HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-02-09 City Council (2)TO:
City of Palo Alto
City Manager’s Report
HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
9
FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND
COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT
DATE:FEBRUARY 9, 2004 CMR:139:04
SUBJECT:APPROVAL OF A CONTRACT WITH COLUMBIA ELECTRIC,
INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $117,800 FOR INSTALLATION OF A
TRAFFIC SIGNAL AT THE INTERSECTION OF MIDDLEFIELD
ROAD AND BRYSON AVENUE
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that Council:
Approve and authorize the Mayor to execute the attached contract (Attachment A) with
Columbia Electric, Inc. in the amount of $117,800 for the installation of a traffic signal
and related striping, signing and roadway work at the intersection of Middlefield Road
and Bryson Avenue; and
2.Authorize the City Manager or his designee to negotiate and execute one or more change
orders to the contract with Columbia Electric, Inc. for related additional, but unforeseen,
work that may develop during the project--the total value of which shall not exceed
$11,800.
BACKGROUND
At its meeting of May 12, 2003, the City Council approved the installation of a new traffic
signal at the intersection of Middlefield Road and Bryson Avenue. At the same meeting, the
Council also approved restriping Middlefield to accommodate new left-turn lanes on
Middlefield at Bryson. Finally, the Council directed staff to evaluate the Middlefield
roadway segment in the vicinity of Bryson for a period of 12 months following installation
of the traffic signal, to determine the impacts of the restriping, signal phasing and the
proximity of adjacent signals, and report back with any recommendations for further
improvements for the corridor.
Be~,een May 12, when Council approved the project, and December 16, when the project
went out to bid, staff moved forward with obtaining an easement necessary for installing
traffic signal loop detectors, perfornaed the engineering design of the traffic signal, and
prepared the plans and specifications for signal construction.
CMR:139:04 Page 1 of 3
DISCUSSION
The project consists of installing a new two-phase fully actu.ated traffic signal; constructing
wheelchair ramps at all four corners; installing crosswalks across all four legs of the
intersection; installing countdown pedestrian signal heads; and related striping changes to
accommodate the left-turn pockets along Middlefield Road. A protected left-turn phase will
not be initially provided, but can be il-nplemented at a later time with minimal signa!
modifications. The project does not include any road widening or parking removal.
Bid Process
Staff prepared plans and specifications and posted at City Hall and mailed a notice inviting
formal bids on December 16, 2003. The notice was mailed to three builders’ exchanges and
five electrical contractors and equipment suppliers, and was also posted on the City’s web
page. The bidding period was 28 days. A summary of the solicitation process is shown
below.
Summary of Solicitation Process
Proposal Description
Proposed Length of Project
Number of Proposals Mailed
Total Days to Respond to Proposal
Pre-proposal Meeting Date
Number of Company Attendees at Pre-
proposal Meetin~
Number of Proposals Received:
Company Name
1. Columbia Electric, Inc.
2. Tennyson Electric, Inc.
3. Giacalone Electrical Services, Inc.
4. St. Francis Electric
5. W. Bradley Electric, Inh.
6. Beltramo Electric, Inc.
7. Brown & Fesler, Inc.
8. Mike Brow~ Electric Co.
Range of Proposal amounts submitted
Traffic Signal Installation at the Intersection of Middlefield Road and
Bryson Avenue
2 months
5
28
N/A
N/A
18
!Location (City, State)
San Leandro, CA
Livermore, CA
Gilroy, CA
San Leandro, CA
Novato, CA
San Martin, CA
Livermore, CA
] Cotati, CA
15117,800-$151,855
Selected for oral intelwiew?
N!A
N/A
N!A
N/A
NiA
N/A
N!A
N/A
Bids ranged from a high of $151,855 to a low of $117,800. After reviewing all of the bids
submitted, staff reconamends that Council accept the bid of $117,800 submitted by
Columbia Electric, Inc., and that Columbia Electric, Inc. be declared the lowest responsible
bidder. The bid is lower than the engineer’s estimate of $150,000 to $170,000. A change
order amount of $11,800", which equals ten percent of the total contract, is requested for
related, unforeseen work. Staff checked with the Contractor’s State License Board and found
that the contractor has an active license on file.
RESOURCE IMPACT
Funds to complete this project are included in the 2003-04 Electric Utility CIP.
CMR: 139:04 Page 2 of 3
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The project is categorically exempt from the Califonaia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
under Section 15301(c) of the CEQA Guidelines (minor alterations to existing facilities).
ATTACHMENTS
A. Contract with Columbia Electric, Inc.
B. CMR:265:03, 5/12/03, Approval of Signal and Left-turn Pockets on Middlefield/Bryson
PREPARED BY:
DEPARTMENT HEAD:
DAVID STILLMAN
Transportation Engineer
STEVE EMSLIE
Director of Planning and
Community Environment
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
cc:Columbia Electric, Inc.
Midtown Residents Association
EMILY HARRISON
Assistant City Manager
C.~ ’iR:1_~9:04 Page 3 of 3
ATTACHMENT A
CONTRACT No. C04101010
(public work)
Utilities Department
This Contract, number C04101010 dated is entered into by and between the City of Palo Alto, a chartered
city and a municipal corporation of the State of California ("City"), and Columbia Electric. Inc. ("Contractor").
For and in consideration of the covenants, terms, and conditions ("the provisions") of this Contract, City and Contractor
("the parties") agree:
Term. This Contract shall commence and be binding on the parties on the Date of Execution of this Contract,
and shall e.xpire on the date of recordation of the Notice of Substantial Completion, or, if no such notice is
required to be filed, on the date that final payment is made hereunder, subject to the earlier termination of this
Contract.
General Scope of Project and Work. Contractor shall furnish labor, services, materials and equipment in
connection with the construction of the Project and complete the Work in accordance with the covenants, terms
and conditions of this Contract to the satisfaction of City. The Project and Work is generally described as
follows:
Title of Project:Traffic Signal Installation at Middlefield Road and Bryson Avenue, Invitation for Bid (IFB)
Number 101010
Bid:$117.800.00
Contract Documents. This Contract shall consist of the documents set forth below, which are on file with the
City Clerk and are hereby incorporated by reference. For the purposes of construing, interpreting and resolving
inconsistencies between and among the provisions of this Contract, these documents and the provisions
thereof are set forth in the following descending order of precedence.
This Contract.
Invitation for Bid.
Project Specifications.
Drawings.
Change Orders.
Bid.
Supplementary Conditions.
General Conditions.
Standard Drawings and Specifications (1992).
Certificate of Insurance, Performance Bond, Labor & Materials (Payment) Bond.
Other Specifications, or part thereof, not expressly incorporated in the Contract Specifications or the
Standard Drawings and Specifications (1992).
Any other document not expressly mentioned herein which is issued by City or entered into by the
parties.
Compensation. In consideration of Contractor’s performance of its obligations hereunder, City shall pay to
Contractor the amount set forth in Contractor’s Bid in accordance with the provisions of this Contract and upon
the receipt of written invoices and all necessary supporting documentation within the time set forth in the
Contract Specifications and the Standard Drawings and Specifications (1992), or, if no time is stated, within
thirty (30) Days of the date of receipt of Contractor’s invoices.
Insurance. On or before the Date of Execution, Contractor shall obtain and maintain the policies of insurance
coverage described in the Invitation For Bid on terms and conditions and in amounts as may be required by the
Risk Manager. City shall not be obligated to take out insurance on Contractor’s personal property or the
personal property of any person performing labor or services or supplying materials or equipment under the
Project. Contractor shall furnish City with the certificates of insurance and with original endorsements affecting
coverage required under this Contract on or before the Date of Execution. The certificates and endorsements
for each insurance policy shall be signed by a person who is authorized by that insurer to bind coverage in its
behalf. Proof of insurance shall be mailed to the Project Manager to the address set forth in Section 16 of this
C04101010 PAGE 1 OF 7
Contract.
10.
11.
Indemnification. Contractor agrees to protect, defend, indemnify and hold City, its Council members, officers,
employees, agents and representatives harmless from and against any and all claims, demands, liabilities,
losses, damages, costs, expenses, liens, penalties, suits, or judgments, arising, in whole or in part, directly or
indirectly, at any time from any injury to or death of persons or damage to property as a result of the willful acts
or the negligent acts or omissions of Contractor, or which results from Contractor’s noncompliance with any Law
respecting the condition, use, occupation or safety of the Project site, or any part thereof, or which arises from
Contractor’s failure to do anything required under this Contract or for doing anything which Contractor is
required not to do under this Contract, or which arises from conduct for which any Law may impose strict liability
on Contractor in the performance of or failure to perform the provisions of this Contract, except as may arise
from the sole willful acts or negligent acts or omissions of City or any of its Council members, officers,
employees,oagents or representatives. This indemnification shall extend to any and all claims, demands, or
liens made or filed by reason of any work performed by Contractor under this Contract at any time during the
term of this Contract, or arising thereaffer.
To the extent Contractor will use hazardous materials in connection with the execution of its obligations under
this Contract, Contractor further expressly agrees to protect, indemnify, hold harmless and defend City, its City
Council members, officers and employees from and against any and all claims, demands, liabilities, losses,
damages, costs, expenses, liens, penalties, suits, or judgments City may incur, arising, in whole or in part, in
connection with or as a result of Contractor’s willful acts or negligent acts or omissions ur)der this Contract,
under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (42 U.S.C. ~9601-6975,
as amended); the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (42 U.S.C. ~6901-6992k, as amended); the Toxic
Substances Control Act (15 U.S.C. ~2601-2692, as amended); the Carpenter-Presley-Tanner Hazardous
Substance Account Act (Health & Safety Code, ~25300-25395, as amended); the Hazardous Waste Control
Law (Health & Safety Code, ~25100-25250.25, as amended); the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement
Act (Health & Safety Code, ~25249.5-25249.13, as amended); the Underground Storage of Hazardous
Substances Act (Health & Safety Code, ~25280-25299.7, as amended); or under any other local, state or
federal law, statute or ordinance, or at common law.
