FROM: Carl Stoffel DEPARTMENT: Planning And

TRANSPORTATION DIVISION

STAFF REPORT

TO: PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION

FROM: Carl Stoffel DEPARTMENT: Planning and Community Environment

AGENDA DATE: January 21, 2004

SUBJECT: Downtown North Traffic Calming Project--Recommendations to Remove Current Trial Plan and Implement New Traffic Calming Plan

RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommends that Commission recommend that the City Council:

(1) End the current Downtown North trial traffic calming plan;

(2) Approve permanent implementation of the Downtown North Mixed Measures Traffic Calming Plan, provided that achievement of the performance measures is certified by the Director of Planning and Community Environment after seven months of implementation;

(3) Consider and approve the attached negative declaration for permanent implementation of the Mixed Measures Plan.

BACKGROUND The Downtown North neighborhood is located between Alma Street, Lytton Avenue, Middlefield Road, and San Francisquito Creek (including the businesses and residences on the neighborhood side of Alma, Lytton and Middlefield). The neighborhood consists of approximately 1500 dwelling units with 2500 residents, plus about 80 businesses in the west end of the neighborhood and along Lytton. For years, Downtown North residents have been concerned about cut-through traffic and parking problems. The Downtown North neighborhood study was included on a 1979 list of Council-approved neighborhood traffic studies. A mid-1990s Planned Community zone project at the

City of Palo Alto Page 1 corner of Lytton and Waverley coincided with increased neighborhood concern about traffic impacts of downtown development. The developer of that project offered a public financial benefit for the City to hire a transportation consultant to conduct a traffic- calming study for Downtown North. That funding was subsequently incorporated into the approved Transportation Division budget for that purpose.

Staff and a transportation-consulting firm began the study in 1999. A project advisory committee (PAC) was formed with representatives of Downtown North (including officials of the neighborhood association), a representative of the Lytton neighborhood east of Middlefield, a downtown business community representative, and City staff from Transportation, Public Works and Fire. Through an open, publicly noticed process that included a project web site, e-mail address, voice mail box, four neighborhood meetings, and three neighborhood advisory surveys, a “preferred alternative” was selected for Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) and City Council review. In February 2001, the City Council approved a six-month trial of this plan, along with a set of performance measures. A majority of PTC and Council members supported implementation of the trial. Budget constraints delayed implementation of the project until commencement of design in 2002 and installation in June 2003. Full details of the project planning are described in the October 11, 2000 Transportation Division staff report to the PTC (http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/ downtownnorth).

PROJECT DESCRIPTION The six-month trial traffic-calming plan includes seven street closures, three gateway features and one intersection bulbout (refer to Figure 1).

City of Palo Alto Page 2 CURRENT TRIAL PLAN INSTALLED 6/16/03 DOWNTOWN NORTH TRAFFIC Existing Stop Sign CALMING PROJECT

Note: the gateways and bulbouts allow full two- way traffic access.

Existing

FIGURE 1

City of Palo Alto Page 3 The Council-adopted performance measures (Attachment A) provide the framework for staff’s evaluation of the trial plan. The trial started on June 16, 2003. Staff began the project evaluation at the end of September 2003. Two informational meetings were held in November and December 2003 at which Transportation staff presented preliminary evaluation results and options for the future of the project. The meetings were advertised in local newspapers and by mailed notices (refer to Attachment B for mailing area details). A total of approximately 240 people attended both meetings (some attended both). Comments and questions from meeting attendees are summarized in Attachment F. The information presented at the meetings and a notice for the January 21, 2004 PTC meeting were mailed to the same area on January 6, 2004.

One of the evaluation items was a resident opinion survey that had been scheduled for December 2003. Staff was preparing to use the standard survey methodology used for all its past traffic calming projects (including the earlier surveys in Downtown North), as detailed in the adopted Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program guidelines used for the “spot treatment” projects. In this procedure, each household, business and non-resident property owner with a postal address would receive a survey card and be allowed one vote per household, business or owned parcel. Staff has a mailing list for this purpose. Those who did not receive the survey card or misplaced it would be able to obtain one at City Hall. Staff required a return address on each survey card in order to insure that only one vote per address was allowed and that the address lies within the survey area. Staff prepared a survey card with a two-part format that (a) provides a clear indication of opinion on whether or not the trial plan (augmented to help correct its problems) should be retained or not; and (b) if not, which of the other alternatives was most preferable. This format is shown in Attachment E. Residents’ representatives strongly disagreed with staff’s proposed survey methodology, especially who should receive the survey cards, despite repeated meetings and discussions between all parties (refer to a later section of this report about DTNNA and Unblock representatives). Staff was unable to develop a consensus about the survey methodology and content. In the end, staff decided that other workload responsibilities precluded further efforts to reach consensus, and reluctantly cancelled the survey. The mailing list and survey format that staff developed are available for any future surveys. At this time, staff believes that the survey would add too much time to the process of ending the current trial plan and implementing its recommended substitute.

Why the Current Trial Plan was Selected When this proposed plan was first reviewed by the PTC in October 2000, some Commissioners thought that less aggressive measures should be tried first, and were frustrated that there were not other alternatives to choose from. Many Commissioners were not in favor of street closures as traffic calming measures. During the planning process in 1999-2000, the first resident opinion survey showed that Downtown North residents’ top three concerns were excess traffic volumes, cut-through traffic and speeding. Data showed that cut-through traffic exceeded 60 percent of all traffic on

City of Palo Alto Page 4 Hawthorne and Everett. It is well known that there is strong driver desire for east-west travel along the Willow-Sand Hill corridor, including to/from downtown Palo Alto. Staff and residents considered many alternatives at that time, ranging from less to more aggressive than the current trial plan. Residents believed that only a street closure plan would stem the tide of cut-through traffic. Comprehensive Plan Policy T-33 discourages the use of street closures, but allows them when there is an overwhelming through traffic problem and there is no acceptable alternative. For practical purposes, staff interprets “overwhelming through traffic” to mean an average daily level of 60 percent or more.

SUMMARY OF IMPORTANT ISSUES

Evaluation Results Evaluation of the current trial plan centered on the 12 Council-adopted performance measures. These measures and the evaluation findings are listed in Attachment A. PTC can determine if a measure should be considered as a guideline or an absolute in weighing the overall performance of the plan, and can evaluate the relative importance of each measure. Staff considers the safety-related measures (#6 – #10) as the most important, followed by the primary project goal of through traffic reduction (#1). Staff considers two measures as specific quantitative significance thresholds in environmental analyses: #2 (25% maximum volume increase threshold on local streets) and #4 (minimum acceptable LOS D at intersections). Two performance measures (#1—65% through traffic reduction, and #5—15% average speed reduction) derive from the projected effectiveness of the trial plan. Staff adopted these as goals--they are not mandated standards. The response time goals in measure #8 are from the official mission goals of the Fire and Police Departments. The performance levels in the other measures were determined by staff based on professional judgment and are not mandated standards.

The trial plan has surpassed its primary goal of through traffic reduction (#1). However, it has caused unacceptable volume increases on a few street segments (#2). Even though it has not caused unacceptable increases in Fire Department response times, it has the future potential to delay Fire Department access to the neighborhood (#8, #9). Staff and many neighborhood representatives believe that these inadequacies should be corrected if the project were to remain on a permanent basis. One of the important measures remains unevaluated formally—neighborhood acceptance by means of an opinion survey (#11), as discussed earlier in this report. Notwithstanding, hundreds of residents have expressed a variety of unsolicited views during the trial, both in favor of and against the plan. Refer to Attachment F for a summary of these comments.

Fire Department Access The Department found no significant increase in response times from the year prior to the trial period in the Downtown North neighborhood and the times are within the Department benchmarks. The Department also found that the closures did not cause any

City of Palo Alto Page 5 serious impediments in emergency activities during the trial period (refer to memo in Attachment A). In that literal sense, the performance measures were met. There were relatively few emergencies during the evaluation periods. A better determination of impact on the Department’s response time goals would require that response times for a fairly large number of incidents be averaged together, probably requiring a multi-year trial period. The Department estimated that there would be a delay of at least one minute if a driver entered a closed street and had to unlock a bollard, or detour around the block. The designated response route from Fire Station 1 to the Downtown North neighborhood is Alma and Lytton, then using north-south streets into the neighborhood—i.e., a route that would usually avoid any street closures, thus typically avoiding the extra delay of entering a closed street. A delay of one minute could still result in a response time within the Department goal, given that Fire Station 1 is located within the neighborhood.

Any extra response delay, even if it falls within Department goals, has consequences, as detailed in the Fire Department analysis. Residents and decision-makers will need to decide if the infrequent possible delay in responding to emergencies (even if the response time goal is met) is offset by the continuous traffic calming benefits of the project. Even though the current trial plan has not had an immediate impact on the Department’s response times during the limited time of the trial period, staff believes that the trial plan should nevertheless be modified to reduce any possibility of occasional future delays. This could be done either by reducing the number of closures and/or changing their design to be more “permeable” (i.e., cause less delay). Staff recommends the first approach. Refer to Attachment C for more discussion of closure design options.

Arterial and Local Streets Some residents on arterial streets bordering the neighborhood, especially Middlefield and Lytton, believe that the current trial plan has ignored their street. Indeed, the trial plan was designed to discourage cut-through trips from using interior neighborhood streets. Staff expected that these trips would be diverted to the arterial street system around the neighborhood. In fact, changes were made to the Lytton/Alma and Lytton/Middlefield intersections to enhance such use. It was also understood that some neighborhood trips would unavoidably (but not desirably) be forced onto arterial segments because of the discontinuity of the interior street system. Staff anticipated that arterial volumes surrounding the neighborhood would increase about 15 percent, but intersection levels of service (LOS) would remain at acceptable levels and accidents on Middlefield at Everett would decrease (performance measures #4, #7). In the hierarchy of streets in any city, arterials (including residential arterials) are the designated and desirable carriers of through traffic and are expected to receive through traffic that has been diverted from local streets by traffic calming measures (refer to Comprehensive Plan policies T-24 and T-34). Palo Alto has a separate program for residential arterial traffic calming, employing measures quite different than on local streets. The current Charleston-Arastradero study is the first such project. Staff feels that the best way to improve residential arterial conditions (more capacity, less queuing) is a significantly advanced “adaptive” traffic

City of Palo Alto Page 6 signal system. Council recently approved an application for grant funding for such a system for all the City’s residential arterials (the funding itself has not yet been approved).

Downtown North Neighborhood Association (DTNNA) and Unblock Downtown North In neighborhood traffic calming projects, staff has always worked closely with neighborhood representatives--usually with members of the neighborhood association, as they are typically the only “official” neighborhood representatives. DTNNA was the primary proponent in getting this project started in 1999. DTNNA representatives were on the project advisory committee and staff has worked closely with them throughout all phases of this project. After the trial plan was installed this year, other residents in the neighborhood who did not feel represented by DTNNA formed a new residents group, Unblock Downtown North. After Unblock was formed, staff began to coordinate the trial evaluation with representatives of both groups. Transportation staff conducted two “summit” meetings with three representatives of both groups together to try to hammer out agreement on the resident opinion survey and future options. In addition, Transportation staff met with individual members of both groups in an attempt to resolve the differences. Mutual agreement was reached on a few issues. In the end, however, after Transportation made necessary decisions to move forward with the evaluation of the project, both groups continued to disagree with staff and each other. Staff continues to work with both groups as representatives of neighborhood residents.

Future Options for this Project After evaluating the performance of the existing trial project, the Transportation Division looked at about two dozen options other than maintaining the current trial plan as is. One goal was to find options that could correct or at least reduce the problems with the current plan. The options ranged from removing all the trial elements to fully closing off neighborhood access on the east and west sides. The Transportation Division then distilled this large set to a more workable five options for PTC consideration, using a set of guidelines (Attachment D). All five options are consistent with Comprehensive Plan policies as described under “Policy Implications” later in this report. Transportation staff met with and considered the opinions of representatives of the Downtown North Neighborhood Association and Unblock Downtown North, although neither group endorses all the selected options. Four of the options were presented at the two neighborhood meetings for feedback. All five were described in the January 6 mailing to residents, but there was no mechanism for comprehensively gathering residents’ opinions on these options. The five options are summarized below. Details and illustrations are in Attachment D.

