500 El Camino Real
Conformance Analysis
1
Background
• ECR/Downtown Specific Plan
– Program level review
• Opportunity sites
– Major Arterials analyzed: ECR, Middle, etc.
– Individual projects to be reviewed for conformance
• January – April 2013 Stanford submits 500 ECR
– City Council Sub‐committee – project level review
2
City Council Sub‐committee
1. Eliminate all medical office
2. Substantial contribution to undercrossing at Middle Avenue
3. Participate in plaza working group
4. Project level conformance review
3
Project Level Conformance Review
• Council Subcommittee to scope 500 ECR review
– Included Stanford & Neighborhood Representatives: (George Fisher, Stefan Petry & Kevin Vincent‐Sheehan)
• 3 part study developed with Stanford, Neighborhood Representatives & Subcommittee
1. Vehicular Traffic Consistency (Released: March 7th, 2014)
• Does project fit in the SP box?
2. Traffic Operational Analysis (Released: May 6th, 2014)
• How does project traffic enter & exit the site?
3. Cut‐through Traffic Analysis (Released: Sept 25th, 2014)
• How does project traffic get to and from the site; circulation?)
4
Traffic Studies
CEQA: A CEQA document’s analysis of adverse
impacts must be based on substantial evidence to be
legally defensible.
The City, acting in its discretion as the CEQA lead
agency, has taken a conservative approach to the
analysis of the proposed project’s cut‐through traffic,
with a goal of describing worst‐case conditions if the
project is approved
5
Menlo Park Traffic Studies
• Conservative Worst Case Scenario
– 1% reduction for transit
– 1% internal trip capture reduction
– Conservative thresholds compared to other agencies
Street Street Daily Volume Daily Volume Type
Type (vehicles per day)
(vehicles per day)
Local
Collector
Significance Threshold
Significance Threshold
Menlo Park
Menlo Park
Palo Alto
Los Altos
<750 <5,000 25% increase 25% increase (1,250 trips)
(185 trips)
180‐210 1,100 trip increase
180‐210 1,100 trip increase
>5,000
750 to 1,350
‐ >9,000
12.5% increase 12.5% increase (1,125 trips)
(165 trips)
300‐400 2,100
trip increase
300‐400 2,100
trip increase
>1,350
>9,000
25 trip increase
50 trip increase
300‐400 2,100
trip increase
300‐400 2,100
trip increase
6
Project Trip Estimates
4,842
3,115
7
Vehicular Traffic Consistency (1 of 3) (Does project fit in the SP box?)
Vehicular Traffic Consistency (1 of 3) (Does project fit in the SP box?)
8
Vehicular Traffic Consistency (1 of 3) (Does project fit in the SP box?)
• Existing Traffic Counts
9
Vehicular Traffic Consistency (1 of 3) (Does project fit in the SP box?)
• Side‐by‐side comparison of 500 ECR to Specific Plan Conceptual Pg 2
Development 10
Vehicular Traffic Consistency (1 of 3) (Does project fit in the SP box?)
• Side‐by‐side Land Use Consistency
Pg 3
11
Vehicular Traffic Consistency (1 of 3) (Does project fit in the SP box?)
• Existing Use Trip Generation Summary
Pg 4
*ITE numbers were not used for existing building, actual counts were used due
to the unique nature of the Tesla site
12
Vehicular Traffic Consistency (1 of 3) (Does project fit in the SP box?)
• Proposed Project Trip Generation Summary
Pg 6
13
Vehicular Traffic Consistency (1 of 3) (Does project fit in the SP box?)
• Trip Generation Comparison
Pg 7
14
Vehicular Traffic Consistency (1 of 3) Pg 10
(Released: March 7th, 2014)
Trip Assignment Summary
*Based on 2004 Circulation System Assessment (CSA)
15
Vehicular Traffic Consistency (1 of 3) (Does project fit in the SP box?)
Traffic Operational Analysis (2 of 3) (How does project traffic enter & exit the site?)
16
Traffic Operational Analysis (2 of 3) (How does project traffic enter & exit the site?)
• Vehicle Access Alternatives
Pg 8
17
Traffic Operational Analysis (2 of 3) (How does project traffic enter & exit the site?)
Pg 9
18
Traffic Operational Analysis (2 of 3) (How does project traffic enter & exit the site?)
Pg 10
*The current proposed configuration is the most desirable
19
Vehicular Traffic Consistency (1 of 3) (Does project fit in the SP box?)
Cut‐through Traffic Analysis (3 of 3) (How does project traffic get to and from the site; circulation?)