Assumption of Risk. Contractor agrees to voluntarily assume any and all risk of loss, damage, or injury to the
property of Contractor which may occur in, on, or about the Project site at any time and in any manner,
excepting such loss, injury, or damage as may be caused by the sole willful act or negligent act or omission of
City or any of its Council members, officers, employees, agents or representatives.
Waiver. The acceptance of any payment or performance, or any part thereof, shall not operate as a waiver by
City of its rights under this Contract. A waiver by City of any breach of any part or provision of this Contract by
Contractor shall not operate as a waiver or continuing waiver of any subsequent breach of the same or any
other provision, nor shall any custom or practice which may arise between the parties in the administration of
any part or provision of this Contract be construed to waive or to lessen the right of City to insist upon the
performance of Contractor in strict compliance with the covenants, terms and conditions of this Contract.
No Exoneration By Inspection: The City has the right, but not the duty, to inspect Contractor’s Work. The right
of inspection is solely for the benefit of City. Contractor has the obligation to complete the Work in a
satisfactory manner in compliance with Contract requirements. The presence of a City inspector does not shift
that obligation to the City or relieve Contractor from its obligations to complete the Work in a satisfactory
manner in compliance with the Contract requirements.
Compliance with Laws. Contractor shall comply with all Laws now in force or which may hereafter be in force
pertaining to the Project and Work and this Contract, with the requirement of any bond or fire underwriters or
other similar body now or hereafter constituted, with any discretionary license or permit issued pursuant to any
Law of any public agency or official as well as with any provision of all recorded documents affecting the Project
site, insofar as any are required by reason of the use or occupancy of the Project site, and with all Laws
pertaining to nondiscrimination in employment and hazardous materials.
Bonds_. As a condition precedent to City’s obligation to pay compensation to Contractor, and on or before the
Date of Execution, Contractor shall furnish to the Project Manager the Bonds as required under the Invitation
For Bid.
C04101010 PAGE 2 QF 7
Representations and Warranties. In the supply of any materials and equipment and the rendering Of labor and
services during the course and scope of the Project and Work, Contractor represents and warrants:
Any materials and equipment which shall be used during the course and scope of the Project and
Work shall be vested in Contractor;
Any materials and equipment which shall be used during the course and scope of the Project and
Work shall be merchantable and fit to be used for the particular purpose for which the materials are
required;
Any labor and services rendered and materials and equipment used or employed during the course
and scope of the Project and Work shall be free of defects in workmanship for a period of one (1) year
after the recordation of the Notice of Substantial Completion, or, if no such notice is required to be
filed, on the date that final payment is made hereunder;
Any manufacturer’s warranty obtained by Contractor shall be obtained or shall be deemed obtained by
Contractor for and in behalf of City.
Any information submitted by Contractor prior to the award of Contract, or thereafter, upon request,
whether or not submitted under a continuing obligation by the terms of the Contract to do so, is true
and correct at the time such information is submitted or made available to the City;
Contractor has not colluded, conspired, or agreed, directly or indirectly, with any person in regard to
the terms and conditions of Contractor’s Bid, except as may be permitted by the Invitation For Bid;
Contractor has the power and authority to enter into this Contract with City, that the individual
executing this Contract is duly authorized to do so by appropriate resolution, and that this Contract
shall be executed, delivered and performed pursuant to the power and authority conferred upon the
person or persons authorized to bind Contractor;
Contractor has not made an attempt to exert undue influence with the Purchasing Manager or Project
Manager or any other person who has directly contributed to City’s decision to award the contract to
Contractor;
There are no unresolved claims or disputes between Contractor and City which would materially affect
Contractor’s ability to perform under the Contract;
Contractor has furnished and will furnish true and accurate statements, records, reports, resolutions,
certifications, and other written information as may be requested of Contractor by City from time to
time during the term of this Contract;
Contractor and any person performing labor and services under this Project are duly licensed by the
State of California as required by California Business & Professions Code Section 7028, as amended;
and
Contractor has fully examined and inspected the Project site and has full knowledge of the physical
conditions of the Project site.
13.Assiqnment. This Contract and the performance required hereunder is personal to Contractor, and it shall not
be assigned by Contractor. Any attempted assignment shall be null and void.
14.Claims of Contractor. All claims pertaining to extra work, additional charges, or delays within the Contract Time
or other disputes arising out of the Contract shall be submitted by Contractor to City in writing by certified or
registered mail within ten (10) Days after the claim arose or within such other time as may be permitted or
required by law, and shall be described in sufficient detail to give adequate notice of the substance of the claim
to City.
15.Audits by City. During the term of this Contract and for a period of not tess than three (3) years after the
expiration or earlier termination of this Contract, City shall have the right to audit Contractor’s Project-related
C04101010 PAGE 3 OF 7
16.
17.
18.
and Work-related writings and business records, as such terms are defined in California Evidence Code
Sections 250 and 1271, as amended, during the regular business hours of Contractor, or, if Contractor has no
such hours, during the regular business hours of City.
Notices. All agreements, appointments, approvals, authorizations, claims, demands, Change Orders, consents,
designations, notices, offers, requests and statements given by either party to the other shall be in writing and
shall be sufficiently given and served upon the other party if (1) personally served, (2) sent by the United States
mail, postage prepaid, (3) sent by private express delivery service, or (4) in the case of a facsimile transmission,
if sent to the telephone FAX number set forth below during regular business hours of the receiving party and
followed within two (2) Days by delivery of a hard copy of the material sent by facsimile transmission, in
accordance with (1), (2) or (3) above. Personal service shall include, without limitation, service by delivery and
service by facsimile transmission.
To City:City of Palo Alto
City Clerk
250 Hamilton Avenue
P.O. Box 10250
Palo Alto, CA 94303
Copy to:City of Palo Alto
Transportation Division
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94303
Attn: David Stillman, Project Manager
To Contractor:Columbia Electric, Inc.
1980 Davis Street
San Leandro, CA 94577
Attn: David Scruggs
Appropriation of City Funds. This Contract is subject to the fiscal provisions of Article II!, Section 12 of the
Charter of the City of Palo Alto. Any charges hereunder for labor, services, materials and equipment may
accrue only after such expenditures have been approved in advance in writing in accordance with applicable
Laws. This Contract shall terminate without penalty (I) at the end of any fiscal year in the event that funds are
not appropriated for the following fiscal year, or (ii) at any time within a fiscal year in the event that funds are
only appropriated for a portion of the fiscal year and funds for this Contract are no longer available. This
Section 17 shall control in the event of a conflict with any other provision of this Contract.
Miscellaneous.
Bailee Disclaimer. The parties understand and agree that City does not purport to be Contractor’s
bailee, and City is, therefore, not responsible for any damage to the personal property of Contractor.
Consent. Whenever in this Contract the approval or consent of a party is required, such approval or
consent shall be in writing and shall be executed by a person having the express authority to grant
such approval or consent.
Controlling Law. The parties agree that this Contract shall be governed and construed by and in
accordance with the Laws of the State of California.
Definitions. The definitions and terms set forth in Section 1 of the Standard Drawings and
Specifications (1992) of this Contract are incorporated herein by reference.
e.Force Majeure. Neither party shall be deemed to be in default on account of any delay or failure to perform
its obligations under this Contract which directly results from an Act of God or an act of a superior
governmental authority.
C04101010 PAGE 4 OF 7
ho
-I.
Headings. The paragraph headings are not a part of this Contract and shall have no effect upon the
construction or interpretation of any part of this Contract.
Incorporation of Documents. All documents constituting the Contract documents described in Section
3 hereof and all documents which may, from time to time, be referred to in any duly executed
amendment hereto are by such reference incorporated in this Contract and shall be deemed to be part
of this Contract.
Integration. This Contract and any amendments hereto between the parties constitute the entire
agreement between the parties concerning the Project and Work, and there are no other prior oral or
written agreements between the parties that are not incorporated in this Contract.
M~dification of Agreement. This Contract shall not be modified or be binding upon the parties, unless
such modification is agreed to in writing and signed by the parties.
Provision. Any agreement, covenant, condition, clause, qualification, restriction, reservation, term or
other stipulation in the Contract shall define or otherwise control, establish, or limit the performance
required or permitted or to be required of or permitted by either party. All provisions, whether
covenants or conditions, shall be deemed to be both covenants and conditions.
Resolution. Contractor shall submit with its Bid a copy of any corporate or partnership resolution or
other writing, which authorizes any director, officer or other employee or partner to act for or in behalf
of Contractor or which authorizes Contractor to enter into this Contract.
Severability. If a court of competent jurisdiction finds or rules that any provision of this Contract is void
or unenforceable, the provisions of this Contract not so affected shall remain in full force and effect.
Status of Contractor. In the exercise of rights and obligations under this Contract, Contractor acts as
an independent contractor and not as an agent or employee of City. Contractor shall not be entitled to
any rights and benefits accorded or accruing to the City Council members, officers or employees of
City, and Contractor expressly waives any and all claims to such rights and benefits.
Successors and Assigns. The provisions of this Contract shall inure to the benefit of, and shall apply
to and bind, the successors and assigns of the parties.
Time of the Essence. Time is of the essence of this Contract and each of its provisions. In the
calculation of time hereunder, the time in which an act is to be performed shall be computed by
excluding the first Day and including the last. If the time in which an act is to be performed falls on a
Saturday, Sunday, or any Day observed as a legal holiday by City, the time for performance shall be
extended to the following Business Day.
Alternative Dispute Resolution. The parties shall endeavor to resolve any disputes or claims arising
out of or relating to this Contract by mediation, which, unless the parties agree otherwise, shall be
conducted under the auspices of the Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Service (JAMS), San Jose,
California. The intent of the parties is that the mediation shall proceed in advance of litigation;
however, if any party should commence litigation before the conclusion of mediation, such litigation,
including discovery, shall be stayed pending completion of mediation, and by executing this Contract
the parties stipulate to mediation in accordance with Santa Clara County
Superior Court Local Rule 1.15 or Rule 2-3(b) of the ADR Local Rules of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, as such rules may be amended from time to time. The parties shall
share the cost of the mediation, including the mediator’s fee, equally. Any written agreement reached
in mediation shall be enforceable pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 664.6, as amended.
