HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-01-16 City Council (22)City of PaSo Alto
TO:HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING
AGENDA DATE: January 16, 1996 CMR:113:96
SUBJECT:Generic Citywide Traffic Circle Design
REQUEST
At its meeting on June 26, 1995, Council directed staff to proceed with the development
of a generic traffic circle design that could be used, with some minor adaptations, at
various intersections tlu:oughout Palo Alto, subject to Council decisions to install such
projects. The design of a generic circle has been completed. The purpose of this report
is to request that Council approve the proposed design.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff recommends that Council:
Approve the generic Citywide traffic circle design, as illustrated in Attactunent 1 ;
and
2.Approve the following finplementation guidelines:
A decision to install a traffic circle at a given location will be a separate
specific action by the Council;
bo The basic cost will be established as the actual cost to build a fully
landscaped mad il~gated, 22 foot diameter circle (currently estimated at
$37,000);
Co Adjustments to the basic cost will be necessary for larger or smaller sized
circles, as well as for inflation;
CMR: 113:96 Page 1 of 8
do Alternatives that substitute hardscape or art for the landscaping, will be
considered, but only within the basic design and basic cost parameters of the
generic design;
eo Staffwill work with residems within the immediate area of the traffic circle
to establish the type of landscaping, or the possible use ofhardscape or art,
within the circle.
Each project will nltimately remrnto Council for award of a construction contract, but not
for resolution of design issues regarding the type of landscaping, or the possible
substitution of hardscape or art for landscaping.
The first application of the generic traffic circle design is scheduled for the
Bryant/Addison intersection where Council has previously approved the installation of a
traffic circle.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
Traffic circles are one of several measures that are available for neighborhood traffic
management. While the installation of traffic circles will be reviewed mad approyed on
a case by case basis, the adoption of a genetic design facilitates their implementation and
use.
Traffic circles, like other similar traffic management devices, raise several issues
including: (a) the continued incremental addition of regularly-required maintenance, (b)
lack of provision of funding for such maintenance, and (c) the likely future need to
remove and replace a portion of the project in order to repair or replace underground
utilities.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Back~ound
In June, Council rejected a proposed traffic circle design due to its high cost and directed
staff to develop a generic design that could be used at various locations and would not
cost more than $35,000 to $45,000. Subsequently, staff has worked with Tom Richlnan,
landscape architect, to prepare a generic design based on similar designs in Portland,
Seattle and Menlo Park. The generic traffic circle design is illustrated in Attachlnent 1.
For reference, a picture of a similar type traffic circle in Portland is included as
Attachment 2.
CMR: 1 !3:96 Page 2 of 8
Proposed Design
The proposed generic design is a 22-foot outside diameter circle of concrete, with a ring
width of 2 feet rising from a 4 inch height above the roadway surface at the outside
diameter of the circle to a 6 inch height at the back of the ring. The concrete ring allows
the diameter of the circle to be made large enough to reduce passenger car speeds to about
15 mph, while allowing larger vehicles to "roll over" the sloped surface without damaging
the landscaping and irrigation. The concrete will have a broom finish. Lmae markers are
not proposed to be used on the ring.
The interior of the ring w~ have low level landscaping (not to exceed 30 inches in height).
One or more trees may be included if space and underground utilities permit.
Landscaping will be modified for each location depending on the size of the circle (or
oval), as well as the preference of nearby residents. This would include the species and
number of plants, as well as the location and number of trees. Provisions will be
incorporated to service underground utilities at existing access points.
Design Modifications
It is possible, albeit somewhat unlikely, that a circle might have hardscape in place of
landscaping. These treatments would be used only where site conditions or the
neighborhood character around the circle would warrant a different treatment, as reflected
by resident preference. In order to allow for maintenance and repair, materials used for
the hardscaped inner portion of the circle would be consistent with the approved surface
treatments for downtowa~ sidewalks, or other material approved by Public Works. Added
amenities such as brick colmm~s or other adormnents are not included, due to the added
cost and additional maintenance considerations.
The possibility of including some form of art within the traffic circle has been raised by
the Public Art Commission and could be considered as an alternative to the proposed
landscaping, subject to the following:
go residents, witl~ the ilnmediate area of the circle express a preference for the
use of art rather than landscaping;
b°the basic physical design~ of the circle (e.g. mountable ring, signage, etc.) is
not altered;
c. visibility through and around the circle is safe and sufficient;
CMR:113:96 Page 3 of 8
proper drainage, load bearing capacity and access to underground utilities
is incorporated;
eo total cost, including design and construction of the art, does not exceed the
basic cost for a landscaped traffic circle;
the process of commissioning and overseeing the development as well as the
installation of the art is administered through the Public Arts Commission;
and
maintenance of the art is arranged and funded by resources currently
dedicated for maintenance of public art.
The selection of the art option might possibly lead to some cost savings. The inclusion
of art, however, will likely introduce a higher level of process requirement in order to
resolve the interest of residents, traffic engineering and public works criteria, and artistic
license.
Transportation Division staff will work with residents within the irmnediate area of the
traffic circle to establish the type of landscaping or the possible substitution of hardscape
or art within the circle. As a guideline, a choice to substitute hardscape or art for the
landscaping will be based upon:
a general assessment of the preference of residents who show an
interest and live within one block (approximately 400 feet) in each
direction from the intersection; and
the specific support of at least three of the four households located
in the immediately adjacent corner properties.
For those situations when a landscaped circle is used, consistent with the approved
generic design or minor modifications thereto, staff-level Architectural Review Board
approval will occur. However, for situations where resident preference is controversial,
as well as for all situations where art or hardscape is substituted for landscaping, the
design will be forwarded by staff to the ARB.
Estimated Cost
The estimated cost for the generic traffic circle (22 foot outside diameter), fully
landscaped with irrigation, is $37,000. The genetic design is flexible in that it can be
CMR: 113:96 Page 4 of 8
modified in shape and size to fit any particular location, however, the cost will change
accordingly. For example, the cost of a 14 foot circle is $30,000 and the cost of a 26 foot
circle is $42,000.
The estimated cost for a hardscaped version of the traffic circle (22 foot outside diameter)
is $34,000. There is a significant reduction in cost attributable to the fact that the center
of the circle is not landscaped due to the elimination of landscaping materials mad
irrigation as well as the fact that the issues of excavation, drainage, and manner of
constructing the outer concrete ring are greatly simplified and therefore less costly.
