HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017-06-28 Planning & transportation commission Summary Minutes1
Planning & Transportation Commission 1
Action Agenda: June 28, 2017 2
City Council Chambers 3
250 Hamilton Avenue 4
6:00 PM 5
6
Call to Order / Roll Call 7
8
6:02pm 9
Chair Alcheck Absent 10
11
Acting Chair Waldfogel: [Starts in progress] June 28th meeting of the Planning and 12
Transportation Commission (PTC). Start with roll call. 13
14
Yolanda Cervantes, Administrative Assistant: Chair Alcheck, Commissioner Gardias, 15
Commissioner Lauing, Commissioner Monk, Commissioner Rosenblum, Commissioner Summa, 16
and Vice-Chair Waldfogel. Six present, one absence. 17
18
Acting Chair Waldfogel: Great, we have a quorum tonight. 19
20
Oral Communications 21
The public may speak to any item not on the agenda. Three (3) minutes per speaker.1,2 22
23
Acting Chair Waldfogel: Let’s see, we have two Oral Communications cards. So three minutes 24
for each of these. Let's take Winter Dellenbach followed by Scott Sagan. 25
26
2
Winter Dellenbach: Hi, I’m Winter Dellenbach. I live in Barron Park. I wanted to talk to you 1
about something; I have a suggestion for you all. Not all of you were here. I watched from 2
home the night that you all considered 260 California Avenue and I don't want to talk about the 3
merits of 260 California Avenue or the issues. I want to talk about what I saw that night. I was 4
both disappointed and disturbed by what I saw come down in the chambers that night not and 5
it was the conduct that I saw come down and the lack of response on any of your parts with the 6
exception of Commissioner Summa and that's what I wanted to talk to you about. 7
8
I have been to innumerable City Council meetings, Commission meetings, all sorts of 9
commission meetings including the Planning Commission meeting in the past in my 50 years 10
here in Palo Alto in which I have been an activist. I don't care what the issues are. I don't care 11
what side of the issues people are speaking to or defending. I could not care less. This 12
chamber to my mind is the closest thing we have to a sacred space in Palo Alto because this is 13
where free speech happens. First Amendment rights are the things that I cherish most in this 14
City and in this Country. And everybody that speaks at this podium I think deserves great 15
fairness and respect and I feel that this Commission or the City Council or whatever commission 16
it is has the gravest and the most serious duty to make sure that fairness and respect is given 17
each and every person that speaks here I don't care what any side of the issue or who they are 18
speaks here. 19
20
And what I saw that night when I was watching at home was I saw the issue instead of speak, 21
people speaking to the issue it was people on one side of the issue that night they personalized 22
3
it. And it was speaker after speaker after speaker of people, residents of Palo Alto, that came 1
up that were civil and reasonable spoke with reservations that they had about 260 California, 2
neighborhood activists, activists in town came up reasonably and civilly spoke to the 3
reservations they had. And then other people came up and personalized it, by… called out 4
people by name, called them all you want to do is say no to obstruct you never say yes to 5
anything. Instead of speaking to the issues they personalized it over and over and here's what 6
upset me is none of you spoke out and interrupted that behavior in this space where free 7
speech happens only if people feel safe to speak their opinions. 8
9
And people when they see that people can be put down by people who disagree with them are 10
reluctant to get up here and speak to you folks. Any of you can speak out. You do… I'm taking a 11
couple… I'm taking another minute. Any of you can speak out and very politely say please just 12
speak to the issues do not personalize, do not personalize this matter. That's what we do in 13
Palo Alto. That's our rules of civility. We don't clap after speakers, we don't boo after speakers, 14
and we speak to the issues we don't personalize the issues. You don't have to have the Chair 15
do this, you don't have to have the Vice-Chair, any of you are empowered to do that. Staff can't 16
do that. Public can't do that unless we happen to be standing at the podium at the time. I 17
would really ask you from now on when you see personalization happening and personal 18
denigration happening to speak out. Make this place safe for everybody to speak freely and not 19
feel like they might be put down or called out. That's what I wanted to say to you tonight and 20
thank you for serving on this Commission and taking your time because you didn't have to do 21
this with your time. So thank you very much. 22
4
1
Acting Chair Waldfogel: Thank you very much for the comment. It's a good point. Let's see and 2
then we have Scott Sagan and are you speaking generally or are you speaking on the agenda 3
item? So do you want me to move this forward into the comments from the agenda item? Ok, 4
well I’ll do that. 5
6
Agenda Changes, Additions, and Deletions 7
The Chair or Commission majority may modify the agenda order to improve meeting management. 8
9
Acting Chair Waldfogel: Great so we're finished with Oral Communication and moving on to any 10
agenda changes, additions, if we delete we will have a very short meeting. Ok, no deletions. 11
12
City Official Reports 13
1. Assistant Directors Report, Meeting Schedule and Assignments 14
15
Acting Chair Waldfogel: Ok, City Official Reports. 16
17
Jonathan Lait, Assistant Director: Nothing to report. 18
19
Acting Chair Waldfogel: Wow. We're on track for a record here. Ok, thank you. 20
21
Study Session 22
Public Comment is Permitted. Five (5) minutes per speaker.1,3 23
5
Action Items 1
Public Comment is Permitted. Applicants/Appellant Teams: Fifteen (15) minutes, plus three (3) minutes rebuttal. 2
All others: Five (5) minutes per speaker.1,3 3
2. Review and Comment on the Survey Results for the Cowper Street/Coleridge 4
Avenue Traffic Safety Pilot Project and Related Traffic Safety Improvements 5
6
Acting Chair Waldfogel: Let's see, so our next item action item is Agenda Item 2 review and 7
comment on the survey results for Cowper/Coleridge Avenue Traffic Safety Pilot Project. And I 8
believe we have staff presentation. 9
10
Joshuah Mello, Chief Transportation Official: Yes, thank you Chair [Note-Acting Chair], Members 11
of the Commission; I'm Joshuah Mello the Chief Transportation Official for the city of Palo Alto 12
and to my right is Ruchika Aggarwal who is one of our two person traffic safety and traffic 13
engineering team and she was the lead on this particular traffic safety project. This evening I 14
am presenting some information on that Cowper Street/Coleridge Avenue Traffic Safety Pilot 15
Project and we are hoping that you can help us make a decision as to where to move at the 16
conclusion of this pilot project. 17
18
This project originated back in 2015 primarily from emails and phone calls from constituents 19
voicing concerns about crossing Cowper Street on a bicycle or on foot when traveling along 20
Coleridge Avenue. We received I believe four 311 requests, discreet 311 requests through our 21
Palo Alto 311 system which is how we receive service requests in the Transportation Division. 22
We also received five separate emails on the topic and we have a Safe Routes to School team 23
that regularly coordinates with Parent Teacher Association (PTA) presidents and as well as Safe 24
6
Routes to School coordinators at each of the individual elementary and middle schools. In this 1
particular case the PTA representatives from Hays Elementary School voiced their concern 2
about the perception of safety at this particular intersection to you our Safe Routes to School 3
team. 4
5
As is typically the case the first request from folks was to just add an all-way stop sign. 6
Generally the public either requests and all-way stop or a traffic signal typically to address 7
traffic safety concerns. Those are not always the best treatment for a lot of conditions that we 8
observe particularly at intersections. So we did in fact conduct a stop sign warrant analysis at 9
Cowper and Coleridge back in February of 2015 and this would be the first step in adding an all-10
way stop sign at an intersection and the intersection did not meet the warrant at that time for 11
an all-way stop control. 12
13
In January of 2016 we changed our thinking a little bit and said well what if we were to play 14
around with the stop signs at Churchill and Cowper and maybe flip the stop signs there and 15
then that would enable us to maybe look at a two way stop control at Coleridge and Cowper. 16
So we conducted a stop sign warrant analysis at the Cowper and Churchill intersection and that 17
intersection did not warrant an all-way stop sign nor did it warrant flipping the stop signs to 18
Cowper, sorry, to Churchill and removing the stop signs on Cowper. So that left us with a 19
decision in on how to proceed and a lot of cities recently have been using pilot projects to 20
garner public input on specific transportation improvements. 21
22
7
Historically city officials would go in and make changes and then be reactive and remove or 1
modify or and oftentimes those changes were expensive. They were done with civil work and 2
concrete and other expensive materials. So we elected in this case to conduct a pilot traffic 3
safety project using in-house materials primarily and then our on call contractors and City 4
Public Works crews to do some of the installation. We created a new pilot traffic safety pilot 5
project sign which includes a phone number for our division as well as an email address and 6
now there are two of those placed at the site. The intent of this project was to put something 7
out there that addressed some of the concerns, but at the same time used temporary materials 8
so that we could make adjustments and react to public comments and perceptions as we move 9
forward. 10
11
We initially intended it to be a six month pilot project. We ended up extending it into a second 12
phase after we conducted our first survey and I'll talk in more detail about the survey 13
responses. And we are currently at the conclusion of the second phase and it's been a little 14
over a year since the initial installation of the first phase of the pilot. 15
16
So to give you a little bit of insight as to the complexities of this particular intersection and this 17
project I did mention that the first request was to just install an all-way stop control at the 18
intersection. Cowper Street currently has a stop sign at Churchill and the street directly south 19
of Coleridge which is Lincoln. So an installation of a four-way stop control at Coleridge and 20
Cowper would result in three consecutive stop signs along Cowper Street. And Cowper Street 21
south of Coleridge is a bicycle route so we would have two continuous stops along a bicycle 22
8
route and we’re trying to move in the direction of reducing the number of stop signs along 1
bicycle designated bicycle routes. And the Comprehensive Plan actually has what's called the 2
Guard and Go Policy and that specifically recommends that stop signs in residential 3
neighborhoods be located at every other intersection so this would be in conflict with the 4
Guard and Go Policy if we were to install the all-way stop. 5
6
One of the other concepts that we considered was reversing the stop signs at Churchill and 7
Cowper so the stop control would be on Churchill. Cowper would no longer have a stop control 8
and then we could do an all-way stop at Coleridge and Cowper and Cowper would not have 9
three consecutive stop signs in a row. In order to do that we would need to divert some of the 10
through traffic off of Churchill and reduce the volume so that Churchill was not the no longer 11
the main street at the Cowper and Churchill intersection. And we do have a policy around 12
keeping streets open except for bicycle boulevard projects and some other isolated instances. 13
So putting in some type of closure or diverter for Churchill Avenue could potentially be in 14
conflict with Comp Plan Policy T33. Policy T34 supports traffic calming measures on local 15
streets and the traffic safety pilot is actually intended to be a traffic calming device. 16
17
I mentioned under the Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan that Cowper Street is a Class 18
3 Bicycle Route south of Coleridge. Coleridge Avenue is actually a very important bicycle route. 19
It is part of a Churchill/Bryant/Coleridge/Park Connection that runs east/west and we are 20
improving… we are constructing significant improvements to the 21
Middlefield/Embarcadero/Coleridge intersection this summer which will help facilitate that 22
9
east/west bicycle movement. Coleridge and Churchill and Bryant are actually on the Walk And 1
Roll Route for three schools: Hays, Jordan, and Palo Alto High School (Paly) so Coleridge is a 2
very important bicycle commute route for cyclists and pedestrians so that was something that 3
we need to consider when we looked at what the alternatives were for this intersection. This is 4
the Walk And Roll Map for Walter Hays and by far Coleridge serves the most Hays students out 5
of the three schools for which it serves as a Walk and Roll Route. 6
7
So the project elements that we implemented as part of the Phase 1 Traffic Safety Pilot Project 8
included a small traffic circle constructed of rubber median that we had down in the basement 9
at City Hall. We also used A-frame barricades which Public Works Department has on hand and 10
they fabricated some roundabout signage for us. We had our on call sign and striping 11
contractor install high visibility crosswalks on the nonstop controlled approaches along Cowper 12
and then standard crosswalks on the stop controlled legs of Coleridge. We also added yield to 13
pedestrians signage on Cowper and some advanced pedestrian warning signage which is 14
standard practice under traffic engineering manuals. 15
16
Some of the things we couldn't do which we would have liked to do was push the crosswalks a 17
little further back from the intersection which would have enabled us to make the island bigger. 18
We couldn't do that because the wheelchair ramps are fixed in their location by some storm 19
drains along Cowper so in order to move the crosswalks back and enlarge the circle in the 20
center of the intersection we would have had to undertake a very expensive civil project to 21
relocate storm drains, rebuild the wheelchair ramps, and move the crosswalks further. So the 22