Venue. Unless the parties mutually agree otherwise, mediation shall take place in San Jose,
California. In the event that litigation is commenced by any party hereunder, the parties agree that
such action shall be vested exclusively in the state courts of California in the County of Santa Clara or
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.
C04101010 PAGE 5 OF 7
Recovery of Costs. Each Party shall bear its own costs, including attorney’s fees, through the
completion of mediation. If the claim or dispute is not resolved through mediation, or if litigation is
necessary to enforce a settlement reached at mediation pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure
§ 664.6, as amended, then the prevailing party in any subsequent litigation may recover its reasonable
costs, including attorney’s fees, incurred subsequent to conclusion of the mediation.
Flow-down. Contractor agrees to include provisions of this Contract relating to Alternative Dispute
Resolution, Venue. and Recovery of Costs in any subcontracts or major material purchase
agreements which it enters into in connection with this Contract, and to require its subcontractors to
include those provisions in any sub-contracts or major material purchase agreements, such that any
mediation or litigation of any claim or dispute asserted by a subcontractor or major material supplier
will be consolidated with any related claim or dispute between the Contractor and the City. Should the
Contractor fail to do so, such that the City is required to defend an action brought by a subcontractor
or material supplier inconsistent with the Alternative Dispute and Venue provisions of this Contract,
Contractor shall indemnify City for City’s costs of defense, including reasonable attorney’s fees.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have by their duly appointed representatives executed this Contract in the city of
Palo Alto, County of Santa Clara, State of California on the date first stated above.
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
CITY OF PALO ALTO
By:
Its Mayor
Senior Assistant City Attorney
APPROVED:CONTRACTOR:
Assistant City Manager
Director of Utilities
By:
Name
Title:
Director of Administrative Services
Insurance Review
By:.
Name:
Title
(Compliance with California Corporations Code 313 is required if the entity
on whose behalf this contract is signed is a corporation. In the alternative,
a certified corporate resolution attesting to the signatory authority of the
individuals signing in their respective capacities is acceptable. )
C04101010 PAGE 6 OF 7
CERTIFICATE OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT
(Civil Code ~ 1189)
STATE OF
COUNTY OF
On before me,
a notary public in and for said County, personally appeared
personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person(s)whos’e
name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the
same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the
person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
Signature (Seal)
C04101010 PAGE 7 OF 7
ATTACHMENT B
City of Palo Alto
City Manager’s Report
HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING ?~ND
COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT
DATE:MAY 12, 2003 CMR:265:03
SUBJECT:APPROVAL OF INSTALLATION OF A TRAFFIC SIGNAL AND
LEFT TURN POCKETS AT THE INTERSECTION OF
MIDDLEFIELD ROAD AND BRYSON AVENUE
RECOMMENDATION
Staff and the Planning and Transportation Commission recommend that the City Council
approve installation of a traffic signal with left-turn pockets at the intersection of
Middlefield Road and Bryson Avenue.
BACKGROUND
A new traffic signal and left-turn pockets are a.necessary safety enhancement at Middlefield
Road/Bryson Avenue, which has the fourth highest accident rate in the City.
COMMISSION REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS
On April 2, 2003, the Planning and Transportation Commission recommended by a 6-1 vote
that the City Council approve the above staff recommendation. The Planning and
Transportation Commission agreed with staff that the proposed improvements are a
necessary safety enhancement. While there was support for staff’s recommendation by
members of the public, including the Midtown Residents Association, concern was
expressed by the Palo Alto Bicycle Advisory Con~nittee that the lane narrowing necessary
to provide room for the left-turn pockets was a step in the wrong direction and a three-lane
cross section (one vehicle lane for each direction of traffic plus a two-way left turn lane;
bicycle lane, with allowance for bicycle lanes).
Based on these concerns the Planning and Transportation Commission encouraged staff to
start discussions and promotion of a future three-lane cross section on Middlefield Road.
Staff intends to move fopa, ard in this direction. Wrhile staff agrees that the three-lane option
would result in the optimal solution for all transportation modes, including bike and
vehicular modes, staff recommends that additional study and outreach to all stakeholders is
necessary before implementing this plan. The Commission report includes a section that
CMR:265:03 Page 1 of 2
outlines the next steps that staff will pursue in working with stakeholders in moving toward
the three-lane plan.
¯ ATTACHMENTS
A: Staff report to Plarming and Transportation Commission
B: Minutes from Apr!l 2, 2003 Planning and Transportation Conmaittee meeting
C: Letter of support from Midtown Residents Association
PREPARED BY:
DEPARTMENT HEAD:
DAVID STILLMAN
portation Engineer
STEVE EMSLIE
Director of Planning and
Community Environment
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL~/~
EMILY HARRISON
Assistant City Manager
Midtown Residents Association
Palo Alto Bicycle Advisory Committee
CMR:265:03 Page 2 of 2
ATTACHMENT A
PLANNING DIVISION
STAFF REPORT
TO:PLANN~,~G & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
FROM:
AGENDA DATE:
DAVID STILLMAN
APRIL 2, 2003
DEPARTMENT:Planning
SUBJECT:APPROVAL OF INSTA_LLATION OF A TRAFFIC SIGNAL AIN~
LEFT-TURN POCKETS AT THEINTERSECTION OF
MIDDLEFIELD ROAD AND BRYSON AVENUE
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Commission reconmaend to City Council approval of the
installation of a traffic signal with left-turn pockets at the intersection of Middlefield Road
and Bwson Avenue.
BACKGROUND
Site Information
Middlefield RoadgBryson Avenue is a four-legged intersection, located approximately 300
feet north of the intersection of Middlefield Road with Colorado Avenue. Bryson Avenue
intersects Middlefield Road on the west side of the intersection; on the east side, directly
across from Bryson, are the primary entrance and exit driveways to the Midtown shopping
center. B13,son Avenue is a residential cul-de-sac with 28 single-family homes along its
length. Also on Buson is a driveway entrance to Mike’s Caf4 and Peninsula Hardware and,
directly across from that, the intersection of an alley that connects through to Colorado
Avenue and provides access to businesses along the west side of Middlefield Road south of
Bryson. The Midtown shopping center is a neighborhood retail center containing a Long’s
Drug Store as the primary attractor and many smaller retail stores, including the Palo Alto
Cafd, Baskin Robbins, Midtown Video and Holiday Cleaners. A taro-hour City-owned
City of Palo Alto Page 1
parking lot near the back of the Midtown shopping center is also accessible from the main
driveway entrance on Middlefield, and provides access to additional stores such as Starbuck’s
Coffee.
Middle field Road is a four-lane undivided roadway between Oregon Expressway and
Colorado Avenue. The intersection at Bryson lies within this segment. Middlefield is
classified as a residential arterial and carries approximately 18,000 vehicles per day. Bryson
is a local street and carries approximately 500 vehicles per day. The Midtown shopping
center attracts more traffic than Bryson; with approximately 250 total vehicles entering, and
exiting the shopping center driveways across from Bryson during the p.m. peak hour, as
compared with 50"vehicles turning into and out ofBryson. Middlefield Road measures 46
feet from curb face to curb face, resulting in two 13-foot-wide outside lanes and two 10-foot-"
wide inside lanes. Immediately north of the intersection with Colorado Avenue; lanes along
Middlefield narrow to approximately 9 to 91/,_ feet wide to accommodate five lanes (four
through lanes and a left-turn pocket at Colorado). The existing layout of Middlei]eld Road
in the vicinity of Bryson Avenue is shown in Attachment A.
Proiect History
Staff has recently performed a safety evaluation of this segment of Middlefield Road. The
intersection of Middlefield Road and Bryson Avenue has the fourth highest accident rate in
the City, with 25 reported accidents (including 13 injury accidents) occurring within a 5½
year study period begffrming January 1, 1997. The predominant type.s of accidents are right
angle/right-of-way violations and rear-ends, which are occurring under the following
scenarios:
Vehicles pulling out from the shopping center driveway or from Bryson Avenue are
struck by vehicles traveling northbound or southbound along Middlefield (5
accidents; 20 percent of total).
Vehicles slowing/stopping within the inside travel lane on Middlefield Road to turn
left into the shopping center or onto Bryson Avenue are rear-ended by drivers not
expecting the vehicle in front of them to stop (6 accidents; 24 percent of total).
Vehicles turning left from Middle field Road into the shopping center or onto Bryson
Avenue are struck by veh[icles traveling the opposite directi6n on Middlefield (9
accidents; 36 percent of total).
To improve the safety of the intersection,staff recommends installing a traffic signal With
left-turn pockets on Middlefield at Bryson. The traffic signal will improve the safety of the
intersection for the following reasons:
City of Palo Alto Page 2
Positive right-of-way control will be provided, reducing the number of right-angle
accidents involving a vehicle pulling out from the shopping center or from Bryson
Avenue and being struck by a vehicle on Middlefield;
¯Positive right-of-way control will provide a safety benefit for all users of the
intersection, including bicyclists and pedestrians;
¯The inclusion of left-turn pockets will channel left-turning vehicles out of the main
traffic stream, reducing the potential for rear-end and sideswipe accidents;
The inclusion of left-turn pockets will also reduce the number of accidents involving
vehicles turning left in front of opposing traffic, by increasing the visibility of
oncoming traffic to left-turning traffic.
In order to accormnodate the new left-turn pockets, the existing lanes will be nan-owed to 9½
feet for the curb lanes, and 9 feet for the inside lanes. The new left-turn lanes wilt be 9 feet
wide. This configuration will be very similar to that currently in existence on Middlefield
Road immediately north of Colorado Avenue. Crosswalks will be provided across all four
legs of the intersection to encourage and facilitate pedestrian access to the shopping center.
The proposed layout of Middlefield Road in the vicinity of Bryson Avenue is shown in
Attachment B.
