjustments on El Dorado Avenue may be considered during design refinement to address daylighting, visibility, or emergency access needs. Emergency Access: The Palo Alto Fire Department raised no immediate concerns for Alternative A1 as it would not change vehicle access to residential properties. Alternative A2 presents greater emergency access challenges because the current concept includes a narrow 13-foot drive aisle on El Dorado Avenue, impacting access to multiple properties. Any alternative advanced for further design would be required to meet applicable fire and emergency response standards, including adequate clear widths, emergency vehicle access, and water supply access. Alternative A2 is therefore rated lower than Alternative A1 for this criterion because achieving compliance may require additional design refinement, construction complexity, parcel impacts, operational changes, and/or added cost. Alternative A1 would have fewer utility impacts, lower construction cost and duration, fewer parcel impacts, more limited effects on traffic, parking, and driveway access and would not alter emergency access. Alternative A2 scored the lowest/least desirable results across six of the seven evaluation criteria and had comparable results to Alternative A1 in the category of personal security. Circulation Study The project team prepared an initial circulation study (Attachment C) to assess neighborhood and circulation effects associated with a new Caltrain bicycle/pedestrian undercrossing (Alternatives A1 and A2) at El Dorado Avenue (including potential diversion patterns and cul-de- sac effects) and inform accompanying network enhancements. The analysis compares future conditions (without the new connection) with each crossing alternative, focusing on key intersections and corridors most likely to experience changes in traffic volumes. Findings from this initial study clarify several trade-offs between alternatives and inform complementary network enhancements or operational strategies that may be needed to enhance safety and functional circulation under each alternative. The following are key takeaways from the circulation study: Meaningful projected use: Estimates prepared by the project team predict that by 2031 the El Dorado tunnel could carry about 70 walk trips and 150 bike trips in the a.m. peak hour, and roughly 800 walk trips and 1,800 bike trips daily. Good network fit: Active transportation users will primarily rely on low-volume or low- stress neighborhood routes suitable for bicycle and pedestrian access such as Bryant, Cowper, Colorado, Loma Verde, and Park. Adjacent neighborhood streets currently carry low traffic volumes (under 200 vehicles per hour during peak periods), well within bike boulevard thresholds. Item 3 Item 3 Staff Report Packet Pg. 80 Item No. 3. Page 10 of 16 Limited traffic impacts: Both alternatives cause minimal net traffic disruption, rerouting fewer than 20 to 40 vehicle trips to adjacent parallel corridors like Colorado Avenue and Loma Verde Avenue during peak hours. Access design will shape operations: A signalized Alma Street crossing (Alternative A1) would preserve two-way El Dorado Avenue access, while the under-Alma Street option (Alternative A2) would shift more bicycle and pedestrian activity onto El Dorado Avenue and require more vehicle access changes. Supportive improvements will be important: Enhancements to surrounding streets would apply context-appropriate high-visibility crossings, lighting, markings, traffic control, and wayfinding, consistent with the Safe System Approach and other applicable safety standards to make tunnel approaches comfortable for all-ages-and-abilities. Draft Network Enhancements This project will also deliver a coordinated package of bicycle, pedestrian, operational, and wayfinding improvements that fully integrate the grade separated bike and pedestrian undercrossing into the surrounding street network. Together, these network improvements will ensure the new rail crossing operates as a seamless, intuitive, all ages and abilities facility that reduces conflicts, shortens travel distances, and meaningfully improves active transportation connectivity across a longstanding barrier. These enhancements will: Provide continuous, ADA accessible connections to existing bikeways and sidewalks; Enhance safety and comfort along approach routes through upgraded context-sensitive crossings, lighting, traffic calming, and visibility treatments; and Add clear wayfinding to guides users before, through, and beyond the crossing. Draft network enhancements (Attachment D) proposed for the undercrossing at El Dorado Avenue are shown in Figure 3 and described below. Draft network enhancements were informed by the multimodal traffic counts and circulation study discussed above, community feedback, as well as adopted City policy and applicable design guidance and standards. The draft network enhancements presented are preliminary and intended for discussion purposes. All recommendations are flexible and subject to refinement. Additional community engagement, technical design work, and agency coordination will be needed. Item 3 Item 3 Staff Report Packet Pg. 81 Item No. 3. Page 11 of 16 Figure 3: Draft Network Enhancements To integrate the crossing seamlessly into the surrounding neighborhood, staff identified a series of complementary active transportation and streetscape enhancements: El Dorado Avenue Bikeway and Operations: Establish a new bicycle boulevard from Alma Street to Cowper Street, install a neighborhood traffic circle at Bryant Street and El Dorado Avenue, relocate stop signs to cross-streets at Ramona Street and South Court, and reconstruct El Dorado Avenue with vertical curbs to discourage drivers from mounting the curb and provide a physical buffer between people walking and vehicle traffic. Other stop sign relocations/additions may be needed along El Dorado Avenue based on community preferences, such as at the Waverley Street intersection. Intersection and Crossing Safety: Install Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFBs) at Park Boulevard/Portage Avenue, bulb-outs at several intersections along El Dorado Avenue and Bryant Street, high-visibility crosswalks, daylighting red curbs (Assembly Bill 413 compliance), and overhead lighting. Corridor and Regional Connectivity: Coordinate with Santa Clara County to implement intersection modifications at Oregon Expressway/Bryant Street and Oregon Expressway/Alma Street. Implement "green wave" signal coordination along Alma Street where it is feasible to manage vehicle speeds and reduce stop-and-go driving. Placemaking and Park Access: Enhance pedestrian and bicycle paths through Hoover Park, execute ADA accessibility upgrades along approach routes, and integrate gateway features, lighting, and community artwork at tunnel entrances. Item 3 Item 3 Staff Report Packet Pg. 82 Item No. 3. Page 12 of 16 Stakeholder Input Need, Timing, and Existing Crossings: Community members identified potential bicycle- safety and school-route benefits, but also questioned whether an El Dorado Avenue crossing was warranted given the nearby California Avenue undercrossing, planned rail grade-separation projects, and potential project cost. Commenters suggested that the City prioritize enhancement to the California Avenue undercrossing and planned projects at Churchill Avenue, East Meadow Drive, and Charleston Road; clarify project sequencing; and assess how future grade separations could affect travel patterns and use of the California Avenue undercrossing. Alternatives A1 and A2: Commenters expressed differing views on Alternatives A1 and A2. Some supported Alternative A1 because of its comparatively simpler design, lower estimated cost, fewer anticipated utility and emergency-access effects, and avoidance of residential property acquisition. Some supported advancing A1 to further design, A2 advancing concurrently. Other commenters raised concerns that an at-grade Alma Street crossing could affect vehicle speeds, signal compliance, queues, turning movements, crossing delay, and arterial operations. Commenters also raised concerns that Alternative A2 could require residential property acquisition and utility relocation, long ADA ramps, construction near residences, and greater cost, schedule, and project- delivery risks. Loma Verde–Alma Median Hybrid Plan: Petitioners and correspondents asked the City to evaluate and compare the Loma Verde–Alma Median Hybrid Plan, displayed in Figure 4 and Attachment E, as an alternative to the El Dorado Avenue alternatives. The concept includes a signalized crossing at Loma Verde Avenue and Alma Street, a protected bicycle and pedestrian facility along the Alma Street rail corridor, and an underpass connection at the El Dorado rail axis to Park Boulevard. Some feedback also suggested coordinated signal operations at Loma Verde Avenue and El Carmelo Avenue, with Loma Verde Avenue serving vehicular movements and El Carmelo Avenue serving bicycle and pedestrian movements, to help manage potential vehicle diversion. El Dorado Avenue Neighborhood Effects and Network Enhancements: Commenters raised that El Dorado Avenue’s constrained width, parking conditions, driveway access, and neighborhood-access function could limit its ability to accommodate a bicycle boulevard and increased bicycle, e-bike, pedestrian, and vehicle activity. They also identified potential parking loss, reduced sidewalk accessibility from vehicles parking on sidewalks, traffic circulation changes, access effects on cul-de-sac streets, and potential emergency-response delays. Some commenters supported bicycle boulevard Item 3 Item 3 Staff Report Packet Pg. 83 Item No. 3. Page 13 of 16 treatments, traffic calming, and measures to discourage cut-through traffic, including potential access-management measures at the Alma Street/El Dorado Avenue intersection, while others asked the City to refine, prioritize, or remove individual treatments based on cost, effectiveness, and traffic conditions. Technical, Environmental, and Outreach Requests: Commenters requested additional analysis before the City advances a preferred alignment. Requested topics included construction cost and duration, pedestrian and bicycle demand, potential student use and induced demand, parcel impacts, traffic operations, signal treatments, tunnel and ramp design, accessibility, safety features, construction effects, and school travel patterns. Commentors also asked the City to assess localized air-quality and noise effects, as well as the California-Olive-Emerson (COE) Toxic Underground Plume near the proposed undercrossing, and to continue engagement with immediately affected residents. Other Potential Connections: Commenters suggested that the City evaluate potential connections at East Meadow, Loma Verde Avenue, or El Carmelo Avenue; a north-south bicycle and pedestrian path along the Alma Street corridor; and a Matadero Creek path alternative. They requested comparative evaluation of each alternatives’ feasibility, cost, accessibility, safety, property impacts, environmental considerations, and emergency-access effects. Figure 4: Loma Verde – Alma Median Hybrid Plan Source: Proposed “Loma Verde – Alma Median Hybrid Plan” from Neighborhood Petition Received August 24, 2026 Item 3 Item 3 Staff Report Packet Pg. 84 Item No. 3. Page 14 of 16 Next Steps Securing Caltrain Service Agreement to advance the project Seeking grants and funding Completing Caltrain Rail Corridor Use Policy review process (Caltrain) Undertaking preliminary engineering and environmental documentation (Caltrain) Completing final design (Caltrain) Obtaining other inter-agency agreements and permits Securing right of way, acquisition or easements Completing construction (Caltrain) Transitioning completed project facilities to Palo Alto 23 The City expects that Caltrain will lead efforts for preliminary engineering, environmental review, final design, and construction. FISCAL/RESOURCE IMPACT 23 https://www.caltrain.com/caltrain-corridor-crossings-delivery-guide Item 3 Item 3 Staff Report Packet Pg. 85 Item No. 3. Page 15 of 16 On September 9, 2024, the City Council approved the professional services contract (Contract No. C25191297) with Kittelson & Associates an amount not-to-exceed $499,491 for a two-year term. On August 10, 2026, the City Council approved Contract Amendment No. 1, extending the contract term through September 9, 2028, and updated the scope, schedule, rates, and compensation allocations with no increase to the previously approved not-to-exceed amount. Sufficient funding for the current project scope outlined in the Background section of this staff report was appropriated as part of the FY 2027 Adopted Capital Budget for the Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan Implementation project (PL- 04010) in the Capital Improvement Fund. Funding for subsequent phases of the project, including preliminary engineering, environmental documentation, final design, right-of-way acquisition or easements, permits, and construction, has not been appropriated through this action. The City anticipates that additional funding will be required and will pursue grants, regional, state, and federal funding opportunities, as well as other potential funding sources. Future funding requests will be brought forward to the City Council for future phases of the project, including full design and construction, for consideration and appropriation, as appropriate. STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT Phase 1 Community Engagement: Establish Design Priorities (Spring 2025) – Completed Phase 2 Community Engagement: Feedback on Alternatives (Fall 2025) – Completed Phase 3 Community Engagement: Review Public Draft Report (Fall 2026) – Underway Phase 4 Community Engagement: Council Adopt Final Report (Spring 2027) ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Item 3 Item 3 Staff Report Packet Pg. 86 Item No. 3. Page 16 of 16 have significant impact on the environment. CEQA will be conducted according to State law should the City proceed on an actual project. Item 3 Item 3 Staff Report Packet Pg. 87 Item No. 3. Page 16 of 16 ATTACHMENTS AUTHOR/TITLE: Item 3 Item 3 Staff Report Packet Pg. 88 š š € ‚ ƒ„ …† ‡ ‡ ˆ ‰„ ƒ Š Draft design concepts shown are preliminary and intended for discussion purposes only. All concepts are flexible and subject to refinement. Additional community engagement and technical design work will be needed once locations and basic design concepts have been decided. ‹‹„ … ‰ƒ Œ †Š … … ‹ ‹ Ž ƒ ‘ ‚ 11 0 - 1 3 0 E l D o r a d o A v e 2799 Alma St 2777 Alma St 129 El Dorado Ave 149 El Dorado Ave 178 El Dorado Ave 2800 Emerson St 2745 Alma St 3101 Park Blvd Item 3 Attachment A - Exhibit 1 El Dorado Avenue Tunnel + Alma Street Signal (Alternative A1) Packet Pg. 89 11 0 - 1 3 0 E l D o r a d o A v e 2799 Alma St 2777 Alma St 129 El Dorado Ave 149 El Dorado Ave 178 El Dorado Ave 179 El Dorado Ave 2745 Alma St 3101 Park Blvd One-way west bound Draft design concepts shown are preliminar y and intended for discussion purposes only. All concepts are flexible and subject to refinement. Additional community engagement and technical design work will be needed once locations and basic design concepts have been decided. Item 3 Attachment A - Exhibit 2 El Dorado Avenue Tunnel under Alma Street (Alternative A2) Packet Pg. 90 July 23, 2026 SOUTH PALO ALTO BIKE/PED CONNECTIVITY ALTERNATIVES ASSESSMENT In December 2025, the City Council directed the South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity team to advance two alternatives and explore design variations and refinements that would maximize benefits and minimize impacts of a new tunnel at El Dorado Avenue. Alternatives A1 and A2 are presented in Exhibit 1 and Exhibit 2 and included as Appendix A. This alternatives analysis presents the design concepts and a summary of the evaluation of potential effects associated with construction of the alternatives. The two preferred alternatives were assessed against the evaluation criteria presented in Table 1. These criteria are a subset of those used in the Alternatives Analysis, available online on the project webpage (www.paloalto.gov/BikePedCrossings), and were selected based on feedback we heard from community members and the City Council. Additional information about structural, utility, and construction impacts and considerations are included in Appendix B. Table 1: Evaluation Criteria Evaluation Criteria Description Personal security turns) and approaches with Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) best practices. This analysis considers access control to direct people to designated entrances and exits, as well as maximizing visibility and sightlines to allow for natural observation of people within the crossing, reducing Utility impacts Construction cost tunnel/bridge and new or upgraded facilities required to provide low-stress on- Construction duration coordination with the Meadow/Charleston Rail Grade Separation Project Parcel impacts Emergency access Oakland, CA 94612 Item 3 Attachment B - Preferred Alternatives Assessment Packet Pg. 91 July 23, 2026 South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity – Alternatives Assessment Page 2 Exhibit 1. El Dorado Avenue Tunnel + Alma Street Signal (Alternative A1) Item 3 Attachment B - Preferred Alternatives Assessment Packet Pg. 92 July 23, 2026 South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity – Alternatives Assessment Page 3 Exhibit 2. El Dorado Avenue Tunnel Under Alma Street (Alternative A2) Item 3 Attachment B - Preferred Alternatives Assessment Packet Pg. 93 July 23, 2026 South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity – Alternatives Assessment Page 4 The conceptual design alternatives have been developed in accordance with applicable design guidelines and standards, including the Caltrans Highway Design Manual, Caltrain Engineering Standards, Caltrain Corridor Crossings Delivery Guide dated August 2024, Caltrain Design Criteria, 4th Edition dated January 2024, Caltrain Standards for Design and Maintenance of Structures Revised January 2024, American Railway Engineering and Maintenance-of-Way Association (AREMA) standards, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) standards, Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) standards, guidance from National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO), and informed by the principles of Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED). Design concepts presented in this analysis are preliminary and intended for discussion purposes only. All concepts are flexible and subject to refinement. Additional community engagement, technical design work, and agency coordination will be needed once basic design concepts have been decided. EL DORADO AVENUE TUNNEL + ALMA STREET SIGNAL (ALTERNATIVE A1) Alternative A1 would construct a bicycle and pedestrian tunnel underneath the railroad tracks near El Dorado Avenue, with a new signalized crossing of Alma Street. This alternative builds on the tunnel concept previously presented during Phase 2 and to the City Council in December 2025, with additional planning-level refinements developed in response to Council direction and community input. Since the initial concept design was presented, the project team has focused on the following refinements for Alternative A1: • Shorten and straighten ramp approaches where feasible. The ramp alignments have been reviewed to improve directness, sightlines, and visibility while balancing tunnel depth, ramp slope, tunnel height, available right-of-way, and potential property and parking impacts. • Evaluate a west-side stair option for more direct pedestrian access. A stairway connection may be considered on the west side to create a more direct pedestrian route to and from Park Boulevard, while maintaining an accessible ramped path for people biking, walking, or rolling. • Improve user comfort and safety. The concept continues to consider opportunities to improve visibility, lighting, directness, and separation between people walking and biking, consistent with CPTED principles and other applicable design guidance. • Confirm feasible Alma Street modifications. The concept identifies potential modifications along Alma Street to support access to the tunnel, which may include sidewalk widening, curb extensions, lane shifts, bicycle and pedestrian queuing areas, and intersection treatments at El Dorado Avenue. The extent of these improvements would be confirmed during future design. As currently shown, Alternative A1 would include an approximately 110-foot-long tunnel beneath the railroad tracks. The tunnel and ramp dimensions remain conceptual and would be refined during future design. For planning purposes, the concept assumes an interior tunnel height of approximately 12 feet, although final tunnel height, excavation depth, cover requirements, ramp slopes, and ramp lengths would depend on detailed design requirements, soil conditions, railroad requirements, construction method, utility constraints, and accessibility standards. Item 3 Attachment B - Preferred Alternatives Assessment Packet Pg. 94 July 23, 2026 South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity – Alternatives Assessment Page 5 On the east side, the tunnel would connect to Alma Street through ramps located within the landscaped area between Alma Street and the Caltrain right-of-way. A new traffic signal and high-visibility crosswalks would be provided at Alma Street and El Dorado Avenue to create a controlled crossing for people walking and biking. On the west side, the tunnel approach would connect toward Park Boulevard through the existing surface parking lot. The current west-side ramp configuration is conceptual and should be revisited during future design as more detailed survey, property, and parking information become available. Compared to Alternative A2, Alternative A1 is substantially simpler from both a utility and right-of-way standpoint. Based on available information at this stage, utility impacts appear relatively limited, and no east-side property acquisition is anticipated. This is a key advantage of A1 relative to A2, which would extend the tunnel beneath Alma Street and introduce more complex utility, excavation, and right-of-way impacts. However, unlike A2, Alternative A1 would still require people walking and biking to cross Alma Street at-grade using a new signalized crossing. Design Variations. Several design variations may be considered during future design phases for Alternative A1, including refinements to the traffic control strategy at Alma Street, east- and west-side ramp configurations, ramp widths, and pedestrian and bicycle separation. These variations remain available for further evaluation as the design advances and are summarized in the prior Alternatives Analysis and supporting concept exhibits. EL DORADO AVENUE TUNNEL UNDER ALMA STREET (ALTERNATIVE A2) Alternative A2 was developed following direction from the City Council to explore an option that would construct a grade-separated bicycle and pedestrian tunnel near El Dorado Avenue under both Alma Street and the railroad tracks. In response, the project team developed and iteratively refined a set of design alternatives to address key constraints, community priorities, and technical considerations. The following variants were developed and explored for Alternative A2 in response to the City Council direction: • A2a: Ramp on South Side of El Dorado Ave with One-Way Vehicle Travel (Alternative A2) • A2b: Cul-de-sac on El Dorado Ave at Alma St • A2c: Straight Ramp next to Alma St (within existing landscape strip) • A2d: Access from Matadero Creek • A2e: Switchback Ramps next to Alma St • A2f: Narrow Pedestrian-only Tunnel Concept drawings for Alternatives A2a, A2b, and A2c are presented in Appendix B. Based on initial review and explorations of these variants, Alternative A2a was selected as the representative A2 concept for purposes of this assessment. Alternative A2d would result in additional parcel and right-of-way impacts and have less direct alignment with poorer visibility and sightlines. Alternative A2e would result in additional parcel impacts and Alternative A2f would not provide a bicycle connection. Alternative A2a would provide the best overall balance among the A2 variants, including user experience due to its direct alignment and sightlines, accessibility, ramp configuration, utility considerations, traffic, parking, and Item 3 Attachment B - Preferred Alternatives Assessment Packet Pg. 95 July 23, 2026 South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity – Alternatives Assessment Page 6 driveway impacts and emergency access and would result in fewer parcel impacts. Other variants, including Alternatives A2b and A2c, remain available for further consideration in later design phases. At this stage, the intent is to identify a range of possible alignment options and evaluate a reasonable planning-level A2 concept against Alternative A1, while recognizing that the final Alternative A2 configuration could continue to be refined if this alternative is selected to advance. On the west side, the approach configuration for Alternative A2 would generally mimic Alternative A1, connecting toward Park Boulevard through the same general area. On the east side, however, the tunnel would extend beneath Alma Street, requiring a longer below-grade crossing and a more substantial approach configuration than Alternative A1. To help minimize the overall tunnel length and reduce impacts to adjacent properties and the surrounding neighborhood, the concept assumes a slight narrowing of Alma Street in this area. This allows the tunnel and its approaches to return to existing grade sooner and helps compress the overall footprint of the improvement. Because the crossing extends beneath both Alma Street and the railroad corridor, Alternative A2 would require a longer tunnel structure and longer approaches than Alternative A1, but it would provide a fully grade-separated crossing of both barriers and avoid the need for a new signalized crossing of Alma Street. Alternative A2 would require more extensive utility coordination, right-of-way review, and excavation than Alternative A1. Depending on final design, this alternative may also require modifications to curb lines, retaining elements, drainage infrastructure, and adjacent frontage improvements to accommodate the tunnel approaches and maintain accessible grades. The concept shown at this stage reflects a conservative planning-level footprint. As design advances, the alignment and approach configuration can be further refined, including opportunities to reduce roadway, frontage, property, and neighborhood impacts where feasible. Design Variations. Several design variations may be considered during future design phases for Alternative A2, including refinements to the tunnel alignment, portal locations, approach configuration, tunnel and ramp widths, pedestrian and bicycle separation, streetscape integration, and emergency access. These variations remain available for further evaluation as the design advances and are summarized in the prior alternatives analysis, construction assessment, and supporting concept exhibits. ASSESSMENT OF ALTERNATIVES This section presents a planning-level assessment of Alternatives A1 and A2 based on a subset of evaluation criteria identified for this phase of work. The assessment builds on the prior Alternatives Analysis, available online on the project webpage (www.paloalto.gov/BikePedCrossings), community input received during earlier phases of engagement, direction from the City Council, and the current conceptual design information. The purpose of this assessment is to compare the two alternatives and support selection of one or two preferred concepts to advance to 15% design. The alternatives were evaluated based on personal security, utility impacts, construction cost, construction duration, parcel impacts, traffic, parking, and driveway impacts, and emergency access. Because both alternatives remain conceptual, the assessment is intended to compare relative advantages, disadvantages, and risks at a planning level. Additional design, technical analysis, agency coordination, and community engagement would be needed as the selected concept advances. Item 3 Attachment B - Preferred Alternatives Assessment Packet Pg. 96 July 23, 2026 South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity – Alternatives Assessment Page 7 Personal Security Both alternatives were designed with consideration for CPTED principles, and relevant safety standards and design practices and would perform similarly with respect to personal security and opportunities for natural surveillance. While Alternative A1 would have a slightly shorter tunnel, it would introduce sharp turns that may reduce visibility in certain areas. While Alternative A2 has a straighter and more direct tunnel, the tunnel would be longer, providing fewer opportunities to exit. Utility Impacts Based on currently available information, Alternative A1 is not anticipated to result in utility impacts. The tunnel would be limited to the railroad corridor and would not extend beneath Alma Street, where the more significant existing utility conflicts are located. Alternative A2 is expected to have greater utility impacts because the tunnel would extend beneath Alma Street, where existing utilities create a more constrained vertical profile. The current planning-level concept assumes space between the Alma Street pavement section and the tunnel roof to accommodate utility crossings, but the final tunnel profile would need to be confirmed through more detailed utility investigation, potholing, agency coordination, and future design. These utility constraints may affect tunnel depth, ramp lengths, construction staging, and the extent of any required utility protection, relocation, or reconstruction. Construction Cost Alternative A2 is anticipated to have a higher construction cost than Alternative A1 because it would require a longer below-grade structure extending beneath both Alma Street and the railroad corridor, with a larger excavation footprint and more complex construction conditions. In addition to being longer, the A2 tunnel may also need to be deeper than A1 to pass beneath existing utilities in Alma Street. The extent of additional depth is not known at this stage and would need to be determined during future design based on detailed utility investigation, potholing, agency coordination, and confirmation of the final tunnel profile. The added length and potential additional depth of the A2 tunnel would increase excavation, structural, shoring, dewatering, staging, and restoration requirements relative to A1. Alternative A2 also introduces greater cost risk associated with utility protection, relocation, or reconstruction; roadway and frontage improvements; and right-of-way impacts. By comparison, A1 would involve a shorter tunnel structure and a more limited construction footprint, with no known utility impacts and no anticipated east-side parcel acquisition based on currently available information. Planning level conceptual project cost estimates are presented in Table 2. Item 3 Attachment B - Preferred Alternatives Assessment Packet Pg. 97 July 23, 2026 South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity – Alternatives Assessment Page 8 Table 2: Planning Level Conceptual Cost Estimates Phase A1 Tu n n e l + . Preliminary Engineering/Environmental Clearance $2,000,000 $2,000,000 Final Design (PS&E) $4,000,000 $4,000,000 Construction $66,000,000 $81,000,000 $72,000,000 $87,000,000 Notes: All costs are shown in 2026 dollars with estimated escalation for future construction. Construction Duration Alternative A2 is anticipated to have a longer and more disruptive construction duration than Alternative A1 because the construction footprint would extend beneath Alma Street and into the El Dorado Avenue neighborhood. In addition to the longer below-grade crossing, A2 would require more complex staging and coordination with existing utilities, roadway infrastructure, frontage improvements, and adjacent residential properties. By comparison, A1 would involve a more limited construction footprint, with less construction activity east of Alma Street and fewer anticipated neighborhood disruptions. Parcel Impacts Both alternatives are anticipated to result in similar right-of-way impacts on the west side of the corridor. However, alternatives differ substantially on the east side. Alternative A1 would avoid full parcel acquisition on the east side, while Alternative A2 would require acquisition of two parcels containing four dwelling units (110-130 El Dorado Avenue and 178 El Dorado Avenue) to accommodate the longer tunnel and associated approach improvements. Parcel impacts for Alternatives A1 and A2, as well as two other variants explored for Alternative A2 are listed below: • Alternative A1 El Dorado Ave Tunnel + Alma St Signal: o Partial parcel impact on west side only. • Alternative A2 El Dorado Ave Tunnel Under Alma St: o Partial parcel impact on west side, plus acquisition of two full parcels (four dwelling units) on the east side. This alternative would also raise emergency access concerns for three parcels containing three dwelling units on north side of El Dorado Avenue. Item 3 Attachment B - Preferred Alternatives Assessment Packet Pg. 98 July 23, 2026 South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity – Alternatives Assessment Page 9 • Alternative A2b Cul-de-sac on El Dorado Ave at Alma St: o Partial parcel impact on west side, plus acquisition of three full parcels (five dwelling units) and partial impacts on two additional parcels on the east side. • Alternative A2c Straight Ramp Next to Alma St (within existing landscape strip): o Partial parcel impact on west side, plus acquisition of two full parcels (two dwelling units) on east side. Traffic, Parking, and Driveway Impacts With Alternative A1, a new traffic signal would be installed at Alma Street/El Dorado Avenue. The signal would improve crossing safety for pedestrians and bicyclists through the presence of marked crosswalks, use of countdown timers, and implementation of leading intervals, which can reduce the potential for conflicts and reduce the frequency and severity of crashes. Installation of a traffic signal would also introduce a controlled stopping point for vehicles, which would help manage vehicle speeds along the corridor, reducing the likelihood of high-speed crossing conflicts. Vehicle progression could be optimized, and vehicle delay would be minimized through coordination with upstream and/or downstream intersections. Vehicle movements at the intersection may be partially restricted (e.g., right in/right out only) at certain times. During the weekday a.m. (8-9 a.m.) peak hour, these turn restrictions could result in the redistribution of approximately 40 vehicles across multiple streets and alternate routes, including Colorado Avenue and Loma Verde Avenue.1 Additional information on the anticipated changes to travel patterns and circulation with the new crossing are provided in the Circulation Study, available online on the project webpage (www.paloalto.gov/BikePedCrossings). With Alternative A2, El Dorado Avenue would have one 13-foot-wide vehicle travel lane on the segment adjacent to the pedestrian and bicycle tunnel and would operate one-way westbound with right-turn only at Alma Street. During the weekday a.m. peak hour (8-9 a.m.), the changes in circulation could result in the redistribution of approximately 20 drivers turning onto El Dorado Avenue from Alma Street and 20 drivers making a westbound left-turn from El Dorado Avenue onto Alma Street to alternate routes. Both alternatives would result in some loss of parking. With Alternatives A1 and A2, the west-side tunnel ramp connection would require modifications to the existing parking lot that are estimated to remove fewer than 25 off-street vehicle parking spaces. The future parking lot layout and configuration would need to be confirmed along with final design of the ramp and stair configuration. With Alternative A2, on- street parking would be prohibited on both sides of El Dorado Avenue between Alma Street and Emerson Street for the length of the ramp. This is assumed to result in the loss of about 10 on-street vehicle parking spaces. With Alternative A2, the conversion of El Dorado Avenue to one-way westbound operations from Alma Street to Emerson Street would modify driveway access to the three parcels along the north side of this segment to be right-in/right-out only. On the south side of the segment, access to two parcels would be modified to be left-in/left-out only and access to the existing driveways of two parcels on the south side 1 Vehicle volumes rounded up to the nearest 10. Item 3 Attachment B - Preferred Alternatives Assessment Packet Pg. 99 July 23, 2026 South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity – Alternatives Assessment Page 10 of this segment would be removed unless a replacement driveway connection from Alma Street can be accommodated and accepted by the property owner. Emergency Access The City of Palo Alto Fire Department reviewed the latest planning-level conceptual designs. Based on that review, Alternative A1 does not present any immediate emergency access concerns. In an emergency, the Fire Department indicated it would likely access the tunnel from Park Boulevard, as shutting down Alma Street would be more difficult operationally. By contrast, Alternative A2 (including A2b and A2c) raises substantial fire and emergency access concerns. In general, the Fire Department indicated that if a vehicle or driveway access to a parcel is removed, the City would likely need to acquire the entire parcel and remove the building. Future design refinement would also need to confirm consistency with applicable fire and emergency access requirements, including clear widths on El Dorado Avenue and adequate water supply access. • A1 El Dorado Ave Tunnel + Alma St Signal: o No immediate emergency access concerns were identified. • A2 El Dorado Ave Tunnel Under Alma St: o This alternative would place the undercrossing on the south side of El Dorado Avenue and retain a one-way, 13-foot-wide drive aisle. Although the existing rolled curbs along the frontage may provide some operational flexibility, the Fire Department indicated that the available clear width is highly constrained and would need to be closer to the 20-foot standard. Fire expressed concerns regarding access to 110–130 El Dorado Avenue and indicated a preference for that parcel to be vacated and the building removed. Additional concerns were identified for 149 El Dorado Avenue, 129 El Dorado Avenue, and 2799 Alma Street due to the limited clear width on El Dorado Avenue. Adequate water supply access would also need to be confirmed during future design. • A2b Cul-de-sac on El Dorado Ave at Alma St: o This alternative would create more significant emergency access constraints. The Fire Department indicated it would not be able to access 149 El Dorado Avenue, 129 El Dorado Avenue, and 110–130 El Dorado Avenue, and that these parcels would likely need to be vacated and the buildings removed. Fire also noted potential access concerns for 2799 Alma Street. • A2c Use of Landscaping Strip on Alma St: o This alternative would provide better fire access than A2 and A2b. However, the Fire Department indicated that 2777 Alma Street and 2799 Alma Street would likely still need to be vacated and the buildings removed. Item 3 Attachment B - Preferred Alternatives Assessment Packet Pg. 100 July 23, 2026 South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity – Alternatives Assessment Page 11 ASSESSMENT SUMMARY The team completed a technical evaluation of the alternatives, considering each of the crossing options and the corresponding community connections. The assessments are presented in the preceding section and Table 3 presents a summary of the results. This matrix illustrates the degree to which the preferred conceptual design alternatives align with each of the selected evaluation criteria, using a scale of high (black) indicating strong alignment to low (light gray) indicating weak alignment. As shown in Table 3, Alternative A1 scored higher across five of the seven evaluation criteria compared to Alternative A2. Alternative A1 would have fewer utility impacts, lower construction cost and duration, fewer parcel impacts, and would not alter emergency access. Alternative A2 scored the lowest/least desirable results across five of the seven evaluation criteria and had comparable results to Alternative A1 in the categories of personal security and traffic, parking, and driveway impacts. Table 3: Evaluation Summary Evaluation Criteria A1 Tu n n e l + Si g n a l . Personal Security Utility Impacts Construction Cost Construction Duration Parcel Impacts Traffic, Parking, and Driveway Impacts Emergency Access Notes: Alternatives are scored using a subset of the evaluation criteria used in the prior Alternatives Analysis, available online on the project webpage (www.paloalto.gov/BikePedCrossings), and were selected based on community input, engineering expertise, and professional judgement. Emergency access is identified as a separate evaluation criterion for this phase. A high (most desirable) score indicates stronger alignment with community values and a low (least desirable) score indicates weaker alignment. Note that the results of these evaluations are one of several considerations in the process of seeking locally preferred alternatives. Item 3 Attachment B - Preferred Alternatives Assessment Packet Pg. 101 July 23, 2026 South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity – Alternatives Assessment Page 12 APPENDICES Appendix A: Concept Designs Appendix B: Construction Assessment Item 3 Attachment B - Preferred Alternatives Assessment Packet Pg. 102 š š € ‚ ƒ„ …† ‡ ‡ ˆ ‰„ ƒ Š Draft design concepts shown are preliminary and intended for discussion purposes only. All concepts are flexible and subject to refinement. Additional community engagement and technical design work will be needed once locations and basic design concepts have been decided. ‹‹„ … ‰ƒ Œ †Š … … ‹ ‹ Ž ƒ ‘ ‚ 11 0 - 1 3 0 E l D o r a d o A v e 2799 Alma St 2777 Alma St 129 El Dorado Ave 149 El Dorado Ave 178 El Dorado Ave 2800 Emerson St 2745 Alma St 3101 Park Blvd Item 3 Attachment B - Preferred Alternatives Assessment Packet Pg. 103 11 0 - 1 3 0 E l D o r a d o A v e 2799 Alma St 2777 Alma St 129 El Dorado Ave 149 El Dorado Ave 178 El Dorado Ave 179 El Dorado Ave 2745 Alma St 3101 Park Blvd One-way west bound Draft design concepts shown are preliminar y and intended for discussion purposes only. All concepts are flexible and subject to refinement. Additional community engagement and technical design work will be needed once locations and basic design concepts have been decided. Item 3 Attachment B - Preferred Alternatives Assessment Packet Pg. 104 Technical Memorandum South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity |1 www.bkf.com/contact Date:7/17/2026 BKF Job Number: 20241227 Deliver To: Amanda Leahy, AICP Kittelson & Associates Subject:South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Construction Assessment of El Dorado Avenue Tunnel This summary consolidates the current planning-level assessment of the El Dorado Avenue alternatives studied for the South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity effort. It focuses on the primary geometric, structural, construction staging, utility, and right of way considerations for each alternative. The two preferred alternatives for El Dorado both include a new bicycle and pedestrian undercrossing of the Caltrain corridor. Alternative A.1 would construct a tunnel beneath the rail corridor only, connecting Park Boulevard to Alma Street and retaining an at-grade crossing of Alma Street. Alternative A.2 would also construct a tunnel beneath the rail corridor, but would extend farther east beneath Alma Street and into El Dorado Avenue to provide a