10
size of the island that we were able to put in was not ideal. It was the maximum size we could 1
install without having vehicles encroach into the crosswalks as they circled the roundabout. 2
3
We went out during the Phase 1 Pilot our Safe Routes to School team went out and did 4
observations throughout the pilot and then in October of 2016 we distributed surveys to all of 5
the neighbors on the blocks immediately adjacent to the intersection through the mail. We 6
also use the PTA at Walter Hays to collect surveys from parents and we stationed staff for two 7
days at the intersection and we handed personally handed out surveys to people in vehicles, on 8
bicycles, and walking through the intersection and received 140 responses to the first survey. 9
And we fully expected that there would be a very decisive opinion in the community when we 10
did this survey after the pilot was complete. Unfortunately they were split almost evenly 68 to 11
69 in favor of removing it or in favor of retaining the traffic circle. 12
13
Nearby residents skewed heavily towards opposition of the traffic circle while parents and 14
other folks who traveled through the intersection, but didn’t live immediately adjacent to it 15
tended to skew toward support of the traffic circle pilot. Our biggest takeaway though from 16
the Phase 1 survey was that the two-way stop control that we left in place was very confusing 17
to people. People who have experience using traffic circles and roundabouts do not expect 18
only two legs to be controlled by a stop sign and when we did the initial pilot we left in place 19
the existing two-way stop control on Coleridge Avenue. 20
21
11
So because of the mixed results of the survey and the big take away that the two-way stop 1
control seemed to be generating the bulk of the opposition to the circle itself we elected to 2
convert the intersection to an all yield controlled intersection which is more typical of a traffic 3
circle or roundabout and we also added some rubberized median one of the things we 4
discovered during the observations was people were bypassing the circle by driving in the 5
opposite direction that they were required to in order to make a right turn. So that median 6
restricts people from being able to do that, excuse me, in order to make a left turn. So that 7
goes back 50 feet from the intersection. 8
9
We let Phase 2 remain in place for another six months and we did continued observations and 10
we went to the City/School Traffic Safety Committee twice to discuss the project with the PTA 11
and the representatives from Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD) and some of the other 12
partners at the Safe Routes To School Partnership throughout the entire throughout the whole 13
pilot phase. For Phase 2 we received 160 responses so 20 more than we did for the first round 14
of the survey. And again the opinions remain divided about the traffic circle. Our biggest 15
takeaway at this time is that there's an issue with establishing right of way in the traffic circle. 16
The island as I mentioned is not big enough to provide the proper deflection for vehicles 17
entering the circle. Ideally in a traffic circle a roundabout vehicles entering would have to move 18
very slowly and they would be kind of encouraged to yield because they would be entering at 19
an angle that would require them to turn their wheel and enter the circle at a very slow speed. 20
That's not happening out there. What's happening is there are there's not a lot of on street 21
parking occurring along Cowper so vehicles traveling on Cowper are able to drift over to the 22
12
curb in advance of the circle and travel around the island at a relatively high speed for the 1
circle. And it's not providing the kind of traffic calming effect that we would like for vehicles 2
traveling along Cowper. And because of the speeds of those vehicles approaching the circle it's 3
hard to establish right away if you're coming out of Coleridge because you're not getting that 4
forced deflection and the circulatory travel pattern that's ideal in a traffic circle. 5
6
So the results were mixed again. We had 84 folks who wanted to retain the traffic circle and 75 7
who wanted to remove it. Again it seemed to be skewed toward removal in the surveys from 8
folks immediately abutting the circle. And I think in speaking with a lot of the residents when I 9
went out to help administer the survey a lot of the residents came out to talk to us and one of 10
their biggest issues with it is the materials that were used and the yellow markings and the 11
temporary rubber curving and the A-frames that we used. And it's it was always intended to be 12
a pilot and if we were to move forward with something more permanent of course we'd consult 13
and use something more aesthetically pleasing, but I think a lot of the negative opinions stem 14
from the appearance of the current pilot. 15
16
This image illustrates the deflection issue that I was referring to so the red line represents 17
somebody who is drifting over to the curb in advance of the intersection aligning themselves 18
with the path around the circle and then they drift back over slowly after the circle so there's 19
not a lot of speed reduction occurring. The yellow line represents what should occur at a traffic 20
circle. Somebody should be deflected pretty abruptly as they enter the circle which would 21
reduce their speed as they travel around it. And ideally bicyclists and motor vehicles would be 22
13
traveling at the same speed around the circle. So some of the ways that we could address this 1
if we elected to move forward with a permanent installation is to build what are called curb 2
extensions that would come out into the parking lane and preclude people from using the 3
parking lane as a travel lane to approach the circle. We could also add triangular landscape 4
deflection islands approaching the circle and that's what we're primarily going to use in the 11 5
traffic circles that we're going to construct with our Neighborhood Traffic Safety and Bicycle 6
Boulevard Project over the next year. Either of those would provide the kind of deflection that 7
we need to reduce speeds along Cowper and it would also better establish the right of way 8
because it would be clear who is already in the circle versus who is entering the circle. And 9
that's one of the issues right now is if two people approach at the same time it's not quite clear 10
who's within the circle and who's entering it. 11
12
We did take a look at the collision history of the intersection as part of this project. As would 13
be expected at a local street to local street intersection there are not a lot of collisions 14
thankfully. There were two collisions in the five year period. And typically when we look at a 15
collision history we look at the last five complete years of data and we did that for this 16
intersection and identified two discrete collisions that occurred, one in May of 2013 and one in 17
May of 2017. May of 2013 was before the pilot, long before the pilot was implemented. It 18
resulted in minor injury. The intersection was under a two-way stop control with stop on stop 19
control on Coleridge and no stop control on Cowper. It involved a vehicle I believe it was a 20
pickup truck and two bicyclists. The pickup truck was traveling north on Cowper Street and the 21
cyclists were traveling west on Coleridge and the cyclists admitted that they did not stop at the 22
14
stop sign. They proceed through the stop sign and were struck by the truck which was 1
travelling North on Cowper. This is called the broadside collision and these type of collisions 2
are typically mitigated by traffic circles. Traffic circles everyone is moving in the same direction 3
so you typically only have sideswiped collisions in traffic circles or roundabouts. Broadside 4
collisions would be more unusual. So there's no definitive evidence that a traffic circle would 5
have mitigated this collision, but there's a pretty good chance that it would have resulted in a 6
less severe collision if the circle was in place. 7
8
May 2017 during the pilot there was a collision also between a motor vehicle and a bicyclist. 9
This again was a minor injury collision. It was during the all yield traffic circle, so Phase 2 of the 10
pilot. And this was a female cyclist travelling North on Cowper and a motor vehicle traveling 11
West on Coleridge and it was a sideswipe collision. She ran into the I believe the driver's side 12
mirror of the motor vehicle and she was knocked off her bicycle, but again if the traffic circle 13
wasn't there we don't know how that if that collision would have occurred and we also don't 14
know if the circle in fact helped mitigate some of the circumstances of the collision by creating 15
the sideswipe condition instead of the broadside condition that was in the earlier collision. 16
17
This is an illustration of the safety benefits of traffic circles and roundabouts. So on the right is 18
a traditional intersection which has 32 potential motor vehicle conflicts and 24 pedestrian 19
conflicts. So each one of those represents a point where two vehicles or a pedestrian and a 20
vehicle could collide based on people turning left and right and proceeding straight. 21
Roundabouts have eight potential vehicle conflicts and eight potential pedestrian conflicts. And 22
15
it's important to note that in the roundabout the all of the potential conflict points are 1
sideswiped potential sideswipe collisions which I did mention are typically result in much fewer 2
injuries and are typically less severe. 3
4
So the proposal before you tonight and again we're hoping you can help us make the decision 5
on this; we're recommending this based on the fact that we think we can address the bulk of 6
the concerns that were voiced in the negative survey results. The two concerns being the 7
aesthetics of the circle with a permanent solution we would include landscaping and civil 8
improvements and it would look very similar to other circles that we have in Professorville as 9
well as Downtown North. That's the first issue that kind of rose to the top in the negative 10
survey results. The second is the difficulty establishing right of way and the travel speeds of 11
vehicles along Cowper and we think we can address that with the triangular diverter Islands or 12
the curb extensions. Both of those would require some civil work to move some of the 13
drainage structures in order to pull the crosswalks back from the intersection and create more 14
of a traditional roundabout type intersection with a much larger island. 15
16
This is an image of an existing traffic circle we have at Everett and Webster. We would emulate 17
this design with a few modifications that we've made as we've moved through the design of the 18
11 roundabouts that we're planning to build over the next year for the bike boulevard projects. 19
If we do elect to move forward with the making the traffic circle permanent after this meeting 20
we would move into designing the permanent roundabout, we would of course hold a public 21
meeting and solicit public input on some of the design elements of that, and then we would 22
16
generate cost estimates and identify funding within existing Capital Improvement Projects (CIP). 1
We do have some ongoing CIP in the Transportation Division that are intended to make these 2
kind of Safe Routes School and traffic safety improvements. Depending on the ultimate cost we 3
may be able to fund this improvement out of an existing CIP. There is a wealth of information 4
on this project on our website if you go to Planning and Committee Environment 5
Transportation Projects there’s a Coleridge and Cowper page that has a lot of the data and the 6
information that I presented this evening. And with that that concludes my presentation. 7
8
Acting Chair Waldfogel: Great, thank you. Before we proceed to Commissioner comments and 9
discussion we have one public comment from Scott Sagan. And five minutes I believe… yes, five 10
minutes. 11
12
Scott Sagan: I don't think I'll need five minutes. I'm Scott Sagan. I live at 470 Coleridge Avenue 13
right on the corner of this intersection. I'm a professor of political science at Stanford 14
University and I mention that for two reasons: one is to note that in general I like traffic circles. 15
I've seen the great benefit that they have given to the Stanford campus when you have traffic 16
circles that are large and you have lots of space and people who have learned over the past 17
year or two how to navigate them well. Second, I mentioned my profession because I've 18
written a book called The Limits of Safety that shows that very often well-meaning people put 19
into place safety measures that backfire because safety measures that can help in general 20
sometimes backfire when the specifics of a region or an area or a power plant are not well 21
adapted to the general conditions that produce the general trends. And I think that this is a 22
17
classic example of that particular phenomenon. This is a narrow area where it's very small and 1
the people who go through it are partly going fast on Cowper, but they're also bicyclists some 2
of whom are well trained, some of whom are young children trying to figure out how to 3
navigate going through bicycle lanes that are very confusing at that particular area. And I've 4
seen numerous examples of bicycles zooming through, bicycles cutting the opposite way that 5
they're supposed to, and my sense and this is where I do disagree with two points of the data 6
that were presented to you. 7
8
One, I believe that from the evidence that I've seen that people who live in the area have a 9
different sense of data. It's not just how many collisions there are, it's how many close calls 10
we've seen. And I myself have witnessed many close calls, accidents waiting to happen that 11
this data may not… the data that was presented to you may not reveal. Second, the data itself I 12
would challenge. I don't know when the May collision that you say was reported during the 13
pilot occurred, but there was another one on March 15th that I believe I just sent you a second 14
copy of the data from March 15th. Now maybe you just had the wrong date here or maybe 15
there are two, but in both cases at least in this case that my wife witnessed and sent into the 16
Commission on the 15th of March and the one that I repeated yesterday, sent to you again, was 17
a collision. So there's at least some data that there have been two accidents if your data on 18
May is accurate and there's data that has not been collected, but that anecdotally the 19