The proposed traffic signal will be interconnected with the existing citywide coordinated
traffic signal system. This will allow the traffic signal to be coordinated with the existing
traffic signals at Middlefield!Colorado and at Middlefield near Webster (the pedestrian
crossing), which will sig-nificantly reduce vehicular delay impacts from the proposed sig-nal.
Staff anticipates that the proposed sig-nal will operate at a very high level service, most likely
in the A-/B+ range. The intersection of Middlefield Road/Colorado Avenue currently
operates at level of service B.
Although the proposed traffic sig-nal does not meet warrants as established by Caltrans for
a new traffic signal installation, staffrecormnends its installation as a safety measure. In that
this intersection has the fourth highest accident rate in the city, the need for a traffic signal
with left-turn pockets is justified.
CommuniW Input
Palo Alto Bicycle Advisory Committee
Staff presented the proposal to the Palo Alto Bicycle Advisory Committee (PABAC) on
October 2, 2002. PABAC was opposed to the inclusion of left-turn pockets on Middle field,
due to the resulting narrowing of the curb lanes necessary to accommodate them. PABAC’s
concern was that the narrower lanes would provide less acconmaodation for bicyclists than
City of Palo Alto Page 3
the current 13-foot-wide lanes and that staff’s proposal was counter tothe intent of the draft
Bicycle Master Plan. PABAC consequently passed a motion opposing the reduction in width
of the outside lanes:
Staff agees with PABAC that narrower lanes for long distances are not bicycle-friendly and
may create issues with bus and truck traffic. However, narrow lanes (9 to 9~ feet wide) for
short distances exist at many locations within the city to accommodate left-turn pocketsand
seem to work. well for all modes of transportation. Positive right-of-way control and
improved vis!bility for left-turning Vehicles will enhance safety for both motor vehicle and
bicycle travel.
Neighborhood Meeting
Staffheld a public meeting on October 22, 2002 at the Midtown shopping center to discuss
these recommendations. Invitees included all residents along Middlefield Road between
Oregon Expressway and Colorado, residents along Bryson Avenue, PABAC members, and
merchants and storeowners in the Midtown shopping center. The meeting was also
advertised in the newsletter of the Midtown Residents Association, the Palo Alt0 Daily
News, the Palo Alto Weekly, and notice of themeeting wasposted at the pedestrian-actuated
traffic signal on Middlefield at the north end of the shopping center. Approximately 35
people attended the meeting.
At the meeting, staffpresented a proposal that included the installation of a new traffic signal
as discussed above, as well as removal of the existing pedestrian signal and crosswalk near
Webster Street, at the northern end of the Midtown shopping center. Staff proposed the
removal of the pedestrian signal and crosswalk in order to concentrate pddestrian crossings
at the proposed Bryson Avenue signal, as well as to reduce vehicular delays and driver
frustration which may result from the operation of three closely-spaced traffic signals along
Middlefield Road. While there was genera! support among the attendees for the proposed
signal at Bryson, approximate!y half of the a~endees expressed a desire that the existing
pedestrian signal and crosswalk remain. Additionally, staff has received several phone calls
and emails opposing the removal of the pedestrian signal and crosswalk. Consequently,
staff’s proposal at this time is to move forward with the installation 0fthe traffic signal and
left-turn pockets at Bryson, but leave the existing pedestrian signal and crosswalk in place.
Staff intends to monitor pedestrian patterns and vehicular delays along the segment over a
12-month period once the traffic signal is installed, and to make a recommendation at that
time whether the pedestrian sig-nal and crosswalk should remain. Staff will continue to
consult with residents and bf~sinesses as this project is implemented. An advisory panel of
Midtown Residents Association Traffic Action Committee members, PABAC, and Midtown
business people will assist staff in monitoring the results of the signal installation and any
further measures to enhance traffic safety for all road users. See "Timeline"section for
further details.
City of Palo Alto Page 4
ALTEtLNATI~,~S TO STAFF RECOMSIENDATION
Alternative #1 - Install traffic signal at Middlefield Road and Bryson Avenue, without
including left-turn pockets.
This alternative would allow the existing lane widths along Middlefield Road to remain as
they are now. While maintaiNng the current level of bicycle accommodation, this alternative
would not address one of the most prevalent accident scenarios, that being the rear-end
accidents resulting from drivers turning left from Middlefield Road into the shopping center
or onto Bryson Avenue, which account for 24 percent of the collisions. A review of
accidents at the M~ddlef]eld Road!Colorado Avenue intersection does not indicate a trend of
bicycle-related accidents related to the narrower curb lanes and, consequently, there is no
justification for assuming that such a narrowing would result in an increase in bicycle-related
accidents at Bo, son. Therefore, it is staff’s opinion that eliminating the left-turn pockets
from the proposal would provide no benefit for bicycle safety, while negating much of the
safety benefit of the proposed traffic signal.
Alternative #2 - Include removal of pedestrian signal and crosswalk in the proposal.
As indicated above, community opinion on the removal of this signal and crosswalk was
split. Because of the difficulty in coordinating three closely-spaced traffic signals for two-
way traffic flow, a slight increase in vehicular delay will likely occur if this sig-nal is left in
place. Its removal may have a beneficial effect on traffic flow along the segment. However,
the existence of this sig-nal and crosswalk may provide added convenience and safety for
pedestrians wistting to cross Middlefield near the north end of the shopping center, especially
once the Wal~een’s Drug Store development is complete. Walgreen’s is anticipated to open
during the sunm~er of 2003.
RESOURCE IMPACT
The cost of installing a traffic sig-nal at Middlefietd Road and Bryson Avenue, and ofma-king
the associated striping modifications along Middlefield Road, is approximately $220,000.
The new traffic sig-nal installation has been included in the 2002-03 Electric Utility CIP,
project No. 8930.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
The reconm~ended improvements at the intersection of Middlefield Road and B~),son Avenue
are in conformance with Goal T-6 ofthe Comprehensive Plan, which advocates a ~high level
of safety for motorists, pedestrians, and bicyclists on Palo Alto streets." Traffic safeD, is one
of the Cib"s top priorities and the primary purpose of this project is to mitigate a significant
documented safety problem.
The recormnended improvements are not in confo~vnance with Pro~am T-24, which states,
~:Provide adequate outside through-lane widths for shared use by motorists and bicyclists
City of Palo Alto Page 5
when constructing or modif?,ing roadways, where feasible". Middlefield Road is designated
as having.a bike lane in the draft Bicycle Master Plan. However, the improvements proposed
in this report do not include the provision of a bike lane along Middlefield Road.
Middlefleld Road is 46 feet wide in the vicinity of the proposed sig-nal project. Because of
right-of-way constraints, the inclusion of bike lanes would require the elimination of one
vehicle lane along the seg-ment. Due to the controversial nature of eliminating vehicle lanes
along arterial streets, it is staff’s intention that this topic will be addressed as a primary.goal
of a follow-up committee (discussed under "Timeline", below)i The current staff
recommendation does not preclude the provision of bike lanes along Middlefield Road at a
future date.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Minor operational improvements are exempt from environmental review under the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
TIMELINE
Design and construction of the new traffic signal and the installation of left-turn pockets
should be completed within 12 months. In addition, the Transportation Division will be
coordinating the formation of a committee to (1) evaluate traffic flow along the seg-ment,
including impacts resulting from the existing pedestrian signal, and (2) look for ways to
further increase the safety and quality of bicycle and pedestrian t~avel along the segment.
The committee will have as its core the Traffic Action Committee of the Midtown Residents
Asfiociation and will include merchants of the Midtown Shopping Center, residents of nearby
residential streets, Transportation Division staff, PABAC members, and any other interested
and vested parties. Staff will report back to the Planning and Transportation Commission
the committee findings and staff reconwnendations within 12 months, following the
installation of the new traffid signal.
ATTACP~’dENTSFEXHIB ITS:
A. Existing Conditions - Middlefield Road/Bryson Avenue
B. Proposed Conditions - Middlefield Road/Bryson Avenue
COURTESY COPIES:
PABAC
MIDTOWN RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION
Prepared by: David Stillman, Transportation Engineer
Department/Division Head Approval:
Josel~ Kott, Chief Transportation Official
City of PaloAlto Page
0
ATTACHMENT A
3nN3AV ON3NO~
ATTACHMENT B
xl~
bJ
ATTACHMENT B
1
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22.
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
:MEETINGS ARE CABLECAST LIVE ON GOVERNMENT ACCESS CHANNEL 26
ROLL CALL: 7:00 PM
Wednesday, April 2, 2003
SPECIAL MEETING - 7. O0 PM
Cio, Council Conference Room
Civic Centel; 1st Floor
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, California 94301
Commissioners:
Annette Bialson, Chair
Michael Griffin, Vice-Chair
Karen Holman
Patrick Butt
Bonnie Packer
Phyllis Cassel
Joseph Bellomo
Staff."
Steve Emslie, Planni.g Director
Joseph Kott, Chief Transportation Official
Wynne Furth, Senior Assistant City Attorney
David Stillman, Transportation En~neer
Olubayo Elimisha, Staff SecretalT
AGENDIZED ITEMS:
1.Update on CiD, wide Traffic Studies
2.Installation of a traffic signal and left turn pockets at the intersection of Middlefield
Road and Bryson Avenue
3.Approval Of Minutes: Regular Meetings of February 26 and March 12, 2003.
Chair Bialson: The Planning and Transportation Commission Meeting of April 2, 2003 is called
to order. Will the Secretary please take roll? Thank you. Commissioner Packer indicated that
she would join us in approximately 45 minutes or an hour.
The first item on the agenda is Oral Cormnunications.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS. Members of the public may speak to any item not on the agenda
with a limitation of three (3) minutes per speaker. Those who desire to speak must complete a
speaker request card available from the secretary of the Commission. The Planning and
Transportation Commission reserves the right to limit the oral conmaunications period to 15
minutes.
Chair Bialson: Do we have any speaker request cards for Oral Communications? We have no
cards so I will go on to the next item.
City Qf Palo Alto Page
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
CONSENT CALENDAR. Items will be voted on in one motion unless removed from the
calendar by a Commission Member.
Chair Bialson: We have no items on the Consent Calendar.
AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS. The agenda may have additional
items added to it up until 72 hours prior to meeting time.
Chair Bialson: On Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions I believe that there is one agenda
change that will involve the movement of one item of New Business before another of New
Business. Do you a request to make?
MOTION
Commissioner Griffin: I would like to move that we reverse the order of the two items under
discussion during public hearings tonight so that we can review the installation of the traffic
si~o-nal first and the Citywide Traffic Studies as the second.
Chair Bialson: Do I have a second?
SECO~’,rD
Commissioner Holman: Second.
MOTION PASSED
Chair Bialson: Let’s not speak to the motion unless someone has a burning desire to do so. No?
Let’s take a vote then. All those in favor say aye. (ayes) All those opposed? That motion
passes six to nothing with Commissioner Packer not in attendance.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS.
Public Hearings: None,
Chair Bialson: There is no Unfinished Business and no Other Items.
Other Items: None.
Chair Bialson: So let’s get on to New- Business. That will be item number two, Installation of a
traffic signal and left turn pockets at the intersection of Middlefield Road and Bryson Avenue.
Staff.
NEW BUSINESS.
Public Hearings:
Installation of a traffic signal and left turn pockets at the intersection of Middlefield
Road and Brvson Avenue: Consideration of installation of a traffic sig-nal and left-turn
pockets on Middlefield Road at Bryson Avenue. The traffic signal is a Safety
enhancement, intended to reduce conflicts and collisions for vehicles, bicycles and
City of Palo Alto Page 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
t3
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
pedestrians using the intersection. Staff Report Weblink:
http://~~a~.citv~fpa~a~t~.~r~/cit~agenda/pub~ish/p~annin~-transp~rtati~n-meetin~s/~ 725.pdf
Mr. Joseph Kott, Chief Transportation Official: Thank you, Chair Bialson and members of the
Commission. This item has had a rather long gestation. We are pleased to be before you tonight
to present a recommendation. As David Stillman, our fine Traffic Operations Engineer, will
indicate we have had considerable stakeholder consultation in the development of this traffic
installation plan.
David Stillman will be appearing before you for the first time this evening. David has been with
us for a year and one-half, comes to us from Carlsbad down near San Diego. We are just delight
to have David. He has made so many positive improvements to our community in his tenure
with us. So David-, take it away.
Mr. David Stillman, Traffic Operations Engineer: Thank you, Joe. Thank you for giving me the
opportunity to speak before you this evening.
The Staff recommendation regarding this item is that the Planning and Transportation
Commission recommend to the City Council approval of a new traffic signal and left tuna
pockets at the intersection of Middlefield Road and Bryson Avenue.
Here is the plan view showing the existing condition near this intersection. From left to fight
along the plan is Middlefield Road. The intersection of Middlefield Road and Bryson is a four-
legged intersection and is roughly 300 feet north of the existing intersection of Colorado Avenue.
Bryson Avenue is a local street, residential cul-de-sac, 28 single family home front Bryson and
.that forms the western leg of the intersection. The eastern leg of the intersection is formed by the
entrance and exist driveways of the Midtown Shopping Center, which is a neighborhood retail
center. Businesses there include a Long’s Drug Store, Baskin Robbins, Starbucks and numerous
other small businesses. Middlefield is a four lane undivided residential arterial roadway. Within
this seg-ment of Middlefield the traffic volumes are approximately 18,000 vehicles per day.
Bryson as indicated is a low volume residential road with volumes of approximately 500 vehicles
per day. There are no left tuna pockets currently on Middlefield at Bryson as you can see from
the plan. There is an existing traffic sig-nal on Middlefield at Colorado and also a mid-block
signal about 300 feet to the north of Bryson that is pedestrian actuated and will ~ve vehicles
along Middlefield a red light when a pedestrian presses the push button and wishes to cross the
street. There is a Walgreen’s under construction right now at the corner of Middlefield and
Moreno, which should be occupied, last I heard, by summer of this year.
Here is a photo~aph, which shows the existing condition, which I just described, to you. This
photo was taken looking northbound along Middlefield Road standing just south of Bryson
Avenue. On the left there is Bryson intersecting Middlefield, directly across from that you see
the driveways into the Midtown Shopping Center and slightly upstream there you see the mid-
block pedestrian actuated traffic si~aal.
The Transportation Division has recently completed a safety evaluation of Middlefield Road in
the vicinity of Bryson. We looked at a five and one-half year study period. During that time
there were 25 reported accidents at or very near the Bryson Avenue intersection. Thirteen of
Cio, ofPalo Alto Page 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
!0
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
those were injury accidents. Based on the number of accidents and the traffic volumes along the
street this intersection has the fourth highest accident rate in the City of Palo _Alto.
There are three predominanttypes of accidents, which have occurred at this intersection over the
course of the study period. The most predominant type I will call left turn broadsides. There
were nine of these or 36% of the total. These types of accidents typically involve a vehicle,
which is traveling either northbound or southbound along Middlefield and is turning left into
either Bryson or the Midtown Shopping Center and is struck by a vehicle traveling the opposite
direction along Middlefield. Six of those accidents involved a vehicle turning left onto Bryson,
three of them involved a vehicle turning left into the shopping center.
The second most common types of accidents are rear-ends. There were six of these or 24% of
the total. The rea~:-ends typically result when a car traveling northbound or southbound along
Middlefield slows down or stops within the number one lane to make a left turn into Bryson or
the shopping-center and is struck by a vehicle fol!owing too closely.
The third most predominant type of accident is a right angle broadside. There are five of these or
20% of the total. These accidents occur when a vehicle pulling out of either Bryson or the
shopping center driveway is struck broadside by a vehicle traveling northbound or southbound
along Middlefield.
Here is a photo~aph, which shows some of the conflicts, which occur out there. In this case I
was standing just north of the intersection looking south along Middlefield, you see the shopping
center there on the left. A vehicle in the number one lane is stopped and waiting to make a left
turn into the shopping center driveway as a result cars stack up behind that car waiting for him to
turn left. In addition you will notice the break light~ are also on vehicles in the number two or
the shoulder lane. Often what happens is in their impatience a driver will not wait for the person
to make the left but will instead make a quick lane change into the number two lane to pass them.
This results in disruption of flow in that lane as well. So we have existing delays, which occur
here frequently. Also -know that I didn’t have to stand here very long to snap this photo~aph.
This is fairly common out at that intersection especially during the lunchtime periods and during
the evening peak hours.
The Staff proposal to mitigate the safety problems, which I have described are to install a new
traffic signal at this location and to provide left turn pockets on Middlefield with permissive left
turn phasing, to install crosswalks across all four legs of the intersection to facilitate pedestrian
crossing. We are proposing to maintain two northbound and southbound lanes as it is currently.
I will note that this will involve having to reduce the width of the existing travel lanes in order to
make room for the new left turn pocket. Currently there is 46 feet available curb to curb so right
now the inside lanes on Middlefield are ten feet wide and the outside lanes are 13 feet. As a
result of installing the left turn pockets the outside lanes need to be narrowed to nine and one-
half feet and the inside lanes narrowed to nine feet and that will leave room for a nine foot wide
left turn bay. We also propose maintaining the existing mid-block pedestrian signal near the
Wal~een’s.
Here is a plan view showing the proposed condition that I have just described. You will notice
the narrowing of the lanes near the intersection, the inclusion of the left turn pockets and the
City ofPalo A lto Page 4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
crosswalks. What will result is essentially identical to what is currently in existence on
Middlefield at the Colorado Avenue intersection.
Our proposal will elSance safety in several ways. First and foremost it provides positive right-
of-way control to all vehicles using the intersection. This will result in a reduction of the right
angle broadside types of collisions that I described and will benefit a!l modes of transportation,
pedestrians, bicycles and vehicles by positively controlling the vehicles that enter the
intersection. The proposal also removes left turning vehicles from the main traffic lanes. This
will result in a reduction of the rear-end sideswipe type of collisions as well as the left turn
broadside type of collisions. Finally, the proposal will increase the visibility of oncoming traffic
to vehicles that are turning left by shifting the left turning vehicles more toward the center of
roadway in the left turn pockets they will have a clear view of oncoming traffic, which would
tend to result in a 1"eduction of those left turn broadsides. Another way it increases safety is
vehicles that are waiting to turn left in the left turn pockets will feel less pressure to make the left
turn because they won’t have vehicles stacking behind them possibly honking their horns.
Therefore, they will tend to wait for a larger gap before making the left turn, they will tend to not
accept a smaller gap and will therefore make a safer left turn.
The new traffic sig-nal will be coordinated with the existing traffic signal at Colorado Avenue
and with the existing mid-block pedestrian actuated signal as much as possible. We don’t expect
any additional delays to result from these traffic signals. We anticipate there may be some
additional delay as a result of vehicles now occasionally along.Middlefield having to wait at a
red light but this will be offset by reduction in delays by minimizing the conflicts such as I
showed you in that photogaph a few slides ago that already currently exist at that location.
The Transportation Division took our proposal to the Midtown community back in October of
last year. We presented essentially the same proposal we are presenting before you today with
the exception of at the time we were recomanending removing the mid-block pedestrian actuated
traffic signal. Invitees and attendees to the meeting were residents, merchants, general public
also PABAC was invited and any interested members of the Midtown Residents Association.
What we found was there was general support for the new traffic signal and for the left turn
pockets at the meeting. There was however, no consensus on the mid-block pedestrian actuated
traffic signal. About half of the attendees expressed a desire to remove the signal thinking that it
would increase delays too much along the roadway. The other half expressed desire that it
remain because it does add additional safety and convenience for people wishing to access the
Midtown Shopping Center. In October we also took the proposal to the Palo Alto Bicycle
Advisory Conm~ittee. They opposed the proposal on the wounds that outside lanes would need
to be reduced in width to accormnodate the left turn pockets. They felt that this was counter to
the intent of the Draft Bicycle Master Plan which shows bicycle lanes eventually being installed
along Middlefield and that by reducing the outside lane we would be sacrificing the safety of
bicyclists. Staff feels that there will be no reduction in safety for bicyclists because the new
traffic signal will control traffic flow through the intersection more safely than it currently does,
which will provide a benefit to bicyclists as well.
