HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-03-16 City Council (41)City
City 0fPalo Alto
Manager’s Report
TO:HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANN1NG
DATE:March 16, 1998 CMR:159:98
SUBJECT:ROSS ROAD ROAD BUMP PROJECT-APPROVAL OF FINAL
RECOMMENDED PLAN, ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT, AND
BUDGET AMENDMENT ORDINANCE IN THE AMOUNT OF
$30,000
REPORT IN BRIEF
In August 1997, Council directed staff to work with a group 0fresidents to develop a plan
for the installation of road bumps on Ross Road between Oregon Expressway and Colorado
Avenue,and return to Council with a Budget Amendment Ordinance for construction. Staff
has since conducted a neighborhood survey and held a neighborhood meeting in order to
develop the recommended plan of seven road .bumps to be placed in these two blocks of Ross
Road. Staff’believes the final recommended plan is supported by all households in the two-
block area. An environmental assessment was prepared, and confirms that the level of traffic
diverted to adjacent streets will be small enough.not to be noticeable to residents of those
adjacent streets, nor even reliably measurable. The construction of this project will cost
$30,000 and be funded from the street improvement through a Budget Amendment
Ordinance.
CMR:159:98 Page 1 of 6
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that Council:
Approve the Final Recommended Plan (Figure 1) for the Ross Road Road Bump
Project;
Approve a Budget Amendment Ordinance in the amount of $30,000 to fund
construction of the project (Attachment C); and
3.Approve the Environmental Assessment adopting a negative declaration
(Attachment D).
BACKGROUND
On April 3, 1997, Council directed staff to work with residents to develop a recommended
plan for the installation of road bumps on Ross Road between Oregon Expressway and
Colorado Avenue, and referredthe item to the Policy and Services Committee for further
discussion. Council’s direction to staff was in response to a request from Ross Road
residents that was made directly to the City Council members.
At the July 8, 1997 Policy and Services Committee meetin~ staffrec0mmended that Council
direct staff to work with residents to develop a road bump plan, and return to Council with
a Budget Amendment Ordinance to fund the construction. No residents spoke in opposition
to the recommendation and the Committee approved staff’s recommendation 3-0 (Fazzino
absent). Details are provided in Attachment A (CMR:320:97, July 8, 1997) and Attachment
B (Policy and Services Committee meeting minutes, July 8, 1997). The Committee’s
recommended approval of staff’s recommendation was forwarded to Council and approved
on August 4, 1997. This item is now being brought back to Council for final approval.
DISCUSSION
Neigh borh ood In volvement
In August 1997, staff sent a letter to 55 households on Ross Road between Oregon
Expressway and Colorado Avenue (including two comer properties on Marshall Drive, and
three non-resident property owners). This letter described the project, identified ten potential
road bump locations for residents to consider (including a recommended plan for six specific
bump locations), and announced a neighborhood meeting for September 11, 1997. Ten to
fifteen residents attended the meeting, and two responses were received via e-mail. Some
residents did not approve of some of the proposed locations. Some residents of Ross Road
between Oregon and Moreno requested three bumps for that block instead of two.
As a result of this neighborhood input, staff identified three substitute bump locations, and
notified the 55 households in a letter dated October 10, 1997 of a revised recommended road
bump plan of seven locations. In order to ensure that residents living adjacent- to the proposed
CMR: 159:98 Page 2 of 6
FIGURE 1
bumps knew exactly where the bumps would be, staff mailed detailed location plans to the
28 households located closest to the seven recommended locations (four households for each
bump). Staff also asked two residents who have been informal spokespersons for this project
among their neighbors to personally contact all 28 households. Mr. David Jones and Ms.
Gretchen Wehrle reported that they were able to contact all but two of the 28 households,
and all of those contacted concurred with the fmal recommended locations. Staff did not
receive any comments f~om residents in response to the October !0 letter announcing staff’s
recommended plan.
On January 29, 1998 staff mailed athird letter to Ross Road residents conveying the above
results of the October 10 mailing, and announcing that the seven recommended locations
would be transmitted to the City Council as the "final recommended plan" (please refer to
Figure 1). Staffdid not receive any resident responses to this letter indicating disagreement
with the final plan. Staff believes that, by various indicators, all of the residents favor the
final recommended plan at some level. It is unusual to have 100 percent agreement for road
bump locations, especially for a plan with seven bumps. This agreement reflects the unusual
unanimity of the Ross Road residents that has been present since their initial contact with
Council last year. Ross Road residents were notified that this staff report would be available
at the Main Library beginning March 13, and were advised of the Council’s March 16
proceedings on this item.
Staffdid not involve residents of adjacent streets in this project for two reasons. First, the
15 percent of Ross Road traffic expected to be diverted to, and split up among, various
adjacent streets represents an increase of substantially less than 10 percent of the volume on
each of the adjacent streets. This is well below the + 10 percent random range of fluctuation
of volume measurements on those streets and, hence, is not even reliably measurable ( refer
to discussion on page 11 of Attachment C, the Environmental Assessment [EA]). Second,
by Council assignment, this project is limited to a specific two-block street segment, rather
than a much wider area typical of a neighborhood study. Nevertheless, staff has designated
a wider area bounded by Greer and Middlefield Roads, Oregon Expressway, and Colorado
Avenue as a traffic volume monitoring area (refer to Figure 1 at the end of the EA). Initial
traffic counts have already been taken in this area. Another set of volume and speed counts
(speed counts only on Ross Road) will be taken just before installation of the bumps, and a
final set six months after their installation.
Final Recommended Road Bump Plan
Figure 1 illustrates the proposed layout for seven road bumps on Ross Road--three between
Oregon and Moreno, and four between Moreno and Colorado. Installing one less bump in
each block would have produced average spacings greater than the minimums recommended
in the City’s adopted Road Bump Guidelines ("City of Palo Alto Road Bump Program",
April 1991), especially in the Moreno to Colorado segment. The proposed seven-bump plan
results in average spacings that are less than the City’s usual recommended minimums, but
are within the guidelines recommended by the Institute of Transportation Engineers
CMR:159:98 Page 4 of 6
(TIE, "Guidelines for the Design and Application of Speed Humps," 1997). Staff’s
recommendation of the option that results in shorter spacings between bumps (the seven
bump layout) is based on (i) the residents’ strong interest and unanimity in controlling
speeds, (ii) initial data showing higher than typical volumes and speeds for a local residential
street, and (iii) staff’s first-hand experience of traltic conditions on this street after spending
several hours identifying potential bump locations. These spacings are expected to result in
85th percentile speeds between bumps of no greater than 25 mph, down from initial speed
measurements of 30 - 34 mph.
