HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-03-22 City Council (2)TO:
City of Palo Alto
City Manager’s Repor
HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND
COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT
DATE:
SUBJECT:
MARCH 22, 2004 CMR:180:04
PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL TO INSTALL NEW
PERMANENT TRAFFIC CALMING PROJECT IN DOWNTOWN
NORTH
RECOMMENDATION
The Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) recommend the following Council
actions:
1.End the current Downtown North trial traffic calming plan;
2.Adopt the attached resolution which:
a)approves a mitigated negative declaration for permanent implementation of the
Downtown North Modified Mixed Measures traffic calming plan;
b)approves permanent implementation of the Recommended Plan including
performance measures and improvement actions; and
c)authorizes the Director of Planning to implement improvement actions as necessary
to achieve the Plan’s performance measures.
Staff recommends one modification to the PTC recommendation: implementation of a left-
turn restriction from Middle field Road to Everett Avenue, from 7 a.m.-10 a.m. weekdays.
BACKGROUND
A traffic calming project was installed in the Downtown North neighborhood in June 2003
for a six month trial. The project consists of seven street closures, three neighborhood
gateways and one intersection bulbout. Staff evaluated the project and presented it to the
PTC on January 21, 2004. Due to some problems with the current trial plan, staff
recommended to the PTC that a modified plan be permanently implemented. The modified
plan is described in Attachment B of the attached PTC report dated February 25, 2004.
CMR:180:04 Page 1 of 12
PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION REVIEW AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
Commissioners Burt and Bialson thought that less aggressive traffic calming measures
should have been tried before resorting to street closures. They had concerns about the
policy, practical and safety issues of closing streets. Many Commissioners were concerned
about various safety impacts, including emergency vehicle access and impacts on Johnson
Park, as well as impacts on the retail business Stanford Electric (comer of High and
Everett). Some Commissioners requested that parking be prohibited in front of the closure
openings because they have seen parked cars blocking the emergency access area. Some
Commissioners thought that driver visibility of the traffic calming measures, especially the
bulbout and gateways, could be improved by installation of vertical elements. Some
Commissioners thought that traffic signal progression and timing on Lytton between
Middlefield and Alma should be improved more than it has been.
Commissioners Packer, Holman and Cassel believed that some version of the current traffic
calming plan should be preserved. Discussion ensued about staff’s proposed Mixed
Measures Plan and another plan--Modified Mixed Measures Plan--proposed by staff as an
"improvement action" in case the Mixed Measures Plan were not successful. Those
Commissioners were in favor of keeping the street closures on Palo Alto Avenue
Commissioner Holman believed that the traffic circle proposed for the comer of Hawthorne
and Webster (in both the Mixed Measures and Modified Mixed Measures Plans) should
instead be at the comer of Hawthorne and Byron, where residents have complained about
drivers running the Hawthorne stop signs.
The PTC voted 3-2 for the Modified Mixed Measures Plan, but without the proposed turn
restrictions on Middlefield and Alma at Everett, and with removal of the existing closure
next to Stanford Electric as soon as possible. The approved plan includes consideration of
painting or colorizing the street surface of the four blocks bordering Johnson Park as a
traffic calming and safety measure. The PTC voted 5-0 to recommend adoption of the
mitigated negative declaration, but with a change in Performance Measure 6 (no crashes
directly attributable to the traffic calming plan) making it more flexible; and a change
allowing staff to consider installing a speed hump or table if a street closure had to be
removed. It voted 3-2 in favor of the draft resolution adopting the mitigated negative
declaration and the Mixed Measures Plan, with the understanding that modifications were
required to reflect the Commission’s recommended plan.
DISCUSSION
Staff-Recommended Change to Commission-Recommended Plan
Staff supports the Commission’s recommended traffic calming plan described above, but
with one modification: keep the 7-10 a.m. no right turn restriction into Everett from
southbound Middlefield as staff had originally proposed. This will provide more protection
against volume increases on that block of Byron than the current trial plan. Staff’s traffic
CMR: 180:04 Page 2 of 12
volume data did not actually show any volume increase on Byron, but a number of Byron
residents have complained to the contrary. Staff recommends that the paint!colored asphalt
element of the project not be implemented immediately, giving staff time to research the
methods, costs, maintenance, visual impacts and other issues, as well as to ensure public
involvement. A report and recommendation can be made at a later date to the PTC on that
element. Assuming that some traffic calming elements will remain, staff will consider
incorporation of vertical elements in the closure design/redesign, with due regard for cost,
maintenance, aesthetics, sight distance, and residents’ desires. No Parking Any Time signs
will be added to the closures to prohibit parking in front of the opening. The Commission’s
recommended traffic calming plan with staff’s recommended modification can be described
as follows, and is illustrated in Figure 1.
Retain four street closures from the current trial plan and add one new street closure:
Everett west of Bryant (new location); Palo Alto Ave west of Middlefield; Palo Alto
Ave west of Bryant; Hawthorne west of Cowper; Everett west of Byron.
Retain the existing neighborhood gateway (part of current trial plan) located on
Hawthorne east of High and add new speed table between the gateway elements.
Add two traffic circles--at Hawthorne/Webster and Everett/Emerson intersections.
Add weekday "no left turn" restrictions 7-10 a.m. and 3-6 p.m. from southbound
Alma to eastbound Hawthorne.
Add weekday "no right turn" restrictions 7 a.m.-10 a.m. from southbound Middlefield
to eastbound Hawthorne and eastbound Everett.
Retain the existing bulbout on Waverley south of Hawthorne (part of current trial
plan).
Remove two neighborhood gateways on Hawthorne and Everett west of Middlefield
(part of current trial plan).
Remove three street closures (part of current trial plan): Everett east of Waverley;
Hawthorne west of Bryant; Everett between High and Emerson (the latter to be
removed as soon as possible).
CMR:180:04 Pa~,e ~ of 12
HAWTHORNE & EVERETt
NOT THROUGH ROUTESTO ALMA
7-10 AI~
I
Bike Bddge (,~ ~1~ ~
KEY
~) Existing Stop Sign
=_ Gateway
-= Bulbout Pair
(~) Traffic Circle
I-- Guide Sign
¯ Street Closure
Note: the gateway,
bulbout, and traffic
circles allow full two-way
traffic acces~
Johnson
Park
Bike Bddge
Install New
Speed ~
Table at
Existing Gateway
HAWTH(:~,N E &EVt~R~-FTNOT THRt~JGHROUTESTO MIDDLERELD 7-10 AM3-6 PM
FireStation
CMR:180:04 Page 4 of 12
Revised Performance Measures and Improvement Actions
Following is a revised list of the performance measures and associated improvement actions
thatwould be undertaken by City staff, for the recommended plan described above. These
measures and actions are derived from those for staff’s original recommendation to the PTC
(Mixed Measures Plan) as stated on pages 5-8 of the February 25, 2004 staff report to the
PTC. Staff and Commission recommend approval of these performance measures and
improvement actions as an integral part of permanent implementation of the recommended
traffic calming plan described above.
Through Traf-fic Reduction (project goal; non-CEQA measure)
Through traffic will be reduced by an average of at least 55 percent compared to the
February 2003 "before trial" condition. The Downtown North neighborhood cordon
count of average daily traffic (sum of daily counts at all neighborhood access streets
along Middlefield, Lytton and Alma) will be the basis for this calculation.
Improvement action for performance measure 1: Increase hours of weekday turn
restrictions into the neighborhood to 7 a.m.-6 p.m. on either or both Alma and
Middlefield. This action reduces the amount of through traffic entering the
neighborhood, and can be fine-tuned.
Diversion of Traffic to Other Streets (CEQA mitigation)
o On local and collector streets with "before" counts of less than 2500 vehicles per day
(vpd) in the Downtown North and Lytton neighborhoods, no average daily vehicle
count at a peripheral or internal location will increase by more than 25 percent of the
"before" count. On local streets, the addition will not cause the volume to exceed 2500
vpd +10 percent.
Improvement actions for performance measure 2:
2a. Install the following additional traffic calming measures to the recommended plan
on street segments or at ends of street segments where the diversion standard is
exceeded: one speed hump per block and/or traffic circle at intersections where
stop signs are not present. This action increases the travel time and adds
inconvenience to the problem street segments, thus slightly decreasing through
trips.
2b.Move or remove one or more of the street closures in the recommended plan to
address the specific problem and consider installing one speed hump or table in
the same block where a closure is removed.
CMR: 180:04 Page 5 of 12
On local streets with a "’before" count of 2500 vpd or greater in the Downtown North
and Lytton neighborhoods, no average daily traffic count at a peripheral or internal
¯ location will increase by more than 10 percent of the ""before" count.
Improvement actions for performance measure 3: same as items 2a and 2b listed
above.
4.The AM or PM peak hour level of service (LOS) at the Lytton/Alma and
LyttoniMiddlefield intersections will not degrade to less than LOS D.
Improvement actions for performance measure 4:
4a.Change signal phasing and!or timing. This action is can be used to fine tune the
allotment of green time, thus increasing signal efficiency and slightly improving
LOS.
Reduce, change or remove totally weekday peak hour turn restriction hours. This
action can be used to incrementally reduce the forced use of the arterial streets
during peak hours, thus decreasing volumes passing through the intersections and
improving LOS.
Speed Reduction OTon-CEQA measure)
o Speeding was not a documented problem in the evaluation of the trial project, so it is
not a performance measure for the recommended plan. If speeding becomes a
documented problem once the Modified Mixed Measures plan is implemented, the
PTC or Council could establish speed-reduction as a performance measure, with the
following associated improvement action:
Install the following additional traffic calming measures on street segments or at ends
of street segments where speeding becomes a problem: one speed hump per block
and!or traffic circle at intersections where stop signs are not present. (This action
would reduce speeds within specific blocks.)
Crashes O~on-CEQA measure)
It is usually not possible to identify a statistically significant pattern of crashes on local
streets in a four-month period, due to low traffic volumes. Crash trends on low volume
streets are usually only discernable after several years.
There will be no reported injury crashes directly attributable to the traffic calming plan
elements in the Downtown North neighborhood during the monitoring period. The
following crashes and/or primary causal factors will not be considered in evaluating
this measure: property damage only, driving under the influence, failure to obey rules
of the road (California Vehicle Code violation) or mechanical failure. If sufficient data
CMR: 180:04 Page 6 of 12
is available, the crash rate in the neighborhood and on the three surrounding arterials
should be compared to that before the measures were installed.
Improvement action for performance measure 6: Move, remove or redesign one or
more of the traffic calming elements in the recommended plan to address the specific
problem, and consider installing one speed hump or table in the same block where a
closure is removed.
At the Middlefield/Everett and Middlefield!Hawthorne intersections, there will be no
more than two crashes during the monitoring period at one of these intersections
caused by vehicles entering or crossing Middlefield from the west leg of Everett or
Hawthorne.
Improvement action for performance measure 7: Install right turn only restrictions on
Hawthorne and Everett at Middlefield for time periods as indicated by crash analysis.
(This action can be used to fine-tune the reduction of outbound left turns and through
movements, which are the primary crash-prone movements. Both streets must be
included to keep drivers from moving from one street to the other.)
FiFe and Police Responses (CEQA mitigation)
The travel times for Fire and Police Department calls within and near the Downtown
North neighborhood will not exceed the Departments’ mission goals for travel time of
4 minutes for 90 percent of fire and basic medical responses, 6 minutes for 90 percent
of advanced medical responses (paramedics), and 3 minutes for police calls--
attributable to implementation of the traffic calming plan.
Improvement actions for performance measure 8:
8a. Install flexible, break-away or automatic retractable bollards at one or more
closure locations deemed to be problem(s) by the Fire or Police Department.
(This action allows Fire Department vehicles to traverse the closures with only
minimal delay.)
8b.Move or remove one or more of the street closures in the recommended plan to
address the specific problem, and consider installing one speed hump or table in
the same block where a closure is removed.
There will be no serious impediments in any emergency activities, including
identifiable trends in increases in travel times during the monitoring period, of the Fire
and Police Departments within and near the Downtown North neighborhood
attributable to the traffic calming plan. This includes Fire Department access to Lytton
Gardens and Webster House.
Improvement actions for performance measure 9: same as items 8a and 8b above.
CMR: 180:04 Page 7 of 12
Citizens’ Observations and Incident Reports to Police Department (non-CEQA measure)
10. "Citizens’ reports of safety problems within and near the Downtown North
neighborhood attributable to the traffic calming plan will be compiled. Any reports or
calls for service to the Police Department (other than crashes reported above) will be
evaluated. This measure does not have a specific performance goal.
Neighborhood Acceptance (non-CEQA measure)
11. A neighborhood opinion survey will not be conducted for the recommended plan.
Other Issues (non-CEQA measure)
12.Impacts attributable to the traffic calming plan as reported by City departments,
PASCO, the Post Office, transit operators, and any other public agencies serving the
neighborhood (including bordering arterials) will be compiled and evaluated. This
measure does not have a specific performance goal.
Lytton Avenue Traffic Signals
The Downtown North trial traffic calming project has diverted some traffic to Lytton
Avenue. Even before the trial project started, many residents believed that traffic signal
coordination on Lytton needed improvement and this would be even more important with
the neighborhood street closures. The need to improve signal coordination on Lytton was
expressed regularly during the trial, as well as by some Commissioners in their recent
review of the trial. Before the trial project was installed, staff implemented signal
improvements at both ends of Lytton in the downtown area--at Alma and at Middlefield.
These changes have been effective, were needed even without any traffic calming project,
and will remain. Beyond those substantial improvements, staff was able to make minor
changes in signal progression between those two endpoints as the trial got underway.
Around mid-February of this year, staff discovered that the Waverley/Lytton signal was not
functioning properly as part of the downtown system. This was fixed, resulting in an
improvement in flow. More improvement is expected in the next couple of months as the
new citywide traffic signal hardware and software control system, including new signal
timing patterns, are implemented. Staff expects that this will result in some (but not
dramatic) improvement in Lytton traffic flow, as current signal timing patterns handle
existing vehicle flows fairly well. Even now, during peak hours, staff finds that traffic flow
on Lytton between Middlefield and Alma, while progressing at average speeds less than 25
rnph, nevertheless progresses acceptably in the context of the typical traffic conditions in
most downtown areas, including other streets in Downtown Palo Alto.
Farther in the future, staff plans to implement "adaptive" signal technology along the arterial
corridors, including Middlefield from Menlo Park southward--resulting in some travel time
savings. This will include the Middlefield!Lytton intersection. Adaptive technology would
CMR:180:04 Page 8 of 12
not result in improvement in vehicle progression within the closely-spaced fixed-time signal
grid in downtown Palo Alto (including along Lytton), and will not be used there.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
California Vehicle Code (CVC) Section 21101(f) allows cities to use traffic barriers (a.k.a.
street closures) and other design features to implement the circulation element of the general
plan. The Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan contains criteria for closing street to through traffic
in Policy T-33 ("overwhelming through traffic" and "no acceptable alternatives"). The
Transportation element contains other goals and policies that promote traffic calming. The
requirements of Policy T-33 are not quantitative. Therefore, in CMR:440:00, which was
prepared for the December 11, 2000 Council public heating, staff interpreted
"overwhelming through traffic" as comprising at least 60 percent or more of all traffic. Also
at the December 11, 2000 Council meeting, based on the Dowling Associates study for the
Downtown North project in 1999, the neighborhood residents’ statements at various
neighborhood meetings and in surveys in 1999-2000, and staff’s knowledge of other
neighborhood projects, the City Council approved staff’s recommendation in CMR:440:00
that "acceptable through traffic reduction for this project could only be attained by street
closures".
One of the biggest points of public discussion in the Downtown North trial project has been
the appropriateness of using street closures for traffic calming. The PTC discussed this topic
extensively during its October 2000 discussion about implementing the trial plan, in several
meetings in 2000-2002 about the City’s local street traffic calming program, and in its
recent February 25, 2004 review of the evaluation of the current trial plan. This issue has
been discussed extensively in prior reports for the Downtown North project, including:
October 11, 2000 Transportation Division staff report to Commission, pp 4-7
December 1 l, 2000 CMR:440:00, pp 3-8
January 21, 2004 Transportation Division staff report to Commission, pp 9-10
February 25, 2004 Transportation Division staff report to Commission, p 9
RESOURCE IMPACTS
The cost to construct the Modified Mixed Measures Plan (with or without turn restrictions
on Everett and Middle field) is approximately $76,000. This includes removal of the existing
traffic calming measures as well as conducting a new round of before-after traffic volume
counts. Not included in this cost estimate are two additional Commission recommendations
for the traffic calming plan--(i) consideration of incorporating vertical elements in the
design of the traffic calming elements; and (ii) consideration of painting or colorizing the
street surface of the four blocks bordering Johnson Park. The cost of both of these
recommendations is not known at this point and would need to be developed through
appropriate processes referred to in the Discussion section of this report. There is $85,000 in
the Transportation Division FY 2003/04 operating budget for this project, which would need
to be carried over to FY 2004/05. The cost for Public Works Operations to maintain the
CMR:180:04 Page 9 of 12
traffic calming measures in the Modified Mixed Measures Plan is approximately $8,000
annually, mostly for manual street sweeping. This extra maintenance requirement is not
funded. In the near future, when the PTC and Council consider staff’s proposed revisions to
the Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program, staff will propose that funding for annual
maintenance of new traffic calming measures be taken from the Traffic Calming Program
CIP.
Four months after implementation of any new or modified traffic calming plan, staff would
conduct an evaluation similar to that for the current trial plan, as stated in the Discussion
and Environmental Analysis sections of this report. That evaluation would require
approximately 140 hours of staff time. The cost of gathering traffic data is already included
in the $76,000 cost estimate for the project. Assuming that the new plan performs as
expected, no further monitoring or additional expenditures would be required. However, if
the new plan fails to meet any of the performance measures or environmental standards, one
or more improvement actions would need to be implemented, as stated in the Discussion
section of this report and in the mitigated negative declaration. The actions range in cost
from $800 for new or modified turn restriction signs to $10,000 to relocate a street closure,
and up to $30,000 for an automatic retractable bollard for improved emergency access. An
approximate surplus of $9,000 would remain in the Transportation Division budget after
implementing the Modified Mixed Measures Plan ($85,000-$76,000), which could be used
for any needed improvement actions. Additional funds would have to be secured for any
more extensive implementation of improvement actions. Improvement actions would also
trigger another, but more limited, round of evaluation estimated at about 80 hours of staff
time. Staff’s effort in implementation and follow-up for the Modified Mixed Measures Plan
may potentially result in deferral of one planned local and collector street traffic calming
project under the Council-authorized Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program
(CMR: 105:01).
ALTERNATIVES
The attached staff reports to the PTC identify several alternatives to the current trial plan.
Attachment D of the January 21, 2004 report identifies five options, including two with no
street closures. For reasons explained on pages 8 - 9 of that report, staff believed that the
Mixed Measures Plan was the only good choice out of those five alternatives. The Modified
Mixed Measures Plan, which the PTC and staff now recommend (with one change), was not
identified in the January 21 report. The February 25, 2004 report identifies two more non-
closure options--a traffic circle-only and a speed hump-only option on pages 1-2 of
Attachment C. Staff does not recommend either of those plans. Both require a much larger
number of traffic calming measures than the recommended plan to provide similar through
traffic reduction. Both plans would be much more expensive than the recommended plan,
especially the traffic-circle plan. Early in the study process, residents expressed their dislike
of speed humps and requested that speed humps not form the basis of the traffic calming
plan. Of all traffic calming measures, speed humps cause the most problem for the Fire
CMR:180:04 Page 10 of 12
Department, so the speed hump-only plan with over 30 speed humps would potentially be
unacceptable to the Fire Department.
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
A mitigated negative declaration (MND) was prepared for the Downtown North Traffic
Calming project and released for public comment on February 24, 2004. The comment
period ended on March 15, 2004. Comment letters, responses to comments and edits to the
MND are included in Attachment B. After considering the MND, the PTC recommended
that the Modified Mixed Measures Plan (instead of the Mixed Measures Plan originally
recommended by staff) be implemented, but without the turn restrictions at either end of
Everett.
The MND analyzed various options for the traffic calming project including the Mixed
Measures Plan originally recommended, and certain improvement actions including the
Modified Mixed Measures Plan, installation of breakaway bollards, etc., as well as the
potential for adding, removing, or altering some traffic calming measures. The Modified
Mixed Measures Plan contains one additional street closure beyond those recommended in
the Mixed Measures Plan. The MND has not been significantly altered and provides a
foundation for the City Council’s adoption of the Modified Mixed Measures Plan. A map of
the Modified Mixed Measures Plan has been added for clarification, as well as some minor
text updates throughout the MND/initial study and performance measures as outlined in
Attachment B.
The MND specifies mitigation measures (including so-called "performance measures") to
reduce potential environmental impacts of the traffic calming project and variations to a less
than significant level in the areas of traffic, public services, air quality, cultural resources
and noise. The monitoring of the project to ensure compliance with the performance
measures that are CEQA mitigation measures will begin four months following installation.
In the event that these performance measures are being exceeded, the Director of Planning
and Community Environment will take steps based on recommendations of the
Transportation Division to modify the traffic calming measures so the performance
measures are met and no significant impacts occur. The edits to the MND, comment letters,
comment responses, and the mitigation measures comprise the final MND to be considered
by Council as part of the adoption of the Downtown North Traffic Calming Project.
PUBLIC NOTICE
Notification of this Council meeting and the availability of the City Manager’s Report were
mailed on March 8 to each household, business and non-resident property owner in the area
described in Attachment B of the January 21, 2004 staff report to the PTC.
CMR:180:04 Page 11 of 12
ATTACHMENTS
A. " Revised resolution
B.Comments, Reponses and Edits for Mitigated Negative Declaration
C.January 21, 2004 PTC report and meeting minutes
D.February 25, 2004 PTC report and draft meeting minutes
PREPARED BY:
DEPARTMENT HEAD:
CARL STOFFEL
Tran~)a~.~n Engin.eer
STEVE EMSLIE
Director of Planning and
Community Environment
CITY MANAGER APPROV~:~~~, ~
"~EMILY HARRISON
Assistant City Manager
ccl
DTNNA representatives (Dan Lorimer, Chas Pavlovic, Mike Liveright, Josh Mogal)
Unblock representatives (Joe Durand, Dana DeNault, Pat Markevitch, Steve Kutner)
Lytton neighborhood representatives (Alan and Bonnie Luntz)
Palo Bicycle Advisory Committee Members
City of Menlo Park Transportation Division
CMR:180:04 Page 12 of 12
NOT YET APPROVED
ATTACHMENT A
to CMR:180:04
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PAL0
ALTO ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
ACT FOR AND APPROVING THE PERMANENT
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE MODIFIED MIXED MEASURES
TRAFFIC CALMING PLAN FOR THE DOWNTOWN
NORTH NEIGHBORHOOD
WHEREAS, California Vehicle Code section 21101(f)
authorizes the City of Palo Alto to adopt rules and regulations
by ordinance or resolution that prohibit entry to, or exit from,
or both from any street by means of islands, curbs, traffic
barriers or other roadway design features to implement the
Transportation Element of the City’s Comprehensive General Plan;
and
WHEREAS, the Council of the City of Palo Alto by
Resolution No. 7780 adopted the 1998-2010 Comprehensive General
Plan in 1998, including Policy T-33 of the Transportation
Element, which consistent with Vehicle Code section 21101(f),
sets forth criteria for when streets may be closed to through
traffic; and
WHEREAS, Comprehensive Plan Policy T-33 allows closure
of streets to through traffic when there is a demonstrated
safety or overwhelming through traffic problem and there are no
acceptable alternatives, or when a closure would increase the
use of alternative transportation modes; and
WHEREAS, Comprehensive Plan Policy T-34 prescribes
implementation of traffic calming measures to slow traffic on
local and collector residential streets to return some through
traffic to nearby arterials; and
WHEREAS, the Transportation Division of the Planning
Department has determined that through traffic of sixty percent
or more on local residential streets constitutes an overwhelming
through traffic problem within the meaning of Comprehensive Plan
Policy T-33, and performed a traffic study of the Downtown North
Neighborhood (located between Alma Street, Lytton Avenue,
Middlefield Road, and San Francisquito Creek) that documented a
level of through traffic exceeding sixty percent on some
Downtown North Streets and determined that there were no
acceptable alternatives to closing streets to through traffic
that would reduce through trips in the neighborhood to an
acceptable level; and
040316 sra 0100197 1
NOT YET APPROVED
WHEREAS, following neighborhood meetings, opinion
surveys and hearings before the Planning and Transportation
Commission, on February 5, 2001, the City Council approved
implementation of a six-month trial traffic-calming plan for the
Downtown North neighborhood (~Trial Plan") including closures of
streets to through traffic along with performance measures to
evaluate the success of the Trial Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Trial Plan consisting of seven street
closures to through traffic,gateways and bulbouts, was
installed on June 16, 2003; and
WHEREAS, Transportation Division staff have evaluated
the Trial Plan against the performance measures approved by
Council and have determined that the Trial Plan was effective in
reducing through-traffic in the neighborhood to acceptable
levels but did not meet all the performance measures; and
WHEREAS, Transportation Division staff developed a
revised traffic calming plan (~Mixed Measures Plan") for the
Downtown North neighborhood, which included four closures of
streets to through traffic, three traffic circles, one gateway
with a speed table, one bulbout, and peak hour turn restrictions
and also included revised performance measures for future
evaluation of the effectiveness and impact of the Mixed Measures
Plan as well as improvement actions that could be taken to
ensure achievement of the performance measures; and
WHEREAS, the City has prepared an Initial Study and
Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Mixed Measures Plan and
for options to or modifications of the Mixed Measures Plan,
including a variation of it called the "Modified Mixed Measures
Plan," in conformity with the California Environmental Quality
Act; and
WHEREAS, the Modified Mixed Measures Plan consists of
five closures of streets to through traffic, two traffic
circles, one gateway with a speed table, one bulbout and peak
hour turn restrictions; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Transportation Commission
reviewed the Mixed Measures Plan and heard public comment on
January 21, 2004 and further considered the Mixed Measures Plan
and the Mitigated Negative Declaration on February 25, 2004 and
recommended the Modified Mixed Measures Plan without peak hour
turn restrictions for City Council approval; and
040316 sm 0100197 2
NOT YET APPROVED
WHEREAS, Transportation Division staff are in agreement
with the Planning and Transportation Commission decision and
recommend City Council approval of the Modified Mixed Measures
Plan with the addition of peak hour turn restrictions, as shown
in Exhibit ~A" to this Resolution, attached hereto and made a
part hereof, instead of the Mixed Measures Plan, and further
recommend Council approval of the performance measures and
improvement measures that could be taken to ensure achievement
of the performance measures, as described in Exhibit ~B",
attached hereto and made a part hereof; and
WHEREAS, the Modified Mixed Measures Plan differs from
the Mixed Measures Plan primarily in that it retains one closure
from the Trial Plan at Everett & Byron Street and removes one
traffic circle on Everett near Webster Street; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed and considered
the information contained in the staff report, presented at the
hearings before it, and contained in the Mitigated Negative
Declaration and the views and recommendations of the Planning
and Transportation Commission thereon and the comments of other
City departments and the public thereon.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Palo Alto
does RESOLVE as follows:
SECTION i. CEQA Findings. The City Council of the City
of Palo Alto (~City Council" finds, determines, and declares as
follows:
A. The City prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration
for the Mixed Measures Plan and options to or modifications to
the Mixed Measures Plan, including the Modified Mixed Measures
Plan. The Mitigated Negative Declaration was released for a
public comment period beginning on February 24, 2004 and
concluding on March 15, 2004. The Planning and Transportation
Commission at its meeting of February 25, 2004, reviewed and
considered the Mitigated Negative Declaration.
