0
Palo Alto Pedestrian and Bicycle Advisory Committee Tuesday, October 6, 2015 6:00 P.M. SOUTH ADOBE ROOM, MITCHELL PARK COMMUNITY CENTER 3700 Middlefield Road, Palo Alto, CA Agenda 1.
CALL TO ORDER
6:00
2.
APPROVAL OF ACTION MINUTES
6:05
3.
AGENDA CHANGES
6:10
4.
VTA BPAC REPORT
6:15
5.
SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOLS UPDATE
6:20
6.
PROJECT UPDATES
6:30
a) Churchill Improvements, October 22, 2015 – PALY Media Arts Atrium 6 – 8 pm b) Bicycle Boulevard Projects Update • *Park Boulevard/Stanford Ave/Cal Ave Meeting October 8, 2015 Escondido Elementary 6 – 8 pm • Nita Ave connection to Mackay Drive c) *Midtown Connector Study update 7.
FUTURE PROJECT DEVELOPMENT a. Middlefield Repaving – potential cycle track connection between N. California Ave legs b. Alma St and High St Study c. N. California Ave Repaving – suggestion lanes or bicycle lanes with parking removal
8.
SPOT IMPROVEMENTS • *Bulb out and yield control on Georgia Avenue • *Striping improvements on Arastradero Road approaching Miranda and Foothill • Striping improvements on Palo Alto Ave approaching El Camino Real and Sand Hill
9.
**DRAFT COMPLETE STREETS RESOLUTION
7:40
10. INFORMATION REPORTS a) Report from Bike Palo Alto b) City Council Study Session on Bicycle and Pedestrian Program October 26, 2015 c) Adult Bicycle Education update – VTA funding
7:50
11. ADJOURNMENT
8:00
* Attachment Enclosed **Attachment to be delivered Future Items: November PABAC – Meet and Greet with Joshuah Mello, Chief Transportation Official Bicycle Parking Vision Zero
0 Palo Alto Pedestrian and Bicycle Advisory Committee Tuesday, September 1, 2015 6:00 P.M. MITCHELL PARK – SOUTH ADOBE ROOM 3700 Middlefield Road, Palo Alto, CA SUMMARY Members Present:
Robert Neff (Chair), Eric Nordman (Vice Chair), Jane Rothstein, Paul Goldstein, Cedric de la Beaujardiere, Rob Robinson, Bill Zauman, Richard Swent
Members Absent:
Steve Rock, Ann Crichton, and Bill Courington
Staff Present:
Diana Tamale, Sarah Syed
Guest:
Bruce Arthur
1. CALL TO ORDER 2. AGENDA CHANGES 3. VTA BPAC REPORT: Paul Goldstein provided a written report (see bottom). The report is about the next round of funding amount of total is less than project but the formula was updated and Santa Clara County will get more or same as last year. County bike plan will be updated. Paul recommends one Bay Area grant funds should go toward regional connectivity. Environment at bus stops: VTA wants to standardize improvements for bus stops, prioritizing bus stops for investment based on stop ridership. Most stops are 20 years old 4. SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOLS UPDATE
Maria Abilock provided short summary number of kids served recently, 500 licenses, 50 bikes repaired, helmet fitting and route planning. Bike classes may need more instructors, let staff know if interested.