Based on past experience in Palo Alto and other jurisdictions where bumps have been
installed, it is expected that about 15 percent of the current traffic volume on Ross Road will~
be diverted to adjacent paralle! streets and some intersecting streets. The diverted volume
(about 375 vehicles per day), when split between the two primary adjacent parallel streets
(Louis and Middlefield Roads), results in added volumes to those roads that will not ,be
noticeable, or even reliably measurable (refer to page 11 and Figure 1 of the attached EA,
and the discussion above under "Neighborhood Involvement").
Impacts on Fire Department Services and Street Maintenance
Pages 11-12 of the EA identify other impacts of the road bump plan, all of which are
considered to be less than significant. The most noteworthy of these are impacts on Fire
Department services and street maintenance. The bumps will delay fire trucks and paramedic
ambulances responding to the local area, with the amount of delay depending on the vehicle
and route chosen. The bumps are not located on a collector or arterial street (which the Fire
Department considers to be the primary emergency route network); nevertheless, the Fire
Department points out that fire vehicles usually use a local street for some portion of the
route of an emergency response, and the Department prefers unimpeded access to all local
streets. A full discussion is ~rovided on page 12 of the EA.
Road bumps may .interfere with Public Works Department street sweeping. On occasion,
depending on the model of sweeper, the sweeper may drop debris on the approach side of
a bump and/or may not reliably clean the gutter in the bump area. The impact on Public
Works Department resources is discussed in the following paragraph.
RESOURCE IMPACT
Project design and .preparation of construction bid documents will be done by existing
Transportation Di.vision staff. Construction bids will be solicited from private construction
firms. The cost of construction is es.timated to be $30,000, including a 10 percent
construction contingency. A Budget Amendment Ordinance (BAO) in the amount of
$30,000 is requested to fund the project (included as Attachment C). This BAO transfers
$30,000 from the Street Improvement Fund to a new Capital Improvement Project # 19818,
"Road Bump Project for Ross Road." This project will result in an incremental, unbudgeted
increase in the maintenance workload for the Public Works Department. To the extent that
maintenance cannot be absorbed within current resources, staff may need to return to the
Council at a later time with a request for additional resources.
CMR:159:98 Page 5 of 6
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
Staff’s recommendation is consistent with the direction of the Policy and Services Committee
at its July 8, 1997 meeting.
TIME LINE
In February and March, the Transportation Division will prepare detailed plans and
specifications and solicit bids from contractors. Construction is scheduled to begin in May
and be completed by June 1998. Because the construction contractis less than $65,000,
Council approval is not required. Staff will transmit an informational report on the
effectiveness of this project to Council in Spring 1999.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
A negative declaration is included (Attachment D) supporting a f’mding that the project will
not create a significant environmental impact. A detailed discussion of impacts is found on
pages 11-12 of the EA, as well as in the "Discussion" section of this staff report.. Staff
recommends that the Council adopt the negative declaration.
ATTACHMENTS
A.CMR:320:97: July 8, 1997 (without Attachment 2)
B.Policy and Services Committee meeting minutes, July 8, 1997.
C.Budget Amendment Ordinance
D.Environmental Assessment
PREPARED BY: Carl Stoffel, Transportation Engineer
DEPARTMENT HEAD:
KENNETH R. SCHRE~BER
Director of Planning and
Community
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
Manager
CMR:159:98 Page 6 of 6
ATTACHMENT A
City of Palo Alto
City Manager’s Report
TO:
ATTENTION:
HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
Policy and Services Committee
FROM:CITY MANAGER. DEPARTMENT: PLANNING
AGENDA DATE:
SUBJECT:
July 8, 1997 CMR:320:97
TRAFFIC CONDITIONS ON ROSS ROAD
REOUEST
On April 3, 1997, Council directed staff to work with residents to develop a recommended ¯
plan for the installation of road bumps on the segment 0f Ross Road between Oregon
Expressway and Colorado Avenue (see Attachment 1). Council voted to refer this item
to the Policy and Services Committee. This report presents the background information.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff recommends that Council direct staff to work with residents to develop a plan for
the installation of road bumps on the segment 0fRoss Road between Oregon Expressway
and Colorado Avenue, an_d return with a Budget Amendment Ordinance to fund the
installation.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
In 1991, Council approved a citywide program for installation of road bumps on local
residential streets, including procedures and criteria, based on a successful test of road
bumps in the Midtown area (see Attachment 2). This program gives residentsa procedure
by which they can request road bumps, and it allows staff to determine which requests
should go forward for Council approval, without staff having to present every case to-
Council for consideration. Even when a particular.request meets all Council-established
criteria, staff is still required to obtain Council approval. Even though staff cannot
recommend road bumps unless all the criteria are met, Council may override the criteria
and approve bumps under circumstances it deems appropriate. Two criteria, in particular,
were purposely set high in order to limit road bump installation to those situations where
.there is clear, factual evidence that speeding has become an actual hazard (minimum
CMR:320:97 Page 1 of 3
and present many anecdotal experiences of speeding, near misses, and pets being killed.
Residents are also concerned about reduced quality of life due to the impacts of traffic
volumes and speeds. Road bumps reduce speeds, may discourage some through traffic,
and are relatively inexpensive compared to other physical traffic calming measures. Other
than the lack of speed-related accidents and the impacts of road bumps discussed above,
there areno reasons why road bumps could not be installed on this street segment, should
Council so desire.
FISCAL IMPACT
Approximately 5 to 7 bumps would be needed to noticeably reduce speeds on this
¯ segment of Ross Road. At a cost of approximately $3,200 per bump, including signing
and striping, the project would cost about $23,000. There is no funding for road bumps
in the current budget or capital improvement program. Staff will return with a Budget
Amendment Ordinance from the General Fund Budget Stabilization Reserve, if Council
so directs.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
An environmental assessment would be prepared at the time a specific project were
brought to Council for approval.
ATTACHMENTS
2.
3.
4.
Memo to Colleagues from Cotmcil Members Fazzinoand Eakins
Road Bump Program Information Package "._~ ~- ,~,d.’)
Letter to Carl Stoffel from David E. Jones III and Residents of Ross Road
Letter to David E. Jones III from Marvin Overway
Prepared By: Carl Stoffel
Department Head Review:
City Manager Approval:
KENNETH R. SCHREIBER /"
Director of Plamning
and Community Environment
EMILY HARRISON
Assistant City Manager
CMR:320:97 Page 3 of 3
OFFICE OF THE CITY COUNCIL
MEMORANDUM
ATTACH3VIENT 1
DATE:April 3, 1997
TO:Our Colleagues
FROM:Council Members Fazzino and Eakins
SUBJECT: Traffic Conditions of Ross Road
For a long time, residents of the section of Ross Road between Oregon Expressway and
Colorado Avenue have expressed serious concerns about the ,speed of traffic and
increased volume of.traffic along that section of Ross Road. The problems that Ross Road
is experiencing are very similar to problems experienced during the 1980s by Middlefi~ld
Road’s other major parallel street, Cowper Street. As you know, the Council installed
speed bumps on Cowper at that time to address their traffic speed and volume concerns.