A few alternatives to the Staff recommendation. One alternative is to install a traffic signal
without installing the left turn pockets. This would maintain the current level of bicycle
acconm~odations by not having to have the width of the outside lane adjusted. However, this
would not address the most predominant types of accidents that are occurring which are the rear-
Cio, of Palo Alto Page 5
1
2
3
4
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
I3
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
end sideswipes or the left turn broadside types of accidents which make up 60% of the total. So
if we were to pursue this alternative we would not get nearly the safety benefit we were hoping
to gain. Similarly another alternative is to install the turn pockets without the traffic signal and
don’t believe I mentioned this alternative in the Staff Report but I thought I would put it here for
completeness sake. This would tend to reduce the rear-end sideswipe and left turn broadside
type of accidents. It would be cheaper to implement because we wouldn’t be installing a traffic
signal and it would likely incur fewer delays than the Staffrecormnendation. It would not
address the right angle broadside types of accidents because there would be no rigaht-of-way
control. In addition this would provide no additional safety for bicyclists or pedestrians using the
intersection. A third alternative which I guess isn’t an alternative so much as something that
could be added to the Staff proposal would be to go ahead and remove the mid-block traffic
signal. There would likely be a slight advantage in terms of reducing delays if the signal were
removed however.it does add safety and convenience for pedestrians and there would be
significant opposition from the community if the signal were removed based on what we found
out at our public meeting.
As Next Steps the Transportation Division is anticipating forming a con~’nittee made up of
members of the Midtown Residents Association, other interested residents, merchants of the
Midtown Shopping Center, the Palo Alto Bicycle Advisory Committee, the general public and
City Staff. The purpose of this committee would basically be twofold, one to evaluate traffic
flow along the segment once our proposal is implemented predominantly to determine if leaving
the existing mid-block pedestrian signal in place is detrimental to traffic flow along the street.
the second goal of the committee would be to recommend further improvements, specifically
further improvements to the safety of bicycles and pedestrians using Middle field Road, perhaps
looking at ways to accon~rnodate bicycle lanes. We anticipate reporting our recommendations
and findings back to the Planning and Transportation Commission within 12 months of project
implementation.
The total cost of our proposalincluding the installation of the traffic signal and modifying the
striping along Middlefield Road is approximately $220,000. This amount has been included in
the 2002-03 Electric Utilities CIP. This money will rol!over into the 2003-04 CIP should the
project not be completed by the end of this fiscal year, which it would not be.
In conclusion, Staff feels that these signing and traffic signal and striping changes are necessary
in order to mitigate a fairly serious and ongoing safety problem at this intersection. I thank you
very much for your time and I will answer any questions you have now.
Chair Bialson: Thank you very much. Commissioners I think questions at this point and then
we will go to the public. Any questions from Commissioners? Yes, Michael.
Commissioner Griffin: I was curious, the $220,000 pays for how many individual traffic
signals? A gain of three in other words.
Mr. Stillman: Signal heads? It pays for a full installation at the intersection. I don’t "know the
exact number of s.ignal heads but there would be signal polls and mast arms on Middlefield Road
controlling Middlefield Road traffic. There would be signal polls and signal heads for the
Bryson and the Midtown driveways. So it would be a complete, the actual number of signal
heads would be more than that because there would be one on the mast arm and one on the poll
City ofPalo Alto Page 6
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
for the mast arm. So there is a mininmm of t~vo for each direction of travel and there may end up
being more. Then there would be pedestrian indicators also.
Commissioner Griffin: Thanks.
Chair Bialson: Phyllis.
Commissioner Cassel: Have you thought about where you are going to place those polls so that
they don’t interfere with the sidewalk?
Mr. Stillman: We have gone out to the site and we have identified locations where those polls
can be placed. It is a challenging location because the two driveways are separated a bit but it is
feasible and there ~re ways to do it without interfering with pedestrian travel.
Chair Bialson: Joe.
Commissioner Bellomo: What type of improvements do you need to make off-street into those
driveway areas, signal tripping? Does that $220,000 include the improvements?
Mr. Stilhnan: Yes.
Cormnissioner Bellomo: Into the site?
Mr. Stillman: Yes.
Commissioner Bellomo: What about the aligrm~ent? Looking at kind of a small-scale plan like
this I noticed the alignment. Was there any consideration of modifying the alignment of the
driveway approaches?
Mr. Stillman: Not for this proposal, no. That would involve substantially ~eater cost and quite
a bit of coordination with the owner of the Midtown Shopping Center.
Commissioner Bellomo: Looking at traveling southbound from Oregon to Colorado there is a
sweeping distance for that left turn lane. Does that propose any difficulties of negotiating?
Pending their striping is it a bit wide? Do you consider that a bit wide of a turn lane?
Mr. Stillman: It is perhaps a bit wider than usual but it doesn’t give us an?, difficulties that we
wouldn’t be able to overcome. We would provide a line ofbots dots through the intersection,
which would guide motorists into the proper drivev,,ay. We would sign the driveways clearly so
that drivers knew which was the entrance and which was the exit and the configuration of the
intersection as far as where the driveways are located isn’t going to change from the way it is
currently. So the way that it will op4rate is similar to the way that it does operate nov,,’. So we
are not making it any worse than it already is.
Commissioner Bellomo: There are no bike lanes on Middlefield at this point.
Mr. Stillman: Correct.
CiO, of Palo Alto Page 7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
t9
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
Cormnissioner Bellomo: So bicyclists are basically on their own. I know some schools, private
and public, I know there is Key School down the street. What is your feeling on this shallowing
up of the widths of these lanes? As far as again just to substantiate I understand you are saying
there is no problem with safety but bike riders, especially school kids, will take the sidewalk and
this will certainly be another level of discomfort in this lane width. Nine and one-half feet is
awful thin. I just want to ~know the next level of thought that has gone into this.
Mr. Kott: As Da’,,id indicated Commissioner Bellomo we will be evaluating effects including
the potential effect you just mentioned. One alternative, we have mooted this publicly of course,
is in time creating a three lane cross section. That is one lane in each direction with retaining the
center left turn pockets and bike lanes on each side. We need to develop a workable stakeholder
consensus to move forward on that but we are quite open to doing that.
Chair Bialson: Karen.
Cormnissioner Holman: Yes, did Staffget any feedback or give any consideration to the small
shopping area on the other side Bryson where Mike’s is and where Mid-Peninsula Hardware is?
The Staff Report doesn’t mention that there are accidents of people trying to get out there, it just
talks about accidents from Bryson. Was there any consideration of changing ingress and egress
in that shopping area or has it not caused problems? I find it kind of difficult to negotiate myself.
Mr. Stillman: It is very difficult to effect changes in ingress and e~ess to existing properties in
terms of relocating driveways. Is that the sort of thing that you are talking about?
Commissioner Holman: I was talking about is it the most appropriate ingress and egress, not
rearranging it, but is it the most appropriate or functional in~ess currently and egress currently
and would there be an advantage to putting any right turn only on an egress for example?
Mr. Stillman: There would probably be, in general it is advantageous to put right turn only on
e~esses onto roadways such as this. Left turns tend to cause a lot of accidents. Practically
speaking it is difficult to inflict that type of restriction. You are essentially taking away access
from an existing development and that is very difficult to put that in place once a property has
been developed. I didn?t see an accident problem relating to vehicles turning left from those
driveways that would warrant taking a step in that direction.
Chair Bialson: Go ahead.
Commissioner Burt: Did you see any accident history regarding shoppers leaving Midtown
making a left turn going southbound on Middle field?
Mr. Stillman: I believe so, yes. That would be the right-angle broadside type of accidents that I
referred to.
Commissioner Burt: Right-angle broadside.
Mr. Stiltman: Yes, as they are pulling out.
Cit), of Pa!o Alto Page 8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4o
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Commissioner Burr: So that issue would be addressed even if we did not have the left turn
pockets?
Mr. Stillman: Correct. That would be addressed with the traffic si~aal alone.
Colmnissioner Butt: Then I was glad to hear that you are going to have some bots dots
indicating the proper route there. I personally witnessed people shortcutting in through the exit
of Midtown there. As I look at the drawing the north edge of this new intersection looks a bit
further moved back to the north from the corner than does the south edge. This goes I thi~n_k to
the question Commissioner Bellomo was asNng about. What is the reason that that’s a bit
further back?
Mr. Stillman: I don’t know. V~rhen the Midtown property was developed that was the site plan
that was submitted and approved. I don’t ~know why it was decided that way.
Commissioner Burr: Can I make sure I an~ clear on what I mean?
Mr. Stillman: Sure.
Commissioner Burr: This is the sidewalk here, right? So my question is that sidewalk location
looks further back.
Chair Bialson: Pat, take the microphone.
Commissioner Burt: That sidewalk location looks a bit further back from the corner than this
one does. Is that deliberate and I was interested in the reasoning for that.
Mr. Stilhnan: Is it specifically the location of the crossing?
Commissioner Burr: The location of the crossing and the consequent size of that intersection
that Commissioner Bellomo was as’king about. Is it larger than is necessary for that reasoning?
Mr. Stillman: This crosswalk here is placed as close to this driveway as we can get. So we have
made the intersection as tight as we can get it given the existing constraints of the entrance and
exit driveways to the shopping center.
Commissioner Burt: The other crosswalk looks closer.
Mr. Stillman: Right, because this driveway is located more into the intersection than this one is.
This driveway is as you can see if you extend this driveway down it is pretty far out of the actual
intersection area. So therefore the crosswalk had to be brought back as well.
Commissioner Burt: I am just talking about the difference if you look right at the distance
between the driveway and the beNm-~ing of the crosswalk on the right side of the picture.
Mr. Stillman: This distance here?
Commissioner Burt: Yes, versus the distance on the left side of that crosswalk.
Cio, of Palo Alto Page 9
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4o
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Mr. Stillman: This distance here?
Commissioner Burt: Yes. So I am asking why is there that difference?