5. PROJECT UPDATES PABAC Summary of September 1, 2015
Page 1
a) Churchill Multi-Modal Improvements Phase 2, October 22, 2015 – PALY Library 6:00 – 8:00 pm
Seeking federal funds for improvement of the train crossings at Churchill, crossing is in top 17 of 7500 statewide. Maybe additional R.O.W – one million funding available. Want to replace rubber plates with concrete to prevent slipping. Masses of kids walking and biking Churchill across Alma Could bike-only only signal phase be created for pm peak diagonal movement? Will explore further and discuss at the 10/22 community meeting b) Midtown Connector Study, September 8, 2015 – Citizen’s Advisory Committee
Midtown Connector study meeting here next week, items prepared but won’t be shared tonight as too early in process and limited meeting time. Colorado/Alma to Cowper advisory bike lane with two-way no center stripe, either 16’ or 10’ and cars can merge into bike lane to pass AKA “suggestion lane”. Used on streets with low ADT’s so creates more dedicated space for bikes when there’s a limited ROW. Maybe California Avenue near Jordan/Garland where policy is to not re-stripe substandard lanes. Paul Goldstein: Counter intuitive that you narrow the road and force people to middle lane crashes go down, but it works. Would prefer sharrows over advisory lanes as they are confusing. That said would be interested to see more data. Bill Zaumen: These are streets with insufficient indication of what rules are. Richard Swent: Remove on street parking is the best ways to improve safety. Would be willing to experiment with A.B.L. Are they in MUTCD? (A: MUTCD standard is not really applicable with minimum 18” center lane, measure before and after Bruce Arthur: At first it’s confusing, but then you get it. Ken Joye: How was street selected? Why not Park? Richard Swent: What do you do at Colorado at Alma where fast traffic comes in and can’t stop suddenly – traffic calming at entry Robert Neff: Doesn’t like sharrows on Colorado, doesn’t feel very beneficial, would like to experiment Bill Zaumen: Sharrows were improvement over previous configuration Robert Neff: California Avenue at Jordan – good place to try Sarah Syed: Bryant downtown other option, at a recent meeting with passionate cyclists, none were knowledgeable about sharrows c) Nita Ave connection to Mackay Drive –Provide feedback on Google project * Paul Goldstein: What is the different or being improved? Sarah Syed: Not much
PABAC Summary of September 1, 2015
Page 2
Robert Neff: Current behavior going North/West on Nita, you have to cross Nita at San Antonio when traffic on San Antonio could trun right onto Nita where you are making left onto sidewalk and ride wrong way or sidewalk to San Antonio. Ken Joye: Why do we fear this intersection when the rule is you are not supposed to right turn into the sidewalk when pedestrians are there? Sarah Syed: Option 2 has slot for bikes to go straight across and left into slot to shoulder road. Murmurs of agreement from PABAC Committee Google wants left turn from San Antonio South to Nita, but would conflict with bikes going straight – alternative sketch with multi use path to access the sidewalk Ken Joye: Would there be a conflict from cyclists going left onto Nita? Robert Neff: Maybe bike phase is shorter than pedestrian phase so would that be more efficient? Rob Robinson: Doesn’t like Google’s proposal Sarah Syed: Staff feels option 2 or 3 is better: Option 2 has cost of signal head Option 3 is good maybe merge with street at the end of the curve of Nita Cedric de la Beaujardiere: Option 2 and 3 put bikes in the sidewalk Sarah Syed: Some places, but bike symbol in the sidewalk Paul Goldstein: Option 1 is different seconded by Eric Nordman because two streets or Pedestrian and free-right hand turn have conflict
Motion passes to support either option 2 or 3—primary recommendation is for bike phase to not require crossing 2 legs of intersection d) Bicycle Boulevard Projects Update a. Report on August 31st City Council Consideration of Park and Wilkie Concept Plan Lines b. Stanford Ave Community Meeting October 8, 2015 – Escondido Elementary 6:00 – 8:00 pm Paul Goldstein: Turning traffic can make it difficult to cross ECR at Stanford e) Alma Complete Streets Study: No update f) N. California Ave Repaving – Substandard Bike Lanes, discuss potential treatments Advisory Bike Lanes / Suggestion Lanes generally supported for potential treatment g) Progress on Spot Improvements New path at Palo Alto High School near Embarcadero towards Town & Country. Paul Goldstein: He likes “bollard”, a tree at Y at Georgia bike/pedestrian/path Sarah Syed: Kids jetting into intersection Paul Goldstein: Could do like Magic playground a talking bollard, caution entering traffic Paul Goldstein: Whom could I contact to say bollards danger – Darren Anderson PABAC Summary of September 1, 2015
Page 3
Eric Nordman: Bol park plan who was the consultant?