Remove Trial Plan. All elements of the trial plan would be removed and the streets returned to the pre-trial configuration (except for the modifications to the Lytton/Middlefield and Lytton/Alma intersections). A pre-existing safety problem at the Middlefield/Everett intersection would need to be addressed, possibly through eastbound

City of Palo Alto Page 7 “right turn only” restrictions on Everett, Hawthorne and Palo Alto Avenue at Middlefield, to be implemented separately.

No Closures Plan. All of the street closures and two gateways would be removed; three traffic circles and a speed table would be added on Hawthorne and Everett. Weekday peak hour turn restrictions into the neighborhood would be implemented at Everett, Hawthorne and Palo Alto Avenue from Middlefield and Alma. Only minimal through traffic reduction would be attained.

Mixed Measures Plan. Three of the seven street closures and two gateways would be removed; three traffic circles and a speed table would be added on Hawthorne and Everett. Weekday peak hour turn restrictions into the neighborhood would be implemented at Everett and Hawthorne from Middlefield and Alma. This option should solve or reduce most of the problems with the current trial plan by “opening up” the neighborhood, but at the cost of substantially weakening the through traffic reduction of the current plan.

Reduce Current Plan. Two of the seven street closures and two gateways would be removed. One of the remaining closures would be relocated. No turn restrictions or other traffic calming measures would be installed. This option is similar to the current plan and would maintain through traffic reduction. This plan slightly opens up the neighborhood and would hopefully lessen the unacceptable volume increases on interior street segments. Augment Current Plan. This option keeps all elements of the trial plan except for removal of two gateways (includes one street closure relocation), and adds peak hour turn restrictions into the neighborhood from Alma and Middlefield. This option should enhance the success of the current plan at reducing through traffic, while attempting to reduce some of the negative internal volume impacts of the current plan. Staff Recommendation for Future Option Staff believes that the current trial plan should not remain as is, due to the unacceptable local street traffic diversion and the potential for increases in emergency response times. Staff recommends that the Mixed Measures Plan be implemented as the best way to modify the current plan and still address the original project goals of through traffic and speed reduction, albeit much more modestly. The biggest disadvantage of the Mixed Measures Plan is substantially less through traffic reduction than now provided—to a level of less than half the current level and below the formerly established performance goal of 65 percent reduction. Staff makes this recommendation without the benefit of resident opinion expressed through the survey that normally would have been undertaken. Staff selected the Mixed Measures Plan because staff believes that some type of traffic calming plan focusing on volume reduction should be found for this neighborhood. Street closures offer the best way to address the volume-reduction goal in a cost-efficient

City of Palo Alto Page 8 manner, without needing a dense array of lesser measures. Compared to the other two alternatives with more closures (Reduce Current Plan and Augment Current Plan), staff believes the Mixed Measures Plan has the best possibility to reduce the problems with the current trial plan to an acceptable level without having to continue with further rounds of trials, evaluations, meetings and decisions. Compared to those two plans, staff views the Mixed Measures Plan as essentially a compromise plan that provides a reasonable degree of volume reduction with a reasonable degree of openness to vehicular circulation— utilizing only two street closures on the neighborhood’s two principal streets.

Implementation Procedure for Mixed Measures Plan Staff recommends that the Mixed Measures Plan be installed permanently, without a trial period. Six months following installation, staff would gather necessary data to determine if the plan is meeting a modified set of performance measures (Attachment G). The Director of Planning and Community Environment would make the formal determination that the performance measures for the Mixed Measures Plan were met. Assuming that the performance measures were met, staff would so advise the PTC and Council with an informational report. No further action would be required. If the Director could not certify that the performance measures were met, staff would bring the project back to the PTC and Council for further discussion and final disposition.

If PTC and Council approve staff’s recommendation to implement the Mixed Measures Plan, it would take approximately seven months from the date of Council’s approval to install the new plan. This is the minimum amount of time staff requires to prepare the project specifications and complete the normal process of contract preparation and review, bidding, contractor selection, finalization of the agreement and construction staging. City Council is tentatively scheduled to discuss PTC’s recommendations in mid- March. The current trial plan would remain in place until the Mixed Measures Plan was installed approximately seven months later, in October 2004. The Director’s decision as to whether the performance measures for that plan were met would occur seven months later--about May 2005.

If PTC and Council do not approve staff’s recommendation to implement the Mixed Measures Plan (or any other alternative), and instead recommend an end and complete removal of the current trial plan, staff would still need to follow approximately the above-described procedure to hire a contractor to remove the traffic calming measures. Thus, the current plan would still need to remain in place until approximately September 2004.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS Traffic calming is strongly supported in the Comprehensive Plan. “Traffic calming refers to projects that make permanent, physical changes to streets to slow traffic and/or reduce volumes, thus improving their safety and addressing residents’ concerns.” (Comprehensive Plan, page T-19). Policy T-34 states: “Implement traffic calming

City of Palo Alto Page 9 measures to slow traffic on local and collector residential streets . . . .” Even though a goal of traffic calming is to reduce volumes (especially shortcutting traffic), Policy T-33 of the Comprehensive Plan cautions “Keep all neighborhood streets open unless there is a demonstrated safety or overwhelming through-traffic problem and there are no acceptable alternatives, or unless a closure would increase the use of alternative transportation modes.”

One of the biggest points of public discussion in the Downtown North trial project has been the appropriateness of using street closures for traffic calming. The PTC discussed this topic extensively during its October 2000 discussion about implementing the trial plan, as well in several meetings in 2000 - 2002 about the City’s local street traffic calming program. In all these discussions, most Commissioners believed that street closures were too drastic as traffic calming measures for most cases. They felt that volume reduction should not actually be a goal of traffic calming, which should focus more on speed reduction leading to improved safety for pedestrians and bicyclists. The reasons justifying the use of street closures in Downtown North are (i) “overwhelming” through traffic level on the major local streets; (ii) neighborhood geography causing most diverted through traffic to move to the surrounding arterials; and (iii) increasing the use of alternate transportation modes, including the existing Bryant Street bicycle boulevard the proposed one on Everett, both passing through Downtown North (refer to detailed discussion in October 11, 2000 Transportation Division staff report to the PTC, pp 4-7).

RESOURCE IMPACTS Staff estimates that the cost to implement and evaluate its recommended Mixed Measures Plan (which includes removal of the appropriate elements of the current trial plan) is $94,000. Approximate costs of the other options are as follows:

Remove trial plan $33,000 (no further evaluation required) No closures plan $94,000 Reduce current plan $31,000 Augment current plan $26,000

Public Works Operations estimates that the cost to maintain the 11 traffic-calming measures in the current trial plan on an annual basis would be about $10,000. This extra maintenance requirement is not funded. The mixed measures plan would cost slightly less to maintain—nine measures at approximately $8,000 annually. The Transportation Division currently has resources available for implementation of a new plan. In the near future, when the PTC and Council consider staff’s proposed revisions to the Traffic Calming Program, staff will propose that funding for annual maintenance of new traffic calming measures be taken from the Traffic Calming Program CIP.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Staff prepared a draft environmental assessment for the current trial plan in October 2000

City of Palo Alto Page 10 for the PTC’s consideration of the proposed project. This plan has been evaluated, but is not being recommended for approval. Staff has prepared another draft environmental assessment with a negative declaration for permanent implementation of the Mixed Measures Plan (Attachment H). Staff will circulate this document for public review for the required 20-day period before the project is forwarded to Council for final decisions.

PUBLIC NOTICE A letter was mailed on January 6, 2004 to each household, business and non-resident owner of property in the area described in Attachment B. The letter included notification of the January 21, 2004 PTC meeting, as well as a summary of the evaluation of the current trial plan, and a description of the five options presented in this report. Staff also identified its basic recommendations to conduct the opinion survey and implement a new trial of the mixed measures plan.

ATTACHMENTS/EXHIBITS: A. Council-adopted Performance Measures and Trial Plan Evaluation B. Notification Area Description C. Street Closure Design for Fire Department Access D. Five Future Options for the Downtown North Project E. Proposed Opinion Survey Card Format F. Summary of Public Comments G. Performance Measures For Implementation Of Mixed Measures Plan H. Environmental Assessment for Mixed Measures Plan

COURTESY COPIES: DTNNA representatives (Dan Lorimer, Chas Pavlovic, Mike Liveright, Josh Mogal) Unblock representatives (Joe Durand, Dana DeNault, Pat Markevitch) Lytton neighborhood representatives (Alan and Bonnie Luntz) Palo Bicycle Advisory Committee Members City of Menlo Park Transportation Division

Prepared by: Carl Stoffel, Transportation Engineer

Reviewed by: Joseph Kott, Chief Transportation Official

Division Head Approval: Joseph Kott, Chief Transportation Official

City of Palo Alto Page 11 ATTACHMENT A

COUNCIL-ADOPTED PERFORMANCE MEASURES AND TRIAL PLAN EVALUATION

DOWNTOWN NORTH TRIAL TRAFFIC CALMING PLAN COUNCIL-ADOPTED PERFORMANCE MEASURES Attachment A from CMR:440:00, December 11, 2000

Near the completion of the six-month trial of the Recommended Preferred Option, staff will gather evaluation data in order to determine the success of the plan with regard to the performance measures listed below. Based on this evaluation, staff will make a recommendation to the Planning and Transportation Commission regarding permanent implementation of the plan. For the most part, staff does not consider the performance standards to be absolute. Commission and Council will want to consider whether each performance measure is met, but may choose to consider them only as guidelines in weighing the overall performance of the plan. For example, if reduction of speed or through traffic were less than the performance measures, Council might still want to approve a permanent installation—based, perhaps, on an especially high approval rating in the neighborhood survey. Or, Council might want to deny a permanent installation of the plan even if all the performance measures were attained—based, for example, on strong negative feedback from the community as a whole. The safety standards should to be given the highest importance, but even they are not absolute. For example, poor driver behavior and “close calls” are difficult to quantify, and the point at which they become unacceptable is somewhat subjective. Through Traffic Reduction 1. The Downtown North neighborhood cordon count of average daily traffic (sum of daily counts at all neighborhood access streets along Middlefield, Lytton and Alma) will be reduced by an average of 20 percent. This translates into an approximate reduction of through trips (cut-through traffic) of 65 percent. [Based on “Final Traffic Report for the Downtown North Neighborhood Traffic Study”, May 2000, Table 1 and Figure 6.] Diversion of Traffic to Other Streets (including arterial streets) 2. On streets with a “before” count of less than 2500 vehicles per day (vpd) in the Downtown North and Lytton neighborhoods, no average daily vehicle count at a peripheral or internal location will increase by more than 25 percent of the “before” count and the addition will not cause the volume to exceed 2500 vpd. [This is the minimum volume change detectable by the average resident. Location and number of traffic counts to be determined. Based on Draft “City of Palo Alto Neighborhood Traffic Program”, Guidelines 8 and 9.]

Attachment A Page 12 of 15 3. On streets with a “before” count of 2500 or greater average daily traffic in the Downtown North and Lytton neighborhoods, no average daily traffic count at a peripheral or internal location will increase by more than 10 percent of the “before” count. [Ten percent is the approximate daily fluctuation in traffic volumes as well as range of error in measurements, and hence can be considered statistically as “no change”. Locations and number of traffic counts to be determined. Based on Draft “City of Palo Alto Neighborhood Traffic Program”, Guideline 8.] 4. The AM or PM peak hour level of service (LOS) at the Lytton/Alma and Lytton/Middlefield intersections, with the recommended improvements in turn lanes and signal phasing, will not degrade to less than LOS D. [This is the minimum acceptable LOS in Palo Alto. Based on “Final Traffic Report for the Downtown North Neighborhood Traffic Study”, May 2000, Pages A-23 - 24.] Speed Reduction 5. The average of 85th percentile speed measurements in the Downtown North neighborhood for both AM and PM peak hours will be reduced by a minimum of 15 percent. [Based on “Final Traffic Report for the Downtown North Neighborhood Traffic Study”, May 2000, Table 1. Locations and number of speed measurements to be determined.] Safety It is usually not possible to identify a statistically significant pattern of crashes on local streets in a six-month period, due to low traffic volumes. Crash trends on low volume streets are usually only discernable after several years. The following measures are thus somewhat arbitrary, but will at least serve as starting points for evaluation of safety impacts.