Both Ross Road and Cowper Street are used as alternatives by drivers to get to and from
the Midtown area.
Collectively the residents approached the City last year to request .installation of road
bumps to reduce travel speeds. City staff reviewed their request and concluded that this
section of Ross Road meets eight of the nine criteria established by Palo Alto for
installation of road bumps. Failure to meet the accident criteria (minimum of six speed-
related accidents in three years) precludes staff from proceeding with the installation of
road bumps under current city procedures, unless otherwise directed by Council. Copies
of a letter request from residents and staff’s response are attached for reference.
More recently, we met with a group of residents who live along this segment Of Ross Road,
and it is apparent that they have very serious continuing concerns about the safety of their
children, their pets, themselves and others and look to the Council for help. We believe
that their situation warrants further consideration and action. They reported to us several
incidents of accidents, near accidents, and the deaths of several pets due to high speed
traffic. This block of Ross Road experiences traffic volume problems because it is used
as an alternative to Middlefield Road to get to the freeway or to Midtown and points south,
and high speed traffic problems because it is located right off Oregon, is a wide street, and
.lacks a significant tree canopy or other traffic calming measures.
Therefore, we recommend that the Council direct staff to work with residents to come up
with a recommended plan for the installation of road bumps for the segment.of Ross Road
between Oregon Expressway and Colorado Avenue. We view this as an interim solution
until such time as a comprehensive plan is developed.to address the traffic problems
associated with Middlefield and other parallel roads to assure a fair distribution of traffic.
Attachments
existing speed of 32 mph and minimum of six speed-related accidents in three years). In
thisway, road bumps would be used only in the most serious situations, minimizing the
bumps’ cumulative impacts on maintenance, street resurfacing, and Fire Department
response times.
Since the program was established in 1991, staff has received and evaluated 17 official
requests for road bumps. None of the requests met the accident criterion, with the result
that staffdid not approve any of the 17. Other than the bumps in the Midtown area (which
preceded the establishment of the citywide program), Council has approved the
installation of bumps in only two locations, neither of which fully met the required criteria.
One case was the Lytton Avenue Neighborhood Traffic Management Plan, in which
Council approved a set of bumps as an integral part of the overall plan, which also
included other traffic management devices. In the second ease, a set of bumps was
installed on Bryant Court as part of a subdivision approval. Even in the Midtown area;
where bumps were first installed, the now-established criteria would not have been fully
satisfied.
Approval of road bumps on Ross Road would continue the precedent for installation of
bumps in situations where not all &Council’s criteria have been met.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
As explained in staff’s response to Mr. Jones’ June 10, 1996 letter (Attachments 3 and
4), eight of the rtine criteria are met for road bumps on Ross Road between Oregon
Expressway and Colorado Avenue. Only the accident criterion is not met (no speed-
related accidents were recorded for that segment of Ross Road during the analysis
period). Staff therefore denied the residents’ request. Residents felt strongly enough about
their situation to contact Council for special consideration in oven~ding the criteria.
Council received numerous letters from Ross Road residents, for its April 3 discussion.
Those letters, as well as others received recently, are included separately in the packet.
The traffic volume on this segment of Ross Road, 2600 vehicles per day, is higher than
most typical local residential streets in Palo Alto. Eighty-fifth percentile speeds on this
segment of Ross Road range from 30 to 34 mph, depending on direction and location.
Speeds on local residential streets in Palo Alto are typically around 32 mph or less.
Considering the congestion at the nearby OregoniMiddlefield intersection, staff believes
that a primary cause of the above traffic conditions on Ross Road is that some drivers on
Oregon Expressway and Middlefield Road use Ross Road and other local streets to
bypass that intersection. Even though there are no police records of speed-related
accidents on Ross Road, residents are obviously concerned that accidents could occur,
CMR:320:97 Pago 2 of 3
June ! 0, 1996,ATTACHMENT 3
Carl Stoffel
Chief Transportation Official
Transportation Division
P.O. Box 10250
Palo Alto, CA 94303
Subject: Ross Road residents request "Speed Bumps" b~tween Oregon Expressway
and Moreno Ave.. through the City of Palo Alto Road Bump Program
Dear Mr. Stoffel,
Please HELP US!I The dramatic increase in the ~peed of traffic, along with the
enormous .increase of traffic on Ross Road, has created a hazardous situation for
the children, residents and homeowners of this Palo Alto Street.
The program has a criteria of:
¯85% of the vehicles exceeding 32 mph (yes!!}
¯500 - 4000 vehicles per. day volume
¯posted speed limit of 25 mph
¯street is not a truck transit (you wouldn’t know it!)
¯proper longitudinal grade
¯local Palo Alto Street
¯six speeding accidents in three consecutive years
We meet or exceed all of the above criteria, except possibly the volume of accidents.
Given time, we will meet the accident criteria. Wouldn’t it be better to adver[.a
potential tragedy?
Please help return Ross Road to the residents, by allowing speed/road bumps
between Oregon Expressway and Moreno Ave. (please see attachment of resident
signatures. * 100% - A~124 homes have signed!!)
Sincerely,
David E. Jones III and Residents of Ross Road
2500 Ross Road
Palo Alto, CA 94303
L. Wheeler, Mayor of Palo Alto
R. Anderson, Member of City Council
Care of City Clerk/City of Palo Alto Council Members
OREGON EXPRESSWAY OREGON EXPRESSWAY
.410
50.
7O
98
74
90
MORENO AVE
2451
2471
2497"
,.2575 ~
~5_q !
MORENO AVE
November 8, 1996
City oi Palo Alto
Department o~PlqnningandCommunity Environment
ATTACHMENT 4
Mr. David E. Jones III
and Residents of Ross Road
2500 Ross Road
Palo Alto, CA 94303
Transporta~on Division
Dear Mr. Jones:
This is in response to the June 10, 1996, letter from you and all the residents of
the 2400 and 2500 blocks of Ross Road regarding speed and traffic conditions on
Ross Road between Oregon Expressway and Moreno Avenue, and requesting
installation Of road bumps. You have discussed thig issue several times On the
telephone with Carl Stoffel, and I appreciate your understanding that we have not
been able to respond earlier.
As you and Mr. Stoffel discussed, Palo Alto has a program for installation of road
bumps on local residential streets, based on procedures and criteria approved by
the City Council in 1991, and he has sent you our packet detailing the program.
The criteria were designed to be strict, as there are some undesirable .aspects of
road b .umps that warrant their usage to be limited to situations with demonstrated
safety problems. According to the City’s procedures, all nine criteria must be met
in order for the Transportation Division to recommend installation of bumps, with
final approval and authorization of funding required from the City Council.