6. NACTO GUIDELINES RESOLUTION ADOPTION * Action: Paul Goldstein moved, seconded by Robert Neff to accept NACTO Guidelines Resolution, passed by everyone. 7. TRANSPORTATION DATA REPORT a. EcoCounter Report (Rob Robinson)
Rob Robinson: Date of bike counts – two weeks May-July 2015, see small drop when school ended, 101 crossing have a big spike for 4th of July at Oregon/Adobe Creek. These counts are great, don’t discriminate bike from pedestrian, but does tell direction of movement. Last week it counted 40% too high at a spot still evaluating if normalize elsewhere. Eric Nordman: Need to make sure clock is correct, might under count if two bikes/pedestrian pass at the same time Rob Robinson: We could count one at Homer tunnel b. City Report: Nothing still in progress
Robert Neff: Are we getting counts again this year to match previous year’s counts Sarah Syed: Getting 24 VIMOC counter in next six months hopefully if approved by Council
8. Trash and Recycling Collection – Impact on Bike Lanes
Waste collection people said that on some streets they can do the collection from curbs on stree instead of bike lanes. Planning to do education flyers to talk about don’t put your bins in the bike lane Ken Joye: Got a hanger that bins were too close so they are looking at it Richard Swent: Putting them on sidewalk not good either
9. Bicycle Transportation & Safety in Santa Clara County 2015 Report *
Richard Swent worked on report, one of main conclusions is there is insufficient data and frustrating from lack of data. Start the surveys give demo graphic data, gives reasons for biking, but not where going. County data give counts, but not reason. Surveys don’t say how/route taken. 2nd part: ER centers accidents, solo bike crashes are over 50% of total crashes (not involving cars) No date on why Palo Alto Police won’t take a police report, because no laws broken. The report has to be taken at the scene, too late in ER, some cities do it others don’t. Last Part: Collision date from CHP Official bikers at fault 94% of time 23% by wrong way riding by bikers
PABAC Summary of September 1, 2015
Page 4
R.O.W/driveway yielding Improper turning right hook Traffic & signal violations Recommendations: 1. Need more counts 2. Need unified question to school children so they can be compared and aggregated across the County 3. Urge Palo Alto Police Department to take reports on these crashes because we need data on causes of crashes 4. All this data is from 2012, need to get data faster than this CPA “suitters” We urge Palo Alto Police Dept. to get data into VTA “cross roads” 5. Enforcement best applied to wrong side of the road driving Needs education in some places infrastructure to close gaps, sometime it’s impatient to wait for signal Ken Joye: Some beaches have signs like “People have died here or there are reptiles”. There might be places with things we can do to educate bikers/drivers in specific problem areas? Richard Swent: Purpose of report is to educate decision makers
10. ANNOUNCEMENTS a) Report from Silicon Valley Bike Summit
Jane Rothstein: She go every year to SVBC at Stanford Health Care, it’s a costly summit, too much time spent talking on whether helmets are important Richard Swent: He liked panel on technology to improve biking like better maps at Google Paul Goldstein: Some like that session, great to see so many people interested in cycling Vision Zero was really cool San Francisco has been using Vision Zero for enforcement, could be applied to all sort of decision vision for zero deaths/serious injury from collisions accidents Paul Goldstein: Vision Zero is nation wide Richard Swent: San Jose is committed to it, but doesn’t’ put a date on it b) Bike Palo Alto Sunday, October 4, 2015 Contact David Coale to volunteer Robert Neff: Midtown residents social on 9/13 will go to the as well Won’t be here next month
11. ADJOURNMENT
8:00
From: Paul B Goldstein [mailto:
[email protected]] VTA-BPAC Report to PABAC
PABAC Summary of September 1, 2015
Page 5