fully grade-separated crossing. For planning purposes, the tunnel concepts assume an interior height of approximately 12 feet. Per the Caltrain Corridor Crossings Delivery Guide, underpasses may be constructed with as little as 5 feet of cover, measured from the bottom of railroad ties to the top of structure, where a minimally invasive construction method such as box jacking or tunneling is used. That said, the actual depth of cover and resulting tunnel profile for this project will need to be refined during future design based on the selected construction method, subsurface conditions, utility constraints, structural requirements, and the specific railroad infrastructure present at the crossing. As part of concept development, a high-level review of fire and emergency access considerations was completed to help identify major constraints and inform the planning-level comparison of alternatives. This review was not intended to confirm final fire code compliance. Further coordination with the City and Fire Department will be needed as the concepts are refined, particularly for alternatives with constrained access conditions. Alternative A.1 Alternative A.1 connects Park Blvd. to Alma St. and includes a meandering pathway on the west side within the existing parking lot at the southerly end of 3101 Park Blvd (see Attachment 1). At this stage, there appear to be multiple ways to accommodate the westside approach, including potential parking lot reconfiguration, landscaping separation, and a separate pedestrian-only path with stairs to reduce conflicts between pedestrians and bicyclists. On the east side, the alignment conforms within the existing buffered landscape area along Alma Street and includes two 90-degree ramps and a staircase with direct access to Alma Street, similar in concept to the City’s existing Homer Avenue undercrossing. This concept would also require a bulb-out along Alma Street to accommodate the undercrossing width and associated access improvements, and a new traffic signal and crosswalks would help serve the crossing location. From a structural standpoint, Alternative A.1 consists of an approximately 110-foot-long by 24-foot-wide tunnel beneath the rail corridor, with ramps on each side of the undercrossing and shorter stair connections at each end. Based on the current concept, the tunnel would likely be constructed using box jacking beneath the active tracks. This is a meaningful advantage because it avoids excavation at the track location and avoids the need for a temporary shoofly, while minimizing interruption to rail operations and impacts to the overhead contact system. Appendix B Item 3 Attachment B - Preferred Alternatives Assessment Packet Pg. 105 South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity |2 www.bkf.com/contact The approach ramps would likely be formed with cast-in-place retaining walls, with shallow foundations anticipated, subject to geotechnical confirmation. Temporary excavation shoring would likely be required for the deeper ramp sections and jacking pit/receiving pit construction. Construction staging for A.1 is comparatively straightforward relative to the A.2 variants because the crossing is limited to the rail corridor and does not extend beneath Alma Street. Even so, the alternative still carries typical undercrossing construction risks, including coordination of track closure windows, temporary track support, excavation support, and potential groundwater and waterproofing challenges depending on subsurface conditions. Short-term closures would likely still be required to complete final waterproofing and restore the track structure after box jacking. At this stage, utility impacts for A.1 appear minimal, and right of way impacts also appear limited. The current understanding is that only a partial acquisition would be needed on the west side, with no anticipated east side acquisition impacts. This is a key differentiator relative to the A.2 variants. Alternative A.2 Alternative A.2 consists of three east-side variants (A.2A, A.2B, and A.2C) that are similar to A.1 in that they continue to rely on a grade-separated undercrossing concept beneath the rail corridor with ramped access and retaining wall systems (see Attachments 2-4). However, these variants extend farther east beneath Alma Street and into the El Dorado area, which materially changes the project complexity. Structurally, the A.2 concepts would likely require a longer tunnel, with the rail crossing segment still constructed by box jacking and the portion beneath Alma Street constructed by cut-and-cover. This introduces a more complicated construction sequencing approach than A.1 because Alma Street traffic would need to be maintained through staged construction, likely with temporary lane shifts and phased tunnel construction beneath the roadway (see Attachment 2 for the conceptual staging configuration). The cut-and-cover segment and extended ramps would also increase the need for excavation shoring, traffic handling, and coordination adjacent to existing development. The variants differ primarily in their east-side tie-in: A.2A maintains limited outbound access, A.2B closes El Dorado Avenue with a cul-de-sac, and A.2C turns north to connect along Alma Street. The most significant shared constraint across the A.2 variants is utility conflict. Existing utility information documents identify several major existing underground facilities in the proposed undercrossing area, including a 24-inch high-pressure gas line, a 12-inch water line, and 8-inch and 18-inch sewer lines. These facilities would need to be routed around the proposed undercrossing, and because the sewer facilities are gravity lines, their relocation may be especially challenging depending on available grades. Accommodating these utilities would likely require lowering the undercrossing profile, which in turn would push the ramps farther outward and increase surface impacts. In practical terms, this means the east approach may need to drop lower near Alma Street to accommodate utility conflicts before tying into the tunnel profile beneath the rail corridor, which could increase ramp length and surface impacts on the El Dorado side. As a result, the A.2 variants should generally be assumed to have major utility relocation requirements, added cost, greater schedule risk, and increased design coordination relative to A.1. These alternatives also create more substantial adjacency and construction concerns near existing residences and accessways. The proximity of excavation, shoring, and retaining walls to nearby homes and other improvements raises the potential for settlement, vibration, and access disruptions during construction. In addition, because the A.2 variants tie into a constrained residential context, they require more extensive roadway reconfiguration and create more meaningful right of way considerations than A.1. While the structural and utility challenges are broadly similar across all three A.2 variants, the right of way effects differ based on how each eastern approach is configured. Item 3 Attachment B - Preferred Alternatives Assessment Packet Pg. 106 South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity |3 www.bkf.com/contact Alternative A.2A Alternative A.2A places the undercrossing on the south side of El Dorado and retains a one-way 13-foot drive aisle for outbound neighborhood access to Alma Street (see Attachment 2). Existing rolled curbs along this frontage may help support emergency access within the constrained layout. In this concept, Alma Street is shifted closer to the rail corridor so that the undercrossing profile can begin daylighting sooner, with the goal of reducing impacts to residences along El Dorado Avenue. Relative to the other A.2 variants, A.2A appears to be the most targeted in terms of right of way impact under the current best-case layout, but that assumes the utility conflicts can be resolved without driving the profile farther outward than currently shown. As laid out today, the primary right of way issue is the loss of access to the existing driveway and parking area at 110-130 El Dorado Avenue. Based on the current concept, that impact could require full acquisition of the entire parcel unless a replacement driveway connection from Alma Street can be accommodated and accepted by the property owner. Accordingly, A.2A may offer some right of way advantage relative to A.2B, but it remains heavily constrained by utility relocation feasibility and by the ability to preserve or replace property access in a workable manner. Alternative A.2B Alternative A.2B closes El Dorado Avenue entirely and allows the undercrossing to conform more directly within the existing El Dorado Avenue corridor (see Attachment 3). Pedestrian and bicycle circulation can still be maintained in and around the undercrossing, including stair access from Alma Street, but closure of El Dorado would require a cul-de-sac to maintain fire access and turnaround capability. The principal tradeoff with A.2B is that it appears to create the greatest right of way impact among the alternatives studied. Under the concept reviewed, this option would require three full acquisitions and four partial acquisitions. The full acquisitions are identified at 110-130, 129, and 149 El Dorado Avenue, while partial acquisitions are identified at 178 and 179 El Dorado Avenue. The team also evaluated an offset cul-de-sac concept (shown in red) to reduce some partial takes, but while that could eliminate certain partial impacts, it would likely convert the overall impact to four full acquisitions with no partial acquisitions. In either case, A.2B appears to carry the heaviest property impact burden of the alternatives considered. Utility impacts remain significant and generally similar to those described for A.2A. Alternative A.2C Alternative A.2C also extends beneath Alma Street, but then turns 90 degrees and ramps north of El Dorado Avenue within the landscaped buffer area on the east side of Alma Street between the residences (see Attachment 4). A potential refinement could allow the east-side ramp to continue further and make a 180-degree turn near 2799 Alma Street to surface closer to El Dorado Avenue, which may improve the east-side tie-in and help address some of the concerns associated with the current concept. Its main distinction is that it seeks to reduce right of way impacts by shifting the eastern approach away from some of the more directly affected residential access areas. This concept appears to reduce right of way impacts relative to A.2B and potentially limits them to two parcels at 2777 and 2799 Alma Street. However, that benefit comes with notable operational and safety drawbacks. The 90- degree turn beneath El Dorado is not ideal from a user experience standpoint, particularly for bicyclists, and it may create security and safety concerns because it reduces straight-line visibility compared to the other concepts. In addition to the major underground utility conflicts common to the A.2 variants, A.2C also appears to introduce potential overhead utility conflicts because the east-side ramp and associated improvements may extend into the area of existing utility poles and overhead electrical and fiber lines, which could require pole relocation or other Item 3 Attachment B - Preferred Alternatives Assessment Packet Pg. 107 South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity |4 www.bkf.com/contact utility modifications. While there may be some opportunity to refine the Alma Street alignment and ramp placement to reduce those impacts, the current planning assumption should be that these overhead lines would require relocation unless further design work demonstrates otherwise. Overall Comparison At a high level, Alternative A.1 appears to be the least complex and least impactful option from a utility and right of way standpoint and offers a more straightforward construction approach because it avoids extending the crossing beneath Alma Street. Its primary challenges are those inherent to a rail undercrossing, including box jacking, track coordination, and potential groundwater-related construction considerations. By comparison, Alternatives A.2A, A.2B, and A.2C all introduce a similar step increase in complexity because they extend beneath Alma Street and enter an area with substantial utility conflicts and tighter residential constraints. Among those variants, A.2A may have the most limited right of way effect if access can be maintained or replaced, A.2B appears to have the greatest right of way impact, and A.2C may reduce property impacts relative to A.2B but does so with a less desirable turning movement and additional potential overhead utility issues. Attachments 1.Alt A.1 Concept Plan 2.Alt A.2A Concept Plan 3.Alt A.2B Concept Plan 4.Alt A.2C Concept Plan Item 3 Attachment B - Preferred Alternatives Assessment Packet Pg. 108 BK F E N G I N E E R S 17 3 0 N . F I R S T S T R E E T SU I T E 6 0 0 SA N J O S E , C A 9 5 1 1 2 (4 0 8 ) 4 6 7 - 9 1 0 0 ww w . b k f . c o m LEGEND: TRAFFIC SIGNAL SO U T H E R N P A L O A L T O B I C Y C L E A N D P E D E S T R I A N RA I L R O A D C R O S S I N G S T U D Y EL D O R A D O A V E - A L T A . 1 INTERNAL DRAFT FOR REVIEW AND DISCUSSION 40 scale 1" = 40' 0 40 feet 80 RAMP AND/OR STAIR STRUCTURE TUNNEL AT GRADE PATH BOLLARD CALTRAIN RIGHT OF WAY PARCEL IMPACTS PROPERTY LINE STAIRS 3101 Park Blvd 11 0 - 1 3 0 E l D o r a d o A v e 2799 Alma St 2777 Alma St 129 El Dorado Ave 149 El Dorado Ave 178 El Dorado Ave 2800 Emerson St 17 9 E l D o r a d o A v e 11 0 ' - 0 " Ja c k e d b o x Estimated 140' long by 40'min wide jacking pit 14 0 ' - 0 " 24 ' - 0 " Estimated 25' long by 40' wide receiving pit 40'-0" Item 3 Attachment B - Preferred Alternatives Assessment Packet Pg. 109 40 scale 1" = 40' 0 40 feet 80 SO U T H E R N P A L O A L T O B I C Y C L E A N D P E D E S T R I A N RA I L R O A D C R O S S I N G S T U D Y EL D O R A D O A V E - A L T A . 2 A BK F E N G I N E E R S 17 3 0 N . F I R S T S T R E E T SU I T E 6 0 0 SA N J O S E , C A 9 5 1 1 2 (4 0 8 ) 4 6 7 - 9 1 0 0 ww w . b k f . c o m LEGEND: RAMP AND/OR STAIR STRUCTURE TUNNEL BOLLARD STAIRS CALTRAIN RIGHT OF WAY PARCEL IMPACTS PROPERTY LINE 11 0 - 1 3 0 E l D o r a d o A v e 2799 Alma St 2777 Alma St 129 El Dorado Ave 149 El Dorado Ave 178 El Dorado Ave 2800 Emerson St 17 9 E l D o r a d o A v e 60 ' - 0 " Cu t a n d c o v e r t u n n e l ST A G E 1 Cu t & c o v e r tu n n e l co n s t r u c t i o n ST A G E 1 Al m a T r a f f i c ST A G E 2 Cu t & C o v e r tu n n e l co n s t r u c t i o n Estimated 140' long by 40'min wide jacking pit 14 0 ' - 0 " 24 ' - 0 " Estimated 25' long by 40' wide receiving pit 40'-0" Ja c k e d b o x 11 0 ' - 0 " 24 0 ' - 0 " Ra m p INTERNAL DRAFT FOR REVIEW AND DISCUSSION Item 3 Attachment B - Preferred Alternatives Assessment Packet Pg. 110 BK F E N G I N E E R S 17 3 0 N . F I R S T S T R E E T SU I T E 6 0 0 SA N J O S E , C A 9 5 1 1 2 (4 0 8 ) 4 6 7 - 9 1 0 0 ww w . b k f . c o m 40 scale 1" = 40' 0 40 feet 80 SO U T H E R N P A L O A L T O B I C Y C L E A N D P E D E S T R I A N RA I L R O A D C R O S S I N G S T U D Y EL D O R A D O A V E - A L T A . 2 B LEGEND: RAMP AND/OR STAIR STRUCTURE TUNNEL BOLLARD STAIRS CALTRAIN RIGHT OF WAY PARCEL IMPACTS PROPERTY LINE INTERNAL DRAFT FOR REVIEW AND DISCUSSION 11 0 - 1 3 0 E l D o r a d o A v e 2799 Alma St 2777 Alma St 129 El Dorado Ave 149 El Dorado Ave 178 El Dorado Ave 2800 Emerson St 17 9 E l D o r a d o A v e Item 3 Attachment B - Preferred Alternatives Assessment Packet Pg. 111 40 scale 1" = 40' 0 40 feet 80 SO U T H E R N P A L O A L T O B I C Y C L E A N D P E D E S T R I A N RA I L R O A D C R O S S I N G S T U D Y EL D O R A D O A V E - A L T A . 2 C BK F E N G I N E E R S 17 3 0 N . F I R S T S T R E E T SU I T E 6 0 0 SA N J O S E , C A 9 5 1 1 2 (4 0 8 ) 4 6 7 - 9 1 0 0 ww w . b k f . c o m LEGEND: RAMP AND/OR STAIR STRUCTURE TUNNEL BOLLARD STAIRS CALTRAIN RIGHT OF WAY PARCEL IMPACTS PROPERTY LINE INTERNAL DRAFT FOR REVIEW AND DISCUSSION 11 0 - 1 3 0 E l D o r a d o A v e 2799 Alma St 2777 Alma St 129 El Dorado Ave 149 El Dorado Ave 178 El Dorado Ave 2800 Emerson St 17 9 E l D o r a d o A v e Item 3 Attachment B - Preferred Alternatives Assessment Packet Pg. 112 July 23, 2026 SOUTH PALO ALTO BIKE/PED CONNECTIVITY CIRCULATION STUDY The purpose of this cursory circulation study is to assess neighborhood and circulation effects associated with a new Caltrain bicycle/pedestrian undercrossing (Alternatives A1 and A2) at El Dorado Avenue (including potential diversion patterns and cul-de-sac effects) and inform accompanying network enhancements. The analysis compares future conditions (without the new connection) with each crossing alternative, focusing on key intersections and corridors most likely to experience changes in traffic volumes. Findings from this initial study will inform decision-making by clarifying the trade-offs between alternatives and informing complementary network enhancements or operational strategies that may be needed to enhance safety and functional circulation under each alternative. Pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicle counts were collected at 21 intersections on Thursday, March 19, 2026, between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m. Count locations focus on intersections nearest El Dorado Avenue since those streets will feel the effects the most. Several intersections were excluded from this initial study, including nearby intersections on the west-side of the rail corridor since circulation patterns are not expected to change as much. The analysis considers the following three scenarios: 1. Future Conditions (Without New Connection): Future conditions without a new bicycle/pedestrian undercrossing. Future weekday a.m. peak hour (8 a.m to 9 a.m.) volumes were forecast to account for land use and population growth in Palo Alto.1 2. El Dorado Avenue Tunnel + Alma Street Signal (Alternative A1): Future conditions with a new bicycle/pedestrian tunnel under Caltrain at El Dorado Avenue and a signalized crossing at Alma Street. Peak period left-turn restrictions were assumed to be implemented at Alma Street/El Dorado Avenue with this alternative.2 3. El Dorado Avenue Tunnel Under Alma Street (Alternative A2): Future conditions with a new bicycle/pedestrian tunnel on the south side of El Dorado Avenue extending under both Alma Street and Caltrain. The intersection of Alma Street/El Dorado Avenue would be reconfigured with El Dorado Avenue as a one-way westbound roadway with right-out only operations at Alma Street.3 *All scenarios reflect future year 2031 conditions. 1 Consistent with the demand estimates prepared for the Alternatives Analysis, available on the project webpage (www.paloalto.gov/BikePedCrossings), an annual growth rate of 1.099 was applied uniformly to all movements to reflect the expected increase in person trips between 2026 and 2031. 2 With Alternative A1 the southbound left-turn and westbound left-turn movements at Alma Street/El Dorado Avenue were redistributed across the network. 3 With Alternative A2 the southbound left-turn, northbound right-turn, and westbound left-turn movements at Alma Street/El Dorado Avenue were redistributed across the network. Oakland, CA 94612 Item 3 Attachment C - Initial Circulation Study Packet Pg. 113 July 23, 2026 South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity – Circulation Study Page 2 The weekday a.m. peak hour was selected for analysis as it represents the period of peak demand for the new grade-separated crossing.4 The Future Conditions (Without New Connection) Circulation Summary is presented in Exhibit 1. The Future Conditions with Alternative A1 and A2 Circulation Summary is presented in Exhibit 2. Existing and future counts for each scenario are included in Appendix A. Exhibit 1. Future Conditions (Without New Connection) – Circulation Summary 4 Vehicle volumes are rounded up to the nearest 10 and pedestrian and bicycle volumes are rounded up to the nearest 5. Item 3 Attachment C - Initial Circulation Study Packet Pg. 114 July 23, 2026 South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity – Circulation Study Page 3 Exhibit 2. Future Conditions with Alternative A1 and A2 – Circulation Summary A summary of findings and key takeaways is described below. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Key Takeaways • Meaningful projected use: By 2031, the El Dorado tunnel is expected to carry about 70 walk trips and 150 bike trips in the a.m. peak hour, and roughly 800 walk trips and 1,800 bike trips daily. • Good network fit: Most connecting streets serving the undercrossing (El Dorado, Bryant, Cowper, Colorado, Loma Verde, and Park) in the surrounding neighborhoods are low-volume or low-stress routes suitable for bicycle and pedestrian access. Item 3 Attachment C - Initial Circulation Study Packet Pg. 115 July 23, 2026 South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity – Circulation Study Page 4 • Limited traffic impacts: Both crossing alternatives would cause little overall change in neighborhood traffic patterns, with some rerouting on nearby streets. • Access design will shape operations: A signalized Alma Street crossing (Alternative A1) would preserve two-way El Dorado Avenue access, while the under-Alma Street option (Alternative A2) would shift more bicycle and pedestrian activity onto El Dorado Avenue and require more vehicle access changes. • Supportive improvements will be important: Enhancements to surrounding streets would apply context-appropriate high-visibility crossings, lighting, markings, traffic control, and wayfinding, consistent with the Safe System Approach and other applicable safety standards to make tunnel approaches comfortable for all-ages-and-abilities. Additional findings are described in this section. Future Conditions (Without New Connection) • Oregon Expressway and Alma Street carry the highest weekday a.m. peak hour vehicle volumes with about 3,180 vehicles (1,710 westbound and 1,470 eastbound) on Oregon Expressway, south of Bryant Street and 2,540 vehicles (1,620 northbound and 920 southbound) on Alma Street, north of El Dorado Avenue. These busier streets are barriers to walking and biking. The network recommendations consider safer and more comfortable crossings of these streets to improve access to and from the new tunnel. • Cowper Street, Waverley Street, Bryant Street, Colorado Avenue, El Dorado Avenue, and El Carmelo Avenue carry less than 200 vehicles (between 30 and 90 vehicles in each direction) during the a.m. peak hour. Loma Verde Avenue carries approximately 400 vehicles (200 in each direction) during the a.m. peak hour. The peak hour and daily vehicle volumes would be under applicable vehicle volume thresholds for bike boulevards and bike lanes on streets with existing and proposed bikeways.5 • Pedestrians (180) and bicycles (80) outnumber vehicles (160) at the intersection of Bryant Street and El Carmelo Avenue, adjacent to El Carmelo Elementary School during the a.m. peak hour. The network recommendations consider enhancements, such as bulb-outs, to shorten crossing distances, reduce turning vehicle and bicycle speeds, and provide more space on the street corner and sidewalk for the relatively high volumes of pedestrians at this location. • Bicyclists (80 northbound, 25 southbound) outnumber drivers (20 northbound, 25 southbound) on Bryant Street, between Colorado Avenue and El Dorado Avenue during the a.m. peak hour. The network recommendations consider installing a traffic circle at the intersection of the Bryant Street and El Dorado Avenue bike boulevards to reduce speeds, reduce number of crossing conflicts, and improve traffic flow. • Approximate weekday a.m. peak hour left-turning vehicle volumes on/off of Alma Street: o 15 southbound left-turns and 5 westbound left-turns at Colorado Avenue o 20 southbound left-turns and 20 westbound left-turns at El Dorado Avenue 5 National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) Guidance for Selecting All Ages and Abilities Bikeways. https://nacto.org/wp-content/uploads/p071_table_PART3-1.png. Daily and peak hour vehicle volume thresholds for bicycle boulevards are 150 vehicles per hour in the peak direction or 2,000 vehicles per day. The daily and peak hour vehicle volume thresholds for bike lanes are 300 vehicles per hour in the peak direction or 3,000 vehicles per day. Item 3 Attachment C - Initial Circulation Study Packet Pg. 116 July 23, 2026 South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity – Circulation Study Page 5 o 25 southbound left-turns and 10 westbound left-turns at El Carmelo Avenue o 80 southbound left-turns and 40 westbound left-turns at Loma Verde Avenue El Dorado Avenue Tunnel + Alma Street Signal (Alternative A1) • Under Alternative A1, a new traffic signal at El Dorado Avenue/Alma Street would provide a controlled crossing opportunity for bicyclists and pedestrians to access the tunnel. The signal would facilitate crossings for pedestrians and bicyclists through the presence of marked crosswalks, use of countdown timers, and implementation of leading pedestrian intervals, which can reduce the potential for conflicts and reduce the frequency and severity of crashes. Installation of a traffic signal would also introduce a controlled stopping point for vehicles, which would help manage vehicle speeds along the corridor, reducing the likelihood of high-speed crossing conflicts. Vehicle progression could be optimized to minimize vehicle delay through coordination with upstream and/or downstream intersections. Signalization may make this route more attractive to turning drivers by creating a more convenient and predictable opportunity to turn left onto or off of Alma Street. Access to El Dorado Avenue, could be managed with the potential to implement turn restrictions, such as prohibiting left turns and allowing right- in/right-out only operations during peak periods or other time periods. Based on a review of potential trip origins and destinations and possible travel routes, approximately 40 drivers that currently make left turns to or from El Dorado Avenue during the weekday a.m. peak hour were shifted to alternate routes. This shifting of traffic would result in the reduction of vehicle traffic volumes on El Dorado Avenue between Alma Street and Emerson Street and changes (increases and decreases) of fewer than 20 vehicle trips on nearby streets and intersections during the weekday a.m. peak hour. • Alternative A1 would maintain two-way vehicle circulation on El Dorado Avenue, which would help preserve local circulation and driveway access. Signal timing and phasing, including use of advance detection, crossing time for leading pedestrian intervals, and implementation of turn restrictions, would continue to be refined throughout the design process and may be modified after construction. El Dorado Avenue Tunnel Under Alma Street (Alternative A2) • Under Alternative A2, the bicycle/pedestrian undercrossing would extend along the south side of El Dorado Avenue with El Dorado Avenue proposed to be converted to one-way westbound right-turn only vehicle operations. Drivers that currently turn onto El Dorado Avenue from Alma Street (20 southbound left-turns, 20 northbound right-turns) or turn left onto Alma Street from El Dorado Avenue (20 westbound left-turns) would be shifted to alternate routes. This shifting of traffic would result in the reduction of vehicle traffic volumes on El Dorado Avenue between Alma Street and Emerson Street and shift fewer than 20 vehicle trips to nearby streets during the weekday a.m. peak hour. • As shown in Exhibit 2, with Alternatives A1 and A2, there would be little overall change in traffic volumes on the tunnel approaches. Vehicle volumes would continue to be relatively low, and daily and peak hour volumes on streets with existing or proposed bikeways (including El Dorado Item 3 Attachment C - Initial Circulation Study Packet Pg. 117 July 23, 2026 South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity – Circulation Study Page 6 Avenue, Bryant Street, Cowper Street, Loma Verde Avenue, Colorado Avenue, and Park Boulevard) would remain under applicable thresholds for those facilities. Pedestrian and Bicycle Circulation • Based on the prior Alternatives Analysis, available on the project webpage (www.paloalto.gov/BikePedCrossings), there would be an estimated total of 70 walk trips and 150 bicycle trips using the undercrossing at El Dorado Avenue during the weekday a.m peak hour in 2031, with an estimated 800 walk and 1,800 bike trips daily. The 70 walk trips are anticipated to be distributed across the network on the most direct route between destinations. For instance, 150 bike trips are expected to mostly use the existing bicycle boulevards and low-stress routes including Cowper Street, Bryant Street, Colorado Avenue, Loma Verde Avenue, and Park Boulevard. • For Alternative A1, 70 walk and 150 bike trips would cross at the intersection of Alma Street/El Dorado Avenue to access the undercrossing. With Alternative A2, the tunnel entrance is located on El Dorado Avenue. Therefore, it is expected that more people would travel along El Dorado Avenue rather than Alma Street to access the crossing. APPENDICES Appendix A: Existing Counts and Future Volumes Item 3 Attachment C - Initial Circulation Study Packet Pg. 118 Existing Weekday AM Peak Hour Vehicle Counts Intersection N-S Street E-W Street SBR SBT SBL WBR WBT WBL NBR NBT NBL EBR EBT EBL 1 Alma St El Dorado Ave 0 821 16 26 0 17 15 1,465 0 0 0 0 2 Emerson St El Dorado Ave 4 0 1 2 33 1 4 1 4 4 21 7 3 Ramona St El Dorado Ave 4 3 2 1 25 5 9 1 6 2 23 2 4 Bryant St El Dorado Ave 5 3 9 11 21 1 5 3 5 3 29 2 5 South Ct El Dorado Ave 1 3 1 2 26 2 0 2 4 3 38 1 6 Waverley St El Dorado Ave 4 62 2 2 14 35 29 56 12 14 16 7 7 Cowper St El Dorado Ave 42 36 0 0 0 0 0 40 9 16 0 34 8 Alma St Colorado Ave 0 603 12 88 0 4 8 1,500 0 0 0 0 9 Bryant St Colorado Ave 9 12 10 40 63 2 3 17 1 0 23 3 10 Waverley St Colorado Ave 4 53 4 3 82 2 5 47 18 7 20 10 11 Bryant St Oregon Expy 55 14 34 15 1,452 5 9 6 45 11 1,309 17 12 Alma St El Carmelo Ave 0 807 22 56 0 9 9 1,413 0 0 0 0 13 Emerson St El Carmelo Ave 4 0 1 2 40 8 8 0 20 4 28 1 14 Ramona St El Carmelo Ave 2 0 0 1 18 12 31 0 28 6 30 1 15 Bryant St El Carmelo Ave 4 1 0 2 19 34 23 1 8 12 39 1 16 Waverley St El Carmelo Ave 48 63 0 0 0 0 0 41 12 18 0 51 17 Alma St Loma Verde Ave 0 752 71 132 0 36 65 1,284 0 0 0 0 18 Emerson St Loma Verde Ave 4 3 13 9 160 8 5 3 2 6 134 3 19 Ramona St Loma Verde Ave 4 11 8 7 132 17 8 16 5 29 168 13 20 Bryant St Loma Verde Ave 9 2 26 19 199 8 8 1 3 7 156 9 21 Waverley St Loma Verde Ave 5 43 32 21 207 45 35 24 9 6 159 15 NOTES : Peak Hour (8-9 AM) counts collected by Traffic Data Service on Thursday, March 31st, 2026, from 7 AM to 7 PM SBR: Southbound Right NBR: Northbound Right SBT: Southbound Through NBT: Northbound Through SBL: Southbound Left NBL: Northbound Left WBR: Westbound Right EBR: Eastbound Right WBT: Westbound Through EBT: Eastbound Through WBL: Westbound Left EBL: Eastbound Left 1 of 12 Appendix A Item 3Attachment C - InitialCirculation Study Packet Pg. 119 Existing Weekday AM Peak Hour Pedestrian Counts Intersection N-S Street E-W Street SB WB NB EB 1 Alma St El Dorado Ave 0 7 0 0 2 Emerson St El Dorado Ave 3 0 3 1 3 Ramona St El Dorado Ave 0 7 4 0 4 Bryant St El Dorado Ave 6 17 11 5 5 South Ct El Dorado Ave 6 0 11 0 6 Waverley St El Dorado Ave 5 8 23 8 7 Cowper St El Dorado Ave 4 0 8 5 8 Alma St Colorado Ave 0 11 0 0 9 Bryant St Colorado Ave 5 15 9 5 10 Waverley St Colorado Ave 7 5 9 4 11 Bryant St Oregon Expy 0 25 0 0 12 Alma St El Carmelo Ave 0 6 0 0 13 Emerson St El Carmelo Ave 1 1 3 0 14 Ramona St El Carmelo Ave 3 2 16 0 15 Bryant St El Carmelo Ave 10 27 72 53 16 Waverley St El Carmelo Ave 3 0 6 12 17 Alma St Loma Verde Ave 0 6 0 0 18 Emerson St Loma Verde Ave 0 0 13 1 19 Ramona St Loma Verde Ave 19 12 21 20 20 Bryant St Loma Verde Ave 59 7 7 45 21 Waverley St Loma Verde Ave 15 14 5 13 NOTES : Peak Hour (8-9 AM) counts collected by Traffic Data Service on Thursday, March 31st, 2026, from 7 AM to 7 PM SB: Southbound WB: Westbound NB: Northbound EB: Eastbound 2 of 12 Appendix A Item 3Attachment C - InitialCirculation Study Packet Pg. 120 Existing Weekday AM Peak Hour Bike Counts Intersection N-S Street E-W Street SBR SBT SBL WBR WBT WBL NBR NBT NBL EBR EBT EBL 1 Alma St El Dorado Ave 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 Emerson St El Dorado Ave 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 5 0 3 Ramona St El Dorado Ave 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 13 0 4 Bryant St El Dorado Ave 0 23 0 1 0 14 0 40 0 3 3 7 5 South Ct El Dorado Ave 4 0 0 0 11 0 1 1 0 0 2 1 6 Waverley St El Dorado Ave 2 10 0 0 10 5 0 0 0 2 1 0 7 Cowper St El Dorado Ave 7 21 0 0 0 0 0 17 1 0 0 2 8 Alma St Colorado Ave 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 9 Bryant St Colorado Ave 0 13 5 26 2 5 1 49 1 2 1 5 10 Waverley St Colorado Ave 5 4 0 0 46 1 0 0 0 2 4 2 11 Bryant St Oregon Expy 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 107 0 0 0 0 12 Alma St El Carmelo Ave 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 Emerson St El Carmelo Ave 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 4 0 14 Ramona St El Carmelo Ave 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 7 0 15 Bryant St El Carmelo Ave 0 43 1 0 0 1 0 33 0 0 4 5 16 Waverley St El Carmelo Ave 1 21 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 5 0 0 17 Alma St Loma Verde Ave 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 Emerson St Loma Verde Ave 1 1 4 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 2 0 19 Ramona St Loma Verde Ave 1 2 1 0 6 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 20 Bryant St Loma Verde Ave 0 14 6 17 4 7 0 21 1 4 2 1 21 Waverley St Loma Verde Ave 0 27 1 0 31 11 0 0 1 1 8 0 NOTES : Peak Hour (8-9 AM) counts collected by Traffic Data Service on Thursday, March 31st, 2026, from 7 AM to 7 PM SBR: Southbound Right NBR: Northbound Right SBT: Southbound Through NBT: Northbound Through SBL: Southbound Left NBL: Northbound Left WBR: Westbound Right EBR: Eastbound Right WBT: Westbound Through EBT: Eastbound Through WBL: Westbound Left EBL: Eastbound Left 3 of 12 Appendix A Item 3Attachment C - InitialCirculation Study Packet Pg. 121 Future 2031 Weekday AM Peak Hour Vehicle Counts Intersection N-S Street E-W Street SBR SBT SBL WBR WBT WBL NBR NBT NBL EBR EBT EBL 1 Alma St El Dorado Ave 0 902 18 29 0 19 16 1,610 0 0 0 0 2 Emerson St El Dorado Ave 4 0 1 2 36 1 4 1 4 4 23 8 3 Ramona St El Dorado Ave 4 3 2 1 27 5 10 1 7 2 25 2 4 Bryant St El Dorado Ave 5 3 10 12 23 1 5 3 5 3 32 2 5 South Ct El Dorado Ave 1 3 1 2 29 2 0 2 4 3 42 1 6 Waverley St El Dorado Ave 4 68 2 2 15 38 32 62 13 15 18 8 7 Cowper St El Dorado Ave 46 40 0 0 0 0 0 44 10 18 0 37 8 Alma St Colorado Ave 0 663 13 97 0 4 9 1,648 0 0 0 0 9 Bryant St Colorado Ave 10 13 11 44 69 2 3 19 1 0 25 3 10 Waverley St Colorado Ave 4 58 4 3 90 2 5 52 20 8 22 11 11 Bryant St Oregon Expy 60 15 37 16 1,596 5 10 7 49 12 1,439 19 12 Alma St El Carmelo Ave 0 887 24 62 0 10 10 1,553 0 0 0 0 13 Emerson St El Carmelo Ave 4 0 1 2 44 9 9 0 22 4 31 1 14 Ramona St El Carmelo Ave 2 0 0 1 20 13 34 0 31 7 33 1 15 Bryant St El Carmelo Ave 4 1 0 2 21 37 25 1 9 13 43 1 16 Waverley St El Carmelo Ave 53 69 0 0 0 0 0 45 13 20 0 56 17 Alma St Loma Verde Ave 0 826 78 145 0 40 71 1,411 0 0 0 0 18 Emerson St Loma Verde Ave 4 3 14 10 176 9 5 3 2 7 147 3 19 Ramona St Loma Verde Ave 4 12 9 8 145 19 9 18 5 32 185 14 20 Bryant St Loma Verde Ave 10 2 29 21 219 9 9 1 3 8 171 10 21 Waverley St Loma Verde Ave 5 47 35 23 227 49 38 26 10 7 175 16 NOTES : Growth Rate of 1.099 was applied to existing volumes uniformly on each movement to represent the growth from 2026 to 2031 SBR: Southbound Right NBR: Northbound Right SBT: Southbound Through NBT: Northbound Through SBL: Southbound Left NBL: Northbound Left WBR: Westbound Right EBR: Eastbound Right WBT: Westbound Through EBT: Eastbound Through WBL: Westbound Left EBL: Eastbound Left Weekday AM Peak Hour: 8 AM - 9 AM 4 of 12 Appendix A Item 3Attachment C - InitialCirculation Study Packet Pg. 122 Future 2031 Weekday AM Peak Hour Pedestrian Counts Intersection N-S Street E-W Street SB WB NB EB 1 Alma St El Dorado Ave 0 8 0 0 2 Emerson St El Dorado Ave 3 0 3 1 3 Ramona St El Dorado Ave 0 8 4 0 4 Bryant St El Dorado Ave 7 19 12 5 5 South Ct El Dorado Ave 7 0 12 0 6 Waverley St El Dorado Ave 5 9 25 9 7 Cowper St El Dorado Ave 4 0 9 5 8 Alma St Colorado Ave 0 12 0 0 9 Bryant St Colorado Ave 5 16 10 5 10 Waverley St Colorado Ave 8 5 10 4 11 Bryant St Oregon Expy 0 27 0 0 12 Alma St El Carmelo Ave 0 7 0 0 13 Emerson St El Carmelo Ave 1 1 3 0 14 Ramona St El Carmelo Ave 3 2 18 0 15 Bryant St El Carmelo Ave 11 30 79 58 16 Waverley St El Carmelo Ave 3 0 7 13 17 Alma St Loma Verde Ave 0 7 0 0 18 Emerson St Loma Verde Ave 0 0 14 1 19 Ramona St Loma Verde Ave 21 13 23 22 20 Bryant St Loma Verde Ave 65 8 8 49 21 Waverley St Loma Verde Ave 16 15 5 14 NOTES : Growth Rate of 1.099 was applied to existing volumes uniformly on each movement to represent the growth from 2026 to 2031 SB: Southbound WB: Westbound NB: Northbound EB: Eastbound Weekday AM Peak Hour: 8 AM - 9 AM 5 of 12 Appendix A Item 3Attachment C - InitialCirculation Study Packet Pg. 123 Future 2031 Weekday AM Peak Hour Bike Counts Intersection N-S Street E-W Street SBR SBT SBL WBR WBT WBL NBR NBT NBL EBR EBT EBL 1 Alma St El Dorado Ave 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 Emerson St El Dorado Ave 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 5 0 3 Ramona St El Dorado Ave 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 14 0 4 Bryant St El Dorado Ave 0 25 0 1 0 15 0 44 0 3 3 8 5 South Ct El Dorado Ave 4 0 0 0 12 0 1 1 0 0 2 1 6 Waverley St El Dorado Ave 2 11 0 0 11 5 0 0 0 2 1 0 7 Cowper St El Dorado Ave 8 23 0 0 0 0 0 19 1 0 0 2 8 Alma St Colorado Ave 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 9 Bryant St Colorado Ave 0 14 5 29 2 5 1 54 1 2 1 5 10 Waverley St Colorado Ave 5 4 0 0 51 1 0 0 0 2 4 2 11 Bryant St Oregon Expy 0 22 0 0 0 0 0 118 0 0 0 0 12 Alma St El Carmelo Ave 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 Emerson St El Carmelo Ave 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 4 0 14 Ramona St El Carmelo Ave 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 8 0 15 Bryant St El Carmelo Ave 0 47 1 0 0 1 0 36 0 0 4 5 16 Waverley St El Carmelo Ave 1 23 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 5 0 0 17 Alma St Loma Verde Ave 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 Emerson St Loma Verde Ave 1 1 4 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 2 0 19 Ramona St Loma Verde Ave 1 2 1 0 7 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 20 Bryant St Loma Verde Ave 0 15 7 19 4 8 0 23 1 4 2 1 21 Waverley St Loma Verde Ave 0 30 1 0 34 12 0 0 1 1 9 0 NOTES : Growth Rate of 1.099 was applied to existing volumes uniformly on each movement to represent the growth from 2026 to 2031 SBR: Southbound Right NBR: Northbound Right SBT: Southbound Through NBT: Northbound Through SBL: Southbound Left NBL: Northbound Left WBR: Westbound Right EBR: Eastbound Right WBT: Westbound Through EBT: Eastbound Through WBL: Westbound Left EBL: Eastbound Left Weekday AM Peak Hour: 8 AM - 9 AM 6 of 12 Appendix A Item 3Attachment C - InitialCirculation Study Packet Pg. 124 Future 2031 Alt1a and Alt2 Weekday AM Peak Hour Bike Counts Intersection N-S Street E-W Street SBR SBT SBL WBR WBT WBL NBR NBT NBL EBR EBT EBL 1 Alma St El Dorado Ave 0 0 0 0 130 0 0 1 0 0 20 0 2 Emerson St El Dorado Ave 0 0 2 0 130 0 2 0 0 0 25 0 3 Ramona St El Dorado Ave 0 0 0 0 130 0 2 0 0 0 34 0 4 Bryant St El Dorado Ave 30 25 0 1 40 15 0 44 60 13 11 10 5 South Ct El Dorado Ave 4 0 0 0 52 0 1 1 0 0 10 1 6 Waverley St El Dorado Ave 2 11 0 0 51 5 0 0 0 2 9 0 7 Cowper St El Dorado Ave 8 23 0 0 40 0 0 19 1 0 8 2 8 Alma St Colorado Ave 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 9 Bryant St Colorado Ave 0 44 5 29 2 5 1 56 1 2 1 5 10 Waverley St Colorado Ave 5 4 0 0 51 1 0 0 0 2 4 2 11 Bryant St Oregon Expy 0 52 0 0 0 0 0 120 0 0 0 0 12 Alma St El Carmelo Ave 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 Emerson St El Carmelo Ave 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 4 0 14 Ramona St El Carmelo Ave 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 8 0 15 Bryant St El Carmelo Ave 0 57 1 0 0 1 0 96 0 0 4 5 16 Waverley St El Carmelo Ave 1 23 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 5 0 0 17 Alma St Loma Verde Ave 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 Emerson St Loma Verde Ave 1 1 4 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 2 0 19 Ramona St Loma Verde Ave 1 2 1 0 7 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 20 Bryant St Loma Verde Ave 0 25 7 19 4 8 0 83 1 4 2 1 21 Waverley St Loma Verde Ave 0 30 1 0 34 12 0 0 1 1 9 0 NOTES : Growth Rate of 1.099 was applied to existing volumes uniformly on each movement to represent the growth from 2026 to 2031 SBR: Southbound Right NBR: Northbound Right SBT: Southbound Through NBT: Northbound Through SBL: Southbound Left NBL: Northbound Left WBR: Westbound Right EBR: Eastbound Right WBT: Westbound Through EBT: Eastbound Through WBL: Westbound Left EBL: Eastbound Left Weekday AM Peak Hour: 8 AM - 9 AM 7 of 12 Appendix A Item 3Attachment C - InitialCirculation Study Packet Pg. 125 Future 2031 Weekday AM Peak Hour Multimodal Counts Peds Bikes Veh All Peds Bikes Veh All 1 Alma St El Dorado Ave 8 1 2,594 2,603 0%0%100%100% 2 Emerson St El Dorado Ave 7 9 90 106 7%8%85%100% 3 Ramona St El Dorado Ave 12 15 91 118 10%13%77%100% 4 Bryant St El Dorado Ave 43 91 107 241 18%38%44%100% 5 South Ct El Dorado Ave 19 20 91 130 15%15%70%100% 6 Waverley St El Dorado Ave 48 30 278 356 13%8%78%100% 7 Cowper St El Dorado Ave 18 48 195 261 7%18%75%100% 8 Alma St Colorado Ave 12 1 2,434 2,447 0%0%99%100% 9 Bryant St Colorado Ave 36 110 201 347 10%32%58%100% 10 Waverley St Colorado Ave 27 64 280 371 7%17%75%100% 11 Bryant St Oregon Expy 27 127 3,266 3,420 1%4%95%100% 12 Alma St El Carmelo Ave 7 0 2,545 2,552 0%0%100%100% 13 Emerson St El Carmelo Ave 5 7 127 139 4%5%91%100% 14 Ramona St El Carmelo Ave 23 11 142 176 13%6%81%100% 15 Bryant St El Carmelo Ave 178 87 158 423 42%21%37%100% 16 Waverley St El Carmelo Ave 23 28 256 307 7%9%83%100% 17 Alma St Loma Verde Ave 7 0 2,572 2,579 0%0%100%100% 18 Emerson St Loma Verde Ave 15 12 385 412 4%3%93%100% 19 Ramona St Loma Verde Ave 79 14 459 552 14%3%83%100% 20 Bryant St Loma Verde Ave 130 77 491 698 19%11%70%100% 21 Waverley St Loma Verde Ave 50 80 660 790 6%10%84%100% Peds: Pedestrians Veh: Vehicles Weekday AM Peak Hour: 8 AM - 9 AM % Total Hourly CountsIntersection N-S Street E-W Street 8 of 12 Appendix A Item 3Attachment C - InitialCirculation Study Packet Pg. 126 Future 2031 Weekday AM Peak Hour Multimodal Counts Graph Weekday AM Peak Hour: 8 AM - 9 AM 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 El Dorado Ave El Dorado Ave El Dorado Ave El Dorado Ave El Dorado Ave El Dorado Ave El Dorado Ave Colorado Ave Colorado Ave Colorado Ave Oregon Expy El Carmelo Ave El Carmelo Ave El Carmelo Ave El Carmelo Ave El Carmelo Ave Loma Verde Ave Loma Verde Ave Loma Verde Ave Loma Verde Ave Loma Verde Ave Alma St Emerson St Ramona St Bryant St South Ct Waverley St Cowper St Alma St Bryant St Waverly St Bryant St Alma St Emerson St Ramona St Bryant St Waverly St Alma St Emerson St Ramona St Bryant St Waverley St Pedestrians Bikes Vehicles 9 of 12 Appendix A Item 3Attachment C - InitialCirculation Study Packet Pg. 127 Future 2031 Weekday AM Peak Hour Multimodal Counts Graph (Only Bike and Pedestrian) Weekday AM Peak Hour: 8 AM - 9 AM 8 7 12 43 19 48 18 12 36 27 27 7 5 23 178 23 7 15 79 130 50 1 9 16 99 21 32 53 1 119 69 140 0 7 12 94 30 0 12 15 84 88 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 El Dorado Ave El Dorado Ave El Dorado Ave El Dorado Ave El Dorado Ave El Dorado Ave El Dorado Ave Colorado Ave Colorado Ave Colorado Ave Oregon Expy El Carmelo Ave El Carmelo Ave El Carmelo Ave El Carmelo Ave El Carmelo Ave Loma Verde Ave Loma Verde Ave Loma Verde Ave Loma Verde Ave Loma Verde Ave Alma St Emerson