individuals in the neighborhood are very aware of of the number of close calls of poor traffic 20
safety that we've witnessed. 21
22
18
So again, I like traffic circles in general. I think the data shows and your very nice graph shows 1
that there are fewer places for people who [haven't] accidents. If you do it in the wrong 2
location in a narrow area where kids are going through quite often and where people are going 3
very fast along Cowper it can be a potential disaster. This is an accident waiting to happen. I 4
speak only for myself, but I do note that all eight of the neighbors that were on the email 5
collective over the last few days’ submitted recommendations not to have a permanent traffic 6
circle here. Thank you. 7
8
Mr. Mello: Chair, if I could just make one correction to the presentation? The second collision 9
did in fact occur in March of 2017. That was a copying error when we were preparing a 10
presentation, but the information in the staff report is correct. It was March 2017. 11
12
Acting Chair Waldfogel: So I'm sorry for clarification it was two incidents or one incident? 13
14
Mr. Mello: There was an incident in May of 2013 and March of 2017. 15
16
Acting Chair Waldfogel: Ok, so it's still two incidents total? 17
18
Mr. Mello: Yes. 19
20
19
Acting Chair Waldfogel: Ok, thank you. Great, any other public speakers? We’ll move on to 1
Commissioner discussion. Our objective is to make a recommendation. This is an action item. 2
Why don’t we start with Commissioner Rosenblum? 3
4
Commissioner Lauing: Are we going to do comments as well as questions or are we going to do 5
two rounds? 6
7
Acting Chair Waldfogel: Why don’t we start with a round of comments? 8
9
Commissioner Rosenblum: Ok. [Unintelligible – several Commissioners start sentences at the 10
same time then stop]. Yeah, I have I'm happy to both personally. I don't know if we need two 11
rounds, but (interrupted) 12
13
Acting Chair Waldfogel: Ok, go ahead. 14
15
Commissioner Rosenblum: I’m happy to start with some questions, but first I wanted to say it's 16
for a traffic study it is an extraordinarily detailed process that you went through around this 17
particular site. So first kudos, I mean this is I doubt many cities get to do this for kind of a 18
residential traffic conflict area. 19
20
So I wanted to address something that was partially brought up by the last speaker and it's the 21
unintended consequences of safety measures. And you refer to this in your report as well 22
20
which is as you start to stack more and more stop signs then they become ignored by everyone, 1
but especially cyclists. And so the desire to have stop signs also staggered I understand is part 2
of the rationale for this that you have a measure that will be will allow cyclists to go through 3
without a direct sideswipe conflict. What have you seen so in Palo Alto in general our Comp 4
Plan avoids having to stop signs in general at consecutive intersections. Has there been a 5
correlation though? There are some of those that happen. Is there a correlation or observation 6
that where we put two stop signs in a row that you have a greater percentage of bikes that are 7
doing whatever it’s called, the [Idaho] stop or not stopping at all just zooming through and is 8
there a increase in traffic accidents as a result? Have you had a study about that? 9
10
Mr. Mello: We don't have a study that's particular to cyclists in Palo Alto. There are lots of 11
studies that show that unwarranted stop signs where people don't encounter another vehicle 12
when they reach the stop sign can lead to slippage in adherence to the stop control so people 13
eventually start to ignore if 9 times out of 10 they get to the intersection there's not a vehicle 14
on the opposing approach and that 10th time there is you can often see collisions because that 15
person is so used to not encountering. And that's why the warrant analyses were developed. 16
There's a warranted all-way stop generally has even volumes on all the approaches so that 17
somebody can generally expect there to be another vehicle at one of the legs when they reach 18
that intersection. If in the case of Cowper and Churchill if we were to flip those stop signs 19
eventually the Churchill motorists would just start to ignore that stop sign because their 20
chances of encountering somebody on Cowper would be much lower. 21
22
21
Commissioner Rosenblum: Yeah. 1
2
Mr. Mello: Than the current configuration. So I would imagine the same psychological traits 3
would occur in cyclists as well as motorists. 4
5
Commissioner Rosenblum: Great and then I have a comment and then a question. So I used to 6
bike my daughter to school every day at Addison and so I'm pretty familiar with the Addison 7
traffic circle so Bryant and Addison is one that all school kids encounter and it is the safest 8
intersection. So the only parts that of the ride that concerned me when she started biking on 9
her own were actually the stop signs at Channing and others because then as a child that is a 10
place you absolutely have to stop and you have to get back on. They’re wobbly, cars are 11
coming at faster rates even though there's a stop sign for cars they often pull to kind of almost 12
a stop and then they come forward. And the only place that I would completely sleep well 13
about her going was the Addison traffic circle and it was a blessing and that was something I 14
never had a concern about. And so a comment was also made by the speaker this is a narrow 15
street and the fact that it's narrow makes it so the dynamic is different. So somehow this 16
would be different from the Addison circle that I've experienced. So I'm quite, I'm curious 17
about the width of these streets. Is there something that’s particularly narrow about the 18
streets that is different from say Addison and Bryant? 19
20
22
Mr. Mello: We can check on that and see if we have that information with us. I don't know that 1
off the top of my head. I would imagine if they're not identically the same width they’re 2
probably very similar. 3
4
Commissioner Rosenblum: Yeah, I just looked on Google Street View and again it's not a it’s not 5
exact. We’re trying to like figure out if I could if I could assess. They look the same and I think 6
that what's difference then dimension is that clearly you have this temporary circle there which 7
kind of throws off my sense of scale and that once a permanent circle is there I think that they 8
would look about the same, but I would love if the City could say if these are the same size 9
streets or not because to me then it's a quite a simple matter. I think any cyclist that deals with 10
traffic circles on a day to day basis even with very small children it allows you to continue with 11
the flow. It's much less scary. The kinds of accidents you get in are much less severe. To me 12
it's a fairly clear cut decision and especially given the responses from those that are actually 13
biking as you said you had outreached to Walter Hayes and to me that's very important. Yeah, 14
especially in elementary school a lot of parents are accompanying their kids and we get a 15
feeling for the safety. So to me if the street situation is similar to Bryant and Addison so i.e. two 16
fairly trafficked streets near an elementary school with frequent bike and car traffic to me this 17
is a fairly simple matter there's a lot of research on the safety effects of a traffic circle for bike 18
versus car interactions, but if the streets are somehow very different then that’s something I 19
would just like to understand how traffic circles effect narrower streets. 20
21
23
Mr. Mello: So we were able to find some of that information. The pavement width so this is 1
curb face to curb face of Cowper and Coleridge is somewhere around 36 feet and Bryant Street 2
at Kingsley Avenue is also 36 feet. 3
4
Commissioner Rosenblum: So it is identical? 5
6
Mr. Mello: It's very, very close. 7
8
Commissioner Rosenblum: Ok. Ok, so to me honestly it's fairly simple, but I’ll wait to hear 9
questions and comments from the other Commissioners. 10
11
Commissioner Summa: So I have a number of questions and a lot of comments. I happen to 12
live… I have to back out of my driveway onto Yale Street at the Yale and Cambridge circle so I 13
have had years of experience with circles. And I can honestly say that I agree with the speaker, 14
there are near misses every single day. And I have never once seen a child go around the circle 15
on a bike the correct way, go around the circle on a bike the correct way and it's also a Safe 16
Routes to School route. So while it had… and our circles were part of a larger traffic calming 17
project that was coordinated in the neighborhood and this one just seems like a one off kind of 18
random thing. So also there were so many accidents on my circle; that seems to have stopped 19
actually since it was landscaped. There hasn't been one since it was landscaped. It was un-20
landscaped for seven years and quite an eyesore I felt. 21
22
24
And it was a constant sore in the source of needing to be repaired. And I went out once and I 1
said to the guy who was fixing it, is this like the 12th accident? And he said no, it's more like 20. 2
I could never get that information from the City, but it was a constant problem. That being said 3
it really did work to slow traffic and to [unintelligible] certain extent because motorists I think 4
are really annoyed by them to deflect traffic through a different route. So I am very 5
sympathetic to the problem that the neighbors think they're going to have, but I have a bunch 6
of questions and one is about Slide 13. The shapes of the corners of the lots and the width of 7
this street and this slide is just drawn very differently and I'm wondering if they were drawn the 8
same way and the streets were the same width if they would have if it would change your 9
deflect, your… the diagram of the hit, where you could be hit. It's probably just a drawing thing 10
I guess, but… 11
12
Mr. Mello: So what's shown on the left is the perfect ideal design for a roundabout if you were 13
building from scratch and you had all the room in the world. The right is a typical four-way stop 14
intersection. Retrofitting an existing intersection we're not going to be able to get to 100 15
percent modern roundabout design standards so we would aim to get as most deflection as 16
possible for somebody entering so that they are not so the potential for a broadside collision is 17
reduced as much as possible, but you're you are correct in the fact that we probably couldn't 18
get to 100 percent of what's shown on the left. It would be a little bit of a hybrid, but we are 19
moving forward with construction of 11 traffic circles this coming year along the seven miles of 20
bike boulevards that were approved last night by Council and we have learned a lot over the 21
last three years in how to retrofit an intersection. I think your circles were constructed all 22
25
before we learned a lot of these lessons about truck aprons and you actually want to have 1
landscaping that's high enough so that motorists can't see opposing traffic so that they're 2
further encouraged to reduce their speeds. And we've also learned a lot about roundabout 3
design through this project; learning people's opinions on how they operate. If nothing comes 4
from this I think we can say we did learn, get a lot of useful insights about how people think 5
about traffic circles and how they behave. And we can take that and use that on additional 6
projects. 7
8
Commissioner Summa: Yeah, I appreciate that. I think mine is actually very poorly designed, 9
but regardless of that I had more questions and that is did the survey go out to, were the Hays 10
people/high school people part of the survey or were they met with in a different way? Are 11
they represented in the numbers that answered the survey? 12
13
Mr. Mello: The survey was distributed through the PTA at Hays. 14
15
Commissioner Summa: Ok. 16
17
Mr. Mello: We also administered it in person to people traveling by all modes of transportation 18
through the intersection. So some of those included Hays affiliated folks and then we mailed it 19
to all of the property owners within I think two blocks the first and then we expanded it for the 20
second. 21
22
26
Commissioner Summa: Ok. 1
2
Mr. Mello: We did two blocks the first survey then four blocks for the second survey. 3
4
Commissioner Summa: And did the survey have it photographs of examples of completed 5
landscaped circles or not? 6
7
Mr. Mello: The survey only asked their opinion on the current pilot. 8
9
Commissioner Summa: Ok so it’s a (interrupted) 10
11
Mr. Mello: And then they were able to provide additional comments and that's where we glean 12
that during the first survey that there was concern about the two-way stop and then during the 13
second survey that there were aesthetic and right of way issues. 14
15
Commissioner Summa: Ok. And is this, can large very large trucks and emergency vehicles get 16
around this? I mean I know they have mountable sides, but… 17
18
Mr. Mello: A large school bus we witnessed going through the current pilot. If we were to 19
move forward with a permanent installation we would build what's called a truck apron and 20
that is a concrete area that's mountable (interrupted) 21
22
27
Commissioner Summa: Yeah. 1
2
Mr. Mello: By large vehicles, but would be uncomfortable for a passenger car to mount and 3
that's not landscaped. Only the center of the island would be landscaped. 4
5
Commissioner Summa: Right, right. Ours is like that too and it's mountable by regular cars 6
every day. 7
8
Mr. Mello: I think we've learned a lot about truck apron design as well and we also in some 9
instances along the bike boulevards we're building traffic circles at very constrained 10
intersections. So we're actually designing them so that fire trucks and large vehicles can turn 11
left in advance of the circle and actually mount the diverter Islands in order to accommodate 12
emergency vehicles and other large trucks. 13
14
Commissioner Summa: Ok. If the traffic circle wasn't made would it be useful to keep the 15
painted crosswalks? Does that actually help indicate that you’re there might be people crossing 16
to motorists? 17
18
Mr. Mello: We would recommend retaining the crosswalks because removal would require 19
grinding the concrete which would be very noisy and wasteful. We did spend money to install 20
the crosswalks and this is a designated walk to school route as well as a bike to school route so 21
28