B. The Mitigated Negative Declaration consists of the
following documents and records: The Downtown North
Neighborhood Traffic Calming Project Mitigated Negative
Declaration and Initial Study prepared by the City of Palo Alto
dated February 24, 2004, including those documents referenced
and included therein, including without limitation those listed
as "Source References" on Page 21 of the Initial Study, and the
comments and responses to comments on the Mitigated Negative
040316 sm 0100197 3
NOT YET APPROVED
Declaration, and the planning and other City records, minutes,
and files constituting the record of proceedings. The Mitigated
Negative Declaration was prepared pursuant to the California
Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code section 21000,
et seq. (~CEQA"), and the State CEQA Guidelines, California Code
of Regulations, Title 14, section 15000, et seq. The Mitigated
Negative Declaration is on file in the offices of the Director
of Planning and Community Environment and, along with the
planning and other City records, minutes and files constituting
the record of proceedings, is incorporated herein by this
reference.
C. The Mitigated Negative Declaration was written by
the City and reflects the City’s independent judgment and
analysis.There is no substantial evidence on the basis of the
record as a whole that either the Mixed Measures Plan or the
Modified Mixed Measures Plan will have a significant effect on
the environment.
SECTION 2. Adoption of Mitigated Negative Declaration.
The City Council finds that the Mitigated Negative Declaration
has been completed in compliance with the California
Environmental Quality Act and adopts and approves it. The City
Council has reviewed and considered the information contained in
the Mitigated Negative Declaration, staff reports, oral and
written testimony given at public hearings on the proposed Plan,
other written comments thereon, the responses to those comments
and testimony, and al! other matters deemed material and
relevant before considering for approval the various actions
related to the Plan. While the City Council finds that there is
no substantial evidence that the Modified Mixed Measures Plan
will have any significant adverse environmental impacts, it is
nevertheless requiring the implementation of the performance
measures that are also identified as CEQA mitigation measures in
Exhibit "B" and reiterated in Exhibit ~C" (Mitigation Monitoring
and Reporting Plan) attached to this resolution to provide
additional insurance that impacts will be maintained at a less
than significant level and to further reduce even those impacts
which are less than significant. These performance measures were
identified in the Mitigated Negative Declaration as performance
standards under CEQA which would ensure that the impacts of the
Mixed Measures Plan would be insignificant, and they serve
equally to ensure that the impacts of the Modified Mixed
Measures Plan will be insignificant. The City Council finds that
these measures will be effective for this purpose.
040316 sm 0100197 4
NOT YET APPROVED
SECTION 3. Mitigation Measures and Reporting Plan. The
CEQA mitigation measures and reporting plan set forth in Exhibit
~C"~are hereby adopted. The Director of Planning and Community
Environment is hereby authorized to and shall implementthe
mitigation measures and, to the extent necessary,the
improvement actions set forth in Exhibits ~B" and ~C"In
particular, in the event that any of the performance measures
that are identified as ~CEQA mitigation" in Exhibit ~B" are not
satisfied during any monitoring period(s) provided therein, the
Director shall implement such improvement actions as are
necessary to ensure that there is no significant impact under
CEQA. The performance measures identified as ~CEQA mitigation"
shall take precedence over other performance measures, and the
latter shall not be implemented if they would cause the CEQA
performance measures to be exceeded or violated.
SECTION 4. No Recirculation Required. The City Council
finds that no new significant information has been received that
requires recirculation of the Mitigated Negative Declaration.
SECTION 5. Project Findings.
determines, and declares as follows:
The City Council finds,
A. The Modified Mixed Measures Plan, including the five
closures of streets to through traffic, satisfies the criteria
for such closures set forth in Policy T-33 of the Transportation
Element:
i) Overwhelming through traffic. In this regard, the
City Council concurs with the Transportation Division in finding
and determining that through-traffic exceeding sixty percent on
local and collector residentia! streets constitutes an
overwhelming through-traffic problem within the meaning of
Comprehensive Plan Policy T-33, and that the conditions within
the Downtown North Neighborhood satisfy this condition. The City
Council bases this finding and determination on the traffic
counts taken in mid-1999 (which documented that some streets in
the Downtown North neighborhood experienced through traffic at a
level exceeding sixty percent) and the Transportation Division’s
judgment that those conditions will obtain in the future. The
fact that intervening traffic counts showed a lesser percentage
represents in the City Council’s view only a temporary departure
from the trend of increased through-traffic on these streets.
2) No acceptable alternatives. There are no acceptable
alternatives to closing these streets to through traffic that
would reduce through trips in the neighborhood to an acceptable
040316 sm 0100197 5
NOT YET APPROVED
level because non-closure measures such as circles and humps
would need to be installed in exceptionally large numbers and at
a high monetary cost to achieve a significant reduction in
through traffic. In addition, the Council finds that actions
which would reduce the through trips to levels only slightly
below the sixty percent which constitutes an ~overwhelming"
problem would not be acceptable alternatives within the meaning
of Comprehensive Plan policy T-33 because such levels would
still present a serious through traffic problem and would not
provide a permanent solution.
B. The Modified Mixed Measures Plan, including the five
closures of streets to through traffic, implements the following
goals and policies of the Transportation Element:
¯T-3: ~Facilities, Services, and Programs that Encourage and
Promote Walking and Bicycling".
¯T-4: ~An Efficient Roadway Network for All Users".
¯T-5: ~A Transportation System that Minimizes Impacts on
Residential Neighborhoods".
¯T-6: "A High Level of Safety for Motorists, Pedestrians,
and Bicyclists on Palo Alto Streets".
C. The Modified Mixed Measures Plan will achieve the
revised project performance measures which are identified as
CEQA mitigation in Exhibit ~B" and are likely to achieve the
other performance measures set forth therein. The performance
measures for the Modified Mixed Measures Plan are similar to
those established for the Trial Plan, but the Modified Mixed
Measures Plan addresses the areas where the Tria! Plan did not
achieve the performance measures. There are two fewer street
closures, including removal of one near to the fire station,
resulting in fewer impediments to Fire Department access. Some
street closures have been removed or relocated to provide more
streets in the center of the neighborhood for east-west
movements, thereby relieving traffic concentration on streets
next to Johnson Park, .and on other east-west streets. Turn
restrictions will reduce through-traffic entering the
neighborhood during peak hours, which helps offset the more open
street pattern.
D. The streets that will be closed to through traffic
are designated by the Comprehensive Plan as local streets and
are not designated as residential arterials or arterials. None
of the three streets are regionally significant and do not serve
as arterials to or from other jurisdictions. The City’s street
040316 sm 0100197 6
NOT YET APPROVED
network shows that Alma, Lytton and Middlefield are major
arterials that serve and connect to neighboring jurisdictions.
E. The Modified Mixed Measures Plan including the
closures of streets to through traffic is consistent with the
City’s responsibility to provide for the health and safety of
its citizens in that it will result in reduced through traffic
in the neighborhood; is likely to reduce vehicle speeds in some
areas of the neighborhood; and as found in the Mitigated
Negative Declaration does not cause any significant adverse
impact on the provision of police, fire and emergency services
or otherwise cause a significant environmental impact in the
Downtown North neighborhood or surrounding areas.
SECTION 6. Adoption of Modified Mixed Measures Plan.
The City Council hereby approves the Modified Mixed Measures
Plan, as described in Exhibit ~A" together with the performance
measures and improvement actions described in Exhibit ~B" and
directs that the Modified Mixed Measures Plan be implemented
permanently in place of the Trial Plan.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT :
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Mayor
APPROVED:
Sr. Asst. City Attorney City Manager
Director of Planning &
Community Environment
Director of Administrative
Services
040316 sm 0100197 7
NOT YET APPROVED
EXHIBIT "A"
MODIFIED MIXED MEASURES PLAN
The Modified Mixed Measures Plan consists of five street
closures, two traffic circles, one gateway with a speed table,
one bulbout at Waverley Street, and peak hour turn restrictions
into the neighborhood from Middlefield Road and Alms Street, as
illustrated below:
(SEE PLAN ATTACHED)
040316 sm 0100197 8
Johnson
Park
Bike Bddge ""-’~-,, ~)
KEY
~ Existing Stop Sign
== Gateway
= Bulbout Pair
(~) Traffic Circle
I" Guide Sign
¯ Street Closure
Note: the gateway,
bulbout, and traffic
circles allow full two-way
traffic access,
BRYANT STREET BRYA.hff STREL~BRYANT STREET
~Relocated B
STAFF & PTC
RECOMMENDED
"EM~RSO~ ~ ...._ "~ EMERSON STREET
i~(~ E~MERSON STREET
Install New Stanford
Speed ~|1 ~~, Electric
Table at ~ HIGHS~.Zr -;~ ~’- H~6HST&~=rExisting Gateway ~ "~ ~ ~;
Fire
Station
7-10 AM3-6 PM
Bike Bddge ~
SOUTHERN PACIFIC RAI~I HAWTHORNE &
NOT THROUGH
ROUTES
TO MIDDLEFIELD
MODIFIED
MIXED
MEASURES PLAN
DOWNTOWN
NORTH TRAFFIC
CALMING PROJECT
NOT YET APPROVED
EXHIBIT "B"
Performance Measures and Improvement Actions for the Downtown
North Mixed Measures Traffic Calming Plan
Approximately four months after implementation of the new
Downtown North Traffic Calming Plan, staff will gather data in
order to determine if the plan is functioning according to the
performance measures listed below. The performance measures are
based on those that were originally established for the tria!
plan with seven street closures installed in June 2003, but with
substantial modifications to pertain to the new Plan. Five of
the performance measures are intended to serve as mitigation
measures in the form of ~performance standards" under CEQA to
provide assurance that the Mixed Measure Plan will not cause any
significant environmental impacts - specifically, preventing
diversion of undue amounts of traffic to local or collector
streets and ensuring adequate fire, ~emergency and police
response times. These five performance measures are labeled as
~CEQA Mitigation," and the specific kinds of actions that would
be taken to ensure compliance with these measures are described
in the Mitigated Negative Declaration. Other performance
measures are project goals or other measures and are labeled as
~Non-CEQA Measure" Some of the latter performance measures do
not have quantitative standards, so are subject to
interpretation or are intended to provide information. The CEQA
performance measures take precedence over the non-CEQA
performance measures and their implementation might result in
non-CEQA performance measures not being reached-most likely
performance measure #i.
Through Traffic Reduction (project goal; non-CEQA measure)
Through traffic will be reduced by an average of at least
55 percent compared to the February 2003 "before trial"
condition. The Downtown North neighborhood cordon count of
average daily traffic (sum of daily counts at all
neighborhood access streets along Middlefield, Lytton and
Alma) will be the basis for this calculation.
Improvement action for performance measure I:
la.Increase hours of weekday turn restrictions into the
neighborhood to 7 a.m.- 6 p.m. on either or both Alma
and Middlefield. This action reduces the amount of
through traffic entering the neighborhood, and can be
fine-tuned.
040316 sm 0100197 9
NOT YET APPROVED
Diversion of Traffic to Other Streets (CEQAmitigation)
o On local and collector streets with ~before" counts of less
than 2500 vehicles per day (vpd) in the Downtown North and
Lytton neighborhoods, no average daily vehicle count at a
peripheral or internal location will increase by more than
25 percent of the ~before" count. On local streets, the
addition will not cause the volume to exceed 2500 vpd +i0
percent.
°
Improvement actions for performance measure 2:
2a.
2b.
Install the following additional traffic calming
measures to the recommended plan on street segments or
at ends of street segments where the diversion
standard is exceeded: one speed hump per block and/or
traffic circle at intersections where stop signs are
not present. This action increases the travel time and
adds inconvenience to the problem street segments,
thus slightly decreasing through trips.
Move or remove one or more of the street closures in
the recommended plan to address the specific problem
and consider installing one speed hump or table in the
same block where a closure is removed.
On local streets with a ~before" count of 2500 vpd or
greater in the Downtown North and Lytton neighborhoods, no
average daily traffic count at a peripheral or internal
location will increase by more than i0 percent ofthe
"before" count.
Improvement actions for performance measure 3:
Same as items 2a and 2b listed above.
The AM or PM peak hour level of service (LOS) atthe
Lytton/Alma and Lytton/Middlefield intersections willnot
degrade to less than LOS D.
Improvement actions for performance measure
4a.Change signal phasing and/or timing. This action can
be used to fine tune the allotment of green time, thus
increasing signal efficiency and slightly improving
LOS.
4b.Reduce, change or remove totally weekday peak hour
turn restriction hours. This action can be used to
incrementally reduce the forced use of the arterial
040316 sm 0100197 10
NOT YET APPROVED
streets during peak hours, thus decreasing volumes
passing through the intersections and improving LOS.
Speed Reduction (non-CEQAmeasure)
5. This is not a performance measure for the recommended plan.
Crashes (non-CEQAmeasure)
It is usually not possible to identify a statistically
significant pattern of crashes on local streets in a four-month
period, due to low traffic volumes. Crash trends on low volume
streets are usually only discernable after several years.
o There will be no reported injury crashes directly
attributable to the traffic calming plan elements in the
Downtown North neighborhood during the monitoring period.
The following crashes and/or primary causal factors will
not be considered in evaluating this measure: property
damage only, driving under the influence, failure to obey
rules of the road (California Vehicle Code violation) or
mechanical failure. If sufficient data is available, the
crash rate in the neighborhood and on the three surrounding
arterials should be compared to that before the measures
were installed.
Improvement action for performance measure 6:
6a.Move, remove or redesign one or more of the traffic
calming elements in the recommended plan to address
the specific problem, and consider installing one
speed hump or table in the same block where a closure
is removed.
°At the Middlefield/Everett and Middlefield/Hawthorne
intersections, there will be no more than 2 crashes during
the monitoring period at one of these intersections caused
by vehicles entering or crossing Middlefield from the west
leg of Everett or Hawthorne.
ImProvement action for performance measure 7:
7a.Install right turn only restrictions on Hawthorne and
Everett at Middlefield for time periods as indicated
by crash analysis. (This action can be used to fine-
tune the reduction of outbound left turns and through
movements, which are the primary crash-prone
040316 sm 0100197 11
NOT YET APPROVED
movements. Both streets must be included to keep
drivers from moving from one street to the other.)
Fire and Police Responses (CEQAmitigation)
The travel times for Fire and Police Department calls
within and near the Downtown North neighborhood will not
exceed the Departments’ mission goals for travel time of 4
minutes for 90 percent of fire and basic medical responses,
6 minutes for 90 percent of advanced medical responses
(paramedics), and 3 minutes for police calls--attributable
to implementation of the traffic calming plan.
Improvement actions for performance measure 8:
8a.
8b.
Install flexible, break-away or automatic retractable
bollards at one or more closure locations deemed to be
problem(s) by the Fire or Police Department. (This
action allows Fire Department vehicles to traverse the
closures with only minimal delay.)
Move or remove one or more of the street closures in
the recommended plan to address the specific problem,
and consider installing one speed hump or table in the
same block where a closure is removed.
There will be no serious impediments in any emergency
activities, including identifiable trends in increases in
travel times, of the Fire and Police Departments within and
near the Downtown North neighborhood attributable to the
traffic calming plan. This includes Fire Department access
to Lytton Gardens and Webster House.
Improvement actions for performance measure 9:
Same as items 8a and 8b above.
Citizens" Observations and Incident Reports to Police Department
(non-CEQA measure)
i0.Citizens’ reports of safety problems within and near the
Downtown North neighborhood attributable to the traffic
calming plan will be compiled. Any reports or calls for
service to the Police Department (other than crashes
reported above) will be evaluated. This measure does not
have a specific performance goal.
Neighborhood Acceptance (non-CEQAmeasure)
ii. A neighborhood opinion survey will not be conducted for the
040316 sm 0100197 12
NOT YET APPROVED
recommended plan.
Other Issues (non-CEQAmeasure)
12.Impacts attributable to the traffic calming plan as
reported by City departments, PASCO, the Post Office,
transit operators, and any other public agencies serving
the neighborhood (including bordering arterials) will be
compiled and evaluated. This measure does not have a
specific performance goal.
040316 sm 0100197 13
NOT YET APPROVED
EXHIBIT "C"
DOWNTOWN NORTH TRAFFIC CALMING PROJECT
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MITIGATION REPORTING AND MONITORING PROGRAM
(City of Palo Alto #04-EIA-02)
The Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial Study identifies
environmental factors that would be potentially affected by the
proposed project with regard to Air Quality, Cultural Resources,
Noise, Transportation/Traffic and Public Services. None of
these factors are "Potential Significant Issues". All feasible
changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated
into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen the
significant environmental impacts identified in the Initial
Study and some mitigation is incorporated. The Mitigation
Reporting and Monitoring Program describes each potentially
affected environmental factor, appropriate mitigation measures
that were incorporated into the plan, and the responsible agency
and time frame for mitigation monitoring.
AIR QUALITY:
Mitigation AQ-I. Implement Best Management Practices to Reduce
Air Emissions During Construction. The City shall include in
construction contracts the following requirements:
a. Cover all truck hauling construction and
demolition debris from the site;
b. If there are exposed or disturbed soil
surfaces water them at least twice daily;
c. Use watering to control dust generation during
demolition of structures or break-up of
pavement;
d. If there are exposed or disturbed soil
surfaces, sweep daily (with water sweepers);
e. Provide daily clean-up of mud and dirt carried
onto paved streets from the site;
f. Install sandbags or other erosion control
measures to prevent silt runoff to public
roadways; and
g. Replant any vegetation that is disturbed as
quickly as possible.
Responsible Agency for mitigation monitoring:
The City of Palo Alto & its Contractor
Time frame for mitigation monitoring:
i. Design development and preconstruction activities. Applicable
City departments are responsible for review of, prior to
granting any grading permit, project plans to ensure
040316 sm 0100197
NOT YET APPROVED
mitigation is included.
2. Monitor during construction activities. City of Palo Alto
and the project manager will monitor that the construction
including dust control measures are followed.
CULTURAL RESOURCES:
Mitigation CULTURAL-I: In accordance with the requirements for
archaeological resources mitigation in Sections 21083.2(c)-(f) of
CEQA, in areas of ground disturbance, construction work crews
shall be made aware of the potential for discovery of
archeological resources. In the event of a discovery, all work at
the discovery location shall cease immediately and a qualified
archaeologist retained to evaluate the find. The archaeologist
shall first determine whether an archaeological resource uncovered
during construction is a "unique archaeological resource" under
Public Resources Code Section 21083.2(g) or a historical resource
under Section 15064.5(a) (3) of the CEQA Guidelines. If the
archaeological resource is determined to be a "unique
archaeological resource" or a historical resource, the
archaeologist shall formulate a mitigation plan in consultation
with the City that satisfies the requirements of Section
21083.2(c)-(f) of CEQA. If the archaeologist determines that the
archaeological resource is not a unique archaeological resource,
the archaeologist may record the site and submit the recordation
form to the California Historic Resources Information System
Northwest Information Center. The archaeologist shall prepare a
report of the results of any study prepared as part of a
mitigation plan, following accepted professional practice. Copies
of the report shall be submitted to the City and to the California
Historic Resources Information System Northwest Information
Center.In the event of any accidental discovery of human
remains, the Santa Clara County Coroner’s Office shall be notified
immediately. The coroner would determine if the remains are those
of a Native American, and if they are shall comply with the CEQA
guidelines Section 15064.5(e).
Responsible.Agency for mitigation monitoring:
The City of Palo Alto
Time frame for mitigation monitoring:
i. Design development and preconstruction activities. Applicable
City departments are responsible for review of the
implementation projects’ plans to ensure mitigation,
including a plan if an archeological discovery is found, is
included in the project.
2. Monitor during construction. The City of Palo Alto and
Project Construction Manager is responsible for monitoring
construction for archeological materials and the notification
of appropriate authorities.
040316 sm 0100197 15
NOT YET APPROVED
NOISE:
Mitigation NOISE-l: Construction hours shall be limited to Monday
through Friday 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. and Saturday 9:00 a.m. to
6:00 p.m., as per City Noise Ordinance, Chapter 9.10 requirements.
All construction truck traffic shall conform to the City of Palo
Alto Trucks and Traffic Ordinance (10.48) that details city truck
routes.
Responsible Agency for mitigation monitoring:
The City of Palo Alto
Time frame for mitigation monitoring:
i. Design development and preconstruction activities. The
applicable City departments are responsible for review of
project plans prepared to ensure mitigation is included.
2. Monitor during construction activities. The City Police
Department is responsible for the implementation of the Noise
Ordinance and monitoring of construction hours. The City of
Palo Alto and the construction project manager are
responsible for monitoring that the conditions are
implemented.
PUBLIC SERVICES:
FIRE-1 Mitigation:As additional assurance against any
substantial reduction in response travel times, the proposed
traffic calming Plan provides for monitoring of response times at
four months succeeding the plan’s installation to ensure that
there is compliance with the following Performance Measures.
Performance Measure #8. The travel times for Fire (and Police)
Department calls within and near the Downtown North neighborhood
will not exceed the Departments’ mission goals for travel time of
4 minutes for 90% of fire and basic medical responses, 6 minutes
for 90% of advanced medical responses (paramedics), and 3 minutes
for police calls-attributable to implementation of the traffic
calming plan.
Performance Measure #9. There will be no serious impediments in
any emergency activities, including identifiable trends in
increases in travel times, of the Fire (and Police) Departments
within and near the Downtown North neighborhood attributable to
the traffic calming plan. This includes Fire Department access to
Lytton Gardens and Webster House.
In the event that monitoring shows a pattern of substantia3
increases in response travel times, further actions will be takel
to eliminate any such increases in response times. Improvement
actions for performance measures 8 and 9 include:
040316 sm 0100197 16
NOT YET APPROVED
a. Install flexible, break-away or automatic retractable bollard~
at one or more closure locations deemed to be problem(s) by th~
Fire (or Police) Department. (This action allows Fire (and Police)
Department vehicles to traverse the closures with only minima]
delay.)
b. Move or remove one or more of the street closures in the
recommended plan to address the specific problem, and consider
installing one speed hump or table in the same block where the
closure is removed.
Responsible Agency for mitigation monitoring:
The City of Palo Alto
Time frame for mitigation monitoring:
io Design development and preconstruction activities.
Applicable City departments, including the City Fire, Police,
and Transportation Departments are responsible for review of
design of traffic calming measures for the Plan.
2. Monitoring following installation. City of Palo Alto
Transportation Division, with the help of the City Fire and
Police Departments, will monitor and report on performance
measures, including monitoring of emergency response times.
Monitoring will continue if any improvements actions are
necessary to meet the Plan’s Performance Measures.
POLICE-I Mitigation: As additional insurance for police response
time goals, the proposed traffic calming Plan provides for
monitoring of response times at four months succeeding the plan’s
installation to ensure that there is compliance with the following
Performance Measures.
Performance Measure #8. The travel times for (Fire and) Police
Department calls within and near the Downtown North neighborhood
will not exceed the Departments’ mission goals for travel time of
(4 minutes for 90% of fire and basic medical responses, 6 minutes
for 90% of advanced medical responses (paramedics), and 3 minutes
for police calls-attributable to implementation of the traffic
calming plan.
Performance Measure #9. There will be no serious impediments in
any emergency activities, including identifiable trends in
increases in travel times during the tria! period, of the (Fire
and) Police Departments within and near the Downtown North
neighborhood attributable to the traffic calming plan. (This
includes access to Lytton Gardens and Webster House.)
In the event that monitoring shows an unanticipated reduction oJ
response times, further actions will be taken to eliminate any suck
040316 sm 0100197 17
NOT YET APPROVED
reductions in response times. Improvement actions for performanc~
measures 8 and 9 include:
a. Install flexible, break-away or automatic retractable bollard~
at one or more closure locations deemed to be problem(s) by th~
(Fire or) Police Department. (This action allows (Fire and) Polic~
Department vehicles to traverse the closures with only minima]
delay.)
b. Move or remove one or more street closures in the recommended
plan to address the specific problem, and consider installing one
speed hump or table in the same block where a closure is removed.
Responsible Agency for mitigation monitoring:
The City of Palo Alto
Time frame for mitigation monitoring:
i. Design development and preconstruction activities.
Applicable City departments, including the City Fire, Police,
and Transportation Departments are responsible for review of
design of traffic calming measures for the Plan.
2. Monitoring following installation. City of Palo Alto
Transportation Division, with the help of the City Fire and
Police Departments, will monitor and report on performance
measures, including monitoring of emergency response times
following the Plan’s installation. Monitoring will continue
if any improvements actions are necessary to meet the Plan’s
Performance Measures.
TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC:
TRANS-I Mitigation: As addition assurance against significant
traffic diversion to local and collector streets the proposed
traffic calming plan provides for mitigation of traffic diversion
through required compliance with the following Performance
Measures.
Performance Measure #2. On local and collector streets with
"before" counts of less than 2500 vehicles per day (vpd) in the
Downtown North and Lytton Avenue neighborhoods, no average daily
vehicle count at a peripheral or internal location will increase
by more than 25 percent of the ~before" count. On local streets,
the addition will not cause the volume to exceed 2500 vpd +10%.
Performance Measure #3. On local streets with a ~before" count of
2500 vpd or greater in the Downtown North and Lytton
neighborhoods, no average daily traffic count at a peripheral or
internal location will increase by more than i0 percent of the
~before" count.
In the event that monitoring shows a pattern of substantial
040316 sm 0100197 1 8
NOT YET APPROVED
traffic diversions, further actions will be taken to meet the
performance measure goal.The improvement actions for performance
measures 2 a~d 3 include:
a. Install the following additiona! traffic calming measures to th~
recommended plan on street segments or at ends of street segment~
where the diversion standard is exceeded, as recommended b~
Transportation Division to meet the standard: one speed hump pe~
block and/or traffic circle at intersections where stop signs arc
not present. (This action increases the travel time and add~
inconvenience for travel on the problem street segments, thu~
slightly decreasing through trips.)
b. Implement Modified Mixed Measures Plan. (This option assume~
that the City Council did not adopt the Modified Mixed Measure~
Plan as the approved project. Otherwise it would not be availabl~
as an improvement action here).
c. Move or remove one or more of the street closures in the
recommended plan to address the specific problem and consider
installing one speed hump or table in the same block where the
closure is removed.