St Ramona St Bryant St South Ct Waverley St Cowper St Alma St Bryant St Waverly St Bryant St Alma St Emerson St Ramona St Bryant St Waverly St Alma St Emerson St Ramona St Bryant St Waverley St Pedestrians Bicycles 10 of 12 Appendix A Item 3Attachment C - InitialCirculation Study Packet Pg. 128 Daily Volumes Comparison N/E S/W N/E S/W N/E S/W N/E S/W N/E S/W N/E S/W Colorado Bryant Waverley EW 37 105 54 65 370 1,050 540 650 455 850 327 640 El Dorado Ramona Bryant EW 34 31 39 26 340 310 390 260 365 285 323 306 El Carmelo Ramona Bryant EW 52 31 30 20 520 310 300 200 410 255 251 209 Loma Verde Ramona Bryant EW 172 156 271 283 1,720 1,560 2,710 2,830 2,215 2,195 1,481 1,708 Bryant El Dorado Colorado NS 21 9 8 6 210 90 80 60 145 75 159 481 Waverley El Dorado Colorado NS 70 68 36 71 700 680 360 710 530 695 415 582 Cowper NS 49 78 38 81 490 780 380 810 435 795 406 624 Oregon EW 1,337 1,472 1,623 1,093 13,370 14,720 16,230 10,930 14,800 12,825 15,168 14,607 Weekday AM Peak Hour: 8 AM - 9 AM Based on the Loma Verde/Alma Count Report, the PM peak hour is from 4:45-5:45 PM Street Name Cross Streets Bryant El Dorado 11 of 12 Appendix A Item 3Attachment C - InitialCirculation Study Packet Pg. 129 Existing AM Volume Network Tool Kittelson & Associates, Inc.103 38 0 0 20 0 SB City: 55 14 34 State: 1552 EB 90 1472 0 17 15 0 0 1309 TEV: 2972 11 phf 1452 0 0 11 yyyy mm dd 5 0 1337 270 WB 1352 45 6 9 NB 0 107 0 180 0 30 60 0 615 1588 Kittelson & Associates, Inc.31 60 Kittelson & Associates, Inc.61 60 0 0 0 0 SB City:0 0 13 5 SB City:0 5 4 0 SB City: 0 603 12 State:9 12 10 State:4 53 4 State: 0 EB 90 92 73 EB 90 105 104 EB 90 87 0 0 88 0 5 3 40 26 2 10 3 0 0 0 TEV: 2215 8 phf 0 0 1 23 TEV: 183 9 phf 63 2 4 20 TEV: 255 10 phf 82 46 0 0 yyyy mm dd 4 0 2 0 yyyy mm dd 2 5 2 7 yyyy mm dd 2 1 0 270 WB 20 26 270 WB 36 37 270 WB 29 0 1500 8 1 17 3 18 47 5 NB 0 1 0 180 0 NB 1 49 1 180 0 NB 0 0 0 180 0 607 1508 14 21 62 70 0 0 0 837 1491 Kittelson & Associates, Inc.5 10 Kittelson & Associates, Inc.9 4 Kittelson & Associates, Inc.17 16 Kittelson & Associates, Inc.5 5 Kittelson & Associates, Inc.68 65 Kittelson & Associates, Inc.78 74 0 0 0 0 SB City:0 0 0 2 SB City:0 0 0 0 SB City:0 0 23 0 SB City:0 4 0 0 SB City:0 2 10 0 SB City:0 7 21 0 SB City: 0 821 16 State:4 0 1 State:4 3 2 State:5 3 9 State:1 3 1 State:4 62 2 State:42 36 0 State: 0 EB 90 43 41 EB 90 36 35 EB 90 31 31 EB 90 33 31 EB 90 30 30 EB 90 51 51 EB 90 0 0 0 26 0 0 7 2 0 0 2 1 0 7 2 11 1 1 1 2 0 0 7 2 0 2 34 0 0 0 0 TEV: 2360 1 phf 0 0 5 21 TEV: 82 2 phf 33 0 13 23 TEV: 83 3 phf 25 0 3 29 TEV: 97 4 phf 21 0 2 38 TEV: 83 5 phf 26 11 1 16 TEV: 253 6 phf 14 10 0 0 TEV: 177 7 phf 0 0 0 0 yyyy mm dd 17 0 0 4 yyyy mm dd 1 0 0 2 yyyy mm dd 5 0 3 3 yyyy mm dd 1 14 0 3 yyyy mm dd 2 0 2 14 yyyy mm dd 35 5 0 16 yyyy mm dd 0 0 0 270 WB 31 32 270 WB 26 27 270 WB 34 34 270 WB 43 42 270 WB 39 37 270 WB 47 50 270 WB 0 0 1465 15 4 1 4 6 1 9 5 3 5 4 2 0 12 56 29 9 40 0 NB 0 1 0 180 0 NB 0 0 2 180 0 NB 0 0 2 180 0 NB 0 40 0 180 0 NB 0 1 1 180 0 NB 0 0 0 180 0 NB 1 17 0 180 0 838 1480 5 9 10 16 7 13 8 6 111 97 52 49 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 829 1469 Kittelson & Associates, Inc.5 3 Kittelson & Associates, Inc.2 2 Kittelson & Associates, Inc.5 4 Kittelson & Associates, Inc.111 92 0 0 0 0 SB City:0 0 0 0 SB City:0 0 1 0 SB City:0 0 43 1 SB City:0 1 21 0 SB City: 0 807 22 State:4 0 1 State:2 0 0 State:4 1 0 State:48 63 0 State: 0 EB 90 65 64 EB 90 50 48 EB 90 31 31 EB 90 55 60 EB 90 0 0 0 56 0 0 1 2 0 0 1 1 0 5 1 2 0 0 51 0 0 0 0 TEV: 2316 12 phf 0 0 4 28 TEV: 116 13 phf 40 0 7 30 TEV: 129 14 phf 18 0 4 39 TEV: 144 15 phf 19 0 0 0 TEV: 233 16 phf 0 0 0 0 yyyy mm dd 9 0 1 4 yyyy mm dd 8 0 1 6 yyyy mm dd 12 1 0 12 yyyy mm dd 34 1 5 18 yyyy mm dd 0 0 0 270 WB 31 33 270 WB 37 37 270 WB 61 52 270 WB 62 69 270 WB 0 0 1413 9 20 0 8 28 0 31 8 1 23 12 41 0 NB 0 0 0 180 0 NB 0 0 2 180 0 NB 0 0 1 180 0 NB 0 33 0 180 0 NB 0 1 0 180 0 816 1422 12 28 18 59 47 32 81 53 0 0 0 0 0 823 1416 Kittelson & Associates, Inc.20 15 Kittelson & Associates, Inc.23 36 Kittelson & Associates, Inc.37 29 Kittelson & Associates, Inc.80 60 0 0 0 0 SB City:0 1 1 4 SB City:0 1 2 1 SB City:0 0 14 6 SB City:0 0 27 1 SB City: 0 752 71 State:4 3 13 State:4 11 8 State:9 2 26 State:5 43 32 State: 0 EB 90 168 166 EB 90 177 141 EB 90 156 211 EB 90 226 221 EB 90 273 0 0 132 0 0 3 9 0 1 13 7 0 1 9 19 17 0 15 21 0 0 0 TEV: 2340 17 phf 0 0 2 134 TEV: 350 18 phf 160 1 1 168 TEV: 418 19 phf 132 6 2 156 TEV: 447 20 phf 199 4 8 159 TEV: 601 21 phf 207 31 0 0 yyyy mm dd 36 0 1 6 yyyy mm dd 8 1 0 29 yyyy mm dd 17 1 4 7 yyyy mm dd 8 7 1 6 yyyy mm dd 45 11 0 270 WB 136 143 270 WB 152 210 270 WB 184 172 270 WB 190 180 270 WB 226 0 1284 65 2 3 5 5 16 8 3 1 8 9 24 35 NB 0 0 0 180 0 NB 0 0 1 180 0 NB 0 1 0 180 0 NB 1 21 0 180 0 NB 1 0 0 180 0 788 1349 17 10 57 29 17 12 94 68 0 0 0 0 0 Pedestrian Volumes Bike Volumes Alma St 8:00 to 9:00 a.m. El Dorado Ave Emerson St 8:00 to 9:00 a.m. El Dorado Ave 0 Notes Alma St 8:00 to 9:00 a.m. Colorado Ave 0 0 11 Vehicle Volumes 0 0 70 3 1 3 Notes 0 0 7 0 Notes 8:00 to 9:00 a.m. El Dorado Ave 6 5 17 11 Notes Ramona St 8:00 to 9:00 a.m. El Dorado Ave 5 8 8 23 Notes South Ct 8:00 to 9:00 a.m. El Dorado Ave 6 0 0 8 Notes Bryant St 8:00 to 9:00 a.m. Colorado Ave Waverley St 8:00 to 9:00 a.m. Colorado Ave 7 4 5 9 Notes Cowper St 8:00 to 9:00 a.m. El Dorado Ave 4 5 0 11 Notes Waverley St 8:00 to 9:00 a.m. El Dorado Ave Bryant St 8:00 to 9:00 a.m. Oregon Expy 0 0 25 5 5 15 0 0 6 0 Notes 0 Notes Alma St 8:00 to 9:00 a.m. El Carmelo Ave Emerson St 8:00 to 9:00 a.m. El Carmelo Ave Ramona St 8:00 to 9:00 a.m. El Carmelo Ave Bryant St 8:00 to 9:00 a.m. El Carmelo Ave 9 Notes 4 Notes Bryant St 3 0 2 16 Notes 1 0 1 3 Notes Waverley St 8:00 to 9:00 a.m. El Carmelo Ave 3 12 0 10 53 27 Loma Verde Ave 8:00 to 9:00 a.m.8:00 to 9:00 a.m.8:00 to 9:00 a.m.8:00 to 9:00 a.m.8:00 to 9:00 a.m. 6 Notes Alma St Emerson St Ramona St Bryant St Waverley St 72 Notes 0 0 19 59 15 Loma Verde Ave Loma Verde Ave Loma Verde Ave Loma Verde Ave 12 45 7 13 14061020 Notes 7 Notes 5 Notes0Notes13Notes21 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 Appendix A Item 3 Attachment C - Initial Circulation Study Packet Pg. 130 Future 2031 Volume Network Tool Kittelson & Associates, Inc.113 42 0 0 22 0 SB City: 60 15 37 State: 1706 EB 90 1618 0 19 16 0 0 1439 TEV: 3266 11 phf 1596 0 0 12 yyyy mm dd 5 0 1469 270 WB 1486 49 7 10 NB 0 118 0 180 0 33 66 0 676 1745 Kittelson & Associates, Inc.34 66 Kittelson & Associates, Inc.67 66 0 0 0 0 SB City:0 0 14 5 SB City:0 5 4 0 SB City: 0 663 13 State:10 13 11 State:4 58 4 State: 0 EB 90 101 80 EB 90 115 114 EB 90 96 0 0 97 0 5 3 44 29 2 11 3 0 0 0 TEV: 2434 8 phf 0 0 1 25 TEV: 201 9 phf 69 2 4 22 TEV: 280 10 phf 90 51 0 0 yyyy mm dd 4 0 2 0 yyyy mm dd 2 5 2 8 yyyy mm dd 2 1 0 270 WB 22 29 270 WB 40 41 270 WB 32 0 1648 9 1 19 3 20 52 5 NB 0 1 0 180 0 NB 1 54 1 180 0 NB 0 0 0 180 0 667 1657 15 23 68 77 0 0 0 920 1639 Kittelson & Associates, Inc.5 11 Kittelson & Associates, Inc.10 4 Kittelson & Associates, Inc.19 18 Kittelson & Associates, Inc.5 5 Kittelson & Associates, Inc.75 71 Kittelson & Associates, Inc.86 81 0 0 0 0 SB City:0 0 0 2 SB City:0 0 0 0 SB City:0 0 25 0 SB City:0 4 0 0 SB City:0 2 11 0 SB City:0 8 23 0 SB City: 0 902 18 State:4 0 1 State:4 3 2 State:5 3 10 State:1 3 1 State:4 68 2 State:46 40 0 State: 0 EB 90 47 45 EB 90 40 38 EB 90 34 34 EB 90 36 34 EB 90 33 33 EB 90 56 56 EB 90 0 0 0 29 0 0 8 2 0 0 2 1 0 8 2 12 1 1 1 2 0 0 8 2 0 2 37 0 0 0 0 TEV: 2594 1 phf 0 0 5 23 TEV: 90 2 phf 36 0 14 25 TEV: 91 3 phf 27 0 3 32 TEV: 107 4 phf 23 0 2 42 TEV: 91 5 phf 29 12 1 18 TEV: 278 6 phf 15 11 0 0 TEV: 195 7 phf 0 0 0 0 yyyy mm dd 19 0 0 4 yyyy mm dd 1 0 0 2 yyyy mm dd 5 0 3 3 yyyy mm dd 1 15 0 3 yyyy mm dd 2 0 2 15 yyyy mm dd 38 5 0 18 yyyy mm dd 0 0 0 270 WB 34 35 270 WB 29 30 270 WB 37 37 270 WB 47 46 270 WB 43 41 270 WB 52 55 270 WB 0 0 1610 16 4 1 4 7 1 10 5 3 5 4 2 0 13 62 32 10 44 0 NB 0 1 0 180 0 NB 0 0 2 180 0 NB 0 0 2 180 0 NB 0 44 0 180 0 NB 0 1 1 180 0 NB 0 0 0 180 0 NB 1 19 0 180 0 921 1626 5 10 11 18 8 14 9 7 122 107 57 54 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 911 1614 Kittelson & Associates, Inc.5 3 Kittelson & Associates, Inc.2 2 Kittelson & Associates, Inc.5 4 Kittelson & Associates, Inc.122 101 0 0 0 0 SB City:0 0 0 0 SB City:0 0 1 0 SB City:0 0 47 1 SB City:0 1 23 0 SB City: 0 887 24 State:4 0 1 State:2 0 0 State:4 1 0 State:53 69 0 State: 0 EB 90 71 70 EB 90 55 53 EB 90 34 34 EB 90 60 66 EB 90 0 0 0 62 0 0 1 2 0 0 1 1 0 5 1 2 0 0 56 0 0 0 0 TEV: 2545 12 phf 0 0 4 31 TEV: 127 13 phf 44 0 8 33 TEV: 142 14 phf 20 0 4 43 TEV: 158 15 phf 21 0 0 0 TEV: 256 16 phf 0 0 0 0 yyyy mm dd 10 0 1 4 yyyy mm dd 9 0 1 7 yyyy mm dd 13 1 0 13 yyyy mm dd 37 1 5 20 yyyy mm dd 0 0 0 270 WB 34 36 270 WB 41 41 270 WB 67 57 270 WB 68 76 270 WB 0 0 1553 10 22 0 9 31 0 34 9 1 25 13 45 0 NB 0 0 0 180 0 NB 0 0 2 180 0 NB 0 0 1 180 0 NB 0 36 0 180 0 NB 0 1 0 180 0 897 1563 13 31 20 65 52 35 89 58 0 0 0 0 0 904 1556 Kittelson & Associates, Inc.22 16 Kittelson & Associates, Inc.25 40 Kittelson & Associates, Inc.41 32 Kittelson & Associates, Inc.88 66 0 0 0 0 SB City:0 1 1 4 SB City:0 1 2 1 SB City:0 0 15 7 SB City:0 0 30 1 SB City: 0 826 78 State:4 3 14 State:4 12 9 State:10 2 29 State:5 47 35 State: 0 EB 90 185 182 EB 90 195 155 EB 90 171 232 EB 90 248 243 EB 90 300 0 0 145 0 0 3 10 0 1 14 8 0 1 10 21 19 0 16 23 0 0 0 TEV: 2572 17 phf 0 0 2 147 TEV: 385 18 phf 176 1 1 185 TEV: 459 19 phf 145 7 2 171 TEV: 491 20 phf 219 4 9 175 TEV: 660 21 phf 227 34 0 0 yyyy mm dd 40 0 1 7 yyyy mm dd 9 1 0 32 yyyy mm dd 19 1 4 8 yyyy mm dd 9 8 1 7 yyyy mm dd 49 12 0 270 WB 149 157 270 WB 167 231 270 WB 202 189 270 WB 209 198 270 WB 248 0 1411 71 2 3 5 5 18 9 3 1 9 10 26 38 NB 0 0 0 180 0 NB 0 0 1 180 0 NB 0 1 0 180 0 NB 1 23 0 180 0 NB 1 0 0 180 0 866 1483 19 11 63 32 19 13 103 75 0 0 0 0 0 Alma St 8:00 to 9:00 a.m. El Dorado Ave Emerson St 8:00 to 9:00 a.m. El Dorado Ave 0 Notes Alma St 8:00 to 9:00 a.m. Colorado Ave 0 0 12 Vehicle Volumes Pedestrian Volumes Bike Volumes 0 0 80 3 1 3 Notes 0 0 8 0 Notes 8:00 to 9:00 a.m. El Dorado Ave 7 5 19 12 Notes Ramona St 8:00 to 9:00 a.m. El Dorado Ave 5 9 9 25 Notes South Ct 8:00 to 9:00 a.m. El Dorado Ave 7 0 0 9 Notes Bryant St 8:00 to 9:00 a.m. Colorado Ave Waverley St 8:00 to 9:00 a.m. Colorado Ave 8 4 5 10 Notes Cowper St 8:00 to 9:00 a.m. El Dorado Ave 4 5 0 12 Notes Waverley St 8:00 to 9:00 a.m. El Dorado Ave Bryant St 8:00 to 9:00 a.m. Oregon Expy 0 0 27 5 5 16 0 0 7 0 Notes 0 Notes Alma St 8:00 to 9:00 a.m. El Carmelo Ave Emerson St 8:00 to 9:00 a.m. El Carmelo Ave Ramona St 8:00 to 9:00 a.m. El Carmelo Ave Bryant St 8:00 to 9:00 a.m. El Carmelo Ave 10 Notes 4 Notes Bryant St 3 0 2 18 Notes 1 0 1 3 Notes Waverley St 8:00 to 9:00 a.m. El Carmelo Ave 3 13 0 11 58 30 Loma Verde Ave 8:00 to 9:00 a.m.8:00 to 9:00 a.m.8:00 to 9:00 a.m.8:00 to 9:00 a.m.8:00 to 9:00 a.m. 7 Notes Alma St Emerson St Ramona St Bryant St Waverley St 79 Notes 0 0 21 65 16 Loma Verde Ave Loma Verde Ave Loma Verde Ave Loma Verde Ave 13 49 8 14 15071022 Notes 8 Notes 5 Notes0Notes14Notes23 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 Appendix A Item 3Attachment C - Initial Circulation Study Packet Pg. 131 Future 2031 with Alt1A Volume Network Tool Kittelson & Associates, Inc.113 42 0 0 52 0 SB City: 60 15 37 State: 1706 EB 90 1618 0 19 16 0 0 1439 TEV: 3266 11 phf 1596 0 0 12 yyyy mm dd 5 0 1469 270 WB 1486 49 7 10 NB 0 120 0 180 0 33 66 0 676 1745 Kittelson & Associates, Inc.34 66 Kittelson & Associates, Inc.67 66 0 0 0 0 SB City:0 0 44 5 SB City:0 5 4 0 SB City: 0 645 31 State:10 13 11 State:4 58 4 State: 0 EB 90 113 82 EB 90 115 114 EB 90 96 0 0 97 0 5 3 44 29 2 11 3 0 0 0 TEV: 2446 8 phf 0 0 1 34 TEV: 213 9 phf 69 2 4 25 TEV: 289 10 phf 90 51 0 0 yyyy mm dd 16 0 2 1 yyyy mm dd 2 5 2 14 yyyy mm dd 2 1 0 270 WB 40 39 270 WB 49 50 270 WB 35 0 1648 9 3 19 3 20 52 5 NB 0 1 0 180 0 NB 1 56 1 180 0 NB 0 0 0 180 0 661 1657 16 25 74 77 0 0 0 914 1639 Kittelson & Associates, Inc.3 7 Kittelson & Associates, Inc.11 4 Kittelson & Associates, Inc.19 18 Kittelson & Associates, Inc.5 5 Kittelson & Associates, Inc.79 69 Kittelson & Associates, Inc.87 79 0 0 0 0 SB City:0 0 0 2 SB City:0 0 0 0 SB City:0 30 25 0 SB City:0 4 0 0 SB City:0 2 11 0 SB City:0 8 23 0 SB City: 0 914 0 State:0 2 1 State:2 4 4 State:4 4 10 State:0 4 1 State:4 72 2 State:46 41 0 State: 0 EB 90 28 28 EB 90 31 29 EB 90 29 29 EB 90 33 31 EB 90 31 31 EB 90 56 56 EB 90 0 0 0 29 0 0 4 2 0 0 1 1 0 10 2 12 1 1 1 2 0 0 6 2 0 2 35 0 0 20 0 TEV: 2569 1 phf 0 130 25 11 TEV: 57 2 phf 27 130 34 15 TEV: 75 3 phf 22 130 11 27 TEV: 97 4 phf 20 40 10 38 TEV: 85 5 phf 27 52 9 14 TEV: 278 6 phf 13 51 8 0 TEV: 192 7 phf 0 40 0 0 yyyy mm dd 0 0 0 2 yyyy mm dd 1 0 0 1 yyyy mm dd 5 0 13 2 yyyy mm dd 1 15 0 3 yyyy mm dd 2 0 2 16 yyyy mm dd 40 5 0 17 yyyy mm dd 0 0 0 270 WB 16 17 270 WB 17 18 270 WB 31 32 270 WB 43 42 270 WB 39 36 270 WB 48 52 270 WB 0 0 1610 16 0 1 4 5 1 12 4 3 5 4 2 0 13 62 32 10 44 0 NB 0 1 0 180 0 NB 0 0 2 180 0 NB 0 0 2 180 0 NB 60 44 0 180 0 NB 0 1 1 180 0 NB 0 0 0 180 0 NB 1 19 0 180 0 914 1626 5 6 11 18 8 13 9 7 129 107 57 54 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 904 1614 Kittelson & Associates, Inc.5 3 Kittelson & Associates, Inc.2 2 Kittelson & Associates, Inc.5 4 Kittelson & Associates, Inc.129 101 0 0 0 0 SB City:0 0 0 0 SB City:0 0 1 0 SB City:0 0 57 1 SB City:0 1 23 0 SB City: 0 880 24 State:4 0 1 State:2 0 0 State:4 1 0 State:53 76 0 State: 0 EB 90 71 70 EB 90 55 53 EB 90 34 34 EB 90 60 66 EB 90 0 0 0 62 0 0 1 2 0 0 1 1 0 5 1 2 0 0 56 0 0 0 0 TEV: 2538 12 phf 0 0 4 31 TEV: 127 13 phf 44 0 8 33 TEV: 142 14 phf 20 0 4 43 TEV: 158 15 phf 21 0 0 0 TEV: 263 16 phf 0 0 0 0 yyyy mm dd 10 0 1 4 yyyy mm dd 9 0 1 7 yyyy mm dd 13 1 0 13 yyyy mm dd 37 1 5 20 yyyy mm dd 0 0 0 270 WB 34 36 270 WB 41 41 270 WB 67 57 270 WB 68 76 270 WB 0 0 1553 10 22 0 9 31 0 34 9 1 25 13 45 0 NB 0 0 0 180 0 NB 0 0 2 180 0 NB 0 0 1 180 0 NB 0 96 0 180 0 NB 0 1 0 180 0 890 1563 13 31 20 65 52 35 96 58 0 0 0 0 0 897 1556 Kittelson & Associates, Inc.22 16 Kittelson & Associates, Inc.25 40 Kittelson & Associates, Inc.41 32 Kittelson & Associates, Inc.95 66 0 0 0 0 SB City:0 1 1 4 SB City:0 1 2 1 SB City:0 0 25 7 SB City:0 0 30 1 SB City: 0 819 78 State:4 3 14 State:4 12 9 State:10 2 29 State:12 47 35 State: 0 EB 90 192 189 EB 90 202 162 EB 90 178 239 EB 90 255 250 EB 90 300 0 0 145 0 0 3 10 0 1 14 8 0 1 10 21 19 0 16 23 0 0 0 TEV: 2572 17 phf 0 0 2 147 TEV: 392 18 phf 183 1 1 185 TEV: 466 19 phf 152 7 2 171 TEV: 498 20 phf 226 4 9 175 TEV: 667 21 phf 227 34 0 0 yyyy mm dd 47 0 1 7 yyyy mm dd 9 1 0 32 yyyy mm dd 19 1 4 8 yyyy mm dd 9 8 1 7 yyyy mm dd 49 12 0 270 WB 149 157 270 WB 167 231 270 WB 202 189 270 WB 209 198 270 WB 248 0 1411 71 2 3 5 5 18 9 3 1 9 10 26 38 NB 0 0 0 180 0 NB 0 0 1 180 0 NB 0 1 0 180 0 NB 1 83 0 180 0 NB 1 0 0 180 0 866 1483 19 11 63 32 19 13 103 75 0 0 0 0 0Notes 13 49 8 14 15 0 Notes 14 Notes 23 Notes 8 0 7 1 0 22 Notes 5 Loma Verde Ave Loma Verde Ave Loma Verde Ave Loma Verde Ave Loma Verde Ave 0 0 21 65 16 Notes Alma St Emerson St Ramona St Bryant St Waverley St 8:00 to 9:00 a.m.8:00 to 9:00 a.m.8:00 to 9:00 a.m.8:00 to 9:00 a.m.8:00 to 9:00 a.m. 58 30 13 0 0 Notes 3 Notes 18 Notes 0 7 0 1 0 2 79 Notes 7 El Carmelo Ave El Carmelo Ave El Carmelo Ave El Carmelo Ave El Carmelo Ave 0 1 3 11 3 Alma St Emerson St Ramona St Bryant St Waverley St 8:00 to 9:00 a.m.8:00 to 9:00 a.m.8:00 to 9:00 a.m.8:00 to 9:00 a.m.8:00 to 9:00 a.m. 12 Notes 25 Notes 9 Notes 5 0 35 Notes 3 Notes 4 Notes 12 Notes 5 19 0 0 9 9081008 El Dorado Ave 35 3 0 7 7 5 4 El Dorado Ave El Dorado Ave El Dorado Ave El Dorado Ave El Dorado Ave El Dorado Ave Cowper St 8:00 to 9:00 a.m.8:00 to 9:00 a.m.8:00 to 9:00 a.m.8:00 to 9:00 a.m.8:00 to 9:00 a.m.8:00 to 9:00 a.m.8:00 to 9:00 a.m. Alma St Emerson St Ramona St Bryant St South Ct Waverley St 0 Notes 10 Notes 10 Notes 0 12 5 16 4 5 Colorado Ave 0 5 8 0 Notes Alma St Bryant St Waverley St 8:00 to 9:00 a.m.8:00 to 9:00 a.m.8:00 to 9:00 a.m. Bryant St 8:00 to 9:00 a.m. Oregon Expy 0 0 27 Colorado Ave Colorado Ave Vehicle Volumes Pedestrian Volumes Bike Volumes 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 Appendix A Item 3Attachment C - Initial Circulation Study Packet Pg. 132 Future 2031 with Alt2 Volume Network Tool Kittelson & Associates, Inc.113 42 0 0 52 0 SB City: 60 15 37 State: 1706 EB 90 1618 0 19 16 0 0 1439 TEV: 3266 11 phf 1596 0 0 12 yyyy mm dd 5 0 1469 270 WB 1486 49 7 10 NB 0 120 0 180 0 33 66 0 676 1745 Kittelson & Associates, Inc.34 66 Kittelson & Associates, Inc.67 66 0 0 0 0 SB City:0 0 44 5 SB City:0 5 4 0 SB City: 0 645 31 State:10 13 11 State:4 58 4 State: 0 EB 90 113 82 EB 90 115 114 EB 90 96 0 0 97 0 5 3 44 29 2 11 3 0 0 0 TEV: 2462 8 phf 0 0 1 42 TEV: 222 9 phf 69 2 4 28 TEV: 296 10 phf 90 51 0 0 yyyy mm dd 16 0 2 2 yyyy mm dd 2 5 2 18 yyyy mm dd 2 1 0 270 WB 56 48 270 WB 57 57 270 WB 38 0 1648 25 3 19 3 20 52 5 NB 0 1 0 180 0 NB 1 56 1 180 0 NB 0 0 0 180 0 661 1673 17 25 78 77 0 0 0 914 1655 Kittelson & Associates, Inc.5 4 Kittelson & Associates, Inc.12 3 Kittelson & Associates, Inc.20 18 Kittelson & Associates, Inc.6 5 Kittelson & Associates, Inc.82 68 Kittelson & Associates, Inc.88 77 0 0 0 0 SB City:0 0 0 2 SB City:0 0 0 0 SB City:0 30 25 0 SB City:0 4 0 0 SB City:0 2 11 0 SB City:0 8 23 0 SB City: 0 914 0 State:0 4 1 State:2 5 4 State:4 5 10 State:0 5 1 State:4 75 2 State:46 42 0 State: 0 EB 90 28 28 EB 90 31 29 EB 90 29 29 EB 90 33 31 EB 90 31 31 EB 90 56 56 EB 90 0 0 0 29 0 0 1 2 0 0 1 1 0 10 2 12 1 1 1 2 0 0 4 2 0 2 33 0 0 20 0 TEV: 2569 1 phf 0 130 25 1 TEV: 44 2 phf 27 130 34 6 TEV: 66 3 phf 22 130 11 20 TEV: 90 4 phf 20 40 10 31 TEV: 78 5 phf 27 52 9 11 TEV: 274 6 phf 13 51 8 0 TEV: 190 7 phf 0 40 0 0 yyyy mm dd 0 0 0 0 yyyy mm dd 1 0 0 1 yyyy mm dd 5 0 13 2 yyyy mm dd 1 15 0 2 yyyy mm dd 2 0 2 14 yyyy mm dd 40 5 0 16 yyyy mm dd 0 0 0 270 WB 0 2 270 WB 6 7 270 WB 22 23 270 WB 35 34 270 WB 32 29 270 WB 45 49 270 WB 0 0 1626 0 0 1 4 5 1 12 4 3 5 4 2 0 13 62 32 10 44 0 NB 0 1 0 180 0 NB 0 0 2 180 0 NB 0 0 2 180 0 NB 60 44 0 180 0 NB 0 1 1 180 0 NB 0 0 0 180 0 NB 1 19 0 180 0 914 1626 5 6 11 18 8 13 10 7 129 107 57 54 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 904 1614 Kittelson & Associates, Inc.5 3 Kittelson & Associates, Inc.2 2 Kittelson & Associates, Inc.5 4 Kittelson & Associates, Inc.129 101 0 0 0 0 SB City:0 0 0 0 SB City:0 0 1 0 SB City:0 0 57 1 SB City:0 1 23 0 SB City: 0 880 24 State:4 0 1 State:2 0 0 State:4 1 0 State:53 76 0 State: 0 EB 90 71 70 EB 90 55 53 EB 90 34 34 EB 90 60 66 EB 90 0 0 0 62 0 0 1 2 0 0 1 1 0 5 1 2 0 0 56 0 0 0 0 TEV: 2538 12 phf 0 0 4 31 TEV: 127 13 phf 44 0 8 33 TEV: 142 14 phf 20 0 4 43 TEV: 158 15 phf 21 0 0 0 TEV: 263 16 phf 0 0 0 0 yyyy mm dd 10 0 1 4 yyyy mm dd 9 0 1 7 yyyy mm dd 13 1 0 13 yyyy mm dd 37 1 5 20 yyyy mm dd 0 0 0 270 WB 34 36 270 WB 41 41 270 WB 67 57 270 WB 68 76 270 WB 0 0 1553 10 22 0 9 31 0 34 9 1 25 13 45 0 NB 0 0 0 180 0 NB 0 0 2 180 0 NB 0 0 1 180 0 NB 0 96 0 180 0 NB 0 1 0 180 0 890 1563 13 31 20 65 52 35 96 58 0 0 0 0 0 897 1556 Kittelson & Associates, Inc.22 16 Kittelson & Associates, Inc.25 40 Kittelson & Associates, Inc.41 32 Kittelson & Associates, Inc.95 66 0 0 0 0 SB City:0 1 1 4 SB City:0 1 2 1 SB City:0 0 25 7 SB City:0 0 30 1 SB City: 0 819 78 State:4 3 14 State:4 12 9 State:10 2 29 State:12 47 35 State: 0 EB 90 192 189 EB 90 202 162 EB 90 178 239 EB 90 255 250 EB 90 300 0 0 145 0 0 3 10 0 1 14 8 0 1 10 21 19 0 16 23 0 0 0 TEV: 2572 17 phf 0 0 2 147 TEV: 392 18 phf 183 1 1 185 TEV: 466 19 phf 152 7 2 171 TEV: 498 20 phf 226 4 9 175 TEV: 667 21 phf 227 34 0 0 yyyy mm dd 47 0 1 7 yyyy mm dd 9 1 0 32 yyyy mm dd 19 1 4 8 yyyy mm dd 9 8 1 7 yyyy mm dd 49 12 0 270 WB 149 157 270 WB 167 231 270 WB 202 189 270 WB 209 198 270 WB 248 0 1411 71 2 3 5 5 18 9 3 1 9 10 26 38 NB 0 0 0 180 0 NB 0 0 1 180 0 NB 0 1 0 180 0 NB 1 83 0 180 0 NB 1 0 0 180 0 866 1483 19 11 63 32 19 13 103 75 0 0 0 0 0Notes 13 49 8 14 15 0 Notes 14 Notes 23 Notes 8 0 7 1 0 22 Notes 5 Loma Verde Ave Loma Verde Ave Loma Verde Ave Loma Verde Ave Loma Verde Ave 0 0 21 65 16 Notes Alma St Emerson St Ramona St Bryant St Waverley St 8:00 to 9:00 a.m.8:00 to 9:00 a.m.8:00 to 9:00 a.m.8:00 to 9:00 a.m.8:00 to 9:00 a.m. 58 30 13 0 0 Notes 3 Notes 18 Notes 0 7 0 1 0 2 79 Notes 7 El Carmelo Ave El Carmelo Ave El Carmelo Ave El Carmelo Ave El Carmelo Ave 0 1 3 11 3 Alma St Emerson St Ramona St Bryant St Waverley St 8:00 to 9:00 a.m.8:00 to 9:00 a.m.8:00 to 9:00 a.m.8:00 to 9:00 a.m.8:00 to 9:00 a.m. 12 Notes 25 Notes 9 Notes 5 0 0 Notes 38 Notes 4 Notes 12 Notes 5 19 0 0 9 9081008 El Dorado Ave 0 38 0 7 7 5 4 El Dorado Ave El Dorado Ave El Dorado Ave El Dorado Ave El Dorado Ave El Dorado Ave Cowper St 8:00 to 9:00 a.m.8:00 to 9:00 a.m.8:00 to 9:00 a.m.8:00 to 9:00 a.m.8:00 to 9:00 a.m.8:00 to 9:00 a.m.8:00 to 9:00 a.m. Alma St Emerson St Ramona St Bryant St South Ct Waverley St 0 Notes 10 Notes 10 Notes 0 12 5 16 4 5 Colorado Ave 0 5 8 0 Notes Alma St Bryant St Waverley St 8:00 to 9:00 a.m.8:00 to 9:00 a.m.8:00 to 9:00 a.m. Bryant St 8:00 to 9:00 a.m. Oregon Expy 0 0 27 Colorado Ave Colorado Ave Vehicle Volumes Pedestrian Volumes Bike Volumes 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 Appendix A Item 3Attachment C - Initial Circulation Study Packet Pg. 133 July 23, 2026 SOUTH PALO ALTO BIKE/PED CONNECTIVITY DRAFT NETWORK ENHANCEMENTS INTRODUCTION This project will also deliver a coordinated package of bicycle, pedestrian, operational, and wayfinding improvements that fully integrate the grade separated bike and pedestrian undercrossing into the surrounding street network. While the undercrossing itself is a critical piece of infrastructure, its effectiveness depends on how well it is integrated into the surrounding travel network. Together, these network improvements will ensure the new rail crossing operates as a seamless, intuitive, all ages and abilities facility that reduces conflicts, shortens travel distances, and meaningfully improves active transportation connectivity across a longstanding barrier. These enhancements will: • provide continuous, ADA accessible connections to existing bikeways and sidewalks; • enhance safety and comfort along approach routes through upgraded context-sensitive crossings, lighting, traffic calming, and visibility treatments; and • add clear wayfinding to guide users before, through, and beyond the crossing. Draft network enhancements were informed by the multimodal traffic counts and a cursory circulation study complete for the El Dorado Avenue crossing, what we’ve heard through public engagement, as well as adopted City policy and applicable design guidance and standards, including: • City of Palo Alto Safety Action Plan (2025) • City of Palo Alto Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan (BPTP) (2026) • FHWA Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices • FHWA Guide for Improving Pedestrian Safety at Uncontrolled Crossing Locations • FHWA Pedestrian Safety Guide and Countermeasure Selection System • NACTO Urban Street Design Guide • NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide • NACTO Crosswalk Marking Selection Guide • NACTO Designing for All Ages and Abilities Contextual Guidance for High-Comfort Bicycle Facilities The draft network enhancements presented are preliminary and intended for discussion purposes. All recommendations are flexible and subject to refinement. Additional community engagement, technical design work, and agency coordination will be needed. The draft network enhancements are shown in Exhibit 1 and described below. Oakland, CA 94612 Item 3 Attachment D - Draft Network Enhancements Packet Pg. 134 July 23, 2026 South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity – Network Enhancements Page 2 Exhibit 1. Draft Network Enhancements Item 3 Attachment D - Draft Network Enhancements Packet Pg. 135 July 23, 2026 South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity – Network Enhancements Page 3 DRAFT NETWORK ENHANCEMENTS • Create a new bicycle boulevard connection on El Dorado Avenue from Alma Street to Cowper Street to link the undercrossing to existing bicycle boulevards on Bryant Street and Cowper Street. The bicycle boulevard would be designed to City standards and best practices and would include implementation of wayfinding and pavement markings identifying the route and key destinations. • Install a neighborhood traffic circle at El Dorado Avenue/Bryant Street, the intersection of two low-speed, low vehicle volume bicycle boulevards, to reduce potential conflicts between turning movements at the intersection.1,2 Neighborhood traffic circles introduce horizontal deflection that encourages drivers to slow as they enter and pass through intersections. By changing the way drivers navigate intersections, traffic circles reduce potential conflict points and decrease the likelihood of severe right-angle and head-on crashes. The added deflection and reduced travel speeds may make local streets less attractive while maintaining local access. Center islands can incorporate landscaping, public art, stormwater features, or neighborhood identity elements, enhancing aesthetics and community character. • Relocate stop signs on El Dorado Avenue at Ramona Street and South Court to the minor cross-street approaches of the intersection to facilitate through bicycle movements on El Dorado Avenue bike boulevard.3,4,5 Conduct before/after monitoring of traffic volumes and speeds to determine if changes in stop control should be accompanied by traffic calming. • Install curb bulb-outs at Cowper Street/El Dorado Avenue to enhance safety of pedestrian crossings and improved access to and through Hoover Park. Explore implementation of two-way separated bikeway on the east side of Cowper Street to connect the new El Dorado Avenue bike boulevard with the existing path through Hoover Park. • Coordinate with the County to implement signal timing modifications and install pavement markings at Oregon Expressway/Bryant Street to accommodate increase in bicycle traffic along Bryant Street and support safe crossings of Oregon Expressway. Signal timing/phasing adjustments would include advance detection, a leading pedestrian/bicycle interval, and increased crossing times for pedestrians and bicyclists. Enhanced pavement markings would be installed through the intersection to increase visibility of crossing bicyclists. • Install Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon at Park Boulevard/Portage Avenue to accommodate pedestrian and bicycle movements to/from the undercrossing. The recommendations include providing a clear and intuitive path and completing the connection for people walking and biking through the offset intersection between the undercrossing landing and Portage Avenue. 1 https://nacto.org/publication/urban-bikeway-design-guide/designing-safe-intersections/unsignalized-intersections/roundabouts-and-circular-intersections/ 2 https://nacto.org/publication/urban-street-design-guide/intersections/traffic-circle/ 3 https://nacto.org/publication/urban-bikeway-design-guide/designing-safe-intersections/unsignalized-intersections/stop-controls/ 4 https://oaklandbpac.org/2020/08/07/nbr-implementation-guide-draft/ 5 https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/pdfs/11th_Edition/Chapter2b.pdf Item 3 Attachment D - Draft Network Enhancements Packet Pg. 136 July 23, 2026 South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity – Network Enhancements Page 4 • Provide red curb or curb bulb-outs in advance of crosswalks for daylighting (Assembly Bill 413) to improve sightlines and increase visibility of pedestrians and cross traffic at intersections along routes to and from the tunnel while maintaining or reducing vehicle turning radii to decrease turning speeds. • Stripe high visibility crosswalks to increase visibility of pedestrians at intersections along routes to and from the tunnel. • Provide overhead lighting at the tunnel/ramp entrances and along Alma Street, Park Boulevard, and El Dorado Avenue to enhance safety and comfort accessing the crossing, particularly during night, early morning, and evening hours. • Implement “green wave” signal coordination on Alma Street to coordinate signals so that drivers traveling at a target speed encounter a series of green lights rather than stopping at each intersection. Signal timing modifications encourage consistent speeds, reduce stop-and-go driving, and support speed management and safety for all road users. • Construct accessibility upgrades along approach routes on Alma Street and Park Boulevard to provide continuous, ADA-compliant access to the tunnel. Location of these upgrades will be determined during the project’s detailed design phase and in coordination with the City’s ADA transition plan. • Explore green stormwater infrastructure and street trees in conjunction with Public Works in the project’s detailed design phase. • Incorporate murals, sculptural elements, and gateway features as part of the tunnel/ramp design and at tunnel or ramp entrances to create a sense of arrival and improve visibility. Consider community-created artwork or rotating installations to foster ownership and discourage vandalism. Integrate art with lighting, walls, retaining structures, or high-quality paving materials to create a safe and welcoming environment. • Explore bicycle and pedestrian access improvements to the southern entrance of the Cal Ave Caltrain Station to close a key gap in the network. Consider ways to connect the Cal Avenue Station over Oregon Expressway to Page Mill Road, over the Page Mill Road Bridge or via a new connection along the railroad. • Enhance Pedestrian and Bicycle Path through Hoover Park, including the path around the baseball field and the path through the park, to provide additional space and separation for people walking and biking. Consider installing lighting and clear signage and wayfinding along the route. Explore crossing improvements at the Hoover Park Path/Middlefield Road/Sutter Avenue intersection, such as construction of curb ramps, high visibility crosswalks, and a pedestrian hybrid beacon or full signal. Consider implementing bike boulevard treatments on Sutter Avenue to connect to existing Ross Road Bike Boulevard or improving Middlefield Road to connect to the existing bike lanes on Colorado Avenue one block north. • Implement intersection modifications at El Camino Real/Portage Avenue to enhance the connection across El Camino Real. Consider implementing protected intersection elements, as well as a two-way separated bikeway on El Camino Real and cross-bike markings with enhanced signal timing at Hansen Way. • Implement intersection modifications at El Camino Real/Margarita Avenue/Matadero Avenue to enhance connection across El Camino Real. Consider implementing protected intersection elements and installing cross-bike markings with enhanced signal timing. Item 3 Attachment D - Draft Network Enhancements Packet Pg. 137 July 23, 2026 South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity – Network Enhancements Page 5 • Coordinate with the County to implement intersection modifications at Oregon Expressway/Alma Street. Explore modifications to intersection geometry and traffic control to square up and signalize ramps. • Reconstruct El Dorado Avenue with vertical curbs to more clearly define the roadway edge, discourage drivers from mounting the curb, and provide a physical buffer between people walking and vehicle traffic. Longer term improvements that may be considered to support access to the new undercrossing include: • Implement volume and speed management measures, such as speed humps or modal filters, will be considered and implemented in response to traffic volumes and/or speeds that exceed the thresholds appropriate for bicycle boulevards on El Dorado Avenue and Bryant Street. Specifically, speeds less than or equal to 20 miles per hour and volumes less than or equal to 2,000 average vehicles per day and less than 50 vehicles per hour per direction during the peak hour. • Implement intersection modifications at Colorado Avenue/Alma Street to accommodate changes in turning movements because of restricted movements at El Dorado Avenue. These may include restriping to extend left-turn pockets and installing corner bulb-outs and/or centerline hardening to slow turning vehicles. • Integrate with planned future network improvements identified in the 2026 BPTP, including bike boulevards on Park Boulevard, Margarita Avenue, Cowper Street, and Colorado Avenue; bike lanes on Loma Verde Avenue, and Page Mill Road; and shared use paths on Oregon Expressway and the Bol Park Path – Chimalus Spur. Item 3 Attachment D - Draft Network Enhancements Packet Pg. 138 Item 3 Attachment E - South Palo Alto BikePed Project - Neighborhood Petition Packet Pg. 139 Item 3 Attachment E - South Palo Alto BikePed Project - Neighborhood Petition Packet Pg. 140 Item 3 Attachment E - South Palo Alto BikePed Project - Neighborhood Petition Packet Pg. 141 Item 3 Attachment E - South Palo Alto BikePed Project - Neighborhood Petition Packet Pg. 142 Item 3 Attachment E - South Palo Alto BikePed Project - Neighborhood Petition Packet Pg. 143 Item 3 Attachment E - South Palo Alto BikePed Project - Neighborhood Petition Packet Pg. 144 Item 3 Attachment E - South Palo Alto BikePed Project - Neighborhood Petition Packet Pg. 145 Item 3 Attachment E - South Palo Alto BikePed Project - Neighborhood Petition Packet Pg. 146 Item 3 Attachment E - South Palo Alto BikePed Project - Neighborhood Petition Packet Pg. 147 Item 3 Attachment E - South Palo Alto BikePed Project - Neighborhood Petition Packet Pg. 148 Item 3 Attachment E - South Palo Alto BikePed Project - Neighborhood Petition Packet Pg. 149 Item 3 Attachment E - South Palo Alto BikePed Project - Neighborhood Petition Packet Pg. 150 Item 3 Attachment E - South Palo Alto BikePed Project - Neighborhood Petition Packet Pg. 151 Item 3 Attachment E - South Palo Alto BikePed Project - Neighborhood Petition Packet Pg. 152 Item 3 Attachment E - South Palo Alto BikePed Project - Neighborhood Petition Packet Pg. 153 Item 3 Attachment E - South Palo Alto BikePed Project - Neighborhood Petition Packet Pg. 154 Item 3 Attachment E - South Palo Alto BikePed Project - Neighborhood Petition Packet Pg. 155 Item 3 Attachment E - South Palo Alto BikePed Project - Neighborhood Petition Packet Pg. 156 Item 3 Attachment E - South Palo Alto BikePed Project - Neighborhood Petition Packet Pg. 157 Item 3 Attachment E - South Palo Alto BikePed Project - Neighborhood Petition Packet Pg. 158 Item 3 Attachment E - South Palo Alto BikePed Project - Neighborhood Petition Packet Pg. 159 Item 3 Attachment E - South Palo Alto BikePed Project - Neighborhood Petition Packet Pg. 160 Item 3 Attachment E - South Palo Alto BikePed Project - Neighborhood Petition Packet Pg. 161 Item 3 Attachment E - South Palo Alto BikePed Project - Neighborhood Petition Packet Pg. 162 Item 3 Attachment E - South Palo Alto BikePed Project - Neighborhood Petition Packet Pg. 163 Item 3 Attachment E - South Palo Alto BikePed Project - Neighborhood Petition Packet Pg. 164 Item 3 Attachment E - South Palo Alto BikePed Project - Neighborhood Petition Packet Pg. 165 Item 3 Attachment E - South Palo Alto BikePed Project - Neighborhood Petition Packet Pg. 166 Item 3 Attachment E - South Palo Alto BikePed Project - Neighborhood Petition Packet Pg. 167 Item 3 Attachment E - South Palo Alto BikePed Project - Neighborhood Petition Packet Pg. 168 Item 3 Attachment E - South Palo Alto BikePed Project - Neighborhood Petition Packet Pg. 169 Item 3 Attachment E - South Palo Alto BikePed Project - Neighborhood Petition Packet Pg. 170 Item 3 Attachment E - South Palo Alto BikePed Project - Neighborhood Petition Packet Pg. 171 Item 3 Attachment E - South Palo Alto BikePed Project - Neighborhood Petition Packet Pg. 172 Item 3 Attachment E - South Palo Alto BikePed Project - Neighborhood Petition Packet Pg. 173 Item 3 Attachment E - South Palo Alto BikePed Project - Neighborhood Petition Packet Pg. 174 Item 3 Attachment E - South Palo Alto BikePed Project - Neighborhood Petition Packet Pg. 175 Item 3 Attachment E - South Palo Alto BikePed Project - Neighborhood Petition Packet Pg. 176 Item 3 Attachment E - South Palo Alto BikePed Project - Neighborhood Petition Packet Pg. 177 Item 3 Attachment E - South Palo Alto BikePed Project - Neighborhood Petition Packet Pg. 178 Item 3 Attachment E - South Palo Alto BikePed Project - Neighborhood Petition Packet Pg. 179 Item 3 Attachment E - South Palo Alto BikePed Project - Neighborhood Petition Packet Pg. 180 Item 3 Attachment E - South Palo Alto BikePed Project - Neighborhood Petition Packet Pg. 181 Item 3 Attachment E - South Palo Alto BikePed Project - Neighborhood Petition Packet Pg. 182 Item 3 Attachment E - South Palo Alto BikePed Project - Neighborhood Petition Packet Pg. 183 Item 3 Attachment E - South Palo Alto BikePed Project - Neighborhood Petition Packet Pg. 184 Item 3 Attachment E - South Palo Alto BikePed Project - Neighborhood Petition Packet Pg. 185 SOUTH PALO ALTO BIKE/PED CONNECTIVITY STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT OVERVIEW Updated: September 22, 2026 Phase 1 Community Engagement: Establish Design Priorities (Spring 2025) – Completed The first phase of engagement1 included the following elements. • Project Webpage (paloalto.gov/BikePedCrossings) with updates on meetings, events and project materials. • Project Fact Sheet shared with community members during in-person meetings and events. • Mailers sent to more than 1,500 business, community organization and residential property addresses in the vicinity of the project. • Small Group Discussions held virtually from November through December 2024 including representatives of the City Schools Transportation Safety Committee (CSTSC), Pedestrian and Bicycle Advisory Committee (PABAC), Caltrain, Palo Alto Unified School District, Californians Advocating Responsible Rail Design (CARRD), Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition (SVBC), and Stanford University. Participants also shared a list of criteria and priorities for evaluating alternatives and emphasized the need for easy, well-lit, accessible, safe crossings that are suitable for all ages and reduce the long distances between crossings today. Participants also encouraged the team to consider a network perspective addressing how to get to/from crossing points. • Community Workshop held at Mitchell Park Community Center on April 2, 2025, and attended by approximately 50 community members. Community members prioritized crossings that improved mobility and emphasized their general support for the project and interest in fast completion. A crossing around Matadero Creek (El Dorado Avenue to Loma Verde Avenue) was the most popular location amongst attendees, followed by locations between Meadow Drive and Charleston Road. • Online Survey was made available on the project webpage from April 1, 2025, to May 22, 2025.2 The City promoted the survey during in-person events, Weekly City Manager Updates, PaloAltoConnect Blog, social media posts, UpLift Local eNewsletter, and emails to Neighborhood Associations in south Palo Alto, public and private schools, Stanford University, and community stakeholders in Mountain View. The survey gathered more than 700 responses, offering insight into typical travel patterns and preferences regarding new bike and pedestrian rail crossings. 1 South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Phase 1 Community Engagement Summary Report, July 29, 2025; https://www.paloalto.gov/files/assets/public/v/1/transportation/projects/southern-palo-alto-bikeped-railroad- crossings/spa_bike-ped-connectivity_phase-1-engagement-report_final_7.29.25.pdf 2 South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Survey; https://communityfeedback.opengov.com/portals/paloalto/Issue_14352 Item 3 Attachment F - Stakeholder Engagement Overview Packet Pg. 186 • Pop-Up Events at California Ave Third Thursday (April 17, 2025), Earth Day Festival (April 27, 2025), and Bike to Work Day (May 15, 2025). • Emails to Principals, PTA Team Presidents, and Traffic Safety Representatives (TSRs) of all public schools in the southern portion of the City, as well as private schools, Neighborhood Associations, and businesses in south Palo Alto, in addition to several public and private schools, Neighborhood Associations, and businesses in Mountain View to inform them about the project, share ways to provide feedback, promote the online survey, and ask community partners to spread the word to their networks by via a communications toolkit. • Presentations at meetings with the PABAC,3 Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC),4 Rail Committee,5 City/School Transportation Safety Committee (CSTCS),6 and Parks and Recreation Commission (PRC)7 in May 2025. In addition, crossing opportunities near San Antonio Road were discussed at a joint meeting of PABAC and Mountain View Bicycle/Pedestrian Advisory Committee on August 28, 2024. Phase 2 Community Engagement: Feedback on Alternatives (Fall 2025) – Completed The second phase of engagement 8 included the following elements. • Project Webpage (as in Phase 1) • Project Fact Sheet (as in Phase 1) • Mailers sent to around 1,200 business, community organizations and residential property addresses in the vicinity of the project. • Community Workshop held at Mitchell Park Community Center on September 9, 2025, and attended by nearly 40 community members. Community members provided feedback on the eight preliminary conceptual design alternatives. The most popular conceptual designs amongst attendees were Loma Verde Ave Tunnel (Alternative B), El Dorado Ave Tunnel (Alternative A), and San Antonio Bridge Enhancements (Alternative 3 Pedestrian and Bicycle Advisory Committee, May 6, 2025; Discussion Item #7.a.; https://www.paloalto.gov/files/assets/public/v/1/transportation/bicycling-walking/pabac/pabac-meetings- 2025/2025-05-06_pabac-agenda-packet_final.pdf 4 Planning and Transportation Commission, May 14, 2025; Study Session Item #4; https://recordsportal.paloalto.gov/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=7648&dbid=0&repo=PaloAlto&searchid=953eac3d- 214a-4cea-a77b-5cfa3921c24f 5 Rail Committee, May 20, 2025; Study Session Item #2; https://recordsportal.paloalto.gov/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=9269&dbid=0&repo=PaloAlto&searchid=d661c2c2- 51aa-4f56-bdc3-9882fb61d4e3 6 City/School Transportation Safety Committee, May 22, 2025; https://www.paloalto.gov/Events-Directory/Office- of-Transportation/May-2025-CitySchool-Transportation-Safety-Committee-Meeting 7 Parks and Recreation Commission, May 27, 2025; Business Items Item #5; https://recordsportal.paloalto.gov/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=7060&dbid=0&repo=PaloAlto&searchid=b91d0517- cedc-4099-8940-84b874c6ccd0 8 South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Phase 2 Community Engagement Summary Report, January 16, 2026; https://www.paloalto.gov/files/assets/public/v/1/transportation/projects/southern-palo-alto-bikeped-railroad- crossings/spa-bikeped-connectivity-phase-2-engagement-report-final-1.16.26.pdf Item 3 Attachment F - Stakeholder Engagement Overview Packet Pg. 187 H). Participants expressed support for alternatives that limit right-of-way impacts, provide more direct routes, connect to existing bike facilities, grade-separate Alma Street, and are located further away from existing or planned grade separated rail crossings. Several participants also suggested changes to assumed tunnel dimensions such as reducing the height of the tunnel to shorten ramps. • Online Survey available on the project webpage from August 15, 2025, through October 12, 2025.9 The City promoted the survey as in Phase 1. The survey gathered nearly 500 responses. Respondents provided feedback on the eight preliminary conceptual design alternatives. Key findings included: o El Dorado Ave Tunnel (Alternative A) was the favorite alternative amongst respondents, followed by Loma Verde Ave Tunnel (Alternative B), then San Antonio Bridge Enhancements (Alternative H). o Lindero Dr Tunnel with Alma St Signal (Alternative E) was the least favorite alternative amongst respondents, while Ely Pl Tunnel (Alternative F) ranked second to last. o Respondents generally supported alternatives that minimize impacts to residential properties and that grade-separate Alma Street, due to concerns about delays to motor vehicle travel and safety concerns for pedestrians and cyclists crossing Alma Street at new signalized intersections. o Respondents expressed a desire for high-quality pathways (e.g., wide, direct/straight, open, well-lit, separate space for cyclists and pedestrians) where cyclists would not need to dismount. o Respondents suggested El Dorado Ave Tunnel (Alternative A) would be even more desirable if it tunneled under Alma Street. o Several respondents recommended the City consider enhancing the existing grade-separated rail crossing at California Avenue rather than building a new crossing nearby. • Pop-Up Events at Bike Palo Alto (October 5, 2025), California Ave Third Thursday (October 16, 2025), and other community-wide events through early 2026. • Emails (as in Phase 1). 