However, these substantial cost savings could be largely offset by the costs related to the
use of special materials for the imaer portion of the circle.
For the art option, the estimated cost is $25,000 for a base circle (22 foot outside
diameter), with a brushed or scored concrete finish for the imaer portion of the circle. The
cost difference of $12,000, between a fully landscaped circle and a base circle for art,
would be the upper limit of funds potentially available for developing an art insert
including design, construction, installation, any adjustments to base (if required) and
surface finish enhancements for the ironer circle (if desired).
As illustrated in the table below, the difference between the estimated cost for a
landscaped circle and a hardscaped or art option circle varies considerably, depending
upon the size of the circle.
STREET WIDTH
CIRCLE DIAMETER
30 FT 36 FT 40 FT
14 FT 22 FT 26 FT
a. Fully landscaped and irrigated $30,000 $37,000 $42,000
b.Hardscaped with special material
for inner portion
$17,000 $34,000 $45,000
c.Hardscaped with concrete finish
for inner portion (art base only)
$13,000 $25,000 $32,000
Boards and Commission Review
The proposed generic citywide traffic circle design was brougl~t to the Plmming
Commission, the Architectural Review Board and the Historic Resources Board for their
review and recommendation. A copy of the staff report to the Boards and Commission
is included as Attachlnelat 3. Minutes of the discussion of the generic traffic circle design
CMR:113:96 Page 5 of 8
from each of the meetings are included as Attaclmaent 4. Their respective actions are
summarized below.
Planning Commission Review (11-08-95)
The Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the generic
traffic circle design. Comments included a suggestion to paint the back of the signs and
the posts, reconsider the proposed use of a solar controller, and consider the possibility
of including art (at no additional cost).
Historic Resources Board Review (11-15-95)
The Historic Resources Board voted unanimously to oppose any consideration of a
generic traffic circle design. Comments included a need for different designs for various
sectors of the city, incompatibility of traffic circles with the historic character of a
neighborhood, and overall lack of support for the use of traffic circles.
Architectural Review Board Review (12-07-95)
The Architectural Review Board voted 3 to 2 not to recolmnend approval of the generic
traffic circle design. Comments reflected differing opinions regarding the safety and
effectiveness oftraffc circles, as well as the need to develop designs tailored to specific
locations.
In addition, the Public Arts Commission has discussed the possibility of including art
withh~ traffic circles, and sees substantial opportunity and benefit. Representatives of the
Public Arts Commission have met with staff to share their ideas, as well as making a
presentation at the Planning Co~mnission and the Architectural Review Board meetings
when the generic traffic circle was discussed. Included as Attact~nent 5 is a letter from
the Public Art Commission expressing their interest and enthusiasm for including the
possibility of art.
Alternatives
The issue before the Council at the present time is approval of the generic traffic circle
design. Alternatives to approval of the generic traffic circle design include:
Alternative 1:Do not approve the proposed generic traffic circle desi~ml and
direct staff to develop unique desi_m~s tailored to specific
locations. This approach, which was tried previously, did not
produce a viable project and led to the decision to develop a
generic design.
CMR:113:96 Page 6 of 8
Alternative 2:Abandon further consideration of the use of traffic circles and
rely upon other traffic management measures, Traffic circles
have been shown to be an effective and helpful tool for traffic
management for certain situations, and staff recommends that
they not be eliminated from further consideration for aesthetic
design concerns.
Next Steps
If Council approves the proposed generic citywide traffic circle design, staff will proceed
with the following steps leading to installation of a permanent traffic circle at the
Bryant/Addison intersection:
a.Meet with residents in the immediate area of the Bryant/Addison intersection to
discuss their preference regarding the type of landscaping or the option of using art;
b.Complete preparation of necessary engineering plans, specifications and related
contract documents;
c. Proceed with bid procedures to select a contractor to install the traffic circle;
d. Return to Council for award of a construction contract; and
e. Construct the permanent traffic circle.
FISCAL IMPACT
The base traffic circle design (22 foot outside diameter) will cost approximately $37,000
per intersection. The cost of other size circles will change accordingly (e.g. a 14 foot
circle at $30,000 and a 26 foot circle at $42,000). Funding for the first application of the
genetic traffic circle design, at the Bryant/Addison intersection, is not presently available,
but will be included in the projects to be considered in the development of the 1996-97
Capital Improvement Program.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
Approval of the generic design for possible future traffic circles is categorically exempt
from CEQA under Section 15262 of the CEQA Guidelines, as a plam~ing study for
possible future action by the City.
CMR: 113:96 Page 7 of 8
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1: Generic Traffic Circle Design
Attachment 2: Photo example of Portland traffic circle
Attachment 3: Staff report to Boards and Colmnission
Attachment 4: Minutes from PC, HRB, and ARB discussion of generic traffic circle
Attachment 5: Letter from the Public Arts Commission
Prepared By: Marvin L. Overway, Chief Transportation Official
Department Head Review:
City Manager Approval:
/KENNETH R. SCHREIBER
Director of Plalming
and Comlnunity
~ FLE~6 //
~ity Manager
cc:Architectural Review Board
Plamfing Commission
Historic Resources Board
Public Art Commission
Palo Alto Bicycle Advisory Committee
Bryant/Addison Traffic Circle Working Group
Don Dey, City of Menlo Park
Julia Fremon, Stanford University
Darrell Benatar
Neighborhood Associations
CMR: 113:96 Page 8 of 8
(n) solar irrig.
groundcover
(30" tall max)
tree (if feasible
(n) irrigatic
backflow
(n) sign (typ.)
(e) personhole (typ.)
(n) sloped rollover
skirt w/special texture
(n) 4" vertical curb
Plan
ATTACHML_, F i
Elevation
3" wide white reflect.
tape wrapped around post
o. oo00o~ 0%
gravel
(e) concrete
sign on g.i. post
painted flat black
sloped roll-over skirt
vertical curb
Section
ATTAC~NT 3
B OARD/COMM;IS S;ION
Staff Report
To:Planning Commission Agenda Date:
Historic Resources Board
Architectural Review Board
November 8, 1995
November 15, 1995
December 7, 1995
From:James E. Gilliland Department: Planning
Subject:GENERIC CITYWIDE TRAFFIC CIRCLE DESIGN
REQUEST
This item is a Council assignment arising from their consideration and denial of a traffic
circle designed specifically for the intersection of Bryant Street and Addison Avenue. The
request before the Historic Resources Board (HRB), Architectural Review Board (ARB),
and Planning Commission (Commission) is to review and make a recommendation to the
City Council on a generic design for traffic circles. This generic design is to be utilized
in future installations at various locations throughout the city. Future specific !ocations of
traffic circles will be approved by City Council. Staff anticipates that after Council
approves a location for installation, minor variations on the approved generic design will
be subject to staff-level ARB approval only.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the HRB, ARB and Commission review and recommend approval
of the traffic circle generic design. Recommendations and comments will be forwarded
to City Council for final action.