We evaluated the section of Ross Road between Oregon Expressway and
Colorado Avenue, which is a longer segment than is the subject of your request,
because we have received prior complaints about the segrnent of Ross Road
between Moreno and Colorado Avenues. The Oregon to Colorado segment meets
the first five basic criteria for road bumps in that (I) it is a local residential street;
(ii) the speed limit is 25 mph; (iii), the segment is long enough; (iv) it is not a
truck, bus, or emergency vehicle access route; and (v) its grade is less than 5
percent. As is obvious from your letter, the neighborhood support criterion is met
in the 2400 and 2500 blocks .of Ross Road.
The final three criteria concern volume, speed, and number of accidents, for which
we gathered data in July. The 24-hour volume (ADT) was measured for three days
in each of two locations (2400 and 2700 blocks), with a resulting average count
of 2600 ADT in both locations, meeting the criterion that the volume be between
250 Hamilton Avenue
P.O. Box 10250
PaloAlto, CA94303
415.’329.2520
415.329.2299 Fax
Mr. David E. Jones III
November 8, 1996
Page 2
500 and 4000 ADT. Speed surveys were conducted northboundand southbound
at the same two locations. In the 2400 block, 85th-percentile speeds were found
to be 34 mph (northbound) and 32 Inph (southbound). In the 2700 block, speeds
were 30 mph (northbound) and 33 mph (southbound). These speeds, when
averaged, meet the minimum speed criterion of 32 mph. Finally, accident history
was examined for this segment of Ross Road between January 1, 1992 and
October 31, 1996. Four accidents were reported to the Police Department during
this nearly five-year period, none of which was speed related. This does not meet
the criterion of a minimum of six speed-related accidents in three years..While
we can understand your desire to have road bumps installed on Ross Road, you
can see that your request does not meet the required minimum criterion for
accidents. ----
For your information, ther~ are locations where road bumps have been approved
or installed in Palo Alto where the above nine criteria have not all been met.
These were special cases that involved City Council review and approval of the
bumps in the context of a larger project--a neighborhood area study and aresidential subdivision project., Since 1992, we have received approximately five
requests and inquiries for road bumps from residents of the 2400 to 2700 blocks
of Ross Road (some of whom were the same people who signed your letter). It
is typical for speeds_and volumes on local streets to be higher than usual close to
an intersection with a major arterial, such as Oregon Expressway. In this case,
congestion at the Oregon/Middlefield intersection is probably causing some
.drivers to bypass the intersection. The City has a planned improvement project
that would substantially improve the operation of the intersection, thus reducing
the advantage to drivers of taking shortcuts. However, funding is not yet available
for this project.
Please be assured that the City is concerned about traffic safety, and recently
initiated several safety-related programs. These include additional Police
Department traffic team members, use of motorcycles for enforcement, a
neighborhood speed watch program (wherein residents may use Police
Department radar guns to identify speeders), and others. We ~vill forward a copy
of this letter to Lieutenant Don Hartnett with a request for the Police Department
to provide additional speed enforcement on Ross Road. You may wish to contact
him about the speed watch program or other aspects of the traffic safety program
(329-2449).
Mr. David E. Jones III
November 8, 1996
Page 3
In summary, installation of road bumps on Ross Road does not meet all of the
City Council approved criteria, and we have notified the Police Department of
your neighborhood’s concerns about speeding. Again, thank you for yo.ur
patience, and for bringing your concerns to our attention.
Sincerely,
Marvin L. O~)erway
Chief Transportation Official
CS
CC:,City Council
Residents of 2400 and 2500 blocks of Ross Road
City Manager, June Fleming
Lt. Don Harmett, Police Department
ATTACHMENT B
POLICY AND SERVICES COMMITTEE
MINUTES
Regular Meeting
July 8, 1997
o
Oral Communications- . ..................2
Traffic Conditions on Ross Road" . . . ...........2
Consuitant Contracts Over $25,~000 ............6
Approaches to Improve the Quality of Life in the Downtown Area
II
5.Discussion of Future Meeting Schedules and Agendas .23
Adjournment: The meeting adjourned ~t 9:12 p.m ........23
Chairperson McCown called the meeting to order at 7:10 p.m. in the
Council Chambers, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, California.
PRESENT:Andersen, Eakins, Fazzino (arrived at 7:~50 p.m.),
McCown
ABSENT: None
i. Oral Communications
None
2.Traffic Conditions on Ross Road
Chief Transportation Official Marvin Overway said the
recommendation had been initiated with a memo to colleagues from
three Council Members and referredto the Policy and Services (P&S)
Committee for further consideration. Staff recommended working
with neighbors to install road bumps as indicated in the report
(CMR:320:97).
Chairperson McCown asked whether the item would return to Council
afterwhich staff would proceed with the development of a plan.
Assistant City Manager Emily Harrison replied yes.
Chairperson McCown asked about the time frame for the plan and the
process for resident participation as part of the recommendation.
Ms. Harrison said if the item were approved unanimously and the P&S
Committee so desired, the item could be placed on the Consent
~Calendar on the¯ agenda prior to Council’s vacation. Staff could
then begin work with the neighbors during the summer.
Chairperson McCown asked when a formal budget proposal and details
of the project would return to Council.
Mr. Overway said once the item was approved by Council, staff would
organize a neighborhood meeting. Although not much~controversy was
expected, staff considered it worthwhile to examine the different
options of bumps, such as number and location. Specific details
would be worked up, with the support of the neighborhood, from
which a cost estimate could be determined. Staff would then return
to Council with a recommendation for approval of a Budget Amendment
Ordinance (BAO) and some indication of the approved plan. Council
would be required to approve the installation of the road bumps,
because the bumps were contrary to the staff direction.
7/8/97 P&S: 2
Vice Mayor Andersen aske~ whether staff was in any way concerned
about negative impacts to other neighborhoods since one Of the
biggest concerns was whether the action would result in unintended
traffic consequences to other neighborhoods.
Transportation Engineer Carl Stoffel said the speed bumps were
primarily a speed-reduction device which would cause some people to
find a different route, i.e., i0 to 15 percent of traffic typically
diverted to other locations. Middlefield R0ad~ an arterial, was
One of. the streets traffic woulddivert to, as it should. Staff
would conduct before and after speed and volume counts on nearby
streets, e.g., Louis Road, Greer Road, Moreno Avenue, Colorado
Avenue, to determine whether traffic had increased in significant
numbers. Some shifting was bound to occur. One advantage of speed
bumps was there would not be a radical shift.
Vice Mayor Andersen said although he lived on Louis Road, he
supported the proposal and was interested in hearing from members
of the public who were not in support of the bumps.