9 South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Preliminary Design Concept Survey; https://communityfeedback.opengov.com/portals/paloalto/Issue_14594 Item 3 Attachment F - Stakeholder Engagement Overview Packet Pg. 188 • Presentations at meetings with the PTC10, CSTSC11, PABAC 12, Rail Committee 13, and the City Council 14. On December 1, 2025, the City Council passed a motion that selected the preliminary concept design at El Dorado Avenue (also called Alternative A) for further evaluation. 15 Alternative A involves two variants: • Alternative A1 with a signalized crossing of Alma Street at El Dorado Avenue. • Alternative A2 with a tunnel under both Alma Street and the Caltrain tracks in the vicinity of El Dorado Avenue. Phase 3 Community Engagement Review Public Draft Report (Fall 2026) – Underway Phase 3 community engagement is currently in progress. During Phase 3, City staff are presenting two preferred bicycle and pedestrian rail crossing concept design alternatives near El Dorado Avenue, and additional improvements in the surrounding neighborhoods for initial review and feedback. Feedback received will be considered in the selection and refinement of preferred bicycle and pedestrian rail crossing concept designs and improvements along the corridor to be carried forward into the public draft report. A summary of Phase 3 outreach and engagement activities is provided below: • Project Webpage (as in Phases 1 and 2) • Project Fact Sheet (as in Phases 1 and 2) • Mailers sent to more than 1,700 business, community organization and residential property addresses within 1,000 feet of the project. • Posters placed along El Dorado Avenue and Park Boulevard. • Community Workshop at Rinconada Library (Embarcadero Room) on August 27, 2026, from 6:00-7:30 pm., and attended by approximately 90 community members. Participants provided feedback on the concept designs for Alternatives A1 and A2, as 10 Planning and Transportation Commission, September 10, 2025; Study Session Item #4; https://recordsportal.paloalto.gov/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=7671&dbid=0&repo=PaloAlto&searchid=cc55f36b- 8916-4c57-a84c-1aa231dab86e 11 City/School Transportation Safety Committee, October 23, 2025; https://www.paloalto.gov/Events- Directory/Office-of-Transportation/CitySchool-Transportation-Safety-Committee-Meeting 12 Pedestrian and Bicycle Advisory Committee, November 4, 2025; https://www.paloalto.gov/files/assets/public/v/1/transportation/bicycling-walking/pabac/pabac-meetings- 2025/2025-11-04_pabac-agenda-packet_final.pdf 13 Rail Committee, November 18, 2025; Action Item #1; https://recordsportal.paloalto.gov/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=83878&dbid=0&repo=PaloAlto&searchid=e5ce0fb7 -ff7e-4ddf-aa36-356d39a32b5b 14 City Council, December 1, 2025: Action Item #18; https://recordsportal.paloalto.gov/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=83952&dbid=0&repo=PaloAlto&searchid=d9f09a55 -fa77-4887-8005-bb508af17995 15 City Council, December 1, 2025: Action Item #18; https://recordsportal.paloalto.gov/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=83952&dbid=0&repo=PaloAlto&searchid=d9f09a55 -fa77-4887-8005-bb508af17995 Item 3 Attachment F - Stakeholder Engagement Overview Packet Pg. 189 well as accompanying network enhancements. In addition, the resident-developed “Loma Verde–Alma Median Hybrid Plan” was presented by several community members at the workshop. Key findings included: o Many participants expressed a clear preference for further evaluation of a Hybrid/Loma Verde-based alternative rather than Alternatives A1 and A2. Supporters viewed Loma Verde Avenue as a more central and appropriately sized corridor, with stronger connections to schools, parks, the Baylands, and existing bicycle facilities. Participants also cited the opportunity to avoid residential property acquisition, major driveway and parking impacts, and the operational constraints associated with concentrating new bicycle, pedestrian, and vehicle activity on narrow El Dorado Avenue. o Both Alternatives A1 and A2 generated substantial concern about neighborhood safety and circulation. For A1, a limited number of participants supported a new Alma Street signal as a means of slowing traffic and improving crossing safety. However, many others were concerned that the signal could attract cut-through traffic to El Dorado Avenue, create southbound queues on Alma Street, and increase conflicts between people walking/biking and vehicles. Concerns were stronger for A2, particularly regarding potential property acquisitions, one-way operations, parking loss, driveway access, emergency response, utility conflicts, and cost. o Participants asked the City to more fully evaluate real-world traffic conditions, especially afternoon peak-period queueing, the Alma/Oregon/Page Mill area, emergency access, and likely diversion onto neighborhood streets, before advancing an El Dorado Avenue concept. Many also requested a more transparent explanation of how locations were screened, why Loma Verde was not advanced as a primary alternative, and how project benefits compare with the nearby California Avenue undercrossing. Several comments raised equity and displacement concerns, emphasizing that potential effects on renters, affordable housing, and long-time residents should be carefully addressed through the alternatives analysis and outreach process. o Feedback on the draft network enhancements was mixed. Participants generally supported measures that directly improve walking and bicycling safety, such as improved crossings, lighting, wayfinding, bicycle infrastructure, traffic calming, and speed management, particularly along Loma Verde Avenue and school- access routes. In contrast, neighborhood traffic circles received strong opposition, with concerns about geometric fit, front-yard impacts, and uncertain bicycle-safety benefits; curb bulb-outs and vertical curbs also drew mixed reactions. • Pop-Up Events at community-wide events. Item 3 Attachment F - Stakeholder Engagement Overview Packet Pg. 190 • Emails (as in Phases 1 and 2). The City received over 50 emails with public comments and questions. Public comments reflected broad support for improving bicycle and pedestrian connectivity in south Palo Alto, with differing views regarding the need for an additional crossing, the preferred location and design, and project timing. The City also received a petition and additional correspondence requesting removal of Alternatives A1 and A2 from consideration and a formal evaluation of the “Loma Verde-Alma Median Hybrid Plan”. A synthesis of public comments received through email is presented in Attachment G. • Presentations at meetings with PABAC16 and CSTSC 17. A synthesis of feedback received during each meeting is presented in Attachment H. Upcoming meetings with PTC, Rail Committee, and the City Council as tentatively scheduled in Quarter 4 in 2026. The public draft report will include a funding and implementation plan for up to two preferred alternatives and additional improvements in the surrounding neighborhoods and will be shared for feedback as part of Phase 3 of engagement in early 2027. Additional community meetings are being planned to follow the release of the public draft report. Phase 4 Community Engagement Council Adopt Final Report (Spring 2027) A final report will be shared mid 2027 in Phase 4 for community review and potential adoption by the City Council. 16 Pedestrian and Bicycle Advisory Committee, August 6, 2026; Discussion Item #7.a.; https://www.paloalto.gov/files/assets/public/v/1/transportation/bicycling-walking/pabac/pabac-meetings- 2026/2026-08-06_pabac-agenda-packet_final_v2.pdf 17 City/School Transportation Safety Committee, August 20, 2026; https://www.paloalto.gov/Events- Directory/Office-of-Transportation/CSTSC-Meetings-2026-2027 Item 3 Attachment F - Stakeholder Engagement Overview Packet Pg. 191 SOUTH PALO ALTO BIKE/PED CONNECTIVITY PHASE 3 COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT SUMMARY OF PUBLIC COMMENTS Updated: September 15, 2026 A synthesis of public comments received through email is presented below: • General support for improving bicycle and pedestrian connectivity in south Palo Alto, with differing views on whether an additional crossing is needed, the appropriate crossing location, the preferred design, and project timing. • Support for Alternative A1 over Alternative A2 based on the published alternatives assessment, including A1’s lower estimated cost, fewer anticipated utility and emergency-access issues, and avoidance of residential property acquisitions. Other commenters expressed concern that a potential at-grade crossing at Alma Street could create safety and operational effects associated with vehicle speeds, signal compliance, traffic queues, turning movements, and arterial operations. • Concern that Alternative A2 and its variants would require acquisition or removal of homes, major utility relocations, and more extensive construction near residences, resulting in increased disruption, risk, cost, and schedule uncertainty. • Loma Verde–Alma Median Hybrid Plan: The City received a petition, reported to include more than 130 signatures to date, as well as supplemental correspondence from residents requesting that the City remove El Dorado Avenue from consideration and formally evaluate the Loma Verde–Alma Median Hybrid Plan. While supporting improved bicycle and pedestrian connectivity, petitioners and commenters raise concerns about driveway and neighborhood access, potential increases in bicycle, e-bike, and vehicle traffic, emergency access and evacuation conditions, parking loss, cut-through traffic, school-route safety, potential environmental effects, private property acquisition, and other neighborhood impacts associated with the El Dorado Avenue alternatives. The proposed Hybrid Plan would: o Locate a signalized crossing at Loma Verde Avenue and Alma Street; o Shift Alma Street travel lanes eastward; and o Use available land between Alma Street and the railroad corridor to maximize feasible space for a combined pedestrian walkway and two -way Class IV protected bikeway extending from Loma Verde Avenue to the El Dorado rail undercrossing axis. Item 3 Attachment G - Phase 3 Community Engagement Summary of Public Comments Packet Pg. 192 The concept would use the El Dorado rail axis for an underpass connection to Park Boulevard. Petitioners request that the City evaluate the concept’s feasibility, including roadway geometry, right-of-way, utilities, traffic operations, driveway access, emergency response, rail-corridor safety, environmental considerations, cost, and its potential to avoid private property acquisition. Commenters also request comparative technical and safety evaluation of the Hybrid Plan and a Matadero Creek path alternative before selecting an El Dorado Avenue alignment. • Suggestions to evaluate coordinated signals at Loma Verde Avenue and El Carmelo Avenue, with the Loma Verde Avenue signal serving vehicular movements and the El Carmelo Avenue signal serving bicycle and pedestrian movements, to reduce vehicle diversion for the Hybrid Plan. • Suggestion to evaluate a bicycle-permeable barrier at the Alma Street/El Dorado Avenue intersection, combined with a traffic signal, to prevent motor vehicles from entering or exiting El Dorado Avenue while maintaining bicycle access. • Suggestions to prioritize improvements to the existing California Avenue underpass and complete planned rail grade-separation projects at Churchill Avenue, East Meadow Drive, and Charleston Road. Some commenters recommend deferring a decision on an additional crossing until these projects are operational and post- implementation bicycle, pedestrian, and vehicle travel patterns can be evaluated. • Concerns that an El Dorado Avenue undercrossing could duplicate the nearby California Avenue underpass, may have limited demonstrated demand or school- access benefit, and may not justify its cost relative to other improvements or crossing locations. Some commenters identified potential school-route benefits for some Midtown students and bicycle-safety benefits from an El Dorado crossing. • Concerns that El Dorado Avenue’s narrow width may not safely accommodate bicyclists, two-way vehicle traffic, and on-street parking. Commenters note that El Dorado Avenue functions as an important access route to Alma Street for portions of the surrounding neighborhood, receives overflow parking from nearby residences, and includes properties with driveways accessing the street. • Questions about whether a shared bicycle boulevard is appropriate on El Dorado Avenue given its constrained width, current parking practices, and role as a neighborhood access route, including potential conflicts at driveways and increased bicycle, e-bike, and vehicle volumes. Requests for clarification include bicycle boulevard design, parking retention, traffic volumes, operations at the El Dorado Avenue/Alma Street intersection, and proposed traffic-control changes Item 3 Attachment G - Phase 3 Community Engagement Summary of Public Comments Packet Pg. 193 along El Dorado Avenue, including potential stop-control modifications and a traffic circle at Bryant Street and El Dorado Avenue. • Concerns that parking removal, continued sidewalk parking and limited enforcement, construction activity, traffic calming, and circulation changes could affect neighborhood access, pedestrian accessibility, emergency response, and residents reliant on on-street or overflow parking. Commenters specifically raise concerns regarding access to cul-de-sac streets that depend on El Dorado Avenue for primary vehicle access, and request analysis of potential emergency-response delays associated with traffic queues or congestion. • Requests for assessment of potential localized air-quality and noise effects associated with changes in traffic operations and volumes, as well as the presence of the California-Olive-Emerson (COE) Toxic Underground Plume near the proposed El Dorado Avenue undercrossing. • Suggestions to consider a more centralized crossing closer to East Meadow or alternative connections at Loma Verde Avenue or El Carmelo Avenue, including a north-south shared bicycle and pedestrian path along the Alma Street corridor connecting to existing and planned crossings. • Request to evaluate a dedicated bicycle and pedestrian connection along the north side of Matadero Creek between Alma Street and Bryant Street, including its feasibility, width, ADA grades, creek-crossing conditions, property/easement requirements, environmental constraints, cost, and comparative safety and emergency-access effects. • Requests additional information and analysis for the El Dorado alternatives, including alignment with the bicycle path between Portage Avenue and Park Boulevard, tunnel depth and length, ramp and stair configurations, ADA requirements, bicycle/pedestrian separation and wayfinding, and potential construction effects on nearby buildings, and PAUSD school attendance boundaries, student travel patterns, and Walk and Roll routes. • Requests for direct notification, additional outreach, and continued engagement with affected residents as the alignment, ramp configuration, signal design, parking, circulation, and construction staging are refined. Commenters request that alternatives remain subject to technical analysis and community review before a preferred alignment is advanced, with particular concern that outreach may not have adequately reached Midtown, El Dorado Avenue, and immediately adjoining residents. Item 3 Attachment G - Phase 3 Community Engagement Summary of Public Comments Packet Pg. 194 South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Phase 3 Community Engagement Synthesis of Standing Meetings August 20, 2026 Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 1 SOUTH PALO ALTO BIKE/PED CONNECTIVITY PHASE 3 COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT SYNTHESIS OF STANDING MEETINGS Pedestrian and Bicycle Advisory Committee (PABAC) Meeting (August 6, 2026) • Generally supportive of Alternative A1 due to its simpler design, fewer implementation challenges, and stronger likelihood of advancing quickly. • Some members supported continuing to advance Alternative A2, while others recommended eliminating A2 to reduce costs, shorten the project development process, and focus resources on the more feasible alternative. • Requested additional clarification on key assumptions, including construction cost estimates, comparison to the Homer Avenue tunnel, anticipated pedestrian and bicycle demand, potential student use, induced demand, and how parcel impacts were identified for Alternative A2. • Expressed concern with the feasibility and impacts of Alternative A2, particularly given the narrow width of El Dorado Avenue, long ADA ramp requirements, potential property impacts, and emergency access considerations. • Provided feedback on tunnel and ramp design considerations, including: ο Consider reduced tunnel height/depth where feasible to shorten ramp lengths and reduce impacts. ο Confirm whether tunnel width references clear width or structural width. ο Consider tunnel safety features such as cameras. ο Evaluate whether both east-side ramps are necessary or whether one ramp could reduce cost and travel distance. • Emphasized that an at-grade Alma Street crossing under Alternative A1 must be safe, low-delay for bicyclist and pedestrian crossings (e.g., less than one minute), and well-coordinated with nearby signals to discourage illegal crossings and reduce conflicts. • Suggested exploring signal treatments for Alternative A1, including a push button, Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon, advance driver warning, or coordinated signal timing that could support slower and steadier vehicle progression (i.e., “green wave”) on Alma Street. • Provided feedback on proposed network enhancements, including: ο Support for bicycle boulevard treatments and a modal filter on El Dorado Avenue to discourage cut-through traffic accessing the proposed signal. ο Support for a roundabout at Bryant Street/El Carmelo Avenue for traffic calming and safety. Item 3 Attachment H - Phase 3 Community Engagement Synthesis of Standing Meetings Packet Pg. 195 South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Phase 3 Community Engagement Synthesis of Standing Meetings August 20, 2026 Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 2 ο Recommended eliminating the raised intersection at Portage Avenue/Park Boulevard due to cost and concerns about effectiveness and suggested keeping the raised crosswalk recently installed at this location. ο Suggested curb bulb-outs should be focused at intersections with higher traffic volumes and that bulb-outs at El Carmelo Avenue/Bryant Street and Oregon Avenue/Bryant Street could be removed to reduce costs. ο Suggested reducing speed limits on Alma Street. • Requested clarification on whether network enhancements are included in the project scope and on the cost/schedule implications of advancing one alternative versus both alternatives to 15% design. • PABAC conducted a straw poll: ο All members present supported advancing Alternative A1 to 15% design. ο Four members also supported advancing Alternative A2 to 15% design. City/School Transportation Safety Committee (CSTSC) Meeting (August 20, 2026) • Requested clarification on the anticipated difference in construction duration between Alternatives A1 and A2. • Requested clarification on whether trips currently using the California Avenue crossing may shift to the proposed El Dorado Avenue crossing. • Expressed concern that property impacts associated with Alternative A2 could create project- delivery risks, including potential cost increases, delays, or impacts to overall project feasibility. • Requested clarification on the anticipated sequencing of the Rail Grade Separation crossings relative to the proposed El Dorado Avenue crossing. Planning and Transportation (PTC) Committee Meeting (September 30, 2026) • Forthcoming Rail Committee Meeting (November 10, 2026) • Forthcoming City Council Meeting (December 7, 2026) • Forthcoming Item 3 Attachment H - Phase 3 Community Engagement Synthesis of Standing Meetings Packet Pg. 196 Item No. 4. Page 1 of 8 1 0 5 0 4 Planning & Transportation Commission Staff Report From: Planning and Development Services Director Lead Department: Office of Transportation Meeting Date: September 30, 2026 Report #: 2608-6659 TITLE Bryant Street Bike Boulevard and Lincoln Avenue Traffic Calming Project Initial Design Concepts. CEQA Status: Exempt Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301: Existing Facilities. RECOMMENDATION Review the updated concept plans for portions of Bryant Street and Lincoln Avenue (Attachment A) and recommend Council direct staff to advance the following elements: 1. Traffic circles at Bryant Street/Lincoln Avenue, Bryant Street/Kingsley Avenue, Waverley Street/Lincoln Avenue and Bryant Avenue/Addison Avenue intersection (upgraded); 2. Curb extensions at Bryant Street/Channing Avenue and Bryant Street/Homer Avenue intersections; 3. High-visibility crosswalks and corner daylighting along Bryant Street from Homer to Embarcadero and at Waverley Street/Lincoln Avenue intersection; 4. Bicycle Boulevard pavement marking along Bryant Street; 5. Short-term parking zone outside the Palo Alto Sub-Acute and Rehabilitation Center; and 6. Pilot left turn restriction from eastbound Embarcadero Road to northbound Bryant Street. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The City of Palo Alto has developed updated conceptual plans (Attachment A) to advance the Bryant Street Bike Boulevard Downtown Access project from the 2026 Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan (BPTP) and address resident concerns regarding vehicle volumes and speeds in the vicinity of Bryant Street and Lincoln Avenue intersection. The City initiated the project in early 2026 after reviewing the outcome of a 2024 Neighborhood Traffic Calming petition in the context of plans to update the City’s 2001 Traffic Calming Policy and the 2026 BPTP. Staff has reviewed traffic speeds and volumes and compiled suggested design concepts that include best practice traffic calming treatments and proven safety countermeasures, and incorporate recent resident feedback received at a September 10, 2026, Neighborhood Item 4 Item 4 Staff Report Packet Pg. 197 Item No. 4. Page 2 of 8 1 0 5 0 4 Meeting. Treatments under consideration include new and updated traffic circles, curb extensions, high visibility crosswalks, pavement marking, and a pilot left-turn restriction at Embarcadero Road, to reduce vehicle speeds, enhance pedestrian and bicycle safety along this school route, and manage cut-through traffic along this segment of Bryant Street. BACKGROUND 1 2 which also highlighted the early success of Bryant Street Bicycle Boulevard in maintaining low vehicle volumes (less than 1,000 vehicles per day) and included a toolkit of potential design guidelines and standards to utilize in upgrading facilities. On March 17, 2014, City Council subsequently approved executing a contract with Alta Planning + Design to design bicycle boulevard improvements for several local corridors including Bryant Street.3 Following Council deliberations on February 24, 2020; however, the second phase of project implementation, which would have included Bryant Street, was paused due to concerns regarding initial implementation feedback and staffing capacity.4 5, which reiterated the need to build- out a local low-stress bicycle network and advance bicycle-related improvements along Bryant Street under project BLVD_2: Bryant Street Bike Boulevard Downtown Access Project. Also on June 15, 2026, the City Council adopted the 2027 City’s Capital Budget, which incorporated 1 City of Palo Alto. 2030 Comprehensive Plan. https://www.paloalto.gov/files/assets/public/v/4/planning-amp-development-services/3.- comprehensive-plan/comprehensive-plan/full-comp-plan-2030_with-dec19_22-amendments.pdf 2 City of Palo Alto. 2012 Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan. https://www.paloalto.gov/files/assets/public/transportation/projects/bicycle-pedestrian-transportation-plan_adopted-july-2012.pdf 3 Palo Alto City Council Meeting. March 17, 2024, Action Item: Approval of Five Consultant Contracts Totaling $2,231,211 for Design and Environmental Review of Bicycle Plan Implementation Projects and Adoption of a Budget Amendment Ordinance for $335,000. https://www.paloalto.gov/files/assets/public/v/1/agendas-minutes-reports/reports/city-manager-reports-cmrs/year-archive/2014/id-4372.pdf 4 Palo Alto City Council Meeting. February 24, 2020, Action Item: Evaluation of the Neighborhood Traffic Safety and Bicycle Boulevard Phase 1 Project, Including Acceptance of Findings Regarding Increasing Bicycle Usage, Affirmation or Approval of Project Modifications, Affirmation of Planned Education Activities and Process to Update Community Engagement, and Acknowledgement of Associated Actions by Staff. https://www.paloalto.gov/files/assets/public/v/1/agendas-minutes-reports/reports/city-manager-reports-cmrs/year-archive/2020/id- 11078.pdf?t=59621.62. 5 City of Palo Alto 2026 Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan, Project webpage: https://www.paloalto.gov/Departments/Transportation/Bicycling-Walking/bikepedplan. Item 4 Item 4 Staff Report Packet Pg. 198 Item No. 4. Page 3 of 8 1 0 5 0 4 project TR-27000 Transportation Infrastructure Improvements to allow efficient delivery of small-scale, community-driven improvements including responds to traffic calming petitions. ANALYSIS Resident Concerns and Existing Conditions Table 1: Traffic Calming Program Metric Threshold (TC Policy 2001) Bryant Street (9/27/2023)Points Item 4 Item 4 Staff Report Packet Pg. 199 Item No. 4. Page 4 of 8 1 0 5 0 4 1 85th percentile speed (miles per hour, mph) ≥32 mph – local street ≥35 mph – collector 24.5 mph NB 26.3 mph SB 0 2 Volume of vehicle traffic (VPD: vehicles per day) ≥1,200 vpd – local street ≥4,000 vpd – collector 1,940 - 2,190 vpd, 2023 (1,565 vpd, 2015 2,089 vpd, 2026) 1 3 Walking distance to school, park, community center, facility for seniors or people with disabilities, or site with significant pedestrian activity (feet) <1,000 feet ~1,000’ Scott Park 1,100’ Heritage Park 1 4 Evidence of cut-through (through or non- neighborhood) traffic Significant License plate survey not undertaken N/A 5 Unusual accident history (except due to parking, vehicle equipment, drug/alcohol) ≥6 crashes / 3 years or ≥fatal crash / 3 years 3 (1/1/2019-9/30/2023)0 Total At least 2 of 5 criteria needed to advance 2 More recent (2026) data collection identifies a prevailing speed of 28 mph along Bryant Street, daily vehicle volume of 2,089 vehicle per day along Bryant Street, and history of 10 collisions within the study area over a ten-year period (see Figure 1). Please see Attachment B for maps of recent reported collisions in the project area and Attachment C for the Data Collection Summary Memo including the complete turning movement counts. Figure 1: Reported Collisions on Bryant Street (2016-2024): Source: California Highway Patrol Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System, 2026 Item 4 Item 4 Staff Report Packet Pg. 200 Item No. 4. Page 5 of 8 1 0 5 0 4 Staff note that even a number of parameters that do not exceed the City’s traffic calming thresholds, may still exceed recent road design guidance documents such as the AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities (2012), Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Bikeway Selection Guide (2019), and National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) Urban Bikeway Design Guide (2025).11 For example, the above guidelines suggest a design speed of 20 mph for shared streets or bicycle boulevards and design volume of 1,000 vehicles per day, both of which are lower than prevailing conditions within the project area. Project Goals Notwithstanding current traffic calming thresholds, best practice guidance input from neighbors indicated that concept designs should aim to achieve the following goals: Reduced vehicular volume along this bicycle boulevard and designated school route; Reduced collisions and near miss incidents particularly at Bryant/Lincoln intersection; Reduced motor vehicle speeds; and Restoration of some on-street parking in this urban neighborhood. Initial Concept Design Based on the above goals and best practice guidelines, initial concept designs were developed for this study area including the following elements: 1.Traffic Circles at Bryant/Kingsley, Lincoln/Waverley, and Bryant/Addison (upgrade) intersections: Similar to roundabouts, these treatments include a circular central island, but with a smaller geometric footprint and potential for stop-control. Traffic circles are designed to eliminate severe conflict points (like conflicting left turns) and slow traffic, which reduces the probability of severe collisions. Traffic circles are associated with a 3 to 4 mph speed reduction12 and lower travel speeds are associated with fewer and less severe crashes. 11 United States Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration, Bikeway Selection Guide, February 2019: https://highways.dot.gov/sites/fhwa.dot.gov/files/2022-07/fhwasa18077.pdf. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities, 5th Edition: https://store.transportation.org/item/publicationdetail/5371?srsltid=AU7gw4X0T9w4uGQXhgU0dKf3Z4d4u5msaZzZebrToA1y2GH7K_cU5ON2. 12 Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). Traffic Calming E-Primer: Module 4: Effects of Traffic Calming Measures on Motor Vehicle Speed and Volume. https://highways.dot.gov/safety/speed management/traffic-calming-eprimer/module-4-effects-traffic-calming-measures- motor#note17 Item 4 Item 4 Staff Report Packet Pg. 201 Item No. 4. Page 6 of 8 1 0 5 0 4 2.Curb Extensions (Bulbouts) at Bryant/Channing Ave and Bryant/Homer intersections: A curb extension is a traffic calming measure that widens the sidewalk for a short distance to enhance the pedestrian crossing. This reduces the crossing distance and allows pedestrians and drivers to see each other when parked vehicles would otherwise block visibility. 3.High Visibility Crosswalks at Bryant Street intersections from Homer to Embarcadero, plus Waverley/Lincoln intersection. A high-visibility crosswalk has ladder or continental crosswalk markings made of high visibility material to improve the visibility of marked crosswalks and provides motorists with a cue to slow down and yield to pedestrians. Visibility will also be enhanced with 15 or 20 feet of red curbs in accordance with the Daylighting Law (AB 413). 4.Bicycle Boulevard Pavement Marking along Bryant Street: This treatment aims to improve driver awareness and enhance wayfinding for bicyclists. 5.Pilot Left Turn Restriction from eastbound Embarcadero Road to northbound Bryant Street: Pilot installation of a left turn restrictions from eastbound Embarcadero Road onto northbound Bryant Street is proposed to reduce vehicle volumes along this bicycle boulevard. Staff proposes to test this treatment to better understand implications for Bryant and parallel streets. 6.Passenger Loading Zone at 911 Bryant Street: A new short- term loading zone is suggested providing a location for ambulances and caregivers to drop off and pick up patients outside the Palo Alto Sub-Acute and Rehabilitation Center. This treatment would also reduce the need for students and other travelers to pass vehicles by travel in the counterflow direction along Bryant Street. 7. Pilot Diagonal Diverter at Bryant/Lincoln: The initial design concept included a traffic diverters at Bryant/Lincoln aimed at maintaining low traffic volumes while maintaining connectivity for vulnerable roadway users along Bryant Street.15 (This item will not advance as discussed below.) Attachment D includes a table that outlines the improvements described above, organized by the specific street or intersection and the corresponding suggested improvement. Updated Concept Design 15 City of Mountain View, California, Vizion Zero Action Plan & Local Road Safety Plan, September 2024: https://www.mountainview.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/11378/638840379802630000 Item 4 Item 4 Staff Report Packet Pg. 202 Item No. 4. Page 7 of 8 1 0 5 0 4 In late August 2026, the City published initial concept plans on the project webpage and subsequently presented them to corridor residents at a September 10, 2026, Neighborhood Meeting. Community members provided the following feedback on initial design concepts: Strong support for Items #1 – 5 above; Desire to accelerate implementation and obtain PTC recommendation to advance to 100% design; Recommendation to replace the diagonal diverter at Bryant/Lincoln intersection with a traffic circle to avoid restricting neighborhood access and mitigate potential impacts to adjacent streets such as Waverley Street and Emerson Street; and, Encouragement for City staff to consider efforts to lower posted speed limits of 15 or 20 miles per hour along designated bicycle boulevards. Next Steps FISCAL/RESOURCE IMPACT STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT Item 4 Item 4 Staff Report Packet Pg. 203 Item No. 4. Page 8 of 8 1 0 5 0 4 Following this meeting, staff updated the concept plans (Attachment A) to incorporate resident feedback. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ATTACHMENTS AUTHOR/TITLE: Item 4 Item 4 Staff Report Packet Pg. 204 AD D I S O N A V E LI N C O L N A V E BRYANT STKI N G S L E Y A V E EM B A R C A D E R O R D HO M E R A V E BRYANT ST CH A N N I N G A V E Bryant Street Bicycle Boulevard Improvement Project Not to Scale CONCEPTUAL - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION. ADDITIONAL DETAILED ANALYSIS AND ENGINEERING DESIGN REQUIRED. Bryant Street Figure 1 MA T C H L I N E MA T C H L I N E Item 4Attachment A - Updated 15% ConceptPlans Bryant Lincoln Traffic Calming,dated September 16, 2026 Packet Pg. 205 KI N G S L E Y A V E CONCEPTUAL - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION. ADDITIONAL DETAILED ANALYSIS AND ENGINEERING DESIGN REQUIRED. WAVERLEY ST AD D I S O N A V E LI N C O L N A V E Bryant Street Bicycle Boulevard Improvement Project Waverley Street Figure 2 Not to Scale Item 4Attachment A - Updated 15% ConceptPlans Bryant Lincoln Traffic Calming,dated September 16, 2026 Packet Pg. 206 Attachment B: Maps of Reported Collisions and BPTP Bicycle and Pedestrian High-Injury Network Reported Collisions on Bryant Street (2016-2024): Source: California Highway Patrol Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System, 2026 2026 BPTP Bicycle and Pedestrian High-Injury Network Concentration of collisions Item 4 Attachment B - Maps of Reported Collisions and BPTP Bicycle and Pedestrian High-Injury Network Packet Pg. 207 Bryant Street Data Collection Memo Date: June 18, 2026 To: Ozzy Arce and Ria Lo, City of Palo Alto From: Ari Feinsmith, Ingrid Ballus Armet, and Hugh Louch, Fehr & Peers Subject: Bryant Street Data Collection Overview Fehr & Peers collected volume, speed, and vehicle classification data and reviewed collision data on Bryant Street and Waverley Street between Homer Avenue and Embarcadero Road as part of the Bryant Street Bicycle Boulevard project. Fehr & Peers will use this data to develop concept designs that improve safety and bicyclist comfort. Turning Movement Counts Fehr & Peers conducted turning movement counts on Tuesday, May 12, 2026 from 7–9 AM and 3–6 PM at the following locations: • Bryant Street and Lincoln Avenue • Bryant Street and Embarcadero Road Appendix A provides the turning movement counts. The morning peak hour was found to be 8–9 AM while the afternoon peak hour was found to be 4:30–5:30 PM. Vehicle Volumes and Speeds The speed limit on Bryant Street is 25 miles per hour (MPH). Tube counts for speed, classification, and volumes were collected from Friday, May 8 through Thursday, May 14, 2026. The tubes were placed at the following locations: • Bryant Street between Lincoln Avenue and Kingsley Avenue • Waverly Street between Lincoln Avenue and Kingsley Avenue Item 4 Attachment C - Data Collection Summary Memo & Appendix A Packet Pg. 208 Bryant Street Summary Findings | 2 Appendix A provides the tube counts data. Vehicles generally have slightly higher speeds in the northbound direction than the southbound direction. 38% of northbound vehicles exceeded 25 MPH, while 26% of southbound vehicles exceeded 25 MPH. Additionally, the northbound 85th percentile speed was 28.1 MPH, while the southbound 85th percentile was 27.1 MPH. Speeds are marginally higher than 2015, which had a bidirectional 85th percentile speed of 26.2 MPH. The 2015 speed data was collected by Alta Planning + Design and is provided in Appendix B. Collision Data Fehr & Peers reviewed collision data from 2016 to 2024 from the California Highway Patrol Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS) accessed through UC Berkeley SafeTREC’s Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS). Note that 2024 data is provisional. This collision data was supplemented with documentation by local residents submitted to the City of Palo Alto on November 6, 2024. Appendix C summarizes the collision data. Figure 1 shows a map of the reported collisions. Between 2016 and 2024 there were 10 reported collisions on Bryant Street between Homer Avenue and Embarcadero Road. Collisions occurred most frequently at the intersections of Bryant Street & Lincoln Avenue and Bryant Street & Channing Avenue. 30% of collisions involved a bicyclist and at least 50% of collisions were broadside collisions. Figure 1: Collisions on Bryant Street from 2016-2024 Item 4 Attachment C - Data Collection Summary Memo & Appendix A Packet Pg. 209 Bryant Street Summary Findings | 3 Summary Since 2015, vehicle volumes and speeds on Bryant have increased. Table 1 summarizes the key findings. Table 1. Bryant Street Summary of Findings Bryant 20151 20262 Change (%) Average Daily Vehicle Trips 1,565 2,089 +34% Peak Hour Vehicles Trips 213 249 +17% Peak Hour Bicycle Trips N/A 55 N/A 85th Percentile Speed 26.2 27.6 +5% Sources: 1. Alta Planning + Design, 2015. 