BACKGROUND
In recent years, several areas of the city have requested traffic calming devices, such as
traffic circles. The design review process for the recently proposed circle in the
Professorville area resulted in a site specific design that became cost prohibitive. In order
to facilitate future installations, the City Council directed staff to develop a generic traffic
circle design that could be utilized throughout the City. In response to a request from the
Transportation Division, Tom Richman, landscape architect, prepared a generic design
based on similar designs in Portland, Seattle and Menlo Park.
P:\PCSR\traffic.SR Page 1
Project Description
The proposed generic design is a 22-foot outside diameter circle of concrete with
a ring width of 2’ rising from a 4" height above grade at the outside diameter of the
circle to a 6" height at the back of the ring. The concrete ring allows the diameter
of the circle to be made large enough to reduce passenger car speeds to about
15 mph, while allowing longer vehicles to "roll over" the sloped surface without
damaging the landscaping and irrigation. The concrete will generally have a broom
finish to decrease reflectivity. Lane markers are not proposed to be used on the
ring.
The interior of the ring will have landscaping that wil! reach a height of about 30".
One or more trees may be included if space and underground utilities permit.
Landscaping will be modified for each location depending on the size and shape of
the circle. This would include the species and number of plants, as well as the
location and number of trees. It is possible, but unlikely, that a circle might have
hardscape. These treatments would only be used where such things as overhanging
trees might preclude landscaping or the neighborhood character around the circle
would warrant a different treatment. In order to allow for maintenance and repair,
the hardscape would be consistent with the approved surface treatments for
downtown sidewalks, or other material approved by Public Works and Parks.
Added amenities such as brick columns, art or other adornments, are not included
due to the added cost and the additional maintenance considerations.
Landscaping will necessitate a backflow preventer in the circle or in a nearby
planter strip, depending on where the water line is located. Since the size of the
water service line will be less than !", the backflow preventer will normally be
about 18" in height and could be screened by landscaping. A solar controller is
required which stands about 30" high. Signage appropriate to the location will also
be required. Typical signage would include a 24" x 24" sign mounted on a 3’ meta!
post as approached from each street.
The generic design can be constructed for approximately $25,000 including
construction, contingencies and landscaping but excluding engineering design costs.
The generic design is flexible in that it may be modified in shape and size to fit any
particular location where a traffic circle would be approved. The generic design
will not have to be significantly modified to accommodate such things as manholes.
Engineering drawings will be prepared for each circle.
P:\PCSRktraffic.SR Page 2
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
The installation of traffic circles is consistent with numerous Comprehensive Plan policies
including:
Policy 4 of the Transportation Element: Reduce through traffic on residential
streets. Traffic circles forward this policy by providing visual discouragement to
drivers, other than those familiar with the street.
Policy 3 of the Urban Design Element: Promote visual aesthetics through tree
planting, landscaped areas, and removal of visually disruptive elements on major
City streets. Traffic circles introduce landscaping into an area which would
otherwise be made up of continuous asphalt. They provide this landscaping at a
point of "visual terminus", which is aesthetically desirable.
Policy 4 of the Urban Design Element: Find new uses for street spaces other than
for automobiles. Traffic circles which are landscaped .provide a tree site or
landscape element at a location which was formerly occupied by asphalt pavement.
DISCUSSION
Project History
In September 1994, the City Council approved the location of a permanent traffic
circle at the intersection of Bryant Street and Addison Avenue and directed staff to
work with the neighbors to prepare a design. A consultant was selected to create
a design for the traffic circle that would be consistent with the historic aspects of
the Professorville neighborhood. The ultimate design of the circle was significantly
over budget and was rejected by City Council. In rejecting the design, the Council
directed staff to prepare a generic design that could be used at any location.
Issues and Analysis
The generic design will not be customized for location, such as in historic districts,
although individual variations in shape, size and landscape treatment will be
necessary. Citizen input will be obtained during the appro~val process for location
of a traffic circle; however, in order to keep costs within Council parameters, the
generic design will be the standard followed. Any variations that increase the cost
above the generic design will need Council approval.
P:\PCSR\traffic.SR Page 3
Standards for Review
The generic design c0mplies with the Standards for Architectural Review in the
following manner: The generic design is consistent with the applicable elements of
the Comprehensive Plan (Standard 1) as outlined in the Policy Implications section.
The design is compatible with the immediate environment of the site (Standard 2)
in that the generic design will be modified slightly to fit the particular location. The
design is appropriate to the function of the project (Standard 3) in that the traffic
circle design is intended to slow automobile traffic yet still allow for vehicles to
pass. The design is compatible with areas having unified design character or
historical character (Standard 4) because it is comprised largely of simple
landscaping and unobtrusive design elements which do not detract from any unified
or historic streetscape. The design promotes harmonious transitions in scale and
character in areas between different land uses (Standard 5); uses appropriate
materials, textures, colors, details and plant materials (Standard 12); creates a
functional and desirable environment with landscaping and relationship of plant
masses, open space, scale, plant forms and foliage textures and depicts unity with
private property improvements (Standard 13); and uses suitable plant material for
the site, tending to be drought resistant (Standard 14); in that the generic design
is simple and unobtrusive and will allow for minor variations to accommodate
changes in landscaping and materials to reflect surrounding neighborhood or
district characteristics and the specific conditions of the selected location. Other
ARB standards (Standards 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 15) are inapplicable to the
project.
ALTERNATIVES
The alternative to generic traffic circle design is to design individualized traffic circles that
require an increase in budget for each location and considerable staff time to manage the
design contract and the public process.
The alternate to staff approval of the landscaping for each circle is review by the ARB, and
the HRB if the circle is located in a historic district. Since staff will utilize the landscape
expertise of the CIP Design Consultant and employees in the Planning Division, Utilities
Conservation Division and the City Arborist to select plant materials and sizes appropriate
to the traffic circle location, additional review is not recommended.