we think it enhances pedestrian safety at the intersection. And the yellow is a color dictated by 1
the California Manual of Traffic Control Devices for areas that are directly adjacent to schools. 2
3
Commissioner Summa: Ok, one last question. You're planning on giving it one that's similar to 4
the one that you've designed for Bryant and Kingsley. Are the conditions at both of these 5
intersections enough alike to make it interchangeable? 6
7
Mr. Mello: Dimensionally they're very similar, but Bryant and Kingsley has a higher parking 8
demand. So oftentimes at Bryant and Kingsley there's vehicles parked in the parking lane. So 9
at Bryant and Kingsley we're moving forward with a triangle diverter islands assuming that the 10
parking lane will form kind of a curb extension to deflect people. If we were to move into 11
design for Coleridge and Cowper we'd probably want to look at doing curb extensions because 12
if that parking lane is unoccupied we wouldn't get the deflection that we want. We learned 13
that lesson at Park and Stanford in the Evergreen Park neighborhood. We are going back and 14
adding curb extensions so that roundabout because we're not seeing the kind of deflection that 15
we want. 16
17
Commissioner Summa: Ok, I'll leave it at that and are we going to have a second round or 18
should I make all my comments now? 19
20
Acting Chair Waldfogel: We have nothing but time. 21
22
29
Commissioner Summa: I'll just finish up by saying that I mine was made permanent just like a 1
year ago so I think it's probably a pretty modern design in terms of the mountability of the 2
curbs and that sort of thing. And it's really I mean honestly it's frightening for me to a lot of the 3
times to stand right in front of my house. And so I can really see both sides of this issue and I 4
think it's very tough because when it was first put in it did actually slow cars down, but there 5
are so many near misses. And like just today it's also the motorists on Yale Street don't have to 6
stop in either direction and motorists coming up Cambridge have a stop sign. And there is so 7
much anger on the motorists to the Cambridge people because they still don't know what to 8
do. I mean so it's kind of a tricky one for me because I want to believe that they're like a better 9
thing to do than stop signs, but I sometimes feel like it's made my particular intersection pretty 10
tricky so and that's all for now. 11
12
Acting Chair Waldfogel: I just received another speaker card. Do you have any objection if we? 13
14
Commissioner Monk: Go for it. 15
16
Acting Chair Waldfogel: Ok, Mr. [Zuck], five minutes. 17
18
[Mr. Zuck]: Yeah, we’re at… well so these are my neighbors and… Ok, so just I wanted to I sent 19
an email just with a note. I appreciate the proactive nature of the City taking on this project. 20
We live two houses off the intersection on Cowper at 1620 Cowper Street and I have a we have 21
an 8 and 10 year old daughters and the qualitatively the experience of having this and it's not 22
30
just the traffic circle it's the divider structure there as well seems to have created it creates 1
some ambiguity for drivers and you regularly see near misses. And there's definitely the feeling 2
that you're not as safe at your home as you were before this improvement was put in place. 3
4
We had just my wife and I are quirky birds so we engaged the City of Oakland when we lived 5
near Park Boulevard and helped get a traffic light put in there more than a decade ago and that 6
was we got Libby Schaaf up the hill to deal with that. We engaged the City of Alameda around 7
traffic calming in the neighborhood we're in because development was drawing people through 8
the neighborhood to the far side of the island there. I think you're the my biggest concern with 9
the way we're is just kind of being able to step back and I think the larger issue is just as we 10
continue there continues to be development throughout this area. Cowper and these other 11
streets in the neighborhood are easy cut throughs between Embarcadero and Oregon 12
Expressway. Looking at Transportation Master Plan from 2014 I believe the numbers that there 13
are approximately 55,000 cars on an average day on Embarcadero and El Camino. And so in the 14
long term I think that stop signs or traffic circles I think you guys are the experts on that; I'm not 15
going to tell you how to solve that, but I think that the Transportation Master Plan numbers 16
were from three years ago. Things seem to have gotten busier since then. It took me about 15 17
minutes to find parking down here. The garage beneath the building here is full. 18
19
So I just want to make sure that we if this traffic calming is in response to increased traffic 20
through the neighborhood which then I'm not sure that whether we put a stop sign or a traffic 21
circle at this intersection we're actually solving the long term problems in that people will still 22
31
cut through. [Unintelligible] deeper we lived in Berkeley before in the Elmwood neighborhood 1
where it's like they've blocked all the streets to prevent the cut through drive. So it's I think it 2
just feels like that's probably the long term solution. That's what's been on done on Bryant 3
which is the other north/south bicycle boulevard so I would encourage consideration of a long 4
term solution that I think a lot of people would get behind rather than either of the solutions 5
that are being discussed for this intersection at this point which I think are just a Band-Aid. So 6
thank you very much. 7
8
Acting Chair Waldfogel: Thank you for the comments. Close the public hearing again and move 9
on to Commissioner Monk if you’re ready. 10
11
Commissioner Monk: This is an interesting issue because there is such a divide on the benefit 12
and the risk of this project from what I've seen in both the staff report and the two pilots that 13
were completed that weren't necessarily reflective what the end project is going to be and we 14
received a lot of input from the community as well. I have reviewed all of the emails that we 15
received. I’ve listened to the speakers tonight. I've also read all of the surveys and at least a 16
third I would I can list all the numbers where I've seen someone miss, write down something 17
about near misses, the failure to reduce speed and in fact it increases in speed and increased 18
danger as a result of this pilot. So it's difficult to look at this situation in its current state and to 19
know whether or not it's going to be an actual improvement. 20
21
32
Based on what's been represented to us what we're looking at today is not reflective of what 1
the actual plan is for this intersection which would include the deflection measures that were 2
presented to us today. So on the deflection measures I do have a question looking at Page 11 3
of the report and in regards to the crosswalks that Commissioner Summa had also mentioned in 4
this particular area you indicated Mr. Mello that the crosswalks have to remain because it's 5
both a cycle and walk to school area whereas in other parts of the City I've seen roundabouts 6
that don't have crosswalks in them which allowed for… So what I'm not understanding is how 7
are you going to have the deflection measures put into place without impeding on the 8
crosswalks? How are you going to extend the circle because of a lot of the survey results was 9
that the survey the circle is too small. So I just want to confirm the final circle is going to be a 10
larger circle and you'll have curb extension. Is that correct? 11
12
Mr. Mello: So are you referring to the. plans for the pilot project on packet Page 12? 13
14
Commissioner Monk: I was looking at Page 11 of your presentation. 15
16
Mr. Mello: Oh of the presentation. 17
18
Commissioner Monk: Where you have the arrows and I think from what I was what I reviewed 19
from the residents who responded to the survey that cars were driving straight through rather 20
than actually turning and entering into a circle. So they weren't slowing down their speed in 21
any capacity. 22
33
1
Mr. Mello: So if we were to move forward with a (interrupted) 2
3
Commissioner Monk: So one more it's Page 11. 4
5
Mr. Mello: Yeah so I’m going to speak to this slide here. If you were to if we were to move 6
forward with a permanent installation of a traffic circle we would reconstruct the corners of the 7
intersection to move the drainage structures that are there further back from the intersection. 8
That would enable us to move the crosswalks further back from the intersection and create a 9
much larger island in the center so that vehicles wouldn't encroach into the crosswalks. We 10
would likely recommend curb extensions at this location because the parking lane is so 11
underutilized that we can't depend on parked vehicles providing that deflection. So I think our 12
first proposal for a permanent project would include curb extensions, moving the crosswalks 13
back, and expanding the island much larger than it currently is today. 14
15
Commissioner Monk: Thank you for clarification, for that clarification because when 16
Commissioner Summa had asked about the crosswalks you said they couldn't be removed and I 17
took that to mean that they couldn't be moved back either, so… 18
19
Mr. Mello: I'm sorry my response to Commissioner Summa was in regard to if we were to elect 20
to convert this to an all-way stop and remove the traffic circle entirely we would keep the 21
34
crosswalks in place. We wouldn't spend a lot of money grinding them up and removing if we 1
were going to remove the pilot project. 2
3
Commissioner Monk: So I'm not sure how we're going to proceed, but I'm guessing that we'll 4
probably discuss the merits of having a circle and then if… how that outcome however we 5
decide that we might discuss other measures so I don't know if I should bring up other ideas at 6
this juncture or later on. 7
8
Acting Chair Waldfogel: Go ahead. 9
10
Commissioner Monk: So one idea that I thought of if we're not to move forward with the traffic 11
circle would be to try to minimize the traffic on Churchill so that we could change the stop sign 12
placement there in some capacity. I know you said you'd have to deflect traffic. I don't know if 13
a speed bump in that on that cross street would make a difference and yield signs. I never see 14
yield signs here, but people do run through stop signs anyway. I don't know if we have a 15
practice of not having yield signs anymore in California because people don't know want to do 16
at them, but so it's changing because that intersection is very close to Embarcadero it's hardly a 17
block. So changing that intersection up and then having the four-way stop at Coleridge and 18
Cowper might be a feasible solution that I think we should make, consider. 19
20
Mr. Mello: So we have done quite a bit of thinking of things we could do to reduce the volumes 21
on Churchill and also on Cowper in order to allow us to install an all-ways at Cowper and 22
35
Coleridge and then flip the stop signs at Churchill and Cowper. Separate from this project we've 1
been doing a speed survey along our major arterials to determine what travel speeds are and 2
we've also identified collision patterns along our arterial streets and we identified a collision 3
history at Embarcadero and Cowper. There’s a very tough sightlines if somebody is exiting 4
Cowper onto Embarcadero we've identified a collision history there that could potentially be 5
addressed with a median along Embarcadero which would [prohibit] through traffic on Cowper 6
which would then reduce the volumes on Cowper. 7
8
If we were to extend that median back all the way to Churchill and prohibit left turns on to 9
Churchill which would also reduce the through traffic that we hear a lot of complaints about it 10
from the residents of the neighborhood we could address two things with one measure. That 11
would take quite a bit of public engagement and quite a bit of planning I think to move 12
something like a forward. That would then relocate all of the left turns to the left turn lane at 13
Waverley and Embarcadero which is actually a signalized intersection with a dedicated left turn 14
lane. So folks that are currently turning onto Churchill or Cowper would go out to Waverley 15
and use a signalized left turn there. We didn't elect to move in that direction because of the 16
planning effort and the community engagement that it would require. And this is not a 17
programed project. This was done as the result of service requests we received from residents. 18
19
Commissioner Monk: So what's the likelihood of that other project going forward and what 20
impact would this circle… would this circle be necessary if that project was to move forward? 21
22
36
Mr. Mello: I think if we were to move forward with some type of median on Embarcadero the 1
volumes on Cowper could be reduced to a point where the students and parents would feel 2
more comfortable crossing Cowper at Coleridge because the volumes would be reduced. And I 3
think a lot of the speeds on Cowper are people that are using it as a bypass to Middlefield Road 4
so if you weren't able to make that left off of Embarcadero onto Cowper or travel from 5
Downtown across Embarcadero on Cowper the volumes could be reduced to a point where the 6
safety, the comfort level of the younger cyclists and the parents would increase without a 7
traffic circle. 8
9
Commissioner Monk: Ok so then I guess it is up to staff if they want to study that further and 10
pursue public hearing or Council. I don't know if there's a lot of accidents at that intersection. 11
It seems like something to look at and would have an impact on this whole area. I will defer to 12
other members at this point. 13
14
Acting Chair Waldfogel: Thank you. Good questions. Commissioner Lauing. 15
16
Commissioner Lauing: Ok, first just a few questions. My first one has already been addressed 17
which is that I drove through the a few times through the I always drive through the Cowper 18
pilot because it's just the main artery from my work and so on. But I compared that the same 19
time to going through the Addison and Bryant and it seemed in the car smaller on Cowper, but 20
that's to be determined. I didn't want to cause a disturbance and measure the diameter, but it 21
seems smaller and clearly the traffic calming does work on the one on Addison and Bryant. The 22
37
one over at Stanford is fantastic, but it's about four times as big and very effective compared to 1
what a disaster that was. Still there are folks there that are very tentative when they enter it 2
sometimes. This isn't the United Kingdom (UK) where it's typical so there's this knowledge 3