Jim Sheridan, 1732 Middlefield Road, initially intended to speak in
opposition to the proposal; however, after having read the staff
report (CMR:320:97) and the basis for the recommendation,~ he
changed his mind. The basis for the recommendation appeared to be
speed control, with which he was i00 percent in favor. Regarding
the broader policy implications, Council and the P&$ Committee had
committed itself to controlling speeds, on all streets in the City
with whatever means were available~ Traffic would continue to
increase with the addition of Sand Hill Road, .Stanford, larger
homes~ etc. Therefore, an equitable sharing of the burden of
traffic among all streets and residents was a policy.which Council
Members Fazzina and Eakins’ memo addressed and to which the P&S
Committee should recommit itself.
Gretchen Wehrle, 2684 Marshall Drive, spoke in support of the much
needed speed bumps.
Herb Borock, 2731 Byron Street, said when Council had adopted
procedures for installation of road bumps six years before, staff
had spoken of the Institution of Transportation Engineers task
force study on. road bumps which would be provided with the
recommendations. Since 1993, the recommendations had been
available for $20 as guidelines for the design and application of
speed bumps and should be utilized in the City’s process. The
staff report (CMR:320:97) indicated an estimated cost for road
bumps as cheaper than I0 years prior but much more expensive than
the line items for a street resurfacing project for the same road
P&S : 3
control devices. The most important City document was the
Comprehensive Plan which determined the relationship between land
use and the transportation network. The draft Comprehensive Plan
appeared to be moving in the wrong direction in Midtown in terms of
intensifying uses in the commercial area or intensifying the
density of residential development, which would lead to more
traffic. The question of fair and equitable should consider what
a street was designed for, i.e., if designed for arterial or
collector as opposed to local traffic. One way to reduce traffic
in an area was to limit the size of the commercial area for
neighborhood serving retail and convert ~the rest to residential.
Gina Jett, 2497 Ross Road, spoke in support of the implementation
of speed bumps and encouraged Council to take action before
speeding resulted in an accident with the many children in the
neighborhood.
David Jones, 2500 Ross Road, spoke in favor of the speed bumps. He
had lived on Cowper Street for two years when the speed bumps had
been installed. Significant reduction in speeds had resulted.
Peter Tirbak~ 2501 Ross Road, spoke in favor of the speed bumps.
During his 33-year residence on Ross Road, he had seen an increase
in speeds and the amount of traffic, t~
Chairperson McCown asked whether the increase in traffic was
predominantly during commute hours.
Mr. Tirbak thought the increase was spread throughout the day.
Robert Park, 2491 Ross Road, spoke in favor of the speed bumps~
Vicki Brown, 2450 Ross Road, spoke in favor of the speed bumps.
Janet Chaikind, 2470 Ross Road, spoke in favor of the speed bumps.
Vice Mayor Andersen asked how Ross Road had been identified in the
Comprehensive Plan.
local ~Mr. Stoffelsaid Ross Road was a ~e~-e~r street.
Vice Mayor Andersen rarely supported road bumps because of the
political implications, but based on his own experience, he changed
his mind. While driving down Oregon Expressway one afternoon, he
turned right on Ross Road, parked, and waited for the next car. As
soon as the next car came along, he followed the vehicle and found
7/8/97 P&S: 4
it was driving in excess of 40 miles per hour. The action for Ross
Road was appropriate.
MOTION: Vice Mayor Andersen moved, seconded by Eakins, that the
Policy and Services Committee recommend to Council approval of the
staff recommendation that Council direct staff to work with the
residents to develop a plan for the installation of road bumps on
the segment of Ross Road between Oregon Expressway and Colorado
Avenue and return with a Budget Amendment Ordinance to fund the
installation. ..
Council Member Eakins said a year seemed like a long time, but
changes to the physical environment which had a permanence should
not be made without due consideration. She supported the staff
recommendation.
Chairperson McCown concurred with therecommendation. However, the
staff report (CMR:320:97) indicated that Ross Road had met all but
one of the nine criteria established for evaluating whether or not
speed bumps were appropriate. She asked whether the criteria
should be adjusted or new ones adopted which were more ’reflective
of situations where the devices were appropriate.
Mr. Overway replied~ yes. Some time before, ~staff drafted a
"Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program." For. various reasons, the
item did not proceed as quickly as proposed. Staff would review
and refresh the program and bring it forward for consideration.
Part of the program involved road bumps, easing the criteria, and
facilitating the pro~ess if it met certain criteria.
Chairperson McCown was pleased to hear it.~ In response to Mr.
Sheridan’s concern about traffic volume on Middlefield Road, not-
all techniques worked in all situations, which was part of what the
traffic calming concept was about. Different devices might be
effective in different situations. The success of speed bumps on
Cowper Street was a comparable example of the potential for Ross
Road and was worth pursuing. From the freeway area on Oregon
Expressway, Ross Road had no stoplight, which made it attractive
because of the greater flexibility and was something to be taken
into consideration in the evaluation of speed bumps. It would
account for some of the use of Ross Road. Many of the letters from
the public spoke of early morning traffic and speeds which implied
the volume was from people going to work. An individual on Ross
Road at 7 a.m. was probably one of Palo Alto’s residents using Ross
Road to get to another location in the community. A continuing
education effort .was necessary. To the extent people stopped to
think and slow down, speed bumps were a valuable tool.The City
7/8/97 P&S: 5
should consider updating its thinking in using speed bumps
throughout the community with a fair set of objective criteria to
determine where speed bumps would fit.
Vice Mayor Andersen said Mr. Borock had .raised the issue of
resurfacing. He asked whether resurfacing involved tearing out
road bumps prior to resurfacing.
Mr. Stoffel said Cowper Street had involved a major reconstruction
which had required removal of the~speed bumps. A simple resealing
process, however, would not require speed bump removal.
Vice Mayor Andersen asked whether an analysis of the condition of
Ross Road had been conducted and whether one of the recommendations
might involve resurfacing in the process of installation to keep
maintenance costs lower.
Mr. Stoffel was unsure where Ross Road was on the pavement
management system but would check it.
Vice Mayor Andersen suggested including consideration of the
pavement management system as part of the motion.
City Manager, June Fleming said it was not necessary for the P&S
Committee to .give staff such a direction since it would
automatically consider the pavemen~ .management system as part of
the project.
MOTION PASSED 3-0, Fazzino absent.
4~,~Consultant Contracts Over
A~s_s_~st~an~,ty Manager Emily Harrison said the Finance Committee
al_~r?a_~dy_~re~v~l~ the list of consultant contracts over $25,.000 and
selected the ~il Chambers Renovation, Gunn Library New
Inf[as~ure, a~~r~ Facilities/Mitchell Park Master Plan
projects f~r .pa[ticipa~.. If the Policy and Services (P&S)
C~~~ to_palate ~in any of the thre~ items, theitem w~~ir~y ~_cou~ The Public Works Department
req~he P&S C~itte~nsider not selecting ?wo
l~~~~~~y for which Councilh~s~i~s.~ Thief item was the
L onal item
h time
s o
participate in the Palo Alto ,Medical Foundation (P~F)/Sout~
7/8/97 P&S: 6
ORDINANCE NO.