Mr. Stillman: There should be actually be very little, the edge of the crosswalk should alig-n
pretty closely to the edge of the driveway.
Commissioner Burt: That may just be a drawing issue.
Mr. Stillman: Yes. There is no reason why that would have to be.
Commissioner Butt: Okay. Then next question, you mentioned that the plan was to put four
crosswalks. Could you expand upon why there is a necessity for two crosswalks to cross
Middlefield there rather than a single one? I am just interested in whether it would actually be
less hazardous to have a single crosswalk whether it is on the north side or the south side of that
intersection.
Mr. Stillman: No it would not be less hazardous. We could have one crosswalk and it would
serve the pedestrians almost as well as having two. There is no overwhelming reason why we
would have to have two crosswalks there if there is an advantage to only having one that
wouldn’t be a problem.
Chair Bialson: Karen.
Commissioner Holman: Follow up to that. Is there a cost implication to having one as opposed
to two?
Mr. Stillman: No. The price of the crosswalk is fairly insig-nificant compared with the cost of
the traffic si~onal installation. There would be a slight reduction in striping cost and hardware.
We wouldn’t have the ped heads across Middlefield at that side of the driveway but it would be
very minimal.
Commissioner Holman: I am sure it would be, all things compared, everything is relative but if
it was some savings and not necessary we might as well save the money.
Mr. Stillman: Sure.
Commissioner Burt: Annette.
Chair Bia!son: Pat.
Commissioner Burt: You mentioned that the three signals would be coordinated. Right now the
pedestrian only signal is activated by pedestrians pushing the button.
Mr. Stillman: Correct.
City of Palo Alto Page l O
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
t7
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
Corrunissioner Burt: So I assume that if these were going to be coordinated then that activation
w-ould change to something that is timed with the other sig-nals.
Mr. Stillman: Yes, that is correct. It could be timed so that the red at the mid-block crosswalk
for Middlefield traffic would only occur at the most convenient time basically when there was
already an existing gap resulting from a red in one of the downstream signals. So it would not
immediately turn red for Middlefield traffic as the push button is pushed but would delay for a
more optimal time.
Commissioner Burr: Does it also mean that every time say Colorado Avenue has a geen si~al
that sig-nal would become red on Middlefield?
Mr. Stillman: No." It would remain geen along Middlefield unless there was a call from a
pedestrian.
Commissioner Burr: Okay, so both things have to occur. It is timed with Colorado and Bryson
and it is activated by the pedestrian?
Mr. Stillman: Yes. Cun:ently it is activated by the pedestrima and it will remain on green for
Middlefield unless it receives that pedestrian call. It would remain that way under this proposal.
Commissioner Burt: But in addition to being activated by the pedestrian it would also now have
to be timed with Colorado and Bryson?
Mr. Stillman: Yes.
Chair Bialson: Joe, one more question?
Commissioner Bellomo: Yes, one final question.
Chair Bialson: Okay, then I get mine.
Commissioner Bellomo: In transportation rationale if you were introducing the installation of
this pedestrian four-way traffic stop and you saw a situation with pedestrian mid-block crossing
with synchronization results would you recommend that this mid-block pedestrian crosswalk be
removed for synchronization and safety and include two walkways around a four-way
intersection? What would be your basic rationale and practice?
Mr. Stillman: Yes, we would recommend that it would be removed in that case.
Commissioner Bellomo: Thank you.
Mr. Kott: One add-on comment on the two crosswalks across Middlefield. It is our view that it
serves pedestrian Convenience and there will be sufficient demand. Sometimes we like to
concentrate crossings when demand is lighter on one leg of the intersection. We think we will
have enough for two this time.
CiO," of Palo Alto Page
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Commissioner Bellomo: But the rationale is to eliminate the southern-most pedestrian crosswalk
because you leaving the mid-block crosswalk. So there is a rationale on eliminating the
southern-most pedestrian crossing to save the money you are leaving it?
Mr. Kott: Yes.
Chair Bialson: I think we will get into that when we go into comments. As follow up to that,
how many feet or yards distance is there between the pedestrian activated light and this proposed
new crosswalk?
Mr. Stillman: It is about 250 to 300 feet.
Chair Bialson: Nc~w following up on Karen’s comments if someone is exiting from the hardware
store, Mike’s Restaurant onto Middlefield and wants to go north they now.have to cross three
lanes, is that correct? They would have to cross the two lanes going south as well as the left turn
lane in order to cross?
Mr. Stillman: Yes.
Chair Bialson: Doesn’t that cause some sort of problems and what difficulty would we have in
providing, now that we do have a signal at the intersection of perhaps only allowing a right turn
lane there and requiring people who want to exit turning north to go through the controlled
intersection?
Mr. Stillman: The best alternative would be to have them use Bryson to make the left turn.
Chair Bialson: You had indicated that we couldn’t make that regulation that they not anake any
left turns.
Mr. Stillman: Correct. It would be difficult to mandate that restriction.
Mr. Kott: Certainly the ardent desire of traffic en~neers everywhere is to close off as many
driveways as possible but it does limit the access to properties and it is difficult with existing
properties.
Chair Bialson: Do you have a follow up, Phyllis?
Commissioner Cassel: Yes. On the other side of the road ~om the Midtown Shopping Center
you show one driveway between the Midtown Shopping Center entrance and Colorado and
actually I think there are two there.
Mr. Stillman: This section?
Commissioner Cassel: No, the other side.
Mr. Stillman: This section? Over here?
Commissioner Cassel: Yes as you go down towards Colorado there are two driveways up there.
Cio; of Palo Alto Page 12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Mr. Stillman: So there is a driveway here.
Commissioner Cassel: There is another one slightly down, not that far down.
5~r. Stilha~an: Okay, thank you.
Chair Bialson: Pat.
Commissioner Burt: Phyllis you touched on a sore point. That missing driveway is for a single
parking space. I would be remiss if I didn’t take this opportunit3~ to put in a request to really
have that one considered for the future for elimination.
Mr. Stillman: Sure.
Commissioner Burt: I don’t ~ow where we have a commercial curb cut for a single parking
space elsewhere in the City.
Commissioner Cassel: This is not comment time so I was waiting.
Mr. Kott: IfI may offer a comment, Commissioner Burt, in terms of driveway closures. When
there are redevelopment proposals and development proposals that is certainly an appropriate
time to condition these actions on driveway closures.
Chair Bialson: I am assuming that our able City Attorney would speak to this if there were
something one could do about it.
Ms. W~ne Furth, Senior Assistant Cit,! Attorney: I was just reading this really interesting case
about ATM deregulation. The fact is as our Transportat.ion Director said, these projects all have
approved site development plans and they built those improvement based on legally approved
plans, they have a vested right to those improvements. So they can stay there unless or until we
change our roles and amortize them out condemn them out or as we normally do wait until there
is a redevelopment proposal and then see if we can do a better job.
Chair Bialson: I will wait for the convnent period to address my concern about the increase in
accidents about that particular driveway. Are there any other questions or can we go to the
public at this time? Let’s go to the public. May I have the speaker request cards?
We have four speakers so we are going to give each speaker five minutes. The first speaker will
be Ellen Fletcher.
Ms. Ellen Fletcher. 777San Antonio Road, #108. Palo Alto: Hi. I am really concerned about this
proposal. Far from increasing bicycle safety is the mission really of the City it decreases it. To
judge the safety of it because there haven’t been previously a large number of accidents there is
because people are too afraid to ride it. When I ask people why don’t you ride a bike here or
there they say it is so dangerous. This is going to make it more dangerous. The solution of
course is to put in the three-lane option that Joe mentioned. Other cities around here have done
it. I know it is done on La Cuesta in Mountain View. I believe it has been done in San Jose or is
City ofPalo Alto Page 13
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
in the process. I am not sure about Smmyvale. I haven’t really kept a log but every once in
awhile I will hear of a project such as this where they reduce four lanes to three and put in the
bike lanes. For every new bicyclist you get you get one less car. Mr. Bellomo mentioned the
children going to the schools along Middlefield, well one reason there are so many cars on the
road is parents drive their children to school and they pick them up in their cars. We should do
everything we can to make the roads safer for bicycling. I know from history that when you put
in bike lanes there is a surge in new bicyclists. Everyone who is on a bicycle except for the
children of course was previously in a car. So I urge you to recommend to the City Council that
they seriously consider the three-lane option. For Palo Alto not to be in the forefront of this type
of project is not in keeping with out bicycle friendly image. Thank you.
Chair Bialson: Thank you. Paul Goldstein to be followed by Ron Wolf.
Mr. Paul Goldstein, 1024 Emerson, Palo Alto: Hi. I am the Chair of PABAC, the Palo Alto
Bicycle Advisory Committee. As David mentioned we did consider this at our meeting on
October 2 and we voted unanimously against it. Let me say that it is very hard to speak against
this project in the sense that I feel that the Transportation Department has done a good job in
trying to solve the immediate problem ahead of them which how do you reduce the number of
accidents that you have. This clearly is a dangerous intersection and I think the proposal will
reduce the number of accidents as the Traffic Engineer has stated. But if you look at the
Comprehensive Plan that we have and our long term desire to reduce the usage of cars for short
term trips, if you look at the specific place that this is, this is in a commercial district with the
kinds of activity that are largely community serving, I would venture to say that many of the trips
if not most of the trips are local trips that could be made by bicycles. This is just one more thing
to accommodate automobiles at the cost of bicycling.
Now, do I think that this lane narrowing is disastrous for bicycles? I think the situation out there
now as Ellen said is so bad that this particular lane narrowing will make it no more worse.
However, I was distressed that one of the alternatives that there was a lack in the alternatives
presented of the three lane option. I am happy that it has come up in this meeting. The three
lane option with a center turning lane, one lane in each direction, bike lanes is much more
friendly to pedestrians and bicyclists. I feel, I don’t have the data, but I believe that the traffic
engineering studies say that the amount of traffic that is currently on that street can well be
handled with a three-lane option.