20
Cut‐through Traffic Analysis (3 of 3) (How does project traffic get to and from the site; circulation?)
Pg 7
21
Menlo Park Traffic Studies
• Conservative Worst Case Scenario
– 1% reduction for transit
– 1% internal trip capture reduction
– Conservative thresholds compared to other agencies
Street Street Daily Volume Daily Volume Type
Type (vehicles per day)
(vehicles per day)
Local
Collector
Significance Threshold
Significance Threshold
Menlo Park
Menlo Park
Palo Alto
Los Altos
<750 <5,000 25% increase 25% increase (1,250 trips)
(185 trips)
180‐210 1,100 trip increase
180‐210 1,100 trip increase
>5,000
750 to 1,350
‐ >9,000
12.5% increase 12.5% increase (1,125 trips)
(165 trips)
300‐400 2,100
trip increase
300‐400 2,100
trip increase
>1,350
>9,000
25 trip increase
50 trip increase
300‐400 2,100
trip increase
300‐400 2,100
trip increase
22
Cut‐through Traffic Analysis (3 of 3) (How does project traffic get to and from the site; circulation?)
4.9%
8.5%
4.1%
27.7%
23
Cut‐through Traffic Analysis (3 of 3) (How does project traffic get to and from the site; circulation?)
Roadway
Ex Vol.
Inc. Vol.
% Inc.
Middle
10,717
528
4.9%
Cambridge
1,779
151
8.5%
University
2,428
100
4.1%
263
73
27.7%
Yale
Street Collector
Middle
Daily Significance Threshold
Volume (vehicles per day)
Menlo Palo Alto
Park
& Los Altos
>9,000
50 trip increase
2,100
trip increase
24
Options
Intersection
ECR & Ravenswood (south of intersection)
Middle & University (east of intersection)
Cambridge & University (east of intersection)
Middle & University (north of intersection)
Yale & Cambridge (east of intersection)
PM Peak Hour
AM Peak Hour
Future Future No No Direction Existing Project Project Direction Existing Project Project
NB
2,156
2,734
101
SB
1,861
2,332
109
WB
393
490
48
EB
524
649
45
WB
100
123
15
EB
69
85
17
NB
290
360
37
SB
248
307
37
WB
65
78
1
EB
53
66
16
25
Options
• Focused EIR ‐> mitigation or Statement of Overriding Considerations
• Project size revisions • Land Use Changes/Revisions
• Other options? 26
Questions?
27
28
29
30
500 El Camino Real ‐ Traffic Generation Scenarios Data ‐ with EIR Reductions
Office (General)
ksf
Land Use Description
General Office Building
Office (Medical)
ksf Medical‐Dental Office Building
Hotel
rooms Hotel
Retail
Retail
Retail
Retail
Retail
Retail
Retail
ksf
ksf
ksf
ksf
ksf
ksf
ksf
Discount Club
Sporting Goods Store
Home Improvement Store
Electronics Superstore
Office Supply Store
Bed and Linen Superstore
Apparel Store
Retail
Retail
Retail
ksf
ksf
ksf
Average of above rates
Average of above rates
Average of above rates
Residential
Residential
Residential
units
units
units
Residential
units
Single‐Family Detached Housing
Apartment
Residential Mid‐Rise Apartments
Residential Condominium/Townhouse
Residential
Residential
Residential
units
units
units
Average of above rates
Average of above rates
Average of above rates
Land Use Code
710
720
310
Retail
857
861
862
863
867
872
876
Ave Value:
Min Value:
Max Value:
820
Residential
210
220
223
230
Ave Value:
Min Value:
Max Value:
222
Weekday
11.03
Weekday –
peak hour – AM
1.56
Weekday –
peak hour – PM
1.49
11.17
1.61
1.48
36.13
8.92
2.39
0.67
3.57
0.70
7.71
0.56
0.59
41.80
‐
30.74
45.04
‐
‐
66.40
0.49
0.25
1.49
0.28
‐
‐
1.00
4.18
1.84
2.33
4.50
3.40
2.22
3.83
46.00
30.74
66.40
0.70
0.25
1.49
3.19
1.84
4.50
42.94
1
3.73
9.52
6.65
5.395
0.75
0.51
0.30
1.00
0.62