ATTACHMENT C
ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO
AMENDING THE BUDGET FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1997-98 TO
PROVIDE AN ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATION TO CREATE CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NUMBER 19818, ROAD BUMP PROJECT FOR
ROSS ROAD
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions~of Section 12 of Article
III of the Charter of the City of Palo Al~o, the Council on June
23, 1997 did adopt a budget for fiscal year 1997-98; and
WHEREAS, on April 3, 1997, Council directed staff to work with
residents to develop an installation plan for road bumps on Ross
Road between Oregon Expressway and Colorado Avenue; and -
WHEREAS, staff has developed a plan which will install seven
road bumps on Ross Road; and
WHEREAS, this plan has widespread support of the residents
affected; and
WHEREAS, the budget needs to be amended to create and fund a
capital improvement project for the Road Bump Project for Ross Road,
Number 19818; and
WHEREAS, funds are available in the Street Improvement Fund for
this project; and
WHEREAS, City Council authorization is needed to amend the
1997-98 budget as hereinafter set forth.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Palo Alto does
ORDAIN as foll~ws: ~
SECTION i. Capital Improvement Project (CIP) 19818, "Road Bump
Project for Ross Road" as shown in Exhibit A is hereby created.
SECTION 2. The sum of Thirty Thousand Dollars ($30,000) is
hereby appropriated to Capital Improvement Project No. 19818 in the
Planning Department, and the Street Improvement Fund is
correspondingly reduced.
SE.CTION 3. This transaction will reduce the Street Improvement
Fund by $30,000.
SECTION. 4. As specified in Section 2.28.080(a) of the Palo
Alto Municipal Code, a two-thirds vote of the City Council is
requiredto adopt this ordinance. _
~i~Q~[_~. The Council of the City of Palo Alto is asked to
make a negative declaration, certifying that the project will not
create significant environmental impact.
~6~!!~hl_~. As provided in Section 2.04.350 of the Palo Alto
Municipal Code, this ordinance shall become effective upon adoption.
INTRODUCED~AND P~SSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTENTIONS:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:APPROVED:
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:City Manager
Senior Asst. City Attorney Acting Director, Administrative
Services Department
Director of Planning
Community Environment
and
Exhibit A
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
This project will install seven road bumps on Ross Road between the Oregon Expressway and Colorado Avenue.
PROJECT JUSTIFICATION
The installation of road bumps is to control speeds and increase safety on Ross Road between the Oregon
Expressway and Colorado Avenue. Based on surveys done by City staff, this stretch of road experiences higher
than typical volumes and speeds for a local residential street. There is widespread resident support for this project.
FUTURE FINANCIAL REQUIREMENTS
FISCAL YEAR
PY Budget
1997-98
1998-99
1999-00
2000-01
2001-02
AMOUNT
$30,000
COMPONENTS
Installation of road bumps on Ross Road.
Sources of Funding: Street Improvement Fund
IMPACT AND SUPPORT ANALYSIS
Environmental:None.
Design Elements:None.
Operating:None.
Telecommunications:None.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
This project furthers Transportation Policy 4 relating to the reduction ofthrougfi traffic on residential streets.
ATTA~
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
1. Project Title:Ross Road Road Bump Project
2. Lead Agency Name and Address:City of Palo Alto--Transportation Division
P.O. Box 10250, Palo Alto, CA 94303
3. Contact Person and Phone Number:Carl Stoffel (650) 329-2552
4. Project Location:Ross Road between Oregon Expressway and
Colorado Avenue
5. Application Number(s):None
6. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address: Same as items 2 and 3.
7. General Plan Designation:Local Residential Street, Single Family
Residential Housing
8. Zoning:R-1
Description of the Project:
This project consists of the installation of seven road bumps on Ross Road between
Oregon Expressway and Colorado Avenue in order to reduce speeds on that section
of Ross Road (Refer to Figure 1). Traffic volume impacts will be monitored in the
area beund~d by Oregon Expressway, Louis Road, Colorado Avenue and Middlefield
Road.
10.Surrounding Land uses and Setting:
The project street segment--Ross Road between Oregon Expressway and Colorado
Avenue--is designated as a local residential street, with housing consisting entirely
of single family dwellings. Oregon Expressway, at one end of the project segment,
is designated as a high-volume, relatively high-speed Santa Clara County
expressway. The monitoring area consists predominantly of single-family .homes
except for.a neighborhood shopping center in the vicinity of the Middlefield Road
and Colorado Avenue intersection. Within the monitoring area, the majority of roads
are designated as local residential streets, except for Oregon Expressway, Louis
Road (collector), Colorado Avenue (collector) and Middlefield Road (arterial).
C:\WP\BUMP\ROSSEIA,WPD January 5, 1998 Page 1
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
11.Other public agencies whose approval is required. None.
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this p~oject,
as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
Land use and Planning
Population and Housing
Geological Problems
Biological Re.sources
Energy and Mineral
Resources
Hazards
Water X Noise
Air Quality X
X Transportation and
Circulation
Public Services
Utilities and Service
Systems
Aesthetics
Cultural Resources
Recreation
Mandatory Findings of
Significance.
DETERMINATION:
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and
a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could hav~ a significant effect on the environment,
there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on
an attached sheet have been added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will
be prepared.
X
C:\WP\BUMP\ROSSEIA,WPD January 5, 1998 Page 2
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least
one effect (1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal
standards, and (2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as
described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or "Potentially
Significant Unless Mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must
analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (1)
have been analyzed in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and (2) have been avoided
or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are
imposed upon the proposed project.
Project Planner Date
Director of Planning & Community Environment Date
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
1)
2)
31
4)
A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by
the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact"
answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not
apply to projects like the one involved (e. g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact"
answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e. g. ¯
the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis).
All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative
as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.
"Potentially Signifiqant Impact’ is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. If
there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is
required.
"Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures
has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact." The lead
C:\WP\BUMP\ROSSEIA.WPD January 5, 1998 Page 3
5}
6)
agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect toa less than
significant level (mitigation measures from Section 17, "Earlier Analysis," may be cross-referenced).
Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect
has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3) (D). Earlier
analyses are discussed in Section 17 at the end of the checklist.
Lead agencies a re encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential
impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances)..Reference to a previously prepared or outside document
should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.
A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the
discussion.
7) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different ones.
C:\WP~BUMP’ ROSSEIA,WPD January 5, 1998 Page 4
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Signlfioant act
Impact
1. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning?1, 2,X
3
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or POlicies 1, 2,X
adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project?3
c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity?1, 2,X
3
d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impact to 1, 2,X
soils or farmlands, or impact~ from incompatible land 3
uses)?
e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an 1, 2,X
established community (including a low-income or 3
minority community)?