2. Fehr & Peers, 2026. Item 4 Attachment C - Data Collection Summary Memo & Appendix A Packet Pg. 210 X Appendix A: 2026 Volumes, Speeds, and Vehicle Classification Item 4 Attachment C - Data Collection Summary Memo & Appendix A Packet Pg. 211 www.idaxdata.com Date: Peak Hour Count Period: Peak Hour: HV% PHF EB 0% 0.61 WB 2% 0.84 NB 1% 0.81 SB 3% 0.73 TOTAL 2% 0.92 Peak Hour Count Summaries UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT 8:00 AM 0 2 18 0 0 0 16 0 0 0 11 3 0 3 3 2 58 0 8:15 AM 0 1 11 2 0 3 13 7 0 2 12 10 0 1 2 0 64 0 8:30 AM 0 0 5 1 0 0 25 3 0 0 11 6 0 1 10 0 62 0 8:45 AM 0 0 9 0 0 3 23 1 0 5 14 4 0 1 8 1 69 253 0 3 43 3 0 6 77 11 0 7 48 23 0 6 23 3 253 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 4 - 0% 0% 0% - 0% 3% 0% - 0% 2% 0% - 0% 4% 0% 2% EB WB NB SB EB WB NB SB E W N S 8:00 AM 0 0 0 0 3 3 3 0 4 1 1 2 8:15 AM 0 0 0 1 4 2 7 19 4 4 2 1 8:30 AM 0 2 1 0 0 4 3 4 4 4 0 0 8:45 AM 0 0 0 0 1 9 9 10 1 1 1 3 Peak Hour 0 2 1 1 8 18 22 33 13 10 4 64 81 33 3 11 8 0 29 6 0 9 8 1 32 11 Note: For complete count summary (all intervals), see following pages. ** Heavy Vehicle Classifications include FHWA Classes 4-13. ** Count Summaries include heavy vehicles, but exclude bicycles in overall count. Interval Start Heavy Vehicle Totals Bicycles Pedestrians (Crossing Leg) Total Total Total Rolling Hour TotalEastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound 5/12/2026 7:00 AM to 9:00 AM 8:00 AM to 9:00 AM Peak Hour Interval Start Lincoln Ave Lincoln Ave Bryant St Bryant St 15-min Total NorCal Project Manager (415) 444-6376 norcal.projectmanager@idaxdata.com Item 4 Attachment C - Data Collection Summary Memo & Appendix A Packet Pg. 212 www.idaxdata.com Count Summaries - All Vehicles UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT 7:00 AM 0 0 3 1 0 0 8 1 0 1 10 0 0 0 1 0 25 0 7:15 AM 0 0 7 0 0 1 11 0 0 0 12 0 0 0 7 1 39 0 7:30 AM 0 1 4 0 0 4 13 1 0 1 12 0 0 0 2 0 38 0 7:45 AM 0 0 4 2 0 1 15 0 0 0 12 2 0 0 3 2 41 143 8:00 AM 0 2 18 0 0 0 16 0 0 0 11 3 0 3 3 2 58 176 8:15 AM 0 1 11 2 0 3 13 7 0 2 12 10 0 1 2 0 64 201 8:30 AM 0 0 5 1 0 0 25 3 0 0 11 6 0 1 10 0 62 225 8:45 AM 0 0 9 0 0 3 23 1 0 5 14 4 0 1 8 1 69 253 Count Total 0 4 61 6 0 12 124 13 0 9 94 25 0 6 36 6 396 0 3 43 3 0 6 77 11 0 7 48 23 0 6 23 3 253 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 4 - 0% 0% 0% - 0% 3% 0% - 0% 2% 0% - 0% 4% 0% 2% EB WB NB SB EB WB NB SB E W N S 7:00 AM 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 3 0 0 0 7:15 AM 0 1 0 0 0 1 3 3 2 0 0 0 7:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 1 0 3 2 2 7:45 AM 0 0 1 0 2 2 6 5 2 1 1 4 8:00 AM 0 0 0 0 3 3 3 0 4 1 1 2 8:15 AM 0 0 0 1 4 2 7 19 4 4 2 1 8:30 AM 0 2 1 0 0 4 3 4 4 4 0 0 8:45 AM 0 0 0 0 1 9 9 10 1 1 1 3 Count Total 1 3 2 1 10 21 37 44 20 14 7 12 Peak Hour 0 2 1 1 8 18 22 33 13 10 4 6 7 112 53 4 81 33 3 11 8 0 29 6 0 9 8 1 32 11 0 6 7 1 15 8 1 3 3 1 7 2 Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Interval Start Heavy Vehicle Totals Bicycles Pedestrians (Crossing Leg) Total Interval Start Lincoln Ave Lincoln Ave Bryant St Bryant St 15-min Total Rolling Hour Total Total Total NorCal Project Manager (415) 444-6376 norcal.projectmanager@idaxdata.com Item 4 Attachment C - Data Collection Summary Memo & Appendix A Packet Pg. 213 www.idaxdata.com Count Summaries - Heavy Vehicles UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT 7:00 AM 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 7:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 7:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 8:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 8:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 8:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 5 8:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 Count Total 0 0 1 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 7 Pk Hr Heavy 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 4 Count Summaries - Bikes UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT 7:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 3 0 7:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 2 0 0 1 2 0 7 0 7:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 0 0 1 0 6 0 7:45 AM 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 5 0 15 31 8:00 AM 0 0 0 3 0 3 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 37 8:15 AM 0 0 3 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 18 1 32 62 8:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 4 0 11 67 8:45 AM 0 0 0 1 0 1 8 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 9 1 29 81 Count Total 0 0 3 7 0 6 15 0 0 4 30 3 0 1 41 2 112 Pk Hr Bike 0 0 3 5 0 6 12 0 0 3 19 0 0 0 31 2 81 15-min Total Rolling Hour TotalEastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Rolling Hour TotalEastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Interval Start Lincoln Ave Lincoln Ave Bryant St Bryant St Interval Start Lincoln Ave Lincoln Ave Bryant St Bryant St 15-min Total NorCal Project Manager (415) 444-6376 norcal.projectmanager@idaxdata.com Item 4 Attachment C - Data Collection Summary Memo & Appendix A Packet Pg. 214 www.idaxdata.com Date: Peak Hour Count Period: Peak Hour: HV% PHF EB 0% 0.71 WB 0% 0.70 NB 1% 0.77 SB 0% 0.75 TOTAL 0% 0.85 Peak Hour Count Summaries UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT 4:30 PM 0 0 10 2 0 3 9 0 0 2 20 4 0 5 8 0 63 0 4:45 PM 0 1 17 4 0 1 11 3 0 1 26 2 0 4 18 0 88 0 5:00 PM 0 0 23 6 0 1 4 1 0 0 36 4 0 2 22 2 101 0 5:15 PM 0 0 16 3 0 1 7 1 0 3 39 4 0 4 13 0 91 343 0 1 66 15 0 6 31 5 0 6 121 14 0 15 61 2 343 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 - 0% 0% 0% - 0% 0% 0% - 0% 1% 0% - 0% 0% 0% 0% EB WB NB SB EB WB NB SB E W N S 4:30 PM 0 0 0 0 3 3 7 3 1 1 2 0 4:45 PM 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 7 2 2 0 0 5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 3 1 5 10 2 5 3 0 5:15 PM 0 0 1 0 1 0 12 6 2 2 1 0 Peak Hour 0 0 1 0 8 4 26 26 7 10 6 01 64 23 0 19 10 1 19 5 0 16 4 0 10 4 Note: For complete count summary (all intervals), see following pages. ** Heavy Vehicle Classifications include FHWA Classes 4-13. ** Count Summaries include heavy vehicles, but exclude bicycles in overall count. Interval Start Heavy Vehicle Totals Bicycles Pedestrians (Crossing Leg) Total Total Total Rolling Hour TotalEastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound 5/12/2026 3:00 PM to 6:00 PM 4:30 PM to 5:30 PM Peak Hour Interval Start Lincoln Ave Lincoln Ave Bryant St Bryant St 15-min Total NorCal Project Manager (415) 444-6376 norcal.projectmanager@idaxdata.com Item 4 Attachment C - Data Collection Summary Memo & Appendix A Packet Pg. 215 www.idaxdata.com Count Summaries - All Vehicles UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT 3:00 PM 0 3 9 1 0 2 7 1 0 1 15 3 0 1 3 0 46 0 3:15 PM 0 0 6 0 0 0 6 2 0 0 21 7 0 2 2 0 46 0 3:30 PM 0 0 8 0 0 1 7 1 0 0 15 3 0 2 5 0 42 0 3:45 PM 0 0 7 0 0 1 9 1 0 1 20 4 0 0 6 0 49 183 4:00 PM 0 2 4 0 0 0 11 1 0 2 16 1 0 2 4 2 45 182 4:15 PM 0 1 16 3 0 0 7 0 0 0 24 2 0 0 9 0 62 198 4:30 PM 0 0 10 2 0 3 9 0 0 2 20 4 0 5 8 0 63 219 4:45 PM 0 1 17 4 0 1 11 3 0 1 26 2 0 4 18 0 88 258 5:00 PM 0 0 23 6 0 1 4 1 0 0 36 4 0 2 22 2 101 314 5:15 PM 0 0 16 3 0 1 7 1 0 3 39 4 0 4 13 0 91 343 5:30 PM 1 0 7 2 0 0 4 3 0 2 31 0 0 4 7 0 61 341 5:45 PM 0 1 8 0 0 1 4 0 0 2 32 3 0 1 7 1 60 313 Count Total 1 8 131 21 0 11 86 14 0 14 295 37 0 27 104 5 754 0 1 66 15 0 6 31 5 0 6 121 14 0 15 61 2 343 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 - 0% 0% 0% - 0% 0% 0% - 0% 1% 0% - 0% 0% 0% 0% EB WB NB SB EB WB NB SB E W N S 3:00 PM 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 6 2 6 3 1 3:15 PM 0 0 0 0 3 0 6 2 2 3 4 2 3:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 3 11 3 3 5 2 1 3:45 PM 0 0 0 0 1 0 3 5 1 2 0 0 4:00 PM 0 0 1 0 2 0 7 2 4 3 3 0 4:15 PM 0 0 0 0 5 1 3 2 2 1 3 1 4:30 PM 0 0 0 0 3 3 7 3 1 1 2 0 4:45 PM 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 7 2 2 0 0 5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 3 1 5 10 2 5 3 0 5:15 PM 0 0 1 0 1 0 12 6 2 2 1 0 5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 3 1 5 5 0 3 5 3 5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 1 1 6 1 5 2 3 3 Count Total 0 0 2 0 25 10 68 52 26 35 29 11 Peak Hour 0 0 1 0 8 4 26 26 7 10 6 0 2 155 101 1 64 23 0 14 11 0 9 13 0 19 10 1 19 5 0 16 4 0 10 4 1 11 10 0 11 7 0 17 11 0 9 3 0 9 12 0 11 11 Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Interval Start Heavy Vehicle Totals Bicycles Pedestrians (Crossing Leg) Total Interval Start Lincoln Ave Lincoln Ave Bryant St Bryant St 15-min Total Rolling Hour Total Total Total NorCal Project Manager (415) 444-6376 norcal.projectmanager@idaxdata.com Item 4 Attachment C - Data Collection Summary Memo & Appendix A Packet Pg. 216 www.idaxdata.com Count Summaries - Heavy Vehicles UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT 3:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 4:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Count Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 Pk Hr Heavy 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 Count Summaries - Bikes UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT 3:00 PM 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 6 0 9 0 3:15 PM 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 5 0 0 0 2 0 11 0 3:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 2 8 1 0 0 3 0 17 0 3:45 PM 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 5 0 9 46 4:00 PM 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 2 0 11 48 4:15 PM 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 1 0 1 1 0 11 48 4:30 PM 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 6 1 0 0 3 0 16 47 4:45 PM 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 7 0 10 48 5:00 PM 0 0 3 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 4 1 0 0 10 0 19 56 5:15 PM 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 10 1 0 0 6 0 19 64 5:30 PM 0 0 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 3 1 0 0 5 0 14 62 5:45 PM 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 1 0 9 61 Count Total 0 2 20 3 0 4 2 4 0 5 57 6 0 1 51 0 155 Pk Hr Bike 0 2 6 0 0 0 1 3 0 1 22 3 0 0 26 0 64 15-min Total Rolling Hour TotalEastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Rolling Hour TotalEastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Interval Start Lincoln Ave Lincoln Ave Bryant St Bryant St Interval Start Lincoln Ave Lincoln Ave Bryant St Bryant St 15-min Total NorCal Project Manager (415) 444-6376 norcal.projectmanager@idaxdata.com Item 4 Attachment C - Data Collection Summary Memo & Appendix A Packet Pg. 217 www.idaxdata.com Date: Peak Hour Count Period: Peak Hour: HV% PHF EB 2% 0.95 WB 2% 0.84 NB 33% 0.38 SB 3% 0.68 TOTAL 2% 0.91 Peak Hour Count Summaries UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT 8:00 AM 0 11 168 23 0 7 179 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 402 0 8:15 AM 0 18 139 38 0 27 217 5 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 5 451 0 8:30 AM 0 12 156 19 0 17 293 5 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 9 512 0 8:45 AM 0 7 195 7 0 1 286 12 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 11 520 1,885 0 48 658 87 0 52 975 32 0 0 0 3 0 1 0 29 1,885 0 1 14 2 0 1 22 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 42 - 2% 2% 2% - 2% 2% 0% - - - 33% - 100% - 0% 2% EB WB NB SB EB WB NB SB E W N S 8:00 AM 4 7 0 0 0 0 2 12 2 1 4 2 8:15 AM 6 6 1 0 0 0 7 29 10 20 2 4 8:30 AM 3 5 0 1 0 1 4 6 5 6 2 1 8:45 AM 4 5 0 0 2 0 9 10 4 3 1 4 Peak Hour 17 23 1 1 2 1 22 57 21 30 9 1142 82 71 9 11 14 9 21 12 11 14 9 13 36 36 Note: For complete count summary (all intervals), see following pages. ** Heavy Vehicle Classifications include FHWA Classes 4-13. ** Count Summaries include heavy vehicles, but exclude bicycles in overall count. Interval Start Heavy Vehicle Totals Bicycles Pedestrians (Crossing Leg) Total Total Total Rolling Hour TotalEastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound 5/12/2026 7:00 AM to 9:00 AM 8:00 AM to 9:00 AM Peak Hour Interval Start Embarcadero Rd Embarcadero Rd Bryant St Bryant St 15-min Total NorCal Project Manager (415) 444-6376 norcal.projectmanager@idaxdata.com Item 4 Attachment C - Data Collection Summary Memo & Appendix A Packet Pg. 218 www.idaxdata.com Count Summaries - All Vehicles UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT 7:00 AM 0 1 89 4 0 4 199 9 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 309 0 7:15 AM 0 2 109 2 0 1 229 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 9 361 0 7:30 AM 0 4 181 4 0 4 219 9 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 4 426 0 7:45 AM 0 4 161 12 0 4 231 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 428 1,524 8:00 AM 0 11 168 23 0 7 179 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 402 1,617 8:15 AM 0 18 139 38 0 27 217 5 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 5 451 1,707 8:30 AM 0 12 156 19 0 17 293 5 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 9 512 1,793 8:45 AM 0 7 195 7 0 1 286 12 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 11 520 1,885 Count Total 0 59 1,198 109 0 65 1,853 68 0 0 0 5 0 1 1 50 3,409 0 48 658 87 0 52 975 32 0 0 0 3 0 1 0 29 1,885 0 1 14 2 0 1 22 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 42 - 2% 2% 2% - 2% 2% 0% - - - 33% - 100% - 0% 2% EB WB NB SB EB WB NB SB E W N S 7:00 AM 8 6 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 3 1 1 7:15 AM 5 14 0 0 0 0 3 1 0 0 0 1 7:30 AM 3 8 0 0 0 0 7 1 2 4 0 0 7:45 AM 3 7 0 0 0 0 3 4 0 2 1 3 8:00 AM 4 7 0 0 0 0 2 12 2 1 4 2 8:15 AM 6 6 1 0 0 0 7 29 10 20 2 4 8:30 AM 3 5 0 1 0 1 4 6 5 6 2 1 8:45 AM 4 5 0 0 2 0 9 10 4 3 1 4 Count Total 36 58 1 1 2 1 36 65 23 39 11 16 Peak Hour 17 23 1 1 2 1 22 57 21 30 9 11 96 104 89 42 82 71 9 11 14 9 21 12 11 14 9 13 36 36 11 8 6 10 7 6 14 3 5 19 4 1 Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Interval Start Heavy Vehicle Totals Bicycles Pedestrians (Crossing Leg) Total Interval Start Embarcadero Rd Embarcadero Rd Bryant St Bryant St 15-min Total Rolling Hour Total Total Total NorCal Project Manager (415) 444-6376 norcal.projectmanager@idaxdata.com Item 4 Attachment C - Data Collection Summary Memo & Appendix A Packet Pg. 219 www.idaxdata.com Count Summaries - Heavy Vehicles UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT 7:00 AM 0 0 8 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 0 7:15 AM 0 0 5 0 0 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19 0 7:30 AM 0 0 3 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 7:45 AM 0 0 3 0 0 0 6 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 54 8:00 AM 0 0 3 1 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 51 8:15 AM 0 0 5 1 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 13 45 8:30 AM 0 1 2 0 0 1 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 9 43 8:45 AM 0 0 4 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 42 Count Total 0 1 33 2 0 1 56 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 96 Pk Hr Heavy 0 1 14 2 0 1 22 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 42 Count Summaries - Bikes UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT 7:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 3 0 7:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 1 0 4 0 7:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 1 0 8 0 7:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 4 0 7 22 8:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 12 0 14 33 8:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 29 0 36 65 8:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 6 0 11 68 8:45 AM 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 10 0 21 82 Count Total 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 36 0 0 0 65 0 104 Pk Hr Bike 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 22 0 0 0 57 0 82 15-min Total Rolling Hour TotalEastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Rolling Hour TotalEastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Interval Start Embarcadero Rd Embarcadero Rd Bryant St Bryant St Interval Start Embarcadero Rd Embarcadero Rd Bryant St Bryant St 15-min Total NorCal Project Manager (415) 444-6376 norcal.projectmanager@idaxdata.com Item 4 Attachment C - Data Collection Summary Memo & Appendix A Packet Pg. 220 www.idaxdata.com Date: Peak Hour Count Period: Peak Hour: HV% PHF EB 1% 0.94 WB 1% 0.89 NB 0% 0.56 SB 0% 0.65 TOTAL 1% 0.96 Peak Hour Count Summaries UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT 4:30 PM 0 25 266 8 0 1 147 4 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 8 463 0 4:45 PM 0 28 274 15 0 4 163 10 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 5 502 0 5:00 PM 0 33 232 10 0 7 160 7 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 15 465 0 5:15 PM 0 40 246 12 0 3 180 13 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 9 506 1,936 0 126 1,018 45 0 15 650 34 0 2 0 7 0 1 1 37 1,936 0 1 12 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 - 1% 1% 0% - 0% 1% 0% - 0% - 0% - 0% 0% 0% 1% EB WB NB SB EB WB NB SB E W N S 4:30 PM 3 2 0 0 0 0 5 4 4 7 2 1 4:45 PM 2 2 0 0 0 0 3 7 2 4 1 0 5:00 PM 3 1 0 0 0 0 5 8 4 2 1 1 5:15 PM 5 2 0 0 0 0 9 9 0 7 2 1 Peak Hour 13 7 0 0 0 0 22 28 10 20 6 320 50 39 4 13 8 7 18 10 5 9 14 4 10 7 Note: For complete count summary (all intervals), see following pages. ** Heavy Vehicle Classifications include FHWA Classes 4-13. ** Count Summaries include heavy vehicles, but exclude bicycles in overall count. Interval Start Heavy Vehicle Totals Bicycles Pedestrians (Crossing Leg) Total Total Total Rolling Hour TotalEastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound 5/12/2026 3:00 PM to 6:00 PM 4:30 PM to 5:30 PM Peak Hour Interval Start Embarcadero Rd Embarcadero Rd Bryant St Bryant St 15-min Total NorCal Project Manager (415) 444-6376 norcal.projectmanager@idaxdata.com Item 4 Attachment C - Data Collection Summary Memo & Appendix A Packet Pg. 221 www.idaxdata.com Count Summaries - All Vehicles UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT 3:00 PM 0 12 207 13 0 2 138 7 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 8 389 0 3:15 PM 0 21 221 31 0 14 157 8 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 3 458 0 3:30 PM 0 16 208 11 0 7 168 4 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 6 423 0 3:45 PM 0 18 265 7 0 2 198 8 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 9 509 1,779 4:00 PM 0 15 256 7 0 2 153 3 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 3 443 1,833 4:15 PM 0 23 274 6 0 3 163 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 485 1,860 4:30 PM 0 25 266 8 0 1 147 4 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 8 463 1,900 4:45 PM 0 28 274 15 0 4 163 10 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 5 502 1,893 5:00 PM 0 33 232 10 0 7 160 7 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 15 465 1,915 5:15 PM 0 40 246 12 0 3 180 13 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 9 506 1,936 5:30 PM 0 23 230 8 0 2 154 12 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 8 439 1,912 5:45 PM 0 23 225 11 0 2 213 20 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 8 503 1,913 Count Total 0 277 2,904 139 0 49 1,994 103 0 2 0 22 0 1 3 91 5,585 0 126 1,018 45 0 15 650 34 0 2 0 7 0 1 1 37 1,936 0 1 12 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 - 1% 1% 0% - 0% 1% 0% - 0% - 0% - 0% 0% 0% 1% EB WB NB SB EB WB NB SB E W N S 3:00 PM 5 4 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 6 3 2 3:15 PM 4 5 0 0 0 0 8 4 5 6 3 2 3:30 PM 1 5 0 0 0 0 13 6 6 4 0 0 3:45 PM 3 6 0 0 0 0 4 3 2 6 1 0 4:00 PM 6 3 0 0 0 0 7 4 1 2 2 0 4:15 PM 4 0 0 0 0 0 3 2 2 1 2 6 4:30 PM 3 2 0 0 0 0 5 4 4 7 2 1 4:45 PM 2 2 0 0 0 0 3 7 2 4 1 0 5:00 PM 3 1 0 0 0 0 5 8 4 2 1 1 5:15 PM 5 2 0 0 0 0 9 9 0 7 2 1 5:30 PM 2 1 0 0 2 0 8 6 2 5 0 0 5:45 PM 4 0 0 0 3 0 5 4 1 5 0 0 Count Total 42 31 0 0 5 0 71 62 30 55 17 13 Peak Hour 13 7 0 0 0 0 22 28 10 20 6 3 73 138 115 20 50 39 3 16 7 4 12 6 4 13 8 7 18 10 5 9 14 4 10 7 9 11 5 4 5 11 6 19 10 9 7 9 9 6 12 9 12 16 Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Interval Start Heavy Vehicle Totals Bicycles Pedestrians (Crossing Leg) Total Interval Start Embarcadero Rd Embarcadero Rd Bryant St Bryant St 15-min Total Rolling Hour Total Total Total NorCal Project Manager (415) 444-6376 norcal.projectmanager@idaxdata.com Item 4 Attachment C - Data Collection Summary Memo & Appendix A Packet Pg. 222 www.idaxdata.com Count Summaries - Heavy Vehicles UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT 3:00 PM 0 0 4 1 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 3:15 PM 0 0 4 0 0 1 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 3:30 PM 0 0 1 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 3:45 PM 0 0 3 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 33 4:00 PM 0 1 5 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 33 4:15 PM 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 28 4:30 PM 0 0 3 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 27 4:45 PM 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 22 5:00 PM 0 0 3 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 17 5:15 PM 0 1 4 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 20 5:30 PM 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 18 5:45 PM 0 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 18 Count Total 0 2 38 2 0 1 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 73 Pk Hr Heavy 0 1 12 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 Count Summaries - Bikes UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT 3:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 5 0 6 0 3:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 4 0 12 0 3:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 0 0 0 6 0 19 0 3:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 3 0 7 44 4:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 4 0 11 49 4:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 2 0 5 42 4:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 4 0 9 32 4:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 7 0 10 35 5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 8 0 13 37 5:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 9 0 18 50 5:30 PM 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 6 0 16 57 5:45 PM 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 4 0 12 59 Count Total 0 0 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 71 0 0 0 62 0 138 Pk Hr Bike 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 0 0 0 28 0 50 15-min Total Rolling Hour TotalEastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Rolling Hour TotalEastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Interval Start Embarcadero Rd Embarcadero Rd Bryant St Bryant St Interval Start Embarcadero Rd Embarcadero Rd Bryant St Bryant St 15-min Total NorCal Project Manager (415) 444-6376 norcal.projectmanager@idaxdata.com Item 4 Attachment C - Data Collection Summary Memo & Appendix A Packet Pg. 223 Location: Count Direction: Date Range: Site Code: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 1,039 9,052 817 17 55 26 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 9.4% 82.2% 7.4% 0.2% 0.5% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 922 2,395 254 8 26 6 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 25.5% 66.3% 7.0% 0.2% 0.7% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 1,961 11,447 1,071 25 81 32 0 0 1 0 0 0 6 13.4% 78.3% 7.3% 0.2% 0.6% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% FHWA Vehicle Classification Class 1 - Motorcycles Class 8 - Four or Fewer Axle Single-Trailer Trucks Class 2 - Passenger Cars Class 9 - Five-Axle Single-Trailer Trucks Class 3 - Other Two-Axle, Four-Tire Single Unit Vehicles Class 10 - Six or More Axle Single-Trailer Trucks Class 4 - Buses Class 11 - Five or fewer Axle Multi-Trailer Trucks Class 5 - Two-Axle, Six-Tire, Single-Unit Trucks Class 12 - Six-Axle Multi-Trailer Trucks Class 6 - Three-Axle Single-Unit Trucks Class 13 - Seven or More Axle Multi-Trailer Trucks Class 7 - Four or More Axle Single-Unit Trucks Location: Bryant St Between Lincoln Ave and Kingsley Ave Date Range: 5/8/2026 to 5/14/2026 Site Code: 01 Northbound Total 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Volume 12:00 AM 0 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 1:00 AM 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2:00 AM 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 3:00 AM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4:00 AM 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 5:00 AM 0 15 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 6:00 AM 0 19 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 23 7:00 AM 3 32 5 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 41 8:00 AM 9 76 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 93 9:00 AM 10 75 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 94 10:00 AM 10 60 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 74 11:00 AM 9 60 5 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 77 12:00 PM 9 84 14 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 110 1:00 PM 15 80 8 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 104 2:00 PM 14 86 12 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 113 3:00 PM 15 98 19 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 135 4:00 PM 15 118 7 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 141 5:00 PM 17 119 8 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 147 6:00 PM 12 128 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 150 7:00 PM 8 156 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 174 8:00 PM 1 99 7 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 108 Vehicle Classification Report Summary Bryant St Between Lincoln Ave and Kingsley Ave Northbound / Southbound 5/8/2026 to 5/14/2026 01 Total Volume Northbound 11,010 Southbound 3,614 Total 14,624 Direction FHWA Vehicle Classification Friday, May 8, 2026 Time FHWA Vehicle Classification Item 4 Attachment C - Data Collection Summary Memo & Appendix A Packet Pg. 224 9:00 PM 0 57 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 60 10:00 PM 1 26 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 32 11:00 PM 1 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 149 1,415 140 1 11 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 8.7% 82.2% 8.1% 0.1% 0.6% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% Southbound Total 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Volume 12:00 AM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:00 AM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 5:00 AM 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 6:00 AM 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 7:00 AM 2 12 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 8:00 AM 13 35 4 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 53 9:00 AM 7 17 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 26 10:00 AM 12 14 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 11:00 AM 5 32 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 42 12:00 PM 5 13 6 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 26 1:00 PM 5 23 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 32 2:00 PM 16 32 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 49 3:00 PM 12 26 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 44 4:00 PM 8 26 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 37 5:00 PM 14 37 7 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 60 6:00 PM 6 27 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 37 7:00 PM 5 30 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 36 8:00 PM 2 15 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 9:00 PM 1 18 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 10:00 PM 0 9 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 11:00 PM 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 114 380 48 0 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 20.8% 69.2% 8.7% 0.0% 0.9% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% Northbound Total 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Volume 12:00 AM 2 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 1:00 AM 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 2:00 AM 0 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 3:00 AM 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 4:00 AM 0 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 5:00 AM 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 6:00 AM 1 16 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19 7:00 AM 0 10 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 8:00 AM 5 36 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 44 9:00 AM 8 37 4 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50 10:00 AM 12 62 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 78 11:00 AM 15 89 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 108 12:00 PM 15 126 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 152 1:00 PM 14 99 14 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 128 2:00 PM 17 107 10 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 135 3:00 PM 10 115 6 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 132 4:00 PM 8 121 10 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 140 5:00 PM 9 120 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 137 6:00 PM 2 108 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 115 7:00 PM 7 82 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 96 8:00 PM 1 65 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 71 9:00 PM 3 38 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 42 1,722 Friday, May 8, 2026 Total Time FHWA Vehicle Classification 549 Saturday, May 9, 2026 Time FHWA Vehicle Classification Total Item 4 Attachment C - Data Collection Summary Memo & Appendix A Packet Pg. 225 10:00 PM 1 12 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 11:00 PM 0 10 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 130 1,284 100 0 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8.6% 84.5% 6.6% 0.0% 0.3% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Southbound Total 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Volume 12:00 AM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1:00 AM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3:00 AM 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 4:00 AM 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 5:00 AM 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 6:00 AM 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 7:00 AM 1 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 8:00 AM 9 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 29 9:00 AM 7 29 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 38 10:00 AM 11 17 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 11:00 AM 8 26 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 35 12:00 PM 8 23 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 33 1:00 PM 13 23 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40 2:00 PM 20 32 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 52 3:00 PM 11 29 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 43 4:00 PM 11 21 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 34 5:00 PM 7 23 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 31 6:00 PM 4 32 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40 7:00 PM 3 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 8:00 PM 1 15 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 9:00 PM 4 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 10:00 PM 1 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 11:00 PM 3 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 123 346 19 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 25.0% 70.3% 3.9% 0.0% 0.4% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% Northbound Total 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Volume 12:00 AM 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 1:00 AM 1 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 2:00 AM 0 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 3:00 AM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4:00 AM 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 5:00 AM 1 9 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 6:00 AM 1 14 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 7:00 AM 1 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 8:00 AM 3 21 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 26 9:00 AM 3 38 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 43 10:00 AM 8 53 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 68 11:00 AM 15 81 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 104 12:00 PM 9 96 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 109 1:00 PM 13 110 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 130 2:00 PM 12 121 8 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 142 3:00 PM 17 94 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 115 4:00 PM 7 103 7 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 118 5:00 PM 4 100 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 116 6:00 PM 8 109 7 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 125 7:00 PM 4 91 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 98 8:00 PM 3 35 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40 9:00 PM 2 17 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 10:00 PM 0 9 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 Total 492 Sunday, May 10, 2026 Time FHWA Vehicle Classification Total 1,520 Saturday, May 9, 2026 Time FHWA Vehicle Classification Item 4 Attachment C - Data Collection Summary Memo & Appendix A Packet Pg. 226 11:00 PM 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 112 1,133 79 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 8.4% 85.3% 5.9% 0.2% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% Southbound Total 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Volume 12:00 AM 0 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 1:00 AM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:00 AM 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 5:00 AM 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 6:00 AM 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 7:00 AM 1 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 8:00 AM 2 9 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 9:00 AM 7 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19 10:00 AM 9 17 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 11:00 AM 8 31 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 42 12:00 PM 5 27 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 35 1:00 PM 9 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 33 2:00 PM 13 30 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 45 3:00 PM 17 19 5 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 42 4:00 PM 7 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 5:00 PM 5 23 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 6:00 PM 4 21 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 7:00 PM 7 19 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 29 8:00 PM 2 11 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 9:00 PM 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 10:00 PM 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 11:00 PM 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 99 279 23 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 24.5% 69.1% 5.7% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Northbound Total 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Volume 12:00 AM 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 1:00 AM 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2:00 AM 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 3:00 AM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4:00 AM 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 5:00 AM 0 18 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19 6:00 AM 0 21 4 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 26 7:00 AM 3 49 4 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 58 8:00 AM 9 59 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 75 9:00 AM 20 76 5 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 103 10:00 AM 11 53 9 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 76 11:00 AM 14 61 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 86 12:00 PM 6 74 13 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 94 1:00 PM 7 71 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 83 2:00 PM 15 75 11 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 102 3:00 PM 21 82 7 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 112 4:00 PM 11 92 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 112 5:00 PM 24 106 5 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 137 6:00 PM 9 100 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 111 7:00 PM 8 91 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 106 8:00 PM 4 66 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 73 9:00 PM 1 24 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 10:00 PM 0 18 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 11:00 PM 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 Total 1,329 Time FHWA Vehicle Classification Total Sunday, May 10, 2026 Time FHWA Vehicle Classification 404 Monday, May 11, 2026 Item 4 Attachment C - Data Collection Summary Memo & Appendix A Packet Pg. 227 164 1,154 108 1 4 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 11.4% 80.1% 7.5% 0.1% 0.3% 0.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% Southbound Total 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Volume 12:00 AM 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1:00 AM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:00 AM 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 5:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6:00 AM 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 7:00 AM 6 14 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 8:00 AM 17 26 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 46 9:00 AM 7 20 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 31 10:00 AM 7 25 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 34 11:00 AM 4 24 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 33 12:00 PM 3 24 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 1:00 PM 9 14 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 29 2:00 PM 6 17 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 27 3:00 PM 18 26 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 46 4:00 PM 14 33 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 49 5:00 PM 12 23 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 35 6:00 PM 15 23 6 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 45 7:00 PM 3 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 8:00 PM 4 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 9:00 PM 2 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 10:00 PM 1 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 11:00 PM 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 129 312 35 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 26.9% 65.0% 7.3% 0.4% 0.2% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Northbound Total 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Volume 12:00 AM 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1:00 AM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2:00 AM 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3:00 AM 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 4:00 AM 0 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 5:00 AM 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 6:00 AM 0 28 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 33 7:00 AM 6 46 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 57 8:00 AM 10 72 10 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 94 9:00 AM 9 81 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 98 10:00 AM 14 80 8 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 105 11:00 AM 7 58 4 3 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 75 12:00 PM 12 65 6 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 85 1:00 PM 7 62 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 76 2:00 PM 6 88 13 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 108 3:00 PM 17 86 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 108 4:00 PM 11 84 13 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 109 5:00 PM 19 140 13 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 174 6:00 PM 14 129 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 153 7:00 PM 7 102 7 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 117 8:00 PM 3 82 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 92 9:00 PM 1 46 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 52 10:00 PM 1 14 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 11:00 PM 1 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 146 1,298 128 4 9 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,590 Total 480 Total 1,441 Monday, May 11, 2026 Time FHWA Vehicle Classification Tuesday, May 12, 2026 Time FHWA Vehicle Classification Total Item 4 Attachment C - Data Collection Summary Memo & Appendix A Packet Pg. 228 9.2% 81.6% 8.1% 0.3% 0.6% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Southbound Total 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Volume 12:00 AM 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2:00 AM 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:00 AM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 5:00 AM 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 6:00 AM 3 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 7:00 AM 4 21 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 27 8:00 AM 14 30 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 48 9:00 AM 4 18 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 26 10:00 AM 7 13 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 26 11:00 AM 4 20 5 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 32 12:00 PM 3 26 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 36 1:00 PM 3 28 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 32 2:00 PM 11 31 2 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 47 3:00 PM 15 22 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 38 4:00 PM 10 48 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 63 5:00 PM 17 63 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 84 6:00 PM 13 27 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 42 7:00 PM 10 19 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 32 8:00 PM 3 21 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 26 9:00 PM 2 7 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 10:00 PM 3 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 11:00 PM 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 127 414 51 2 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21.2% 69.0% 8.5% 0.3% 1.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Northbound Total 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Volume 12:00 AM 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1:00 AM 1 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 2:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3:00 AM 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 4:00 AM 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 5:00 AM 0 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 6:00 AM 0 26 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 29 7:00 AM 3 52 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 57 8:00 AM 7 65 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 82 9:00 AM 11 75 8 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 96 10:00 AM 20 66 4 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 92 11:00 AM 13 61 5 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 80 12:00 PM 6 95 9 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 112 1:00 PM 5 76 14 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 97 2:00 PM 23 87 9 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 122 3:00 PM 11 81 5 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 98 4:00 PM 13 139 11 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 164 5:00 PM 16 160 26 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 205 6:00 PM 16 152 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 179 7:00 PM 4 100 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 114 8:00 PM 5 68 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 75 9:00 PM 0 36 4 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 41 10:00 PM 0 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 11:00 PM 0 6 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 154 1,398 135 3 12 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 9.0% 81.9% 7.9% 0.2% 0.7% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 1,590 FHWA Vehicle Classification Total Time FHWA Vehicle Classification Total Tuesday, May 12, 2026 600 Wednesday, May 13, 2026 Total 1,706 Time Item 4 Attachment C - Data Collection Summary Memo & Appendix A Packet Pg. 229 Southbound Total 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Volume 12:00 AM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:00 AM 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 5:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6:00 AM 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 7:00 AM 5 15 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 8:00 AM 14 28 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 44 9:00 AM 14 18 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 33 10:00 AM 13 21 5 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40 11:00 AM 6 24 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 33 12:00 PM 2 27 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 32 1:00 PM 7 25 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 34 2:00 PM 8 23 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 35 3:00 PM 15 23 3 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 43 4:00 PM 16 28 5 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50 5:00 PM 10 27 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 41 6:00 PM 17 26 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 47 7:00 PM 2 16 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 8:00 PM 5 15 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 9:00 PM 4 12 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 10:00 PM 2 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 11:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 141 340 36 3 7 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 26.7% 64.3% 6.8% 0.6% 1.3% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Northbound Total 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Volume 12:00 AM 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1:00 AM 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 2:00 AM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3:00 AM 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 4:00 AM 0 12 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 5:00 AM 0 15 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 6:00 AM 1 20 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 7:00 AM 6 37 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 48 8:00 AM 16 85 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 108 9:00 AM 12 68 3 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 85 10:00 AM 22 69 10 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 103 11:00 AM 11 73 8 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 95 12:00 PM 10 70 7 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 88 1:00 PM 5 80 9 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 98 2:00 PM 9 73 10 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 93 3:00 PM 19 90 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 123 4:00 PM 19 124 6 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 150 5:00 PM 19 162 20 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 204 6:00 PM 15 137 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 156 7:00 PM 10 118 9 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 138 8:00 PM 5 62 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 70 9:00 PM 5 43 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 54 10:00 PM 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 11:00 PM 0 6 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 184 1,370 127 6 13 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10.8% 80.5% 7.5% 0.4% 0.8% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Wednesday, May 13, 2026 Time FHWA Vehicle Classification Total 529 Thursday, May 14, 2026 Time FHWA Vehicle Classification Total 1,702 Item 4 Attachment C - Data Collection Summary Memo & Appendix A Packet Pg. 230 Southbound Total 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Volume 12:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5:00 AM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 6:00 AM 2 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 7:00 AM 8 16 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 8:00 AM 20 25 4 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50 9:00 AM 20 19 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 41 10:00 AM 11 24 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40 11:00 AM 5 25 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 34 12:00 PM 10 21 5 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 37 1:00 PM 8 21 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 32 2:00 PM 15 25 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 43 3:00 PM 12 30 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 46 4:00 PM 16 23 5 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 46 5:00 PM 20 18 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 39 6:00 PM 17 24 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 43 7:00 PM 12 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 29 8:00 PM 6 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 9:00 PM 3 14 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19 10:00 PM 4 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 11:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 189 324 42 0 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 33.8% 57.9% 7.5% 0.0% 0.7% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Total Study Average Northbound Total 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Volume 12:00 AM 1 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 1:00 AM 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 2:00 AM 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3:00 AM 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 4:00 AM 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 5:00 AM 0 13 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 6:00 AM 0 21 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 24 7:00 AM 3 33 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 39 8:00 AM 8 59 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 74 9:00 AM 10 64 6 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 81 10:00 AM 14 63 6 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 84 11:00 AM 12 69 6 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 88 12:00 PM 10 87 9 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 107 1:00 PM 9 83 9 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 102 2:00 PM 14 91 10 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 117 3:00 PM 16 92 9 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 118 4:00 PM 12 112 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 133 5:00 PM 15 130 13 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 160 6:00 PM 11 123 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 141 7:00 PM 7 106 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 121 8:00 PM 3 68 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 75 9:00 PM 2 37 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 42 10:00 PM 0 16 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 11:00 PM 0 8 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 147 1,293 117 1 7 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9.4% 82.5% 7.5% 0.1% 0.4% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Note: Average only condsidered on days with 24-hours of data. Thursday, May 14, 2026 Time FHWA Vehicle Classification Total 560 Time FHWA Vehicle Classification Total 1,567 Item 4 Attachment C - Data Collection Summary Memo & Appendix A Packet Pg. 231 Total Study Average Southbound Total 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Volume 12:00 AM 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:00 AM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 5:00 AM 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 6:00 AM 1 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 7:00 AM 4 13 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 8:00 AM 13 25 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40 9:00 AM 9 19 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 10:00 AM 10 19 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 32 11:00 AM 6 26 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 36 12:00 PM 5 23 4 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 33 1:00 PM 8 23 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 34 2:00 PM 13 27 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 43 3:00 PM 14 25 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 42 4:00 PM 12 27 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 42 5:00 PM 12 31 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 45 6:00 PM 11 26 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40 7:00 PM 6 19 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 26 8:00 PM 3 14 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 9:00 PM 2 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 10:00 PM 2 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 11:00 PM 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 132 344 34 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25.8% 67.2% 6.6% 0.0% 0.