Responsible Agency for mitigation monitoring:
The City of Palo Alto
Time frame for mitigation monitoring:
i. Design development and preconstruction activities.
Applicable City departments,including the Transportation
Department are responsible for review of the Plan
implementation to ensure mitigation monitoring is included
with the project.
2. Monitor. The City of Palo Alto Transportation Division will
monitor and report on traffic on identified local and
collector streets. Additional monitoring will occur if any
improvements actions are necessary to meet the Plan’s
Performance Measures.
TRANS-2 Mitigatiom: As additional assurance against significant
level of service changes at intersections the proposed traffic
calming plan provides for monitoring to assure compliance with the
following Performance Measure.
Performance Measure #4. The. AM or PM peak hour level of servic~
(LOS) at the Lytton/Alma and Lytton/Middlefield intersections will
not degrade to less than LOS D.
In the event that monitoring (after 4 months) shows intersection~
worsen beyond a LOS D (primarily at Middlefield/Lytton), furthez
actions will be taken to meet the performance measure goal. The
040316 sm 0100197 19
NOT YET APPROVED
improvement actions for performance measure 4 include:
a. Change signal phasing and/or timing. (This action can be used tc
fine tune the allotment of green time, thus increasing signa3
efficiency and improving LOS.)
b. Reduce, change or remove totally weekday peak hour turn
restriction hours as recommended by Transportation Division to
meet standard. (This action can be used to incrementally reduce
the forced use of the arterial streets during peak hours, thus
decreasing volumes passing through the intersections and improving
LOS. )
Responsible Agency for mitigation monitoring:
The City of Palo Alto
Time frame for mitigation monitoring:
i. Design development and preconstruction activities.
Applicable City departments,including the Transportation
Department are responsible for review of the Plan
implementation to ensure mitigation monitoring is included
with the project.
2. Monitoring. The City of Palo Alto Transportation Division
will monitor and report on intersections conditions through
the monitoring period. Additional monitoring will occur if
any improvements actions are necessary to meet the Plan’s
Performance Measures.
040316 sm 0100197 2 0
ATTACHMENT B
Attachment B, Comments, Responses and Edits for the Mitigated Negative
Declaration has been purposely omitted from this staff report. This information
will be sent to Council at its meeting of March 29, 2004, and will be available to
the public the afternoon of Thursday, March 25.
ATTACHMENT C
to CMR:180:04
TRANSP OR TA TION DIVISION
STAFF REPORT
TO:PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSIdN
FROM:Carl Stoffel
AGENDA DATE:
SUBJECT:
DEPARTMENT: Planning and
Community Environment
January 21, 2004
Downtown North Traffic Calming Project--Recommendations to
Remove Current Trial Plan and Implement New Traffic Calming Plan
RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff recommends that Commission recommend that the City Council:
(1)End the current Downtown North trial traffic calming plan;
(2)Approve permanent implementation of the Downtown North Mixed Measures Traffic
Calming Plan, provided that achievement of the performance measures is certified by
the Director of Planning and Community Environment after seven months of
implementation;
(3)Consider and approve the attached negative declaration for permanent implementation
of the Mixed Measures Plan.
BACKGROUND
The Downtown North neighborhood is located between Alma Street, Lytton Avenue,
Middlefield Road, and San Francisquito Creek (including the businesses and residences on
the neighborhood side of Alma, Lytton and Middlefield). The neighborhood consists of
approximately 1500 dwelling units with 2500 residents, plus about 80 businesses in the west
end of the neighborhood and along Lytton. For years, Downtown North residents have been
concerned about cut-through traffic and parking problems. The Downtown North
neighborhood study was included on a 1979 list of Council-approved neighborhood traffic
studies. A mid- 1990s Planned Community zone project at the comer of Lytton and Waverley
City of Palo Alto Page 1
coincided with increased neighborhood concern about traffic impacts of downtown
development. The developer of that project offered a public financial benefit for the City to
hirea transportation consultant to conduct a traffic-calming study for Downtown North. That
funding was subsequently incorporated into the approved Transportation Division budget for
that purpose.
Staff and a transportation-consulting firm began the study in 1999. A project advisory
committee (PAC) was formed with representatives of Downtown North (including officials
of the neighborhood association), a representative of the Lytton neighborhood east of
Middlefield, a downtown business community representative, and City staff from
Transportation, Public Works and Fire. Through an open, publicly noticed process that
included a project web site, e-mail address, voice mail box, four neighborhood meetings, and
three neighborhood advisory surveys, a "preferred alternative" was selected for Planning and
Transportation Commission (PTC) and City Council review. In February 2001, the City
Council approved a six-month trial of this plan, along with a set of performance measures. A
majority of PTC and Council members supported implementation of the trial. Budget
constraints delayed implementation of the project until commencement of design in 2002 and
installation in June 2003. Full details of the project planning are described in the October 11,
2000 Transportation Division staff report to the PTC (http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/
downtownnorth).
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The six-month trial traffic-calming plan includes seven street closures, three gateway features
and one intersection bulbout (refer to Figure 1).
City of Pato Alto Page 2
HAWTHORNE & EVERETT\NOT THROUGH ROUTES
TO~
KEY
Existing Stop Sign
Sb’eet Closure
Neighborhood Gateway
Bulbout Pair
Not A Through $1 Sign
Through Tm~c Guide Sign
C~’]RAL
PLAN
INSALLE)
6/16/03
NOR]H qP, AFRC
CALMING FF;OJECT
Note: the gateways and
bubouts allow full two-
way t~affio access
~ NOTTHROUGH ROUTES
~ TO MIDDLEFIELD
FIGURE 1
City of Pato Alto Page 3
The Council-adopted performance measures (Attachment A) provide the framework for
staff’s evaluation of the trial plan. The trial started on June 16, 2003. Staff began the project
evaluation at the end of September 2003. Two informational meetings were held in
November and December 2003 at which Transportation staff presented preliminary
evaluation results and options for the future of the project. The meetings were advertised in
local newspapers and by mailed notices (refer to Attachment B for mailing area details). A
total of approximately 240 people attended both meetings (some attended both). Comments
and questions from meeting attendees are summarized in Attachment F. The information
presented at the meetings and a notice for the January 21,2004 PTC meeting were mailed to
the same area on January 6, 2004.
One of the evaluation items was a resident opinion survey that had been scheduled for
December 2003. Staff was preparing to use the standard survey methodology used for all its
past traffic calming projects (including the earlier surveys in Downtown North), as detailed
in the adopted Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program guidelines used for the "spot
treatment" projects. In this procedure, each household, business and non-resident property
owner with a postal address would receive a survey card and be allowed one vote per
household, business or owned parcel. Staff has a mailing list for this purpose. Those who did
not receive the survey card or misplaced it would be able to obtain one at City Hall. Staff
required a return address on each survey card in order to insure that only one vote per address
was allowed and that the address lies within the survey area. Staff prepared a survey card
with a two-part format that (a) provides a clear indication of opinion on whether or not the
trial plan (augmented to help correct its problems) should be retained or not; and (b) if not,
which of the other alternatives was most preferable. This format is shown in Attachment E.
Residents’ representatives strongly disagreed with staff’s proposed survey methodology,
especially who should receive the survey cards, despite repeated meetings and discussions
between all parties (refer to a later section of this report about DTNNA and Unblock
representatives). Staff was unable to develop a consensus about the survey methodology and
content. In the end, staff decided that other workload responsibilities precluded further
efforts to reach consensus, and reluctantly cancelled the survey. The mailing list and survey
format that staff developed are available for any future surveys. At this time, staff believes
that the survey would add too much time to the process of ending the current trial plan and
implementing its recommended substitute.
Why the Current Trial Plan was Selected
When this proposed plan was first reviewed by the PTC in October 2000, some
Commissioners thought that less aggressive measures should be tried first, and were
frustrated that there were not other alternatives to choose from. Many Commissioners were
not in favor of street closures as traffic calming measures. During the planning process in
1999-2000, the first resident opinion survey showed that Downtown North residents’ top
three concerns were excess traffic volumes, cut-through traffic and speeding. Data showed
that cut-through traffic exceeded 60 percent of all traffic on Hawthorne and Everett. It is well
City of Palo Alto Page 4
known that there is strong driver desire for east-west travel along the Willow-Sand Hill
corridor, including to/from downtown Palo Alto. Staff and residents considered many
alternatives at that time, ranging from less to more aggressive than the current trial plan.
Residents believed that only a street closure plan would stem the tide of cut-through traffic.
Comprehensive Plan Policy T-33 discourages the use of street closures, but allows them
when there is an overwhelming through traffic problem and there is no acceptable alternative.
For practical purposes, staff interprets "overwhelming through traffic" to mean an average
daily level of 60 percent or more.
SUMMARY OF IMPORTANT ISSUES
Evaluation Results
Evaluation of the current trial plan centered on the 12 Council-adopted performance
measures. These measures and the evaluation findings are listed in Attachment A. PTC can
determine if a measure should be considered as a guideline or an absolute in weighing the
overall performance of the plan, and can evaluate the relative importance of each measure.
Staff considers the safety-related measures (#6-#10) as the most important, followed by the
primary project goal of through traffic reduction (#1). Staff considers two measures as
specific quantitative significance thresholds in environmental analyses: #2 (25% maximum
volume increase threshold on local streets) and #4 (minimum acceptable LOS D at
intersections). Two performance measures (#1--65% through traffic reduction, and #5--
15% average speed reduction) derive from the projected effectiveness of the trial plan. Staff
adopted these as goals--they are not mandated standards. The response time goals in measure
#8 are from the official mission goals of the Fire and Police Departments. The performance
levels in the other measures were determined by staff based on professional judgment and are
not mandated standards.
The trial plan has surpassed its primary goal of through traffic reduction (#1). However, it
has caused unacceptable volume increases on a few street segments (#2). Even though it has
not caused unacceptable increases in Fire Department response times, it has the future
potential to delay Fire Department access to the neighborhood (#8, #9). Staff and many
neighborhood representatives believe that these inadequacies should be corrected if the
project were to remain on a permanent basis. One of the important measures remains
unevaluated formally--neighborhood acceptance by means of an opinion survey (#11), as
discussed earlier in this report. Notwithstanding, hundreds of residents have expressed a
variety of unsolicited views during the trial, both in favor of and against the plan. Refer to
Attachment F for a summary of these comments.
Fire Department Access
The Department found no significant increase in response times from the year prior to the
trial period in the Downtown North neighborhood and the times are within the Department
benchmarks. The Department also found that the closures did not cause any serious
City of Palo Alto Page 5
impediments in emergency activities during the trial period (refer to memo in Attachment A).
In that literal sense, the performance measures were met. There were relatively few
emei:gencies during the evaluation periods. A better determination of impact on the
Department’s response time goals would require that response times for a fairly large number
of incidents be averaged together, probably requiring a multi-year trial period. The
Department estimated that there would be a delay of at least one minute if a driver entered a
closed street and had to unlock a bollard, or detour around the block. The designated
response route from Fire Station 1 to the Downtown North neighborhood is Alma and Lytton,
then using north-south streets into the neighborhood--i.e., a route that would usually avoid
any street closures, thus typically avoiding the extra delay of entering a closed street. A delay
of one minute could still result in a response time within the Department goal, given that Fire
Station 1 is located within the neighborhood.
Any extra response delay, even if it falls within Department goals, has consequences, as
detailed in the Fire Department analysis. Residents and decision-makers will need to decide if
the infrequent possible delay in responding to emergencies (even if the response time goal is
met) is offset by the continuous traffic calming benefits of the project. Even though the
current trial plan has not had an immediate impact on the Department’s response times during
the limited time of the trial period, staff believes that the trial plan should nevertheless be
modified to reduce any possibility of occasional future delays. This could be done either by
reducing the number of closures and/or changing their design to be more "permeable" (i.e.,
cause less delay). Staff recommends the first approach. Refer to Attachment C for more
discussion of closure design options.
Arterial and Local Streets
Some residents on arterial streets bordering the neighborhood, especially Middlefield and
Lytton, believe that the current trial plan has ignored their street. Indeed, the trial plan was
designed to discourage cut-through trips from using interior neighborhood streets. Staff
expected that these trips would be diverted to the arterial street system around the
neighborhood. In fact, changes were made to the Lytton/Alma and Lytton/Middle field
intersections to enhance such use. It was also understood that some neighborhood trips would
unavoidably (but not desirably) be forced onto arterial segments because of the discontinuity
of the interior street system. Staff anticipated that arterial volumes surrounding the
neighborhood would increase about 15 percent, but intersection levels of service (LOS)
would remain at acceptable levels and accidents on Middlefield at Everett would decrease
(performance measures #4, #7). In the hierarchy of streets in any city, arterials (including
residential arterials) are the designated and desirable carriers of through traffic and are
expected to receive through traffic that has been diverted from local streets by traffic calming
measures (refer to Comprehensive Plan policies T-24 and T-34). Palo Alto has a separate
program for residential arterial traffic calming, employing measures quite different than on
local streets. The current Charleston-Arastradero study is the first such project. Staff feels
that the best way to improve residential arterial conditions (more capacity, less queuing) is a
City of Palo Alto Page 6
significantly advanced "adaptive" traffic signal system. Council recently approved an
application for grant funding for such a system for all the City’s residential arterials (the
funding itself has not yet been approved).
Downtown North Neighborhood Association (DTNNA) and Unblock Downtown North
In neighborhood traffic calming projects, staff has always worked closely with neighborhood
representatives--usually with members of the neighborhood association, as they are typically
the only "official" neighborhood representatives. DTNNA was the primary proponent in
getting this project started in 1999. DTNNA representatives were on the project advisory
committee and staff has worked closely with them throughout all phases of this project. After
the trial plan was installed this year, other residents in the neighborhood who did not feel
represented by DTNNA formed a new residents group, Unblock Downtown North. After
Unblock was formed, staff began to coordinate the trial evaluation with representatives of
both groups. Transportation staff conducted two "summit" meetings with three
representatives of both groups together to try to hammer out agreement on the resident
opinion survey and future-options. In addition, Transportation staff met with individual
members of both groups in an attempt to resolve the differences. Mutual agreement was
reached on a few issues. In the end, however, after Transportation made necessary decisions
to move fol-vvard with the evaluation of the project, both groups continued to disagree with
staff and each other. Staff continues to work with both groups as representatives of
neighborhood residents.
Future Options for this Project
After evaluating the performance of the existing trial project, the Transportation Division
looked at about two dozen options other than maintaining the current trial plan as is. One
goal was to find options that could correct or at least reduce the problems with the current
plan. The options ranged from removing all the trial elements to fully closing off
neighborhood access on the east and west sides. The Transportation Division then distilled
this large set to a more workable five options for PTC consideration, using a set of guidelines
(Attachment D). All five options are consistent with Comprehensive Plan policies as
described under "Policy Implications" later in this report. Transportation staff met with and
considered the opinions of representatives of the Downtown North Neighborhood
Association and Unblock Downtown North, although neither group endorses all the selected
options. Four of the options were presented at the two neighborhood meetings for feedback.
All five were described in the January 6 mailing to residents, but there was no mechanism for
comprehensively gathering residents’ opinions on these options. The five options are
summarized below. Details and illustrations are in Attachment D.
Remove Trial Plan. All elements of the trial plan would be removed and the streets
returned to the pre-trial configuration (except for the modifications to the Lytton/Middle field
and Lytton/Alma intersections). A pre-existing safety problem at the Middlefield]Everett
intersection would need to be addressed, possibly through eastbound "right turn only"
City of Palo Alto Page 7
restrictions on Everett, Hawthorne and Palo Alto Avenue at Middle field, to be implemented
separately.
No Closures Plan. All of the street closures and two gateways would be removed;
three traffic circles and a speed table would be added on Hawthorne and Everett. Weekday
peak hour turn restrictions into the neighborhood would be implemented at Everett,
Hawthorne and Palo Alto Avenue from Middlefield and Alma. Only minimal through traffic
reduction would be attained.
Mixed Measures Plan. Three of the seven street closures and two gateways would be
removed; three traffic circles and a speed table would be added on Hawthorne and Everett.
Weekday peak hour turn restrictions into the neighborhood would be implemented at Everett
and Hawthorne from Middlefield and Alma. This option should solve or reduce most of the
problems with the current trial plan by "opening up" the neighborhood, but at the cost of
substantially weakening the through traffic reduction of the current plan.
Reduce Current Plan. Two of the seven street closures and two gateways would be
removed. One of the remaining closures would be relocated. No turn restrictions or other
traffic calming measures would be installed. This option is similar to the current plan and
would maintain through traffic reduction. This plan slightly opens up the neighborhood and
would hopefully lessen the unacceptable volume increases on interior street segments.
Augment Current Plan. This option keeps all elements of the trial plan except for
removal of two gateways (includes one street closure relocation), and adds peak hour turn
restrictions into the neighborhood from Alma and Middlefield. This option should enhance
the success of the current plan at reducing through traffic, while attempting to reduce some of
the negative internal volume impacts of the current plan.
Staff Recommendation for Future Option
Staff believes that the current trial plan should not remain as is, due to the unacceptable local
street traffic diversion and the potential for increases in emergency response times. Staff
recommends that the Mixed Measures Plan be implemented as the best way to modify the
current plan and still address the original project goals of through traffic and speed reduction,
albeit much more mo.destly. The biggest disadvantage of the Mixed Measures Plan is
substantially less through traffic reduction than now provided--to a level of less than half the
current level and below the formerly established performance goal of 65 percent reduction.
Staff makes this recommendation without the benefit of resident opinion expressed through
the survey that normally would have been undertaken.
Staff selected the Mixed Measures Plan because staff believes that some type of traffic
calming plan focusing on volume reduction should be found for this neighborhood. Street
closures offer the best way to address the volume-reduction goal in a cost-efficient manner,
without needing a dense array of lesser measures. Compared to the other two alternatives
City of Palo Alto Page 8
with more closures (Reduce Current Plan and Augment Current Plan), staff believes the
Mixed Measures Plan has the best possibility to reduce the problems with the current trial
plari to an acceptable level without having to continue with further rounds of trials,
evaluations, meetings and decisions..Compared to those two plans, staff views the Mixed
Measures Plan as essentially a compromise plan that provides a reasonable degree of volume
reduction with a reasonable degree of openness to vehicular circulation--utilizing only two
street closures on the neighborhood’s two principal streets.
lmplementation Procedure for Mixed Measures Plan
Staff recommends that the Mixed Measures Plan be installed permanently, without a trial
period. Six months following installation, staff would gather necessary data to determine if
the plan is meeting a modified set of performance measures (Attachment G). The Director of
Planning and Community Environment would make the formal determination that the
performance measures for the Mixed Measures Plan were met. Assuming that the
performance measures were met, staff would so advise the PTC and Council with an
informational report. No further action would be required. If the Director could not certify
that the performance measures were met, staff would bring the project back to the PTC and
Council for further discussion and final disposition.
IfPTC and Council approve staff’s recommendation to implement the Mixed Measures Plan,
it would take approximately seven months from the date of Council’s approval to install the
new plan. This is the minimum amount of time staff requires to prepare the project
specifications and complete the normal process of contract preparation and review, bidding,
contractor selection, finalization of the agreement and construction staging. City Council is
tentatively scheduled to discuss PTC’s recommendations in mid-March. The current trial plan
would remain in place until the Mixed Measures Plan was installed approximately seven
months later, in October 2004. The Director’s decision as to whether the performance
measures for that plan were met would occur seven months later--about May 2005.
If PTC and Council do not approve staff’s recommendation to implement the Mixed
Measures Plan (or any other alternative), and instead recommend an end and complete
removal of the current trial plan, staff would still need to follow approximately the above-
described procedure to hire a contractor to remove the traffic calming measures. Thus, the
current plan would still need to remain in place until approximately September 2004.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
Traffic calming is strongly supported in the Comprehensive Plan. "Traffic calming refers to
projects that make permanent, physical changes to streets to.slow traffic and!or reduce
volumes, thus improving their safety and addressing residents’ concerns." (Comprehensive
Plan, page T-19). Policy T-34 states: "Implement traffic calming measures to slow traffic on
local and collector residential streets .... "Even though a goal of traffic calming is to reduce
volumes (especially shortcutting traffic), Policy T-33 of the Comprehensive Plan cautions
City of Palo Alto Page 9
"Keep all neighborhood streets open unless there is a demonstrated safety or overwhelming
through-traffic problem and there are no acceptable alternatives, or unless a closure would
increase the use of alternative transportation modes."
One of the biggest points of public discussion in the Downtown North trial project has been
the appropriateness of using street closures for traffic calming. The PTC discussed this topic
extensively during its October 2000 discussion about implementing the trial plan, as well in
several meetings in 2000 - 2002 about the City’s local street traffic calming program. In all
these discussions, most Commissioners believed that street closures were too drastic as traffic
calming measures for most cases. They felt that volume reduction should not actually be a
goal of traffic calming, which should focus more on speed reduction leading to improved
safety for pedestrians and bicyclists. The reasons justifying the use of street closures in
Downtown North are (i) "overwhelming" through traffic level on the major local streets; (ii)
neighborhood geography causing most diverted through traffic to move to the surrounding
arterials; and (iii) increasing the use of alternate transportation modes, including the existing
Bryant Street bicycle boulevard the proposed one on Everett, both passing through
Downtown North (refer to detailed discussion in October 11, 2000 Transportation Division
staff report to the PTC, pp 4-7).
RESOURCE IMPACTS
Staff estimates that the cost to implement and evaluate its recommended Mixed Measures
Plan (which includes removal of the appropriate elements of the current trial plan) is
$94,000. Approximate costs of the other options are as follows:
Remove tria! plan
No closures plan
Reduce current plan
Augment current plan
$33,000 (no furtherevalu~ion required)
$94,000
$31,000
$26,000
Public Works Operations estimates that the cost to maintain the 11 traffic-calming measures
in the current trial plan on an annual basis would be about $10,000. This extra maintenance
requirement is not funded. The mixed measures plan would cost slightly less to maintain--
nine measures at approximately $8,000 annually. The Transportation Division currently has
resources available for implementation of a new plan. In the near future, when the PTC and
Council consider staff’s proposed revisions to the Traffic Calming Program, staff will
propose that funding for annual maintenance of new traffic calming measures be taken from
the Traffic Calming Program CIP.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Staff prepared a draft environmental assessment for the current trial plan in October 2000 for
the PTC’s consideration of the proposed project. This plan has been evaluated, but is not
being recommended for approval. Staff has prepared another draft environmental assessment
City of Palo Alto Page 10
with a negative declaration for permanent implementation of the Mixed Measures Plan
(Attachment H). Staff will circulate this document for public review for the required 20-day
peri6d before the project is forwarded to Council for final decisions.
PUBLIC NOTICE
A letter was mailed on January 6, 2004 to each household, business and non-resident owner
of property in the area described in Attachment B. The letter included notification of the
January 21, 2004 PTC meeting, as well as a summary of the evaluation of the current trial
plan, and a description of the five options presented in this report. Staff also identified its
basic recommendations to conduct the opinion survey and implement a new trial of the mixed
measures plan.
ATTACHMENTS/EXHIBITS:
A. Council-adopted Performance Measures and Trial Plan Evaluation
B. Notification Area Description
C. Street Closure Design for Fire Department Access
D. Five Future Options for the Downtown North Project
E. Proposed Opinion Survey Card Format
F. Summary of Public Comments
G. Performance Measures For Implementation Of Mixed Measures Plan
H. Environmental Assessment for Mixed Measures Plan
COURTESY COPIES:
DTNNA representatives (Dan Lorimer, Chas Pavlovic, Mike Liveright, Josh Mogal)
Unblock representatives (Joe Durand, Dana DeNault, Pat Markevitch)
Lytton neighborhood representatives (Alan and Bonnie Luntz)
Palo Bicycle Advisory Committee Members
City of Menlo Park Transportation Division
Prepared by: Carl Stoffel, Transportation Engineer
Reviewed by: Joseph Kott, Chief Transportation Official
Division Head Approval:
Joseph Kott, Chief p Official
City of Palo Alto Page 11
PTC REPORT 1/21/04
ATTACHMENT A
COUNCIL-ADOPTED PERFORMANCE MEASURES
AND TRIAL PLAN EVALUATION
DOWNTOWN NORTH TRIAL TRAFFIC CALMING PLAN
COUNCIL-ADOPTED PERFORMANCE MEASURES
Attachment A from CMR:440:00, December 11, 2000
Near the completion of the six-month trial of the Recommended Preferred Option, staff will
gather evaluation data in order to determine the success of the plan with regard to the
performance measures listed below. Based on this evaluation, staff will make a
recommendation to the Planning and Transportation Commission regarding permanent
implementation of the plan. For the most part, staff does not consider the performance
standards to be absolute. Commission and Council will want to consider whether each
performance measure is met, but may choose to consider them only as guidelines in weighing
the overall performance of the plan. For example, if reduction of speed or through traffic
were less than the performance measures, Council might still want to approve a permanent
installation--based, perhaps, on an especially high approval rating in the neighborhood
survey. Or, Council might want to deny a permanent installation of the plan even if all the
performance measures were attained--based, for example, on strong negative feedback from
the community as a whole. The safety standards should to be given the highest importance,
but even they are not absolute. For example, poor driver behavior and "close calls" are
difficult to quantify, and the point at which they become unacceptable is somewhat
subjective.
Through Traffic Reduction
The Downtown North neighborhood cordon count of average daily traffic (sum of daily
counts at all neighborhood access streets along Middlefield, Lytton and Alma) will be
reduced by an average of 20 percent. This translates into an approximate reduction of
through trips (cut-through traffic) of 65 percent. [Based on "Final Traffic Report for the
Downtown North Neighborhood Traffic Study", May 2000, Table 1 and Figure 6.]
Diversion of Traffic to Other Streets-(including arterial streets)
o On streets with a "before" count of less than 2500 vehicles per day (vpd) in the
Downtown North and Lytton neighborhoods, no average daily vehicle count at a
peripheral or internal location will increase by more than 25 percent of the "before"
count and the addition will not cause the volume to exceed 2500 vpd. [This is the
minimum volume change detectable by the average resident. Location and number of
traffic counts to be determined. Based on Draft "City of Palo Alto Neighborhood Traffic
Program", Guidelines 8 and 9.]
Attachment A Page 1 of 15
On streets with a "before" count of 2500 or greater average daily traffic in the
Downtown North and Lytton neighborhoods, no average daily traffic count at a
peripheral or internal location will increase by more than 10 percent of the "before"
count. [Ten percent is the approximate daily fluctuation in traffic volumes as well as
range of error in measurements, and hence can be considered statistically as "no
change". Locations and number of traffic counts to be determined. Based on Draft "City
of Palo Alto Neighborhood Traffic Program", Guideline 8.]