0.39
5.81
0.44
0.52
6.84
5.40
9.52
0.50
0.30
0.75
0.63
0.39
1.00
6.08
0.51
0.64
Note 1: Average of low‐rise and high‐rise daily rate. ITE does not have a mid‐rise value ‐> (6.59+4.20)/2=5.396
Note 2: Specific Plan Trip Generation Rates
*See Note 2
*See Note 2
*See Note 2
*See Note 1
*See Note 2
31
500 El Camino Real
7‐1‐2013
Weekday Trip Generation Scenarios with EIR & Multimodal Reductions
18,000
16,458
16,000
14,000
12,409
Residential Only
(market‐rate)
Residential Only
(AHO max)
Specific Plan
Medical Office &
Retail (Mixed Use)
C‐4 (ECR)
Tweaked Apr‐13
Mixed‐Use (no
medical)
Specific Plan
Apr‐13 Mixed Use
6,258
5,835
5,618
5,188
6,280
5,737
5,624
5,406
3,986
3,046
Retail Only
3,401
10,049
0
3,284
7,619
3,260
2,896
2,570
2,830
2,034
1,807
1,604
4,000
4,534
6,000
2,000
8,284
8,000
9,695
10,643
10,000
11,401
Daily Trips
12,000
Jan‐13 Mixed
Use*
Applicant Proposals
Min Rates
1,604
2,570
7,619
8,284
3,046
5,406
5,188
Specific Plan Rates
1,807
2,896
10,643
9,695
3,284
5,624
5,835
Average Rates
2,034
3,260
11,401
10,049
3,401
5,737
5,618
Max Rates
2,830
4,534
16,458
12,409
3,986
6,280
6,258
32
500 El Camino Real
7‐1‐2013
AM Trip Generation Scenarios with EIR & Multimodal Reductions
1,200
1,000
AM Trips
800
532
495
483
468
504
473
463
433
403
359
174
62
0
Residential Only
(market‐rate)
372
325
394
428
342
248
238
143
149
152
89
223
200
243
357
369
400
485
600
Residential Only
(AHO max)
Retail Only
Specific Plan
Medical Office &
Retail (Mixed Use)
C‐4 (ECR)
Tweaked Apr‐13
Mixed‐Use (no
medical)
Specific Plan
Apr‐13 Mixed Use
Jan‐13 Mixed
Use*
Applicant Proposals
Min Rates
89
143
62
342
325
433
468
Specific Plan Rates
152
243
248
428
372
473
483
Average Rates
149
238
174
394
359
463
495
Max Rates
223
357
369
485
403
504
532
33
500 El Camino Real
7‐1‐2013
PM Trip Generation Scenarios with EIR & Multimodal Reductions
1,115
1,200
609
550
533
502
657
601
455
388
393
340
186
188
116
190
200
301
297
305
400
456
476
552
600
596
680
PM Trips
790
800
836
899
925
988
1,000
0
Residential Only
(market‐rate)
Residential Only
(AHO max)
Retail Only
Specific Plan
Medical Office &
Retail (Mixed Use)
C‐4 (ECR)
Tweaked Apr‐13
Mixed‐Use (no
medical)
Specific Plan
Apr‐13 Mixed Use
Jan‐13 Mixed
Use*
Applicant Proposals
Min Rates
116
186
456
680
340
552
502
Specific Plan Rates
190
305
925
899
393
601
533
Average Rates
188
301
790
836
388
596
550
Max Rates
297
476
1,115
988
455
657
609
34
Cut‐through Traffic Analysis (3 of 3) (How does project traffic get to and from the site; circulation?)
Roadway
Ex Vol.
Inc. Vol.
% Inc.
Min
/Car
Middle
10,717
528
4.9%
2.7
Cambridge
1,779
151
8.5%
9.5
University
2,428
100
4.1%
14.4
263
73
27.7%
19.7
Yale
Inc. Vol = 24hr period in both directions
24hr = 1,440 mins
For Example: Yale
73 cars in 24 hrs = 1,440 mins per 73 cars
-> 1,440/73 = 19.7 min per car
So…… ever 19.7 mins a car may pass in
one of two directions on Yale
Currently: 5.5 min/per on Yale
35
Cut‐through Traffic Analysis (3 of 3) (How does project traffic get to and from the site; circulation?)
AM Peak – 7am – 9am
PM Peak – 4pm – 6pm
Peak Hour Traffic is within the 2 hr AM or PM
Peak.
For Example: Yale AM Peak Hour (southbound)
16 cars in 1 hr = 60 mins / 16 cars
-> 60/16 = 3.75 mins per car
So…… ever 3.75 mins a car may pass by on
Yale heading to the 500 ECR site
Currently: 0.98 min/per car on Yale
Existing: 59 AM Peak Hour (southbound)
36