I attended this BPAC meeting. The agenda is as follows with my comments interspersed. If you have any questions or want further information, please let me know, or we can discuss at the PABAC meeting. The entire agenda, complete with staff reports, etc. may be found at http://vtaorgcontent.s3-us-west-1.amazonaws.com/Site_Content/bpac_081215_a_packet.pdf Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Bicycle & Pedestrian Advisory Committee August 12, 2015 4. Receive update on Envision Silicon Valley (Verbal Report) (Haywood) CONSENT AGENDA 5. Approve the Regular Meeting Minutes of May 12, 2015. 6. Receive the County Workshop Meeting Summary of June 10, 2015. 7. INFORMATION ITEM -Receive the Development Review Quarterly Report for April to June 2015. REGULAR AGENDA 8. INFORMATION ITEM -Receive the One Bay Area Cycle 2 program development information. This is very complicated, but the bottom line is that Santa Clara County will receive about as much money from this grant program as we did during the last funding cycle. There are adjustments to the program, but it remains largely as is. The total pot of money (Bay Area Region) is down 3% from the previous cycle because of federal reductions, but SCC's share has gone up because of some tweaking of the distribution formula. Bike projects have scored well in this program. There will be some adjustments in the scoring criteria for bike projects. 9. INFORMATION ITEM -Receive a presentation on the Transit Passenger Environment Plan. The plan is to more uniformly specify how bus stops will look, and to provide amenities suitable for the location and use of the bus stops. Modular furnishings and see-through panels are part of the plan. 10. INFORMATION ITEM -Receive a report on the Proposed Design Guidelines for Bike Lanes at Bus Stops. The BTG is relatively silent on bike lanes at bus stops and we were presented a draft of some recommendations. This is especially of concern with new treatments of bike lanes, e.g. buffered bike lanes, and green bike lanes. This all looked reasonable to me. OTHER 11. Receive Committee Staff Report. (Verbal Report) (Ledbetter) • request for proposals went out for a bicycle plan with the hope of having a consultant in October 2015; • complete streets workshops for city staff focusing on: • a) forthcoming guidelines from the Institute of Transportation Engineers for accommodating bicyclists and pedestrians at interchanges; and • b) legal issues related to complete street designs; • Fremont Boulevard Bay Trail Connections; 12. Receive Santa Clara County Staff Report. (Verbal Report) (Cameron)
PABAC Summary of September 1, 2015
Page 6
Item #6 B BIKEWAYS AND TRAFFIC CALMING COMMUNITY MEETING October 8, 2015 Escondido Elementary School, 890 Escondido Road 6:30 — 8:00 PM STREET Stanford Avenue Park Boulevard Park Boulevard California Avenue and Tunnel
FROM El Camino Real El Camino Real California Avenue Park Boulevard
TO Park Boulevard Castilleja Avenue Lambert Avenue High Street
The proposed Park Blvd Bicycle Boulevard, including Stanford Ave and California Ave connections, will create low stress on-street bikeways with travel time and safety improvements. Proposed improvements include traffic calming, striping, stop sign removal, repaving, and improvements to arterial crossings. On Stanford Ave, traffic circles are proposed with all-way yield control at Ash St, Birch St, and Park Blvd. On Park Blvd at El Camino Real, a bike box is proposed. Bike boxes help prevent conflicts with turning motor vehicles, group bicyclists together to clear an intersection more quickly, and benefit pedestrians by reducing motor vehicle encroachment into the crosswalk. On California Ave, traffic circles at both intersections with Park Blvd are proposed. Through the tunnel and on its approaches, minor changes are proposed to reduce head-on conflicts and improve circulation. On-street parking reduction is under study to create a protected bicycle lane on Park Blvd from California Ave to Grant Ave. Traffic calming is also proposed on Park Blvd from California Ave to Lambert Ave. The City hosted community meetings in June and October 2014 and most recently March 2015 during the Conceptual Planning phase, which culminated in City Council approval of Concept Plans on August 31, 2015. The October 8 meeting will report on project changes since March 2015 and solicit feedback.