The AM or PM peak hour level of service (LOS) at the Lytton/Alma and
Lytton!Middlefield intersections, with the recommended improvements in turn lanes and
signal phasing, will not degrade to less than LOS D. [This is the minimum acceptable
LOS in Palo Alto. Based on "Final Traffic Report for the Downtown North
Neighborhood Traffic Study", May 2000, Pages A-23 - 24.]
Speed Reduction
The average of 85tu percentile speed measurements in the Downtown North
neighborhood for both AM and PM peak hours will be reduced by a minimum of 15
percent. [Based on "Final Traffic Report for the Downtown North Neighborhood Traffic
Study", May 2000, Table 1. Locations and number of speed measurements to be
determined.]
Safety
It is usually not possible to identify a statistically significant pattern of crashes on local
streets in a six-month period, due to low traffic volumes. Crash trends on low volume streets
are usually only discernable after several years. The following measures are thus somewhat
arbitrary, but will at least serve as starting points for evaluation of safety impacts.
There will be no identifiable pattern of crashes directly attributable to the traffic calming
plan at any location within and around the periphery of the Downtown North
neighborhood.
At the Middlefield/Everett intersection, there will be no more than 3 crashes caused by a
vehicle entering or leaving Middlefield via either leg of Everett. [Since 1995, an average
of approximately six such accidents per year have occurred at this location.]
The response times for Fire and Police Department calls within and near the Downtown
North neighborhood will not exceed the Departments’ mission goals of 4 minutes for
90% of fire and basic medical responses, 6 minutes for 90% of advanced medical
responses (paramedics), and 3 minutes for police calls--attributable to implementation
of the traffic calming plan.
9.There will be no serious impediments in any emergency activities, including identifiable
trends in increases in response times during the trial period, of the Fire and Police
Attachment A Page 2 of 15
Departments within and near the Downtown North neighborhood attributable to the
traffic calming plan.
10.Citizens’ reports of safety problems within and near the Downtown North neighborhood
attributable to the traffic calming plan will be compiled. The Transportation Division
will determine the significance of the number and severity of these problems.
Neighborhood Acceptance
11.In the post-trial survey of the Downtown North neighborhood (including business
owners within the neighborhood), at least 50+ percent of households, business owners
and non-resident property owners (i.e., not just of survey responses) will support
implementing the plan on a permanent basis. [Based on Draft "City of Palo Alto
Neighborhood Traffic Program", Procedure Step 10.]
Other Issues
12.Impacts attributable to the traffic calming plan as reported by City departments, PASCO,
the Post Office, transit operators, and any other public agencies serving the
neighborhood (including bordering arterials) will be compiled and evaluated by staff.
Impacts to non-Downtown North residents driving through or parking in the
neighborhood, or impacts on citizens in general will be reported if available, but will
usually not be considered in the evaluation of the trial.
Attachment A Page 3 of 15
DOWNTOWN NORTH TRIAL TRAFFIC CALMING PLAN
EVALUTION RESULTS IN TERMS OF PERFORMANCE MEASURES
The following evaluation results address the City-Council adopted performance measures as stated in
Attachment A of CMR:440:00, December 11, 2000. Unless otherwise noted in each item, evaluation
data is as of September 2003. As stated in the performance measure document, the measures are not
meant to be absolute. Commissioners and Council members will want to consider whether each
performance measure is met, but may choose to consider them only as guidelines in weighing the
overall performance of the plan.
Through Traffic Reduction by 65%
This measure was satisfied. The neighborhood perimeter (cordon) count of all entries and exits
decreased from 23,900 to 13,700 (45%) between February and September 2003. It is assumed
that most of this reduction was in through trips (i.e., trips with neither origin nor destination in
the neighborhood). This is a decrease of about 10,000 entries and exits, or about 5,000 through
trips. Before the trial plan, we estimated daily through trips at about 5500 - 6000, so the trial
plan reduced through trips by about 90 percent. (Note: through traffic calculations are estimates
based on theoretical trip generation combined with actual traffic counts. Traffic volume
measurements can easily vary by +10% from one day to the next, with additional seasonal
variations. Roadv, iay conditions, including unknown construction activities outside the area,
could also affect travel patterns and volume counts. During the six months between the "before"
and "after" measurements, longer-term factors other than the trial plan installation could change
traffic volumes-e.g, improving economic conditions, opening of KEA, etc. Nevertheless, due
to the large calculated decrease in through trips (90%) compared to the goal (65%), it is
reasonable to conclude that the goal has been attained and most likely substantially exceeded.)
Diversion of Traffic to Other Streets 25% Maximum
On streets with a "before" count of less than 2500 vpd in the Downtown North and Lytton
neighborhoods: This measure was not satisfied. At least six street segments experienced
diversion percentages well over 25 percent, with 25 percent being considered the maximum
increase threshold. In some cases, these segments were low-volume segments where the
absolute volume increase was low, but represented a high percentage change.
On streets with a "before" count of 2500 vpd or greater in the Downtown North and Lytton
neighborhoods (local neighborhood streets only): This measure was satisfied, as no before or
after volume measurements exceeded 2500 vpd.
Peak hour level of service LOS D maximum at arterial intersections: This measure was
satisfied. Level of service remained at LOS C at Middlefield/Lytton and LOS B at Alma/Lytton.
Though not listed as a performance measure, the length of queues at the Middlefield!Lytton
intersection approximately doubled as a result of signal phasing changes made to help
eastbound Lytton traffic turn left (north) onto Middlefield. However, in most cases, queues
cleared the intersection each signal cycle. Only one arterial street segment showed an increase
after the trial was installed--Lytton east of Cowper--the 23 percent increase is acceptable.
Attachment A Page 4 of 15
Speed Reduction by 15%
o Overall, 85%percentile speeds of remaining traffic on internal Downtown North streets was
essentially unchanged, so in an absolute sense this measure was not satisfied. "Before" 85th
percentile speeds measured on a 24-hour basis were 31 mph or less at all locations, with only 3
locations at 30 mph or higher, so speeding is not a major issue for this trial. The goal of the
project was to reduce the "incidence of speeding", which means a reduction in the number of
drivers speeding. Because volumes in the neighborhood were reduced by an average of about 45
percent, this represents a substantial decrease in the number of drivers exceeding the residential
speed limit, so the performance measure was satisfied in this regard.
Safety
No crashes related directly to the plan: This measure was satisfied. According to the Police
Department, no crashes were directly caused by the presence of the traffic calming measures
(any DUI accidents are attributed solely to the condition of the driver). In the six month period
between June 16 and December 15 of each of 2000, 2001, 2002 and 2003 (the latter when the
trial plan was in place), crashes on Downtown North neighborhood streets, including on the
three bounding arterials, decreased each year (59, 46, 42, 34), with the lowest number occurring
while the trial plan was in place. (Note: this data includes one block ~utside of the DTN
neighborhood, bounded by Middle field, University, Webster and Lytton. It also includes some
accidents on Lytton that are double-counted. For more details, refer to the attached memo from
Doris Cohen of the Police Department.) Without detailed analysis of each crash, no conclusion
can be drawn regarding the effect of the traffic calming project on the number of crashes.
(12/15/03)
7.Middlefield/Everett intersection: This measure was satisfied. There were no crashes at this
intersection during the trial period, versus four during the same period last year. (12/15/03)
8.Response times for Fire and Police Departments:
a.Police: This measure was satisfied, as response time goals were met.
Fire: Satisfied with reservations. The Department noted no significant increase in response
times during the trial period, compared to the year prior, with times being within the
Department’s benchmarks. This is based on a relatively small number of emergencies
during the period. The Department estimates that a closure could cause a delay of one
minute if a closed street were encountered during an emergency response. But the impact
of such a delay is hard to quantify in terms of adopted mission goals, as the overall
response could still meet the goal. The Department emphasizes that a one minute delay, if
experienced, could have a substantial negative impact on certain medical and fire
emergencies. (10/31/03)
9.No serious impediments to emergency activities:
Police: This measure is essentially satisfied. One incident took place early in the trial where
a suspect evaded police officers who were blocked by the closures. The Department feels
this was a unique incident due to the officers’ unfamiliarity with the new measures.
Attachment A Page 5 of 15
No Fire: Satisfied with reservations. The Department reports that the closures did not cause
any serious impediments in emergency activities during the trial period. Fire describes
many potential impediments that the closures could cause. Overall evaluation by the Fire
Department: This plan (using street closures with bollards) presents a problem for
responders and will most likely result in response delays. Refer to attached memo from Fire
Department. (10/31/03)
10.
Other: The Fire Department did not experience any response delays to Lytton Gardens or
Webster House (both of which are located outside of the Downtown North neighborhood)
as a result of increased traffic congestion on Lytton Avenue. (10/31/03)
Safety problems reported by citizens. Citizens registered numerous complaints of safety
problems caused by the street closures, especially early in the trial period. These included
speeding, U-turns, angry drivers, and other unsafe activity. USPS carriers report seeing safety
hazards. It is difficult to know if these incidents have declined as drivers have become used to
the presence of the measures.
Neighborhood.Acceptance
11.The neighborhood survey has not yet taken place. Since the trial began, Transportation Division
received approximately 200 unsolicited e-mails, letters and phone calls about many aspects the
trial. These were not in response to any formal request for input and thus do not represent a
comprehensive assessment of neighborhood opinion. Very approximately, 45 percent of these
were in general favor of the project and 55 percent generally against. (1/7/04)
Other Issues and Impacts
12. Impacts on other services
a.US Postal Service (USPS): Carriers report extra time to do routes resulting in reduction in
service and incurring extra costs. The carriers would prefer speed humps instead.
b.Utilities Department: No major issues during trial. But the measures will increase costs and
time of response for servicing and replacing utilities of all types.
Public Works Maintenance: Identifies maintenance problems during trial (cost about
$3000) and projected maintenance cost annually of about $10,000, about 60% of which is
due to manual sweeping of areas blocked for street sweepers. No funds are allocated for
extra maintenance.
PASCO: Because many of PASCO’s runs are one-person, the driver has not found it
efficient to unlock the bollard for passage. Instead, the driver modifies the route(s). This
has resulted in increased time and cost. PASCO would prefer speed humps instead.
Prepared by Carl Stoffel
Rev 1/15/04
Attachment A Page 6 of 15
PALO ALTO FIRE DEPARTMENT
Memorandum
To: Carl Stoffel, Transportation Division
From: Nick Marinaro, Deputy Fire Chief
Subject: Feedback / Input re: Traffic Calming Study of Downtown North
Date: Revised October 31, 2003
Fire Department feedback is being provided from Station #1 (301 Alma Street) and Station #3 (799
Embarcadero Road). Comments are based on input from Captains normally assigned to these
stations and a review of response time data
Response times to emergency calls within and near the Downtown North neighborhood will
not exceed the Department’s mission goals of 4 minutes for 90% of fire and basic medical
responses and 6 minutes for 90% of advanced medical responses (paramedics).
Comments: We examined response time data for the 6 month period between June 1, 2002 thru
December 31, 2002 and compared it to response data for the 4 month period of June 1, 2003 thru
November 1, 2003. Both response districts are inclusive of the Downtown North Trial Traffic
Calming evaluation area. We examined like calls responded to during both periods (same address,
similar time of day, similar call type.) There were very few emergency responses in the evaluation
area during the six month trial period. We noted no significant increase in response time from the
year prior to the trial period. Fire apparatus also simulated responses in which the first responding
unit either drove around the block to avoid a bollard or disembarked to unlock a bollard. This
resulted in delays of one (1) minute or greater.
It is difficult to quantify or even qualify the adverse impact of a response delay of a minute or more.
It depends entirely upon the nature of the incident and the elapsed time of the incident. For
example, a medical incident involving an ankle sprain would probably have no adverse outcome as a
result of a delay of 1-2 minutes. A cardiac arrest, on the other hand, could have an adverse impact
depending upon the stage of the cardiac arrest upon arrival. Brain oxygen deprivation of greater than
6 minutes in general is known to have severe adverse effects on a patient. Even with a delay of 1-2
minutes, if the emergency responders arrived and began the necessary treatment prior to 6 minutes,
this may not result in an adverse outcome. A delay which places them at the scene after 6 minutes
certainly could be problematic. It depends on when in the scenario the responders access the patient,
the nature of the injury, and the timeliness of the necessary intervention. A fire situation is similar in
that a response delay in a small fire with limited fuel may not evolve dramatically in 1-2 minutes but
a fire which has been smoldering, has adequate amounts of fuel and reaches its ignition temperature
can "flashover" in a matter of moments. A 1-2 minute delay which allows the phase of the fire to
reach ignition temperature and get to flashover prior to the arrival of fire suppression units could be
very problematic. Again, it depends upon the particular timing in the specific event and the nature of
the event. There are multiple variables which contribute to both. This explains the reasons for the
difficulty in quantifying these types of events as they relate to delays in emergency response.
Attachment A Page 7 of 15
2.There will be no serious impediments in any emergency activities, including identifiable
trends
re: increase in response times during the trial period within and near the Downtown North
neighborhood attributable to the traffic calming plan.
Comments: The following observations were made by the Captains:
¯ Any traffic calrning proposal which blocks or closes streets presents a major problem because it
limits options and alternatives when responding to a fire scenario
¯It restricts multiple response units to one means of access and egress
¯The water supply (fire hydrant) may be located on the opposite side of the closure and not readily
available. This will invariably result in delays in obtaining a requisite water supply for
fire suppression efforts
¯Private vehicles blocking access by parking in front of the closure thinking it is a "closed" street.
This has been observed once during the course of an emergency response to this area
during the trial period.
¯ Disembarking from the apparatus to unlock bollards will result in a delayed response
¯On multiple alarm situations in which numerous fire units respond, the restricted access can
create vehicle congestion that may limit the effectiveness and maneuverability of available
equipment.
¯Unfamiliarity of mutual aid companies from outside jurisdictions with "barricaded" areas or
not having the bollard key which would hamper their response
¯Effectiveness of citizen evacuation out of the area during the course of an emergency may be
adversely impacted
3. What would be the impact on emergency response to Lytton Gardens and Webster House?
Comments: There were no reported or documented adverse delays to 656 Lytton or to 437 Webster.
Lytton Avenue, even prior to the calming study, can be very congested depending on the traffic and
time of day. The same can be said for 437 Webster as response units must either use University
Avenue or Lytton as the main route of travel. Both of these occupancies have some degree of
nursing staff (437 Webster is full time) so generally there is some assistance available prior to the
arrival of the Fire Department on medical calls and there is someone other than the occupants
present. We have received no reports from our field units of extraordinary or unusual (other than the
current norm) response delays as a direct result of the Downtown North Traffic Calming trial period.
During an emergency response the vehicle code allows fire apparatus to travel on the wrong side of
the street to bypass traffic. This response strategy is routinely used when responding to emergencies
to avoid blocked traffic.
Conclusions:
1)A traffic calming system which employs street closures and / or bollards which must be
negotiated present a problem for emergency responders and will result in response delays or
unusual challenges as noted in the above comments. Although the Downtown North Traffic
Calming plan is not intended for the fire department to unlock/remove bollards while
responding to emergencies, alternate routes of travel also may result in a longer response time.
Attachment A Page 8 of 15
2)Albeit the Downtown North study does not incorporate any narrowing of streets, as a general
statement, a traffic calming system which results in narrowing of streets below acceptable limits
(less than 20 foot width of the street as stipulated in the Fire Code) can impair apparatus
maneuverability and placement.
3)The impact of response delays created by traffic calming devises is dependent upon a number
of variables and is incident-specific as noted in Item #1 which therefore makes it very difficult to
both quantify and in many cases qualify.
It is imperative that the citizens understand the tradeoff of increased delays verses the neighborhood
benefits. If the goal of traffic calming is successful in slowing traffic, emergency response vehicles
will also be slowed.
Attachment A Page 9 of 15
From: Doris Cohen
Date: 1114/04
To: Carl Stoffel
Here is the information we discussed this morning and the supporting documentation. This
information includes data in reporting district 4 and everything on Lytton Avenue from June 16 -
December 15, 2000 - 2003. Dacia and I looked at the Streets on Lytton Avenue and concluded the
following.
There were a total of SO accidents on L)~tton Avenue in the time period requested. Of
those accidents, 4 fall into exception data. Three of those 4 list an actual street
address rather than a block range, and the other seems to fall outside of the criteria
all together.
The totals for the information requested are as follows:
RD4 includes anything on or within the boundaries of Lytton Avenue, Alma Street, Palo Alto
Avenue and Middlefield Road.
Year RD4
2000 47
2001 31
2002 33
2003 20
Lytton Avenue includes any and all accidents on Lytton Avenue.
Year Lytton
2000 12
2001 15
2002 9
2003 14
Lytton Exceptions
-1 (Lytton or Middlefield)
-1 (530 Lytton Avenue) B of A Building
-1 (530 Lytton Avenue) B of A Building
-1 (450 Lytton Avenue) Parking Lot T
Please review the data and let me know if you have any questions.
Thanks,
Doris Cohen
Crime Analyst
Palo Alto Police Department
275 Forest Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
(650) 329-2145 office
(650) 329-2565 fax
doris.cohen@cityofpaloalto.org mailto:doris.cohen@cityofpaloalto.orq
Attachment A Page 10 of 15
Palo Alto
Downtown North
Reporting District 4
This map is a product of
Ci{y.of Palo Alto
Attachment A Page 11 of 15
From: Mark Venable
Date: 1/14/04
To: Carl Stoffel
Carl,
As we discussed earlier, Doris Cohen, our Crime Analyst, will be forwarding you the statistical
information pertaining to our calls-for-service and accident data under separate cover. Below is
our response to your specific questions:
Item 1. "There will be no identifiable pattern of crashes directly attributable to the traffic calming
plan at any location within and around the periphery of the Downtown North neighborhood."
We did not observe an "identifiable pattern of crashes directly attributable to the traffic calming
plan."
Item 2. ’:At the Middlefield/Everett intersection, there will be no more than 3 crashes caused by
a vehicle entering orleaving Middlefield via eitherleg of Everett. [Since 1995, an average of
approximately six such accidents per year have occurred at this location.]"
During the six month evaluation period, June 16 through December 15, 2003, there were no
accidents at Everett Avenue and Middlefield Road. During the same time period last year, there
were four.
Item 3. "The response times for Fire and Police Department calls within and near the Downtown
North neighborhood will not exceed the Departments’ mission goal of 4 minutes for 90% of fire
and basic medical responses, 6 minutes for 90% of advanced medical responses (paramedics),
and 3 minutes for police calls-attributable to implementation of the traffic calming plan."
An analysis of Police response times did not show the Department’s mission goals identified
above were exceed due to the implementation of the traffic calming plan.
Item 4: "There will be no serious impediments in any emergency activities, including identifiable
trends in increase in response times during the trial period, of the Fire and Police Departments
within and near the Downtown North neighborhood attributable to the traffic calming plan."
During the six month period we had one incident, during the first month of implementation, in
which Police Officers were attempting to apprehend a strong-arm robbery suspect who had fled
into the Downtown North area. Due to the newness of the traffic calming program and the
officers’ unfamiliarity with the devices, the suspect successfully evaded apprehension as the two
officers, who were converging on the area from different directions, were blocked by the various
road closures.
Lastly, you had asked if any accidents were caused directly by the traffic calming measures.
There were no reported accidents attributed to the devices. During the evaluation period, there
were two accidents into fixed objects in reporting area four, both were vehicles into trees.
During this sametime period last year, there was similarly two accidents into fixed objects,
although the fixed objects were a wall and guardrail.
Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance,
Mark
Attachment A Page 12 of 15
KEY
~ Increase >10%
¯¯Residents
Reported Increase
Note: the gateways and
bulbouts allow full two-
way traffic access
D2
D8 (+80%)(+225 vpd)
D11
(+80%)
1-165
D28 (+138%)
(+355 vpd)
( D10
(+23%)
D9 (.~ 3%)
(+24(
D27 (+91%)
(+3OO vpd)
D12 (+44%)
(+410 vpd)D13
D14
D16 (
F
II D19 (+52 %)
(+440 vpd)
D23
D17
[320
D24
D26
DLEFIELD
DOVM’4TOWN
NOR1H
"IP, AFRC
CALMING
FROJECT
Attachment A Page 13 of 15
~1 NOCHANGE ÷ - 10%
DECREASE <10%
Palo Alto
. Lytton Neighborhood
Traffic Volume Changes
Before-After DTN Project
-3
This map is a product o! lh~
Oily of Paso Alto GIS
Attachment A Page 14 of 15
DOWNTOWN NORTH NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC STUDY--
BEFORE/AFTER VOLUME COUNTS
LOCATION
D1
D2
D3
D4
D5
D6
D7
D8
D9
D10
Dll
D12
D13
D14
D15
D16
D17
D18
D19
D20
D21
D22
D23
D24
D25
D26
D27
D28
L1
L8
L9
L10
Lll
L13
MP1
MP2
MP3
BEFORE VOLUMES
FEB-MAR 03
TOTAL
921
1996
2263
15801.5
485.5
433
1508.5
280.5
1151.5
11863.5
210
937.5
1951.5
2525
2565
1327.5
1819
1592.5
842.5
2084.5
14836
840
2620
2374
1959
19979
328
257
1688
2030.5
1594
236
816.5
3031.5
23060
5432.5
3745.5
3368
AFTER VOLUMES
30SEPT-1 OCT 03’
TOTAL
0
1242
409.5
16529
487
427
896
505
1391.5
14584
377
1350
1553.5
431
946.5
1305
1524.5
527.5
1284
1503
14933
303.5
1340.5
692
1218
14313.5
626
612
1469
1915
1442.5
235
513.5
2471
22045.5
5478.5
4055.5
3577
ABSOLUTE
CHANGE
TOTAL
-921
-754
-1853.5
727.5
1.5
-6
-612.5
224.5
240
2720.5
167
412.5
-398
-2094
-1618.5
-22.5
-294.5
-1065
441.5
-581.5
97
-536.5
-1279.5
-1682
-741
-5665.5
298
355
-219
-115.5
-151.5
-1
-303
-560.5
-1014.5
46
310
2O9
%CHANGE
TOTAL
-100.0%
-37.8%
-81.9%
4.6%
0.3%
-1.4%
-40.6%
80.0%
20.8%
22.9%
79.5%
44.0%
-20.4%
-82.9%
-63.1%
-1.7%
-16.2%
-86.9%
52.4%
-27.9%
0.7%
-63.9%
-48.8%
-70.9%
-37.8%
-28.4%
90.9%
138.1%
-13.0%
-5.7%
-9.5%
-0.4%
-37.1%
-18.5%
-4.4%
0.8%
8.3%
6.2%
COMMENTS
"After"-coun! not done.assumed esser~tially zer
Count started 10/14103
Oount started 10/14/03
Count started 10/14/03
’amp. Count started 10114103
Count started 10/14/03 1011 count was 489
Counted 11/18-19/03 after construction
Counted 11/18-19t03 after construction
Count started 10/14/03
qotes: ¯ Except where note~ in comments
Attachment A Page 15 of 15
ATTACHMENT B
PTC R~PORT 1/21/04
NOTIFICATION AREA DESCRIPTION
Staff sent neighborhood meeting notices and the January 6, 2004 letter announcing the
January 21 Planning and Transportation Commission meeting to households and businesses
with a postal address in the following areas. These are the same areas that staff had originally
proposed including in the advisory opinion survey. (1) Lytton neighborhood (located
between Middlefield, Chaucer, University, and the creek), including both sides of University
and Chaucer and excluding Middlefield addresses. (2) Businesses and residences with
addresses on the east side of Alma; both sides of Lytton between Alma and Middlefield,
including properties abutting the south side of Lytton; and both sides of Middlefield between
the creek and University. (3) Interior of the Downtown North neighborhood (located between
Alma, Lytton, Middlefield, and San Francisquito Creek, excluding addresses on those three
streets. Non-resident owners of property in those areas were also included. Refer to the
following map of these three areas.
Attachment B Page 1 of 2
Palo Alto
Downtown North Project
Mailing Areas
This map is a product of the
C~ty of PaIo AIIo GIS
Attachment B Page 2 of 2
PTC REPORT 1/21/04
ATTACHMENT C
STREET CLOSURE DESIGN FOR FIRE DEPARTMENT ACCESS
A Fire Department representative participated in the 1990-2000 planning phase of the Downtown
North projec.t as a member of the project advisory committee. Emergency vehicle access was
discussed in detail in the October 11, 2000 staff report to the PTC (pp 11-12 and Attachments 8 and
9), and CMR:440:00 (pp 5-6). In 2002, the Transportation Division worked closely with Fire
representatives in the detailed design phase. Transportation and Fire staff attempted to develop a new
design that was "permeable". This would be a design similar to the concrete blocks over which only
high clearance vehicles can drive (such as used in the College Terrace closures), but improved to
minimize passage of unauthorized drivers of high clearance vehicles such as SUVs and delivery
trucks. The unlockable steel bollard used in all current closure designs (including those that
ultimately were used in Downtown North) are not considered "permeable" because of the delay
resulting when a fire truck or ambulance driver has to exit a vehicle and unlock and remove the
bollard. The result of the design effort was that a cost-effective, improved "permeable" design was
elusive. After considerable effort, Fire and Transportation agreed that the best design for this project
would be the standard unlockable steel bollard design used in past projects.
One exception was the closure on Everett between High and Emerson, next to Fire Station #1, where
the Fire Department wanted a truly permeable design. Here, the concrete block design was used, but
a flexible plastic post was attached to the block and later to the street surface adjacent to the block.
The purpose was to deter unauthorized drivers, but still allow fire tracks and paramedic vans to drive
over the flexible post with no vehicle damage and minimal delay. The conclusion was that after
repeated usage the post broke, creating a maintenance problem. In addition, some of the newer
paramedic vehicles could not clear the concrete block. As a result, fire personnel began avoiding that
route, essentially defeating the purpose of that permeable design. Staff thus feels that this is not a
practical long-term permeable closure design due to maintenance problems and the difficulty of
determining the correct block height as different emergency vehicles come into use. At this point, the
only permeable design that appears to be an acceptable permanent solution is the radio-controlled,
automatically retractable bollard that is being successfully used on the Stanford campus (which is
served by the Palo Alto Fire Department). The retractable bollard has not been tried in any Palo Alto
project due to its high cost (approximately $30,000 for the bollard and associated equipment). For
the Downtown North project at critical closure locations (such as on Everett near Fire Station # 1, if a
closure were to remain there), it would be desirable to replace the current bollards with the automatic
retractable bollards when funding becomes available.
Attachment D Page 1 of 1
PTC REPORT 1/21/04
ATTACHMENT D
FIVE FUTURE OPTIONS FOR THE DOWNTOWN NORTH PROJECT
Guidelines Used by Staff to Select the Four Options for Public Consideration
Staff developed about two dozens options and variations to be considered for the future of
this project. To reduce this to a workable number, staff developed and applied the following
guidelines.