6. There will be no identifiable pattern of crashes directly attributable to the traffic calming plan at any location within and around the periphery of the Downtown North neighborhood. 7. At the Middlefield/Everett intersection, there will be no more than 3 crashes caused by a vehicle entering or leaving Middlefield via either leg of Everett. [Since 1995, an average of approximately six such accidents per year have occurred at this location.] 8. The response times for Fire and Police Department calls within and near the Downtown North neighborhood will not exceed the Departments’ mission goals of 4 minutes for 90% of fire and basic medical responses, 6 minutes for 90% of advanced medical responses (paramedics), and 3 minutes for police calls—attributable to implementation of the traffic calming plan.

9. There will be no serious impediments in any emergency activities, including

Attachment A Page 13 of 15 identifiable trends in increases in response times during the trial period, of the Fire and Police Departments within and near the Downtown North neighborhood attributable to the traffic calming plan. 10. Citizens’ reports of safety problems within and near the Downtown North neighborhood attributable to the traffic calming plan will be compiled. The Transportation Division will determine the significance of the number and severity of these problems. Neighborhood Acceptance 11. In the post-trial survey of the Downtown North neighborhood (including business owners within the neighborhood), at least 50+ percent of households, business owners and non-resident property owners (i.e., not just of survey responses) will support implementing the plan on a permanent basis. [Based on Draft “City of Palo Alto Neighborhood Traffic Program”, Procedure Step 10.] Other Issues 12. Impacts attributable to the traffic calming plan as reported by City departments, PASCO, the Post Office, transit operators, and any other public agencies serving the neighborhood (including bordering arterials) will be compiled and evaluated by staff. Impacts to non-Downtown North residents driving through or parking in the neighborhood, or impacts on citizens in general will be reported if available, but will usually not be considered in the evaluation of the trial.

Attachment A Page 14 of 15 DOWNTOWN NORTH TRIAL TRAFFIC CALMING PLAN EVALUTION RESULTS IN TERMS OF PERFORMANCE MEASURES

The following evaluation results address the City-Council adopted performance measures as stated in Attachment A of CMR:440:00, December 11, 2000. Unless otherwise noted in each item, evaluation data is as of September 2003. As stated in the performance measure document, the measures are not meant to be absolute. Commissioners and Council members will want to consider whether each performance measure is met, but may choose to consider them only as guidelines in weighing the overall performance of the plan. Through Traffic Reduction by 65% 1. This measure was satisfied. The neighborhood perimeter (cordon) count of all entries and exits decreased from 23,900 to 13,700 (45%) between February and September 2003. It is assumed that most of this reduction was in through trips (i.e., trips with neither origin nor destination in the neighborhood). This is a decrease of about 10,000 entries and exits, or about 5,000 through trips. Before the trial plan, we estimated daily through trips at about 5500 – 6000, so the trial plan reduced through trips by about 90 percent. (Note: through traffic calculations are estimates based on theoretical trip generation combined with actual traffic counts. Traffic volume measurements can easily vary by +10% from one day to the next, with additional seasonal variations. Roadway conditions, including unknown construction activities outside the area, could also affect travel patterns and volume counts. During the six months between the “before” and “after” measurements, longer-term factors other than the trial plan installation could change traffic volumes—e.g. improving economic conditions, opening of IKEA, etc. Nevertheless, due to the large calculated decrease in through trips (90%) compared to the goal (65%), it is reasonable to conclude that the goal has been attained and most likely substantially exceeded.)

Diversion of Traffic to Other Streets 25% Maximum 2. On streets with a “before” count of less than 2500 vpd in the Downtown North and Lytton neighborhoods: This measure was not satisfied. At least six street segments experienced diversion percentages well over 25 percent, with 25 percent being considered the maximum increase threshold. In some cases, these segments were low-volume segments where the absolute volume increase was low, but represented a high percentage change. 3. On streets with a “before” count of 2500 vpd or greater in the Downtown North and Lytton neighborhoods (local neighborhood streets only): This measure was satisfied, as no before or after volume measurements exceeded 2500 vpd.

4. Peak hour level of service LOS D maximum at arterial intersections: This measure was satisfied. Level of service remained at LOS C at Middlefield/Lytton and LOS B at Alma/Lytton. Though not listed as a performance measure, the length of queues at the Middlefield/Lytton intersection approximately doubled as a result of signal phasing changes made to help eastbound Lytton traffic turn left (north) onto Middlefield. However, in most cases, queues cleared the intersection each signal cycle. Only one arterial street segment showed an increase after the trial was installed—Lytton east of Cowper—the 23 percent

Attachment A Page 15 of 15 increase is acceptable. Speed Reduction by 15% 5. Overall, 85th-percentile speeds of remaining traffic on internal Downtown North streets was essentially unchanged, so in an absolute sense this measure was not satisfied. “Before” 85th percentile speeds measured on a 24-hour basis were 31 mph or less at all locations, with only 3 locations at 30 mph or higher, so speeding is not a major issue for this trial. The goal of the project was to reduce the “incidence of speeding”, which means a reduction in the number of drivers speeding. Because volumes in the neighborhood were reduced by an average of about 45 percent, this represents a substantial decrease in the number of drivers exceeding the residential speed limit, so the performance measure was satisfied in this regard. Safety 6. No crashes related directly to the plan: This measure was satisfied. According to the Police Department, no crashes were directly caused by the presence of the traffic calming measures (any DUI accidents are attributed solely to the condition of the driver). In the six month period between June 16 and December 15 of each of 2000, 2001, 2002 and 2003 (the latter when the trial plan was in place), crashes on Downtown North neighborhood streets, including on the three bounding arterials, decreased each year (59, 46, 42, 34), with the lowest number occurring while the trial plan was in place. (Note: this data includes one block outside of the DTN neighborhood, bounded by Middlefield, University, Webster and Lytton. It also includes some accidents on Lytton that are double-counted. For more details, refer to the attached memo from Doris Cohen of the Police Department.) Without detailed analysis of each crash, no conclusion can be drawn regarding the effect of the traffic calming project on the number of crashes. (12/15/03) 7. Middlefield/Everett intersection: This measure was satisfied. There were no crashes at this intersection during the trial period, versus four during the same period last year. (12/15/03) 8. Response times for Fire and Police Departments: a. Police: This measure was satisfied, as response time goals were met.

b. Fire: Satisfied with reservations. The Department noted no significant increase in response times during the trial period, compared to the year prior, with times being within the Department’s benchmarks. This is based on a relatively small number of emergencies during the period. The Department estimates that a closure could cause a delay of one minute if a closed street were encountered during an emergency response. But the impact of such a delay is hard to quantify in terms of adopted mission goals, as the overall response could still meet the goal. The Department emphasizes that a one minute delay, if experienced, could have a substantial negative impact on certain medical and fire emergencies. (10/31/03) 9. No serious impediments to emergency activities: a. Police: This measure is essentially satisfied. One incident took place early in the trial where a suspect evaded police officers who were blocked by the closures. The

Attachment A Page 16 of 15 Department feels this was a unique incident due to the officers’ unfamiliarity with the new measures. b. Fire: Satisfied with reservations. The Department reports that the closures did not cause any serious impediments in emergency activities during the trial period. Fire describes many potential impediments that the closures could cause. Overall evaluation by the Fire Department: This plan (using street closures with bollards) presents a problem for responders and will most likely result in response delays. Refer to attached memo from Fire Department. (10/31/03) c. Other: The Fire Department did not experience any response delays to Lytton Gardens or Webster House (both of which are located outside of the Downtown North neighborhood) as a result of increased traffic congestion on Lytton Avenue. (10/31/03) 10. Safety problems reported by citizens. Citizens registered numerous complaints of safety problems caused by the street closures, especially early in the trial period. These included speeding, U-turns, angry drivers, and other unsafe activity. USPS carriers report seeing safety hazards. It is difficult to know if these incidents have declined as drivers have become used to the presence of the measures. Neighborhood Acceptance

11. The neighborhood survey has not yet taken place. Since the trial began, Transportation Division received approximately 200 unsolicited e-mails, letters and phone calls about many aspects the trial. These were not in response to any formal request for input and thus do not represent a comprehensive assessment of neighborhood opinion. Very approximately, 45 percent of these were in general favor of the project and 55 percent generally against. (1/7/04) Other Issues and Impacts

12. Impacts on other services a. US Postal Service (USPS): Carriers report extra time to do routes resulting in reduction in service and incurring extra costs. The carriers would prefer speed humps instead.

b. Utilities Department: No major issues during trial. But the measures will increase costs and time of response for servicing and replacing utilities of all types.

c. Public Works Maintenance: Identifies maintenance problems during trial (cost about $3000) and projected maintenance cost annually of about $10,000, about 60% of which is due to manual sweeping of areas blocked for street sweepers. No funds are allocated for extra maintenance.

d. PASCO: Because many of PASCO’s runs are one-person, the driver has not found it efficient to unlock the bollard for passage. Instead, the driver modifies the route(s). This has resulted in increased time and cost. PASCO would prefer speed humps instead.

Attachment A Page 17 of 15 Prepared by Carl Stoffel Rev 1/15/04 PALO ALTO FIRE DEPARTMENT Memorandum To: Carl Stoffel, Transportation Division

From: Nick Marinaro, Deputy Fire Chief

Subject: Feedback / Input re: Traffic Calming Study of Downtown North

Date: Revised October 31, 2003 Fire Department feedback is being provided from Station #1 (301 Alma Street) and Station #3 (799 Embarcadero Road). Comments are based on input from Captains normally assigned to these stations and a review of response time data

1. Response times to emergency calls within and near the Downtown North neighborhood will not exceed the Department's mission goals of 4 minutes for 90% of fire and basic medical responses and 6 minutes for 90% of advanced medical responses (paramedics). Comments: We examined response time data for the 6 month period between June 1, 2002 thru December 31, 2002 and compared it to response data for the 4 month period of June 1, 2003 thru November 1, 2003. Both response districts are inclusive of the Downtown North Trial Traffic Calming evaluation area. We examined like calls responded to during both periods (same address, similar time of day, similar call type.) There were very few emergency responses in the evaluation area during the six month trial period. We noted no significant increase in response time from the year prior to the trial period. Fire apparatus also simulated responses in which the first responding unit either drove around the block to avoid a bollard or disembarked to unlock a bollard. This resulted in delays of one (1) minute or greater.

It is difficult to quantify or even qualify the adverse impact of a response delay of a minute or more. It depends entirely upon the nature of the incident and the elapsed time of the incident. For example, a medical incident involving an ankle sprain would probably have no adverse outcome as a result of a delay of 1-2 minutes. A cardiac arrest, on the other hand, could have an adverse impact depending upon the stage of the cardiac arrest upon arrival. Brain oxygen deprivation of greater than 6 minutes in general is known to have severe adverse effects on a patient. Even with a delay of 1-2 minutes, if the emergency responders arrived and began the necessary treatment prior to 6 minutes, this may not result in an adverse outcome. A delay which places them at the scene after 6 minutes certainly could be problematic. It depends on when in the scenario the responders access the patient, the nature of the injury, and the timeliness of the necessary intervention. A fire situation is similar in that a response delay in a small fire with limited fuel may not evolve dramatically in 1-2 minutes but a fire which has been smoldering, has adequate amounts of fuel and reaches its ignition temperature can "flashover" in a matter of moments. A 1-2 minute delay which allows the phase of the fire to reach ignition temperature and get to flashover prior to the arrival of fire suppression units could be very problematic. Again, it depends upon the particular timing in the specific event and the nature of the event. There are

Attachment A Page 18 of 15 multiple variables which contribute to both. This explains the reasons for the difficulty in quantifying these types of events as they relate to delays in emergency response. 2. There will be no serious impediments in any emergency activities, including identifiable trends re: increase in response times during the trial period within and near the Downtown North neighborhood attributable to the traffic calming plan. Comments: The following observations were made by the Captains: . Any traffic calming proposal which blocks or closes streets presents a major problem because it limits options and alternatives when responding to a fire scenario . It restricts multiple response units to one means of access and egress . The water supply (fire hydrant) may be located on the opposite side of the closure and not readily available. This will invariably result in delays in obtaining a requisite water supply for fire suppression efforts . Private vehicles blocking access by parking in front of the closure thinking it is a "closed" street. This has been observed once during the course of an emergency response to this area during the trial period. . Disembarking from the apparatus to unlock bollards will result in a delayed response . On multiple alarm situations in which numerous fire units respond, the restricted access can create vehicle congestion that may limit the effectiveness and maneuverability of available equipment. . Unfamiliarity of mutual aid companies from outside jurisdictions with "barricaded" areas or not having the bollard key which would hamper their response . Effectiveness of citizen evacuation out of the area during the course of an emergency may be adversely impacted

3. What would be the impact on emergency response to Lytton Gardens and Webster House? Comments: There were no reported or documented adverse delays to 656 Lytton or to 437 Webster. Lytton Avenue, even prior to the calming study, can be very congested depending on the traffic and time of day. The same can be said for 437 Webster as response units must either use University Avenue or Lytton as the main route of travel. Both of these occupancies have some degree of nursing staff (437 Webster is full time) so generally there is some assistance available prior to the arrival of the Fire Department on medical calls and there is someone other than the occupants present. We have received no reports from our field units of extraordinary or unusual (other than the current norm) response delays as a direct result of the Downtown North Traffic Calming trial period. During an emergency response the vehicle code allows fire apparatus to travel on the wrong side of the street to bypass traffic. This response strategy is routinely used when responding to emergencies to avoid blocked traffic.