What is a Bicycle Boulevard? The City pioneered the creation of the first “bicycle boulevard” on Bryant Street in 1982. Key characteristics that make Bicycle Boulevards attractive and safer are: • Low traffic volumes and speeds • Free-flow travel for people on bicycles by assigning the right-of-way to the bicycle boulevard • Traffic control to help cross major streets
Bike Box at Intersection
Traffic Circle with all - way yield
TRANSPORTATION DIVISION BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PROGRAM Bikeways and traffic calming are planned for your street or one near you. To learn more, please join us: OCTOBER 8, 2015 6:30 — 8:00 PM Escondido Elementary School, Multi-Purpose Room
PROJECT INFORMATION cityofpaloalto.org/bike PROJECT MANAGER Sarah Syed, Transportation
[email protected] 650-329-2218 PROJECT TIMELINE Final design spring 2016 Construction summer 2016
DIRECTIONS: From El Camino Real take Stanford Avenue to Escondido Road. Escondido Elementary School is at 890 Escondido Road.
89 0E
sco
nd
Meeting Location
ido
Ro ad
Map data © 2015 Google
City of Palo Alto Transportation Division
[email protected] 250 Hamilton Ave, 5th Floor Palo Alto, CA 94301
Community Meeting October 8, 2015: Bikeways and Traffic Calming
Item 6B
PLANNING AND COMMUNITY
ENVIRONMENT DEPARTMENT
Date: To: From: Subject:
Memorandum
September 3, 2015 Midtown Connector Citizen Advisory Committee Sarah Syed, Senior Transportation Planner Midtown Connector Project Update: Matadero Creek Trail alignment constructability review findings
INTRODUCTION The Midtown Connector Project seeks to identify routes on and parallel to the Matadero Creek between Highway 101 and Alma Street that serve to connect community facilities for use by bicyclists and pedestrians of all ages.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A preliminary constructability review indicates that constraints along the Matadero Creek alignment may limit the feasibility of a public access trail on a majority of the Matadero Creek corridor. Constraints include access closure structures that are put in place at three locations to prevent flooding during the rainy season and steep trail gradients required for maintenance access to the creek channel. Prior to these findings, the City of Palo Alto had anticipated carrying forward the Matadero Creek alignment through completion of a final Feasibility Study and Preliminary Environmental Assessment. The constraints identified raise important policy questions and staff is finalizing the preliminary findings for presentation to City Council next month. Staff will develop options on how to proceed for City Council consideration, with input from the Citizen Advisory Committee.
1
BACKGROUND The Midtown Connector Project seeks to identify routes on and parallel to the Matadero Creek between Highway 101 and Alma Street that serve to connect community facilities for use by bicyclists and pedestrians of all ages. The Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC) was appointed in early 2015 for the purpose of increasing community participation in the planning process to help define overall project objectives, identify alignment alternatives, and to consider the criteria for evaluating alternatives. At the first Citizen Advisory Committee meeting (February 26, 2015), the project team and committee members discussed preliminary trail alignments including (1) the Matadero Creek Trail route along the levees of Matadero Creek and (2) On-‐Street Bicycle Routes with Enhanced Pedestrian Facilities, including N. California Avenue, Oregon Avenue, Moreno and Amarillo Avenues, Colorado Avenue, E. Meadow Drive, and Loma Verde Avenue. The City sought input on draft criteria for selection of alignments and agreement on five alternative alignments for initial screening using the criteria. The City and CAC members also discussed goals for Community Workshop #2, subsequently held April 14, 2015. While the City Council charged the staff with assessing the feasibility of the Matadero Creek alignment, Citizen Advisory Committee members have sought to understand the rationale for selecting the creek alignment for in depth evaluation prior to a screening of alternative alignments using the evaluation criteria developed for ranking east-‐west connector routes. Questions raised include the weighting of the different criteria, whether a creek trail that could not remain open 24 hours a day and 365 days per year is worth studying, and how and when costs for each option figured into the evaluation.