¯Minimize costs, as no more funds are budgeted for this project.
¯Try to make current plan work acceptably, as this plan accomplishes the primary project
goal and was supported for implementation by a majority of resident survey respondents,
PTC and Council.
¯Maintain primary project goal of volume reduction.
¯Offer an "no closures" plan to PTC and Council, other than removal of everything.
¯Include the "do nothing" alternative of removing the existing plan and doing nothing
further (except to address the Middlefield/Everett crash problem).
¯Minimize use of speed humps and tables as traffic calming measures because many
residents have strong negative opinions about vertical measures; and they need to be
located midblock abutting residential properties, often leading to divisiveness in
determining acceptable locations and complicating the planning process.
¯Avoid introducing new and/or complex concepts and/or a substantial number of new
elements, or any options that require continued neighborhood review. Transportation staff
does not support a new traffic calming study process for this neighborhood.
¯Limit the number of options offered to public or decision-makers to a workable maximum
few.
Description of Five Options
The advantages and disadvantages of each plan listed below do not carry equal weight. Their
relative importance is subjective. Nor does the quantity of each indicate greater or lesser
aggregate advantage or disadvantage. Refer to map of each plan in the following pages.
REMOVE TRIAL PLAN
This plan consists of removing all trial elements within the neighborhood and not installing
any others. The modifications made to the Lytton/Alma and Lytton!Middlefield intersections
and signals would remain. This would return traffic flow in the area to essentially the pre-
trial or "before" condition. The remaining arterial intersection improvements might offer a
little more inducement than before for cut-through traffic to remain on the arterial streets. At
any time in the future, residents could submit requests for traffic calming measures on an
Attachment D Page 1 of 10
individual street through the City’s "Spot Treatment" Traffic Calming Program. With this
optign, a pre-existing safety problem at the Middlefield!Everett intersection would need to be
addressed. A possible solution, which would be instituted as a separate safety-related action
(i.e., not for traffic calming purposes), would be eastbound "right turn only" restrictions at
Everett, Hawthorne and Palo Alto Ave at Middlefield, during certain hours. Approximate
cost to remove all measures installed for the trial: $33,000.
Advantages
¯Return to "open streets" grid pattern with no detours, driver confusion or unexpected
driver behavior (i.e. no more than usual)
¯No traffic diversion problems
¯Essentially no impediments to emergency vehicle access or other services
¯Return to prior somewhat lower congestion levels on arterials and at AlmafLytton and
MiddlefieldiLytton
¯No increased maintenance
Disadvantages
¯Traffic volumes and cut-through traffic return to substantially higher pre-trial levels,
with consequent loss of advantages resulting from less traffic on neighborhood
streets, as originally desired by neighborhood representatives and as embodied in City
Council approval to implement the plan (return of about 10,000 daily entries/exits or
about 5000 daily through trips)
¯Crash reduction potential at Middlefield/Everett less than current trial plan (even with
future outbound turn restrictions)
NO CLOSURES PLAN
The purpose of this plan is to provide an option without any totally closed streets that
provides a minimal degree of through traffic reduction. The plan consists of removing all the
street closures and the two gateway features near Middlefield; retaining the bulbout on
Waverley and both arterial intersection modifications; adding three traffic circles on Everett
and Hawthorne and a speed table to the existing gateway on Everett at High; and
implementing peak hour turn restrictions into the neighborhood from Alma and Middle field.
This option keeps streets mostly open and offers a minimal level of through traffic reduction
by means of the combinations of measures. The circles and speed table also help reduce
speeds in their vicinities. Traffic circles permit all intersection movements and would be
similar in concept to the one on Lytton at Fulton. An example of a speed table is located on
Channing at Lincoln. Approximate cost to remove most trial measures, install new measures,
and gather new traffic counts: $94,000
Attachment D Page 2 of 10
Advantages
¯Returns streets to mostly "open" status with substantially reduced detours, driver
confusion or unexpected behavior
¯Speed reduction to 15 mph at 4 locations on Hawthorne and Everett
¯Substantially less traffic diversion problems than with current trial plan--mostly
during weekday peak hours. Cases of exceeding 25% maximum increase threshold on
any given local neighborhood street not expected but should be verified through a trial
¯No impediments to emergency access and minimal for other services. Circles are
acceptable to Fire Department
¯Less congestion on artefials and at Alma/Lytton and MiddlefieldiLytton on a daily
basis than with current trial plan
¯Less maintenance required than with current trial plan
Disadvantages
¯Minimal volume reduction from combination of measures--about 20% through traffic
reduction (reduction of about 1100 daily through trips or 2200 daily entries/exits)
compared to 90% with current trial plan (reduction of about 5000 daily through trips
or 10,000 daily entries/exits). Consequent decrease of advantages resulting from less
traffic on neighborhood streets, as originally desired by neighborhood representatives
and as embodied in City Council approval to implement the plan
¯Weekday peak hour turn restrictions cause moderate increase of peak hour traffic and
queuing on arterials and at Alma!Lytton and Middlefield/Lytton intersections, but
LOS remains acceptable
¯Inbound weekday peak hour turn restrictions will force residents to use Lytton and
north-south neighborhood streets for access to/from neighborhood and somewhat
restrict access for non-emergency services during those hours
¯Accident reduction potential at Middlefield/Everett less than current trial plan
¯Weekday peak hour turn restrictions require Police Department occasional
enforcement, competing with other peak hour traffic enforcement needs. Expected
violation rate of approximately 20 percent would generate some complaints to the
City, with little to no additional enforcement response possible.
¯Most expensive to implement
MIXED MEASURES PLAN
The purpose of this plan is to solve or reduce most of the problems with the current trial plan
while still maintaining some through traffic reduction, albeit substantially less than attained
by the current trial plan and than required by the Council-adopted performance measure. The
plan consists of removing three of the seven street closures and relocating one of the
remaining four; removing the two gateway features near Middlefield; keeping the Waverley
Attachment D Page 3 of 10
bulbout and both arterial intersection modifications; adding three traffic circles on Everett
and Hawthorne and a speed table to the existing gateway on Everett at High; and
implementing peak hour turn restrictions into the neighborhood from Alma and Middlefield.
Approximate cost to remove some trial measures, install new measures, and gather new
traffic counts: $94,000
Advantages
¯Provides reasonable volume reduction with a combination of measures, including four
street closures--about 40% through traffic reduction (reduction of about 2200 daily
through trips or 4400 daily entries/exits) compared to about 90% with current trial
plan (reduction of about 5000 daily through trips or 10,000 daily entries/exits)
¯Maintains protection for Palo Alto Avenue
¯Speed reduction to 15 mph at three locations on Hawthorne and Everett and one on
Webster
¯Less traffic diversion within the neighborhood than with current trial plan, not
expected to exceed the 25% maximum increase threshold on most local streets (see
disadvantages below). Less driver confusion and unexpected behavior
¯Fewer impediments to Fire Department vehicles and other services than current trial
plan (three fewer street closures). Circles are acceptable to Fire Department
¯Less congestion on a daily basis on arterials and at Alma/Lytton and Middlefield/
Lytton than with current trial plan
¯Slightly less maintenance required than with current trial plan
¯Closure next to Stanford Electric removed
¯Two gateways near Middlefield removed
Disadvantages
¯Through traffic reduction substantially less than the current trial plan--about 40%
through traffic reduction (reduction of about 2200 daily through trips or 4400 daily
entries/exits) compared to about 90% with current trial plan (reduction of about 5000
daily through trips or 10,000 daily entries/exits). Consequent decrease of advantages
resulting from less traffic on neighborhood streets, as originally desired by
neighborhood representatives and as embodied in City Council approval to implement
the plan
¯Traffic diversion on some low-volume segments on north side of neighborhood (such
as Cowper, Ruthven and Tasso) might still exceed the 25% maximum increase
threshold--verification required
¯Some impediments to Fire Department vehicles and other services still remain
¯Weekday peak hour turn restrictions cause moderate increase of peak hour traffic and
queuing on arterials and at Alma/Lytton and Middlefield/Lytton intersections, but
LOS remains acceptable
Attachment D Page 4 of 10
¯Palo Alto Avenue traffic at Middlefield added to traffic on Hawthorne and Everett
(as with current trial plan)
¯Crash reduction potential at Middlefield/Everett less than current trial plan
¯Inbound weekday peak hour turn restrictions will force residents to use Lytton and
north-south neighborhood streets for access to/from neighborhood during those hours
¯Weekday peak hour turn restrictions require Police Department occasional
enforcement, competing with other peak hour traffic enforcement needs. Expected
violation rate of approximately 20 percent would generate some complaints to the
City, with little to no additional enforcement response possible.
REDUCE CURRENT PLAN
The purpose of this plan is to attempt to reduce the negative internal volume impacts of the
current plan and still maintain strong through traffic reduction, by slightly opening up the
neighborhood. Two of the 7 street closures and 2 gateways would be removed. One of the
remaining closures would be relocated. No turn restrictions or other traffic calming measures
would be installed. Approximate cost to remove and modify some trial measures and gather
new traffic counts: $31,000.
Advantages
¯ Provides slightly less through traffic reduction than current plan--about 75%
(reduction of about 4100 through trips or 8200 daily entries/exits), compared to 90%
with current trial plan (reduction of about 5000 daily through trips or 10,000 daily
entries/exits). Slight decrease of the advantages resulting from less traffic on
neighborhood streets, as originally desired by neighborhood representatives and per
Council approval to implement the plan
¯Traffic diversion on interior streets hopefully reduced to less than 25% increase--
verification needed
¯Slightly fewer impediments to emergency services than current trial plan (2 fewer
street closures, including removal of one near Fire Station 1)
¯Closure next to Stanford Electric removed
¯Maintains crash reduction potential of current trial plan at Middlefield/Everett
Disadvantages
¯Traffic diversion on some segments might still exceed 25% increase--verification
required
¯Despite improvements, most impediments to emergency service access still remain
¯Maintenance requirement only slightly less than current trial plan
Attachment D Page 5 of 10
AUGMENT CURRENT PLAN
Thepurpose of this plan is to attempt to reduce the negative internal volume impacts of the
current plan and maintain and even enhance its success at reducing through traffic. The plans
keeps all elements of the trial plan except for removal of the two gateways near Middlefield
(includes relocating one closure); and adds peak hour turn restrictions into the neighborhood
from Alma and Middlefield. Approximate cost to remove some trial measures, install new
measures, and gather new traffic counts: $26,000.
Advantages
*Provides slightly increased volume reduction compared to current trial plan--about
95% through traffic reduction (reduction of about 5400 daily through trips or 10,800
daily entries/exits) compared to about 90% with current trial plan (reduction of about
5000 daily through trips or 10,000 daily entries/exits). Maintains and enhances the
consequent advantages resulting from less traffic on neighborhood streets, as
originally desired by neighborhood representatives and embodied in City Council
approval to implement the plan
¯Peak hour turn restrictions and relocation of one Hawthorne closure one block west
potentially will reduce traffic diversion on interior street segments where it exceeds
the 25% maximum increase threshold with the current trial plan, to below that
threshold--monitoring needed through a trial (see disadvantages below)
¯Maintains crash reduction potential at MiddlefieldiEverett of current trial plan
¯Least expensive to implement
Disadvantages
¯Traffic diversion on interior street segments where it exceeds the maximum desired
25% increase with the current trial plan might still occur, and needs to be verified that
acceptable level is reached
¯No improvements in Fire Department access. Somewhat decreased access for other
services due to weekday peak hour turn restrictions
¯Weekday peak hour turn restrictions cause moderate increase of peak hour traffic and
queuing on arterials and at Alma/Lytton and Middlefield/Lytton intersections, but
LOS remains acceptable
¯Inbound weekday peak hour turn restrictions will force residents to use Lytton and
north-south neighborhood streets for access to/from neighborhood during those hours
¯Weekday peak hour turn restrictions require Police Department occasional
enforcement, competing with other peak hour traffic enforcement needs. Expected
violation rate of approximately 20 percent would generate some complaints to the
City, with little to no additional enforcement response possible.
¯Maintenance requirement same as current trial plan
¯Closure next to Stanford Electric remains
Attachment D Page 6 of 10
7-10AM
KEY
~ Existing Stop Sign
=. c, au~vay
~ Bulbout Pair
~)Tm~ Ciml~
Note: the gateways,
bulbout and trafr~
circles allow full two-way
traffic access
Johnson
Park
Existing Gateway /
Existing 7-10 AM 7-10 AM3-6 PM 3-6 PM
NO CLO~
PLAN
DOV~NTOV~N
CALMING PR~ JE~C’f
Attachment D Page 7 of 10
NOT THROUGH ROUTES
TO ALMA
7-10!
iExist~g Closure
==Gataway
~,Bulbout Pair
~)Traff~ C~’~N
!-" Guide Sign
¯ Street Closure
Note: the gateway,
bulbout, and traffic
circles a Ilow full two-way
traffic access
Johnson
Park
Existing Gateway
DOV~NTOV~N
NO R]H 3PAFFIC
CALMING PROJECT
Attachment D Page 8 of 10
Johnson
Park
/
Note: the gate~y and
bulbout al~w full ~o-
~y t~ffic acce~
DOWN]OWN
NO RqH 3PgkFFIC
CALMING PRgJECT
Attachment D Page 9 of 10
HAWTHORNE & EVERETT
NOT THROUGH ROU3"F~TO ALMA
KEY
~ Existing Stop Sign
¯Street Closure
.= Gateway
~ Butbout Pair
I-- Through Traf~c Guide Sign
Note: the gateway and
bulbout allow full two-
way traffic acces~
Johnson
Park
I R~elocat~d
AUGMENT
C~R_AN
DOWNTOWN
NORTH 1F~FRC
CALMING I:~O JECT
3-6 PM
Attachment D Page 10 of 10
PTC REPORT 1/21/04
ATTACHMENT E
PROPOSED OPINION SURVEY CARD FORMAT
DOWNTOWN NORTH TRAFFIC CALMING PROJECT ADVISORY SURVEY
STEP 1: Read the accompanying letter and descriptions of options.
STEP 2: Place a "%" next to your preference for:
"Augment Current Plan" YES__ NO
STEP 3: If you checked NO in Step 2, place a "%" next to ONE of the following three
alternatives:
"Remove Trial Plan"
"No Closures Plan"
"Mixed Measures Plan"
"Reduce Current Plan"
[Note: Staff may reduce the number of alternatives on the survey card.]
Comments or other ideas:
! On the front of this card, write your remm street address (and business name if
applicable). Mail this card by [date].
Attachment E Page 1 of 1
ATTACHMENT F
PTC REPORT 1/21/04
SUMMARY OF PUBLIC COMMENTS
UNSOLICITED COMMENTS FROM RESIDENTS
Between June 2003 (when the trial was implemented) to January 7, 2004, Transportation Division
received approximately 200 unsolicited e-mails, letters and phone calls about the trial. These were
not in response to any formal request for input and thus do not represent a comprehensive assessment
of neighborhood opinion. Very approximately, 45 percent of these were in general favor of the
project and 55 percent generally against. The major themes of the communications are listed below.
¯Block specific pros and cons
¯Emergency access
¯General policy of closing streets bad and inconvenient
¯General good from the project, including safety, better environment for walking and
biking
¯Negative impact or no improvement on Middlefield
¯Increase in speeding, fast tunas, running stop signs, U-rams
¯Increase of congestion on Lytton
¯The current plan implementation was based on prior, outdated traffic conditions
¯Unwise use of $$ in lean budget times
¯Disagreement with staff’s proposed survey methodology
¯Some tweaking needed for the current plan
¯Parking intrusion
¯Enforcement issues
RESIDENTS COMMENTS AT TVVO NEIGHBORHOOD MEETINGS
Downtown North Traffic Calming THai Project Neighborhood Meeting, November 6, 2003, 7:00 PM to
9:00 PM: Notes taken by Ruchika AggarwaL
1. From DTNAA: Can we have all this info posted on DTNAA past this meeting? Carl mentioned we
will mail all this and then post it on the cityls website.
2. 325 Waverly: Are you considering traffic flow when the big garage opens up? Carl: Not thought
much about it.
3. 235 Kipling: Have been greatly impacted on my street. 160% increase of traffic (near the park).
Accident a few nights ago. Hit and run the bollard.
4. 275 Hawthorne: Am an environmentalist, against the plan. See less cyclists, taking left on Lytton at
peak hours.
5. 275 Hawthome (Tony): Have the accidents (60% reduction in DTN) been moved to the other part of
town?
6. 351 Bryant St.: Was the plan to close streets understood by the Fire Dept.? Do they have enough data
to compare?
7. 100 block Bryant: Is tonight the evening to get information and not express whether we are for or
against?
Attachment F Page 1 of 6
8. If the bollards change to flexible ones, will the Fire Dept. prefer those?
9. 100 Webster, Apt. bldg.: Did not get notice. How meaningful are these evaluations?
10. 789 University: City is concentrating only on DTN. Is there an accounting of where these commuters
are going and traveling on which roads?
11. Comer of Hawthorne and Middlefield: Narrowing of this intersection has become very dangerous.
Questions on alternate plans:
1. 280 Waverly: 550 response calls made. What are the factors that the Fire Dept. cannot make a 4 to 6
minute goal?
2. 230 Emerson: Bollards are same size as parked cars. But most of the bulbouts installed are in illegal
spaces (too close to comer).
3.Change closures to speed bumps/speed tables.
4.Glenna Viollett: Very opposed to this. None of the alternatives will work.
5.Does the city have money to remove all these plans and try another plan?
6. 66 Everett: According to California State Highway (Caltrans), bulbouts are most dangerous on 2 lane--
2 way roads. How come you are not proposing to remove these?
7. How come roundabouts became acceptable now and were not earlier?
8. Did you explore putting flexible bollards in the new alternative plans? Move the street closure at
Hawthorne at Cowper on the other side because of street width.
9. 255 Everett: It is a 6 month trial. But the public hearings are in Feb.-March. Will the trial plan go on
till Feb.-March then?
10. Did Fire Dept. say that if they go in right streets, there will not be any delay?
11. Have talked to lawyers, and it is illegal to close local streets.
12. 160 Palo Alto Ave.: Very happy with plan. Even more traffic on my street. My kids are biking to
school; possible only this year.
Questions on survey:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
What do you use the survey for?
Is this a survey or a vote?
The content: Will it be something we discussed today or something new?
Significant change in the neighborhood, or give new residents a chance to know.
Many cities use supermajority for approval (75%, 66.7%, 60%).
Attachment F Page 2 of 6
6. Steve Emslie has committed to 50 plus 1% approval. Has the Transportation Division changed its
mind?
7.Middlefield: Why do people on Middlefield but addresses on side streets are on yellow?
8.Annual cost of $10K--has City Council thought of it?
9.Survey content: What kind of traffic calming measures would you like?
10.Most of the plan is terrific. Has given back the neighborhood to residents.
11. Survey is great opportunity to ask residents what they like instead of giving them just 3-4 alternatives.
Include a blank sheet for options.
12. Safety is the major concem. Can you talk more about streets with speeds?
13.45% increase in my street, but I still support the plan. Put stress more on number of cars (absolute
value) instead of on percentages.
14. Where is the traffic going if it is not backing up on Lytton?
15. Survey should be available during City Council meetings.
16. Removing barriers means 150% increase in traffic. Supermajority should be required to remove the
barriers.
Comments and questions recorded on easel pad sheets:
1. Safety or protecting rental property?
2. Are you considering impact of new garage on traffic flow?
3. Additional traffic on park side and an accident.
4. Opposed to blocking traffic--more use of fossil fuels-more chance of collisions.
5.What’s happened to accident volume?
6.Did Fire Dept. understand goals? How is it affecting their service?
7.Who is elgible to participate in survey and meetings? Getting all notified who are eligible to vote?
8.For what will survey be used?
9.Ifbollards were flexible, would Fire Dept. be able to get through?
10.Notifying apartment residents?
11.How meaningful is data about accidents?
12.What is happening to redistibution of drivers into neighboring areas?
Attachment F Page 3 of 6
13.Are people going to be surveyed who are being negatively impacted by redirected traffic?
14.Concern about narrowing of Hawthorne east of Middlefield.
15.What keeps emergency response from taking 4-6 minutes?
16.Bulbout locations too close to comers.
17.Is it possible to replace road blocks with speed tables/bumps?
18.These alternatives are not desirable.
19.Is there money to make modifications? Where is the money coming from?
20.Doesn’t lack of money allocation nullify options?
21.Removal of bulbouts, in view of narrowing lanes--2 lanes on 2 way avenues--space between bulbouts.
22.How come roundabouts now seem possibly workable?
23.Flexible bollards--were they explored for being put in? Everett and Cowper--remove.
24. Only 15% of neighbors approved trial? Will trial be at least 8 months long?
Will diverters be left in place 8 months? Some people want to maintain calming measures.
25. Benefits of blockages.
26. Would Fire Dept. response time be improved if they learn the available routes--if they go on correct
street?
27.Get someone from Fire Dept. to meeting.
28.Legality of street closures?
29.Now itls possible to bike to school safely with kids.
30.All address units included? Adult residents included (in voting)?
31.A survey or a vote? (An opinion survey).
32.Will the survey include questions besides those in the report?
33.Maybe significant change in neighborhood.
34. Use supermajority to avoid contentiousness. Is there a 50% requirement now? Benchmark of 50%
plus 1--why would that change?
35. Who made decision about property at Middlefield and Everett? Why separate tabulations based on
property/location?
Attachment F Page 4 of 6
3 6. Additional cost of $1 OK per year--where does funding come from? In survey, include listing of variety
of options.
37. Most of changes are terrific--safer--more walkers.
38. Survey is opportunity for each one to offer own original solutions. Measure performance-speed, not
just traffic calming and volume.
39.45% increase in traffic on Waverly--genera!ly satisfied with current setup. If plan is scrapped, many
more cares would be in area. Stress car count vs. percentage changes.
40. Where is all the diverted traffic going? Donlt want to push it onto others. Wants an overall traffic plan
for Palo Alto.
41. Survey should be available at City Hall meeting.
42. Removing barriers is voting for 150% increase in traffic. Should have supermajority to change.
Downtown North Traffic Calming Trial Project Neighborhood Meeting, December 4, 2003, 7:00 PM to
9:00 PM
Comments and questions recorded on easel pad sheets:
1. Speed reduction--length of travel is a consideration as well as distance.
2. Any studies on running stop signs yet? (No study yet).
3. Concerned about number of cars on a relative rather than absolute basis.
4. Do we have state of the art traffic technology on Lytton?
5. Everett and Middlefield isnlt a through street, so how can accidents be measured there as an
3intersection?2
6. Why was through traffic reduction considered as the main measure of success of the trial--what about
ripple effect on other changes?
7. Was traffic calming initiated by neighbors? Based on a survey, and, if so, what percentage responded?
8. Concemed about changes from last meeting--especially police calls. Why left out? Were numbers
from the last report accurate?
9. Would a sign eastbound at Hawthorne and Everett in the evening be a consideration? (outbound)
10. In taking out closures, why not Pato Alto Avenue? Move one from Palo Alto Avenue to Everett or
Hawthorne.
11. Can cars actually make it around traffic circles? Might they create other hazards? Data on safety?
12. More Fire Dept. data? Response time in replacing barriers with circles for fire trucks--are there data?
Attachment F Page 5 of 6
13. What percentage of those surveyed responded favorably?
14. Wouldnlt it be better to put traffic circle at Bryant instead of at Everett, due to Bryant being an existing
bike lane street? Traffic fast going through.
15. Has Fire Dept. commented on flexible bollards?
16. Has estimated reduced volume been considered on Lytton?
17.7-10 and 3-6 restriction times--can there be flexibility, maybe shorten the time (e.g., 7-9, 4-6)?
18. What is the emergency response delay? Do tests to try it out and time it in areas with each device,
contrasted to no devices. Would Fire Dept. take a route other than one that includes impediments?
19.How about having survey done professionally?
20.Was there a survey done before traffic calming on Lytton--the boundaries?
21.Shouldnlt go to Planning Commission without input from neighbors. Both sides were close on survey.
22.Disappointed if there is no survey, without getting opinions from neighborhood.
23. Regarding survey, donlt make a change without resurveying those within the neighborhood. Donlt
include those from other neighborhoods. Maintain consistency.
Comments from anonymous phone call received after 12/4 meeting:
1. Decrease in occupancy rates may cause drop of traffic between before and after.
2. Lots of people looking for apartments. Visitors have legitimate business there, but get lost. These
people don~t get used to the barriers.
Attachment F Page 6 of 6
PTC REPORT 1/21/04
ATTACHMENT G
PERFORMANCE MEASURES FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF
MIXED MEASURES PLAN
The performance measures for the Mixed Measures Plan are based on the set of performance
measures for the current trial plan, as listed in Attachment A of this report, with the following
modifications.
#1 Through Traffic Reduction. The goal of through traffic reduction will be 35 percent, as
opposed to 65 percent for the current trial plan. This will be determined by measuring the
reduction in the neighborhood cordon count using similar methodology, but with the cordon
count percentage reduction requirement determined after another set of traffic counts is taken
to establish the "before" condition prior to implementation of the Mixed Measures Plan.
#2 Speed Reduction. The Mixed Measures Plan is not designed to reduce average
neighborhood speeds except in the vicinity of the traffic circles and speed table. Speed
reduction is not a primary goal of the plan. Thus, average speed reduction will not be a goal.
Instead, it will be assumed that the incidence of speeding will be reduced in proportion to the
reduction of trips in the neighborhood, as reported in item 1.
#7 Middlefield/Everett Crash Reduction. The number of crashes at this intersection will
be mehsured but will not be a specific goal for the Mixed Measures Plan. It is desirable to
reduce crashes at this intersection, but this plan is not designed to specifically address this
problem. If the plan does not provide sufficient accident reduction at this location, it may be
necessary for staff to implement other safety measures separately from this traffic calming
plan.
# 11 Neighborhood Acceptance. A neighborhood opinion survey will not be performed for
this plan.
Attachment G Page 1 of I
PTC REPORT 1/21/04
ATTACHMENT H
1.Project Title:
Plan
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
City of Palo Alto
Department of Planning and Community Environment
Downtown North Neighborhood Traffic Calming Project--Mixed Measures
=
Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Palo Alto Transportation Division, P.O. Box
10250, Palo Alto CA 94303
3.Contact Person and Phone Number: Carl Stoffel (650) 329-2552
4.Project Location: Downtown North neighborhood, City of Palo Alto
5.Application Number(s): Not applicable
6.Project Sponsor’s Name and Address: Same as lead agency
=
General Plan Designation: Single and multiple family residential; regional/community and
neighborhood commercial; public park; major institution/special facility
8.Zoning: R-l, R-2, RM-15, RM-30, RM-D, PF, PC, CD-N, CD-C
=
Description of the Project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not
limited to later phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off-site features
necessary for its implementation. (Attach additional sheets if necessary)
Traffic calming refers to the use of engineering measures to make permanent physical changes that
reduce traffic speed and volume, thereby improving safety and livability for street users and
residents. The boundaries of the Downtown North project are Middlefield Road and Alma Street on
the east and west, and Lytton Avenue and San Francisquito Creek on the south and north. The
proposed plan is the "Mixed Measures Plan" (attached). The proposed traffic calming measures are
four street closures, one gateway with a speed table, three traffic circles, intersection peak-hour turn
restrictions, and one bulbout (a.k.a. curb extension).