Conclusions:

1) A traffic calming system which employs street closures and / or bollards which must be negotiated present a problem for emergency responders and will result in response delays or

Attachment A Page 19 of 15 unusual challenges as noted in the above comments. Although the Downtown North Traffic Calming plan is not intended for the fire department to unlock/remove bollards while responding to emergencies, alternate routes of travel also may result in a longer response time. 2) Albeit the Downtown North study does not incorporate any narrowing of streets, as a general statement, a traffic calming system which results in narrowing of streets below acceptable limits (less than 20 foot width of the street as stipulated in the Fire Code) can impair apparatus maneuverability and placement.

3) The impact of response delays created by traffic calming devises is dependent upon a number of variables and is incident-specific as noted in Item #1 which therefore makes it very difficult to both quantify and in many cases qualify.

It is imperative that the citizens understand the tradeoff of increased delays verses the neighborhood benefits. If the goal of traffic calming is successful in slowing traffic, emergency response vehicles will also be slowed.

Attachment A Page 20 of 15 From: Doris Cohen Date: 1/14/04 To: Carl Stoffel

Here is the information we discussed this morning and the supporting documentation. This information includes data in reporting district 4 and everything on Lytton Avenue from June 16 - December 15, 2000 - 2003. Dacia and I looked at the Streets on Lytton Avenue and concluded the following.

There were a total of 50 accidents on Lytton Avenue in the time period requested. Of those accidents, 4 fall into exception data. Three of those 4 list an actual street address rather than a block range, and the other seems to fall outside of the criteria all together.

The totals for the information requested are as follows:

RD4 includes anything on or within the boundaries of Lytton Avenue, Alma Street, Palo Alto Avenue and Middlefield Road.

Year RD4 2000 47 2001 31 2002 33 2003 20

Lytton Avenue includes any and all accidents on Lytton Avenue.

Year Lytton Lytton Exceptions 2000 12 -1 (Lytton or Middlefield) 2001 15 -1 (530 Lytton Avenue) B of A Building 2002 9 -1 (530 Lytton Avenue) B of A Building 2003 14 -1 (450 Lytton Avenue) Parking Lot T

Please review the data and let me know if you have any questions.

Thanks, Doris Cohen Crime Analyst Palo Alto Police Department 275 Forest Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2145 office (650) 329-2565 fax [email protected] mailto:[email protected]

Attachment A Page 21 of 15 Attachment A Page 22 of 15 From: Mark Venable Date: 1/14/04 To: Carl Stoffel

As we discussed earlier, Doris Cohen, our Crime Analyst, will be forwarding you the statistical information pertaining to our calls-for-service and accident data under separate cover. Below is our response to your specific questions:

Item 1. "There will be no identifiable pattern of crashes directly attributable to the traffic calming plan at any location within and around the periphery of the Downtown North neighborhood."

We did not observe an "identifiable pattern of crashes directly attributable to the traffic calming plan."

Item 2. "At the Middlefield/Everett intersection, there will be no more than 3 crashes caused by a vehicle entering or leaving Middlefield via either leg of Everett. [Since 1995, an average of approximately six such accidents per year have occurred at this location.]"

During the six month evaluation period, June 16 through December 15, 2003, there were no accidents at Everett Avenue and Middlefield Road. During the same time period last year, there were four.

Item 3. "The response times for Fire and Police Department calls within and near the Downtown North neighborhood will not exceed the Departments' mission goal of 4 minutes for 90% of fire and basic medical responses, 6 minutes for 90% of advanced medical responses (paramedics), and 3 minutes for police calls-attributable to implementation of the traffic calming plan."

An analysis of Police response times did not show the Department's mission goals identified above were exceed due to the implementation of the traffic calming plan.

Item 4: "There will be no serious impediments in any emergency activities, including identifiable trends in increase in response times during the trial period, of the Fire and Police Departments within and near the Downtown North neighborhood attributable to the traffic calming plan."

During the six month period we had one incident, during the first month of implementation, in which Police Officers were attempting to apprehend a strong-arm robbery suspect who had fled into the Downtown North area. Due to the newness of the traffic calming program and the officers' unfamiliarity with the devices, the suspect successfully evaded apprehension as the two officers, who were converging on the area from different directions, were blocked by the various road closures.

Lastly, you had asked if any accidents were caused directly by the traffic calming measures. There were no reported accidents attributed to the devices. During the evaluation period, there were two accidents into fixed objects in reporting area four, both were vehicles into trees. During this sametime period last year, there was similarly two accidents into fixed objects, although the fixed objects were a wall and guardrail.

Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance,

Attachment A Page 23 of 15 Attachment A Page 24 of 15 D4

D3 D2 D1

D10 (+23%) (+2720 vpd) D8 (+80%) D9 (+20%) (+225 vpd) (+240 vpd)

D28 (+138%) D27 (+91%) D11 (+355 vpd) (+300 vpd) (+80%) (+165 vpd)

D12 (+44%) (+410 vpd) D13

D14 D15

D16 D17

DOWNTOWN NORTH D18 TRAFFIC CALMING D21 D19 (+52 %) PROJECT (+440 vpd) D20

Increase >10% Residents Reported Increase D25

Note: the gateways and D23 D24 bulbouts allow full two- D22 way traffic access. D26

Attachment A Page 25 of 15 Attachment A Page 26 of 15 c DOWNTOWN NORTH NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC STUDY-- BEFORE/AFTER VOLUME COUNTS

BEFORE VOLUMES AFTER VOLUMES ABSOLUTE LOCATION FEB-MAR 03 30SEPT-1 OCT 03* CHANGE % CHANGE COMMENTS TOTAL TOTAL SB/EB TOTAL TOTAL

D1 921 0 -921 -100.0% "After" count not done--assumed essentially zero D2 1996 1242 -754 -37.8% D3 2263 409.5 -1853.5 -81.9%

D4 15801.5 16529 727.5 4.6% Count started 10/14/03 D5 485.5 487 1.5 0.3% D6 433 427 -6 -1.4% D7 1508.5 896 -612.5 -40.6% D8 280.5 505 224.5 80.0% D9 1151.5 1391.5 240 20.8% D10 11863.5 14584 2720.5 22.9% D11 210 377 167 79.5%

D12 937.5 1350 412.5 44.0% Count started 10/14/03 D13 1951.5 1553.5 -398 -20.4% D14 2525 431 -2094 -82.9% D15 2565 946.5 -1618.5 -63.1% D16 1327.5 1305 -22.5 -1.7% D17 1819 1524.5 -294.5 -16.2% D18 1592.5 527.5 -1065 -66.9%

D19 842.5 1284 441.5 52.4% Count started 10/14/03 Located betw private alley and office garage D20 2084.5 1503 -581.5 -27.9% ramp. Count started 10/14/03 D21 14836 14933 97 0.7% D22 840 303.5 -536.5 -63.9% D23 2620 1340.5 -1279.5 -48.8% D24 2374 692 -1682 -70.9% D25 1959 1218 -741 -37.8% D26 19979 14313.5 -5665.5 -28.4% D27 328 626 298 90.9%

D28 257 612 355 138.1% Count started 10/14/03 10/1 count was 489

L1 1688 1469 -219 -13.0% Counted 11/18-19/03 after construction

L2 2030.5 1915 -115.5 -5.7% Counted 11/18-19/03 after construction L8 1594 1442.5 -151.5 -9.5% L9 236 235 -1 -0.4% L10 816.5 513.5 -303 -37.1%

L11 3031.5 2471 -560.5 -18.5% Count started 10/14/03 L13 23060 22045.5 -1014.5 -4.4% MP1 5432.5 5478.5 46 0.8% MP2 3745.5 4055.5 310 8.3% MP3 3368 3577 209 6.2%

Notes: * Except where noted in comments

Attachment A Page 27 of 15 ATTACHMENT B

NOTIFICATION AREA DESCRIPTION

Staff sent neighborhood meeting notices and the January 6, 2004 letter announcing the January 21 Planning and Transportation Commission meeting to households and businesses with a postal address in the following areas. These are the same areas that staff had originally proposed including in the advisory opinion survey. (1) Lytton neighborhood (located between Middlefield, Chaucer, University, and the creek), including both sides of University and Chaucer and excluding Middlefield addresses. (2) Businesses and residences with addresses on the east side of Alma; both sides of Lytton between Alma and Middlefield, including properties abutting the south side of Lytton; and both sides of Middlefield between the creek and University. (3) Interior of the Downtown North neighborhood (located between Alma, Lytton, Middlefield, and San Francisquito Creek, excluding addresses on those three streets. Non-resident owners of property in those areas were also included. Refer to the following map of these three areas.

Attachment A Page 28 of 15 Attachment B Page 1 of 2 Attachment B Page 2 of 2 ATTACHMENT C

STREET CLOSURE DESIGN FOR FIRE DEPARTMENT ACCESS

A Fire Department representative participated in the 1990-2000 planning phase of the Downtown North project as a member of the project advisory committee. Emergency vehicle access was discussed in detail in the October 11, 2000 staff report to the PTC (pp 11-12 and Attachments 8 and 9), and CMR:440:00 (pp 5-6). In 2002, the Transportation Division worked closely with Fire representatives in the detailed design phase. Transportation and Fire staff attempted to develop a new design that was “permeable”. This would be a design similar to the concrete blocks over which only high clearance vehicles can drive (such as used in the College Terrace closures), but improved to minimize passage of unauthorized drivers of high clearance vehicles such as SUVs and delivery trucks. The unlockable steel bollard used in all current closure designs (including those that ultimately were used in Downtown North) are not considered “permeable” because of the delay resulting when a fire truck or ambulance driver has to exit a vehicle and unlock and remove the bollard. The result of the design effort was that a cost-effective, improved “permeable” design was elusive. After considerable effort, Fire and Transportation agreed that the best design for this project would be the standard unlockable steel bollard design used in past projects.

One exception was the closure on Everett between High and Emerson, next to Fire Station #1, where the Fire Department wanted a truly permeable design. Here, the concrete block design was used, but a flexible plastic post was attached to the block and later to the street surface adjacent to the block. The purpose was to deter unauthorized drivers, but still allow fire trucks and paramedic vans to drive over the flexible post with no vehicle damage and minimal delay. The conclusion was that after repeated usage the post broke, creating a maintenance problem. In addition, some of the newer paramedic vehicles could not clear the concrete block. As a result, fire personnel began avoiding that route, essentially defeating the purpose of that permeable design. Staff thus feels that this is not a practical long-term permeable closure design due to maintenance problems and the difficulty of determining the correct block height as different emergency vehicles come into use. At this point, the only permeable design that appears to be an acceptable permanent solution is the radio-controlled, automatically retractable bollard that is being successfully used on the Stanford campus (which is served by the Palo Alto Fire Department). The retractable bollard has not been tried in any Palo Alto project due to its high cost (approximately $30,000 for the bollard and associated equipment). For the Downtown North project at critical closure locations (such as on Everett near Fire Station #1, if a closure were to remain there), it would be desirable to replace the current bollards with the automatic retractable bollards when funding becomes available.

Attachment D Page 3 of 1 ATTACHMENT D

FIVE FUTURE OPTIONS FOR THE DOWNTOWN NORTH PROJECT

Guidelines Used by Staff to Select the Four Options for Public Consideration Staff developed about two dozens options and variations to be considered for the future of this project. To reduce this to a workable number, staff developed and applied the following guidelines.