P:\PCSR\traffic.SR Page 4
FISCAL IMPACT
The base traffic circle design will cost approximately $25,000 per standard intersection.
Significant underground utilities, such as water, sewer and electric lines or larger circles,
may result in an increase in cost at a particular location. If approved by Council, any
additional design elements or modifications to the generic design, will increase the cost by
an unknown amount.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
Approval of the generic design for possible future traffic circles is categorically exempt
from CEQA under Section 15262 of the CEQA Guidelines, as a planning study for
possible future action by the City.
STEPS FOLLOWING ACTION
After review and comment by the HRB, ARB and Planning Commission, the generic
design will be forwarded to City Council for final action. Future location of traffic circles
will first be assessed by the Transportation Division, reviewed with neighbors and
approved by City Council. The landscaping will be subject to staff level ARB review.
ATTACHMENTS/EXHIBITS
Plans and photo of typical installation (Board/Commission members only)
COURTESY COPIES:
Palo Alto Bicycle Advisory Committee
Bryant/Addison Traffic Circle Working Group
Don Dey, City of Menlo Park
Julia Fremon, Stanford University
Darrell Benatar
Neighborhood Associations
Prepared By:James E. Gilliland, Assistant Planning Official
Manager Review: Nancy Lytle, Chief Planning Official
P:\PCSR\traffic.SR Page 5
ATTACHMENT 4
PLANNING COMMISSION EXCERPT MINUTES
MEETING OF NO~MBER 8, 1995
AGENDA ITEM 3 GENERIC CITYWIDE TRAFFIC CIRCLE DESIGN:
Planning Commission review of a generic design for traffic
circles.
Chairman Beecham: Does staff have any additional comments?
Mr. Overwav: This item comes to you from some experience back in June when staff was
moving towards the implementation of a traffic circle at the intersection of Bryant Street and
Addison Avenue. That particular process did not work. At that point in time, council directed us
to move forward with what we have come to call the design of a generic traffic circle that was
lower in cost and could be adapted to various locations throughout Palo Alto. It is not related
specifically to the Addison/Bryant intersection, but it certainly would be applied there. It would
probably be the first application of that.
The design before you this evening is that generic circle design. It is before this commission
tonight, then will go to the Historic Resources Board and the Architectural Review Board, and
then it will go on to the council with your comments. After this issue has been resolved at the
council level, the next step would be for staff to take the generic design and work with the
neighborhood around the Bryant/Addison area to apply it to its first location there.
The illustration in the staff report is similar to those that people have seen in other cities. This
particular one is more similar to the ones in Seattle and Portland. The estimated cost at this point
in time is $25,000. That completes my comments.
Chairman Beecham: Are there any questions for staff?.
Commissioner Casset: I have a question. Marvin, why are you calling these "traffic circles" and
not "roundabouts"?
Mr. Overwav: Part of it is strictly a choice of words. It is like calling road bumps speed bumps
or undulations. Traffic circles seemed an appropriate term when we began talking about these.
That is what they are being called. There is also some confusion involved. In my terminology, a
roundabout is probably a larger sized circle where you actually enter the circle and move around
it in a larger area, like you are used to in Europe or in Washington, those kinds of places. This is
essentially a small traffic circle.
Commissioner CasseI: At the workshop we went to ten days ago, they did it the other way
around. They said a roundabout is something you can see across, and a traffic circle is
something you get lost in.
Mr. Overway: That just shows how confused I am.
Commissioner Cassel: At that same workshop, which was a workshop that Stanford put on in
late October on walkable and bicycle-friendly communities, they discussed this issue. I went to
the portion of that which had to do with policymakers, and I believe Carl Stoffel was there for
the whole workshop. One of the comments they made had to do with making sure that your
roundabout was angled in such a way that the traffic got down to 15 miles an hours. They said
that on some circles, you need a piece of concrete, called a concrete splinter, before the circle, to
keep the traffic going. Will you need permission to do that for some of these circles in order to
keep the traffic going in your generic permission?
Mr. Overwav: I will let Carl Stoffel speak to that, as he was at that workshop. This particular
circle is designed for 15 miles per hour. From the experience we have at the Bryant/Addison
traffic circle, which happens to be exactly the same size and exactly the same street width setting,
it is working fine at that design speed without any of those kinds of additional touches.
Mr. Stoffel: The design of this is such that the proper angle is obtained as the traffic heads
straight in almost to the center of the circle. So they have a deflection at the last minute, which is
what the speaker at the workshop said needs to be done. Also, for the small residential
intersections, I asked about that specifically at that conference, whether that split or diversion
island is really necessary" for these low volume types of applications. We do not propose to use
them, at least at this residential intersection level. If we actually got to a real roundabout at a
bigger intersection, we would do that.
Mr. Overwav: IfI could draw a paralIei to the circle that is on Park Boulevard, it is larger. In the
westbound direction, we actually do direct traffic through an island more directly into the center
of that circle. So I think that would be a closer example of what you are referring to.
Commissioner Qiakian: Anything is better than the saw horses that we used to have at Bryant
and Addison. We couldn’t even get up to 15 miles an hour one morning after some kids had
extended them all the way out.
In terms of the design of the circle proposed here, I am assuming that all of them will come with
foliage. What does it take to maintain the landscaping? What is the associated cost?
Mr. Overwav: You are correct. They are all intended to be landscaped and irrigated. The
maintenance will be left up to the Public Works operations. They will absorb that within their
budget to the degree that they can. We have not quantified the level of effort that that will take at
this point. They are aware of it, and they support it. They continue to raise these issues in their
2
operational budget each year as these things come along. It is a concern that it is maintained, and
not leR to be overgrown or to die off. One of the reasons we are putting in irrigation is to
enhance that. Another one is in the plant selection. We try to be sensitive to plants that do not
require as much trimming as other plants.
Commissioner Ojakian: Why would you choose foliage over public art, which I heard Sandy
talking about at one stage. Why would we choose foliage over creating some sort of a permanent
structure, a non-foliage type of structure?
Mr. Overwav: In general, our perception was that something alive and green was probably more
suitable and more acceptable to people. There is the option in here to go with a hardscape if that
is what is appropriate and is what the local neighborhood people are more interested in, as long
as the cost parameters are kept within what it would be if a live foliage option were selected.