All street closures utilize locked bollards, but allow the passage of emergency vehicles and trucks of
the Palo Alto Sanitation Company (PASCO) once the drivers unlock the bollards. Bicycles and
pedestrians are not impeded. Gateways and bulbouts allow passage of all vehicles, bicycles and
pedestrians. The primary purpose of the street closures is to substantially reduce non-neighborhood
commuter shortcutting traffic. In so doing, instances of speeding will be reduced. Gateways, as a
minimum, act as an architectural entry statement at the neighborhood boundary, communicating to
drivers that they are entering a new environment. They also narrow the roadway to further entice
drivers to slow down. The bulbout is similar in design, but is located next to a neighborhood park
rather than the neighborhood boundary. Traffic circles permit all intersection movements, but require
Attachment H Page 1 of 22
traffic to slow to about 15 mph to go around the circles. The speed table is a vertical rise in the
pavement that requires drivers to slow to about 20 mph, and does not block any traffic movements.
Peak hour turn restrictions prohibit turning movements by signing only during the posted hours, and
require occasional Police enforcement. Turn prohibitions at Palo Alto Avenue on Middlefield and
Alma are 24-hour restrictions, due to a street closure near Middlefield and a median on Alma.
In addition to the above project elements, the plan includes improvements (already in place) to the
surrounding arterial street system in order to enhance the ability of the arterials to carry traffic. The
improvements are (i) an improved signal coordination plan for Lytton between Alma and Middlefield;
(ii) dedicated left- and right-turn lanes at Lytton/Alma and new protected left-turn signal phase for
southbound Alma to eastbound Lytton traffic; (iii) an additional eastbound Lytton left-turn lane to
northbound Middlefield with exclusive eastbound signal phase.
The Mixed Measures Plan is Phase II of the Downtown North project. The first phase consisted of a
trial of a plan with seven street closures, three gateways and one bulbout, referred to as the Current
Trial Plan. This latter plan caused some negative impacts, resulting in its substantial modification to
become the Mixed Measures Plan evaluated in this document. Experience with the current Trial
Plan informed the development of the Mixed Measures Plan, which is expected to be installed
permanently (i.e., without a trial), but will be subject to verification of performance measures after
approximately six months of operation. If the performance measures are met, no further action will
be needed. If the measures are not met, this project will return to the Planning and Transportation
Commission and City Council to consider alternative actions
10. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: (Briefly describe the project’s surroundings)
The neighborhood consists primarily of single and multiple-family residential properties, with some
neighborhood and regional/community commercial properties on the edges of the neighborhood.
Public parkland lies in the center and along the north edge of the neighborhood. To the north, the
project area is bounded by a creek and a linear public park. To the south lies the downtown Palo
Alto commercial district, separated from the Downtown North neighborhood by Lytton Avenue, an
arterial street. To the east lies the Lytton residential neighborhood, separated from the Downtown
North neighborhood by Middlefield Road, an arterial street. To the west lie commuter parking lots
and the CalTrain railroad, separated from the Downtown North neighborhood by Alma Street, an
arterial street.
11.Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g. permits, financing approval, or
participation agreement).
None
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project,
involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the
checklist on the following pages.
Aesthetics
Agriculture Resources
Air Quality
Hydrology/Water
Quality
Land Use/Planning
Mineral Resources
Transportation/Traffic
Utilities/Service
Systems
Mandatory Findings of
Significance
Attachment H Page 2 of 22
Biological Resources
Cultural Resources
Geology/Soils
Hazards & Hazardous
Materials
Noise
Population/Housing
Public Services
Recreation
DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency).
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in
the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment,
and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or
"potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one
effect: 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to
applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures
based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be
addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed
adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable
standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or
NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are
imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.
X
Direct~f Planning and
Community Environment
Date
Date
Attachment H Page 3 of 22
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
1)A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are
adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses
following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced
information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one
involved (e. g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer
should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general
standards (e. g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a
project-specific screening analysis).
2)All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as
on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as
well as operational impacts.
3)Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then
the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less
than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. :Potentially Significant Impact"
is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there
are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made,
an EIR is required.
4)"Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where
the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially
Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe
the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than
significant level (mitigation measures from Section 17, "Earlier Analysis," may be cross-
referenced).
5)Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA
process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration.
Section 15063 (C) (3) (D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following:
a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.
b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were
within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to
applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by
mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation
Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated
or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-
specific conditions for the project.
6)Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information
sources for potential impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a
previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference
to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.
7)Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources
used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.
Attachment H Page 4 of 22
8)
9)
This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats;
however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that
are relevant to a project’s environmental effects in whatever format is selected.
The explanation of each issue should identify:
a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and
b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than
significance.
Issues and Supporting Information
Resources
b)
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
AESTHETICS. Would the project:
Have a substantial adverse effect
on a scenic vista?
Substantially damage scenic
resources, including, but not
limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic
buildings within a state scenic
highway?
Substantially degrade the
existing visual character or
quality of the site and its
surroundings?
Create a new source of
substantial light or glare which
would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area?
Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Impact
Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
X
X
c) 2,3 X
d)2,3 X
I1.AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to agricultural
resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the
California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared
by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing
impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project:
a)Convert Prime Farmland, Unique
Farmland, or Farmland of
Statewide Importance
(Farmland), as shown on the
maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to
non-agricultural use?
Conflict with existing zoning for
agricultural use, or a Williamson
Act contract?
N/A
b)N/A
Attachment H Page 5 of 22
Issues and Supporting Information
Resources
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Thar No
Significant Impact
Impact
c) Involve other changes in the N/A
existing environment which, due
to their location or nature, could
result in conversion of Farmland,
to non-agricultural use?
III. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable
air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the
following determinations. Would the project:
N/A
X
X
a) Conflict with or obstruct
implementation of the applicable
air quality plan?
Violate any air quality standard
or contribute substantially to an
existing or projected air quality
violation
c) Result in a cumulatively
considerable net increase of any
criteria pollutant for which the
project region is non-attainment
under an applicable federal or
state ambient air quality
standard (including releasing
emissions which exceed
quantitative thresholds for ozone
precursors)?
d) Expose sensitive receptors to 2,3
substantial pollutant
concentrations?
e) Create objectionable odors 2,3
affecting a substantial number of
people?
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse
effect, either directly or through
habitat modifications, on any
species identified as a candidate,
sensitive, or special status
species in local or regional
plans, policies, or regulations, or
by the California Department of
Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse
effect on any riparian habitat or
other sensitive natural
N/A
X
X
Attachment H Page 6 of 22
Issues and Supporting Information
Resources
c)
d)
e)
b)
c)
Sources
community identified in local or
regional plans, policies,
regulations or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or
US Fish and Wildlife Service?
Have a substantial adverse effect
on federally protected wetlands
as defined by Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act (including, but
not limited to, marsh, vernal
pool, coastal, etc.) through direct
removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means?
Interfere substantially with the
movement of any native resident
or migratory fish or wildlife
species or with established
native resident or migratory
wildlife corridors, or impede the
use of native wildlife nursery
sites?
Conflict with any local policies or
ordinances protecting biological
resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or
ordinance?
Conflict with the provisions of an
adopted Habitat Conservation
Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other
approved local, regional, or state
habitat conservation plan?
CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
Cause a substantial adverse
change in the significance of a
historical resource as defined in
15064.5?
Cause a substantial adverse
change in the significance of an
archaeological resource
pursuant to 15064.57
Directly or indirectly destroy a
unique paleontological resource
or site or unique geologic
feature?
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Attachment H Page 7 of 22
Issues and Supporting Information
Resources
Sources
d)
VI.
b)
c)
d)
e)
Disturb any human remains,
including those interred outside
of formal cemeteries?
GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project:
Expose people or structures to
potential substantial adverse
effects, including the risk of loss,
injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known
earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake
Fault Zoning Map issued by
the State Geologist for the
area or based on other
substantial evidence of a
known fault? Refer to
Division of Mines and
Geology Special Publication
42.
ii) Strong seismic ground
shaking?
iii) Seismic-related ground
failure, including
liquefaction?
iv) Landslides?
Result in substantial soil erosion
or the loss of topsoil?
Be located on a geologic unit or
soil that is unstable, or that
would become unstable as a
result of the project, and
potentially result in on- or off-site
landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction or
collapse?
Be located on expansive soil, as
defined in Table 18-1-B of the
Uniform Building Code (1994),
creating substantial risks to life
or property?
Have soils incapable of
adequately supporting the use of
septic tanks or alternative waste
water disposal systems where
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Attachment H Page 8 of 22
Issues and Supporting Information
Resources
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
VII.Would thea)
b)
c)
d)
e)
sewers are not available for the
disposal of waste water?
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS.
Create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment
through the routing transport,
use, or disposal of hazardous
materials?
Create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment
through reasonably foreseeable
upset and accident conditions
involving the release of
hazardous materials into the
environment?
Emit hazardous emissions or
handle hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within one-
quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school?
Be located on a site which is
included on a list of hazardous
materials sites compiled
pursuant to Government Code
Section 65962.5 and, as a result,
would it create a significant
hazard to the public or the
environment?
For a project located within an
airport land use plan or, where
such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a
public airport or public use
airport, would the project result
in a safety hazard for people
residing or working in the project
area?
For a project within the vicinity
of a private airstrip, would the
project result in a safety hazard
for people residing or working
the project area?
Impair implementation of or 1,2,3
physically interfere with an
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
project?
Less Than
Significant
Impact
g) x
No
Impact
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Attachment H Page 9 of 22
Issues and Supporting Information
Resources
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
adopted emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
h) Expose people or structures to a
significant risk of loss, injury, or
death involving wildland fires,
including where wildlands are
adjacent to urbanized areas or
where residences are intermixed
with wildlands?
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality
standards or waste discharge
requirements?
b) Substantially deplete
groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such that
there would be a net deficit in
aquifer volume or a lowering of
the local groundwater table level
(e.g., the production rate of pre-
existing nearby wells would drop
to a level which would not
support existing land uses or
planned uses for which permits
have been granted)?
c) Substantially alter the existing
drainage pattern of the site or
area, including through the
alteration of the course of a
stream or river, in a manner
which would result in substantial
erosion or siltation on- or off-
site?
d)Substantially alter the existing
drainage pattern of the site or
area, including through the
alteration of the course of a
stream or river, or substantially
increase the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a manner which
would result in flooding on- or
off-site?
Create or contribute runoff water
2,3
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
X
e)2,3 X
Attachment H Page 10 of 22
Issues and Supporting Information
Resources
g)
h)
J)
a)
b)
c)
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
which would exceed the capacity
of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or
provide substantial additional
sources of polluted runoff?
Otherwise substantially degrade
water quality?
Place housing within a 100-year
flood hazard area as mapped on
a federal Flood Hazard Boundary
or Flood Insurance Rate Map or
other flood hazard delineation
map?
Place within a 100-year flood
hazard area structures which
would impede or redirect flood
flows?
Expose people or structures to a
significant risk of loss, injury or
death involve flooding, including
flooding as a result of the failure
of a levee or dam?
Inundation by seiche, tsunami,
or mudflow?
LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proj’ect:
Physically divide an established 1,2,3
community?
Conflict with any applicable land 1,2,3
use plan, policy, or regulation of
an agency with jurisdiction over
the project (including, but not
limited to the general plan,
specific plan, local coastal
program, or zoning ordinance)
adopted for the purpose of
avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
Conflict with any applicable
habitat conservation plan or
natural community conservation
plan?
MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proiect:
Result in the loss of availability
of a known mineral resource that
would be of value to the region
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
X
X
No
Impact
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
X
N/A
N/A
Attachment H Page 11 of 22
b)
XI.
b)
c)
d)
e)
Xll.
Issues and Supporting Information
Resources
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
and the residents of the state?
Result in the loss of availability
of a locally-important mineral
resource recovery site delineated
on a local general plan, specific
plan or other land use plan?
NOISE. Would the project result in:
Exposure of persons to or
generation of noise levels in
excess of standards established
in the local general plan or noise
ordinance, or applicable
standards of other agencies?
Exposure of persons to or
generation of excessive ground
borne vibration or ground borne
noise levels?
A substantial permanent 2,3
increase in ambient noise levels
in the project vicinity above
levels existing without the
project?
A substantial temporary or
periodic increase in ambient
noise levels in the project
vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
For a project located within an
airport land use plan or, where
such a plan has not been
adopted, would the project
expose people residing or
working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
For a project within the vicinity
of a private airstrip, would the
project expose people residing
or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project:
Induce substantial population
growth in an area, either directly
(for example, by proposing new
homes and businesses) or
indirectly (for example, through
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
N/A
N/A
N/A
X
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Attachment H Page 12 of 22
Issues and Supporting Information
Resources
b)
c)
Xlll.
extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
Displace substantial numbers of
existing housing, necessitating
the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
Displace substantial numbers of
people, necessitating the
construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
PUBLIC SERVICES.
a) Would the project
result in substantial adverse
physical impacts associated
with the provision of new or
physically altered
governmental facilities, need
for new or physically altered
governmental facilities, the
construction of which could
cause significant
environmental impacts, in
order to maintain acceptable
service ratios, response
times or other performance
objectives for any of the
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
public services:
Fire protection?
Police protection?
Schools?
Parks?
Other public facilities?
1,2,3
1,2,3
1,2,3
1,2,3
1,2,3
X
X
X
No
Impact
N/A
N/A
X
X
XIV. RECREATION
a) Would the project increase the
use of existing neighborhood
and regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that
substantial physical
N/A
Attachment H Page 13 of 22
Issues and Supporting Information
Resources
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
deterioration of the facility would
occur or be accelerated?
b)Does the project include
recreational facilities or require
the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities which
might have an adverse physical
effect on the environment?
XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic 1,2,3
which is substantial in relation to
the existing traffic load and
capacity of the street system
(i.e., result in a substantial
increase in either the number of
vehicle trips, the volume to
capacity ratio on roads, or
congestion at intersections)?
b) Exceed, either individually or
cumulatively, a level of service
standard established by the
county congestion management
agency for designated roads or
highways?
c) Result in change in air traffic
patterns, including either an
increase in traffic levels or a
change in location that results in
substantial safety risks?
d) Substantially increase hazards
due to a design feature (e.g.,
sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible
uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
e) Result in inadequate emergency
access?
f) Result in inadequate parking
capacity?
g) Conflict with adopted policies,
plans, or programs supporting
alternative transportation (e.g.,
bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
1,2,3
1,2,3
1,2,3
1,2,3
1,2,3
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Would the project:
Less Than
Significant
Impact
X
X
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS.
a) Exceed wastewater treatment
requirements of the applicable
Mitigation
Incorporated
X
X
X
No
Impact
N/A
N/A
X
N/A
Attachment H Page 14 of 22
Issues and Supporting Information Sources
Resources
Regional Water Quality Control
Board?
b)Require or result in the
construction of new water or
wastewater treatment facilities or
expansion of existing facilities,
the construction of which could
cause significant environmental
effects?
c)Require or result in the
construction of new storm water
drainage facilities or expansion
of existing facilities, the
construction of which could
cause significant environmental
effects?
d)Have sufficient water supplies
available to serve the project
from existing entitlements and
resources, or are new or
expanded entitlements needed?
e) Result in a determination by the
wastewater treatment provider
which serves or may serve the
project that it has adequate
capacity to serve the project’s
projected demand in addition to
the provider’s existing
commitments?
f)Be served by a landfill with
sufficient permitted capacity to
accommodate the project’s solid
waste disposal needs?
g) Comply with federal, state, and
local statutes and regulations
related to solid waste?
XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Does the project have the
potential to degrade the quality
of the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish or
wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below
self-sustaining levels, threaten to
eliminate a plant or animal
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
X
No
Impact
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Attachment H Page 15 of 22
Issues and Supporting Information
Resources
community, reduce the number
or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or
eliminate important examples of
the major periods of California
history or prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts
that are individually limited, but
cumulatively considerable?
("Cumulatively considerable"
means that the incremental
effects of a project are
considerable when viewed in
connection with the effects of
past projects, the effects of other
current projects, and the effects
of probable future projects)?
c) Does the project have
environmental effects which will
cause substantial adverse
effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly?
Sources
1,2,3
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than No
Significant Impact
Impact
X
X
SOURCE REFERENCES:
1. Planning and Transportation Commission Staff Report, January 21, 2004, Downtown
North Neiqhborhood Traffic Calminq Proiect--Recommendations to Remove Current
Trial Plan and Implement new Traffic Calminq Plan.
2.City of Palo Alto Neiqhborhood Traffic Calminq Pro.qram (Booklet), April 9, 2001
3.Traffic Calmin.q, State of the Practice, Reid Ewing, Institute of Transportation Engineers,
August 1999.
EXPLANATION FOR CHECKLIST RESPONSES: -- Explain choice of impact
category.
I(c) Substantially de.qrade visual character? Traffic calming measures require signing and striping
which, when little or no signing or striping is present on the street, will be quite noticeable in the
streetscape. The measures could possibly incorporate landscaping in the future as replacement for
formerly paved areas. In past installations in Palo Alto and other jurisdictions, the addition of new
landscaped areas has more than offset the negative visual impact of new signs and striping. The
visual impact is not considered significant.
Ill(b, c) Violate air quality standards? Given the limited data available, the following calculations
provide an approximate indication of the air quality impact of the proposed project. The
determination is based on the change in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) which is a rough surrogate for
vehicle air emissions. The Mixed Measures Plan will divert approximately 1500 daily through trips
out of the neighborhood with an average increase in trip length of about four city blocks. (An
Attachment H Page 16 of 22
additional 500 through trips will be removed from the neighborhood, but without increasing trip
length.) These through trips account for 4000 daily exits and entries in and out of the neighborhood.
The remaining 20,000 dailytrips in and out of the neighborhoo.d are made by residents and parkers
from the adjacent commercial area. These 20,000 trips will incur only minimal circuitous routing
within the neighborhood due to this plan, perhaps an average of about two blocks for every four
trips. These added trip lengths total approximately 1200 vehicle miles traveled (VMT) daily, or about
120 VMT during the afternoon peak hour. Data used in the June 18, 1996 Sand Hill Road Projects
DEIR (based on the Palo Alto citywide traffic model) indicate that the afternoon peak hour VMT in
year 2000 in the area bounded by Junipero Serra Boulevard, Valparaiso Avenue, Middlefield Road
and Page Mill Road, would be about 37,000. Thus, the increase in VMT caused by the Downtown
North project represents an increase of approximately 0.3 percent in this general area, which is an
insignificant increase in air emissions due to added vehicle miles traveled.
The approximately 2000 through trips diverted out of the neighborhood onto Lytton Avenue would
travel on all or a portion of a busy arterial, and many would pass through two moderately-congested
intersections (Lytton/Alma and Lytton/Middlefield). There are a total of 10 signalized intersections
along Lytton between Middlefield and Alma. The project includes improvements in signal timing
along Lytton and improvements in turn lanes and signal phasing at the two intersections. These
improvements will result in diverted trips having to stop at a few of the 10 signalized intersectionsm
roughly estimated at a maximum of five. Diverted trips would incur idling time at each of these stops.
The east-west neighborhood route from which through trips would be diverted requires drivers to
stop at six stop signs. The last stop usually requires idling time at peak hours while drivers wait to
turn onto Alma or Middlefield. Traffic flow on Lytton during peak hours is slow, with drivers idling at
the five intersections where stops may be required, but relatively smooth with little opportunity for
rapid acceleration or deceleration. During off-peak times, traffic flow is faster and idling time at two
major intersections is less. Traffic flow on the neighborhood streets is less congested than on Lytton
at all times, with faster acceleration and deceleration at the stop signs, and stops are required at all
six stop signs. In conclusion, both routes require drivers to stop about the same number of times.
The increased idling time on Lytton tends to be counterbalanced by the greater speed changes on
the neighborhood streets. The result is that there is not a large difference in air quality emissions
between the two routes due to driving conditions.
VII(g) Impair implementation of adopted emerqency response/evacuation plan? This item was
checked "no impact". Palo Alto does not have such a plan. In an evacuation scenario, those
evacuating would be residents or day parkers, most of whom would be familiar with the street
closures in the neighborhood and know the best way to exit. There is only one closure on each of
the main east-west neighborhood streets (Hawthorne and Everett). If there were sufficient time
during the emergency, Police or Fire personnel could even remove the bollards in the street
closures. The conclusion is that this plan would not cause significant impedance in an evacuation
scenario.
VIII (d, e, h) Hydrolo.qy and Water Quality. Refer to discussion for item XVI (c).
IX(a) Physically divide an established community? This plan includes four street closures that close
four blocks to non-emergency through vehicle traffic, including Downtown North residents’ vehicle
traffic. Residents would still be able to travel these corridors in an unimpeded fashion by bicycling or
walking. Residents would be able drive to all parts of the neighborhood, but might have to use a
different route than without the project. In some cases, the new route will be longer. None of the
road segments is closed to the public. Thus, the street closures do not constitute a true division in
the sense that denies access between two parts of the community, and is less than significant
impact.
Attachment H Page 17 of 22
IX(b) Conflict with .qeneral plan? This item was checked "no impact". The City of Palo Alto
Comprehensive Plan strongly supports traffic calming, as explained in source reference #1.
Although the plan discourages street closures, their use in this project complies with the conditions
for their use, as explained in source reference #1.
Xlll(a) Impact on fire protection services? A fire station is located in the Downtown North
neighborhood, on its periphery, at the comer of Everett and Alma. Gateways and bulbouts do not
block nor substantially slow any traffic movements. These measures are designed so that fire trucks
will be able to make all turning movements in a safe fashion that complies with the Uniform Fire
Code. Traffic circles slow fire and paramedic vehicles at intersections. However, they must slow
down at intersections anyway. Large vehicles can make left turns in front of the circles. Thus, the
Fire Department does not consider circles to be a significant impediment. The single speed table
requires that fire and paramedic vehicles slow down and be careful of the vertical deflection. This
measure is near an intersection where emergency vehicle drivers must slow down anyway. Though
the Fire Department is not in favor of vertical measures in general, they are willing to live with a
certain number of speed humps and speed tables in order for residents to have traffic calming,
provided that the Department’s response time goals are not jeopardized. The Department greatly
prefers tables over humps because the tables are considerably less jarring.
The current design of the four street closures in the Mixed Measures Plan includes a locked steel
bollard that can be unlocked by emergency personnel. The Fire Department does not require that
Downtown North streets be fully accessible for "through" passage in the neighborhoodmi.e.,
passage of fire vehicles from one side of the neighborhood to the other when responding to calls
outside the neighborhood. Such passage is accomplished using Lytton Avenue. Nor does the
Department require that a street be "open" even for a specific response in that block. Since
installation of the current trial plan, the specified routing from the neighborhood fire station has been
Lytton Avenue and then the appropriate north-south street into the neighborhood. As discussed in
source reference #1, the Fire Department has not experienced an increase in its response times in
the Downtown North neighborhood during the trial period of the current trial plan, and are within the
Department benchmarks. They estimate that a street closure would cause one minute of extra delay
if a truck or paramedic actually attempted to use one of the closed streets and had to turn around or
unlock the bollard. Much of the emergency travel would tend to be in an east-west direction,
primarily on Hawthorne and Everett, due to the location of the fire station on the west edge of the
neighborhood. This is one reason why the new Mixed Measures Plan has three fewer street
closures on these two streets, including removal of the one closest to the fire station. Though the
Mixed Measures Plan does not change the design of the closures, it instead presents substantially
less need for detour of a fire or paramedic responder than the current trial plan. The Fire
Department’s mission goal for average maximum response time is 4 minutes for 90% of fire and
basic medical responses and 6 minutes for 90% of advanced medical (paramedic) responses.
Because a fire station is located within the neighborhood, response times from this station are
typically shorter than average, so a delay of one minute for worst-case responses should not cause
the average response time goals to be exceeded over a long time period of numerous varied types
of responses, including short response times. Only a test period of at least one year could begin to
provide a set of varied responses that could be averaged to determine the average response time
for that period. The performance of the Mixed Measures Plan should be monitored over a period of
years in this regard. Ultimately, a new type of closure design could be substituted if necessary. One
example is a radio-controlled retractable bollard that is used at Stanford University, which is served
by the Palo Alto Fire Department. Increased queuing on Lytton near Middlefield due to the current
trial plan, which will continue for the Mixed Measures Plan, has not impeded the Fire Department in
its ability to reach the driveways of Lytton Gardens and Webster House, both facilities serving the
elderly. Queuing is expected to lengthen during peak hours with the Mixed Measures Plan (see item
Attachment H Page 18 of 22
XV(a) below), but this is still not expected to impede fire and paramedic access to these facilities.
The primary reason is that, under emergency conditions, emergency drivers can use the opposite
side. of the street.
Xlll(a) Impact on police protection services? When police officers in vehicles respond to
emergencies within the neighborhood, including pursuit of suspects or criminals through the
neighborhood, delay would be incurred due to the street closures. Most police emergency
responses would tend to be from the south since Downtown North is located at the northern
boundary of Palo Alto, and the western boundary is mostly blocked by the CalTrain railroad. Thus,
much police emergency travel would tend to traverse streets in a north-south direction. In the worst
case, it is estimated that a deviation of two blocks would be necessary to reach any point in the
neighborhood. Police vehicles are smaller and more maneuverable than fire vehicles, so less delay
per block would be incurred than for fire vehicles. The worst case delay for police vehicles is
therefore estimated to be about 20 seconds. Average delay would be less. The Police Department’s
goal for emergency calls is to respond in three minutes or less. The additional 20 seconds in the
worst case could constitute a noticeable, but not significant, impact in comparison to the three-
minute response time goal. Officers on routine vehicle patrols in the neighborhood would have to
change their routes to avoid closed blocks. Routine vehicle patrols would not include closed blocks
unless the officer made the extra effort to drive into the block and turn around, or exit through the
street closure.