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Note: Average only condsidered on days with 24-hours of data. 3-Day (Tuesday - Thursday) Average Northbound Total 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Volume 12:00 AM 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1:00 AM 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 2:00 AM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3:00 AM 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 4:00 AM 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 5:00 AM 0 13 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 6:00 AM 0 25 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 29 7:00 AM 5 45 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 54 8:00 AM 11 74 9 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 95 9:00 AM 11 75 6 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 93 10:00 AM 19 72 7 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 11:00 AM 10 64 6 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 83 12:00 PM 9 77 7 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 95 1:00 PM 6 73 10 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 90 2:00 PM 13 83 11 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 109 3:00 PM 16 86 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 110 4:00 PM 14 116 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 140 5:00 PM 18 154 20 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 194 6:00 PM 15 139 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 162 7:00 PM 7 107 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 123 8:00 PM 4 71 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 79 9:00 PM 2 42 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 49 10:00 PM 0 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 11:00 PM 0 6 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 160 1,357 130 3 9 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9.7% 81.7% 7.8% 0.2% 0.5% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Time FHWA Vehicle Classification Total 512 Time FHWA Vehicle Classification Total 1,661 Item 4 Attachment C - Data Collection Summary Memo & Appendix A Packet Pg. 232 3-Day (Tuesday - Thursday) Average Southbound Total 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Volume 12:00 AM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:00 AM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 5:00 AM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 6:00 AM 2 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 7:00 AM 6 17 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 8:00 AM 16 28 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 48 9:00 AM 13 18 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 33 10:00 AM 10 19 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 34 11:00 AM 5 23 4 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 33 12:00 PM 5 25 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 35 1:00 PM 6 25 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 32 2:00 PM 11 26 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 41 3:00 PM 14 25 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 42 4:00 PM 14 33 5 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 53 5:00 PM 16 36 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 55 6:00 PM 16 26 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 44 7:00 PM 8 17 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 27 8:00 PM 5 16 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 9:00 PM 3 11 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 10:00 PM 3 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 11:00 PM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 153 359 42 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 27.4% 64.2% 7.5% 0.0% 0.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%Total 559 Time FHWA Vehicle Classification Item 4 Attachment C - Data Collection Summary Memo & Appendix A Packet Pg. 233 Location: Bryant St Between Lincoln Ave and Kingsley Ave Direction: Northbound / Southbound Date Range: 5/8/2026 to 5/14/2026 Site Code: 01 0 - 10 10 - 15 15 - 20 20 - 25 25 - 30 30 - 35 35 - 40 40 - 45 45 - 50 50 - 55 55 - 60 60 - 65 65 - 70 70 - 75 75 - 80 80 - 85 85 + 170 761 1,469 4,399 3,377 742 77 13 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.5%6.9%13.3%40.0%30.7%6.7%0.7%0.1%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0% 101 570 759 1,243 752 170 18 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.8%15.8%21.0%34.4%20.8%4.7%0.5%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0% 271 1,331 2,228 5,642 4,129 912 95 14 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.9%9.1%15.2%38.6%28.2%6.2%0.6%0.1%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0% 50th Percentile (Median) 23.8 mph Mean (Average) Speed 23.2 mph 28.1 mph 10 mph Pace 19.3 - 29.3 mph 31.0 mph Percent in Pace 71.2 % 50th Percentile (Median) 21.6 mph Mean (Average) Speed 21.0 mph 27.1 mph 10 mph Pace 18.3 - 28.3 mph 30.1 mph Percent in Pace 59.1 % Location: Bryant St Between Lincoln Ave and Kingsley Ave Date Range: 5/8/2026 to 5/14/2026 Site Code: 01 Northbound Total 0 - 10 10 - 15 15 - 20 20 - 25 25 - 30 30 - 35 35 - 40 40 - 45 45 - 50 50 - 55 55 - 60 60 - 65 65 - 70 70 - 75 75 - 80 80 - 85 85 + Volume 12:00 AM 0 0 1 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 1:00 AM 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2:00 AM 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 3:00 AM 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4:00 AM 0 0 0 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 5:00 AM 0 0 1 2 7 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 6:00 AM 0 0 0 8 12 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 23 7:00 AM 0 3 5 18 12 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 41 8:00 AM 0 3 12 40 31 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 93 9:00 AM 0 7 13 28 37 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 94 10:00 AM 0 4 8 25 31 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 74 11:00 AM 2 13 6 20 31 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 77 12:00 PM 3 8 6 43 39 10 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 110 1:00 PM 0 11 17 35 34 6 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 104 2:00 PM 4 6 15 45 34 8 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 113 3:00 PM 6 10 23 53 31 11 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 135 4:00 PM 0 19 21 47 43 10 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 141 5:00 PM 1 22 34 50 38 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 147 6:00 PM 2 6 22 69 42 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 150 7:00 PM 1 8 45 70 44 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 174 8:00 PM 0 3 19 53 30 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 108 9:00 PM 0 1 10 32 15 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 60 10:00 PM 0 0 4 14 12 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 32 11:00 PM 0 0 0 7 8 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 19 124 262 661 536 107 12 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.1% 7.2% 15.2% 38.4% 31.1% 6.2% 0.7% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Southbound 3,614 Total 14,624 Total Study Percentile Speed Summary Total Study Speed Statistics Vehicle Speed Report Summary Direction Speed Range (mph)Total Volume Northbound 11,010 85th Percentile 95th Percentile Friday, May 8, 2026 Time Speed Range (mph) Total Northbound Northbound 85th Percentile 95th Percentile Southbound Southbound 1,722 Item 4 Attachment C - Data Collection Summary Memo & Appendix A Packet Pg. 234 50th Percentile (Median) 23.8 mph Mean (Average) Speed 23.1 mph 85th Percentile 28.0 mph 10 mph Pace mph 95th Percentile 30.9 mph Percent in Pace 71.0 % Southbound Total 0 - 10 10 - 15 15 - 20 20 - 25 25 - 30 30 - 35 35 - 40 40 - 45 45 - 50 50 - 55 55 - 60 60 - 65 65 - 70 70 - 75 75 - 80 80 - 85 85 +Volume 12:00 AM 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:00 AM 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 5:00 AM 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 6:00 AM 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 7:00 AM 1 1 2 5 5 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 8:00 AM 1 9 17 13 11 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 53 9:00 AM 0 5 3 11 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 26 10:00 AM 0 5 9 5 6 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 11:00 AM 0 2 8 20 6 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 42 12:00 PM 1 4 5 7 8 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 26 1:00 PM 1 3 11 11 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 32 2:00 PM 4 6 9 13 14 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 49 3:00 PM 1 8 9 14 11 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 44 4:00 PM 0 8 5 16 5 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 37 5:00 PM 2 10 9 29 9 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 60 6:00 PM 0 6 11 10 7 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 37 7:00 PM 2 5 5 11 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 36 8:00 PM 0 1 6 6 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 9:00 PM 0 1 5 7 6 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 10:00 PM 0 0 2 4 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 11:00 PM 0 0 2 1 2 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 13 74 120 185 126 27 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.4% 13.5% 21.9% 33.7% 23.0% 4.9% 0.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 50th Percentile (Median) 21.9 mph Mean (Average) Speed 21.3 mph 85th Percentile 27.1 mph 10 mph Pace mph 95th Percentile 30.1 mph Percent in Pace 61.38 % Northbound Total 0 - 10 10 - 15 15 - 20 20 - 25 25 - 30 30 - 35 35 - 40 40 - 45 45 - 50 50 - 55 55 - 60 60 - 65 65 - 70 70 - 75 75 - 80 80 - 85 85 +Volume 12:00 AM 0 1 2 1 1 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 1:00 AM 0 0 0 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 2:00 AM 0 0 0 3 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 3:00 AM 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 4:00 AM 0 0 1 1 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 5:00 AM 0 1 0 1 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 6:00 AM 1 0 1 7 8 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19 7:00 AM 0 0 1 4 6 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 8:00 AM 0 3 4 16 15 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 44 9:00 AM 1 4 10 21 7 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50 10:00 AM 1 6 14 24 25 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 78 11:00 AM 1 13 6 38 44 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 108 12:00 PM 3 8 15 56 60 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 152 1:00 PM 0 13 17 51 37 9 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 128 2:00 PM 6 4 18 53 42 10 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 135 3:00 PM 2 10 12 65 36 6 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 132 4:00 PM 1 7 18 61 41 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 140 5:00 PM 2 6 22 55 42 9 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 137 6:00 PM 0 5 13 64 24 8 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 115 7:00 PM 1 4 16 43 29 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 96 8:00 PM 1 2 15 34 16 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 71 9:00 PM 0 1 7 19 12 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 42 10:00 PM 0 0 0 7 5 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 11:00 PM 0 0 1 6 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 Total 549 Daily Percentile Speed Summary Speed Statistics 19.0 - 29.0 Saturday, May 9, 2026 Daily Percentile Speed Summary Speed Statistics 19.2 - 29.2 Friday, May 8, 2026 Time Speed Range (mph) Time Speed Range (mph) Item 4 Attachment C - Data Collection Summary Memo & Appendix A Packet Pg. 235 20 88 193 633 465 108 11 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.3% 5.8% 12.7% 41.6% 30.6% 7.1% 0.7% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 50th Percentile (Median) 23.8 mph Mean (Average) Speed 23.4 mph 85th Percentile 28.3 mph 10 mph Pace mph 95th Percentile 31.3 mph Percent in Pace 72.4 % Southbound Total 0 - 10 10 - 15 15 - 20 20 - 25 25 - 30 30 - 35 35 - 40 40 - 45 45 - 50 50 - 55 55 - 60 60 - 65 65 - 70 70 - 75 75 - 80 80 - 85 85 +Volume 12:00 AM 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1:00 AM 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3:00 AM 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 4:00 AM 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 5:00 AM 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 6:00 AM 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 7:00 AM 0 0 1 6 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 8:00 AM 1 6 6 9 4 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 29 9:00 AM 0 7 6 16 7 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 38 10:00 AM 1 10 5 7 6 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 11:00 AM 1 6 6 9 10 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 35 12:00 PM 1 5 10 12 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 33 1:00 PM 2 8 6 7 11 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40 2:00 PM 0 18 15 9 6 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 52 3:00 PM 4 8 6 16 7 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 43 4:00 PM 0 9 5 13 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 34 5:00 PM 2 2 8 11 6 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 31 6:00 PM 0 1 10 15 11 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40 7:00 PM 0 3 8 6 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 8:00 PM 0 1 6 6 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 9:00 PM 0 3 3 4 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 10:00 PM 0 1 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 11:00 PM 0 1 4 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 12 89 109 152 98 31 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.4% 18.1% 22.2% 30.9% 19.9% 6.3% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 50th Percentile (Median) 21.4 mph Mean (Average) Speed 20.9 mph 85th Percentile 27.6 mph 10 mph Pace mph 95th Percentile 30.7 mph Percent in Pace 54.67 % Northbound Total 0 - 10 10 - 15 15 - 20 20 - 25 25 - 30 30 - 35 35 - 40 40 - 45 45 - 50 50 - 55 55 - 60 60 - 65 65 - 70 70 - 75 75 - 80 80 - 85 85 +Volume 12:00 AM 0 0 0 4 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 1:00 AM 0 1 0 4 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 2:00 AM 0 0 2 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 3:00 AM 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4:00 AM 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 5:00 AM 0 0 4 5 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 6:00 AM 2 1 0 6 3 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 7:00 AM 0 1 1 0 2 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 8:00 AM 0 0 4 9 8 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 26 9:00 AM 0 1 2 18 18 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 43 10:00 AM 0 4 10 20 25 8 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 68 11:00 AM 4 7 11 36 38 7 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 104 12:00 PM 3 9 10 38 40 8 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 109 1:00 PM 3 11 7 53 47 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 130 2:00 PM 1 17 20 65 32 5 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 142 3:00 PM 4 9 18 49 31 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 115 4:00 PM 3 6 21 46 33 8 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 118 5:00 PM 0 5 17 41 48 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 116 6:00 PM 5 3 21 48 38 9 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 125 7:00 PM 2 4 12 43 32 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 98 8:00 PM 1 2 7 17 11 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40 19.3 - 29.3 Saturday, May 9, 2026 Time Speed Range (mph) Total 492 Total 1,520 Daily Percentile Speed Summary Speed Statistics Daily Percentile Speed Summary Speed Statistics 18.3 - 28.3 Sunday, May 10, 2026 Time Speed Range (mph) Item 4 Attachment C - Data Collection Summary Memo & Appendix A Packet Pg. 236 9:00 PM 0 0 2 10 7 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 10:00 PM 0 0 3 3 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 11:00 PM 0 0 0 2 3 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 28 81 172 517 430 87 11 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1% 6.1% 12.9% 38.9% 32.4% 6.5% 0.8% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 50th Percentile (Median) 24.0 mph Mean (Average) Speed 23.4 mph 85th Percentile 28.2 mph 10 mph Pace mph 95th Percentile 31.0 mph Percent in Pace 71.9 % Southbound Total 0 - 10 10 - 15 15 - 20 20 - 25 25 - 30 30 - 35 35 - 40 40 - 45 45 - 50 50 - 55 55 - 60 60 - 65 65 - 70 70 - 75 75 - 80 80 - 85 85 +Volume 12:00 AM 0 1 2 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 1:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:00 AM 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 5:00 AM 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 6:00 AM 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 7:00 AM 0 0 2 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 8:00 AM 0 1 4 5 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 9:00 AM 0 6 2 5 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19 10:00 AM 1 6 3 11 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 11:00 AM 2 5 5 20 7 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 42 12:00 PM 1 6 3 15 7 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 35 1:00 PM 2 5 5 12 8 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 33 2:00 PM 3 11 14 9 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 45 3:00 PM 2 11 10 12 6 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 42 4:00 PM 1 2 5 9 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 5:00 PM 1 3 2 11 9 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 6:00 PM 4 3 5 7 8 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 7:00 PM 3 4 6 12 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 29 8:00 PM 0 2 2 5 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 9:00 PM 0 0 1 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 10:00 PM 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 11:00 PM 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 20 68 74 143 82 16 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.0% 16.8% 18.3% 35.4% 20.3% 4.0% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 50th Percentile (Median) 21.7 mph Mean (Average) Speed 20.6 mph 85th Percentile 27.0 mph 10 mph Pace mph 95th Percentile 29.9 mph Percent in Pace 57.92 % Northbound Total 0 - 10 10 - 15 15 - 20 20 - 25 25 - 30 30 - 35 35 - 40 40 - 45 45 - 50 50 - 55 55 - 60 60 - 65 65 - 70 70 - 75 75 - 80 80 - 85 85 +Volume 12:00 AM 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 1:00 AM 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2:00 AM 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 3:00 AM 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4:00 AM 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 5:00 AM 0 0 1 4 9 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19 6:00 AM 0 1 1 7 13 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 26 7:00 AM 4 6 10 21 12 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 58 8:00 AM 0 8 8 33 21 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 75 9:00 AM 1 17 15 36 26 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 103 10:00 AM 3 8 9 31 23 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 76 11:00 AM 4 11 5 26 33 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 86 12:00 PM 2 4 18 40 21 8 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 94 1:00 PM 3 5 4 29 36 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 83 2:00 PM 4 11 9 40 33 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 102 3:00 PM 2 13 11 56 22 7 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 112 4:00 PM 4 7 14 43 33 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 112 5:00 PM 2 15 15 78 22 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 137 Total 1,329 Daily Percentile Speed Summary Speed Statistics 19.0 - 29.0 Sunday, May 10, 2026 17.3 - 27.3 Monday, May 11, 2026 Time Speed Range (mph) Time Speed Range (mph) Total 404 Daily Percentile Speed Summary Speed Statistics Item 4 Attachment C - Data Collection Summary Memo & Appendix A Packet Pg. 237 6:00 PM 0 5 25 54 24 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 111 7:00 PM 3 3 9 54 30 6 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 106 8:00 PM 1 1 8 39 20 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 73 9:00 PM 0 2 4 17 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 10:00 PM 0 0 1 9 7 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 11:00 PM 0 0 0 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 33 117 168 626 397 92 6 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.3% 8.1% 11.7% 43.4% 27.6% 6.4% 0.4% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 50th Percentile (Median) 23.5 mph Mean (Average) Speed 22.9 mph 85th Percentile 27.8 mph 10 mph Pace mph 95th Percentile 30.6 mph Percent in Pace 72.1 % Southbound Total 0 - 10 10 - 15 15 - 20 20 - 25 25 - 30 30 - 35 35 - 40 40 - 45 45 - 50 50 - 55 55 - 60 60 - 65 65 - 70 70 - 75 75 - 80 80 - 85 85 +Volume 12:00 AM 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1:00 AM 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:00 AM 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 5:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6:00 AM 0 0 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 7:00 AM 1 4 6 8 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 8:00 AM 1 5 14 14 9 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 46 9:00 AM 0 5 6 9 10 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 31 10:00 AM 4 6 3 7 12 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 34 11:00 AM 0 3 5 16 8 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 33 12:00 PM 0 2 4 13 6 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 1:00 PM 1 7 5 10 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 29 2:00 PM 1 4 3 10 8 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 27 3:00 PM 0 13 10 14 7 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 46 4:00 PM 1 6 11 19 10 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 49 5:00 PM 1 8 4 15 6 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 35 6:00 PM 1 6 11 16 9 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 45 7:00 PM 0 4 2 9 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 8:00 PM 1 1 2 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 9:00 PM 1 0 2 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 10:00 PM 0 1 1 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 11:00 PM 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 13 75 90 175 104 20 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.7% 15.6% 18.8% 36.5% 21.7% 4.2% 0.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 50th Percentile (Median) 22.0 mph Mean (Average) Speed 21.2 mph 85th Percentile 27.1 mph 10 mph Pace mph 95th Percentile 30.0 mph Percent in Pace 63.75 % Northbound Total 0 - 10 10 - 15 15 - 20 20 - 25 25 - 30 30 - 35 35 - 40 40 - 45 45 - 50 50 - 55 55 - 60 60 - 65 65 - 70 70 - 75 75 - 80 80 - 85 85 +Volume 12:00 AM 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1:00 AM 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2:00 AM 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3:00 AM 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 4:00 AM 0 0 2 0 6 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 5:00 AM 0 0 0 4 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 6:00 AM 1 1 5 11 11 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 33 7:00 AM 0 3 8 20 23 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 57 8:00 AM 4 5 20 41 22 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 94 9:00 AM 0 2 19 43 30 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 98 10:00 AM 1 12 21 41 25 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 105 11:00 AM 1 5 12 33 21 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 75 12:00 PM 3 7 9 31 26 8 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 85 1:00 PM 0 5 10 28 26 5 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 76 2:00 PM 0 8 10 48 30 11 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 108 Total 1,441 Total 480 Daily Percentile Speed Summary Speed Statistics 18.3 - 28.3 Tuesday, May 12, 2026 Daily Percentile Speed Summary Speed Statistics 19.6 - 29.6 Monday, May 11, 2026 Time Speed Range (mph) Time Speed Range (mph) Item 4 Attachment C - Data Collection Summary Memo & Appendix A Packet Pg. 238 3:00 PM 3 10 18 25 42 9 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 108 4:00 PM 0 8 12 47 37 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 109 5:00 PM 2 15 27 66 55 7 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 174 6:00 PM 1 8 31 68 37 7 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 153 7:00 PM 0 5 19 53 29 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 117 8:00 PM 0 3 15 48 22 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 92 9:00 PM 0 2 9 22 14 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 52 10:00 PM 0 1 1 8 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 11:00 PM 0 0 2 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 16 100 251 641 469 100 9 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.0% 6.3% 15.8% 40.3% 29.5% 6.3% 0.6% 0.2% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 50th Percentile (Median) 23.5 mph Mean (Average) Speed 23.1 mph 85th Percentile 27.7 mph 10 mph Pace mph 95th Percentile 30.7 mph Percent in Pace 72.8 % Southbound Total 0 - 10 10 - 15 15 - 20 20 - 25 25 - 30 30 - 35 35 - 40 40 - 45 45 - 50 50 - 55 55 - 60 60 - 65 65 - 70 70 - 75 75 - 80 80 - 85 85 +Volume 12:00 AM 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2:00 AM 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:00 AM 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 5:00 AM 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 6:00 AM 2 1 6 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 7:00 AM 0 2 4 13 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 27 8:00 AM 0 7 18 12 7 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 48 9:00 AM 1 2 6 10 6 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 26 10:00 AM 0 4 6 7 7 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 26 11:00 AM 1 4 5 10 9 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 32 12:00 PM 0 1 10 8 12 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 36 1:00 PM 1 4 3 19 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 32 2:00 PM 1 7 13 21 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 47 3:00 PM 1 10 8 11 6 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 38 4:00 PM 4 4 8 27 16 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 63 5:00 PM 2 12 14 34 19 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 84 6:00 PM 1 3 13 10 8 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 42 7:00 PM 1 7 5 11 6 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 32 8:00 PM 0 2 4 13 6 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 26 9:00 PM 1 3 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 10:00 PM 0 2 1 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 11:00 PM 0 0 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 16 75 129 216 127 34 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.7% 12.5% 21.5% 36.0% 21.2% 5.7% 0.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 50th Percentile (Median) 21.8 mph Mean (Average) Speed 21.4 mph 85th Percentile 27.3 mph 10 mph Pace mph 95th Percentile 31.0 mph Percent in Pace 62.33 % Northbound Total 0 - 10 10 - 15 15 - 20 20 - 25 25 - 30 30 - 35 35 - 40 40 - 45 45 - 50 50 - 55 55 - 60 60 - 65 65 - 70 70 - 75 75 - 80 80 - 85 85 +Volume 12:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1:00 AM 0 0 1 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 2:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3:00 AM 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 4:00 AM 0 0 1 2 5 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 5:00 AM 1 0 3 2 2 6 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 6:00 AM 1 0 4 1 15 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 29 7:00 AM 0 2 3 19 28 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 57 8:00 AM 0 3 13 38 25 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 82 9:00 AM 0 7 12 31 40 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 96 10:00 AM 0 12 11 35 25 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 92 11:00 AM 2 9 8 28 22 10 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 80 18.1 - 28.1 Tuesday, May 12, 2026 Time Speed Range (mph) Total 600 Total 1,590 Daily Percentile Speed Summary Speed Statistics Daily Percentile Speed Summary Speed Statistics 17.0 - 27.0 Wednesday, May 13, 2026 Time Speed Range (mph) Item 4 Attachment C - Data Collection Summary Memo & Appendix A Packet Pg. 239 12:00 PM 2 8 13 35 42 10 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 112 1:00 PM 1 5 11 29 35 14 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 97 2:00 PM 8 23 11 36 29 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 122 3:00 PM 4 5 4 38 41 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 98 4:00 PM 1 8 19 69 56 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 164 5:00 PM 2 12 31 90 67 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 205 6:00 PM 1 11 34 77 49 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 179 7:00 PM 1 3 14 51 42 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 114 8:00 PM 1 3 11 39 19 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 75 9:00 PM 0 0 3 25 11 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 41 10:00 PM 0 1 1 7 5 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 11:00 PM 0 0 0 0 5 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 25 112 209 654 566 126 12 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.5% 6.6% 12.3% 38.3% 33.2% 7.4% 0.7% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 50th Percentile (Median) 24.0 mph Mean (Average) Speed 23.5 mph 85th Percentile 28.4 mph 10 mph Pace mph 95th Percentile 31.2 mph Percent in Pace 72.2 % Southbound Total 0 - 10 10 - 15 15 - 20 20 - 25 25 - 30 30 - 35 35 - 40 40 - 45 45 - 50 50 - 55 55 - 60 60 - 65 65 - 70 70 - 75 75 - 80 80 - 85 85 +Volume 12:00 AM 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:00 AM 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 5:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6:00 AM 0 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 7:00 AM 0 4 3 10 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 8:00 AM 1 6 16 8 8 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 44 9:00 AM 0 7 7 7 9 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 33 10:00 AM 0 10 7 9 12 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40 11:00 AM 0 5 4 11 11 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 33 12:00 PM 0 1 2 16 11 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 32 1:00 PM 0 4 7 11 9 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 34 2:00 PM 0 7 7 14 5 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 35 3:00 PM 2 11 8 10 11 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 43 4:00 PM 4 6 10 20 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50 5:00 PM 1 1 12 19 7 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 41 6:00 PM 3 9 13 14 6 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 47 7:00 PM 0 2 4 11 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 8:00 PM 0 4 4 11 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 9:00 PM 2 2 4 7 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 10:00 PM 0 1 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 11:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 81 111 186 112 23 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.5% 15.3% 21.0% 35.2% 21.2% 4.3% 0.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 50th Percentile (Median) 21.7 mph Mean (Average) Speed 21.1 mph 85th Percentile 26.9 mph 10 mph Pace mph 95th Percentile 30.0 mph Percent in Pace 62.57 % Northbound Total 0 - 10 10 - 15 15 - 20 20 - 25 25 - 30 30 - 35 35 - 40 40 - 45 45 - 50 50 - 55 55 - 60 60 - 65 65 - 70 70 - 75 75 - 80 80 - 85 85 +Volume 12:00 AM 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1:00 AM 0 0 0 2 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 2:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3:00 AM 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 4:00 AM 1 0 1 3 3 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 5:00 AM 1 0 0 5 7 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 6:00 AM 0 0 2 5 11 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 7:00 AM 0 2 7 12 19 5 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 48 8:00 AM 0 12 11 44 36 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 108 Total 1,706 Daily Percentile Speed Summary Speed Statistics 19.9 - 29.9 Wednesday, May 13, 2026 17.4 - 27.4 Thursday, May 14, 2026 Time Speed Range (mph) Time Speed Range (mph) Total 529 Daily Percentile Speed Summary Speed Statistics Item 4 Attachment C - Data Collection Summary Memo & Appendix A Packet Pg. 240 9:00 AM 0 7 6 25 35 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 85 10:00 AM 4 16 13 28 30 11 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 103 11:00 AM 3 6 9 37 34 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 95 12:00 PM 0 10 6 35 28 7 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 88 1:00 PM 0 8 6 49 28 5 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 98 2:00 PM 3 8 9 26 36 8 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 93 3:00 PM 3 17 11 46 39 5 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 123 4:00 PM 4 11 28 57 42 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 150 5:00 PM 5 20 41 84 47 6 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 204 6:00 PM 1 11 19 72 41 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 156 7:00 PM 0 7 19 68 36 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 138 8:00 PM 2 2 14 32 19 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 70 9:00 PM 1 2 10 25 13 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 54 10:00 PM 1 0 2 6 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 11:00 PM 0 0 0 5 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 29 139 214 667 514 122 16 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.7% 8.2% 12.6% 39.2% 30.2% 7.2% 0.9% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 50th Percentile (Median) 23.8 mph Mean (Average) Speed 23.2 mph 85th Percentile 28.4 mph 10 mph Pace mph 95th Percentile 31.2 mph Percent in Pace 69.2 % Southbound Total 0 - 10 10 - 15 15 - 20 20 - 25 25 - 30 30 - 35 35 - 40 40 - 45 45 - 50 50 - 55 55 - 60 60 - 65 65 - 70 70 - 75 75 - 80 80 - 85 85 +Volume 12:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5:00 AM 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 6:00 AM 1 1 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 7:00 AM 0 3 6 8 7 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 8:00 AM 1 11 10 5 21 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50 9:00 AM 0 9 11 11 8 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 41 10:00 AM 0 8 4 19 5 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40 11:00 AM 1 3 5 14 8 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 34 12:00 PM 0 11 8 12 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 37 1:00 PM 1 6 7 11 6 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 32 2:00 PM 3 10 6 13 9 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 43 3:00 PM 0 9 11 13 10 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 46 4:00 PM 0 8 13 16 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 46 5:00 PM 1 7 12 13 4 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 39 6:00 PM 3 9 9 15 6 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 43 7:00 PM 2 9 5 11 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 29 8:00 PM 0 3 5 8 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 9:00 PM 0 0 8 10 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19 10:00 PM 1 1 2 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 11:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 108 126 186 103 19 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.5% 19.3% 22.5% 33.2% 18.4% 3.4% 0.5% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 50th Percentile (Median) 21.1 mph Mean (Average) Speed 20.5 mph 85th Percentile 26.6 mph 10 mph Pace mph 95th Percentile 29.2 mph Percent in Pace 56.96 % Northbound Total 0 - 10 10 - 15 15 - 20 20 - 25 25 - 30 30 - 35 35 - 40 40 - 45 45 - 50 50 - 55 55 - 60 60 - 65 65 - 70 70 - 75 75 - 80 80 - 85 85 +Volume 12:00 AM 0 0 1 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 1:00 AM 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 2:00 AM 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3:00 AM 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4:00 AM 0 0 1 1 3 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 5:00 AM 0 0 1 3 5 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 Total 1,702 Total 560 Daily Percentile Speed Summary Speed Statistics 16.8 - 26.8 Total Study Average Daily Percentile Speed Summary Speed Statistics 20.0 - 30.0 Thursday, May 14, 2026 Time Speed Range (mph) Time Speed Range (mph) Item 4 Attachment C - Data Collection Summary Memo & Appendix A Packet Pg. 241 6:00 AM 1 0 2 6 10 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 23 7:00 AM 1 2 5 13 15 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40 8:00 AM 1 5 10 32 23 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 76 9:00 AM 0 6 11 29 28 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 81 10:00 AM 1 9 12 29 26 7 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 85 11:00 AM 2 9 8 31 32 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 88 12:00 PM 2 8 11 40 37 9 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 108 1:00 PM 1 8 10 39 35 8 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 102 2:00 PM 4 11 13 45 34 9 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 117 3:00 PM 3 11 14 47 35 7 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 118 4:00 PM 2 9 19 53 41 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 133 5:00 PM 2 14 27 66 46 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 161 6:00 PM 1 7 24 65 36 8 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 142 7:00 PM 1 5 19 55 35 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 121 8:00 PM 1 2 13 37 20 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 76 9:00 PM 0 1 6 21 11 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 41 10:00 PM 0 0 2 8 6 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 11:00 PM 0 0 0 4 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 23 107 209 628 488 107 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.5% 6.8% 13.3% 39.9% 31.0% 6.8% 0.