That would be part of the adaptation to the local site particulars.
Chairman Beecham: I will now open the public hearing and invite Gerald Brett of the Public Art
Commission to share his thoughts with us.
Gerald Brett. 873 NewelI Place. Palo Alto: Good.evening. I am a member of the Public
Hardscape Commission, otherwise known as the Public Art Commission. When a member of
the Public Art Commission hears "traffic circle," we all immediately think of installation sites.
We picture an empty stage, a bare canvas, a place crying out for art. Art will enhance in every
way the form and function of the installation sites, a/k/a! traffic circles. To us on the
commission, the one thing that does not fit the Palo Alto metaphor is "generic." Like mundane
and mediocre, it creates a picture of sameness, no frills, the lowest common denominator. To an
artist, a simple, unadorned traffic circle is tantamount to a blank canvas to be filled with a unique
creation, hence, "generic" can become "grand." I would ask you to consider giving the Palo Alto
Public Art Commission a crack at transforming these bland, generic traffic circles into inspiring
neighborhood masterpieces. The arguments are compelling. We can fill our neighborhoods with
art, not circles of sand. We can give your neighborhoods the power to reveal their spirit in art.
We can offer loca! artists new outlets for their work, and we can make Palo Alto a city that
transforms diminished revenues into opportunities for creativity for local art and for !ocal artists.
Art can regenerate "generic." I think that we can, in ways that might surprise you, deal very well
with the limitations that are placed on the city in the matter of how best to fill these traffic
circles. I think Sandy will make the case, as well, that you might be surprised by some of the
things that we can do. Right now, on California Avenue, for example, with many of the same
very limited capabilities of funds, we are on the brink of doing some very interesting things. I
believe the traffic circles would fit very well into the creative push that is available in our
community with the Public Art Commission carrying the ball.
Commissioner Schmidt: What are you proposing that we do?
Mr. Brett: I am proposing that we be given the opportunity to look at the specific sites. For one
thing, we would bring in the neighborhood. There can very well be particular elements in a
neighborhood that are going to be better exemplified through public art than through generic
landscaping. So a combination of the Public Art Commission creating some kind of flexibte
committee to deal with specific traffic circles is the proposal we make.
Commissioner Schmidt: So that each one would be designed separately and differently?
Mr. Brett: Yes, the ideal would be to have each one of them unique. Ifa neighborhood were to
decide that it is landscaping that it prefers, then by all means, that would be the work of art for
that neighborhood. But where a neighborhood has a desire for something else, we would wish to
be allowed to make an effort at developing something other than this generic design.
Chairman Beecham: Thank you for your comments. With that, I will close the public portion of
the hearing and bring it back to the commission.
Commissioner Cassel: By generic design, what you mean basically is that the edge or the way
this circle is going to be formed and the kind of material that is being used and the way you will
have access to the street storm drains, how the cars will be guided around the turn, etc., is what
you mean by a generic design. Is that correct?
Mr. Overwav: Yes, the size and the shape for the given streets. The design of the curb, a
mountable curb is a fairly important part of the generic design because it allows large size
vehicles to still maneuver around it.without maNng the circle so small that it makes it easy for
cars to speed around it. So that is a fairly important element. Also, the signage is important. It
is not pretty, but it is important. The degree of visibility retained is always a concern that we
have. That does not preclude doing a number of things, but being able to see around and through
it to see what else is going on regarding pedestrians and cars crossing on the other side is a
concern that we have. It can be dealt with in many ways, but it is part of what we have come up
with in the generic design, which addresses these things.
Mr. Schreiber: To follow up on that, since as much as anyone, I am probably the one who started
using the term "generic" around the office, it is important to remember where we started. We
ended up with a very- specific, individual design for the Bryant/Addison intersection. By the time
we got done incorporating the design ideas of a whole variety of people, we ended up with a
traffic circle that couldn’t be built. The council rejected it because of the cost. The problem in
that is twofold. One is the engineering and design costs inherent in developing this type of
facility, and the second is the special features that get added onto it. With Bryant/Addison, the
cost problem was both of those. It was the design cost, as well as some of the special features
that the neighborhood wanted -- special brickwork, concrete work, etc. All of that pushed the
budget to a very high level, and the council rejected it.
4
What comes out of that is that we see traffic circles as facilities that are likely to be used in a
number of locations in Palo Alto. We are not going to have them on every street, but there are
going to be more instances where neighborhoods will want them. We think it would be
appropriate for us to have a basic design that does two things. One is that you do the engineering
once, and when you fit it into a particular location, you would have to do a little bit of
engineering work, but you are not starting from scratch. That saves a significant sum of money.
The second is that you have a physical design that can be built for a consistent budget. Whether
the interior of the particular circle is grass and trees versus hardscape is less important than the
fact that the basic design is the same and that whatever the product is, it must fit within that
budget and not become a neighborhood design process where the sense will be that whatever
people want can be added onto it. That will lead us right back to the Bryant/Addison intersection
with a very expensive traffic circle that the council would probably find to be unacceptable. So
the basic sense of "generic" is to overcome both the engineering cost problem and the tendency
to add more frills and special features, which are both budget-breakers.
Chairman Beecham: If there is a reaction to this being a generic proposal, since architects
building a generic building would probably shudder, or you have generic patients or generic
clients, a terrible idea, perhaps we need to call this a "prototypical circle," something of that
nature.
Commissioner Carrasco: I am not uncomfortable with "generic" if"generic" were Waverley
Street, a tree-lined street. I think that would be great. However, this is a long ways away from
15 years ago when our planning director of that time, Naphthati Knox, said we had $800 to do a
traffic barrier, and please come up with a design. We had telephone poles, and the design was
whether we should cut the angle at 60 degrees or 45 degrees. So this has come a long way, and it
is quite beautiful.
Mr. Schreiber: Most of you know the ones that Tony designed, and you can go out and look at
them. They are still there. Some of the poles are flat and some have a 60 degree cut.
Commissioner Carrasco: Actually, they are in College Terrace. I am wondering if it is possible
to design each of these little traffic dots with different colors, or do they have to be white? Or
could we paint the curbs?
Chairman Beecham: Perhaps with lime or coral, those kinds of colors?
Mr. Stoffel: What dots are you referring to?
Commissioner Schmidt: I believe Tony is referring to the photograph from Portland, rather than
the drawing.