factor that's just not here with Palo Alto drivers. So that was one question I had. 4
5
Another question is did you ever get any input from the PTA or other folks about concerns 6
about safety on Webster and Coleridge? Just a block up that's always jammed with people 7
dropping their kids off or parking there and walking them over, but access from Webster could 8
also [unintelligible] Embarcadero because cut through traffic, etcetera. 9
10
Mr. Mello: To my knowledge we have not heard concerns from the PTA about the 11
Coleridge/Webster intersection. 12
13
Commissioner Lauing: Hmmm, it's just odd because it's just that one block away and it's the 14
same trajectory. 15
16
Mr. Mello: My hunch is that Cowper has much higher volume than Webster, motor vehicle 17
volume based on my visits to the site and intuitively Cowper is a pretty popular route from 18
Downtown to Embarcadero and over to Middlefield. 19
20
Commissioner Lauing: Ok, and in the pilot or actually in the rollout in the pilot I guess 12 21
parking spots were removed. Is that true? 22
38
1
Mr. Mello: So it's 50 feet on each a leg which is about two parking spaces times… So four times 2
four. 3
4
Commissioner Lauing: Ok, I can do that. And is the proposed rollout going to be the same size 5
or with all these other ideas that you've talked about storm drain movements and so on are you 6
actually going to take away more parking spots? 7
8
Mr. Mello: Well, I think it's important to note that these parking spaces are very underutilized. 9
They may be highly occupied during special events, but on a day to day basis these are not 10
highly utilized parking spaces. 11
12
Commissioner Lauing: True. 13
14
Mr. Mello: With the curb extensions we potentially would remove one to two parking spaces 15
per approach, per corner. 16
17
Commissioner Lauing: Incremental to what? 18
19
Mr. Mello: It would be the, it’d be almost identical to what's there now. We could potentially 20
gain a space on each leg if we reduced the footprint of the curb extensions, but we wouldn’t be 21
able to determine that till we looked at the drainage design and the curb design. 22
39
1
Commissioner Lauing: Yeah, ok. Now one resident correctly pointed out that for Stanford 2
events and Gamble Garden and so on it starts to get a little crowded over there so. 3
4
Mr. Mello: But there is quite a bit of parking availability in the immediate area so it would just 5
be shifting folks 50 feet back from the intersection. 6
7
Commissioner Lauing: Yeah, ok. So my biggest concern with this, all of this including the very 8
helpful input from the residents is that we you started this on the issue of safety of folks raising 9
that [and it’s] phrased in a way that the intersection… parents raised concern that the 10
intersection felt unsafe for children walking and biking to school along Coleridge. So that was 11
the impetus to this. 12
13
Mr. Mello: It's a perception of safety. We because the collision history is so scant there's only 14
two collisions in five years we can't definitively say that there's a safety issue, but this was 15
driven by the fact that the parents expressed that they did not feel safe with their children 16
crossing this intersection in the previous configuration. In our field we have determined that 17
perception of safety is very important for pedestrians and cyclists and people will often not 18
walk or ride their bike if they don't feel safe. So it is a pretty important factor when we want to 19
try to encourage people to use different modes of transportation. 20
21
40
Commissioner Lauing: So your wording was intentional there? I’m glad you clarified that. So 1
my concern overall is that from what we're seeing from I’ll call neighbor data that it's actually 2
become less safe with that roundabout. So that seems to still be the core issue that we have to 3
address. So when we get over to this to the surveys my core point has already been covered by 4
speaker Scott Sagan with more authority because I haven't written a book on this, but the 5
surveys themselves it's great input, right? But first of all it wasn't intended to be and is not 6
statistically significant. 7
8
Mr. Mello: Right. 9
10
Commissioner Lauing: They were being handed out to drivers and walkers and so on perhaps 11
even moreso than to residents although residents got mailed and there were response rates; 12
again, very helpful, but not intended to be statistically significant. The vote itself is not 13
significant. If it was 90 percent one way and 10 percent the other even though it's not 14
statistically significant it might have been actually an indicator, but it's really not. And those 15
numbers could change so the second part of that is that it wasn't intend to be a ballot for a 16
vote. So the staff report indicated that you were kind of got to go with the simple majority of 17
what the survey voted on, but I don't see that as valid. And I don't see it for the much more 18
important reason that's been raised by multiple residents that their views of near collisions, 19
their sightings of near collisions multiple times is actually I think better data because they're 20
there lots of hours of a day in 30 day months. Whereas school folks are going by that 21
intersection, the parent might go by that intersection 5 minutes in the morning and 5 minutes 22
41
in the afternoon and the whole school system is only going by that thing 30 minutes in the 1
morning and 30 minutes in the afternoon. 2
3
So the I’m very, I think is very compelling data that we're hearing from residents. They've 4
witnessed these screeching brakes and so on and I think they're very informed intelligent 5
witnesses if we wanted to go to that. And literally simply because they're there so much more 6
and observing so many more incidents. The only way you could get better than that is if you 7
had cameras up there for a week during 12 hour days to see what's really going on. So while I 8
found the surveys very interesting I don't find them predictable or that they should be weighted 9
in terms of what should be done here. 10
11
There’s a lot of discussion here about bikes. Bikes are always an issue of safety. We're doing all 12
we can to encourage bike traffic so that should always be on the table, but where this issue 13
came up and where it still is is my understanding is we're dealing with Walter Hays kids 14
commute is really the core issue here. So hence the references to the Comp Plan goals and so 15
on bikes are less compelling relative to the action being taken here. 16
17
And then on packet Page 6 you referenced and I appreciate that when you do that when you 18
reference standards and it says according to best practices in transportation [adhering] stop 19
signs should not be used for traffic calming or speed reduction, but I don't think we're trying to 20
get honestly I don’t think we’re trying to get speed reduction. We are trying to get people to 21
stop. So it's not in this area actually calming at all relative to the Walter Hays safety issue. So 22
42
my concern is we’re maybe trying to work on a different problem or trying to over engineer the 1
definition of this problem and we should focus more on what do we need to do in a less 2
comprehensive way relative to that particular problem, work it into other areas. Appreciate 3
one of the speakers saying maybe we should be doing things like we do on Bryant right now 4
where it just blocks off and nobody goes cutting through Bryant because they know they're 5
going to get blocked off. That's a much longer a couple year to three year program, but for now 6
what we're trying to accomplish is the safety issues here and I think the issue is getting folks to 7
stop and not run over kids in those two 30 minute segments a day. 8
9
But it seems so far from the input from residents, multiple residents in multiple locations, that 10
we may have made it less safe. So I'm not sure that therefore we should try to do this on a 11
permanent basis. I think that if you could put stop signs on just Cowper I don't know that's up 12
to your expertise. So you can keep the traffic on Coleridge going. Clearly the stripe crosswalks 13
definitely have to stay and maybe even add some of those typical street signs in the speed limit 14
zone 15 miles when children are present just to kind of notify people that you're not next to a 15
school guys, but these kids are coming by here. So that type of signing would be a much less 16
elaborate project, but more importantly focused on the problem of the kids' safety which is 17
deafening what we're talking about so. 18
19
And the only other comment I want to make is that everyone here is I think agreeing that traffic 20
circles work, but we're not going to put them at every intersection. We’re trying to put them in 21
places where we want calming and we're not even going to put them on every intersection on 22
43
the way to all the kids' schools. It’s just too expensive so there are going to have to be some 1
lights that some kids have to go through or stop signs, but it doesn't seem like the circle in this 2
location addresses the calming that we need relative to the problem anyway. 3
4
Acting Chair Waldfogel: Commissioner Gardias. 5
6
Commissioner Gardias: Sure. Thank you very much for the presentation and neighbors from 7
this area thank you very much for attending our meeting. We appreciate your attendance. 8
9
I believe there are two aspects of this issue here; number one are those turnabouts, number 10
two is this particular intersection. So let me just talk about the first one. In our Policy T34 there 11
is explicit recommendation for the traffic circles to be implemented at as a traffic calming 12
measures. I think that this particular policy is erroneous because it makes you to ultimately 13
propose this as coming traffic circle as one of the solutions where it may not work and I think 14
this is part of the problem. Because when you look at this from the perspective of just a simple 15
conditional statistics you pretty much suggesting the public that this would work and then this 16
way you may buy us their responses. So for this reason I don't believe that this number of the 17
respondents how it was presented truly reflects unbiased by your proposal perspective. If we 18
removed that recommendation of the traffic circle from the recommendation and allow for the 19
public to select the options objectively their responses could have been different. So I think 20
that the policies that we have it as it is now is part of the problem. 21
22
44
And also if I can just briefly revisit some other discussions that we had here at this table; if you 1
remember there was a traffic circle proposed on the California, North California Avenue that 2
was also proposed by the staff and if I when I read the emails and letters around this proposal 3
many of those didn't agree with this circle. I believe that this policy may be resulting with us 4
and the staff pushing for this solution where this truly might not be the right way of addressing 5
the traffic and calming the traffic as we would like to. So this is one aspect policy itself and 6
once we going to talk about the Comprehensive Plan I will propose to change this language 7
because otherwise it just makes us to buy to propose bias solution. 8
9
Also among the documents that were provided by Palo Altans to the Commission there was a 10
letter of another Stanford professor, David [Lackman], which I recommend you to read. He 11
directed as in his letter to the study that was provided by the National Cooperative Highways 12
Research Program, Report 6672. If you go through this report then the there are different 13
roundabouts and traffic circles from different parts of the country, Europe that are described in 14
a scientific way in this document. But if you read this carefully and then, I'm sorry, there are 15
also a couple of pictures around the comparable traffic circles to this situation. But if you go 16
through this research document there is nothing truly scientifically about proving the point that 17
this type of circle should be [not] used at this intersection. I haven't seen any documentation 18
and a scientific approach that would provide this the right study about the right size of the 19
traffic circle in the background or in the relationship to the streets where it should be put at the 20
intersection of. And then I would like to ask staff that pretty much if we going to continue using 21
this circles as a calming tool I'd like to see pretty much some scientific study that would just tell 22
45
us that maybe this would be the minimum diameter of a circle in this conditions then pretty 1
much I would agree. Otherwise it's just a discussion about the opinions and then probably one 2
prevailing opinion may win, but not necessarily the right one. That’s what I am afraid of. So 3
this is about the policy itself. The second (interrupted) 4
5
Mr. Mello: Could I just respond to that really quickly? 6
7
Commissioner Gardias: Yes, please. 8
9
Mr. Mello: There are two reasons traffic circles are typically used. The first is for intersection 10
traffic control so in lieu of a traffic signal or an all-way stop. Roundabouts and traffic circles can 11
typically be more efficient than a traffic circle at some locations. The second use for traffic 12
circles and roundabouts and this is the case here is to create what's called horizontal deflection. 13
So when a vehicle is traveling there's two types of traffic calming, there’s vertical deflection 14
which are speed humps or speed bumps and there is horizontal deflection which forces a 15
motorist to shift horizontally which typically they then reduce speeds. That's the use that's 16
what we've used the traffic circle for in this case. So I think it's important to distinguish 17
between the two reasons for installing traffic circles. 18
19
Commissioner Gardias: Yes, and I totally understand it, right? But when I'm driving sometimes 20
and I probably will take Bryant on the way home and then just will go around the circle that's 21
over there it's Addison at Bryant I believe and I was thinking about this when we talk about 22
46
California Avenue and other traffic circles that you proposed last year and I didn't find that 1
specific circle to make me slow down. There is of course acceleration force that once you 2
change from linear to the circular movement should be inducing you to slow down, but I don't 3
believe that it truly works, right? And I was really paying attention when I was driving trying to 4
see if it's what will make me to slow down. It doesn't and I think that this circle at Bryant is 5