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Note: Average only condsidered on days with 24-hours of data. 50th Percentile (Median) 23.8 mph Mean (Average) Speed 23.2 mph 85th Percentile 28.1 mph 10 mph Pace 19.3 - 29.3 mph 95th Percentile 31.0 mph Percent in Pace 71.2 % Southbound Total 0 - 10 10 - 15 15 - 20 20 - 25 25 - 30 30 - 35 35 - 40 40 - 45 45 - 50 50 - 55 55 - 60 60 - 65 65 - 70 70 - 75 75 - 80 80 - 85 85 +Volume 12:00 AM 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:00 AM 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 5:00 AM 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 6:00 AM 0 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 7:00 AM 0 2 3 7 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 8:00 AM 1 6 12 9 9 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 39 9:00 AM 0 6 6 10 7 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 10:00 AM 1 7 5 9 8 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 32 11:00 AM 1 4 5 14 8 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 35 12:00 PM 0 4 6 12 7 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 32 1:00 PM 1 5 6 12 7 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 33 2:00 PM 2 9 10 13 8 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 44 3:00 PM 1 10 9 13 8 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 43 4:00 PM 1 6 8 17 9 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 42 5:00 PM 1 6 9 19 9 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 45 6:00 PM 2 5 10 12 8 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40 7:00 PM 1 5 5 10 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 26 8:00 PM 0 2 4 8 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 9:00 PM 1 1 4 5 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 10:00 PM 0 1 1 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 11:00 PM 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 13 80 106 176 106 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.6% 15.8% 21.0% 34.9% 21.0% 4.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Note: Average only condsidered on days with 24-hours of data. 50th Percentile (Median) 21.6 mph Mean (Average) Speed 21.0 mph 85th Percentile 27.1 mph 10 mph Pace 18.3 - 28.3 mph 95th Percentile 30.1 mph Percent in Pace 59.1 % Total Study Average Time Speed Range (mph) Total 505 Total Study Percentile Speed Summary Total Study Speed Statistics Total 1,573 Total Study Percentile Speed Summary Total Study Speed Statistics Item 4 Attachment C - Data Collection Summary Memo & Appendix A Packet Pg. 242 Location:Bryant St Between Lincoln Ave and Kingsley Ave Date Range: 5/8/2026 - 5/14/2026 Site Code: 01 Location: Bryant St Between Lincoln Ave and Kingsley Ave Count Direction: Northbound / Southbound Date Range: 5/8/2026 - 5/14/2026 NB SB Total NB SB Total NB SB Total NB SB Total NB SB Total NB SB Total NB SB Total NB SB Total Site Code: 01 12:00 AM 5 1 6 9 1 10 7 6 13 4 2 6 3 2 5 2 1 3 3 0 3 3 1 4 1:00 AM 2 0 2 5 1 6 7 1 8 2 1 3 1 0 1 5 0 5 6 0 6 4 0 4 2:00 AM 2 0 2 6 0 6 6 0 6 2 0 2 3 1 4 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 2 3:00 AM 1 0 1 3 2 5 1 0 1 1 0 1 2 0 2 3 0 3 2 0 2 2 0 2 4:00 AM 4 1 5 6 3 9 3 1 4 4 2 6 13 1 14 12 3 15 13 0 13 13 1 14 NB SB Total 5:00 AM 16 2 18 6 2 8 11 5 16 19 0 19 10 2 12 15 0 15 18 1 19 14 1 15 Daily Average 1,573 516 2,089 6:00 AM 23 3 26 19 2 21 16 2 18 26 4 30 33 12 45 29 4 33 25 8 33 29 8 37 Mid-Week Average 1,666 563 2,229 7:00 AM 41 16 57 12 11 23 7 5 12 58 21 79 57 27 84 57 22 79 48 25 73 54 25 79 Mid-Week AM Peak Average95 47 142 8:00 AM 93 53 146 44 29 73 26 12 38 75 46 121 94 48 142 82 44 126 108 50 158 95 47 142 Mid-Week PM Peak Average194 55 249 9:00 AM 94 26 120 50 38 88 43 19 62 103 31 134 98 26 124 96 33 129 85 41 126 93 33 126 10:00 AM 74 28 102 78 30 108 68 28 96 76 34 110 105 26 131 92 40 132 103 40 143 100 35 135 11:00 AM 77 42 119 108 35 143 104 42 146 86 33 119 75 32 107 80 33 113 95 34 129 83 33 116 12:00 PM 110 26 136 152 33 185 109 35 144 94 30 124 85 36 121 112 32 144 88 37 125 95 35 130 1:00 PM 104 32 136 128 40 168 130 33 163 83 29 112 76 32 108 97 34 131 98 32 130 90 33 123 2:00 PM 113 49 162 135 52 187 142 45 187 102 27 129 108 47 155 122 35 157 93 43 136 108 42 149 3:00 PM 135 44 179 132 43 175 115 42 157 112 46 158 108 38 146 98 43 141 123 46 169 110 42 152 4:00 PM 141 37 178 140 34 174 118 20 138 112 49 161 109 63 172 164 50 214 150 46 196 141 53 194 5:00 PM 147 60 207 137 31 168 116 28 144 137 35 172 174 84 258 205 41 246 204 39 243 194 55 249 6:00 PM 150 37 187 115 40 155 125 28 153 111 45 156 153 42 195 179 47 226 156 43 199 163 44 207 7:00 PM 174 36 210 96 20 116 98 29 127 106 18 124 117 32 149 114 21 135 138 29 167 123 27 150 8:00 PM 108 18 126 71 17 88 40 14 54 73 10 83 92 26 118 75 22 97 70 18 88 79 22 101 9:00 PM 60 20 80 42 16 58 20 5 25 28 9 37 52 10 62 41 17 58 54 19 73 49 15 64 10:00 PM 32 10 42 14 5 19 11 3 14 21 6 27 16 9 25 18 7 25 14 9 23 16 8 24 11:00 PM 16 8 24 12 7 19 6 1 7 6 2 8 6 4 10 8 0 8 7 0 7 7 1 8 Total 1,722 549 2,271 1,520 492 2,012 1,329 404 1,733 1,441 480 1,921 1,590 600 2,190 1,706 529 2,235 1,702 560 2,262 1,666 563 2,229 Percent 76% 24% 76% 24% 77% 23% 75% 25% 73% 27% 76% 24% 75% 25% 75% 25% AM Peak 09:00 08:00 08:00 11:00 09:00 11:00 11:00 11:00 11:00 09:00 08:00 09:00 10:00 08:00 08:00 09:00 08:00 10:00 08:00 08:00 08:00 10:00 08:00 08:00 Vol. 94 53 146 108 38 143 104 42 146 103 46 134 105 48 142 96 44 132 108 50 158 100 47 142 PM Peak 19:00 17:00 19:00 12:00 14:00 14:00 14:00 14:00 14:00 17:00 16:00 17:00 17:00 17:00 17:00 17:00 16:00 17:00 17:00 15:00 17:00 17:00 17:00 17:00 Vol. 174 60 210 152 52 187 142 45 187 137 49 172 174 84 258 205 50 246 204 46 243 194 55 249 1. Mid-week average includes data between Tuesday and Thursday. Time Friday Saturday Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Mid-Week Average5/14/2026 Volume Report Summary Volume Summary 5/8/2026 5/9/2026 5/10/2026 5/11/2026 5/12/2026 5/13/2026 Item 4 Attachment C - Data Collection Summary Memo & Appendix A Packet Pg. 243 Location: Count Direction: Date Range: Site Code: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 122 12,631 1,593 50 150 13 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0.8% 86.7% 10.9% 0.3% 1.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 38 8,360 743 14 94 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.4% 90.3% 8.0% 0.2% 1.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 160 20,991 2,336 64 244 18 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0.7% 88.1% 9.8% 0.3% 1.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% FHWA Vehicle Classification Class 1 - Motorcycles Class 8 - Four or Fewer Axle Single-Trailer Trucks Class 2 - Passenger Cars Class 9 - Five-Axle Single-Trailer Trucks Class 3 - Other Two-Axle, Four-Tire Single Unit Vehicles Class 10 - Six or More Axle Single-Trailer Trucks Class 4 - Buses Class 11 - Five or fewer Axle Multi-Trailer Trucks Class 5 - Two-Axle, Six-Tire, Single-Unit Trucks Class 12 - Six-Axle Multi-Trailer Trucks Class 6 - Three-Axle Single-Unit Trucks Class 13 - Seven or More Axle Multi-Trailer Trucks Class 7 - Four or More Axle Single-Unit Trucks Location: Waverley St, Between Lincoln Ave and Kingsley Ave Date Range: 5/8/2026 to 5/14/2026 Site Code: 02 Northbound Total 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Volume 12:00 AM 0 8 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 1:00 AM 0 9 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 2:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3:00 AM 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 4:00 AM 0 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 5:00 AM 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 6:00 AM 0 21 5 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 27 7:00 AM 0 58 12 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 73 8:00 AM 1 111 28 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 141 9:00 AM 1 93 22 2 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 123 10:00 AM 1 108 19 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 131 11:00 AM 0 97 15 1 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 119 12:00 PM 0 111 25 1 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 141 1:00 PM 1 128 20 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 152 2:00 PM 1 123 17 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 145 3:00 PM 1 137 22 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 161 4:00 PM 3 163 17 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 186 5:00 PM 3 158 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 175 6:00 PM 0 134 14 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 151 7:00 PM 0 111 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 126 8:00 PM 1 107 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 125 Vehicle Classification Report Summary Waverley St, Between Lincoln Ave and Kingsley Ave Northbound / Southbound 5/8/2026 to 5/14/2026 02 Total Volume Northbound 14,561 Southbound 9,254 Total 23,815 Direction FHWA Vehicle Classification Friday, May 8, 2026 Time FHWA Vehicle Classification Item 4 Attachment C - Data Collection Summary Memo & Appendix A Packet Pg. 244 9:00 PM 0 103 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 114 10:00 PM 1 93 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 108 11:00 PM 0 35 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 42 14 1,924 300 10 29 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.6% 84.4% 13.2% 0.4% 1.3% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Southbound Total 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Volume 12:00 AM 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1:00 AM 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3:00 AM 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4:00 AM 0 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 5:00 AM 0 7 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 6:00 AM 0 16 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 7:00 AM 0 35 10 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 46 8:00 AM 0 79 9 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 89 9:00 AM 0 80 12 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 94 10:00 AM 1 75 9 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 87 11:00 AM 0 99 10 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 110 12:00 PM 0 94 12 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 107 1:00 PM 1 93 15 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 114 2:00 PM 1 86 9 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 99 3:00 PM 1 86 9 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 97 4:00 PM 1 99 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 107 5:00 PM 0 108 8 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 117 6:00 PM 0 110 6 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 117 7:00 PM 1 74 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 75 8:00 PM 0 57 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 59 9:00 PM 1 34 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 37 10:00 PM 0 29 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 11:00 PM 0 12 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 7 1,280 126 2 18 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.5% 89.3% 8.8% 0.1% 1.3% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Northbound Total 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Volume 12:00 AM 0 13 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 1:00 AM 0 12 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 2:00 AM 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3:00 AM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4:00 AM 1 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 5:00 AM 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 6:00 AM 0 13 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 7:00 AM 0 17 4 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 23 8:00 AM 0 52 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 57 9:00 AM 1 92 13 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 109 10:00 AM 5 108 8 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 123 11:00 AM 2 117 8 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 128 12:00 PM 3 93 11 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 108 1:00 PM 3 140 19 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 163 2:00 PM 2 133 15 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 151 3:00 PM 2 147 11 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 162 4:00 PM 0 102 4 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 109 5:00 PM 1 104 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 114 6:00 PM 0 120 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 129 7:00 PM 0 100 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 113 8:00 PM 0 92 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 98 9:00 PM 0 79 17 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 97 2,279 Friday, May 8, 2026 Total Time FHWA Vehicle Classification 1,434 Saturday, May 9, 2026 Time FHWA Vehicle Classification Total Item 4 Attachment C - Data Collection Summary Memo & Appendix A Packet Pg. 245 10:00 PM 0 59 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 65 11:00 PM 0 34 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 38 20 1,637 173 3 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.1% 88.6% 9.4% 0.2% 0.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Southbound Total 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Volume 12:00 AM 0 5 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 1:00 AM 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 2:00 AM 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 3:00 AM 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 4:00 AM 0 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 5:00 AM 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 6:00 AM 0 6 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 7:00 AM 0 17 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 8:00 AM 0 41 3 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 46 9:00 AM 0 64 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 66 10:00 AM 0 69 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 72 11:00 AM 0 83 7 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 91 12:00 PM 1 83 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 94 1:00 PM 0 101 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 106 2:00 PM 0 107 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 112 3:00 PM 1 84 5 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 91 4:00 PM 0 78 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 79 5:00 PM 0 92 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 97 6:00 PM 0 102 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 104 7:00 PM 2 74 4 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 81 8:00 PM 0 39 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40 9:00 PM 0 36 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 37 10:00 PM 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 11:00 PM 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 4 1,120 67 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.3% 93.5% 5.6% 0.0% 0.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Northbound Total 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Volume 12:00 AM 0 14 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 1:00 AM 0 8 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 2:00 AM 0 6 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 3:00 AM 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 4:00 AM 1 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 5:00 AM 0 6 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 6:00 AM 0 8 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 7:00 AM 0 21 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 8:00 AM 0 33 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 38 9:00 AM 1 72 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 81 10:00 AM 2 73 9 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 85 11:00 AM 2 95 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 105 12:00 PM 1 121 9 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 132 1:00 PM 2 140 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 152 2:00 PM 1 123 7 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 132 3:00 PM 2 107 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 115 4:00 PM 1 121 7 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 130 5:00 PM 2 103 6 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 112 6:00 PM 1 95 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 101 7:00 PM 0 87 12 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 8:00 PM 1 93 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 104 9:00 PM 0 56 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 66 10:00 PM 0 31 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 38 Total 1,198 Sunday, May 10, 2026 Time FHWA Vehicle Classification Total 1,848 Saturday, May 9, 2026 Time FHWA Vehicle Classification Item 4 Attachment C - Data Collection Summary Memo & Appendix A Packet Pg. 246 11:00 PM 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 17 1,432 132 1 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.1% 90.2% 8.3% 0.1% 0.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Southbound Total 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Volume 12:00 AM 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 1:00 AM 0 8 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 2:00 AM 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 3:00 AM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4:00 AM 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 5:00 AM 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 6:00 AM 0 10 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 7:00 AM 0 21 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 8:00 AM 0 33 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 34 9:00 AM 0 40 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 44 10:00 AM 1 91 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 94 11:00 AM 0 123 9 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 133 12:00 PM 1 80 4 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 86 1:00 PM 0 96 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 102 2:00 PM 0 80 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 82 3:00 PM 0 90 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 95 4:00 PM 1 74 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 78 5:00 PM 2 74 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 77 6:00 PM 1 69 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 72 7:00 PM 1 61 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 63 8:00 PM 0 42 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 46 9:00 PM 0 13 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 10:00 PM 0 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 11:00 PM 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 7 1,046 48 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.6% 94.7% 4.3% 0.0% 0.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Northbound Total 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Volume 12:00 AM 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 1:00 AM 0 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 2:00 AM 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3:00 AM 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 4:00 AM 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 5:00 AM 0 9 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 6:00 AM 0 24 6 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 31 7:00 AM 1 55 12 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 70 8:00 AM 0 122 15 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 139 9:00 AM 2 92 17 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 115 10:00 AM 3 115 11 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 133 11:00 AM 0 99 13 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 116 12:00 PM 2 106 19 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 129 1:00 PM 2 107 15 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 126 2:00 PM 1 112 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 125 3:00 PM 5 126 20 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 155 4:00 PM 1 167 15 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 186 5:00 PM 3 153 6 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 163 6:00 PM 3 112 10 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 127 7:00 PM 1 92 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 105 8:00 PM 0 93 13 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 108 9:00 PM 0 78 10 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 89 10:00 PM 0 29 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 34 11:00 PM 0 23 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 26 Total 1,588 Time FHWA Vehicle Classification Total Sunday, May 10, 2026 Time FHWA Vehicle Classification 1,105 Monday, May 11, 2026 Item 4 Attachment C - Data Collection Summary Memo & Appendix A Packet Pg. 247 24 1,734 216 4 25 4 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1.2% 86.4% 10.8% 0.2% 1.2% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Southbound Total 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Volume 12:00 AM 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 1:00 AM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2:00 AM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3:00 AM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4:00 AM 0 3 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 5:00 AM 0 8 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 6:00 AM 0 11 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 7:00 AM 0 46 7 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 54 8:00 AM 0 96 12 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 109 9:00 AM 0 91 9 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 104 10:00 AM 0 87 8 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 97 11:00 AM 0 61 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 69 12:00 PM 1 55 8 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 68 1:00 PM 0 68 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 81 2:00 PM 1 77 7 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 88 3:00 PM 1 83 9 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 95 4:00 PM 0 97 6 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 104 5:00 PM 0 82 4 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 89 6:00 PM 1 64 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 68 7:00 PM 0 65 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 69 8:00 PM 0 30 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 31 9:00 PM 0 26 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 29 10:00 PM 0 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 11:00 PM 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 4 1,078 108 0 20 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.3% 88.9% 8.9% 0.0% 1.6% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Northbound Total 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Volume 12:00 AM 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1:00 AM 0 7 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 2:00 AM 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 3:00 AM 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 4:00 AM 0 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 5:00 AM 0 15 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 6:00 AM 0 22 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 7:00 AM 0 53 8 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 62 8:00 AM 0 115 22 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 141 9:00 AM 1 89 24 1 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 119 10:00 AM 1 80 16 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 11:00 AM 0 113 15 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 132 12:00 PM 2 116 11 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 132 1:00 PM 1 110 16 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 130 2:00 PM 0 123 16 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 142 3:00 PM 2 136 21 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 162 4:00 PM 1 224 24 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 250 5:00 PM 3 268 22 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 296 6:00 PM 0 147 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 161 7:00 PM 2 129 5 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 137 8:00 PM 2 96 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 109 9:00 PM 0 81 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 93 10:00 PM 0 45 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 49 11:00 PM 0 15 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 15 1,993 256 9 24 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,299 Total 1,213 Total 2,008 Monday, May 11, 2026 Time FHWA Vehicle Classification Tuesday, May 12, 2026 Time FHWA Vehicle Classification Total Item 4 Attachment C - Data Collection Summary Memo & Appendix A Packet Pg. 248 0.7% 86.7% 11.1% 0.4% 1.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Southbound Total 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Volume 12:00 AM 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1:00 AM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2:00 AM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3:00 AM 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 4:00 AM 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 5:00 AM 0 8 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 6:00 AM 0 15 3 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 7:00 AM 0 41 11 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 53 8:00 AM 0 97 14 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 113 9:00 AM 0 88 15 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 104 10:00 AM 1 72 10 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 85 11:00 AM 1 86 10 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 12:00 PM 1 76 7 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 86 1:00 PM 1 72 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 85 2:00 PM 1 97 6 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 106 3:00 PM 0 91 9 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 101 4:00 PM 0 113 8 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 122 5:00 PM 0 178 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 191 6:00 PM 0 116 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 125 7:00 PM 0 61 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 63 8:00 PM 1 47 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 51 9:00 PM 0 31 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 31 10:00 PM 0 10 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 11:00 PM 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 6 1,314 137 6 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.4% 88.9% 9.3% 0.4% 1.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Northbound Total 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Volume 12:00 AM 0 11 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 1:00 AM 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 2:00 AM 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 3:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:00 AM 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 5:00 AM 0 9 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 6:00 AM 0 23 5 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 29 7:00 AM 0 60 15 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 79 8:00 AM 0 119 27 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 146 9:00 AM 0 104 15 1 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 124 10:00 AM 3 82 19 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 109 11:00 AM 1 123 13 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 141 12:00 PM 0 99 17 1 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 121 1:00 PM 0 100 15 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 116 2:00 PM 2 139 17 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 161 3:00 PM 2 167 17 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 188 4:00 PM 3 163 15 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 182 5:00 PM 1 178 15 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 197 6:00 PM 0 150 13 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 164 7:00 PM 0 110 11 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 123 8:00 PM 0 114 17 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 132 9:00 PM 0 90 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 99 10:00 PM 0 36 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 42 11:00 PM 0 24 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 26 12 1,909 252 9 27 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.5% 86.3% 11.4% 0.4% 1.2% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2,299 FHWA Vehicle Classification Total Time FHWA Vehicle Classification Total Tuesday, May 12, 2026 1,478 Wednesday, May 13, 2026 Total 2,211 Time Item 4 Attachment C - Data Collection Summary Memo & Appendix A Packet Pg. 249 Southbound Total 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Volume 12:00 AM 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 1:00 AM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3:00 AM 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 4:00 AM 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 5:00 AM 0 7 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 6:00 AM 1 11 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 7:00 AM 0 42 6 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50 8:00 AM 0 110 11 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 122 9:00 AM 0 74 11 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 86 10:00 AM 1 67 9 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 80 11:00 AM 0 67 13 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 84 12:00 PM 0 79 4 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 85 1:00 PM 0 91 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 98 2:00 PM 1 73 6 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 81 3:00 PM 2 84 8 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 95 4:00 PM 1 108 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 119 5:00 PM 0 163 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 169 6:00 PM 0 118 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 125 7:00 PM 0 64 5 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 70 8:00 PM 1 49 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50 9:00 PM 0 35 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 35 10:00 PM 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 11:00 PM 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 7 1,267 106 3 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.5% 90.7% 7.6% 0.2% 1.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Northbound Total 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Volume 12:00 AM 0 11 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 1:00 AM 0 9 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 2:00 AM 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 3:00 AM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4:00 AM 0 7 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 5:00 AM 0 14 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 6:00 AM 0 23 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 7:00 AM 0 60 13 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 75 8:00 AM 0 108 29 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 138 9:00 AM 1 124 23 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 149 10:00 AM 1 97 14 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 115 11:00 AM 2 106 12 2 7 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 130 12:00 PM 1 109 22 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 135 1:00 PM 2 133 14 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 152 2:00 PM 2 130 17 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 152 3:00 PM 5 142 26 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 178 4:00 PM 1 177 14 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 194 5:00 PM 0 190 17 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 209 6:00 PM 2 145 7 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 158 7:00 PM 2 128 11 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 142 8:00 PM 0 117 10 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 128 9:00 PM 1 115 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 132 10:00 PM 0 34 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 41 11:00 PM 0 20 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 20 2,002 264 14 24 3 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0.9% 86.0% 11.3% 0.6% 1.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Wednesday, May 13, 2026 Time FHWA Vehicle Classification Total 1,397 Thursday, May 14, 2026 Time FHWA Vehicle Classification Total 2,328 Item 4 Attachment C - Data Collection Summary Memo & Appendix A Packet Pg. 250 Southbound Total 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Volume 12:00 AM 1 6 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 1:00 AM 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2:00 AM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3:00 AM 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 4:00 AM 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 5:00 AM 0 11 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 6:00 AM 0 15 4 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 7:00 AM 0 49 8 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 58 8:00 AM 0 108 18 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 128 9:00 AM 0 80 11 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 93 10:00 AM 0 67 16 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 84 11:00 AM 0 83 11 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 96 12:00 PM 1 86 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 101 1:00 PM 0 65 9 1 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 79 2:00 PM 0 65 5 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 71 3:00 PM 0 78 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 92 4:00 PM 0 88 11 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 5:00 PM 0 143 13 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 157 6:00 PM 0 125 8 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 134 7:00 PM 1 71 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 76 8:00 PM 0 50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50 9:00 PM 0 37 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 38 10:00 PM 0 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 11:00 PM 0 5 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 3 1,255 151 3 16 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.2% 87.8% 10.6% 0.2% 1.1% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Total Study Average Northbound Total 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Volume 12:00 AM 0 9 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 1:00 AM 0 8 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 2:00 AM 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3:00 AM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4:00 AM 0 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 5:00 AM 0 10 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 6:00 AM 0 19 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 23 7:00 AM 0 46 10 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 58 8:00 AM 0 94 19 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 114 9:00 AM 1 95 17 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 117 10:00 AM 2 95 14 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 114 11:00 AM 1 107 12 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 124 12:00 PM 1 108 16 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 128 1:00 PM 2 123 16 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 143 2:00 PM 1 126 14 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 143 3:00 PM 3 137 18 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 160 4:00 PM 1 160 14 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 177 5:00 PM 2 165 13 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 181 6:00 PM 1 129 10 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 141 7:00 PM 1 108 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 120 8:00 PM 1 102 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 115 9:00 PM 0 86 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 98 10:00 PM 0 47 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 54 11:00 PM 0 24 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 27 17 1,805 229 6 20 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.8% 86.9% 11.0% 0.3% 1.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Note: Average only condsidered on days with 24-hours of data. Thursday, May 14, 2026 Time FHWA Vehicle Classification Total 1,429 Time FHWA Vehicle Classification Total 2,078 Item 4 Attachment C - Data Collection Summary Memo & Appendix A Packet Pg. 251 Total Study Average Southbound Total 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Volume 12:00 AM 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 1:00 AM 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 2:00 AM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3:00 AM 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 4:00 AM 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 5:00 AM 0 7 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 6:00 AM 0 12 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 7:00 AM 0 36 7 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 44 8:00 AM 0 81 10 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 92 9:00 AM 0 74 9 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 84 10:00 AM 1 75 8 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 85 11:00 AM 0 86 10 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 97 12:00 PM 1 79 8 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 89 1:00 PM 0 84 10 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 95 2:00 PM 1 84 6 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 92 3:00 PM 1 85 8 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 95 4:00 PM 0 94 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 101 5:00 PM 0 120 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 127 6:00 PM 0 101 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 106 7:00 PM 1 67 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 71 8:00 PM 0 45 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 46 9:00 PM 0 30 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 31 10:00 PM 0 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 11:00 PM 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 5 1,196 106 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.4% 90.9% 8.1% 0.0% 0.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Note: Average only condsidered on days with 24-hours of data. 3-Day (Tuesday - Thursday) Average Northbound Total 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Volume 12:00 AM 0 8 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 1:00 AM 0 7 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 2:00 AM 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 3:00 AM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4:00 AM 0 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 5:00 AM 0 13 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 6:00 AM 0 23 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 7:00 AM 0 58 12 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 72 8:00 AM 0 114 26 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 142 9:00 AM 1 106 21 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 132 10:00 AM 2 86 16 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 107 11:00 AM 1 114 13 1 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 134 12:00 PM 1 108 17 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 130 1:00 PM 1 114 15 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 132 2:00 PM 1 131 17 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 151 3:00 PM 3 148 21 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 176 4:00 PM 2 188 18 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 209 5:00 PM 1 212 18 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 233 6:00 PM 1 147 11 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 161 7:00 PM 1 122 9 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 134 8:00 PM 1 109 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 123 9:00 PM 0 95 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 107 10:00 PM 0 38 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 44 11:00 PM 0 20 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 16 1,967 257 11 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.7% 86.4% 11.3% 0.5% 1.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Time FHWA Vehicle Classification Total 1,316 Time FHWA Vehicle Classification Total 2,276 Item 4 Attachment C - Data Collection Summary Memo & Appendix A Packet Pg. 252 3-Day (Tuesday - Thursday) Average Southbound Total 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Volume 12:00 AM 0 4 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 1:00 AM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2:00 AM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3:00 AM 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 4:00 AM 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 5:00 AM 0 9 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 6:00 AM 0 14 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19 7:00 AM 0 44 8 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 53 8:00 AM 0 105 14 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 121 9:00 AM 0 81 12 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 94 10:00 AM 1 69 12 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 84 11:00 AM 0 79 11 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 93 12:00 PM 1 80 8 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 90 1:00 PM 0 76 9 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 86 2:00 PM 1 78 6 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 86 3:00 PM 1 84 10 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 96 4:00 PM 0 103 10 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 114 5:00 PM 0 161 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 172 6:00 PM 0 120 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 128 7:00 PM 0 65 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 68 8:00 PM 1 49 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 51 9:00 PM 0 34 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 34 10:00 PM 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 11:00 PM 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 5 1,278 130 2 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.3% 89.4% 9.1% 0.1% 1.