Mr. Overwav: The one from Portland does have reflectorized white dots. Those are mostly for
night time. The reason we have not put any of the dots on this generic or prototypical circle is
that from our experience at the Bryant/Addison intersection, that has not been necessary. We
would rather not adorn it. Our approach has been not to adorn it anymore than necessary until
such time that we know there is a problem. Another option would be to put some reflectors on
those little cat-eye kinds of reflectors. That is another thing we have chosen not to incorporate
until we know it is necessary. For instance, the one at Bryant and Addison has two street lights
directly above it, so it is very well lit in the evening. If it becomes necessary to do something
like Portland has done for anyone of our situations, generally the two colors available are white
and orange for reflectorization in the evening. It is a product that is manufactured to provide the
high visibility.
Commissioner Carrasco: I have one suggestion. Could you paint the back of those signs and the
poles a dark color so that they disappear into the landscape, rather than jumping out from the
landscaping when viewing it from the back?
Mr. Overwav: That is a good idea.
Commissioner Schrnidt: There are a couple of elements potentially located on the circle. There
is the backflow preventer and a solar controller. The backflow preventer is 18 inches high. How
massive is it?
Mr. Stoffel: It is not very massive. It is about 18 inches high, and I would guess the length of it
is 1-1/2 to 2 feet. The pipes are generally thin. In our Bryant/Addison design, the design called
for most of that to be pretty well hidden by the shrubbery. That would be the case here. The
controller is not shown in this drawing, and that will stick up.
Commissioner Schmidt: Is that large? Is it just a column?
Mr. Stoffel: Frankly, it looks like a parking meter, except that it would be less than three feet
high. In order to get sun, it needs to stick up above the bushes. It will be a little like the sign in
terms of height. It just will not have the ~vidth, but it will be sticking up there.
Commissioner Schmidt: Has the ARB reviewed this and made comments on points like this?
Mr. Overwav: They will be on November 15th.
Commissioner Schmidt: You have had the circle located on Bryant and Addison for a few
months now. Have there been any problems with it, such as problems from larger vehicles,
an~hing like that?
Mr. Stoffel: Apparently, somebody drove through it the other day. I don’t know what happened,
but there are some tire tracks. It was mostly along the concrete edge, which is supposed to be
where a large vehicle would need to use that if, in fact, that is the kind of vehicle it was. But it
may just have been a car, and who ~knows what they were doing. Other than that incident, I am
not aware of any problems with larger vehicles getting around it, or with anybody else.
Mr. Overwav: To just reinforce that, that circle, or its predecessor in a slightly different form
before they tore up the street, has been in there for at least a year. We have gone through an
evaluation process of it, and I think the finding was that it was working quite effectively. In
general, people who accepted the fact that a circle was going to be there were quite satisfied with
it. There were still differences of opinion about whether there should be a circle there or not.
Chairman Beecham: Would you be willing to hazard a guess at this point as to how many circles
we may wind up with.?
Mr. Overwav: Not really. I will draw a parallel with street closures and road bumps, things like
that. When we first put in some road bumps in Midtown, we were concerned that there would be
a proliferation of those all over town, like stop signs. But that just has not occurred. There is a
tot of interest in circles at this point in time. Cities like Seattle have put in hundreds of them, and
continue to do so, so there is not a waning interest in them up there. The fact that they are going
to cost $25,000 or $30,000 apiece indicates to me that they are not going to pop up all over the
place in Palo Alto. But if I had to guess, I would say that in ten years, there might be 10 or 15 of
these, at the most. In the L~vtton neighborhood council-approved trial traffic management plan
that "*-ill be implemented sometime in the next few" months, there is a circle similar to this one
that will go in on a tempora~ basis, and then at another intersection, there is an elongated
"circle" which is the same principle, because the side street is offset, so it gets stretched out.
Conceptually, it is the same kind of approach. That is the one at Guinda and L~ton. There will
also be a circle at Fulton Street and Lytton. Again, those come out of about one year’s worth of
study, plus a year of putting in the trial circle and doing an evaluation and reaching some
decisions about what to do. Then after the decision is made to put them in, there is another
period of time that it takes to actually get a permanent circle put in. They do not just pop up
quickly.
Commissioner Schmidt: The engineering costs are not included in the $25,000 cost. Is there a
rough idea of what those might be per circle?
Mr. Overwav: The understanding that we have with Public Works at this point is that they feel if
this type of circle is adopted, as a generic, and there are no significant changes at the
intersections, they ~vill do the necessar?, engineering work in house. If we go to something
different or the particular features of the intersection are significantly different, then it may take
some more complicated outside engineering. Right no’*, it is anticipated to be absorbed into the
Public Works engineering work load.
7
Commissioner Eakins: On Page 2, it says that larger vehicles can roll over the sloped surfaces. I
assume that includes emergency vehicles such as fire trucks and paramedic vans. (Yes) Does
this work well in Portland?
Mr. Overwav: Yes, in fact, anybody can drive over it with reasonable safety. The intent is that
cars do not need to and should be discouraged from doing so. Generally, fire trucks do it, as well
as moving vans and larger trucks. They do it in both Portland and Seattle.
Commissioner Eakins: As a side issue, is that considered better than the undulating curb since
emergency vehicles have to slow down so much or the patient inside a paramedic van would be
hurt?
Mr. Overwav: For a paramedic van transporting someone with injuries, it is probably better not
to go over the bump and to go around the circle. For most of the fire vehicles, if they are making
a left turn, they will just go around the circle the wrong way. We had some other pretty good
sized fire trucks out experimenting on Lytton, although they were not the big ladder trucks. They
were making it around these circles without knocking over any cones, so they would not be
riding up on the curb.
Mr. Stoffel: My impression is that the fire department really favors the circles over the
undulations or bumps, as they do not have to worry about the vertical bumping.
Commissioner Eakins: I am clearly in favor of traffic circles. I thought that Phyllis, with her
Massachusetts background, might be asking why they are not called "rotaries." I remembered
the scary, rotaries that you went around at high speeds.
I think these polite little traffic circles will be a wonderful addition to Palo Alto. I do want to
reinforce what Gerald said about offering an opening, not to have another fiasco like Bryant and
Addison, where there was just so much leeway" and it seemed like the sky was the limit. Instead,
using tight parameters to allow some individualization after this one prototype is built. I don’t
think anyone should mess with this one until it is done and working and has passed the test of
neighborhood acceptance, commuter acceptance, etc., but just to allow in the future that there
could be individualization.