CURRENT PROJECT ACTIVITIES Following the April 14, 2015 Community Workshop, the City postponed the May Citizen Advisory Committee meeting to take a fresh look at the feasibility study approach. Staff determined that the evaluation of alignment alternatives should not proceed further prior to an initial screening of the Matadero Creek Trail alignment in collaboration with the Santa Clara Valley Water District. The following is a preliminary summary of this investigation.
MATADERO CREEK TRAIL ALIGNMENT SCREENING Staff identified potential impacts of the Matadero Creek Flood Control Project on trail feasibility as an area requiring further investigation. Staff reviewed historical documents, including the Matadero/Barron Creeks Long-‐Term Remediation Project Engineer’s Report, Construction Drawings, and Final Environmental Impact Report.
2
The City also engaged Santa Clara Valley Water District staff, from whom a Joint Use Agreement would be required for public access to the levees along the Matadero Creek. Matadero Creek Flood Control Project The Matadero/Barron Creeks Long-‐Term Remediation Project, a six-‐year, $23 million flood-‐ control effort was completed in 2005 to increase the capacity of Matadero Creek to achieve the Santa Clara Valley Water District’s and the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) goal of 100-‐year (1%) flood protection for local residents and businesses. The improvements reduce, but do not eliminate, the risk of flooding in Matadero and Barron Creeks between Middlefield Road and San Francisco Bay. While the project provides protection for a 1% (100-‐year) flood event, it does not affect tidal flooding which affects the channel area from the Bay to approximately Middlefield Road. The Project included construction of access closure structures, which are installed across the existing maintenance road annually, from October to April, at three locations: Middlefield, Louis, and Greer Roads. These structures are installed manually and are required for flood control during high water events. Information gathered to date indicates a creek trail was not a priority for either agency during the planning process for the flood control project, when trail infrastructure might have been designed in harmony with the project. A summary of the Matadero/Barron Creeks Long-‐Term Remediation Project Review is included in Attachment A. Creek Channel Maintenance Access The Santa Clara Valley Water District utilizes the existing levees to access the Matadero Creek channel for vegetation management, graffiti and trash removal, and sediment removal. A public access trail would need to maintain access for maintenance vehicles to secure a joint use agreement with the Water District. Preliminary concepts to maintain access indicate that the trail would ramp steeply, up and down at approximately 4.99% gradients at four locations along the creek trail. The maintenance ramp would split off at the low point of the trail and continue at a steeper gradient to access the channel. Attachment B provides a conceptual ramp configuration at Louis Road with maintenance access to the channel. Alternative, more costly solutions, involving right of way acquisition have not been analyzed. Five percent grades are not comfortable for many people who walk and bicycle. Due to existing block lengths, trail users would experience few flat segments of trail. Other area trails that ramp up and down typically do so to provide benefits to users, such as grade separated crossings of intersections. Coupled with at grade crossings of intersections, the ramp configuration required for maintenance access would likely discourage many potential trail users. Locations that would require ramping include:
3
• • • •
East of Alma on the north side East of Middlefield on the south side (at the tennis courts) East of Louis on the north side At US 101
Matadero Creek Trail Alignment Screening Conclusion In summary, the initial screening identifies significant potential challenges to achieving the vision of a creek trail alignment to connect community facilities for use by bicyclists and pedestrians of all ages. Should the City continue to pursue a trail on the Matadero Creek levees, the Santa Clara Valley Water District staff has outlined the following options:
1) City takes on full responsibility to close trail to public and install access closure structures in advance of a significant rain event and to remove them following a significant rain event 2) Keep the trail closed during the rainy season from approximately October to April, similar to the Adobe Creek undercrossing.