Police officers currently often use Downtown North east-west streets for driving to other areas for
both emergency and non-emergency reasons, because they are less congested than the parallel
artedal Lytton Avenue. With the Mixed Measures Plan, officers might switch to Lytton Avenue for
through travel for both emergency and non-emergency purposes. However, Lytton is a more
congested route, and therefore slower, even under emergency conditions. The Police Department
expects that congestion will increase in the future due to growth downtown and at Stanford, and
diversion of Downtown North traffic to Lytton, University and Hamilton. These streets are already
difficult for emergency responses. Any additional traffic would tend to increase response times to the
Downtown area. It is estimated that, under current conditions, it would take an officer 30 seconds
longer to traverse Lytton rather than unimpeded Everett or Hawthorne for the length of the
neighborhood, under worst-case emergency conditions (i.e., peak hour). Thus, officers might still
find it more advantageous to use Hawthorne and Everett with one street closure each, rather than
congested Lytton. The Department reports that the Current Trial Plan has not impacted its response
time goals in the neighborhood. The Mixed Measures Plan has three fewer street closures, so this
plan will have even less impact on police responses, and thus no significant impact.
XIIl(a) Impact on parks? A public park is located roughly in the center of the Downtown North
neighborhood, and along San Francisquito Creek on the neighborhood’s northern boundary.
Walking and bicycling access to these parks is not affected by this project. Full driving access to the
parks is maintained, but some drivers would have to alter their current routes to reach them. This
does not constitute a significant impact. This project does not create a need for new or altered public
parks.
XV(a, b) Substantial increase in traffic? The Mixed Measures Plan will not cause an increase in
traffic in the area. However, the traffic calming measures, especially the four street closures, will
divert traffic within the neighborhood to new blocks internally, as well as to the surrounding arterial
streets. The City’s standard for significant impact on residential local streets is a maximum 25
percent increase due to diverted traffic (based on a 0.1 increase in the TIRE Index, the former
measurement tool). On arterial streets, the standard of significance is level of service at major
intersections, where the worst acceptable is LOS D. The current trial plan, with seven street
Attachment H Page 19 of 22
closures, caused intemal increases exceeding 25 percent in several blocks. This is one of the
primary reasons the Mixed Measures Plan is now advocated, with only one closure each on Everett
and. Hawthorne and three north-south streets on each side of each closure available for diverting
traffic. Through traffic during the peak hours will be substantially reduced by the turn restrictions on
the east and west ends of the neighborhood. The combination of the turn restrictions and fewer
closures is expected to reduce the increases in volumes on the formerly impacted internal street
segments to levels less than the 25 percent increase threshold.
On the arterial streets, volume increases are generally acceptable as long as intersection levels of
service remain at LOS D or less. With the current trial plan, levels of service remained at LOS B and
C. The Mixed Measures Plan will cause more peak hour traffic diversion through the Alma/Lytton
and Middlefield/Lytton intersections than did the current trial plan. Afternoon peak hour LOS is
expected to reach LOS D at Lytton/Middlefield, which is still acceptable. Queue lengths in the peak
hours will increase about 2-4 cars per lane compared to the current plan, which already has
increased queues compared to before anytraffic calming plan was adopted. However, at LOS D, the
full queue is expected to clear the intersection in most peak hour cycles. Nevertheless, the queue
lengths will be noticeable to residents on Middlefield and the residential portion of Lytton, where the
standing queues will make it harder for residents to enter and exit their driveways. This is not
considered a significant impact.
XV(d) Increased hazards? The traffic calming measures in the Mixed Meaures Plan do not introduce
abrupt changes in vertical and horizontal alignment that are beyond the normally accepted
standards. The measures are placed in the traveled way, and will be signed and striped according to
standard California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) guidelines and accepted engineering
practice, resulting in no significant traffic hazard. The reduction in traffic volumes and speeds in the
neighborhood is expected to reduce the potential for accidents throughout the neighborhood.
XV(e) Inadequate emer.qency access? Refer to discussion under Ill(a) above.
XV(f) Inadequate parking capacity? Some areas in the Downtown North neighborhood experience
heavy parking demand, due partly to parking intrusion from the adjoining commercial downtown
district. The area of heaviest demand lies roughly west of Cowper and south of Hawthorne. The
street closures, bulbout and gateway displace about 2 - 4 parking spaces each. The traffic circles
displace about 8 spaces each, all on corners where existing parking causes sight distance
problems. In a few locations, parking would not be displaced because the curb is currently a red
zone or a fire hydrant is adjacent. In the area of heavy parking demand, a total of about 20 spaces
would be removed by this plan. Because this is an area of heavy parking demand by residents and
non-residents, this loss would be noticeable. However, compared to the large number of on-street
parking spaces in the high demand area, this would not be considered a significant loss of parking.
XVI(c) New or expanded stormwater drainage facilities? None of the proposed traffic calming
measures block the gutters so they would not interfere with normal gutter flows. All the measures
would impede surface flow to some degree under severe storm conditions where gutters overflow.
The speed table extends from curb to curb with a height of three inches above the street grade.
However, storm drainage engineers do not expect that any of these measures would cause flooding
of adjacent properties during a 100-year flood. No new water runoff would be generated by these
measures. Thus, no new storm drainage facilities are required, and the impacts would not be
significant.
XVII(b) Impacts that are cumulatively considerable? Some speed reduction measures are in place in
the adjacent Lytton neighborhood. Other speed reduction measures are present in Menlo Park in the
Attachment H Page 20 of 22
adjacent Willows and Linfield Oaks neighborhoods. Even though all these streets remain open,
these measures divert some through traffic to the surrounding artedal street system (University,
Middlefield, Willow). Artedal streets are meant to be the carriers of most through traffic. The
combined impact of the street closures in the Downtown North neighborhood and the speed control
measures in adjacent neighborhoods does not create a significant cumulative impact because of the
relatively small amounts of diverted traffic from speed control measures. Another traffic calming
project with speed control measures has been approved for Channing Avenue. That project is not
expected to have any impact in the Downtown North area. In the long run, the potential exists for
street closures to be installed in other north Palo Alto neighborhoods. However, the Comprehensive
Plan discourages the use of street closures, and the time frame for neighborhood-wide street
closure projects is very long due to the level of resources required. Thus, there is not expected to be
any short or intermediate-term possibility for cumulative impacts due to street closure projects in this
area.
Attachment H Page 21 of 22
NOT THROUGH ROUTES I
j
KEY
~ Existing Stop Sign
; Bulbout Pair
(~ Traffic Cimle
}.- Guide Sign
¯ Sb’eet Closure
Note: the gateway,
bulbout, and traffic
circles allow full two-way
traffic acces~
~o~.ROUTES
JohnsonPark ~I
Relocated
Inst~ll New L!I
7-10AM3-6 PM
7-10 AM
3-6 PM
DOVYNE)V~N
N O F~H "P-.AF’R C
CALMING R:E) JE~ T
Attachment H Page 22 of 22
ATTACHMENT C
to CMR:180:04
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
-MEETINGS ARE CABLECAST LIVE ON GOVERNMENT ACCESS CHANNEL 26"
Wednesday, January 21, 2004
SPECIAL MEETING- 6:00 PM
City Council Chambers Room
Civic Center, 1st Floor
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, California 94301
ROLL CALL:
Commissioners:
Michael Griffin - Chair
Phyllis Cassel- Vice-Chair
Karen Holman
Patrick Burt
Bonnie Packer
Annette Bialson
Staff:
Steve Emslie, Planning Director
Joseph Kott, Chief Transportation 03~cial
Dan Sodergren, Special Counsel to City Attorneys
Olubayo Elimisha, Staff Secretary
AGENDIZED ITEM:
1. Downtown North Trial Traffic Calming
Vice-Chair Cassel: I want to call this meeting to order. I need to have quiet. We have setup in
the next room and in the lobby a television screen so that if at any time you find yourself restless
and unable to sit in these red seats any longer you an move over there, here what’s going on and
when we get to the public testimony we will give you waming before your chance to come up
and speak so you could come back into the room.
For more time I will tell you if you need to speak you need to fill our a speaker’s card and bring
it forward to Olu.
I am going to call the meeting to order for the Special Meeting of January 21, 2004 to discuss the
Downtown North Traffic Calming project recommendations to remove current trial plan and
implement new traffic calming.
The first order of business is if there are any cards brought forward for people who have
something that is not on the agenda?
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
City of Palo Alto Page 1
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
45
46
47
48
speaker request card available from the secretary of the Commission. The Planning and
Transportation Commission reserves the right to limit the oral communications period to 15
minutes.
Vice-Chair Cassel: Seeing none we will close that part of the meeting.
CONSENT CALENDAR. Items will be voted on in one motion unless removed from the
calendar by a Commission Member.
Vice-Chair Cassel: I have nothing on Consent Calendar.
AGENDA CttANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS. The agenda may have additional
items added to it up until 72 hours prior to meeting time.
Vice-Chair Cassel: No Agenda Items or Deletions.
We will call the roll.
Tonight we will have a public hearing to take testimony on the Staff recommendation for the
Downtown North Traffic Calming Plan. We want to hear from all of you who are here to speak
on this subject. Those of you who wish to speak on this item may submit your public speaker’s
card to our clerk and we will take cards up until 8:00 PM and that will be the end of that.
We will divide the meeting into pieces. We will have a Staff Report first. If there are any urgent
questions from the Commission we will take those and then we will go to the public heating and
have public statements. We will stop by approximately eight o’clock to take a break and we will
not take public testimony after ten so that we can finish some business that the Commission
needs to do. If we have not heard from everyone we will forward that to another time so that
everyone can be heard.
At this time I would like to have a Staff Report.
NEW BUSINESS.
Public Hearings:
Downtown North Trial Traffic Calming: The current Downtown North Traffic
Calming trial ended December 2003. Staff is requesting Commission review and
recommendation on whether to conduct an advisory resident opinion survey and
implement a new, modified trial traffic calming plan for the Downtown North
neighborhood, which is the area bounded by Alma Street, Lytton Avenue, Middlefield
Road and San Francisquito Creek.
Mr. Joseph Kott, Chief Transportation Official: Thank you Chair Cassel and members of the
Commission. The Staff recommends that the current Downtown North Traffic Calming plan be
ended, that the Commission recommend Council approval of a permanent implementation of our
proposed Downtown North Mixed Measures Traffic Calming Plan in its place provided that the
achievement of the performance measures identified in our Staff Report is certified by the
City of Palo Alto Page 2
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
40
41
42
43
45
46
47
48
1 Director of Planning and Community Environment after seven months of implementation. Point
2 three, we recommend the Commission consider and approve the attached Negative Declaration
3~for permanent implementation of the Mixed Measures Plan. I need to add that, it was left out of
4 the recommendations, we are asking Commission advice as to the conduct of the resident
5 advisory opinion survey and that is discussed in the Staff Report as well. We would assume that
that would be discussed by the Commission after the close of public hearing.
Traffic calming is a term that was really coined in English from a much longer German word in
the 1970s. Palo Alto has been doing a form of traffic calming of one kind or another, neighbor
traffic management, since at least the 1970s and probably before then. More well known
examples would be Evergreen Park, before that College Terrace in the 1970s and Evergreen Park
in the 1980s. Since then Palo Alto in terms of managing residential streets traffic has
implemented a variety of measures ranging from single-street to a few measures projects to
whole neighborhoods. Tonight the Commission is to discuss a trial on a whole neighborhood-
wide basis of residential streets traffic management.
Our City Council authorized that Staff implement a six-month trial of traffic calming in
Downtown North. The trial itself was implemented with closures of streets on 16 June of last
year. We were told to conduct a six-month trial to evaluate the results of the trial and report back
the results first to the Commission and then to Council. I would like to emphasize that only
Council can authorize a closure of streets and therefore only Council can authorize that streets be
opened back up again. We are asking the Commission to receive our report of findings and
recommendations and in turn recommend to Council a course of action with regard to the
Downtown North Traffic Calming Plan.
We will be discussing this evening our own proposal based on findings. The findings themselves
were based on Council adopted performance measures by which we were to judge the conduct of
the trial. We did engage in public process over the course of the trial including two public
meetings in the Downtown North neighborhood. We received considerable public comment in
all the forms of communication available these days, from email to letters to people calling and
people walking in. In some cases people collaring us during lunch so it has been a wide range in
communication. We are here tonight, Carl Stoffel and I, from the Transportation Division Staff
to discuss what we think happened during the trial and what the prudent course for the future is.
Carl, in introducing him, has been one of our experts in traffic management in town. More than
20 years Carl has worked on neighborhood traffic management beginning with the Evergreen
Park project. So he has had his share of challenges. Carl might agree this is perhaps his greatest
challenge but I will let Carl speak for himself on that. Carl Stoffel will introduce the findings
and recommendations briefly.
Vice-Chair Cassel: Joe, can you pull that mike just a little closer to you, please?
Mr. Kott: Sure. Carl will introduce findings and recommendations briefly and then we will be
open to questions from Commission if Commission chooses to ask them of us. Carl.
Mr. Carl Stoffel, Transportation Engineer: Very briefly our primary charge was to evaluate how
well the plan worked to give us the performance measures and we found that in most cases those
performance measures were met but there is at least we think one very important case where it
City of Palo Alto Page 3
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
was not met. That was where we had, there are some maps that you have seen in the report and
so on, where we had some traffic volumes changing on the interior neighborhood streets that
have surpassed our normal threshold of acceptable increase due to any number of reasons but in
this case diverted traffic. We don’t know necessarily whether it is resident traffic or the
remaining cut-through traffic--that doesn’t really matter. We think that even that one item
should be corrected because it doesn’t meet the measure and that is a pretty common measure we
apply in traffic calming and in fact in looking at impacts of development projects. So it is a
CEQA threshold that we use in our environmental studies.
The other is there has been some debate about fire impacts. We haven’t actually had any during
the trial but there are difficulties in measuring the impacts of incidents that don’t occur. In this
short a time period not that many occur and to have a nice statistical analysis you need a longer
period. Of course with any street closures there is always the potential that something can
happen, fire response can be blocked or delayed, but as far as the trial goes it has been successful
in that regard. We want to be cautious about anything that could happen in the future. Any
questions about fire response, which has been difficult both for us and for the Fire Department to
evaluate, we have our Deputy Fire Chief here.
So based upon those findings we set about to see what we could do about the plan. We figured
that we had a number of requirements that we followed. We looked at many, many different
alternatives from taking it out to clamping down even more to try to find something that would
solve or keep in mind the goals of the plan and the original approval to reduce cut-through traffic
and yet try to solve some of the major two problems. So we came up with several alternatives
that are possible but only one that we felt reasonably comfortable recommending which is a
considerably more open neighborhood but we think still can provide some through traffic
reduction. That is what we call the Mixed Measures Plan.
That plan and the others, even the plan that we put in, were designed by a consultant expert in
this kind of stuff. It didn’t work completely right. The plans that we come up with a lot of these
things are very behavior characteristics of drivers that we are dealing with. It is fairly hard to
really predict exactly what will happen. But we are reasonably confident of our Mixed Measures
Plan because the neighborhood is more open and we think the routes that people can choose
won’t be quite so concentrated can clearly it is more open for fire response. We do need to
verify that these things work
The other plans are there for your consideration. As I said though, we really only are
recommending what we consider kind of a more middle ground. So that is where we are tonight.
Unless you have any more specific questions we come out later on.
Vice-Chair Cassel: And that is the Staff Report? I would like to go straight to the Public
Hearing and do that first. That means that each speaker is going to have three minutes to speak.
Now there are 70 cards that I have already. We are not going to finish it if everyone speaks three
minutes. I know some of you have worked hard on your presentations with that presumption that
you have three minutes. If you agree with what someone has said before you can just say, "I
agree with what was said before," and if you know the persons name you can say so. You don’t
have to use the whole three minutes and that will be fine, in fact it will be helpful.
City of Palo Alto Page 4
1 I want to remind people who are new that if they wish to speak they need to put in a card. You
2 will forward that to Olu over here. If you have trouble sitting still in these seats that you can
3 hear us right next door in the next room. There is going to be a television there. There is also a
4 television out in the lobby where there are some seats arranged for that, some comfortable seats,
5 I might add.
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
40
41
42
43
45
46
47
The first person I have to speak is Ken Hake followed by Timothy McCay who will be followed
by Kathleen Rotow. I would like you to assemble yourselves over here so that youcan be ready
to speak immediately one after the other. This microphone if you stand near it you can be heard.
If you are very. tail or you are not so tall then there is someone on Staff who will help adjust it. If
you are of pretty average height you should be able to just stand near it and you will be heard.
Ken Hake please. One more thing, I need to have you state your name and your address.
Mr. Ken Hake, 575 Everett Avenue, Palo Alto: I live near the cross street of Webster. I want to
thank the Planning Commission and friends and neighbors for giving me an opportunity to speak
on the subject. I would like to start by quickly describing my personal situation and why this is
so important to me and secondly comment on the Mixed Measures Plan, which is being
recommended.
First offI live very close to the intersection of Everett and Webster. I have three young children
ages seven, four and two. They have good friends that live two doors down and they have
several friends that live three doors down across the intersection. Their daily routine consists of
skating and biking up and down the sidewalk so the traffic calming measures are a Godsend for
us. They mean a lot to me. When we first moved into the neighborhood about a year and a half
ago when we first moved in I didn’t know about the calming plan. I was skeptical about it being
safe enough for my children, to raise a family. My fears were confirmed, as every morning when
we tried to pull out of our driveway one of us, my wife or I, had to go out into the street and
direct traffic and make sure it was safe. About two months into this after we moved in a
neighbor told me about the traffic calming plan. It was an incredible relief and it has been
wonderful ever since the blockades have been put in. So I certainly appreciate it.
With regard to the option that I being recommended, as I said before I live very close to the
intersection of Webster and Everett and the proposal would call for a traffic circle there. Frankly
that makes me nervous. A traffic circle it seems like it would let the same amount of volume
through, there would be an awful lot of possible reckless driving going around the circle and the
visibility across the circle I am not certain that that would be suitable for my children. Of course
we accompany them but eventually they have to do it by themselves. So I am skeptical about the
traffic circle although I think is better than nothing. I would much prefer to leave the blockade
in.
Lastly to be honest I would like to put this all behind us and get a decision that works well. But I
don’t think that is possible until we get the right decision in. Knowing how important it is to me
I don’t think I would let something that doesn’t work for the whole community go into
Downtown North. T hat being said again, thank you for the time and I strongly support the
program.
City of Palo Alto Page 5
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
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Vice-Chair Cassel: Thank you. Timothy McCay followed by Kathleen Rotow followed by
Richard Burton.
Mr. Timothy McCa¥, 626 Everett Avenue, Palo Alto: My one reason for speaking tonightis that
none of these numbers seem to add up. There is no science involved they just commented again.
This was supposed to be a six month trial, this is beyond the six months, the plan for
CharlestorgArastradero was supposed to be a year but it won’t be a year. When are we going to
get concrete numbers that we can all agree on and vote on? I would really like to know. I would
like to point out I live down the street from this gentleman that just talked, if he crosses his
children across in the middle of the block, which he does frequently I don’t think that’s safe. I
wouldn’t allow my daughter to do it. So there is an element of safety here of children in the
street that we should definitely work on and educate parents, as a volunteer at Gunn High School
I agree with that. I don’t see how the numbers add up. There is no science behind this. Our
Homeland Security says that it violates the plan that has already been submitted by the City of
Palo Alto so does anybody talk beyond the City level to the state or the federal government about
these closures? Thank you.
Vice-Chair Cassel: Thank you. Kathleen Rotow, Richard Burton followed by Chris Maddox.
Ms. Kathleen Rotow, 789 University Avenue, Palo Alto: Hi. I have a few very brief points to
make. First I believe the name traffic calming is a misnomer that it has really been traffic
diversion, traffic onto other Downtown North streets and traffic diversion into neighboring areas
and I don’t agree with that. Also the City’s Comprehensive Plan shows a strong commitment to
open streets and I would like us to follow that plan. The law requires open streets unless you can
show a valid health and safety concern. If anything we have developed a valid health and safety
concern by placing these blockades where they are on the City streets. I spoke with Captain
Moore, Fire Station One on numerous occasions and clearly they are opposed to these blockades.
They are worried about response time and for those who are not aware of it the area that they
need to cover starts at Stanford Hospital and goes to 101, up to Palo Alto Avenue and down to
Channing. That is a large area and it doesn’t just affect the Downtown North neighborhood
response time. It affects response time for a lot of Palo Alto citizens. That is all I will say right
now but I do appreciate the opportunity. Thank you.
Vice-Chair Cassel: Thank you. Richard Burton to be followed by Chris Maddox to be followed
by Paul Dolkas.
Mr. Richard Burton, 390 Palo Alto Avenue, Palo Alto: Hi I have lived here for the last 20 years.
My wife and I had a baby in July and having lived there for 20 years and experienced the traffic
before these measures it has been a real Godsend as somebody mentioned earlier. It has really
raised the specter that I might be able to raise my children in a safe environment. I am really
here to strongly support the traffic calming.
Having said that I think about this issue thatit has raised concems and two of them were
mentioned about the traffic on additional streets and emergency preparedness concerns. I think it
is possible to work on trying to find a plan that works around those. I am supportive of the
enhanced plan, which will try to cut out the additional traffic through the area that has been
winding its way through, and adding additional streets. I think trying that would be a great idea
for six months so we can see how much of this additional traffic is from the neighborhood and
City of Palo Alto Page 6
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
45
46
47
48
how much of it is from people who are continuing to cut-through. I think there are some
solutions around changing the barricades to use the style that I believe is in College Terrace
where the barriers are low enough that the emergency vehicles can proceed across them so that
there would be no problem with the emergency vehicles. So those are just some suggestions but
I am strongly encouraging us to work forward and take a solution which lets more traffic into our
neighborhoods. Thank you.
Vice-Chair Cassel: Thank you. Chris Maddox to be followed by Paul Dolkas to be followed by
Tina Peak.
Mr. Chris Maddox, 159 Emerson Street, Palo Alto: Lades and Gentlemen of the Council, fellow
Palo Altoans, my name is Chris Maddox. I live at the comer of Emerson and Hawthorne. I
would like to say that though I respect the views of the people who support the traffic barriers I
myself think they are bit too extreme. I would like to see something less of a hindrance to the
flow of traffic. Streets alter all are made for vehicular traffic and there are ample sidewalks for
pedestrians as well. I have been a resident of Palo Alto for 25 years and in Downtown North for
ten. I don’t see the current arrangement as being practical. Thank you, that is all I have to say.
Vice-Chair Cassel: Thank you. Paul Dolkas to be followed by Tina Peak to be followed by
Daniel Sill.
Mr. Paul Dolkas, 412 Everett Avenue, Palo Alto: Thank you very much. About a month ago
several members of the Downtown North Neighborhood Association went around and conducted
a survey of the neighborhood to see how people liked the trial, how people felt about the trial.
They surveyed about 584 residents at random. They weren’t trying to cherry pick areas they
thought were going to be for or against and they weren’t trying to distort the numbers by going
outside the neighborhood and asking there. They simply asked a very simple question, do you
support the current traffic calming trial or not? What they found was that 62% of those people
supported it as it is or something very much like it versus 28% opposed. I will repeat that
because it is very important, 62% supported it, 28% opposed it. That is better than a two to one
Now you are going to hear an awful lot from one block tonight and they have been very good at
flooding people with email but I want to remind you that is a minority opinion. They don’t
represent the bulk of the opinion in the neighborhood.
There is a reason why people support this traffic calming trial. Before the barriers went up no
other neighborhood in this City has the vast amount of cut-through traffic that Downtown North
had. Not only was it the highest measured anywhere in the City it was the highest the surveyor
had every seen. It far exceeds the limit for cut-through traffic set forth in the Comprehensive
Plan and with Stanford developing the Sand Hill corridor it is just going to get worse. So like
most of the neighborhood I strongly support this plan. I realize it is not perfect and not
surprisingly it should be tweaked. Of the four plans I think the Reduce option is the one that
preserves most of the benefits, minimizes the cost and improves on some of the problem areas
that we have experienced. The Mixed Measures plan should be considered the bare minimum.
But we need something like this. I would just like to conclude by saying let’s keep what’s been
working. Thank you very much.
City of Palo Alto Page 7
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
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Vice-Chair Cassel: Thank you. Tina Peak to be followed by Daniel Sills to be followed by Pat
Markevitch.
Ms. Tina Peak, 160 Palo Alto Avenue, Palo Alto: Hi. We have lived in Palo Alto for two
decades now and 12 years of that has been in the Downtown North area. We have seen
developments go up and the cars increase and the level of civility decrease. When my kids were
small I used to stroller them around and to Downtown and the cars were constantly cutting me
off, not stopping, speeding by. Since the barriers have gone up this is not as much of a problem.
Just this year my youngest started going to kindergarten at Addison School. So since the barriers
have gone up I felt that it was safe enough that we could now ride our bike to school. It is great
on our side, the barriers are there we can just get all the way down to where the major arterials
are then we us the traffic lights to get across to the other side. I know that there are lots of other
families that are probably here tonight or not here tonight because they have kids that feel the
same way, they like to bike to school and this has made it much safer for us.
Those of us that have followed this process since it started which was many years ago, we have
been through traffic survey planning meetings, we have been through meetings to discuss ways
to calm traffic, we have been to meetings to decide on various options for traffic calming and
then finally voting on various traffic calming plans. It took a long time. It took years. The City
finally got it right and they put the barriers in. I find it unbelievable that now we want to
backtrack and take what is working so well away. We need stronger neighborhood protection
against commuters and cut-through traffic not weaker. Commute cars need to use commute
arterials. They don’t need to use our neighborhood streets. There is a vocal minority that
doesn’t want the least little inconvenience for themselves but no one in the neighborhood would
have to drive further than two block out and two blocks back in to get to anyplace they could
previously have gotten to before. We are talking minutes here if that. I would just like to close
with saying that this month at my son’s school they are studying what is called a life skill and
their life skill for the month is courage. I think it would be great for them to see a City
Commission that was courageous enough to keep a program that is doing what it is supposed to
do. I am just asking you to please leave the barriers as they are, do the right thing, protect our
neighborhoods, protect our kids as they are walking and biking and make the cars use the
arterials that they are supposed to use to get through the City not our neighborhood streets.
Thank you.
Vice-Chair Cassel: I would ask you please not to clap. I am going to ask you please not to clap.
The reason is because we want to keep this moving right along for one and the other is so that we
make sure that people who are not accustomed to speaking feel comfortable even if they have an
opinion that is not accepted by everyone.
This Daniel Sill to be followed by Pat Markevitch and followed by Bob Carlson. Thank you
very much.
Mr. Daniel Sills, 296 Waverley Street, Palo Alto: Thank you. I live on Waverley at the comer
of Everett. I am adamantly for the traffic calming program. I think that the emergency response
time increase issue can be made mute with plastic b011ards, which cost $300.00. In fact response
times will decrease with plastic bollards since firetrucks and emergency vehicles will have that
many fewer cars to content with as they drive through our neighborhood.