2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population 1, 2,X
projections?3
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or 1,2,3 X
indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or
major infrastructure?
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing?1,2,3 X
3. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. ’Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving;
a) Fault rupture?1,2,3 X
b) Seismic ground shaking?1,2,3 X
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction?1,2,3 X
d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard?1,2,3 X
e) Landslides or mudflows?1,2,3 X
f)Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil 1,2,3 X
conditions from excavation, grading or fill?
g) Subsidence of the land?1,2,3 X
h) Expansive soils?1,2,3 X
i) Unique geologic or physical features?1,2,3 X
C:\WP~BUMP~ROSSEIA,WPD January 5, 1998 Page 5
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially
Significant
issues
Potentially
Significant*
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Significant INrn°paet
Irnpact
4. WATER. Would the.proposal result in:
. a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the 1,2,3 X
rate and amount of surface runoff?
b)Exposure of people or property to water related hazards 1,2,3 ¯ X
such as flooding?
c}1,2,3 XDischarge into surface waters or other alteration of
surface water quality, including but not limited to
temperature, dissolved oxygen, turbidity or other typical
storm water pollutants (e.g. sediment and debris from
construction, hydrocarbons and metals from vehicle use,
nutrients and pesticides from landscape mainterfance?
d)Changes in the amount of surface water in any water 1,2,3 X
body or wetland?
e) Changes in currents, or th~ course or direction of water 1,2,3 X
movements, in marine or freshwater, or wetlands?-~
f)1,2,3 X
g)
h)
j}
5.
a)
Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through
direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of
an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial
loss of groundwater recharge capability?
Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater?
Impacts to groundwater quality through infiltration of
reclaimed water or storm.water runoff that has contacted
pollutants from urban or industrial activities?
Substantial reduction in the amount of grou.ndwater
otherwise available for public water supplies?
Alteration of wetlands in any way?
AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
1,2,3
1,2,3
1,2,3Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an exiting
or proje’cted air quality violation?
Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants
Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause
any change in climate?
Create objectionable odors?
X
X
X
X
x I
b}1,2,3
c)1,2,3
d)1,2,3 X I
6. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in:
C:\WP~BUMP\ROSSEIA.WPD January 5, 1998 Page
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Lese Than
Significant
Impact
a) Increased vehi.cle trips or traffic congestion?
b)Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves
or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e,g.
farm equipment))?
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses?
d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site?
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists?
.f)
b)
c)
d)
e}
8.
b)
c)
Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative
transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts?
2,3,7,
8
2,3,5,
6,7,8
2,3,5
2,3,5
2,3,5,
6,7,8
1,2,3,
5
2,3,5
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result reduction or interference in:
Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats
(including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals
or birdsl?
X
Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)?
Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest,
coastal habitat, etc.)?
Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool?
Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors?
1,2,3
1,2,3
1,2,3
ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans?
Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
inefficient manner?
Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource that wou~d be of future value to the region and
the residents of the State?
1-~,2,3
1,2,3
1,2,3
9. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
a)1,2,3 ~A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous
substances {inctuding, but not ~imited to: oi~, pesticides,
chemicals or radiation)?
i X
X
C:\WP\BUMP~ROSSEIA.WPD January 5, 1998 Page 7
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially
Signifioant
Issues
Potentially
Signifioent
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Les~ Then
Signlfioant
Impact
b)
c)
d)
e)
Possible interference with an emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
The creation of any health hazard or potential health
hazard?
Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health
hazards?
Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush,
grass of trees?
1,2,3
1,2,3
1,2,3
1,2,3
10. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a} Increase in existing noise levels?
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels?1,2,3
X
1 1. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered~
government services in any of the following areas:
a) Fire protection?
b) Police protection?
c) Schools?
d)Maintenance of public facilities, including roads or storm
drain facilities?
e) Other governmental services?
2,3,4,
5,6,7,
.8
2,3,6,
7,8
2,3,5,
6
2,3,6,
.7,8
2,3,6,
7,8
X
X
X
X
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or
substantial alterations to the following utilities:
a) Power or natural gas? -
b) Communications systems?
c)Local or regional water treatment or distribution
facilities?
d) Sewer or septic tanks?
e) Storm water drainage or storm water quality control?
1,2,3
1,2,3
1,2,3
X
X
C:\WP~BUMP~ROSSEIA.WPD January 5, 1998 Page 8
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Leee Than
Significant
Impact
f) Solid waste disposal?
g) Local or regional water supplies?
1,2,3
1,2,3
13. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic vista or Scenic highway?
b). Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect?
c) Create light or glare?
1,2,3
1,2,3
1,2,3
X
14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Disturb paleontological resources?
b) Disturb archaeological resources?
c) Affect historical resources?
d)Have the potential to cause a physical change which
would affect unique ethnic cultural values?
e)Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area?
1,2,3
1,2,3
1,2,3
1,2,3
1,2,3
15. RECREATION. Would the proposalS-
a)Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks
or other recreational facilities?
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities?
1,2;3
1,2,3
16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a)Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality
of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a
fish or wildlife species,, cause a fish or wildlife population
to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate
a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict
the range of a rare~ or endangered plant or animal or
eliminate important examples of the major periods o.f
California history or prehistory?
b)Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term,
to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals?
X
X
X
x
X
x I
C:\WP\BUMP\ROSSEIA.WPD January 5, 1998 Page 9
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially
Significant
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Significant oct
Impact
c) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited,
but ’cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively
considerable" means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in connection with
the effects of the past projects, the effects of other current
projects, and the effects of probable future projects)
d)Does the project have environmental effects which will
cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly?
X
17. EARLIER ANALYSES.
Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have
been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3) (D). In this case a discussion
should identify the following items:
a) Earlier analysis used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review.
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately
analyzed in an earlier document p~rsuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed
by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation
measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-
specific conditions of the project.
Authority: Public Resources ’~ode Sections 21083 and 21087.
Reference: Public Resources Code Sections 21080 (c), 21080.1, 21080.3, 21082.~1, 21083, 21083.3, 21093, .321094,
211 51; Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino, 202 Cal. App. 3d 296 (1988); Leonofff v. Monterey Board of Supervisors,
222 Cal. App. 3d 1337 (1990).
18.SOURCE REFERENCES
1 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan 1980 - 1995, February 2, 1981 (as amended).
2 Engineer’s general knowledge of the project and project area.
3 City of Palo Alto Transportation Division.
4 National Fire Protection Association Journal, February 1997, pp. 81-82.
5 City of Palo Alto Road Bump Program, April 16, 1991.
6 Guidelines for the Design and Application of Speed Humps, Institute of Transportation Engineers, March
1993.