much better because it's much larger. So why would this one cause such an effect, right? I 6
think that this change of the forces that should be inducing to the driver to slow down is just it’s 7
accidental and may actually produce quite opposite argument that you just express. I may 8
argue that pretty much would distract the driver because it's not it's only within the very short 9
period of time as opposed to acting during the longer period of time when you have the larger 10
roundabouts when truly cars need to slow down and then pretty much move with a given same 11
speed. This here the distance is very slow so the change of time is very slow and acceleration 12
only acts within this very short period of time. 13
14
So I can create counter arguments to this what you're saying. So for this reason I'd like to see 15
something more scientific then we can pretty much just rely on someone's else's opinion what 16
truly should work. So this is about the policy going back going to this particular intersection so 17
based on this it think that from my perspective if you would ask about the vote I would be 18
against the traffic circles also giving that number of some negative comments that were 19
presented in different emails. 20
21
47
In terms of what can be done I think that Commissioner Monk proposed the speed bumps that I 1
was also considering about proposing you. I didn't see this being discussed, but I think that 2
there is a space before the crosswalks to have speed bumps at on Cowper because this is what 3
the problem is, right? You are trying to slow down cars that are pretty much running around 4
the along the Cowper so [unintelligible] coming the perpendicular way they have clear way so I 5
[prefer] that sort of solution to calm down the traffic. Thank you. 6
7
Acting Chair Waldfogel: Thank you. Let me make a few comments and then I don't know 8
whether we want to go through another round or if we want to take a Motion at that point or 9
let us just kind of see where the consensus is in a second. I think that Commissioner Gardias 10
makes a really good point about policies that policies need to be tested against real life 11
conditions on the ground. And I think that as a City we have a tendency to make policies and 12
then occasionally we're surprised by what they imply. We'll get to a place and say well Policy 13
was it T34, implies that we should do something. I’ll just comment that in my professional life if 14
I have a spec that leads to an unintended consequence sometimes we call that a bug. We'll 15
study it and modify the spec. So if we get to some place that we didn't expect to get to we may 16
ask whether the spec was right. 17
18
And I think as a general rule R1 neighborhoods are generally opposed to complicated devices, 19
signage, striping. I mean that's just a condition that they don't really expect to see in the 20
neighborhood. They expect a kind of more naturalistic approach. Commissioner Lauing I think 21
48
you commented that the school that the real conflict condition is only short period per day, 30 1
minutes per day. Is that correct? 2
3
Mr. Mello: It's… yeah it's a little bit longer because it's on three separate school routes and they 4
all have separate arrival and dismissal, but the largest concentration by far is the period 5
preceding arrival at Hays and immediately after dismissal at Hays. 6
7
Acting Chair Waldfogel: Ok, so it's pretty synchronized. 8
9
Mr. Mello: But [unintelligible] so I don't know if everybody's been out there. It's a significant 10
number of students traveling all in groups. 11
12
Acting Chair Waldfogel: Yeah. Yeah, I also think that there's another really great lesson in this 13
experience whichever way this proceeds which is that we did a pilot and for better or worse it 14
didn't prove anything. I mean it may be that a traffic circle is the right device for this condition, 15
maybe it's not, but all we've really done with the pilot is mobilize neighborhood opposition. I 16
mean if it's true that the condition is identical to conditions elsewhere where traffic circles are 17
working it's interesting that this pilot has led to this response. So we may actually need to 18
reflect on how to run pilots so that we run pilots that get us valid data or get us predictive data. 19
And the pilot definitely has not demonstrably improved safety so it's a interesting situation. 20
21
49
But also Commissioner Mark made I think a really good point which is the solution to all this 1
may be more holistic. We have a network of Safe Routes to School and we have a network of 2
bike boulevards and it may be that we need to start with those routes as we design circulation 3
through the neighborhoods. So as we lay out stop sign conditions and traffic circle conditions 4
we may just need to say these are fixed points and then we'll make the decisions about where 5
to put other signaling orbiting off of those conditions. I mean if those are real conditions if we 6
really say that Coleridge is a Safe Route to School that's a definitive published plan and we have 7
a definitive plans on where the bike boulevards are. I think we need to build around those and 8
so I think that the warrant study may or may not be the right tool to use in this case. I'm not in 9
a position to evaluate that, but I think it may possibly be leading to it may be leading us the 10
wrong way. 11
12
So I'm generally inclined to end this pilot. I agree with Commissioner Gardias I’m generally and 13
several of my colleagues, I’m generally inclined to end the pilot, to figure out what the right 14
condition for the traffic volumes on this intersection are, but really to take on this holistic 15
project. To take on overall what is the circulation through the neighborhoods, take on that 16
project, figure that out, and do the right thing more broadly. So that's where I would come 17
down. I’d just like to see what other people… 18
19
Mr. Mello: If I could just I have a little bit of a different take on the pilot. Our typical process for 20
doing something like this would be to hold an evening meeting where very few people come 21
out attend and then we would attempt to develop some kind of alternative from that limited 22
50
feedback that we get at a night meeting at some far flung location. I think this was a very 1
effective way to mobilize people and I don't see that as a bad thing that people were mobilized 2
around this. I think we were able to go out and talk to people in their neighborhood. We stood 3
in driveways with people on Cowper and Coleridge and talked about the project, talked about 4
the issues. You saw all the emails that you received. We were able to survey people that 5
typically wouldn't come out to Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) to offer their 6
opinion and provide you their feedback in a structured format versus a handful of people 7
coming to the meeting and standing up and offering their opinion. So I think from a public 8
engagement standpoint I think this was fairly effective. I think there are some tweaks we can 9
make to the process, but overall I think this was a better process than our typical defend and 10
react. 11
12
Acting Chair Waldfogel: I think it’s I mean if you look at the hierarchy of prototyping you know a 13
PowerPoint presentation is sort of the lowest fidelity way to prototype something and that's 14
maybe the typical way of doing this you bring some PowerPoints to an evening meeting. So you 15
went to the next level of fidelity which is to build a medium fidelity mockup in the street and 16
unfortunately for I mean for better or for worse some of the response to the mock up may be 17
to the verisimilitude of the mock up versus what the actual condition would be so I think we 18
need to reflect on that process of what's the right level of fidelity that we need to prototype to 19
get the responses that we can accurately assess. 20
21
51
Mr. Mello: Yeah understood. You know in our field typically the reactions come after 1
something is constructed and there's a lot of people who say I didn't hear about this project 2
and I would have wanted to be involved. So I think the temporary medium fidelity as you said 3
pilot enabled us to get people out to turn out and to voice their opinion that typically wouldn't 4
get involved until after the project was constructed and oftentimes it's too late to make 5
adjustments at that point. 6
7
Acting Chair Waldfogel: Yeah it's a great point. Thank you. Commissioner Rosenblum. 8
9
Commissioner Rosenblum: Yeah, I just wanted to make a couple comments especially because I 10
think I may be out of step with the rest of the Commission based on my read at least the way 11
the conversation is going. So one thing I think Acting Chair just brought up is really important 12
which is many of the comments from our Commission and from neighbors does have to do with 13
the temporary nature of this structure. It's ugly and it's small and so Commissioner Gardias said 14
I think the or Lauing or someone said I think the diameter is smaller. It is smaller. It's a 15
temporary structure; it's not the full size. And within our purview is perhaps a recommendation 16
that if it is permit that it be enlarged and that it's the same size as the permanent structures 17
that we have in place in other places. And I think that's within the scope of this conversation. 18
19
The thing that I wanted to discuss though was this process. So I'm kind of shocked that people 20
that responded slightly favored the current implementation. And in contrast to Commissioner 21
Gardias when you look at the survey which is including our package it doesn't have any 22
52
language saying the City prefers traffic circles or traffic circles are known to be safer or you're 1
stupid if you prefer something else. It just says do you prefer to keep this, make permanent or 2
not. And given how unattractive it is and given that as Americans we're not super used to 3
traffic circles and given that it's undersized for its function I'm actually surprised that it didn't 4
lose handily. Because I think that many people just intuitively we’re more used to stop signs or 5
we feel stop signs must be safer. And again I only came to the conclusion that again the 6
experience of driving of ride of biking with my daughter every day to Addison convinced me 7
that again that that implementation at Addison and Bryant is so much smoother that it changed 8
my mind around the implementation. And so to me actually the survey results if anything were 9
skewed the other way of making these two things equivalence when in fact the this low fidelity 10
mock up is far inferior to what eventually would be in place, but it doesn't even refer to that. It 11
just says would you like to extend this permanently, it doesn't have displays of what it might 12
look like or what improvements might be made. So in fact if anything I felt like wow that's 13
actually pretty supportive and yet we have neighbors that live right around saying it feels 14
unsafe to them, they witness a lot of close calls, and I think that can't be discounted. 15
16
So the thing I wanted to say is I agree with the other Commissioners and with our speaker who 17
noted that the main problem is traffic in general through neighborhoods. And I would like to 18
explore turning Cowper into a bike boulevard and making it so that it's not a high throughput 19
way to get across the City if you just don't want to go on Middlefield. I do think that's the root 20
of a lot of this problem and we should be looking at basically making it so that you never go into 21
the neighborhoods if you’re just trying to cross town. That you only go there because you have 22
53
a local destination: you live there, child going to school there, etcetera. And that for all of the 1
things that you go to main arterial and I think that's the problem. 2
3
However, for this intersection there's been so much research around the injury rates from 4
traffic circles versus not, not just from many cities around the world. This particular 5
intersection only had two accidents over five years so we don't have a lot of data from this 6
intersection, but there's bodies of research on this. We have other traffic circles in Palo Alto 7
that are also located three blocks from school so we also have permanent structures in place 8
and we can see what they feel like. So I don't know if we need a lot of the guesswork about 9
what this might be like or if the conditions here are simply different from other intersections of 10
similar size in Palo Alto. So my personal feeling is we do want to look at our current code even 11
if we disagree with it. When we get to revising the Comp Plan we can strongly recommend that 12
this particular item is inappropriate, but I do think on average you want to err towards sticking 13
with our code unless it's egregiously out of step with the conditions in this place and I don't 14
think it is. 15
16
Second, I do think that the survey results although not scientific indicate that people that have 17
an interest in this corner i.e. people that are driving, biking, walking, living in this area are split. 18
A lot of people favored it slightly more, a lot of people are against it, but it's split. It's not 19
overwhelming one way or the other. And I think in that case the code plus the body of research 20
in traffic management and safety management does win especially when we have other 21
examples around town of when this becomes permanent it can be attractive and it can be 22
54
effective. And so I do think a lot of problems are as I think the Acting Chair put really well this 1
low fidelity mock up kind of anchors you to the idea that this thing looks really bad and it's too 2
small to slow people down and so it just doesn't work. 3
4
So anyway I wanted to make as I feel like we're kind of shifting in one direction it's a little 5
surprising because I look at this as fairly open and shut which is that the research indicates this 6
is safer. We have other places in town that have done this successfully. The people that 7
responded that have an interest in this in general favored this implementation being extended, 8
but not strongly. And so there was no evidence to overturn is what I would say. And so it 9
seemed, when I saw it it seemed fairly open and shut except for this one asterisk of we really 10
should take on the more important job eventuality of getting people out of the neighborhoods 11
for cut through traffic and so I appreciated the speaker who also wrote us a note saying Cowper 12
really should be a bicycle boulevard and I agree with that sentiment. But anyways so I wanted 13
to express this. 14