I am thinking about one of the CPAC policies or general goals which was to enhance a sense of
place. That is part of how I reacted to the idea of "generic." If all of our streets were as pretty as
this photograph in Portland, this is definitely an older neighborhood with a nice, narrow street
and vertical curbs. (I grew up near Portland.) It is unlike the ugly streets where I live which are
terribly wide with rolled curbs and the sidewalks turn into those rolled curbs. You need
something else there, perhaps bigger traffic circles. Let’s offer an opportunity for some
individualization where there is not already a pretty environment, but not burden the initial traffic
circle projects with that. Let’s make that clear. Let’s have some space between this first effort,
which showed what could happen when there was a lot of individual neighborhood involvement,
and have a more managed process with tight parameters, and perhaps some tradeoffs, and leave
room for an amenity budget that includes landscaping and!or art that could be amended by the
neighborhood. I don’t know if you would want all of that included in a motion tonight, but at
least leave open some thinking for that. This is a terrific opportunity to introduce traffic calming
into Palo Alto and show how it works without upsetting everybody on the side streets.
I want to add that the most dramatic thing I saw in Portland were intersections without any
control. No stop signs. People really creep through those. Just to offer another notion from the
north.
MOTION: Eommissioner Schmidt: I move the staff recommendation that the planning
commission recommend approval of the proposed "prototype" traffic circle design.
SECOND: By Commissioner Schink.
Commissioner Schmidt: I am very happy to see traffic circles getting a simple, restful design.
The photograph that we had in our packets shows a nice, clean, restful design. I would be
somewhat concerned with safety and being able to view appropriately through and across if we
do a lot of other kinds of things with it. I appreciate the thought of a sense of place and the
placement of art there. I think it should still be open at a later date to possibly placing some
small pieces of art on the circles if some appropriate thing comes along, but I would prefer to
keep them clean and simple at the present time. The Transportation Committee in the
Comprehensive Plan worked long and hard to come up with suggestions for calming traffic.
That was a major direction from the Transportation group. These traffic circles in certain
locations around the city would be a great addition and would certainly help in that. It would be
an asset to the aesthetics of the street, as well.
Commissioner Schink: Kathy has said it all, almost. I have just one small point to add. I would
encourage whoever is designing the irrigation system to look at something other than the solar
controller. In my experience (and I do have a fair amount of experience in the irrigation area),
ve~’ few people in private enterprise are using these types of controllers. Almost everyone has
switched to some small, low- voltage system which would be much less obtrusive than the solar
system they are proposing here.
Commissioner Cassel: I am delighted to see us doing these traffic circles. I had forgotten what
they are called in New England, but I experienced roundabouts in England when I was there for a
few months.
When I went to the workshop, they gave me some literature, and it had everything good to say
about traffic circles. They talk in terms of not being able to close off a road for safety issues, for
the fire trucks. They talk in terms of not closing off roads for people who live on those
residential streets. Because you have the circle there, you do not visualize that road as being a
through road, so it tends to slow the traffic down and keep other people off that street,
particularly if you have a series of them every so often. It is a calming device.
They talk in terms of their being safer. They indicate that if you take out stop signs and compare
it to them, there is a 50 to 90 percent drop in the number of accidents from traffic going through
the roundabouts. I found that to be surprising. These were statistics coming out of Florida where
they were doing some of this. They indicated that it keeps the road open, it calms the traffic, it
increases the comfort in the interaction in the immediate neighborhood. I think that adding trees
or small plants increases the sense of beauty, and it also brings a little softness to the hardscape.
Again, I am delighted that we are trying some of these.
Commissioner Ojakian: Like Jon, I agree with every-thing that Kathy said. The only thing I
would add is that the council showed great wisdom previously in trying to maintain a low cost in
putting in these traffic circles. That is an important aspect of trying to implement traffic circles.
But on the other hand, the thing you mentioned tonight that is also important is having input
from the surrounding neighborhood. So it probably behooves you, somewhere in this process, to
define what the parameters are, as one other commissioner mentioned. People will then realize
that there is a cost restriction, and there will be some other restrictions. In the meantime, they
should have some say in some of the specific designs for the circle in their particular area. In
that w-ay, you get not only the buy-in from the people, but you get some compatibility of the
circle to the surrounding area.
Commissioner Eakins: I also agree with what has been said. I will add, since I am a die-hard
about art, that it does not have to be either/or. It can be included. I am concerned with the
scattering of these little posts and signs. I would hope that something will be done with those.
Maybe the ARB will have an architectural or functional design solution. Again, I hope the staff
will let neighbors know that they have a chance toknow about an upcoming traffic circle and that
there are other opportunities for using the budget to make it most acceptable, but within the
parameters.
Chairman Beecham: I am certainly happy to support this item. The only comment I would have
for the art commission is that I would certainly hope and expect that when this goes before the
council, that you will have options drawn up, such as samples and rough costs, etc.. to show
them what can be done. Let them know what the options might be so that they can figure out
that part.
Commissioner Eakins: Can a set of the drawings and a photo be made available to the part
commission? (Yes)
MOTION PASSES: Chairman Beecham: Is there any further discussion on this motion? All
those in favor of recommending that the council approve this generic, prototypical, citywide
traffic circle design, say Aye. All opposed? That passes unanimously on a vote of 7-0.
10
Excerpt Only
Historic Resources Board Minutes
Wednesday, November !5, 1995
8:00 a.m. - !0:00 a.m.
Council Conference Room
Palo Alto City Hal!
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, California
Citywide No File Number)
Generic citywide traffic circle design
Project Representatives:
Marvin Overway, Chief Transportation Officia!
Carl Stoffel, Transportation Planner
Public Testimony: None
Summary of HRB Discussion:
Chairman Anderson asked about irrigation for the
vegetation. Board member Scott discussed background of R-
I committee and how many neighborhoods there are in the
City. They are all different. A one-size fits al!
solution for traffic circles is doomed to fail. This
generic approach wil! not work in Professorville or the
rest of North Palo Alto. May need three basic generic
designs that could be adapted to each neighborhood. If a
circle can’t fit into a neighborhood, then it shouldn’t
be done.
Board member Mario said that she is against all circles
because they don’t work.
Chairman Anderson said that circles can work, but he’s
against these because a ful! study was not done. Also, he
does not like the proposed design. Maintenance is a
problem. Circles deteriorate visually very quickly.