C:\WP\BUMP\ROSSEIA.WPD January 5, 1998 Page 10
7 CMR:103:97, Lytton Avenue Neighborhood Traffic Management Plan--Six Month Trial Evaluation Report.
8 CMR:472:9, Midtown Road Bump Demonstration Project--Final Evaluation Report.
9
10
19. EXPLANATIONS FOR CHECKLIST RESPONSES
6a
6c
6e
lOa
Increased Vehicle Trios. Road bumps are primarily speed reduction devices, and do not cause substantial
changes in traffic volumes. This project will not increase the number of vehicle trips in the monitoring area,
but will cause approximately 15 percent of the trips now being made on Ross Road to be redistributed to
some adjacent streets..This redistribution is a result of three factors: (i) the bumps slow traffic, which, in turn,
causes travel time to increase relative to other (shorter) routes; (ii) the physical discomfort and inconvenience
caused by the bumps; and (iii) the message imparted by the bumps that drivers who are in a hurry are not
welcome on that particular street segment. These factors will cause some drivers to seek other routes
(primarily non-residents of the area, who have that discretion), thus causing traffic volumes to increase (and
decrease) slightly on some nearby streets, as projected in Figure 1. The impact of the increases is evaluated
with the TIRE index (Traffic Infusion of Residential Neighborhoods). This index is a method of describing and
measuring residents’ perceptions of the effect of street traffic on residential activities such as walking,
cycling, playing, interacting, with neighbors, and backing a car in and-out of a driveway. The index was
developed by neighborhood traffic management researchers in the United States and England, and serves as a
reference tool for judging the anticipated effect of changes in traffic volumes. An increase of O.1 in the TIRE
index, equating to an increase in daily traffic volume of approximately 25 percent, was found to be the
minimum increase that is noticeable to the average resident. A change of 0.2 or greater, equating to an
increase in daily traffic volume of 50 percent or greater, would definitely be noticed by residents. For this
project, in all locations where traffic volumes increase, they do so by an amount that is substantially less than
the 0.1 change in the TIRE index. Furthermore, all increases are within the range of the daily random
variations in traffic volumes ( + 10%). Therefore, volume increases due to redistributed traffic will be
unnoticeable to the average resident. As noted in Figure 1, volumes will decrease on Ross Road between
Oregon and Colorado, and on Colorado between Ross and Middlefield. Follow-up traffic volume measurements
will be made in the monitoring area approximately six months after the bump installation in order to verify the
actual changes in volumes at the locations shown in Figure 1.
Inadequate Emer.qency Access. This item is indicated as "No Impact". Refer to discussion for Item 1 la,
below.
Hazards to Pedestrians and Bicyclists. This item is indicated as "No Impact". Ross Road is not a designated
bicycle route. Road bumps are well marked for both daytime arid night time visibility. Road bumps are a
relatively gentle rise in the pavement as experienced by pedestrians and bicyclists. Past road bump
installations in Palo Alto and in other jurisdictions have not resulted in problems either for bicyclists or
pedestrians.
Noise. Road bumps cause drivers to slow down as.they traverse the bumps, resulting in mildly increased noise
levels due to additional braking and acceleration. The most noticeable noise source is likely to be the
bouncing of the payload in open pickup trucks. These noise increases are partially .offset by the overall
reduction in noise levels due to slower average vehicle speeds. None of the above noise impacts has proven
to be significant in road bump installations in Palo Alto and in other jurisdictions. ’
C:\WP\BUMP\ROSSEIA.WPD January 5, 1998 Page 11
1 la,b
11d
11e
Impact on Emerqency Services. Road bumps are not installed on primary Fire Department response routes,
which are defined as collector and arterial streets. Bumps cause increased response time when vehicles need
to traverse a local.residential street where bumps have been installed. As with existing installations of bumps
and other traffic calming devices in Palo Alto, the local Fire and Police Departments would become
knowledgeable of their locations and be able to choose routes that minimized the number of these devices
encountered, thus minimizing potential increases in response times. For example, a knowledgeable operator of
a fire truck coming from the south responding to a fire on Ross Road north of Moreno Avenue (see Figure 1),
could choose to stay.on Middlefield Road until re.aching Moreno Avenue, thus avoiding the four bumps on
Boss south of Moreno (presuming that other circumstances did not make Middlefield an unacceptable route).
For the emergency services, the ideal is to have the maximum number of unencumbered routes, and the
presence.of road bumps will encumber local Streets to varying degrees. Each road bump will delay fire and
paramedic vehicles by between 2.3 and 9.7 seconds (with the higher delay for paramedics transporting a
patient). The increase in response time for emergency vehicles to traverse one, two, or three devices within"
the neighborhood (7 - 29 seconds for three bumps), when compared to the total length of the response would
be small (the Fire Department’s goal for average maximum response time is 4 minutes for fire engines and 4 -
6 minutes for paramedics). However, should an operator of a fire truck or paramedic van have to traverse all
of Ross Road between Oregon Expressway and Colorado Avenue, the operator would encounter seven
bumps, resulting in an increase in response time ranging from 16 to 68 seconds. This highest range of this
increase would result in a noticeable impact on response time when compared to the total length of the
response, but would still not be considered to be significant. The Fire Department points out that, should road
bumps and other devices proliferate throughout Palo Alto, a reassesSment of the impacts of the devices on
route choice and response time would be necessary. Police vehicles do not experience the delays experienced
by fire and paramedic apparatus, as they are passenger vehicles. In past road bumps installations, the Police
Department has not experienced negative impacts from road bumps.
Maintenance of Public Facilities. Road bumps result in increased maintenance workload for upkeep of signing
and striping assbciated with the bumps, as well as higher costs for roadway resurfacing projects. The Public
Works Department does not have funds to extend maintenance coverage to these new devices without a
decrease in maintenance elsewhere. Compared to total City maintenance needs, the seven new bumps will
not represent a significant increase in maintenance requirements. Collectively, however, as road bumps and
other traffic management devices continue to be installed, the maintenance burden for all these devices will,
at some point, become substantial, and should be the subject of a budget analysis on a City-wide basis.
Other Governmenta~ Services. The road bumps will affect the route for vehicles of the Postal Service, Palo
Alto Sanitation Company, City street sweepers, park maintenance, and other occasional governmental or
quasi-governmental services. The impacts on these services are not expected to be significai~t, as equipment
operators can slow down as appropriate, or modify their routes to minimize the need to traverse the section
of Ross Road with the bumps.
13b .Aesthetics. The bumps require additional signing and striping, which, when little or no signing and striping is
present on the street, will be quite noticeable in the street scape. In past installations in Palo Alto and other
jurisdictions, the aesthetic impact has not been sufficiently disruptive to be considered significant.
Attachment: Figure 1
C:\WP\BUMP\ROSSEIA.WPD January 5, 1998 Page 12
LOLLS RD
FIGURE 1
ROSS ROAD ROAD BUMP MONITORING AREA
.o=c0.Existing and Projected Traffic Volumes @