 Minimize costs, as no more funds are budgeted for this project.  Try to make current plan work acceptably, as this plan accomplishes the primary project goal and was supported for implementation by a majority of resident survey respondents, PTC and Council.  Maintain primary project goal of volume reduction.  Offer an “no closures” plan to PTC and Council, other than removal of everything.  Include the “do nothing” alternative of removing the existing plan and doing nothing further (except to address the Middlefield/Everett crash problem).  Minimize use of speed humps and tables as traffic calming measures because many residents have strong negative opinions about vertical measures; and they need to be located midblock abutting residential properties, often leading to divisiveness in determining acceptable locations and complicating the planning process.  Avoid introducing new and/or complex concepts and/or a substantial number of new elements, or any options that require continued neighborhood review. Transportation staff does not support a new traffic calming study process for this neighborhood.  Limit the number of options offered to public or decision-makers to a workable maximum few.

Description of Five Options The advantages and disadvantages of each plan listed below do not carry equal weight. Their relative importance is subjective. Nor does the quantity of each indicate greater or lesser aggregate advantage or disadvantage. Refer to map of each plan in the following pages.

REMOVE TRIAL PLAN

This plan consists of removing all trial elements within the neighborhood and not installing any others. The modifications made to the Lytton/Alma and Lytton/Middlefield intersections and signals would remain. This would return traffic flow in the area to essentially the pre-trial or “before” condition. The remaining arterial intersection improvements might offer a little more inducement than before for cut-through traffic to remain on the arterial streets. At any time in the future, residents could submit requests

Attachment D Page 4 of 10 for traffic calming measures on an individual street through the City’s “Spot Treatment” Traffic Calming Program. With this option, a pre-existing safety problem at the Middlefield/Everett intersection would need to be addressed. A possible solution, which would be instituted as a separate safety-related action (i.e., not for traffic calming purposes), would be eastbound “right turn only” restrictions at Everett, Hawthorne and Palo Alto Ave at Middlefield, during certain hours. Approximate cost to remove all measures installed for the trial: $33,000. Advantages  Return to “open streets” grid pattern with no detours, driver confusion or unexpected driver behavior (i.e. no more than usual)  No traffic diversion problems  Essentially no impediments to emergency vehicle access or other services  Return to prior somewhat lower congestion levels on arterials and at Alma/Lytton and Middlefield/Lytton  No increased maintenance Disadvantages

 Traffic volumes and cut-through traffic return to substantially higher pre-trial levels, with consequent loss of advantages resulting from less traffic on neighborhood streets, as originally desired by neighborhood representatives and as embodied in City Council approval to implement the plan (return of about 10,000 daily entries/exits or about 5000 daily through trips)  Crash reduction potential at Middlefield/Everett less than current trial plan (even with future outbound turn restrictions) NO CLOSURES PLAN

The purpose of this plan is to provide an option without any totally closed streets that provides a minimal degree of through traffic reduction. The plan consists of removing all the street closures and the two gateway features near Middlefield; retaining the bulbout on Waverley and both arterial intersection modifications; adding three traffic circles on Everett and Hawthorne and a speed table to the existing gateway on Everett at High; and implementing peak hour turn restrictions into the neighborhood from Alma and Middlefield. This option keeps streets mostly open and offers a minimal level of through traffic reduction by means of the combinations of measures. The circles and speed table also help reduce speeds in their vicinities. Traffic circles permit all intersection movements and would be similar in concept to the one on Lytton at Fulton. An example of a speed table is located on Channing at Lincoln. Approximate cost to remove most trial measures, install new measures, and gather new traffic counts: $94,000

Attachment D Page 5 of 10 Advantages

 Returns streets to mostly “open” status with substantially reduced detours, driver confusion or unexpected behavior  Speed reduction to 15 mph at 4 locations on Hawthorne and Everett  Substantially less traffic diversion problems than with current trial plan—mostly during weekday peak hours. Cases of exceeding 25% maximum increase threshold on any given local neighborhood street not expected but should be verified through a trial  No impediments to emergency access and minimal for other services. Circles are acceptable to Fire Department  Less congestion on arterials and at Alma/Lytton and Middlefield/Lytton on a daily basis than with current trial plan  Less maintenance required than with current trial plan

Disadvantages

 Minimal volume reduction from combination of measures--about 20% through traffic reduction (reduction of about 1100 daily through trips or 2200 daily entries/exits) compared to 90% with current trial plan (reduction of about 5000 daily through trips or 10,000 daily entries/exits). Consequent decrease of advantages resulting from less traffic on neighborhood streets, as originally desired by neighborhood representatives and as embodied in City Council approval to implement the plan  Weekday peak hour turn restrictions cause moderate increase of peak hour traffic and queuing on arterials and at Alma/Lytton and Middlefield/Lytton intersections, but LOS remains acceptable  Inbound weekday peak hour turn restrictions will force residents to use Lytton and north-south neighborhood streets for access to/from neighborhood and somewhat restrict access for non-emergency services during those hours  Accident reduction potential at Middlefield/Everett less than current trial plan  Weekday peak hour turn restrictions require Police Department occasional enforcement, competing with other peak hour traffic enforcement needs. Expected violation rate of approximately 20 percent would generate some complaints to the City, with little to no additional enforcement response possible.  Most expensive to implement MIXED MEASURES PLAN The purpose of this plan is to solve or reduce most of the problems with the current trial plan while still maintaining some through traffic reduction, albeit substantially less than attained by the current trial plan and than required by the Council-adopted performance measure. The plan consists of removing three of the seven street closures and relocating

Attachment D Page 6 of 10 one of the remaining four; removing the two gateway features near Middlefield; keeping the Waverley bulbout and both arterial intersection modifications; adding three traffic circles on Everett and Hawthorne and a speed table to the existing gateway on Everett at High; and implementing peak hour turn restrictions into the neighborhood from Alma and Middlefield. Approximate cost to remove some trial measures, install new measures, and gather new traffic counts: $94,000 Advantages  Provides reasonable volume reduction with a combination of measures, including four street closures--about 40% through traffic reduction (reduction of about 2200 daily through trips or 4400 daily entries/exits) compared to about 90% with current trial plan (reduction of about 5000 daily through trips or 10,000 daily entries/exits)  Maintains protection for Palo Alto Avenue  Speed reduction to 15 mph at three locations on Hawthorne and Everett and one on Webster  Less traffic diversion within the neighborhood than with current trial plan, not expected to exceed the 25% maximum increase threshold on most local streets (see disadvantages below). Less driver confusion and unexpected behavior  Fewer impediments to Fire Department vehicles and other services than current trial plan (three fewer street closures). Circles are acceptable to Fire Department  Less congestion on a daily basis on arterials and at Alma/Lytton and Middlefield/ Lytton than with current trial plan  Slightly less maintenance required than with current trial plan  Closure next to Stanford Electric removed  Two gateways near Middlefield removed Disadvantages  Through traffic reduction substantially less than the current trial plan—about 40% through traffic reduction (reduction of about 2200 daily through trips or 4400 daily entries/exits) compared to about 90% with current trial plan (reduction of about 5000 daily through trips or 10,000 daily entries/exits). Consequent decrease of advantages resulting from less traffic on neighborhood streets, as originally desired by neighborhood representatives and as embodied in City Council approval to implement the plan  Traffic diversion on some low-volume segments on north side of neighborhood (such as Cowper, Ruthven and Tasso) might still exceed the 25% maximum increase threshold—verification required  Some impediments to Fire Department vehicles and other services still remain  Weekday peak hour turn restrictions cause moderate increase of peak hour traffic and queuing on arterials and at Alma/Lytton and Middlefield/Lytton intersections,

Attachment D Page 7 of 10 but LOS remains acceptable  Palo Alto Avenue traffic at Middlefield added to traffic on Hawthorne and Everett (as with current trial plan)  Crash reduction potential at Middlefield/Everett less than current trial plan  Inbound weekday peak hour turn restrictions will force residents to use Lytton and north-south neighborhood streets for access to/from neighborhood during those hours  Weekday peak hour turn restrictions require Police Department occasional enforcement, competing with other peak hour traffic enforcement needs. Expected violation rate of approximately 20 percent would generate some complaints to the City, with little to no additional enforcement response possible.

REDUCE CURRENT PLAN

The purpose of this plan is to attempt to reduce the negative internal volume impacts of the current plan and still maintain strong through traffic reduction, by slightly opening up the neighborhood. Two of the 7 street closures and 2 gateways would be removed. One of the remaining closures would be relocated. No turn restrictions or other traffic calming measures would be installed. Approximate cost to remove and modify some trial measures and gather new traffic counts: $31,000.

Advantages  Provides slightly less through traffic reduction than current plan—about 75% (reduction of about 4100 through trips or 8200 daily entries/exits), compared to 90% with current trial plan (reduction of about 5000 daily through trips or 10,000 daily entries/exits). Slight decrease of the advantages resulting from less traffic on neighborhood streets, as originally desired by neighborhood representatives and per Council approval to implement the plan  Traffic diversion on interior streets hopefully reduced to less than 25% increase-- verification needed  Slightly fewer impediments to emergency services than current trial plan (2 fewer street closures, including removal of one near Fire Station 1)  Closure next to Stanford Electric removed  Maintains crash reduction potential of current trial plan at Middlefield/Everett

Disadvantages

 Traffic diversion on some segments might still exceed 25% increase—verification required  Despite improvements, most impediments to emergency service access still remain  Maintenance requirement only slightly less than current trial plan

Attachment D Page 8 of 10 AUGMENT CURRENT PLAN The purpose of this plan is to attempt to reduce the negative internal volume impacts of the current plan and maintain and even enhance its success at reducing through traffic. The plans keeps all elements of the trial plan except for removal of the two gateways near Middlefield (includes relocating one closure); and adds peak hour turn restrictions into the neighborhood from Alma and Middlefield. Approximate cost to remove some trial measures, install new measures, and gather new traffic counts: $26,000. Advantages  Provides slightly increased volume reduction compared to current trial plan--about 95% through traffic reduction (reduction of about 5400 daily through trips or 10,800 daily entries/exits) compared to about 90% with current trial plan (reduction of about 5000 daily through trips or 10,000 daily entries/exits). Maintains and enhances the consequent advantages resulting from less traffic on neighborhood streets, as originally desired by neighborhood representatives and embodied in City Council approval to implement the plan  Peak hour turn restrictions and relocation of one Hawthorne closure one block west potentially will reduce traffic diversion on interior street segments where it exceeds the 25% maximum increase threshold with the current trial plan, to below that threshold—monitoring needed through a trial (see disadvantages below)  Maintains crash reduction potential at Middlefield/Everett of current trial plan  Least expensive to implement Disadvantages  Traffic diversion on interior street segments where it exceeds the maximum desired 25% increase with the current trial plan might still occur, and needs to be verified that acceptable level is reached  No improvements in Fire Department access. Somewhat decreased access for other services due to weekday peak hour turn restrictions  Weekday peak hour turn restrictions cause moderate increase of peak hour traffic and queuing on arterials and at Alma/Lytton and Middlefield/Lytton intersections, but LOS remains acceptable  Inbound weekday peak hour turn restrictions will force residents to use Lytton and north-south neighborhood streets for access to/from neighborhood during those hours  Weekday peak hour turn restrictions require Police Department occasional enforcement, competing with other peak hour traffic enforcement needs. Expected violation rate of approximately 20 percent would generate some complaints to the City, with little to no additional enforcement response possible.  Maintenance requirement same as current trial plan  Closure next to Stanford Electric remains

Attachment D Page 9 of 10 7-10 AM 7-10 AM

7-10 AM

Johnson Park

NO CLOSURES PLAN DOWNTOWN NORTH TRAFFIC Existing Stop Sign Existing Stop Signs CALMING PROJECT

Install New Speed SE Note: the gateways, Table at bulbout and traffic Existing Gateway circles allow full two-way traffic access.

Existing 7-10 AM 7-10 AM 3-6 PM 3-6 PM

Johnson Park

MIXED MEASURES PLAN Relocated DOWNTOWN NORTH TRAFFIC CALMING PROJECT Existing Stop Sign Existing Stop Signs

Guide Sign Street Closure

Install New Speed SE Note: the gateway, Table at bulbout, and traffic Existing Gateway circles allow full two-way traffic access.

Attachment D Page 11 of 10 Johnson Park

Relocated

REDUCE CURRENT PLAN DOWNTOWN NORTH TRAFFIC Existing Stop Sign CALMING PROJECT

Note: the gateway and bulbout allow full two- way traffic access.