So what happened? I think what happened is that when you put this out in the community you
get a large negative feeling from people immediately in that area saying that it will not handle
that amount of traffic and they are afraid of it. So we have a Comprehensive Plan that says lets
get people out of their cars, lets get people to bicycle and walk and then whenever you try to do
something, witness the Embarcadero project or the controversy around the E1 Camino project,
thank you folks for looking at that, you get a bunch of people who are afraid that this will impact
them in their cars. Well, even if it impacts them in their cars it also impacts them on their
bicycles in a positive manner. I actually personally believe that a three-lane option in this area
could be shown to not negatively impact the traffic and to provide the safety benefits of this left
hand turn pocket. Because basically what you want to do is you want to get those left hand
turning cars out of the way of the front moving cars and not have lane changes at the last minute.
CiO, of Palo Alto Page 14
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
1 So I would recommend that the tl~ree-lane option be placed on the table and be looked at as an
2 alternative to this. I don’t know how much of a setback this would be in terms of a long-term
3 plan. The Bicycle Plan does have Middlefield Road as a bicycle route on it. It is a route to the
4 north and it is a route to the south. It is a perfect through-route to Palo Alto. We have bike lanes
5 on it at some places but we don’t have bike lanes through the section north of here and we don’t
6 have bike through this particular section. It would be a vet3, desirable route to connect and I
think we should move in that direction. I definitely hope that this is not a setback even if it is an
interim solution to handle an inm~ediate safety concern that we not delay a serious
reconmaendation to convert that to a three-lane street. Thank you.
Chair Bialson: Thank you. I was just informed that there was a misunderstanding as to way
some of these speaker request cards were indicated. So at this point I will have Ron Wolf speak
as I indicated folio’wed by Sheri Furman.
Ms. Sheri Furnaan. 3094 Greer Road. Palo Alto: Can we switch around?
Chair Bialson: If you want. So Sheri Furman to be followed by Ron Wolf.
Ms. Furman: I am the Traffic Chair of the Midtown Residents Association, which is why I
wanted to speak first. I urge you to take Staff recommendation and support this. We have been
working on this issue since 1995. We really need this for safety issues.
I want to address a few of the things. People don’t use bicycles now because the lanes are
already narrow they use the sidewalks. While I do support the previous two speakers’ concerns
about that and support the ultin~ate reducing of it to three lanes we have been waiting for this
light and this safety issue for a long time. So even if it is an interim thing I really urge you to
support it. We need it now.
I wanted to explain a couple of things that you brought up in your questions. Part of the problem
here and why it seems to be offset is because when that was Midtown Market, I have lived here
since 1976 so I have seen a lot of changes here, there wasn’t that separation of the entrance and
exit the way there is now. By putting parking there and a barrier that has kind of offset the
entrance and exit. As far as that other little one parking thing I use that once in awhile. Another
problem you may be hearing about one of these days is there is another restaurant going in here.
I was just on Bryson tonight and traffic is backed up all the way here. ParMng from Mike’s is
over in this parking area, we are going to add another restaurant, and the pressure on Bryson and
this whole area is going to be horrific with t-wo restaurants. It is ~eat, we are really happy about
it.
So taking all those things into account and for safety reasons I really do urge you to support this.
I plan to work with or the Traffic Committee plans to work with the Transportation Department
on a long-term solution of reduction of lanes and all of that but right now we really need this.
Thank you.
Chair Bialson: We have a question.
Ms. Furman: You can ask me questions. That would be geat.
CiO, of Palo Alto Page 15
!
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
t2
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Commissioner Burt: Thanks. I am not sure ifI understood you correctly you said regarding the
use of bicycles in this area, did you say that the sidewalks are commonly used for bikes or are
you saying that pedestrians use the sidewalks?
Ms. Furman: Bicyclists commonly use the sidewalks and they are allowed to in this part of town
because the lanes are already narrow.
Con-maissioner B~rt: Thank you.
Chair Bialson: Thank you. Now Ron Wolf to be followed by Chris Glazek.
Mr. Ron Wolf. 745 San Carlos Court, Palo Alto: Hi. I live right over here on that picture so I
have had years and years of observing this intersection as have most of the people in Palo Alto. I
am with the Midtown Residents Association I should mention that. Partly this is our fault
because when we formed the Residents Association in 1995 the area was becoming blighted.
There ~vas more square footage that was unused than was used. There were a lot of problems in
the area. We like to think that we were a big part of bringing the area back to full vitality. We
are really excited about a lot of things that are going on there even today. However, the traffic
situation in those years has become worse and worse. A lot more cars, there is a lot more
confusion of site lines and whatnot that I think lead to these accidents. You can see the
frustration of drivers as they try to negotiate through this. That is, I think, a lot of the reason why
people go in the exits, partly’confusion and partly frustration. I don’t think it is so much that
they are calculating that ifI go in that way I will save five seconds of my life. I think people are
very stressed in this area and having a traffic light at this location to calm down the action will be
a very good thing. I really like what I see happening in the Traffic Department with the
coordination of the lights to keep flow through there because that is also important or we will
have even more frustrated people.
I am a bicyclist myself. I think it is very, very dangerous to bike on Middlefield today. I
wouldn’t recommend it to anybody. There are better streets to bike on. Now’, the three lane
option is an option that many of us in the Residents Association have favored for many, many
years but we also know as representatives, we consider ourselves representatives of the
neighborhood, that there are many, many people in the neighborhood who do not favor this
option. If we were to bring forth this option today without very careful planning and working
with everybody in the neighborhood and the City that it would be a many, many year very
contentious project where you might as well flip a coin to decide whether it would go through or
not. We think it is a very important thing to do but we also think it has to be approached very
carefully with a lot ofplarming and with a lot of preparation and a lot of education. We are not
at that point today.
I also want to mention that I heartened to see, this will sound like a bizarre corrm~ent but, I am
heartened to see that this is the fourth most dangerous intersection in th.e City. Why is that?
Because anybody who lives in the area has actually observed accidents there I think I have
personally observed three of them in the ten years that I have been in the neighborhood. So to
hear that is one of the most dangerous intersections is heartening because I would hate to think of
intersections that are even worse than this one. It is a really bad situation people are getting hurt
there. It is dangerous for kids. One of the principles of the Residents Association is to
encourage pedestrian friendliness. I think it is very important for this light to go in. I absolutely
Ci07 of Palo Alto Page 16
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
1-6
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
support both crosswalks. I would urge you not to go out and say lets just guess it is going to be
$10,000 it could be a si~aificant mnount of money, I consider $10,000 to be a significant anaount
of money by reducing the crosswalks to one because what people will do in that situation is they
will just cross anyway. I think safety comes first. That is the whole purpose for this project. We
have gone for too long with a dangerous situation. I urge you to pass this in the foma of the Staff
recommendation. Thanks.
Commissioner Griffin: I have a question.
Chair Bialson: Just a second we have a question.
Corrmaissioner Griffin: Can you tell me from what you have said I understand you to mean that
the three-lane option was not the discussed during this discussion process with the residential
association specifically in conjunction with the Bryson light.
Mr. Wolf: I would actually have to defer to Sheri for that answer. Do you mind if I do that?
Ms. Furman: We will double-team you here. I don’t think at the last meeting it was discussed
specifically. It has been considered but there was a lot of hysteria about doing even this much.
There were people saying it is going to put all the traffic onto Cowper mad stuff like that. It has
been thought of but this I think is our best bet at the moment.
Chair Bialson: Thank you. Our next speaker is Chris Glazek. I had given five minutes to each
speaker because I thought we didn’t have as many speakers and it has grown. So if you can limit
yourself to tt~ree that is geat but you have.
Mr. Chris Glazek, 656 Brgson Avenue, Palo Alto: I have lived on Bryson Avenue since 1992.
This intersection essentially from the point of view of Bryson Avenue is a nightmare. Coming
home or leaving our houses, anybody who lives on that street is extremely dangerous we put our
lives in our hands every time we do that. I once characterized it as being a prisoner on my own
street. I don’t really live in Palo Alto to be put in prison essentially.
The situation has always been bad. It used to be before Long’s came in both of these here were
ingress and then somehow Long’s applied to the City for permission to make one an egress and
that was ganted to them when they did their construction. That is a question I would have for
you. The situation truly became a nightmare after that. So I wholeheartedly support the
Transportation Department’s ultimate recommendation for three lanes and it would
accommodate bicyclists, it would accommodate more people than not. I don’t see that
happening right now I think partly because of cost and partly because of what Sheri was saying,
there is a lot of dissention amongst people in the neighborhood for that. I would love to see that
happen, I don’t see it happening in the near future and just to really sum up from the point of
Bryson Avenue something has to happen mad something has to happen now. It is going to get
worse and worse. New business is coming in and everything like that. That is pretty much it.
Chair Bialson: Thank you very much. Karen, do you have a question?
Commissioner Holman: I do. Just a clarification to make sure I got this right. ~en the Long’s
came in or before Long’s came in that was only e~ess across from Bryson off Middlefield?
Cio" qf Palo Alto Page 17
ATTACHMENT C
Airfl 2, 2003
Dear Members of the Planning and Transportation Commission,
The Midtown Residents Association (MRA) strongly endorses the staff recommendation to approve the
installation of a traffic light with left turn pockets, at the intersection of Middlefield and Bryson in Midtown.
Installation of a traffic light at this location has been recommended since at least 1995. It has been studied time
and time again with the same clear recomr:nendation of a traffic signal at the intersection to the Midtown
Shopping Centre. The staff reports emphasizes this need based on the high accident rate.
The only point of discussion is the pedestrian light. At the last Midtown meeting on this topic (October 22,2002),
consensus was not reached on keeping or removing this light. Staff is recommending that a small group be
formed to study this area after the installation of the new light. We believe this is prudent and is also a st.ep
toward gaining consensus for moving ahead. MRA is flexible on the retention or removal of the pedestrian
signal.
Ti~e funding for this light is included in this year’s fiscal budget. Please move ahead without delay and approve
the staff recommendation.
Thanks for considering this letter.
Annette Ashton
Chair, Midtown Residents Association
Sheri Furman
Chair, Traffic Action Committee, MIRA