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%Total 1,430 Time FHWA Vehicle Classification Item 4 Attachment C - Data Collection Summary Memo & Appendix A Packet Pg. 253 Location: Waverley St, Between Lincoln Ave and Kingsley Ave Direction: Northbound / Southbound Date Range: 5/8/2026 to 5/14/2026 Site Code: 02 0 - 10 10 - 15 15 - 20 20 - 25 25 - 30 30 - 35 35 - 40 40 - 45 45 - 50 50 - 55 55 - 60 60 - 65 30 137 639 3,780 7,047 2,513 359 43 12 1 0 0 0.2%0.9%4.4%26.0%48.4%17.3%2.5%0.3%0.1%0.0%0.0%0.0% 25 69 480 2,834 4,218 1,406 195 23 1 2 0 1 0.3%0.7%5.2%30.6%45.6%15.2%2.1%0.2%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0% 55 206 1,119 6,614 11,265 3,919 554 66 13 3 0 1 0.2%0.9%4.7%27.8%47.3%16.5%2.3%0.3%0.1%0.0%0.0%0.0% 50th Percentile (Median) 26.8 mph Mean (Average) Speed 26.8 mph 30.9 mph 10 mph Pace 21.9 - 31.9 mph 33.7 mph Percent in Pace 78.7 % 50th Percentile (Median) 26.3 mph Mean (Average) Speed 26.3 mph 30.4 mph 10 mph Pace 21.3 - 31.3 mph 33.2 mph Percent in Pace 78.5 % Location: Waverley St, Between Lincoln Ave and Kingsley Ave Date Range: 5/8/2026 to 5/14/2026 Site Code: 02 Northbound 0 - 10 10 - 15 15 - 20 20 - 25 25 - 30 30 - 35 35 - 40 40 - 45 45 - 50 50 - 55 55 - 60 60 - 65 12:00 AM 0 0 0 2 2 6 1 1 0 0 0 0 1:00 AM 0 0 0 1 4 1 2 2 0 0 0 0 2:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3:00 AM 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:00 AM 0 0 0 1 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 5:00 AM 0 0 0 2 3 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 6:00 AM 0 0 1 6 10 9 1 0 0 0 0 0 Southbound Total Total Study Percentile Speed Summary Total Study Speed Statistics Vehicle Speed Report Summary Direction Speed Range (mph) Northbound 85th Percentile 95th Percentile Friday, May 8, 2026 Time Speed Range (mph) Northbound Northbound 85th Percentile 95th Percentile Southbound Southbound Item 4 Attachment C - Data Collection Summary Memo & Appendix A Packet Pg. 254 7:00 AM 0 1 1 19 39 10 3 0 0 0 0 0 8:00 AM 2 1 3 25 71 31 8 0 0 0 0 0 9:00 AM 0 2 9 35 50 23 4 0 0 0 0 0 10:00 AM 0 0 2 27 65 34 3 0 0 0 0 0 11:00 AM 0 0 8 39 53 18 1 0 0 0 0 0 12:00 PM 0 0 3 34 75 26 3 0 0 0 0 0 1:00 PM 0 2 2 41 75 32 0 0 0 0 0 0 2:00 PM 0 1 3 40 73 25 3 0 0 0 0 0 3:00 PM 0 0 10 46 69 32 3 1 0 0 0 0 4:00 PM 1 3 7 38 102 30 5 0 0 0 0 0 5:00 PM 1 3 8 23 106 30 4 0 0 0 0 0 6:00 PM 0 1 7 29 84 26 4 0 0 0 0 0 7:00 PM 0 2 6 25 64 23 6 0 0 0 0 0 8:00 PM 1 3 12 39 51 16 3 0 0 0 0 0 9:00 PM 0 0 2 27 57 22 5 1 0 0 0 0 10:00 PM 0 3 3 17 56 27 2 0 0 0 0 0 11:00 PM 0 0 0 5 24 11 2 0 0 0 0 0 5 22 87 522 1,136 437 65 5 0 0 0 0 0.2% 1.0% 3.8% 22.9% 49.8% 19.2% 2.9% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 50th Percentile (Median) 27.2 mph Mean (Average) Speed 27.1 mph 85th Percentile 31.2 mph 10 mph Pace mph 95th Percentile 34.0 mph Percent in Pace 78.0 % Southbound 0 - 10 10 - 15 15 - 20 20 - 25 25 - 30 30 - 35 35 - 40 40 - 45 45 - 50 50 - 55 55 - 60 60 - 65 12:00 AM 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1:00 AM 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3:00 AM 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:00 AM 0 0 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 5:00 AM 0 0 0 2 4 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 6:00 AM 0 1 0 5 8 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 7:00 AM 1 0 6 13 20 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 8:00 AM 0 1 4 34 41 8 1 0 0 0 0 0 9:00 AM 0 0 2 30 49 12 1 0 0 0 0 0 10:00 AM 0 2 3 28 38 11 5 0 0 0 0 0 11:00 AM 0 1 6 38 45 19 1 0 0 0 0 0 12:00 PM 0 0 2 25 61 18 1 0 0 0 0 0 1:00 PM 0 1 5 36 56 15 1 0 0 0 0 0 2:00 PM 0 0 6 27 50 12 4 0 0 0 0 0 3:00 PM 0 0 3 27 43 21 3 0 0 0 0 0 4:00 PM 0 0 5 31 60 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 5:00 PM 0 2 4 33 51 20 6 1 0 0 0 0 6:00 PM 1 1 4 35 58 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:00 PM 1 0 5 17 37 13 2 0 0 0 0 0 Total Daily Percentile Speed Summary Speed Statistics 22.6 - 32.6 Friday, May 8, 2026 Time Speed Range (mph) Item 4 Attachment C - Data Collection Summary Memo & Appendix A Packet Pg. 255 8:00 PM 0 2 3 14 28 11 1 0 0 0 0 0 9:00 PM 0 1 0 9 19 6 2 0 0 0 0 0 10:00 PM 0 0 0 7 13 8 2 0 0 0 0 0 11:00 PM 0 0 0 5 4 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 12 59 417 689 216 36 2 0 0 0 0 0.2% 0.8% 4.1% 29.1% 48.0% 15.1% 2.5% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 50th Percentile (Median) 26.7 mph Mean (Average) Speed 26.5 mph 85th Percentile 30.5 mph 10 mph Pace mph 95th Percentile 33.2 mph Percent in Pace 79.92 % Northbound 0 - 10 10 - 15 15 - 20 20 - 25 25 - 30 30 - 35 35 - 40 40 - 45 45 - 50 50 - 55 55 - 60 60 - 65 12:00 AM 0 0 0 3 9 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 1:00 AM 0 0 0 3 2 6 2 1 1 0 0 0 2:00 AM 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 3:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 4:00 AM 0 0 0 1 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 5:00 AM 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 6:00 AM 0 0 1 3 6 2 2 1 0 0 0 0 7:00 AM 0 1 0 4 11 4 3 0 0 0 0 0 8:00 AM 0 0 1 11 26 17 2 0 0 0 0 0 9:00 AM 0 0 1 23 63 17 5 0 0 0 0 0 10:00 AM 0 4 4 29 62 18 6 0 0 0 0 0 11:00 AM 1 1 10 37 55 22 2 0 0 0 0 0 12:00 PM 0 2 6 34 42 22 2 0 0 0 0 0 1:00 PM 1 2 8 43 85 23 1 0 0 0 0 0 2:00 PM 0 3 15 59 54 15 5 0 0 0 0 0 3:00 PM 0 1 13 51 73 23 0 1 0 0 0 0 4:00 PM 0 0 4 37 49 14 5 0 0 0 0 0 5:00 PM 0 1 4 30 54 23 2 0 0 0 0 0 6:00 PM 0 1 3 39 55 25 4 1 1 0 0 0 7:00 PM 0 1 1 30 59 18 3 1 0 0 0 0 8:00 PM 0 0 3 24 55 14 2 0 0 0 0 0 9:00 PM 0 0 6 29 45 13 4 0 0 0 0 0 10:00 PM 0 0 0 12 31 18 2 2 0 0 0 0 11:00 PM 0 0 0 6 17 14 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 17 81 509 858 315 55 8 3 0 0 0 0.1% 0.9% 4.4% 27.5% 46.4% 17.0% 3.0% 0.4% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 50th Percentile (Median) 26.6 mph Mean (Average) Speed 26.7 mph 85th Percentile 31.0 mph 10 mph Pace mph 95th Percentile 34.1 mph Percent in Pace 77.8 % Total Daily Percentile Speed Summary Speed Statistics 22.0 - 32.0 Saturday, May 9, 2026 21.9 - 31.9 Saturday, May 9, 2026 Time Speed Range (mph) Total Daily Percentile Speed Summary Speed Statistics Item 4 Attachment C - Data Collection Summary Memo & Appendix A Packet Pg. 256 Southbound 0 - 10 10 - 15 15 - 20 20 - 25 25 - 30 30 - 35 35 - 40 40 - 45 45 - 50 50 - 55 55 - 60 60 - 65 12:00 AM 0 0 1 1 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1:00 AM 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 2:00 AM 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3:00 AM 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:00 AM 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 5:00 AM 0 0 1 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 6:00 AM 0 0 0 5 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:00 AM 0 0 1 5 8 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 8:00 AM 0 0 2 17 22 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 9:00 AM 0 0 1 18 39 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 10:00 AM 0 0 0 16 44 11 1 0 0 0 0 0 11:00 AM 0 2 6 17 48 16 2 0 0 0 0 0 12:00 PM 0 0 6 24 38 22 4 0 0 0 0 0 1:00 PM 0 1 2 21 53 25 4 0 0 0 0 0 2:00 PM 0 0 2 38 48 23 1 0 0 0 0 0 3:00 PM 1 0 7 27 38 16 1 0 0 0 0 1 4:00 PM 1 0 4 20 39 9 5 1 0 0 0 0 5:00 PM 0 2 8 23 41 17 6 0 0 0 0 0 6:00 PM 0 0 6 31 51 14 1 1 0 0 0 0 7:00 PM 0 1 2 27 32 18 1 0 0 0 0 0 8:00 PM 0 0 4 9 20 6 1 0 0 0 0 0 9:00 PM 0 0 0 14 20 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 10:00 PM 0 1 1 7 8 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 11:00 PM 0 0 0 4 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 7 55 327 567 203 33 3 0 0 0 1 0.2% 0.6% 4.6% 27.3% 47.3% 16.9% 2.8% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 50th Percentile (Median) 26.6 mph Mean (Average) Speed 26.7 mph 85th Percentile 30.8 mph 10 mph Pace mph 95th Percentile 33.6 mph Percent in Pace 79.05 % Northbound 0 - 10 10 - 15 15 - 20 20 - 25 25 - 30 30 - 35 35 - 40 40 - 45 45 - 50 50 - 55 55 - 60 60 - 65 12:00 AM 0 0 0 5 8 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 1:00 AM 0 0 1 0 5 2 1 2 0 0 0 0 2:00 AM 0 0 0 0 4 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 3:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 4:00 AM 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 5:00 AM 0 0 0 2 3 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 6:00 AM 0 0 0 2 5 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:00 AM 0 1 1 4 12 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 8:00 AM 0 0 0 9 16 9 3 1 0 0 0 0 9:00 AM 0 0 2 17 40 20 2 0 0 0 0 0 Time Speed Range (mph) Total Daily Percentile Speed Summary Speed Statistics 22.0 - 32.0 Sunday, May 10, 2026 Time Speed Range (mph) Item 4 Attachment C - Data Collection Summary Memo & Appendix A Packet Pg. 257 10:00 AM 0 1 2 31 36 14 1 0 0 0 0 0 11:00 AM 1 2 3 24 58 16 1 0 0 0 0 0 12:00 PM 0 3 7 40 64 17 1 0 0 0 0 0 1:00 PM 0 3 12 33 76 27 0 1 0 0 0 0 2:00 PM 0 2 8 49 59 13 1 0 0 0 0 0 3:00 PM 0 3 8 28 57 16 3 0 0 0 0 0 4:00 PM 0 0 9 34 66 16 4 0 1 0 0 0 5:00 PM 0 1 10 27 59 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 6:00 PM 0 0 4 29 53 14 1 0 0 0 0 0 7:00 PM 0 1 3 43 40 12 0 0 1 0 0 0 8:00 PM 0 1 6 33 48 14 2 0 0 0 0 0 9:00 PM 0 1 4 16 34 10 0 1 0 0 0 0 10:00 PM 0 0 1 7 23 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 11:00 PM 0 0 1 3 7 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 19 82 436 775 240 24 9 2 0 0 0 0.1% 1.2% 5.2% 27.5% 48.8% 15.1% 1.5% 0.6% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 50th Percentile (Median) 26.5 mph Mean (Average) Speed 26.5 mph 85th Percentile 30.5 mph 10 mph Pace mph 95th Percentile 33.3 mph Percent in Pace 80.1 % Southbound 0 - 10 10 - 15 15 - 20 20 - 25 25 - 30 30 - 35 35 - 40 40 - 45 45 - 50 50 - 55 55 - 60 60 - 65 12:00 AM 0 0 0 4 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1:00 AM 0 0 2 1 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 2:00 AM 0 0 0 0 1 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 3:00 AM 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 5:00 AM 0 0 0 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 6:00 AM 0 0 0 1 9 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 7:00 AM 0 0 2 5 10 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 8:00 AM 0 0 1 12 15 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 9:00 AM 0 0 4 16 20 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 10:00 AM 1 1 2 23 46 18 3 0 0 0 0 0 11:00 AM 0 1 3 34 72 21 2 0 0 0 0 0 12:00 PM 0 0 3 20 32 24 6 1 0 0 0 0 1:00 PM 0 0 1 19 49 31 2 0 0 0 0 0 2:00 PM 0 1 4 19 36 21 0 0 0 1 0 0 3:00 PM 0 3 7 24 41 18 2 0 0 0 0 0 4:00 PM 0 1 3 21 34 14 5 0 0 0 0 0 5:00 PM 0 1 7 17 33 17 2 0 0 0 0 0 6:00 PM 1 3 8 24 25 10 0 1 0 0 0 0 7:00 PM 0 0 3 26 17 15 2 0 0 0 0 0 8:00 PM 1 0 2 17 23 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 9:00 PM 0 0 3 2 6 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 10:00 PM 0 0 0 6 4 4 1 0 0 1 0 0 Total Daily Percentile Speed Summary Speed Statistics 21.9 - 31.9 Sunday, May 10, 2026 Time Speed Range (mph) Item 4 Attachment C - Data Collection Summary Memo & Appendix A Packet Pg. 258 11:00 PM 0 0 0 3 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 11 56 295 484 221 30 3 0 2 0 0 0.3% 1.0% 5.1% 26.7% 43.8% 20.0% 2.7% 0.3% 0.0% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 50th Percentile (Median) 26.8 mph Mean (Average) Speed 26.7 mph 85th Percentile 30.9 mph 10 mph Pace mph 95th Percentile 33.7 mph Percent in Pace 75.75 % Northbound 0 - 10 10 - 15 15 - 20 20 - 25 25 - 30 30 - 35 35 - 40 40 - 45 45 - 50 50 - 55 55 - 60 60 - 65 12:00 AM 0 0 0 0 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1:00 AM 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 2:00 AM 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3:00 AM 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:00 AM 0 0 0 0 1 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 5:00 AM 0 0 1 0 4 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 6:00 AM 0 2 3 5 11 7 3 0 0 0 0 0 7:00 AM 0 2 3 16 33 8 5 2 1 0 0 0 8:00 AM 0 1 5 42 68 17 5 1 0 0 0 0 9:00 AM 1 1 5 35 45 25 3 0 0 0 0 0 10:00 AM 0 1 3 42 59 25 1 2 0 0 0 0 11:00 AM 0 0 4 36 53 21 2 0 0 0 0 0 12:00 PM 0 1 5 39 65 15 3 0 1 0 0 0 1:00 PM 0 2 4 40 55 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 2:00 PM 0 1 7 27 58 29 3 0 0 0 0 0 3:00 PM 0 5 15 34 71 24 6 0 0 0 0 0 4:00 PM 0 2 6 28 106 40 4 0 0 0 0 0 5:00 PM 0 4 4 25 79 43 8 0 0 0 0 0 6:00 PM 0 0 3 26 61 30 6 1 0 0 0 0 7:00 PM 0 1 8 26 43 24 2 1 0 0 0 0 8:00 PM 0 0 4 18 58 27 1 0 0 0 0 0 9:00 PM 0 0 0 22 47 15 5 0 0 0 0 0 10:00 PM 0 0 2 6 15 9 1 0 1 0 0 0 11:00 PM 0 0 0 8 10 4 3 0 1 0 0 0 1 23 83 476 950 399 64 8 4 0 0 0 0.0% 1.1% 4.1% 23.7% 47.3% 19.9% 3.2% 0.4% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 50th Percentile (Median) 27.2 mph Mean (Average) Speed 27.1 mph 85th Percentile 31.3 mph 10 mph Pace mph 95th Percentile 34.4 mph Percent in Pace 77.3 % Southbound 21.0 - 31.0 Monday, May 11, 2026 Time Speed Range (mph) Total Total Daily Percentile Speed Summary Speed Statistics Daily Percentile Speed Summary Speed Statistics 21.8 - 31.8 Monday, May 11, 2026 Time Speed Range (mph) Item 4 Attachment C - Data Collection Summary Memo & Appendix A Packet Pg. 259 0 - 10 10 - 15 15 - 20 20 - 25 25 - 30 30 - 35 35 - 40 40 - 45 45 - 50 50 - 55 55 - 60 60 - 65 12:00 AM 0 0 0 2 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1:00 AM 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2:00 AM 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3:00 AM 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:00 AM 0 0 0 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 5:00 AM 0 0 0 2 5 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 6:00 AM 0 0 3 3 8 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:00 AM 1 1 4 14 22 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 8:00 AM 0 1 6 37 54 10 1 0 0 0 0 0 9:00 AM 0 0 1 36 51 14 2 0 0 0 0 0 10:00 AM 1 0 8 24 46 15 3 0 0 0 0 0 11:00 AM 0 1 5 25 34 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 12:00 PM 0 0 5 22 28 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 1:00 PM 1 0 7 29 29 14 1 0 0 0 0 0 2:00 PM 0 1 4 28 40 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 3:00 PM 0 0 6 34 33 19 2 1 0 0 0 0 4:00 PM 0 0 2 28 56 16 2 0 0 0 0 0 5:00 PM 0 0 5 34 35 14 1 0 0 0 0 0 6:00 PM 2 0 6 12 29 15 4 0 0 0 0 0 7:00 PM 2 0 2 22 32 6 2 3 0 0 0 0 8:00 PM 0 0 3 9 14 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 9:00 PM 0 0 2 10 10 6 0 1 0 0 0 0 10:00 PM 0 0 0 6 7 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 11:00 PM 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 7 4 69 380 540 182 25 6 0 0 0 0 0.6% 0.3% 5.7% 31.3% 44.5% 15.0% 2.1% 0.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 50th Percentile (Median) 26.2 mph Mean (Average) Speed 26.2 mph 85th Percentile 30.5 mph 10 mph Pace mph 95th Percentile 33.4 mph Percent in Pace 78.57 % Northbound 0 - 10 10 - 15 15 - 20 20 - 25 25 - 30 30 - 35 35 - 40 40 - 45 45 - 50 50 - 55 55 - 60 60 - 65 12:00 AM 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1:00 AM 0 0 0 1 3 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 2:00 AM 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3:00 AM 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 4:00 AM 0 0 0 0 1 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 5:00 AM 0 0 2 4 5 6 1 0 0 0 0 0 6:00 AM 0 0 1 4 20 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 7:00 AM 1 0 5 7 33 11 4 1 0 0 0 0 8:00 AM 0 1 6 37 67 24 6 0 0 0 0 0 9:00 AM 0 1 5 35 62 15 1 0 0 0 0 0 10:00 AM 0 1 8 30 44 16 1 0 0 0 0 0 11:00 AM 0 0 9 25 64 30 4 0 0 0 0 0 Total Daily Percentile Speed Summary Speed Statistics 21.4 - 31.4 Tuesday, May 12, 2026 Time Time Speed Range (mph) Item 4 Attachment C - Data Collection Summary Memo & Appendix A Packet Pg. 260 12:00 PM 1 1 8 24 87 10 1 0 0 0 0 0 1:00 PM 1 1 7 32 69 19 0 1 0 0 0 0 2:00 PM 1 1 9 32 70 25 4 0 0 0 0 0 3:00 PM 0 2 3 50 78 24 5 0 0 0 0 0 4:00 PM 0 1 17 90 114 23 5 0 0 0 0 0 5:00 PM 8 18 18 63 139 49 1 0 0 0 0 0 6:00 PM 0 1 1 31 91 28 9 0 0 0 0 0 7:00 PM 0 0 3 36 67 24 6 1 0 0 0 0 8:00 PM 0 0 5 30 46 28 0 0 0 0 0 0 9:00 PM 0 0 0 13 56 20 4 0 0 0 0 0 10:00 PM 0 0 1 9 22 14 2 1 0 0 0 0 11:00 PM 0 0 0 6 5 4 1 0 1 0 0 0 12 28 108 562 1,145 377 61 5 1 0 0 0 0.5% 1.2% 4.7% 24.4% 49.8% 16.4% 2.7% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 50th Percentile (Median) 27.0 mph Mean (Average) Speed 26.7 mph 85th Percentile 30.8 mph 10 mph Pace mph 95th Percentile 33.4 mph Percent in Pace 79.1 % Southbound 0 - 10 10 - 15 15 - 20 20 - 25 25 - 30 30 - 35 35 - 40 40 - 45 45 - 50 50 - 55 55 - 60 60 - 65 12:00 AM 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1:00 AM 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2:00 AM 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3:00 AM 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 4:00 AM 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 5:00 AM 0 0 1 3 1 7 1 0 0 0 0 0 6:00 AM 0 0 2 8 8 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:00 AM 0 0 6 16 23 7 1 0 0 0 0 0 8:00 AM 1 4 6 34 53 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 9:00 AM 1 1 6 37 42 15 1 1 0 0 0 0 10:00 AM 0 0 10 30 29 12 4 0 0 0 0 0 11:00 AM 0 1 5 33 51 9 1 0 0 0 0 0 12:00 PM 0 1 2 31 38 11 3 0 0 0 0 0 1:00 PM 0 1 3 36 32 12 1 0 0 0 0 0 2:00 PM 1 0 2 35 52 15 1 0 0 0 0 0 3:00 PM 1 0 4 40 44 10 2 0 0 0 0 0 4:00 PM 0 0 5 36 61 18 1 1 0 0 0 0 5:00 PM 0 0 4 60 91 33 2 1 0 0 0 0 6:00 PM 0 1 7 41 61 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:00 PM 2 2 8 11 26 10 3 1 0 0 0 0 8:00 PM 0 0 4 15 21 9 1 0 1 0 0 0 9:00 PM 0 0 1 14 11 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 10:00 PM 0 0 0 2 8 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 11:00 PM 0 0 0 1 5 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 6 11 77 485 660 207 26 5 1 0 0 0 22.1 - 32.1 Tuesday, May 12, 2026 Time Speed Range (mph) Total Total Daily Percentile Speed Summary Speed Statistics Item 4 Attachment C - Data Collection Summary Memo & Appendix A Packet Pg. 261 0.4% 0.7% 5.2% 32.8% 44.7% 14.0% 1.8% 0.3% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 50th Percentile (Median) 26.2 mph Mean (Average) Speed 26.1 mph 85th Percentile 30.2 mph 10 mph Pace mph 95th Percentile 32.7 mph Percent in Pace 79.91 % Northbound 0 - 10 10 - 15 15 - 20 20 - 25 25 - 30 30 - 35 35 - 40 40 - 45 45 - 50 50 - 55 55 - 60 60 - 65 12:00 AM 0 0 0 1 6 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 1:00 AM 0 0 0 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 3:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:00 AM 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 5:00 AM 0 0 2 0 4 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 6:00 AM 0 0 1 6 12 6 3 1 0 0 0 0 7:00 AM 1 0 0 10 40 24 4 0 0 0 0 0 8:00 AM 1 1 10 51 56 26 1 0 0 0 0 0 9:00 AM 0 0 4 39 56 24 1 0 0 0 0 0 10:00 AM 0 2 7 32 45 18 4 1 0 0 0 0 11:00 AM 0 0 4 40 72 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 12:00 PM 1 0 3 42 50 22 3 0 0 0 0 0 1:00 PM 0 2 11 32 57 12 2 0 0 0 0 0 2:00 PM 0 2 14 60 69 15 1 0 0 0 0 0 3:00 PM 0 0 12 60 90 22 2 0 1 1 0 0 4:00 PM 1 1 9 65 85 20 1 0 0 0 0 0 5:00 PM 0 0 5 59 100 27 6 0 0 0 0 0 6:00 PM 0 2 4 31 84 37 6 0 0 0 0 0 7:00 PM 0 0 1 36 59 23 3 1 0 0 0 0 8:00 PM 0 2 9 34 62 22 3 0 0 0 0 0 9:00 PM 0 0 3 21 54 18 3 0 0 0 0 0 10:00 PM 0 0 1 5 19 14 3 0 0 0 0 0 11:00 PM 0 0 0 3 14 6 1 1 1 0 0 0 4 12 100 627 1,039 369 51 6 2 1 0 0 0.2% 0.5% 4.5% 28.4% 47.0% 16.7% 2.3% 0.3% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 50th Percentile (Median) 26.6 mph Mean (Average) Speed 26.6 mph 85th Percentile 30.6 mph 10 mph Pace mph 95th Percentile 33.3 mph Percent in Pace 79.1 % Southbound 0 - 10 10 - 15 15 - 20 20 - 25 25 - 30 30 - 35 35 - 40 40 - 45 45 - 50 50 - 55 55 - 60 60 - 65 12:00 AM 0 0 2 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1:00 AM 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Total Daily Percentile Speed Summary Speed Statistics 21.3 - 31.3 Wednesday, May 13, 2026 Daily Percentile Speed Summary Speed Statistics 21.4 - 31.4 Wednesday, May 13, 2026 Time Speed Range (mph) Time Speed Range (mph) Item 4 Attachment C - Data Collection Summary Memo & Appendix A Packet Pg. 262 2:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3:00 AM 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:00 AM 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 5:00 AM 0 0 0 3 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 6:00 AM 0 0 1 5 6 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 7:00 AM 0 0 1 9 29 9 2 0 0 0 0 0 8:00 AM 0 2 8 30 75 6 1 0 0 0 0 0 9:00 AM 0 0 3 24 36 23 0 0 0 0 0 0 10:00 AM 0 0 3 27 34 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 11:00 AM 0 0 4 33 37 7 3 0 0 0 0 0 12:00 PM 0 0 5 23 41 15 1 0 0 0 0 0 1:00 PM 0 1 7 29 55 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 2:00 PM 0 0 3 29 36 11 2 0 0 0 0 0 3:00 PM 2 2 4 29 44 13 1 0 0 0 0 0 4:00 PM 0 0 6 31 56 25 1 0 0 0 0 0 5:00 PM 0 2 10 71 68 15 2 1 0 0 0 0 6:00 PM 0 1 4 32 62 22 4 0 0 0 0 0 7:00 PM 0 1 8 20 28 12 1 0 0 0 0 0 8:00 PM 1 1 1 18 25 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 9:00 PM 0 0 3 11 17 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 10:00 PM 0 0 0 1 4 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 11:00 PM 0 0 0 1 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 10 73 429 662 196 23 1 0 0 0 0 0.2% 0.7% 5.2% 30.7% 47.4% 14.0% 1.6% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 50th Percentile (Median) 26.1 mph Mean (Average) Speed 26.1 mph 85th Percentile 30.1 mph 10 mph Pace mph 95th Percentile 32.5 mph Percent in Pace 79.24 % Northbound 0 - 10 10 - 15 15 - 20 20 - 25 25 - 30 30 - 35 35 - 40 40 - 45 45 - 50 50 - 55 55 - 60 60 - 65 12:00 AM 0 0 0 2 7 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 1:00 AM 0 0 0 3 3 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 2:00 AM 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 3:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:00 AM 0 0 0 2 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 5:00 AM 0 0 1 3 4 7 1 0 0 0 0 0 6:00 AM 0 0 2 4 13 6 2 1 0 0 0 0 7:00 AM 0 1 1 13 34 24 2 0 0 0 0 0 8:00 AM 0 0 3 20 69 41 5 0 0 0 0 0 9:00 AM 0 1 4 24 86 33 1 0 0 0 0 0 10:00 AM 0 1 4 43 50 16 1 0 0 0 0 0 11:00 AM 0 0 12 26 61 25 6 0 0 0 0 0 12:00 PM 0 0 6 42 63 23 1 0 0 0 0 0 1:00 PM 2 2 5 45 81 16 1 0 0 0 0 0 2:00 PM 1 1 7 45 81 15 2 0 0 0 0 0 20.6 - 30.6 Thursday, May 14, 2026 Time Speed Range (mph) Total Daily Percentile Speed Summary Speed Statistics Item 4 Attachment C - Data Collection Summary Memo & Appendix A Packet Pg. 263 3:00 PM 1 4 11 66 73 23 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:00 PM 0 0 9 56 105 22 2 0 0 0 0 0 5:00 PM 0 2 6 51 116 33 1 0 0 0 0 0 6:00 PM 1 0 10 41 79 22 4 1 0 0 0 0 7:00 PM 0 2 4 63 59 13 1 0 0 0 0 0 8:00 PM 0 0 6 42 68 11 1 0 0 0 0 0 9:00 PM 0 1 7 39 60 24 1 0 0 0 0 0 10:00 PM 0 1 0 12 20 6 2 0 0 0 0 0 11:00 PM 0 0 0 5 9 4 3 0 0 0 0 0 5 16 98 648 1,144 376 39 2 0 0 0 0 0.2% 0.7% 4.2% 27.8% 49.1% 16.2% 1.7% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 50th Percentile (Median) 26.7 mph Mean (Average) Speed 26.6 mph 85th Percentile 30.5 mph 10 mph Pace mph 95th Percentile 33.1 mph Percent in Pace 80.5 % Southbound 0 - 10 10 - 15 15 - 20 20 - 25 25 - 30 30 - 35 35 - 40 40 - 45 45 - 50 50 - 55 55 - 60 60 - 65 12:00 AM 0 0 2 0 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1:00 AM 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2:00 AM 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3:00 AM 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:00 AM 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 5:00 AM 0 0 0 3 5 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 6:00 AM 0 0 1 8 6 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:00 AM 0 1 1 19 24 10 3 0 0 0 0 0 8:00 AM 0 2 4 52 55 13 2 0 0 0 0 0 9:00 AM 0 2 4 40 30 14 3 0 0 0 0 0 10:00 AM 0 0 9 35 30 9 1 0 0 0 0 0 11:00 AM 0 0 6 40 40 9 1 0 0 0 0 0 12:00 PM 0 2 9 30 47 12 1 0 0 0 0 0 1:00 PM 0 1 6 35 27 8 1 1 0 0 0 0 2:00 PM 0 0 7 27 27 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 3:00 PM 1 1 8 39 34 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:00 PM 0 1 4 30 43 19 3 0 0 0 0 0 5:00 PM 0 0 6 46 85 18 2 0 0 0 0 0 6:00 PM 0 3 12 48 57 12 2 0 0 0 0 0 7:00 PM 0 0 1 22 40 11 1 1 0 0 0 0 8:00 PM 0 0 4 13 24 8 1 0 0 0 0 0 9:00 PM 0 0 3 7 25 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 10:00 PM 0 0 3 1 10 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 11:00 PM 0 1 0 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 14 91 501 616 181 22 3 0 0 0 0 0.1% 1.0% 6.4% 35.1% 43.1% 12.7% 1.5% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Total Total Daily Percentile Speed Summary Speed Statistics Daily Percentile Speed Summary Speed Statistics 21.3 - 31.3 Thursday, May 14, 2026 Time Speed Range (mph) Item 4 Attachment C - Data Collection Summary Memo & Appendix A Packet Pg. 264 50th Percentile (Median) 25.6 mph Mean (Average) Speed 25.8 mph 85th Percentile 30.0 mph 10 mph Pace mph 95th Percentile 33.1 mph Percent in Pace 78.87 % Northbound 0 - 10 10 - 15 15 - 20 20 - 25 25 - 30 30 - 35 35 - 40 40 - 45 45 - 50 50 - 55 55 - 60 60 - 65 12:00 AM 0 0 0 2 5 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 1:00 AM 0 0 0 1 3 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 2:00 AM 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:00 AM 0 0 0 1 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 5:00 AM 0 0 1 2 3 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 6:00 AM 0 0 1 4 11 5 2 0 0 0 0 0 7:00 AM 0 1 2 10 29 13 3 0 0 0 0 0 8:00 AM 0 1 4 28 53 24 4 0 0 0 0 0 9:00 AM 0 1 4 30 57 22 2 0 0 0 0 0 10:00 AM 0 1 4 33 52 20 2 0 0 0 0 0 11:00 AM 0 0 7 32 59 22 2 0 0 0 0 0 12:00 PM 0 1 5 36 64 19 2 0 0 0 0 0 1:00 PM 1 2 7 38 71 22 1 0 0 0 0 0 2:00 PM 0 2 9 45 66 20 3 0 0 0 0 0 3:00 PM 0 2 10 48 73 23 3 0 0 0 0 0 4:00 PM 0 1 9 50 90 24 4 0 0 0 0 0 5:00 PM 1 4 8 40 93 31 3 0 0 0 0 0 6:00 PM 0 1 5 32 72 26 5 0 0 0 0 0 7:00 PM 0 1 4 37 56 20 3 1 0 0 0 0 8:00 PM 0 1 6 31 55 19 2 0 0 0 0 0 9:00 PM 0 0 3 24 50 17 3 0 0 0 0 0 10:00 PM 0 1 1 10 27 14 2 0 0 0 0 0 11:00 PM 0 0 0 5 12 6 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 20 90 539 1,004 358 51 2 0 0 0 0 0.1% 1.0% 4.4% 26.1% 48.6% 17.3% 2.5% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Note: Average only condsidered on days with 24-hours of data. 50th Percentile (Median) 26.8 mph Mean (Average) Speed 26.8 mph 85th Percentile 30.9 mph 10 mph Pace 21.9 - 31.9 mph 95th Percentile 33.7 mph Percent in Pace 78.7 % Southbound 0 - 10 10 - 15 15 - 20 20 - 25 25 - 30 30 - 35 35 - 40 40 - 45 45 - 50 50 - 55 55 - 60 60 - 65 12:00 AM 0 0 1 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1:00 AM 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2:00 AM 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3:00 AM 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20.5 - 30.5 Total Study Average Total Study Average Time Speed Range (mph) Time Speed Range (mph) Total Total Study Percentile Speed Summary Total Study Speed Statistics Item 4 Attachment C - Data Collection Summary Memo & Appendix A Packet Pg. 265 4:00 AM 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 5:00 AM 0 0 0 2 3 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 6:00 AM 0 0 1 5 7 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 7:00 AM 0 0 3 12 19 8 1 0 0 0 0 0 8:00 AM 0 1 4 31 45 9 1 0 0 0 0 0 9:00 AM 0 0 3 29 38 13 1 0 0 0 0 0 10:00 AM 0 0 5 26 38 13 2 0 0 0 0 0 11:00 AM 0 1 5 31 47 12 2 0 0 0 0 0 12:00 PM 0 0 5 25 41 16 2 0 0 0 0 0 1:00 PM 0 1 4 29 43 16 2 0 0 0 0 0 2:00 PM 0 0 4 29 41 15 1 0 0 0 0 0 3:00 PM 1 1 6 31 40 15 2 0 0 0 0 0 4:00 PM 0 0 4 28 50 16 2 0 0 0 0 0 5:00 PM 0 1 6 41 58 19 3 0 0 0 0 0 6:00 PM 1 1 7 32 49 15 2 0 0 0 0 0 7:00 PM 1 1 4 21 30 12 2 1 0 0 0 0 8:00 PM 0 0 3 14 22 6 1 0 0 0 0 0 9:00 PM 0 0 2 10 15 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 10:00 PM 0 0 1 4 8 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 11:00 PM 0 0 0 3 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 7 68 406 603 200 29 1 0 0 0 0 0.2% 0.5% 5.2% 30.8% 45.8% 15.2% 2.2% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Note: Average only condsidered on days with 24-hours of data. 50th Percentile (Median) 26.3 mph Mean (Average) Speed 26.3 mph 85th Percentile 30.4 mph 10 mph Pace 21.3 - 31.3 mph 95th Percentile 33.2 mph Percent in Pace 78.5 % Total Total Study Percentile Speed Summary Total Study Speed Statistics Item 4 Attachment C - Data Collection Summary Memo & Appendix A Packet Pg. 266 Location:Waverley St, Between Lincoln Ave and Kingsley Ave Date Range: 5/8/2026 - 5/14/2026 Site Code: 02 Location:Waverley St, Between Lincoln Ave and Kingsley Ave Count Direction: Northbound / Southbound Date Range: 5/8/2026 - 5/14/2026 NB SB Total NB SB Total NB SB Total NB SB Total NB SB Total NB SB Total NB SB Total NB SB Total Site Code: 02 12:00 AM 12 3 15 17 7 24 17 7 24 4 5 9 3 2 5 13 6 19 13 8 21 10 5 15 1:00 AM 10 2 12 15 4 19 11 9 20 5 1 6 9 1 10 4 1 5 11 2 13 8 1 9 2:00 AM 0 0 0 3 2 5 7 5 12 3 1 4 2 1 3 2 0 2 2 1 3 2 1 3 3:00 AM 2 1 3 1 3 4 2 1 3 3 1 4 2 3 5 0 2 2 1 2 3 1 2 3 4:00 AM 6 4 10 5 4 9 5 2 7 6 4 10 5 2 7 3 2 5 8 3 11 5 2 8 NB SB Total 5:00 AM 9 8 17 5 4 9 7 4 11 10 10 20 18 13 31 10 8 18 16 14 30 15 12 26 Daily Average 2,080 1,322 3,402 6:00 AM 27 18 45 15 11 26 9 11 20 31 16 47 28 21 49 29 14 43 28 20 48 28 18 47 Mid-Week Average 2,279 1,435 3,714 7:00 AM 73 46 119 23 20 43 25 22 47 70 54 124 62 53 115 79 50 129 75 58 133 72 54 126 Mid-Week AM Peak Average 142 121 263 8:00 AM 141 89 230 57 46 103 38 34 72 139 109 248 141 113 254 146 122 268 138 128 266 142 121 263 Mid-Week PM Peak Average 234 172 406 9:00 AM 123 94 217 109 66 175 81 44 125 115 104 219 119 104 223 124 86 210 149 93 242 131 94 225 10:00 AM 131 87 218 123 72 195 85 94 179 133 97 230 100 85 185 109 80 189 115 84 199 108 83 191 11:00 AM 119 110 229 128 91 219 105 133 238 116 69 185 132 100 232 141 84 225 130 96 226 134 93 228 12:00 PM 141 107 248 108 94 202 132 86 218 129 68 197 132 86 218 121 85 206 135 101 236 129 91 220 1:00 PM 152 114 266 163 106 269 152 102 254 126 81 207 130 85 215 116 98 214 152 79 231 133 87 220 2:00 PM 145 99 244 151 112 263 132 82 214 125 88 213 142 106 248 161 81 242 152 71 223 152 86 238 3:00 PM 161 97 258 162 91 253 115 95 210 155 95 250 162 101 263 188 95 283 178 92 270 176 96 272 4:00 PM 186 107 293 109 79 188 130 78 208 186 104 290 250 122 372 182 119 301 194 100 294 209 114 322 5:00 PM 175 117 292 114 97 211 112 77 189 163 89 252 296 191 487 197 169 366 209 157 366 234 172 406 6:00 PM 151 117 268 129 104 233 101 72 173 127 68 195 161 125 286 164 125 289 158 134 292 161 128 289 7:00 PM 126 75 201 113 81 194 100 63 163 105 69 174 137 63 200 123 70 193 142 76 218 134 70 204 8:00 PM 125 59 184 98 40 138 104 46 150 108 31 139 109 51 160 132 50 182 128 50 178 123 50 173 9:00 PM 114 37 151 97 37 134 66 15 81 89 29 118 93 31 124 99 35 134 132 38 170 108 35 143 10:00 PM 108 30 138 65 20 85 38 16 54 34 17 51 49 11 60 42 9 51 41 16 57 44 12 56 11:00 PM 42 13 55 38 7 45 14 7 21 26 3 29 17 8 25 26 6 32 21 6 27 21 7 28 Total 2,279 1,434 3,713 1,848 1,198 3,046 1,588 1,105 2,693 2,008 1,213 3,221 2,299 1,478 3,777 2,211 1,397 3,608 2,328 1,429 3,757 2,279 1,435 3,714 Percent 61% 39% 61% 39% 59% 41% 62% 38% 61% 39% 61% 39% 62% 38% 61% 39% AM Peak 08:00 11:00 08:00 11:00 11:00 11:00 11:00 11:00 11:00 08:00 08:00 08:00 08:00 08:00 08:00 08:00 08:00 08:00 09:00 08:00 08:00 08:00 08:00 08:00 Vol. 141 110 230 128 91 219 105 133 238 139 109 248 141 113 254 146 122 268 149 128 266 142 121 263 PM Peak 16:00 17:00 16:00 13:00 14:00 13:00 13:00 13:00 13:00 16:00 16:00 16:00 17:00 17:00 17:00 17:00 17:00 17:00 17:00 17:00 17:00 17:00 17:00 17:00 Vol. 186 117 293 163 112 269 152 102 254 186 104 290 296 191 487 197 169 366 209 157 366 234 172 406 1. Mid-week average includes data between Tuesday and Thursday. Time Friday Saturday Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Mid-Week Average5/14/2026 Volume Report Summary Volume Summary 5/8/2026 5/9/2026 5/10/2026 5/11/2026 5/12/2026 5/13/2026 Item 4 Attachment C - Data Collection Summary Memo & Appendix A Packet Pg. 267 X Appendix B: 2015 Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevards Project Item 4 Attachment C - Data Collection Summary Memo & Appendix A Packet Pg. 268 Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevards Project Community Workshop April 30, 2015 Palo Alto City Hall Item 4 Attachment C - Data Collection Summary Memo & Appendix A Packet Pg. 269 Agenda •Introductions •Ground Rules •Goals •Process and Project Overview •Bicycle Boulevard Toolkit •Break out for Detailed Discussion Item 4 Attachment C - Data Collection Summary Memo & Appendix A Packet Pg. 270 Ground Rules •Establish Ground Rules –Listen actively –All opinions are valid –No yelling (volume control) –Hold questions until the end –Treat others as you want to be treated Item 4 Attachment C - Data Collection Summary Memo & Appendix A Packet Pg. 271 Goals and Objectives •Double the rate of cycling for local and total work commutes by 2020 (to 15% and 5% respectively) •Enhance school commute safety for K-12 students •Safe routes for seniors •Reduce barriers, improve connectivity •Reduce transportation greenhouse gas emissions Item 4 Attachment C - Data Collection Summary Memo & Appendix A Packet Pg. 272 Good for all ages and abilities Item 4 Attachment C - Data Collection Summary Memo & Appendix A Packet Pg. 273 Planning Process Proposed Concept Plan Line Approvals •Planning & Transportation Committee hearing (Summer) •City Council Presentation Refine Alternatives •Workshop 3 (tonight) Information Gathering and Review •Workshop 1 (June) •Bike-Along Tours •Farmer’s Markets / Event Tabling •Data Collection Develop Design Alternatives •Workshop 2 (Oct & Dec) 2014 2015 Item 4 Attachment C - Data Collection Summary Memo & Appendix A Packet Pg. 274 2012 Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan Item 4 Attachment C - Data Collection Summary Memo & Appendix A Packet Pg. 275 2014 Bike Plan Implementation ProjectsItem 4 Attachment C - Data Collection Summary Memo & Appendix A Packet Pg. 276 Downtown Corridors Item 4 Attachment C - Data Collection Summary Memo & Appendix A Packet Pg. 277 Bryant St, Nation’s First Bicycle Boulevard Item 4 Attachment C - Data Collection Summary Memo & Appendix A Packet Pg. 278 What is a Bicycle Boulevard? Characteristics •Low-speed street •Optimized for bicycle traffic •Discourage cut- through vehicle traffic •Allow local vehicle traffic •Designed to give priority to bicyclists Item 4 Attachment C - Data Collection Summary Memo & Appendix A Packet Pg. 279 Targeting the “Interested But Concerned” Interested but concerned Item 4 Attachment C - Data Collection Summary Memo & Appendix A Packet Pg. 280 Finding the sweet spot Item 4 Attachment C - Data Collection Summary Memo & Appendix A Packet Pg. 281 Safe Routes to School Item 4 Attachment C - Data Collection Summary Memo & Appendix A Packet Pg. 282 Low speeds = Survival Item 4 Attachment C - Data Collection Summary Memo & Appendix A Packet Pg. 283 Data Analysis: Speeds and ADT │16 Segment 85th Percentile Speed Vehicle ADT Bicyclist ADT Bryant (Downtown North)24.6 MPH 1,313 479 Bryant (Downtown South)26.2 MPH 1,565 643 Bryant (Embarcadero - Oregon)19.7 MPH 525 1,146 Homer (at Kipling)27.3 MPH 3,649 153 Channing (at Kipling)29.5 MPH 3,666 131 High Street (at Homer) Not avail 2,638 Not avail Existing conditions are optimal for Bike Boulevard (< 30 MPH or < 3,000 ADT) Existing conditions are not optimal for Bike Boulevard (> 30 MPH or > 3,000 ADT) Would need enhanced safety features to better accommodate bicyclists within the narrow roadway Item 4 Attachment C - Data Collection Summary Memo & Appendix A Packet Pg. 284 Downtown Circulation- Challenges │17 –Homer Street Tunnel provides great access to destinations west/south of Caltrain station –Contraflow Bike Lane constructed with housing development is only one-block, forces users southbound at High Street (one-way street) unless using Alma Street –Challenges with converting High Street and/or Homer Street to two-way –Channing Ave is two-way enhanced bikeway east of Guinda Ave, but no connection into downtown –On-street parking impacts a major concern Item 4 Attachment C - Data Collection Summary Memo & Appendix A Packet Pg. 285 Wayfinding/Bike Network Identification Item 4 Attachment C - Data Collection Summary Memo & Appendix A Packet Pg. 286 Pavement Markings Goals •Brand bicycle boulevard network •Educate all roadway users •Promote predictable behavior •Highlight conflict zones, cross- movements, door zone •Increase bicyclist visibility •Teach children where to ride Item 4 Attachment C - Data Collection Summary Memo & Appendix A Packet Pg. 287 Intersection Options (Typical) All-way STOP Curb Extensions Center Chokers Two-way STOP Traffic Circle Roundabout Item 4 Attachment C - Data Collection Summary Memo & Appendix A Packet Pg. 288 Impact of STOP Signs Item 4 Attachment C - Data Collection Summary Memo & Appendix A Packet Pg. 289 Curb Extensions Benefits •Reduces crossing distance •Improved sight distance •Opportunities for landscaping Issues •Loss of parking (minimal) •Need to maintain drainage Options •All way stop (top) •Two way stop (bottom) Item 4 Attachment C - Data Collection Summary Memo & Appendix A Packet Pg. 290 Landscaped Median Islands Benefits •Visual/physical traffic calming •Less costly than curb extensions •Opportunities for landscaping Issues •Loss of parking (minimal) Options •All way stop (top) •Two way stop (bottom) Item 4 Attachment C - Data Collection Summary Memo & Appendix A Packet Pg. 291 Traffic Circle Benefits •Opportunities for landscaping •Visual/physical traffic calming •…free flow on one street Issues •Potential issues turning large vehicles •Mountable apron Options •All way stop (top) •Two way stop (bottom) •All way yield (not shown) Item 4 Attachment C - Data Collection Summary Memo & Appendix A Packet Pg. 292 Benefits Roundabouts and Circles •Reduces conflict points for all users •More continuous flow, reduced emissions •Physically moderates speeds Item 4 Attachment C - Data Collection Summary Memo & Appendix A Packet Pg. 293 Take a Closer Look Tonight Bryant •Bryant/Poe/Palo Alto •Bryant/Addison •Bryant/Kingsley •Bryant/California Homer-Channing •Homer between High and Emerson •Homer/Guinda •Channing/Guinda/Boyce High Street •Two way conversion between Channing and Forest Item 4 Attachment C - Data Collection Summary Memo & Appendix A Packet Pg. 294 More info: www.CityofPaloAlto.org/bike 650-329-2100 Questions? Break-out to Concept Plans Item 4 Attachment C - Data Collection Summary Memo & Appendix A Packet Pg. 295 Questions •What are the goals? •How will drainage be addressed? •Will public input be taken? •Bryant St is crown jewel of bicycle infrastructure; 2 physical barriers and stops turned. Diversion is what makes Bryant what it is today. Homer was planned to be 2-way street; incremental improvements can be made at these intersections. Need to consider making Homer 2-way and diversion. •Bryant is different than Homer. Commercial street with deliveries. Careful thought is needed. •Danger isn’t speed on Bryant; it is rolling stops •Can we do everything, nothing, or in between? How to prioritize? •Comments from previous workshops. Were people heard? Bryant and Churchill: bicyclists don’t pay attention to stop signs and ride all over the road. •California law say bikes need to go to the side and single file. •Talk to Police Chief about rolling stops. Double parking is a major problem, especially trucks (on Bryant). •Cross roads are a major problem along Bryant. Separating cars and bicycles would be ideal. Bryant is a problem even if it is the best around. •Why don’t we have more road closures? Most people on Bryant aren’t locals. •It is fabulous that kids are biking together 4 across. These are future bicyclists and may not be drivers. Bryant without cars? Let them do what they want to do. •People bicycling wrong way on bike lane. How will they stop at 4-way stop. Lack of compliance. •Separation of bikes from traffic? Cycle tracks like in Europe. Hierarchy. •Stanford Police ticket bicyclists who misbehave. They need to go to class and this discourages repeat offenders. •From Bryant to Churchill is a major issue in the morning with children going to school. Churchill and Alma and train Item 4 Attachment C - Data Collection Summary Memo & Appendix A Packet Pg. 296 Pocket Slides Item 4 Attachment C - Data Collection Summary Memo & Appendix A Packet Pg. 297 Bicycle Boulevards Map 30 Item 4 Attachment C - Data Collection Summary Memo & Appendix A Packet Pg. 298 Pavement Condition Map 31 Item 4 Attachment C - Data Collection Summary Memo & Appendix A Packet Pg. 299 Approach: Data Collection │32 •Bicycle, pedestrian, and vehicle counts •Field and speed surveys •Volunteer training •Auto-counters from the City -15-hour (6am-9pm) intersection video counts (typical weekday/weekend) -7-day tube counts (for vehicle/bicycle volumes, speeds) Item 4 Attachment C - Data Collection Summary Memo & Appendix A Packet Pg. 300 Spacious, light and airy 2-story contemporary home in the heart of Old Palo Alto on bicycle boulevard street. Light-filled 3 Bedroom, 1 bath cottage nestled in a garden setting on a tree-lined neighborhood friendly street known as the first Bike Boulevard in the nation Item 4 Attachment C - Data Collection Summary Memo & Appendix A Packet Pg. 301 Protection from Traffic Item 4 Attachment C - Data Collection Summary Memo & Appendix A Packet Pg. 302 X Appendix C: Collision History Item 4 Attachment C - Data Collection Summary Memo & Appendix A Packet Pg. 303 Bryant Street Collision History 2016-2024 East-West Street North-South Street Date Description Severity Source: Homer Ave Bryant Street 3/25/2019 WBT veh on Homer collided with NB bicyclist on Bryant during rainy conditions Injury (other visible)TIMS Homer Ave- Channing Ave Bryant Street 3/20/2019 Elderly driver heading NB on Bryant at unsafe speed ran off road and collided with fixed object Injury (other visible)TIMS Channing Ave Bryant Street 10/1/2016 SBL veh on Bryant operating at unsafe speed hit pedestrian Injury (complaint of pain)TIMS Channing Ave Bryant Street 8/4/2016 SB veh on Bryant pulled into vehicle lane and hit bicyclist Injury (other visible)TIMS Channing Ave Bryant Street 7/20/2021 NBT veh on Bryant collided with EBT bicyclist on Channing Injury (complaint of pain)TIMS Addison Ave Bryant Street 4/9/2018 WB veh on Addison collided with SB veh on Bryant, caused by failure to yield to vehicle ROW Injury (complaint of pain)TIMS Lincoln Ave Bryant Street 5/22/2019 WB vehicle on Lincoln collided with NB vehicle on Bryant Injury (complaint of pain)TIMS Lincoln Ave Bryant Street 1/27/2020 SBT veh on Bryant collided with SBL veh on Bryant Injury (complaint of pain)TIMS Lincoln Ave Bryant Street 9/26/2024 EB veh on Lincoln failed to yield to NB veh on Bryant Unknown 2024 Neighborhood Petition Lincoln Ave Bryant Street 10/7/2024 Involved a vehicle losing control, cause and circumstances unknown Unknown 2024 Neighborhood Petition Item 4 Attachment C - Data Collection Summary Memo & Appendix A Packet Pg. 304 Attachment D: Table of Initial Suggested Improvements by Street or Intersection Location Proposed Improvement Bryant St & Kingsley Ave Installation of a new mini-traffic circle featuring truck aprons, splitter islands, and crosswalks. Lincoln Ave & Waverley St Installation of a new mini-traffic circle featuring truck aprons, splitter islands, and crosswalks. Bryant St & Lincoln Ave Installation of a new mini-traffic circle featuring truck aprons, splitter islands, and crosswalks. Bryant St & Addison Ave Identical upgrades to the existing traffic circle to include truck aprons, splitter islands, and crosswalks. Bryant St & Channing Ave Permanent curb extensions to narrow the roadway and reduce pedestrian crossing distances. Bryant St & Homer Ave Temporary curb extensions to accommodate future bikeways heading to the Homer Tunnel. Corridor-Wide Installation of high-visibility "BIKE BLVD" pavement legends and the painting of curbs on crosswalk approaches to reduce or remove red curb no longer necessary. 911 Bryant St Establishment of a new emergency vehicle-only parking zone outside the Palo Alto Post-Acute Nursing Home. Embarcadero Rd & Bryant St Pilot a temporary new restriction prohibiting left turns from eastbound Embarcadero Road onto northbound Bryant Street to eliminate a primary cut-through entry point and drop peak hour vehicle volumes. Item 4 Attachment D - Table of Suggested Improvements by Street or Intersection Packet Pg. 305