15
Acting Chair Waldfogel: Thank you. Other comments? Commissioner Summa. 16
17
Commissioner Summa: So I really appreciate how responsive staff was to the residents in this 18
case and you did a lot of work and I didn't say that before so I wanted to make that clear 19
because I think it was really great what you did in going in doing the mock up. That being said I 20
agree I think there needs to be a more holistic approach to the traffic problems in this 21
neighborhood and I think this just seems kind of out of place in the residential neighborhood. I 22
55
think the nearby residents aren't going to appreciate it. We originally had five in College 1
Terrace and three were removed because they hated, they were so hated and everybody still 2
hates the remaining two. And I think the roundabouts at Stanford are very different and 3
they're put in for precisely the opposite reason. They are meant to increase the speed with 4
which people move through bigger intersections. And I find that the one even in my street 5
which is a much busier more urban environment than what we're talking about here the only 6
time they slow the traffic is when there are lots and lots of cars. So my recommendation would 7
be if there are a lot of speeders during the hours when children are going to school I think it 8
might be useful to have the Palo Alto Police Department (PAPD) sit out there and people get 9
used to the fact that hey, you're going to get caught speeding here, you're doing something 10
unsafe. And I don't think it belongs in this neighborhood at this time so, but thank you very 11
much for your responsiveness to the neighbors. That was great. 12
13
Acting Chair Waldfogel: Commissioner Gardias. 14
15
Commissioner Gardias: Very briefly. So as I supported Commissioner Monk suggestion to 16
provide bumps, street bumps to calm down the traffic. Giving the long story of the study [has it 17
been] a year and resources, money spent, I think that we could have exchanged all of this for 18
just a two stop signs. I don't know how it's [unintelligible] traffic on Cowper how it would affect 19
traffic on Cowper. I take Cowper sometimes when I drive to work and I don't see many cars so I 20
know that it would violate our rules, but if this would not if there is not many cars maybe this 21
56
would not affect traffic truly at all. So my other recommendation would be just to put this two 1
stop sign at Cowper crosses Coleridge. Thank you. 2
3
Acting Chair Waldfogel: Ok, other comments? Are we ready for a Motion? 4
5
Commissioner Monk: I have another comment. 6
7
Acting Chair Waldfogel: Another comment? Please, go ahead. 8
9
Commissioner Monk: So I think it's clear at least in my viewpoint that the project and the 10
corresponding survey are a bit flawed because of the nature of how it was assembled. And so 11
the issue that I'm seeing is the safety ness of the final proposal as compared to the a pilot 12
project and whether the final project is going to lead to a safer intersection than the existing. 13
Looking at the collision history and the neighbors input of all the near misses it seems that it 14
might just have a marginal benefit if any. So that's still something that is not really clear in my 15
mind, but also something that we haven't really discussed is in detail is the human factor and 16
the fact that people do run stop signs. And the one accident that was reported the cyclist ran a 17
stop sign. I myself was guilty of running stop signs just yesterday on my bicycle. It's a human 18
factor that we really need to consider because at the end of the day this is about safety and do 19
we want to have an increase of the broadside type of collisions or do we want to put in a 20
project that we're not so sure about, but that's going to result in less lethal injury to cyclists and 21
others by the sideswipe collision which is what's going to be a more common type of collision if 22
57
any in the traffic circles. So that's where I'm leaning my analysis on the overall safety because 1
that at the end day is what this is about. 2
3
And in regards to all those near misses those are a valid concern and I'm sure they're accurate 4
and they're true and there truly our near misses. A lot of that is because of the confusion in 5
entering the traffic safety circles also the speed and things of that nature, the lack of proper 6
signage. So I think if we move forward with this project there has to be a lot of signage and a 7
lot of instruction so that people know what to do and how to behave in the traffic circle to 8
minimize all of that confusion and the near misses. 9
10
And even under the best circumstances with the best drivers in the world traffic circles just look 11
scary. They're scary when you're in a car or on a bicycle. They're just this weird thing that it 12
looks and feels like you're about to get hit or hit somebody. That's sort of the nature of a traffic 13
circle from my viewpoint, but they do tend to work in some way and these are near misses. We 14
haven't seen a huge amount of actual collisions. So I think it's just something to get used to as 15
opposed to actually viewing it as a near miss. That's another question I might have if they're 16
truly near misses or if that's just the nature of people driving patterns in the traffic circle. 17
18
So based on that human factor, based on Commissioner Rosenblum’s very personal experience 19
with his own daughter none I none of… I can't speak to what that experience is like, but hearing 20
someone here on our Commission go through that with his own daughter and feeling a lot 21
more safe for her own transportation to school by going through the traffic circle is very 22
58
compelling for me. The traffic safety officials from the school I think reported back that they do 1
support the traffic circle, is that right? 2
3
Mr. Mello: Yeah, they’re generally supportive, but they do recognize that there need to be 4
modifications made to the circle design. 5
6
Commissioner Monk: And those are modifications that could be made? 7
8
Mr. Mello: Yes. 9
10
Commissioner Monk: Ok. So then based on everything that I just stated I would support 11
moving forward with the traffic circle with those modifications and I would be willing to make a 12
Motion to that. My only concern would be the development of the nearby areas and the 13
holistic approach in general that we talked about because to this sounds like a very expensive 14
project to me and one that might not be needed in the event we go forward with that 15
Embarcadero division project that you were mentioning or if there's other mechanisms that we 16
can use on the side streets that would obliviate the need for this traffic circle here. So that 17
would be my other hesitancy in supporting it is that it just wouldn’t be necessary if there's 18
other means to achieve the same ends. And then the one caveat that I would have is to please 19
pay great attention to signage on the street and elsewhere so that people know how to respect 20
and enter the traffic circle. Should I proceed with making a Motion or do we have more? 21
22
59
Acting Chair Waldfogel: Why don’t you go ahead with a Motion? 1
2
Commissioner Monk: I could use assistance in that. It would be my first Motion. Jonathan do 3
you want to propose any language that I can reference on making the Motion? 4
5
Jonathan Lait, Assistant Director: I think you could just turn to packet Page 6. Our 6
recommendation could serve as your Motion. 7
8
Mr. Mello: So it would be something akin to move forward with the installation of a permanent 9
traffic circle, yellow high visibility crosswalks and yield signs, with your caveats of also looking at 10
the larger traffic circulation patterns in the neighborhood and paying special attention to 11
signage and striping. And incorporating... 12
13
Mr. Lait: That’s a lot better than mine. 14
15
Mr. Mello: And incorporating design changes that would make the roundabout operate in a 16
more efficient and safe fashion. 17
18
MOTION 19
20
Commissioner Monk: So I move that we adopt staff's recommendation to install the 21
Cowper/Coleridge traffic safety circle as a permanent fixture with yellow high visibility 22
60
crosswalks and yield signs, that it should be landscaped at the same time as when it's built in or 1
soon thereafter, that the crosswalks be moved back such that there is room to maximize 2
deflection, that signage would be incorporated as part of the design so that motorists entering 3
the circle will yield to the right of way and be aware of the upcoming traffic circle, and that any 4
design changes will also be compliant with the recommendations made by the safety officials 5
from the school. Something along those lines, I don't know what the exact verbiage was, but if I 6
missed anything… 7
8
Acting Chair Waldfogel: Is that clear? 9
10
Mr. Mello: Yeah, I think I would recommend the City School Traffic Safety Committee. 11
12
Commissioner Monk: That's yeah, I didn’t know the name. 13
14
Mr. Mello: As the consulting body. 15
16
SECOND 17
18
Commissioner Rosenblum: I second. 19
20
Acting Chair Waldfogel: Ok, do want to speak to the Motion or to the second? 21
22
61
Commissioner Monk: I spoke to the Motion prior to making it so I would just would refer back 1
to what I just stated a moment ago before making a Motion. 2
3
Commissioner Rosenblum: I'll speak to my second. So based on my comments a moment ago I 4
think that this is aligned with the policy and intent. And so in the absence and the reason the 5
policy was developed for the City there are two policies that I think are relevant. One is trying 6
to avoid stop signs at consecutive intersection which leads to scofflaws and bad behavior and I 7
think again all of us have experience with what happens when you put stop signs on every on 8
consecutive streets. And given the nature of the previous street, Churchill, I don't see a way 9
you’re going to flip that. It's actually a more highly trafficked street and so given that situation I 10
think this is the best solution. And based on the input that you solicited widely from all sorts of 11
users and residents it’s a split decision with slight favor to the existing solution despite it being 12
a poor facsimile for what will eventually be there. So I support extending this with the caveat 13
that it has to be up to standard. I think it is now currently, it's currently substandard. It'll be 14
built to the standard I hope of what I have experience with at Addison and that eventually as 15
these become more common around schools that people really do get the hang of what it 16
means to be in a small neighborhood roundabout. So I support the Motion. 17
18
Acting Chair Waldfogel: Ok. So I’m trying to work out the parliamentary procedure right now. 19
20
Mr. Lait: Well so you I mean if you have a Motion on the table so you can vote on that Motion 21
or have a dialogue [unintelligible]. 22
62
1
Acting Chair Waldfogel: [Unintelligible] desire [unintelligible] Substitute Motion, but how does 2
that work? 3
4
Mr. Lait: You can make a Substitute Motion any Member of the Commission can make a 5
Substitute Motion if you are interested in doing that and that would have precedence over the 6
original Motion. 7
8
SUBSTITUTE MOTION 9
10
Acting Chair Waldfogel: Ok. Ok, well let me place a Substitute Motion. Thank you for the 11
Motion and for the second. So a Substitute Motion is to remove the traffic circle, to revert to a 12
yield sign or stop sign condition as is dictated by good traffic practice, to take on the holistic 13
design project, so take on this project to figure out the overall neighborhood circulation; so 14
really those three elements. 15
16
Mr. Mello: I would love some input as to how we would conduct the community engagement 17
around that and what level of involvement you would like to see from the abutting community, 18
the abutting property owners, the surrounding community. This would be kind of a small area 19
of study that we typically haven’t undertaken to date so I'd love if this Motion is successful 20
some recommendations on how to move forward with that small area of study. 21
22
63
Acting Chair Waldfogel: Yeah, I think that if it if we move forward with it I think that this 1
Commission would be delighted to help answer those questions. 2
3
SECOND 4
5
Commissioner Summa: I’ll second. 6
7
Acting Chair Waldfogel: Ok, so we have a Substitute Motion and a second. Do you want to 8
speak to the second? 9
10
Commissioner Summa: Very briefly. I just don't think this is the right solution at this time in this 11
location in the absence of a more comprehensive look at making the school route safer in 12
general. And I really appreciate what staff the outreach staff did on this project and I think it 13
shows that you could do a great job with the larger project that the Vice-Chair [Note-Acting 14
Chair] mentioned. 15
16
Acting Chair Waldfogel: Ok, so any other comments? So we have a Motion and we have a 17
second. 18
19
Commissioner Lauing: So do we do commentary on the Substitute Motion now? 20
21
64
Mr. Lait: So yeah. The Chair would give you an opportunity to have a dialogue on the Motion, 1
on the Substitute Motion. 2
3
Acting Chair Waldfogel: Yes. 4
5
Commissioner Lauing: Ok. I’d like to comment. Regrettably I just have to underscore my 6
perception that the survey data is not really actionable data. Because of the way the surveys 7
were handed out you could if I'm not seeing this happen, but you could have stuffing of the 8
ballot box and there is just no clear perception anyway. I also think that we have to give our 9
residents credit for giving us the feedback on these near collisions which is alarming. So again it 10
feels like went the opposite direction on safety and we have essentially a temporary problem 11
here of about an hour a day on weekdays for nine months. So I think we're kind of over 12
engineering a solution for that and not recognizing the real data if we were to support it which 13
is the near collisions. I think it's also very wise to take a wider view of this, but we could solve 14
the short term problem much simpler while we're taking a wider view. And there is some limit 15
everyone's agreed as I said earlier and one of our speakers has written book on it that traffic 16
circles work, but they don't work everywhere. How many can we put up in the City if they 17
work? We can't put them at every intersection. We can't do 100 or 50 or whatever. 18
19
So this doesn't seem like the right place now with the data that we have to invest in that versus 20
taking the longer view and giving a more short term solution some of which we haven't even 21