Existing

Johnson Park

Relocated

AUGMENT CURRENT PLAN DOWNTOWN NORTH TRAFFIC Existing Stop Sign CALMING PROJECT

Note: the gateway and bulbout allow full two- way traffic access.

Existing 3-6 PM 3-6 PM

Attachment D Page 13 of 10 ATTACHMENT E

PROPOSED OPINION SURVEY CARD FORMAT

DOWNTOWN NORTH TRAFFIC CALMING PROJECT ADVISORY SURVEY

STEP 1: Read the accompanying letter and descriptions of options. STEP 2: Place a “” next to your preference for: “Augment Current Plan” YES___ NO___ STEP 3: If you checked NO in Step 2, place a “” next to ONE of the following three alternatives: ___ “Remove Trial Plan” ___ “No Closures Plan” ___ “Mixed Measures Plan” ___ “Reduce Current Plan” [Note: Staff may reduce the number of alternatives on the survey card.] Comments or other ideas:

! On the front of this card, write your return street address (and business name if applicable). Mail this card by [date].

Attachment D Page 14 of 10 ATTACHMENT F

SUMMARY OF PUBLIC COMMENTS

UNSOLICITED COMMENTS FROM RESIDENTS Between June 2003 (when the trial was implemented) to January 7, 2004, Transportation Division received approximately 200 unsolicited e-mails, letters and phone calls about the trial. These were not in response to any formal request for input and thus do not represent a comprehensive assessment of neighborhood opinion. Very approximately, 45 percent of these were in general favor of the project and 55 percent generally against. The major themes of the communications are listed below.  Block specific pros and cons  Emergency access  General policy of closing streets bad and inconvenient  General good from the project, including safety, better environment for walking and biking  Negative impact or no improvement on Middlefield  Increase in speeding, fast turns, running stop signs, U-turns  Increase of congestion on Lytton  The current plan implementation was based on prior, outdated traffic conditions  Unwise use of $$ in lean budget times  Disagreement with staff’s proposed survey methodology  Some tweaking needed for the current plan  Parking intrusion  Enforcement issues

RESIDENTS COMMENTS AT TWO NEIGHBORHOOD MEETINGS Downtown North Traffic Calming Trial Project Neighborhood Meeting, November 6, 2003, 7:00 PM to 9:00 PM: Notes taken by Ruchika Aggarwal.

1. From DTNAA: Can we have all this info posted on DTNAA past this meeting? Carl mentioned we will mail all this and then post it on the city¹s website.

2. 325 Waverly: Are you considering traffic flow when the big garage opens up? Carl: Not thought much about it.

3. 235 Kipling: Have been greatly impacted on my street. 160% increase of traffic (near the park). Accident a few nights ago. Hit and run the bollard.

4. 275 Hawthorne: Am an environmentalist, against the plan. See less cyclists, taking left on Lytton at peak hours.

5. 275 Hawthorne (Tony): Have the accidents (60% reduction in DTN) been moved to the other part of town?

6. 351 Bryant St.: Was the plan to close streets understood by the Fire Dept.? Do they have enough data to compare?

7. 100 block Bryant: Is tonight the evening to get information and not express whether we are for or against?

Attachment F Page 15 of 6 8. If the bollards change to flexible ones, will the Fire Dept. prefer those?

9. 100 Webster, Apt. bldg.: Did not get notice. How meaningful are these evaluations?

10. 789 University: City is concentrating only on DTN. Is there an accounting of where these commuters are going and traveling on which roads?

11. Corner of Hawthorne and Middlefield: Narrowing of this intersection has become very dangerous. Questions on alternate plans:

1. 280 Waverly: 550 response calls made. What are the factors that the Fire Dept. cannot make a 4 to 6 minute goal?

2. 230 Emerson: Bollards are same size as parked cars. But most of the bulbouts installed are in illegal spaces (too close to corner).

3. Change closures to speed bumps/speed tables.

4. Glenna Viollett: Very opposed to this. None of the alternatives will work.

5. Does the city have money to remove all these plans and try another plan?

6. 66 Everett: According to California State Highway (Caltrans), bulbouts are most dangerous on 2 lane--2 way roads. How come you are not proposing to remove these?

7. How come roundabouts became acceptable now and were not earlier?

8. Did you explore putting flexible bollards in the new alternative plans? Move the street closure at Hawthorne at Cowper on the other side because of street width.

9. 255 Everett: It is a 6 month trial. But the public hearings are in Feb.-March. Will the trial plan go on till Feb.-March then?

10. Did Fire Dept. say that if they go in right streets, there will not be any delay?

11. Have talked to lawyers, and it is illegal to close local streets.

12. 160 Palo Alto Ave.: Very happy with plan. Even more traffic on my street. My kids are biking to school; possible only this year.

Questions on survey:

1. What do you use the survey for?

2. Is this a survey or a vote?

3. The content: Will it be something we discussed today or something new?

4. Significant change in the neighborhood, or give new residents a chance to know.

5. Many cities use supermajority for approval (75%, 66.7%, 60%). 6. Steve Emslie has committed to 50 plus 1% approval. Has the Transportation Division changed its

Attachment F Page 16 of 6 mind?

7. Middlefield: Why do people on Middlefield but addresses on side streets are on yellow?

8. Annual cost of $10K--has City Council thought of it?

9. Survey content: What kind of traffic calming measures would you like?

10. Most of the plan is terrific. Has given back the neighborhood to residents.

11. Survey is great opportunity to ask residents what they like instead of giving them just 3-4 alternatives. Include a blank sheet for options.

12. Safety is the major concern. Can you talk more about streets with speeds?

13. 45% increase in my street, but I still support the plan. Put stress more on number of cars (absolute value) instead of on percentages.

14. Where is the traffic going if it is not backing up on Lytton?

15. Survey should be available during City Council meetings.

16. Removing barriers means 150% increase in traffic. Supermajority should be required to remove the barriers.

Comments and questions recorded on easel pad sheets:

1. Safety or protecting rental property?

2. Are you considering impact of new garage on traffic flow?

3. Additional traffic on park side and an accident.

4. Opposed to blocking traffic--more use of fossil fuels--more chance of collisions.

5. What¹s happened to accident volume?

6. Did Fire Dept. understand goals? How is it affecting their service?

7. Who is elgible to participate in survey and meetings? Getting all notified who are eligible to vote?

8. For what will survey be used?

9. If bollards were flexible, would Fire Dept. be able to get through?

10. Notifying apartment residents?

11. How meaningful is data about accidents?

12. What is happening to redistibution of drivers into neighboring areas?

13. Are people going to be surveyed who are being negatively impacted by redirected traffic?

Attachment F Page 17 of 6 14. Concern about narrowing of Hawthorne east of Middlefield.

15. What keeps emergency response from taking 4-6 minutes?

16. Bulbout locations too close to corners.

17. Is it possible to replace road blocks with speed tables/bumps?

18. These alternatives are not desirable.

19. Is there money to make modifications? Where is the money coming from?

20. Doesn¹t lack of money allocation nullify options?

21. Removal of bulbouts, in view of narrowing lanes--2 lanes on 2 way avenues--space between bulbouts.

22. How come roundabouts now seem possibly workable?

23. Flexible bollards--were they explored for being put in? Everett and Cowper--remove.

24. Only 15% of neighbors approved trial? Will trial be at least 8 months long? Will diverters be left in place 8 months? Some people want to maintain calming measures.

25. Benefits of blockages.

26. Would Fire Dept. response time be improved if they learn the available routes--if they go on correct street?

27. Get someone from Fire Dept. to meeting.

28. Legality of street closures?

29. Now it¹s possible to bike to school safely with kids.

30. All address units included? Adult residents included (in voting)?

31. A survey or a vote? (An opinion survey).

32. Will the survey include questions besides those in the report?

33. Maybe significant change in neighborhood.

34. Use supermajority to avoid contentiousness. Is there a 50% requirement now? Benchmark of 50% plus 1--why would that change?

35. Who made decision about property at Middlefield and Everett? Why separate tabulations based on property/location?

36. Additional cost of $10K per year--where does funding come from? In survey, include listing of variety of options.

Attachment F Page 18 of 6 37. Most of changes are terrific--safer--more walkers.

38. Survey is opportunity for each one to offer own original solutions. Measure performance--speed, not just traffic calming and volume.

39. 45% increase in traffic on Waverly--generally satisfied with current setup. If plan is scrapped, many more cares would be in area. Stress car count vs. percentage changes.

40. Where is all the diverted traffic going? Don¹t want to push it onto others. Wants an overall traffic plan for Palo Alto.

41. Survey should be available at City Hall meeting.

42. Removing barriers is voting for 150% increase in traffic. Should have supermajority to change.

Downtown North Traffic Calming Trial Project Neighborhood Meeting, December 4, 2003, 7:00 PM to 9:00 PM

Comments and questions recorded on easel pad sheets:

1. Speed reduction--length of travel is a consideration as well as distance.

2. Any studies on running stop signs yet? (No study yet).

3. Concerned about number of cars on a relative rather than absolute basis.

4. Do we have state of the art traffic technology on Lytton?

5. Everett and Middlefield isn¹t a through street, so how can accidents be measured there as an ³intersection?²

6. Why was through traffic reduction considered as the main measure of success of the trial--what about ripple effect on other changes?

7. Was traffic calming initiated by neighbors? Based on a survey, and, if so, what percentage responded?

8. Concerned about changes from last meeting--especially police calls. Why left out? Were numbers from the last report accurate?

9. Would a sign eastbound at Hawthorne and Everett in the evening be a consideration? (outbound)

10. In taking out closures, why not Palo Alto Avenue? Move one from Palo Alto Avenue to Everett or Hawthorne.

11. Can cars actually make it around traffic circles? Might they create other hazards? Data on safety?

12. More Fire Dept. data? Response time in replacing barriers with circles for fire trucks--are there data?

13. What percentage of those surveyed responded favorably?

Attachment F Page 19 of 6 14. Wouldn¹t it be better to put traffic circle at Bryant instead of at Everett, due to Bryant being an existing bike lane street? Traffic fast going through.

15. Has Fire Dept. commented on flexible bollards?

16. Has estimated reduced volume been considered on Lytton?

17. 7-10 and 3-6 restriction times--can there be flexibility, maybe shorten the time (e.g., 7-9, 4-6)?

18. What is the emergency response delay? Do tests to try it out and time it in areas with each device, contrasted to no devices. Would Fire Dept. take a route other than one that includes impediments?

19. How about having survey done professionally?

20. Was there a survey done before traffic calming on Lytton--the boundaries?

21. Shouldn¹t go to Planning Commission without input from neighbors. Both sides were close on survey.

22. Disappointed if there is no survey, without getting opinions from neighborhood.

23. Regarding survey, don¹t make a change without resurveying those within the neighborhood. Don¹t include those from other neighborhoods. Maintain consistency.

Comments from anonymous phone call received after 12/4 meeting:

1. Decrease in occupancy rates may cause drop of traffic between before and after.

2. Lots of people looking for apartments. Visitors have legitimate business there, but get lost. These people don¹t get used to the barriers.

Attachment F Page 20 of 6 ATTACHMENT G

PERFORMANCE MEASURES FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF MIXED MEASURES PLAN

The performance measures for the Mixed Measures Plan are based on the set of performance measures for the current trial plan, as listed in Attachment A of this report, with the following modifications.

#1 Through Traffic Reduction. The goal of through traffic reduction will be 35 percent, as opposed to 65 percent for the current trial plan. This will be determined by measuring the reduction in the neighborhood cordon count using similar methodology, but with the cordon count percentage reduction requirement determined after another set of traffic counts is taken to establish the “before” condition prior to implementation of the Mixed Measures Plan.

#2 Speed Reduction. The Mixed Measures Plan is not designed to reduce average neighborhood speeds except in the vicinity of the traffic circles and speed table. Speed reduction is not a primary goal of the plan. Thus, average speed reduction will not be a goal. Instead, it will be assumed that the incidence of speeding will be reduced in proportion to the reduction of trips in the neighborhood, as reported in item 1.

#7 Middlefield/Everett Crash Reduction. The number of crashes at this intersection will be measured but will not be a specific goal for the Mixed Measures Plan. It is desirable to reduce crashes at this intersection, but this plan is not designed to specifically address this problem. If the plan does not provide sufficient accident reduction at this location, it may be necessary for staff to implement other safety measures separately from this traffic calming plan.