Board member Kohler said that he came in at the end of
the first review. He thinks that for $30,000, the City
can get more for the money.
Board member Scott discussed the feelings in the
neighborhood and that they are willing to pay for an
alternative design. The neighborhood is against the
generic design.
MOTION:
Deny because the circle is an inappropriate design for an
historic neighborhood.
VOTE:
4-0-3 Willis, Kittas absent; Barbee left early)
................... City of Palo Alto .........................................................................................
AMENDED
MINUTES Thursday, December 7, 199~
8:00 ~
Co~cil Coherence Room
250 H~ilton Avenue
Palo Alto, Califo~a
A.ROLL CALL
Board Members Present:Julie Maser
Jim McFall
Cheryl Piha
Robert Peterson
Dave Ross
Board Members Absent: None
Staff Members Present:Michael Bills
Lisa Grote
Pau! Jensen, Contract Planner (for Item II.2)
Lorraine Weiss
No APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 16, 1995
Approved as amended (4-0-1-0, Cheryl Piha abstained).
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
None
D.AGENDA CHANGES. DELETIONS AND ADDITIONS:
E.AGENDA ITEMS
APPROVALS: The Architectural Review Board (ARB) decision on the design of the
project is a recommendation to the Director of Planning and Community Environment
(the Director), who makes the final decision. Unless otherwise stated by the ARB or
B:ARB:MIN1207.cor Page 1
III.BOARD MSEMBER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS.
A.Generic Citywide Traffic Circle Design.
Marvin Overway, Transportation Division, provided the project background.
Linda Scott, HRB Representative provided the following comments (HRB had a
unanimous vote opposing the design):
A tree in the traffic circle is not feasible because of the existing overhead
wires in the first location.
The HRB wants to emphasize that this would be the first location and that
it is in the heart of Professorville and there is no historic identity in the
proposed traffic circle design and the circle design is not consistent with
the historic district.
There are seven neighborhoods within the city and each neighborhood has
a different flavor and to think a generic design will fit each neighborhood
B:ARB:MIN 1207.cor Page 8
is not realistic. There is a great need to be site-specific.
Public Testimony:
Susan Wexler, Co-Chair of PAC stated that public art should be included in
forming the circle and community outreach should be part of the approach.
Ceevah Sobel, 228 Arbor Road, showed examples of art integrated as part of the
circle. Judith Wasserman, Co-Chair of PAC stated that a design competition is
needed which would allow the neighborhood to react and provide input to each
design.
Board Comments:
Bob Peterson: He indicated that there can be two approaches which could
include: 1) to make the traffic circle sufficiently anonymous so as to make it work
with the neighborhoods much like the curbs and gutters and 2) that what goes
inside the ring should relate to the neighborhood.
Cheryl Piha: She stated that she strongly supports the HRB’s concerns. She
indicated that there is a need to be site-specific and it cannot be generic. She
stated that the need to be site specific should work with the neighborhood. She
could not support this design to go all over Palo Alto. She finds the art solutions
very exciting. She also stated that it is a challenge and difficult to put a round peg
into a square hole.
Jim McFall: He indicated that he found the circles difficult to maneuver and that
he really does not like them in general. He stated that a circle might calm traffic
but not very well and he is unsupportive of traffic circles and especially of a
generic circle design. He emphasized cost is another factor to consider. He
indicated that stop signs cost far less, about $200 each whereas circles may be
from $35,000 to $85,000.
Dave Ross: He stated that he supports the traffic circles as a device for traffic
calming. He also asked how to make something generic and contextual. A
solution must be found to make the circles contextual. He indicated that there is a
need to respect ~:~" .....ighb "-gh.......... ne orhood~,,,,~,~o~^’~ ~ and ~,~ ~,avc context throu
flexibility with generic perimeters and to fine tune them.
Julie Maser: She stated that she does not support the generic proposal mainly
because she does not fred that traffic circles work. She also stated that there may
be situations where traffic calming is needed, but by approving a generic
approach the neighborhoods are not considered. ~-~ :--~: .... ~ ~ ...............
~-*~bl~ Additionally approved
B:ARB:MIN1207.cor Page 9
generic degign woNd lead t0a proliferation 0f~_affie circles,which can be
~g~ro~ ~hen ifi~!~ in tight 4ntersecti0gs ~ttiCh;0ne not designed to
acC6mmgd~t~icir~.leS.~)mfort~bly. She stated that the proposed conceptual
artwork was spectacular.
Motion:Not to approve the generic traffic design because they are a safety issue,
an 9bstacle, and difficult to maneuver and the proposal does not meet the
standards for ARB findings. (3-2-0-0, Dave Ross and Bob Peterson
opposed)
B:ARB:MIN 1207.cor Page 10
Marvin Overway, Chief Transportation
Official, Planning Department
250 Hamilton Avenue, 6th floor
Palo Alto, CA 94301
City PaloAlto
Departn~t of Communi~j Services
Susan Wexler
805 Tolman Drive
Stanford, CA 94305
tel 415 493 6401
ATTACHMENT 5
DMsionof
Arts&Culture
PublicArt
Commission
December 18, t995
Dear Mr. Overway,
Thank you veU much for meeting with us last week to discuss our ideas about including
art in traffic circles. We were particularly pleased that we were able to meet with you and
the other staff people informally before seeing the ARB.
We hope that your introduction to the artist, Ceevah Sobe!, and her drawings and
maquettes, was helpful in imagining a new, exciting and cost-effective approach to the
problem.
We ~vould like to offer our services to help you develop a project that, we feel confident,
would meet with enthusiastic approval from the city staff, residents of the neighborhood
and the public at large.
Our experience has been that ~vhen art is introduced into a project, it produces very
positive responses, particularly when the appropriate community involvement is planned
ahead of time. In addition,, an artist could work with you, personally, and your
department as well, to stay within the engineering parameters. Such collaborations bring
new, meaningful, enjoyable places to the community and have the added benefit of
saving mone?.
The Public Art Commission looks forward to continuing exploring the possibilities of this
project with you.
usan Wexler, Judith Wasserman
Co-Chairs, Palo Alto Public Art
Commission
CC June Fleming, City Manager
Ken Schreiber, Director of Planning
Leon Kaplan, Director of Arts and Culture
Palo Alto Cultura! Center
1313 Newel1 Road
Palo Alto, CA 94303
415.329.2.227