Staff will discuss these findings further with the Citizen Advisory Committee at the September 8, 2015 meeting and solicit committee input for a discussion of options with the City Council in October. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A: Matadero/Barron Creeks Long-‐Term Remediation Project Review Attachment B: Ramp Configuration Concept with 4.99% Gradient for Maintenance Access to Channel
4
Attachment A MATADERO/BARRON CREEKS LONG-‐TERM REMEDIATION PROJECT REVIEW The Matadero Creek Remediation Project, a six-‐year, $23 million flood-‐control effort was completed in 2005 to increase the capacity of Matadero Creek to achieve the Santa Clara Valley Water District’s and the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) goal of 100-‐year (1%) flood protection for local residents and businesses. The improvements reduce, but do not eliminate, the risk of flooding in Matadero and Barron Creeks between Middlefield Road and San Francisco Bay. While the project provides protection for a 1% (100-‐year) flood event, it does not affect tidal flooding which affects the channel area from the Bay to approximately Middlefield Road. The remediation project was initiated in 1999. The Engineer’s Report and Environmental Impact Report were completed in October 2002. The design was performed from 2002-‐ 2003, and included modification of floodwalls between Alma Street and U.S. Highway 101, the replacement and raising of the Louis Road Bridge as well as channel modifications under the bridge, and excavation of an overflow bypass downstream of Highway 101 to the Palo Alto Flood Basin to preserve the natural Matadero Creek channel but provide additional conveyance of high flows to the Palo Alto Flood Basin. The Project included construction of access closure structures, which are installed across the existing maintenance road annually, from October to April, at three locations: Middlefield, Louis, and Greer Roads. These structures are required for flood control, as Matadero Creek is subject to flooding at high water events. In October 2002, the Santa Clara Valley Water District issued a Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Matadero/Barron Creeks Long-‐Term Remediation Project. In the review of the project for Consistency with Adopted Plans and Policies, the EIR does not mention the Santa Clara County Countywide Trails Master Plan’s 1995 identification of the Matadero Creek/Page Mill Trail as a sub-‐regional trail passing through Palo Alto, Los Altos Hills, and Stanford from the Bay Trail to the Bay Area Ridge Trail. No agencies commented on the project’s failure to consider the impact of the project on the proposed trail corridor. In 2003, the Palo Alto City Council approved negotiations to execute an easement with the Santa Clara Valley Water District to construct, operate, and maintain portions of the Matadero Creek overflow flood control channel on City property. In the staff report to Council on this item, staff discuss bicycle and pedestrian pathways in the project area, stating, “The City and the Water District are also exploring the potential of a separate project that would add a pedestrian and bicycle pathway along Matadero Creek, under Highway 101, accessing near Greer Park or Greer Road. The district is developing a feasibility analysis and will continue to work with staff.” Staff continue to search for records of this feasibility analysis to document the outcome of past consideration of this corridor.
Bird’s eye views of potential SCVWD ramp / trail reconfiguration
View along the trail from the north side of Louis Road
View from across Louis Road
Midtown East - West Connector
Matadero Creek Trail Alignment at Louis Road looking East
Item #8 A PROJECT NO. SCALE:
NONE
SHEET NO.
1 OF 1
SIGN INSTALLATION DETAILS
DRAWN BY:
GEORGIA AVE NEAR GUNN HIGH SCHOOL PEDESTRIAN & BIKE PATH
DATE
CITY OF PALO ALTO
PROPOSED SIGNAGE, STRIPING, AND BULB- OUT PLAN
R. PATEL
DESCRIPTION NO.
REVISIONS
SECTION A-A
City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Development Dept. Transportation Division 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 O: (650) 329-2441 F: (650) 329-2154
Item #8 B PROJECT NO. SCALE:
NONE
SHEET NO.
1 OF 1
DRAWN BY:
ARASTRADERO RD AT MIRANDA AVE & FOOTHILL EXPRESSWAY
CITY OF PALO ALTO
PROPOSED BIKE STRIPING IMPROVEMENTS
R. PATEL
DESCRIPTION NO.
REVISIONS
DATE
N
City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Development Dept. Transportation Division 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 O: (650) 329-2441 F: (650) 329-2154