#11 Neighborhood Acceptance. A neighborhood opinion survey will not be performed for this plan.

Attachment G Page 21 of 1 ATTACHMENT H

ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment

D R A F T 1/15/04

1. Project Title: Downtown North Neighborhood Traffic Calming Project—Mixed Measures Plan

2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Palo Alto Transportation Division, P.O. Box 10250, Palo Alto CA 94303

3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Carl Stoffel (650) 329-2552

4. Project Location: Downtown North neighborhood, City of Palo Alto

5. Application Number(s): Not applicable

6. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Same as lead agency

7. General Plan Designation: Single and multiple family residential; regional/community and neighborhood commercial; public park; major institution/special facility

8. Zoning: R-1, R-2, RM-15, RM-30, RM-D, PF, PC, CD-N, CD-C

9. Description of the Project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off-site features necessary for its implementation. (Attach additional sheets if necessary)

Traffic calming refers to the use of engineering measures to make permanent physical changes that reduce traffic speed and volume, thereby improving safety and livability for street users and residents. The boundaries of the Downtown North project are Middlefield Road and Alma Street on the east and west, and Lytton Avenue and San Francisquito Creek on the south and north. The proposed plan is the “Mixed Measures Plan” (attached). The proposed traffic calming measures are four street closures, one gateway with a speed table, three traffic circles, intersection peak-hour turn restrictions, and one bulbout (a.k.a. curb extension).

All street closures utilize locked bollards, but allow the passage of emergency vehicles and trucks of the Palo Alto Sanitation Company (PASCO) once the drivers unlock the bollards. Bicycles and pedestrians are not impeded. Gateways and bulbouts allow passage of all vehicles, bicycles and pedestrians. The primary purpose of the street closures is to substantially reduce non-neighborhood commuter shortcutting traffic. In so doing, instances of speeding will be reduced. Gateways, as a minimum, act as an architectural entry statement at the neighborhood boundary, communicating to drivers that they are entering a new environment. They also narrow the roadway to further entice drivers to slow down. The bulbout is similar in design, but is located next to a neighborhood park rather than the neighborhood boundary.

Attachment H Page 22 of 22 Traffic circles permit all intersection movements, but require traffic to slow to about 15 mph to go around the circles. The speed table is a vertical rise in the pavement that requires drivers to slow to about 20 mph, and does not block any traffic movements. Peak hour turn restrictions prohibit turning movements by signing only during the posted hours, and require occasional Police enforcement. Turn prohibitions at Palo Alto Avenue on Middlefield and Alma are 24-hour restrictions, due to a street closure near Middlefield and a median on Alma.

In addition to the above project elements, the plan includes improvements (already in place) to the surrounding arterial street system in order to enhance the ability of the arterials to carry traffic. The improvements are (i) an improved signal coordination plan for Lytton between Alma and Middlefield; (ii) dedicated left- and right-turn lanes at Lytton/Alma and new protected left- turn signal phase for southbound Alma to eastbound Lytton traffic; (iii) an additional eastbound Lytton left-turn lane to northbound Middlefield with exclusive eastbound signal phase.

The Mixed Measures Plan is Phase II of the Downtown North project. The first phase consisted of a trial of a plan with seven street closures, three gateways and one bulbout, referred to as the Current Trial Plan. This latter plan caused some negative impacts, resulting in its substantial modification to become the Mixed Measures Plan evaluated in this document. Experience with the current Trial Plan informed the development of the Mixed Measures Plan, which is expected to be installed permanently (i.e., without a trial), but will be subject to verification of performance measures after approximately six months of operation. If the performance measures are met, no further action will be needed. If the measures are not met, this project will return to the Planning and Transportation Commission and City Council to consider alternative actions

10. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: (Briefly describe the project's surroundings) The neighborhood consists primarily of single and multiple-family residential properties, with some neighborhood and regional/community commercial properties on the edges of the neighborhood. Public parkland lies in the center and along the north edge of the neighborhood. To the north, the project area is bounded by a creek and a linear public park. To the south lies the downtown Palo Alto commercial district, separated from the Downtown North neighborhood by Lytton Avenue, an arterial street. To the east lies the Lytton residential neighborhood, separated from the Downtown North neighborhood by Middlefield Road, an arterial street. To the west lie commuter parking lots and the CalTrain railroad, separated from the Downtown North neighborhood by Alma Street, an arterial street.

11. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g. permits, financing approval, or participation agreement). None

ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:

The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.

Aesthetics Hydrology/Water Transportation/Traffic Quality Agriculture Resources Land Use/Planning Utilities/Service Systems Air Quality Mineral Resources Mandatory Findings of

Attachment H Page 23 of 22 Significance Biological Resources Noise Cultural Resources Population/Housing Geology/Soils Public Services Hazards & Hazardous Recreation Materials

DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency).

On the basis of this initial evaluation:

I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. X

I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.

I find that the proposed project MAY have a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially significant unless mitigated” impact on the environment, but at least one effect: 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.

I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.

______Project Planner Date

______Director of Planning and Date Community Environment

Attachment H Page 24 of 22 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:

1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e. g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e. g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis).

2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.

3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. :Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more “Potentially Significant Impact” entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.

4) “Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less than Significant Impact.” The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section 17, “Earlier Analysis,” may be cross-referenced).

5) Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063 (C) (3) (D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated,” describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.

6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.

7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.

Attachment H Page 25 of 22 8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project’s environmental effects in whatever format is selected.

9) The explanation of each issue should identify: a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance.

Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Resources Significant Significant Significant Impact Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated I. AESTHETICS. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect 2,3 X on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic 2,3 X resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the 2,3 X existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of 2,3 X substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique N/A Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for N/A agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the N/A

Attachment H Page 26 of 22 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Resources Significant Significant Significant Impact Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? III. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct N/A implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard X or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation c) Result in a cumulatively X considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to 2,3 X substantial pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors 2,3 X affecting a substantial number of people? IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse N/A effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies,

Attachment H Page 27 of 22 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Resources Significant Significant Significant Impact Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect N/A on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the N/A movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies N/A or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an N/A adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? V. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse N/A change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in 15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse N/A change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to 15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a N/A unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, N/A including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?

Attachment H Page 28 of 22 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Resources Significant Significant Significant Impact Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known N/A earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground N/A shaking? iii) Seismic-related ground N/A failure, including liquefaction? iv) Landslides? N/A b) Result in substantial soil erosion N/A or the loss of topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or N/A soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off- site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as N/A defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of N/A adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project? a) Create a significant hazard to the N/A

Attachment H Page 29 of 22 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Resources Significant Significant Significant Impact Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated public or the environment through the routing transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the N/A public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or N/A handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one- quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is N/A included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an N/A airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity N/A of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working the project area? g) Impair implementation of or 1,2,3 X physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a N/A significant risk of loss, injury, or

Attachment H Page 30 of 22 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Resources Significant Significant Significant Impact Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: a) Violate any water quality N/A standards or waste discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete N/A groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre- existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing N/A drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off- site? d) Substantially alter the existing 2,3 X drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? e) Create or contribute runoff water 2,3 X which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade N/A

Attachment H Page 31 of 22 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Resources Significant Significant Significant Impact Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated water quality? g) Place housing within a 100-year N/A flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100-year flood X hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a N/A significant risk of loss, injury or death involve flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, N/A or mudflow? IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project: a) Physically divide an established 1,2,3 X community? b) Conflict with any applicable land 1,2,3 X use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable N/A habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? X. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability N/A of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability N/A of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?

Attachment H Page 32 of 22 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Resources Significant Significant Significant Impact Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated XI. NOISE. Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or N/A generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or N/A generation of excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent 2,3 X increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or N/A periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an N/A airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity N/A of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: a) Induce substantial population N/A growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of N/A existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of N/A

Attachment H Page 33 of 22 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Resources Significant Significant Significant Impact Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES. a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:

Fire protection? 1,2,3 X

Police protection? 1,2,3 X

Schools? 1,2,3 X

Parks? 1,2,3 X

Other public facilities? 1,2,3 X

XIV. RECREATION a) Would the project increase the N/A use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include N/A recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?

Attachment H Page 34 of 22 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Resources Significant Significant Significant Impact Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic 1,2,3 X which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b) Exceed, either individually or 1,2,3 X cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in change in air traffic N/A patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards 1,2,3 X due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency 1,2,3 X access? f) Result in inadequate parking 1,2,3 X capacity? g) Conflict with adopted policies, 1,2,3 X plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment N/A requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the N/A construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?

Attachment H Page 35 of 22 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Resources Significant Significant Significant Impact Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated c) Require or result in the X construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies N/A available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the N/A wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with N/A sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and N/A local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the N/A potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts X that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable”

Attachment H Page 36 of 22 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Resources Significant Significant Significant Impact Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c) Does the project have 1,2,3 X environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?

SOURCE REFERENCES: 1. Planning and Transportation Commission Staff Report, January 21, 2004, Downtown North Neighborhood Traffic Calming Project—Recommendations to Remove Current Trial Plan and Implement new Traffic Calming Plan. 2. City of Palo Alto Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program (Booklet), April 9, 2001 3. Traffic Calming, State of the Practice, Reid Ewing, Institute of Transportation Engineers, August 1999.

EXPLANATION FOR CHECKLIST RESPONSES: -- Explain choice of impact category.

I(c) Substantially degrade visual character? Traffic calming measures require signing and striping which, when little or no signing or striping is present on the street, will be quite noticeable in the streetscape. The measures could possibly incorporate landscaping in the future as replacement for formerly paved areas. In past installations in Palo Alto and other jurisdictions, the addition of new landscaped areas has more than offset the negative visual impact of new signs and striping. The visual impact is not considered significant.

III(b, c) Violate air quality standards? Given the limited data available, the following calculations provide an approximate indication of the air quality impact of the proposed project. The determination is based on the change in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) which is a rough surrogate for vehicle air emissions. The Mixed Measures Plan will divert approximately 1500 daily through trips out of the neighborhood with an average increase in trip length of about four city blocks. (An additional 500 through trips will be removed from the neighborhood, but without increasing trip length.) These through trips account for 4000 daily exits and entries in and out of the neighborhood. The remaining 20,000 daily trips in and out of the neighborhood are made by residents and parkers from the adjacent commercial area. These 20,000 trips will incur only minimal circuitous routing within the neighborhood due to this plan, perhaps an average of about two blocks for every four trips. These added trip lengths total approximately 1200 vehicle miles traveled (VMT) daily, or about 120 VMT during the afternoon peak hour. Data used in the June 18, 1996 Sand Hill Road Projects DEIR (based on the Palo Alto citywide traffic model) indicate that the afternoon peak hour VMT in year 2000 in the area bounded by Junipero Serra Boulevard, Valparaiso Avenue, Middlefield Road and Page Mill Road, would be about 37,000.

Attachment H Page 37 of 22 Thus, the increase in VMT caused by the Downtown North project represents an increase of approximately 0.3 percent in this general area, which is an insignificant increase in air emissions due to added vehicle miles traveled.

The approximately 2000 through trips diverted out of the neighborhood onto Lytton Avenue would travel on all or a portion of a busy arterial, and many would pass through two moderately- congested intersections (Lytton/Alma and Lytton/Middlefield). There are a total of 10 signalized intersections along Lytton between Middlefield and Alma. The project includes improvements in signal timing along Lytton and improvements in turn lanes and signal phasing at the two intersections. These improvements will result in diverted trips having to stop at a few of the 10 signalized intersections—roughly estimated at a maximum of five. Diverted trips would incur idling time at each of these stops. The east-west neighborhood route from which through trips would be diverted requires drivers to stop at six stop signs. The last stop usually requires idling time at peak hours while drivers wait to turn onto Alma or Middlefield. Traffic flow on Lytton during peak hours is slow, with drivers idling at the five intersections where stops may be required, but relatively smooth with little opportunity for rapid acceleration or deceleration. During off-peak times, traffic flow is faster and idling time at two major intersections is less. Traffic flow on the neighborhood streets is less congested than on Lytton at all times, with faster acceleration and deceleration at the stop signs, and stops are required at all six stop signs. In conclusion, both routes require drivers to stop about the same number of times. The increased idling time on Lytton tends to be counterbalanced by the greater speed changes on the neighborhood streets. The result is that there is not a large difference in air quality emissions between the two routes due to driving conditions.