discussed. Should it be flashing lights during that hour that's there? Should it be manned or 22
65
womaned by actual people for that amount of time? So those kinds of things could be looked 1
at as short term safety precautions which is again the core issue that we talked about on this 2
intersection. Thank you. 3
4
Acting Chair Waldfogel: Ok, any other comments? 5
6
Mr. Lait: Ok so just so we’re clear this is a recommendation to the Director of Planning and 7
Community Environment (PCE) with the three points that you've identified in your Motion. This 8
is the Substitute Motion with the first and second. Thank you. 9
10
Acting Chair Waldfogel: Ok. Great, any other questions or should we call the question? Ok, all 11
in favor? 12
13
Commissioner Lauing: This is of the Substitute? 14
15
Acting Chair Waldfogel: Voting on the Substitute Motion. So all in favor of the Substitute 16
Motion? 17
18
Commissioner Rosenblum: I just have a procedural question. How does this work? Do, can I 19
just keep making Substitute Motions and then we can't vote on the initial Motion? 20
21
Mr. Lait: No (interrupted) 22
66
1
Commissioner Rosenblum: I don't… it seems odd to me. 2
3
Mr. Lait: Yeah so your rules of order call for an opportunity for a Substitute Motion that needs 4
to be acted upon before another Substitute Motion is made. So this is a procedure that exists 5
where there's an initial Motion and (interrupted) 6
7
Commissioner Rosenblum: Only one Substitute Motion may be made. 8
9
Mr. Lait: At a time ok. 10
11
Commissioner Rosenblum: Ok, yeah. 12
13
VOTE 14
15
Acting Chair Waldfogel: Ok, so let's call the question on the Substitute Motion. Is everybody 16
clear on the Substitute Motion? Ok, all in favor? All opposed? Ok, so it's four to one and one 17
abstention. 18
19
MOTION PASSED (4-1-1, Commissioner Rosenblum against, Commissioner Monk abstained, 20
Chair Alcheck absent) 21
22
67
Mr. Lait: Well so a silent vote is a yes vote so if there is an abstention we need to hear that on 1
the record. 2
3
Commissioner Monk: I’m abstaining because the Substitute Motion seemed to completely 4
contradict the original Motion so therefore I'm not feeling capable to vote on it. 5
6
Mr. Lait: And then if you want to and then if you also want to extend an opportunity forward to 7
the other Commissioner who voted against it. 8
9
Acting Chair Waldfogel: I'm sorry so to vote on the original Motion or? 10
11
Mr. Lait: So that was a that was a 4-1-1 vote. We heard the comments from the Commissioner 12
who abstained. 13
14
Acting Chair Waldfogel: Yes. 15
16
Mr. Lait: If you want to create an opportunity for the you typically create an opportunity for the 17
dissenting vote to also make comments. 18
19
Acting Chair Waldfogel: Ok. Would you like to make additional comments? 20
21
68
Commissioner Rosenblum: I think this establishes a really poor precedent. So what we've just 1
decided was that there's a part of our Comp Plan that we don't agree with and it's pretty clear 2
that where possible we don't have consecutive intersections with stop signs. And we have this 3
in other places in town. You see what happens. The reason that we even embarked upon this 4
project was because people who had to ride through that intersection said it was unsafe and so 5
an alternative was developed. And so what we’ve just decided was that we will throw out the 6
results of their survey because we don’t think it’s scientific, but I'll tell you almost every survey 7
we get here is not scientific. It's a survey of residents and you don't know which ones respond. 8
It's just input. And as a result of that we are overriding both our own Comp Plan policies and 9
the recommendations of most traffic safety experts around the nature of collisions and the 10
[School Transportation and Safety Committee] and so I think it's an odd precedent for us to do. 11
12
The final piece is I really object to the minimization of saying well it's only an hour a day nine 13
months a year. I don't think we should be compromising on the safety of children biking in this 14
area. And again, this is something that I feel pretty strongly about. So I respect the process and 15
I think and as I said as we went towards this course I knew that I'm on the minority here, but I 16
wanted to make a strongly worded dissent in this case because I think that it's erroneous logic 17
and it's certainly not the kind of logic you would need to override City policy, transportation 18
experts, and the [School Transportation Committee] in this case. So again, I think it's these this 19
hour is only one hour, but it's an important hour with a lot of kids. And so I think it's not the 20
logic doesn't jibe to me. So again I respect the process, I'm out voted, but I think this was not 21
the our finest hour and a half. 22
69
1
Acting Chair Waldfogel: Great, thank you. Ok, so this topic is closed then. Thank you. 2
3
Mr. Mello: Thank you very much for considering this. 4
5
Acting Chair Waldfogel: I'm sorry did you have another additional comment? Please 6
Commissioner Gardias. 7
8
Commissioner Gardias: Yeah just in regards to the to Josh’s question about our accommodation 9
for the study. I just want to briefly to (interrupted) 10
11
Mr. Lait: I guess I would say I mean if we come back? 12
13
Commissioner Gardias: No, no. It has nothing, it has nothing with the Motion, right? So it's you 14
were asking just to provide input to your study. I just want to give you the briefly one of the 15
inputs. So a I'd like you just to consider a similar measure that it’s at Bryant I believe by 16
Castilleja, is it Bryant by Castilleja where pretty much only the bicycles or bicyclist may pass, but 17
cars would cannot go through. So when you're going to study this neighborhood just please 18
you can just have some temporary measures to see pretty much if it's going to have an effect, 19
calming effect of Cowper all together. Thank you. 20
21
70
Acting Chair Waldfogel: Ok. Commissioner Summa did you have any additional comments? So 1
brief comment? 2
3
Commissioner Summa: Briefly I do I respect my colleagues opinion, but I think the idea is not to 4
have safe streets for children or anything and consistency with our Comp Plan it's that that was 5
the wrong traffic calming device in this location. So I believe what we did is completely 6
consistent with our Comp Plan. 7
8
Acting Chair Waldfogel: Great, thank you. Can we close it now? Ok. 9
10
Commission Action: Commissioner Monk made a motion to: 11
1. Install Cowper/Colerigde traffic circle with yellow high-visibility crosswalks and yield signs 12
2. Landscaped when built or soon thereafter 13
3. Crosswalks be moved back to maximize deflection 14
4. Signage incorporated as a part of design so that motorists entering the circle will yield to the 15
right of way and be aware of upcoming traffic circle 16
5. Any design changes be compliant with City School Traffic Safety Committee 17
18
Seconded by Commissioner Rosenblum, no vote taken, substitute motion made by Vice-chair 19
Waldfogel; 20
21
Vice-chair Waldfogel’s Substitute Motion: 22
1. Remove the traffic circle 23
2. Revert to yield sing/stop sign condition as dictated by good traffic practice 24
3. Take on holistic design project and neighborhood circulation. 25
26
Motion was Seconded by Commissioner Summa 27
28
Vote 4-1-1 (Commissioner Monk Abstained, Commissioner Rosenblum Against, Chair Alcheck 29
Absent) Substitute Motion Passed 30
31
71
Approval of Minutes 1
Public Comment is Permitted. Five (5) minutes per speaker.1,3 2
3. May 31, 2017 Draft Planning & Transportation Commission Meeting Minutes 3
4
Acting Chair Waldfogel: Let's move on to Item 3, Approval of Minutes, the May 31, 2017, 5
meeting. 6
7
MOTION 8
9
Commissioner Gardias: I’m sorry. Yes, I'm moving to approve the minutes. 10
11
SECOND, VOTE 12
13
Acting Chair Waldfogel: Ok moved and seconded. Any discussion/amendments/corrections? 14
None heard. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? The minutes are approved. 15
16
MOTION PASSED (6-0-1, Chair Alcheck absent) 17
18
Commission Action: Motion to approve made by Commissioner Gardias, Seconded by Vice-19
chair Waldfogel. Motion passed 6-0 (Chair Alcheck absent) 20
Committee Items 21
22
Acting Chair Waldfogel: Ok, committee items? We don't have any committees currently. 23
24
72
Commissioner Questions, Comments or Announcements 1
2
Acting Chair Waldfogel: Commissioner questions, comments or announcements. Commissioner 3
Lauing you have? 4
5
Commissioner Lauing: Yeah, I just there's a number of very interesting topics coming up, 6
Jonathan, coming forward. And I'm just wondering if there's anything that we should try to get 7
out ahead of starting these things earlier and spending time on perhaps even using committees. 8
And obviously ad hoc committees can even be one, but for example of the annual limit 9
extension ordinance is to come back July 26th. We saw that a few months ago. Is there 10
anything we could do in the next month to help that before we see it? Ditto things like the 11
parking management. We got that very thorough study last time. If there’s anything we can do 12
in parallel that would be great. I mean I know it needs to go to the Finance Committee. 13
Perhaps even just a notification when it's going so that one of us could attend if appropriate to 14
understand the finances behind that so we're better prepared. 15
16
Jonathan Lait, Assistant Director: Excuse me. Yeah, so on that the latter item the downtown 17
parking management one this is a discussion that you had back in June and just I think your last 18
meeting perhaps. So I don't know that there's anything else for the Commission to do at this 19
point. Staff does plan on coming back in August to present that, but I will also talk to Josh and 20
see if there's anything that is would be helpful for a subcommittee of the Commission to be 21
engaged in relative to that project. And I can certainly give you the date on the Finance 22
Committee on that and send that to the Commission. 23
73
1
With respect to the interim ordinance extension there's really not much to do on that. We're 2
going to recommend that the Commission extend the ordinance from its current deadline of 3
think it's September of this year to I think July of next year or August of next year. So there’s 4
really not much to do about that. 5
6
Commissioner Lauing: And then we see Fry’s as coming back on August 30th. I asked last time 7
about that and I was told that you're going to look at a grant. Does that mean you got the grant 8
or is it just an update or what? 9
10
Mr. Lait: The grant deadline is July 5th I believe. We're currently working to secure money from 11
that grant process and we'll see how that goes. We need the grant money obviously to move 12
forward with that program, but why don't we do this I can get you an update of our status on 13
that. We can let you know that we filed with the grant and sort of where we are at our next 14
Commission meeting. We can do that as part of our sort of Director's Report an update on that. 15
16
Commissioner Lauing: Ok. And great the Transportation Management Association (TMA) is on 17
here because we haven't seen that all year so that’s great to get status on that that’s down in 18
October/November. Just in general if we can be helpful to get stuff earlier that would be, we 19
want to be helpful. Not… to offload you not to add staff. 20
21
74
Mr. Lait: Understood and one thing I did forget to mention at the beginning of meeting was that 1
the I believe I'm correct in saying this that the Comp Plan is going to be delivered to the 2
Planning Commission I think this Friday. Is that right? June 30th, ok. So you'll get a copy of 3
that and then in your next packet for the 1st of July will be sort of the introduction conversation 4
about the reviewing the Comp Plan and the further meetings in dealing with the Land Use and 5
Transportation Element. 6
7
Acting Chair Waldfogel: Great, thank you. Commissioner Gardias. 8
9
Commissioner Gardias: Yeah in the same tone, right? I support ask of my colleague about some 10
subcommittees where we may participate and also in the past we were embedded with some 11
research groups or some study groups that were working towards either traffic or some other 12
solutions. So I think that Jonathan if you could just a extend this ask, right, and advise us 13
[unintelligible] some other research areas or some other study groups where we can eventually 14
engage ourselves within. Thank you. 15
16
Acting Chair Waldfogel: Other comments? Ok, in that case the meeting is adjourned. Next 17
meeting is July 12th. Thank you. 18
19
Adjournment 20
21
8:05pm 22
75
Palo Alto Planning & Transportation Commission 1
Commissioner Biographies, Present and Archived Agendas and Reports are available online: 2
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/boards/ptc/default.asp. The PTC Commission members are: 3
4
Chair Michael Alcheck 5
Vice Chair Asher Waldfogel 6
Commissioner Przemek Gardias 7
Commissioner Ed Lauing 8
Commissioner Susan Monk 9
Commissioner Eric Rosenblum 10
Commissioner Doria Summa 11
12
Get Informed and Be Engaged! 13
View online: http://midpenmedia.org/category/government/city-of-palo-alto or on Channel 26. 14
15
Show up and speak. Public comment is encouraged. Please complete a speaker request card 16
located on the table at the entrance to the Council Chambers and deliver it to the Commission 17
Secretary prior to discussion of the item. 18
19
Write to us. Email the PTC at: Planning.Commission@CityofPaloAlto.org. Letters can be 20
delivered to the Planning & Community Environment Department, 5th floor, City Hall, 250 21
Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301. Comments received by 2:00 PM two Tuesdays preceding 22
the meeting date will be included in the agenda packet. Comments received afterward through 23
2:00 PM the day of the meeting will be presented to the Commission at the dais. 24
25
Material related to an item on this agenda submitted to the PTC after distribution of the 26
agenda packet is available for public inspection at the address above. 27
Americans with Disability Act (ADA) 28
It is the policy of the City of Palo Alto to offer its public programs, services and meetings in a 29
manner that is readily accessible to all. Persons with disabilities who require materials in an 30
appropriate alternative format or who require auxiliary aids to access City meetings, programs, 31
or services may contact the City’s ADA Coordinator at (650) 329-2550 (voice) or by emailing 32
ada@cityofpaloalto.org. Requests for assistance or accommodations must be submitted at least 33
24 hours in advance of the meeting, program, or service. 34