VII(g) Impair implementation of adopted emergency response/evacuation plan? This item was checked “no impact”. Palo Alto does not have such a plan. In an evacuation scenario, those evacuating would be residents or day parkers, most of whom would be familiar with the street closures in the neighborhood and know the best way to exit. There is only one closure on each of the main east-west neighborhood streets (Hawthorne and Everett). If there were sufficient time during the emergency, Police or Fire personnel could even remove the bollards in the street closures. The conclusion is that this plan would not cause significant impedance in an evacuation scenario.

VIII (d, e, h) Hydrology and Water Quality. Refer to discussion for item XVI (c).

IX(a) Physically divide an established community? This plan includes four street closures that close four blocks to non-emergency through vehicle traffic, including Downtown North residents’ vehicle traffic. Residents would still be able to travel these corridors in an unimpeded fashion by bicycling or walking. Residents would be able drive to all parts of the neighborhood, but might have to use a different route than without the project. In some cases, the new route will be longer. None of the road segments is closed to the public. Thus, the street closures do not constitute a true division in the sense that denies access between two parts of the community, and is less than significant impact. IX(b) Conflict with general plan? This item was checked “no impact”. The City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan strongly supports traffic calming, as explained in source reference #1. Although the plan discourages street closures, their use in this project complies with the conditions for their use, as explained in source reference #1.

XIII(a) Impact on fire protection services? A fire station is located in the Downtown North neighborhood, on its periphery, at the corner of Everett and Alma. Gateways and bulbouts do not block nor substantially slow any traffic movements. These measures are designed so that

Attachment H Page 38 of 22 fire trucks will be able to make all turning movements in a safe fashion that complies with the Uniform Fire Code. Traffic circles slow fire and paramedic vehicles at intersections. However, they must slow down at intersections anyway. Large vehicles can make left turns in front of the circles. Thus, the Fire Department does not consider circles to be a significant impediment. The single speed table requires that fire and paramedic vehicles slow down and be careful of the vertical deflection. This measure is near an intersection where emergency vehicle drivers must slow down anyway. Though the Fire Department is not in favor of vertical measures in general, they are willing to live with a certain number of speed humps and speed tables in order for residents to have traffic calming, provided that the Department’s response time goals are not jeopardized. The Department greatly prefers tables over humps because the tables are considerably less jarring.

The current design of the four street closures in the Mixed Measures Plan includes a locked steel bollard that can be unlocked by emergency personnel. The Fire Department does not require that Downtown North streets be fully accessible for “through” passage in the neighborhood—i.e., passage of fire vehicles from one side of the neighborhood to the other when responding to calls outside the neighborhood. Such passage is accomplished using Lytton Avenue. Nor does the Department require that a street be “open” even for a specific response in that block. Since installation of the current trial plan, the specified routing from the neighborhood fire station has been Lytton Avenue and then the appropriate north-south street into the neighborhood. As discussed in source reference #1, the Fire Department has not experienced an increase in its response times in the Downtown North neighborhood during the trial period of the current trial plan, and are within the Department benchmarks. They estimate that a street closure would cause one minute of extra delay if a truck or paramedic actually attempted to use one of the closed streets and had to turn around or unlock the bollard. Much of the emergency travel would tend to be in an east-west direction, primarily on Hawthorne and Everett, due to the location of the fire station on the west edge of the neighborhood. This is one reason why the new Mixed Measures Plan has three fewer street closures on these two streets, including removal of the one closest to the fire station. Though the Mixed Measures Plan does not change the design of the closures, it instead presents substantially less need for detour of a fire or paramedic responder than the current trial plan. The Fire Department’s mission goal for average maximum response time is 4 minutes for 90% of fire and basic medical responses and 6 minutes for 90% of advanced medical (paramedic) responses. Because a fire station is located within the neighborhood, response times from this station are typically shorter than average, so a delay of one minute for worst-case responses should not cause the average response time goals to be exceeded over a long time period of numerous varied types of responses, including short response times. Only a test period of at least one year could begin to provide a set of varied responses that could be averaged to determine the average response time for that period. The performance of the Mixed Measures Plan should be monitored over a period of years in this regard. Ultimately, a new type of closure design could be substituted if necessary. One example is a radio-controlled retractable bollard that is used at Stanford University, which is served by the Palo Alto Fire Department. Increased queuing on Lytton near Middlefield due to the current trial plan, which will continue for the Mixed Measures Plan, has not impeded the Fire Department in its ability to reach the driveways of Lytton Gardens and Webster House, both facilities serving the elderly. Queuing is expected to lengthen during peak hours with the Mixed Measures Plan (see item XV(a) below), but this is still not expected to impede fire and paramedic access to these facilities. The primary reason is that, under emergency conditions, emergency drivers can use the opposite side of the street.

XIII(a) Impact on police protection services? When police officers in vehicles respond to emergencies within the neighborhood, including pursuit of suspects or criminals through the

Attachment H Page 39 of 22 neighborhood, delay would be incurred due to the street closures. Most police emergency responses would tend to be from the south since Downtown North is located at the northern boundary of Palo Alto, and the western boundary is mostly blocked by the CalTrain railroad. Thus, much police emergency travel would tend to traverse streets in a north-south direction. In the worst case, it is estimated that a deviation of two blocks would be necessary to reach any point in the neighborhood. Police vehicles are smaller and more maneuverable than fire vehicles, so less delay per block would be incurred than for fire vehicles. The worst case delay for police vehicles is therefore estimated to be about 20 seconds. Average delay would be less. The Police Department’s goal for emergency calls is to respond in three minutes or less. The additional 20 seconds in the worst case could constitute a noticeable, but not significant, impact in comparison to the three-minute response time goal. Officers on routine vehicle patrols in the neighborhood would have to change their routes to avoid closed blocks. Routine vehicle patrols would not include closed blocks unless the officer made the extra effort to drive into the block and turn around, or exit through the street closure.

Police officers currently often use Downtown North east-west streets for driving to other areas for both emergency and non-emergency reasons, because they are less congested than the parallel arterial Lytton Avenue. With the Mixed Measures Plan, officers might switch to Lytton Avenue for through travel for both emergency and non-emergency purposes. However, Lytton is a more congested route, and therefore slower, even under emergency conditions. The Police Department expects that congestion will increase in the future due to growth downtown and at Stanford, and diversion of Downtown North traffic to Lytton, University and Hamilton. These streets are already difficult for emergency responses. Any additional traffic would tend to increase response times to the Downtown area. It is estimated that, under current conditions, it would take an officer 30 seconds longer to traverse Lytton rather than unimpeded Everett or Hawthorne for the length of the neighborhood, under worst-case emergency conditions (i.e., peak hour). Thus, officers might still find it more advantageous to use Hawthorne and Everett with one street closure each, rather than congested Lytton. The Department reports that the Current Trial Plan has not impacted its response time goals in the neighborhood. The Mixed Measures Plan has three fewer street closures, so this plan will have even less impact on police responses, and thus no significant impact.

XIII(a) Impact on parks? A public park is located roughly in the center of the Downtown North neighborhood, and along San Francisquito Creek on the neighborhood’s northern boundary. Walking and bicycling access to these parks is not affected by this project. Full driving access to the parks is maintained, but some drivers would have to alter their current routes to reach them. This does not constitute a significant impact. This project does not create a need for new or altered public parks.

XV(a, b) Substantial increase in traffic? The Mixed Measures Plan will not cause an increase in traffic in the area. However, the traffic calming measures, especially the four street closures, will divert traffic within the neighborhood to new blocks internally, as well as to the surrounding arterial streets. The City’s standard for significant impact on residential local streets is a maximum 25 percent increase due to diverted traffic (based on a 0.1 increase in the TIRE Index, the former measurement tool). On arterial streets, the standard of significance is level of service at major intersections, where the worst acceptable is LOS D. The current trial plan, with seven street closures, caused internal increases exceeding 25 percent in several blocks. This is one of the primary reasons the Mixed Measures Plan is now advocated, with only one closure each on Everett and Hawthorne and three north-south streets on each side of each closure available for diverting traffic. Through traffic during the peak hours will be substantially reduced by the turn restrictions on the east and west ends of the neighborhood. The combination of the

Attachment H Page 40 of 22 turn restrictions and fewer closures is expected to reduce the increases in volumes on the formerly impacted internal street segments to levels less than the 25 percent increase threshold.

On the arterial streets, volume increases are generally acceptable as long as intersection levels of service remain at LOS D or less. With the current trial plan, levels of service remained at LOS B and C. The Mixed Measures Plan will cause more peak hour traffic diversion through the Alma/Lytton and Middlefield/Lytton intersections than did the current trial plan. Afternoon peak hour LOS is expected to reach LOS D at Lytton/Middlefield, which is still acceptable. Queue lengths in the peak hours will increase about 2-4 cars per lane compared to the current plan, which already has increased queues compared to before any traffic calming plan was adopted. However, at LOS D, the full queue is expected to clear the intersection in most peak hour cycles. Nevertheless, the queue lengths will be noticeable to residents on Middlefield and the residential portion of Lytton, where the standing queues will make it harder for residents to enter and exit their driveways. This is not considered a significant impact.

XV(d) Increased hazards? The traffic calming measures in the Mixed Meaures Plan do not introduce abrupt changes in vertical and horizontal alignment that are beyond the normally accepted standards. The measures are placed in the traveled way, and will be signed and striped according to standard California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) guidelines and accepted engineering practice, resulting in no significant traffic hazard. The reduction in traffic volumes and speeds in the neighborhood is expected to reduce the potential for accidents throughout the neighborhood.

XV(e) Inadequate emergency access? Refer to discussion under III(a) above.

XV(f) Inadequate parking capacity? Some areas in the Downtown North neighborhood experience heavy parking demand, due partly to parking intrusion from the adjoining commercial downtown district. The area of heaviest demand lies roughly west of Cowper and south of Hawthorne. The street closures, bulbout and gateway displace about 2 – 4 parking spaces each. The traffic circles displace about 8 spaces each, all on corners where existing parking causes sight distance problems. In a few locations, parking would not be displaced because the curb is currently a red zone or a fire hydrant is adjacent. In the area of heavy parking demand, a total of about 20 spaces would be removed by this plan. Because this is an area of heavy parking demand by residents and non-residents, this loss would be noticeable. However, compared to the large number of on-street parking spaces in the high demand area, this would not be considered a significant loss of parking.

XVI(c) New or expanded stormwater drainage facilities? None of the proposed traffic calming measures block the gutters so they would not interfere with normal gutter flows. All the measures would impede surface flow to some degree under severe storm conditions where gutters overflow. The speed table extends from curb to curb with a height of three inches above the street grade. However, storm drainage engineers do not expect that any of these measures would cause flooding of adjacent properties during a 100-year flood. No new water runoff would be generated by these measures. Thus, no new storm drainage facilities are required, and the impacts would not be significant.

XVII(b) Impacts that are cumulatively considerable? Some speed reduction measures are in place in the adjacent Lytton neighborhood. Other speed reduction measures are present in Menlo Park in the adjacent Willows and Linfield Oaks neighborhoods. Even though all these streets remain open, these measures divert some through traffic to the surrounding arterial street system (University, Middlefield, Willow). Arterial streets are meant to be the carriers of

Attachment H Page 41 of 22 most through traffic. The combined impact of the street closures in the Downtown North neighborhood and the speed control measures in adjacent neighborhoods does not create a significant cumulative impact because of the relatively small amounts of diverted traffic from speed control measures. Another traffic calming project with speed control measures has been approved for Channing Avenue. That project is not expected to have any impact in the Downtown North area. In the long run, the potential exists for street closures to be installed in other north Palo Alto neighborhoods. However, the Comprehensive Plan discourages the use of street closures, and the time frame for neighborhood-wide street closure projects is very long due to the level of resources required. Thus, there is not expected to be any short or intermediate-term possibility for cumulative impacts due to street closure projects in this area.

Attachment H Page 42 of 22 7-10 AM 7-10 AM

Johnson Park

MIXED MEASURES PLAN Relocated DOWNTOWN NORTH TRAFFIC CALMING PROJECT Existing Stop Sign Existing Stop Signs

Guide Sign Street Closure

Install New Speed SE Note: the gateway, Table at bulbout, and traffic Existing Gateway circles allow full two-way traffic access.

Attachment H Page 43 of 22