City of Palo Alto Page 8
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
45
46
47
48
1 Only street closures work. I am for keeping all of the closures. I am against replacing any
2 closures with traffic circles, speed tables or restricted turn signs. We all know that traffic circles
3 and speed tables do not work and they do not stop the flow of traffic. It is absurd to think that
4 the restricted turn signs will work. The reason? Because most of the non-residents who used to
5 deluge our neighborhood did not obey the speed limit and they did not stop at stop signs so there
is very little chance that they are going to obey these restricted turn signs. Thank you.
Vice-Chair Cassel: Thank you. Pat Markevitch to be followed by Bob Carlson to be followed
by Connie Marking.
Ms. Pat Markevitch, 231 Emerson Street, Palo Alto: Good evening. I am against the current
traffic diversion trial. I have come here tonight to speak to you about appeals to a motion and an
objective view of the project. One of the first emotional appeals used was regarding animals
being rtm down in the street by speeding cars. It is a sad fact of life. Animals get run over by
cars. But the way the proponents of this trial tell it it sounds like it happens all the time in
Downtown North. Not tree. According to the Animal Services Department the rates of animal
death by car are no higher in Downtown North than any other part of the City.
Another example is claims about speeding. In order to convince the City to put in this trial the
proponents wrote letters to the City citing examples of speeding cars careening down their
streets. The fact is the pretrial measurements prove that we have some of the slowest streets in
the City. The typical Downtown North street would rank ninth slowest among all 70 other
streets in the City’s database. It is the exact same database used by Dowling, the traffic
consultants, in their report to the City in May 2000. We don’t understand why the
Transportation Staff insists on including Alma and Middlefield speeds in the report to you since
this trial does not mitigate traffic on those streets.
Another example of an emotional appeal is child safety. The proponents of this trial claim that
child safety is of paramount importance to them. We now have nearly 800 more cars a day on
two sides of Johnson Park. How does it make it safer for children? Yet we don’t hear
proponents asking to move the Cowper/Hawthorne barrier closer to protect the park, why not? I
am still waiting for an explanation as to how my street was made safer by increasing the traffic
past my house by 52%.
Proponents of this trial will try any emotional appeal they can to keep their roadblocks. These
appeals can come in many forms from emotional letters to the Commission that were signed by
their kids but were clearly written by their parents right down to dragging their kids to City
sponsored meetings and parading them in front of City officials. They hope that by cramming
this hall tonight with as many bodies as they can it will sway your thinking. Just remember the
only true way to gauge what the neighborhood wants is to do a City sponsored survey. Thank
you.
Vice-Chair Cassel: Thank you. Bob Carlson to be followed by Connie Marking to be followed
by Carol Lippert.
Mr. Bob Carlson, 345 Poe Street, Palo Alto: It seem to me this is all about 60 seconds, 60
seconds of delay. No one questions that the streets in our neighborhood are now much quieter
and much improved. I will give you one objective fact. There is a 60% reduction in accidents.
City of Palo Alto Page 9
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
45
46
47
48
That is big, big improvement in our safety. This is real. I used to get almost hit at the
intersections of Bryant and Hawthorne or Bryant and Everett at least once a week. I live at 345
Poe Street, by the way. I have lived here for 20-plus years. I raised two kids who are now in
college and were born in the neighborhood.
There is no problem with emergency response times. Plastic bollards or reconfiguring the
barriers to be like College Terrace would make that problem completely go away. There is a
traffic increase on some streets. The augmented plan will probably eliminate all of those
problems. In any case, those would represent relatively small absolute numbers compared to the
reduction of traffic on all the other streets a reduction of thousands on a couple of those streets
and hundreds on ours. There is no unacceptable increase at Lytton. There are really very few
problems with this except for 60 seconds of delay. Why is this causing such a problem? Why is
60 seconds such a big deal? We all know about road rage. You move over in somebody’s lane
and they scream at you, they are angry. That is what is happening here. We have delayed people
60 seconds and you get the kind of emotion you got in the previous speaker. They are terribly
upset but they are upset only over only about a 60 second delay.
Frankly I think what’s happened to the Traffic folks here, the reportand the recommendation, is
they have been brow beaten by these folks who are upset over the 60 second delay. You have
been deluged with angry messages and I think you are all reacting to that. I am asking you to
standup and be counted and reduce the accident rate, keep the barriers. The Mixed plan that has
been recommended would be a disaster. It requires only one jog to get through the
neighborhood. There would be very little reduction using this method and all the traffic would
be funneled onto Hawthorne on the west and Everett in the east. The Reduced plan is equally
bad perhaps worse, at least it is worse for me because it funnels all the traffic onto Palo Alto
Avenue and Poe Street where I live. I don’t understand how the Traffic people missed that.
There will be very little reduction using this because it requires only one jog to get through the
neighborhood again like the Mixed plan. The Augmented plan is the one that solves problems
and improves things and is actually cheaper than some of the other suggestions. If you won’t
stand up to these folks for us what are you going to do at Charleston and the other places which
also need this help? Thank you.
Vice-Chair Cassel: Thank you. Connie Marking followed by Carol Lippert followed by Tom
Kelly.
Ms. Connie Marking, 345 Poe Street, Palo Alto: Hello. Poe Street if you look at the map up
there you see Palo Alto Avenue chugging along and Poe Street is that one connector where the
arrow is pointing but cuts offa piece of Palo Alto Avenue. So all of our previous angry,
committed and dedicated cut-through drivers and go to our street and went yeah, it goes straight
and went as fast as they could on Poe Street. So obviously I am for, strongly in favor of, the
traffic calming.
I moved to this City 20 years ago because I loved two things. I loved Downtown North and I
love the City. I still like Downtown North but less so. It was quiet, close to Downtown and
eclectic when I moved in and it is still close and it is still eclectic but is no longer quiet or safe or
peaceful. It has become a freeway with all the drivers that are going through and I love it less
than I used to. I still.love the City because you have put in the barriers that have helped now to
return it to the neighborhood that I wanted to be in when I moved there. I hope you don’t change
City of Palo Alto Page 10
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
40
41
42
43
45
46
47
48
your mind. I support the current or Augmented Plan because I think the Augmented Plan will
deal with the problems we have today with some segments with more traffic. That’s not right. I
completely oppose the Reduce Current Plan approach because it is the one as the previous
speaker mentioned that funnels all the traffic with one or two turns right along Palo Alto Avenue.
It is a faster way to go through the neighborhood under that plan than it would be to take Everett
or Hawthome.
Finally what I am here to ask you to do is to keep the current plan or fix it, make it better, don’t
take it out and ruin the neighborhood and put it back to the sad state it had become. We know
this is our only chance as I think do you. This has been in the works for ten or 20 years if we
don’t get this in now it is only going to rain the neighborhood and make it even worse in the
future as we continue to see growth in the surrounding areas such as at Stanford.
My kids were raised there.. They are in college. They made it out of the neighborhood safely I
am really glad of that. I don’t envy the people with small children now. We need your help to
make sure that if and when I get grandchildren that come back they can come and visit safely.
Thank you.
Vice-Chair Cassel: Thank you. Carol Lippert to be followed by Tom Kelly to be followed by
Cathy Fisher.
Ms. Carol Lippert, 580 Hawthorne, Palo Alto: Hi. I live at the comer of Hawthome and
Webster in Downtown North. I have lived in this neighborhood since the day I moved to Palo
Alto and I love my neighborhood. As long as I have lived in Palo Alto I have worked on local
campaigns and every single time I say the same thing to the candidate, please help me reduce the
traffic in my neighborhood. Something has got to be done it is only getting worse.
Well aider years, as you know, a plan has been developed. It is enormously successful. When
you look at the number of streets that have increased traffic it is six streets. That is less than
15% of the 38 streets surveyed that have increased traffic, more than 25%. This can be fixed but
not with another plan that removes the barriers. The barriers are what does it. You don’t have to
patrol it. Things don’t change at five o’clock in the morning. I ask you to standup for what you
know is right. This is the program that works. We beg you to keep it. Thank you very much.
Vice-Chair Cassel: Thank you. Tom Kelly to be followed by Cathy Fisher to be followed by
Joe Baldwin.
Mr. Tom Kelly, 151 Waverley Street, Palo Alto: Hi. I live at the comer of Waverly and
Ruthven, which thanks to the Palo Alto Daily I know is part of the fastest route to Downtown
North. My very pregnant wife and I are new to Downtown North. We got here July first. We
came with an open mind. We don’t know what it was like before the experiment. So we for the
last several months have been in learning mode. What we learned from reading the Palo Alto
news we know that the problems are agreed upon and the solution isn’t. We know the fastest
way through Downtown North and it goes right by our house. We are on one of the streets that
got a little more traffic. We are actually okay with that in the end. From the City reports we
learned that almost all target criteria have been achieved or exceeded. I don’t know very many
programs whether it is in business or government where you exceed your goals as readily and as
successfully as this project has. Especially in the two areas we are about and that is the hurried
City of Palo Alto Page 11
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
45
46
47
48
cut-through traffic and accidents in general. From attending meetings, several, and reading a lot
of letters and position papers we have learned that inconvenience seems to be the largest or at
least the most vocal reason for disagreement about this experiment. From our experience we
have learned that safety and inconvenience are related. Think back a way, a lot of people
complained about seatbelts, I am now complaining about infant seats for the first time in 32
years having to purchase a new car that has four doors instead of two. Has anybody been to the
airport lately? Safety and inconvenience are related. We need you to block our streets and keep
them safe. Calm our streets and keep them safe. Safety cannot take a backseat to inconvenience.
Thanks very much.
Vice-Chair Cassel: Thank you, Tom. The next person to speak is Cathy Fisher to be followed
by Joe Baldwin to be followed by Joe Durand. Thank you.
Ms. Cathy Fisher, 815 University Avenue, Palo Alto: Hi. This is actually one of my biggest
phobias. I hate public speaking so please bear with me. I have three points to make. Firstly,
traffic is not just a Downtown North issue. It is a nationwide even worldwide issue. People in
America love their cars they want them to be bigger more powerful and they want to use them to
get from A to B as fast as possible. To address the real problem of traffic you need to attack the
root cause and that is the car. So people either need alternatives to using their car, that’s better
public transport, that’s workplace facilities where you can wash so that you can cycle to work
and not be smelly or you need to make car usage more expensive. Dare I say it? Increase gas
prices and shame on the Limey Liberal here, I know. You don’t address traffic problems by
closing a few random streets. That’s papering over the chasm. It only serves to divert the
problem onto some other poor sods.
That brings me to my second point. Point number two is this is a selfish, selfish, selfish measure.
It is selfish to those that live outside of the area but have to bear the burden of the diverted
traffic. The selfishness is now compounded now as the residents survey the only means by
which we could have our views statistically tallied has been filibustered away. This report here
states that a 25% diversion of traffic is acceptable. I can tell you that it is not acceptable to me.
However, the measures are also selfish to some of the residents inside Downtown North. My
husband is a stubborn person and as soon as the barriers went up in Downtown North he worked
out a slalom route to continue to cut-through the area. We found streets I never knew existed.
The example that has come up is Ruthven Avenue. I never even knew it was there until we
started driving it. So I am very sorry that you have people like me and my family driving down
your street probably about twice a week that never did it before. I am sorry I didn’t put the
barriers up.
Point three, street closures do not calm traffic they only stop or divert traffic. My preferred, I
don’t know where to direct this, but why not just impose a speed limit of 15 miles an hour for all
residential streets? I live on University Avenue and wouldn’t benefit from this but I would
definitely support that. Secondly, I believe you should take down the barriers and replace them
all with traffic circles. Someone said before traffic circles don’t work. I come from Europe they
are used extensive in Europe they do work. They also don’t have to be fancy traffic circles. In
the UK we have things called mini-roundabouts, which is basically a circle that you paint in the
middle of a junction and people drive around it. You can even put a little bump or something in
the middle of it so people know they are driving across it but it is still safe for emergency
vehicles or anyone else. I believe the residents of Downtown North just want some relief from
City 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
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
through traffic. This can and should be achieved through disincenting traffic not by stopping it
all together. Cutting speed limits and imposing traffic circles that is a cheap, effective and fair
alternative. That is all I wish to say and I thank you for your time.
Vice-Chair Cassel: Thank you. Joe Baldwin followed by Joe Durand followed by Marlo Kitch.
Mr. Joe Baldwin, 280 Waverley Street, Palo Alto: For the 20 years I have lived at Waverley and
Everett people have worked to solve what the City’s consultant called "the worst cut-through
traffic I have ever seen." We have patiently worked through years of Palo Alto process to get the
trial solution recommended by the traffic experts. It solved the problem. I urge you to keep the
solution. Tweak it if you must but please do not erase literally years of hard work because some
citizens are inconvenienced and angry. Thank you.
Vice-Chair Cassel: Thank you. Joe Durand to be followed by Marlo Kitch to be followed by
Becky Beacom.
Mr. Joe Durand, 275 Hawthorne Avenue, Palo Alto: Ladies and gentlemen of the Planning
Commission my name is Joe Durand, President of Unblock the Downtown North Neighborhood.
This was a trial. This trial could have been cheaply and quickly implemented and cheaply and
quickly removed. A trial which had it merely adhered to its own rules and existing City
guidelines would have been considered a worthy but failed experiment rather than a continuing
example of how to fracture and polarize a neighborhood. Unblock formed when we realized that
those who oppose the barriers had been un-represented and that we were not a small group but a
large one consisting of both renters and homeowners, parents, seniors, residents who have lived
here for decades. In short, we are just your neighbors with all of their virtues and all of their
vices. Some want to return to what had been many desired a solution less drastic, traffic calmed
not diverted. Our common thread is that none of us wanted barriers. We number over 400 at
least in our neighborhood alone counted either by household or individual. We are asking the
Planning Commission for three things. One, that the Planning Commission ask the Staff to
conduct a survey. Two, of the current proposals which include three plans with barriers and only
one that does not be made more fair and even. Three, that the Planning Commission consider a
super majority vote as many neighboring cities use as our own City Council approved for this
project but which was abandoned as soon as it became clear that there was not the support that
had been originally claimed. A fair even-handed survey, a kind of survey the City has conducted
many times and is well within the budget, a survey that includes those who are affected and a
survey that insures that what we get is the true will of the neighborhood not that of a mobilized
minority on either side of the issue. It seems a very reasonable and fair thing to ask. This was
supposed to be a trial and we hope that you agree. Thank you.
Vice-Chair Cassel: Thank you. Marlo Kitch to be followed by Becky Beacom to be followed by
Janine Bisharat.
Ms. Marlo K_itch, 104 Byron Street, Palo Alto: Hi I live at the comer of Byron and Palo Alto
Avenue. I moved into the neighborhood about a year and a half ago and when the traffic
calming went up I was thrilled. It was a very exciting thing that I didn’t even know about.
When I heard that people were against it I was actually surprised because the neighborhood has
become so much more quiet. It has become so nice to walk down the street, to be able to cross
Hawthorne and not worry about whether we were going to get hit at the comer of Hawthorne and
City of Palo 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
45
46
47
48
Byron. It is a very clam and nice thing. It has taken away all of the joyriding that goes on
especially on Palo Alto Avenue. This is not just happening at traffic height hours at ten o’clock
at night, midnight, two in the morning, people driving 50 or 60 miles an hour down Palo Alto
Avenue because well, they can and because it is fun for them. So this has been a really
wonderful thing for the neighborhood and I hope that it continues. I hope that I don’t have to
wait until he is 18 to get across Hawthorne to visit the child in the neighborhood that is closest to
his age. Thank you.
Vice-Chair Cassel: Thank you. Becky Beacom followed by Janine Bisharat followed by
Frencesca Freedman.
Ms. Beclcv Beacom, 633 Hawthorne Avenue, Palo Alto: Hi I have lived in this house for 17
years although our house has been in our family since 1914. At one time or another family
members from five generations have lived in our house. Fair warning, this is an emotional
appeal, I am very attached and I love my neighborhood. I have fond memories of Lytton
Elementary penny carnivals in the summer. Walking to Fran’s where Fran and Ruth welcomed
us with open arms and gave us the privilege of going into the back and choosing our candy,
especially if we were kids. Adults weren’t allowed to do that. Of sucking on sour grass that
appeared every spring in Downtown North. My mother still refers to the houses in our
neighborhood by their names, the Larson home, the Rollers, the Congdons, the Mills, the Van
der Vorts, At-tells, McCalls and Beersbys. Now I get to tell her their newer names the
Oconsky’s, the Lukases, the Ekoffs, the Lanes, the Hogins. Neighborhoods do have character
and a life unto themselves. I have a long personal history of with what is now called Downtown
North and have been in a position to see its changes over time. Living in a corner house, we are
a corner house in the last block before cut-through traffic reaches Middlefield and the roads
toward Dumbarton. So we consider ourselves at ground zero for the major traffic problems that
have multiplied year after year, after year. While we must all change with the times I believe our
neighborhood, specifically Everett and Hawthorne, have borne the major burden of handling
increased traffic and unsafe driving brought on by the wonderful increased vitality of the
Downtown and commuters heading to their homes in the East Bay. I personally have raised two
children, I have a daughter at a college also and a son who is at Paly, and I personally have
placed countless calls to the police over the 17 years we have lived there. We and the
commuters know that law enforcement cannot be there as much as we would like. We have
waited for years for bigger stop signs thinking maybe people can’t see the stop signs and yet the
unsafe behavior continues. We have waited another two years for thermoplastic paint and
machinery to paint the word "stop" in big letters in case people really just weren’t seeing but the
unsafe behavior continues. Sadly we can longer count on people’s inherent tendency to do the
right thing by driving safely. We are and have long been at a point where City policy of traffic
calming must be the response in order to preserve the safety and the character and life of our
neighborhood. I really want to thank the Traffic and Planning Commission for their leadership
and follow through after all these years. It was right to study the traffic problems in our
neighborhood. It was right and fair to involve neighbors in the process but now it is up to you.
Thank you very much.
Vice-Chair Cassel: Thank you. Janine Bisharat, Francesca Freedman and then Barden Finch.
Ms. Janine Bisharat, 621 Hawthorne Avenue, Palo Alto: Hi I live right next to Becky. I just
want to say that we have enjoyed the piece and quiet and less cars running through our stop sign
City of Palo Alto Page 14
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
on Hawthorne and Byron since the traffic calming has gone in. I call the police less often as
well. We can cross our street safely now and there is not so many speeding cars. We have gone
from 2,400 cars down to 400 cars and appreciate the traffic calming as it is now. What we have
works now and has met its goals except for a few areas, which we feel, can be resolved under the
Augmented plan. Unfortunately during the process it didn’t help to have Lytton Avenue the light
not working. We need to get some sensor lighting in there and also building a garage doesn’t
help so I can understand and sympathize with the people who had to go down Lytton but we
shouldn’t change the plan. We should fix the one that we have. I don’t want to have 2,400 cars
back on my street again. We spent money on the professionals and I think that we should listen
to the way that they came up with the plan and just augment it. I also want to say that a neighbor
on Monday night, her child stopped breathing and the police, paramedics as well as the fire
trucks had fast response. They took the child with the mother to the hospital and they are fine.
We also did have a small fire during the Christmas holiday and as far as I know everything was
fine as well. So I also want to say I agree with the flexible bollards of $300.00 adding that. It is
a lot cheaper than spending $94,000 on a new plan. I also think we should stop focusing on if an
accident comes with the emergency response. We should be focusing on preventing them and
making it safer for children right now. We live on a corner where there are over 25 children
right on that corner. My husband and my son have almost been hit by cars twice because as was
just said people seem to go through our stop sign all the time. I don’t know why they can’t see it
but they always go through the stop sign even if they see people crossing because they want to
get to that Willow Road. This process has been in the making for eight years so please don’t
take it way just on the politics that have been happening. Unblock has been very good. This
neighborhood has wanted less cut-through traffic for years, worked hard to get it, other
neighborhoods have it, it is working fine, why can’t we have it?
Vice-Chair Cassel: Thank you. Francesca Freedman, Barden Finch and Linda Anderson.
Ms. Francesca Freedman, 115 Everett Avenue, Palo Alto: Hi I am going to try to keep this brief.
I have been at this address more or less, on and offsince 1988 although I don’t think that has any
bearing on the subject of whether or not the street should be closed. I have two points. One is,
and it is brought up over and over again, the response time. If I were in ill health and surveyed
on this I would certainly be against it. I certainly wouldn’t want to be in a position where I felt
like I was responsible in any way for implementing this plan for someone’s needless death.
When that first happens and it is clear it is because of these street closures I don’t know I would
be a little disquieted to say the least. My bigger point is the public versus private property issue.
These streets it seems to me belong at least to the City of Palo Alto. They are paid for by the
City of Palo Alto. It is not just the neighborhood. They shouldn’t be privatized. It is
inconvenient for the rest of the City and it is expensive. So basically the rest of the City is going
to pay for the privatization for the minority of people. It doesn’t seem fair even though I may be
a beneficiary of that. So I would suggest something. I think all of Palo Alto should be surveyed,
a sample survey, because again like I said I truly believe all the streets belong to the City, they
don’t belong just to the neighborhood. It shouldn’t be that expensive. It shouldn’t have to cost
$40,000 and I would be more than happy to commit something towards it to pay for a proper
survey. So I think a survey of the entire City of Palo Alto would be very interesting and I also
think that a survey of the older people in Downtown North, say the senior citizens, to see what
their concerns are about response time would also be very informative. Thank you for your time.
City of Palo Alto Page 15
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
45
46
Vice-Chair Cassel: Thank you. Barden Finch followed by Linda Anderson followed by Michael
Evans.
Mr. Barden Finch, 310 Poe Street, Palo Alto: Caroline and I have lived here happily for almost
18 years and we love the neighborhood. We think we see a significant improvement through the
plan both in speed and volume in the traffic that we experience. So we are generally in favor of
it. I would like to give a consideration to the option, which I believe is called the Reduced
Current Plan. I think it would make it a lot easier for many of us residents to get in and out of
the neighborhood without a significant reduction in the effectiveness of the overall plan.
One observation I would like to make concerns the gateway at Hawthorne and Middlefield. I
think it is too close to the comer. It has worried me ever since it was installed. It seems awfully
hard to get through there and into the traffic on Middlefield. If you are trying to come off
Middlefield and the traffic is pressing you to get out of the way it is hard to squeeze through that
gap. I noticed just this morning that somebody took two or three pickets of the fence so I think
confirms what I was saying. Maybe they ought to give consideration to moving it back. Thank
you.
Vice-Chair Cassel: Thank you. Linda Anderson followed by Michael Evans and followed by
Denasuia S.
Ms. Linda Anderson, 267 Bl-yant Street, Palo Alto: I live on Bryant near the comer of Everett.
As a senior I strongly support traffic calming in Downtown North. The trial as implemented has
met or exceeded most of the goals set forth by the City. For me the improved safety resulting
from reduced traffic far out weighs the inconvenience caused by a diversion to arterials.
Assuming that the original goals were valid, and I believe they were, let’s find a way to fix the
problems without allowing cut-through traffic to return to unacceptable levels. I am sorry to the
see the original 65% goal for cut-through traffic reduction change to 35% in the Mixed Measures
Plan. Please work to come as close to the original goal as possible. I want to thank all involved
in this project for working to meet the various needs of our neighborhood. Thank you.
Vice-Chair Cassel: Thank you. Michael Evans to be followed by Denasuia and Lucilia da Silva.
Thank you.
Mr. Michael Evans, 145 Tasso Street, Palo Alto: I want to thank the City Council for allowing
me to speak. I also wanted to thank Joe and Carl for the work they have put in on this. I am sure
it has been somewhat of a mixed reward. I am on the comer of Tasso and Ruthven. I have two
small children. I have lived in Downtown Palo Alto for 15 years on Hawthorne, Webster and
now on Tasso. I wanted to kind of highlight my experience over the years with traffic especially
on Hawthorne. It is a very busy street and I now can bicycle down that street safely with my
children and feel that this overall measure has been very positive to individuals like myself with
families. I would also like to point out that perfection is the enemy of good in these situations. I
think we have done a very good job here and I would implore the City Council to push forward
trying to do regional planning with individual opinions involved must be a very difficult task and
I encourage you to make the right decision. Thank you for the time.
City of Palo Alto Page 16
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
45
46
47
48
Vice-Chair Cassel: Thank you. The next person, the name is spelled D-E-N-A-S-U-I-A. That
person will be followed by Lucilia da Silva and Nancy Pleibel. Please say your full name and
your address.
Ms. Karen Weiss, 134 Tasso Street, Palo Alto: I am Karen Weiss but I am representing 134
Tasso Street on the comer of Tasso and Ruthven. We have owned this property since 1991 but
one of us has lived in the neighborhood for 24 years. We are a household of four people
including a 14 year old and an 83 year old. We are all in favor of the traffic calming measures
that have been taken with modifications of course to allow for better movement of safety
vehicles and to more fairly distribute the increased load on the several streets that are
experiencing it including Ruthven which is one of our cross streets of the comer property that we
are on. With the measures in place the 14 year old is much more able to take a skateboard in the
street and the 83 year old is able to walk the dog without nearly as many concerns as before. So
we urge you not to throw out the baby with the bathwater, make the necessary modifications but
keep calming in place. Thanks.
Vice-Chair Cassel: Thank you. Nancy Pleibel followed by Bert Page followed by Doffs
Sukiermicki. I am sorry if I am not getting your names quite right.
Ms. Nancy Pleibel, 229 Brqant Street, Palo Alto: I have been a resident in the Downtown North
area for 35 years within the same square block area. I have observed the traffic increase and the
unsafe driving practices particularly the speeding and the disregard of traffic signs that are
already in place. The trial calming project that is in place at this time is working. The results
have been dramatic and very positive. I am living with the results everyday. I walk the
neighborhood and I see the results. We have made a great start. Keep this project. If
adjustments need to be made do not put up more traffic signs or right or left mm signals because
people aren’t obeying the stop signs that are already in place and we may have enforcement
problems with regard to enforcing the new signs going up. So regarding the safety issues I am a
senior now and I have no qualms whatsoever with regards to the response time in Downtown
Palo Alto. We have a great location for the people that have to get to us in an emergency. I
think that this is something that should be not of a concern to those of us that are getting older
fast in Downtown North. Thank you.
Vice-Chair Cassel: Thank you. Bert Page followed by Doffs Suldennicki followed by Elaine
Haight.
Ms. Lucilia da Silva, 309 Poe Street, Palo Alto: Sorry, you have skipped me. I have lived at 309
Poe Street for nearly 25 years.
Vice-Chair Cassel: Sorry Lucilia.
Ms. da Silva: Okay. Our street is a very long block and was used every day especially morning
and evening by cut-through traffic as a racetrack. The improvement has brought us safety and
tranquility. I strongly support the traffic calming project. Thank you.
Vice-Chair Cassel: Thank you. Bert Page to be followed by Doffs to be followed by Elaine
Haight.
City of Palo Alto Page 17
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
45
46
47
48
Mr. Bert Page, 267 Bryant Street, Palo Alto: Hi. I am a senior and am strongly support the
traffic calming program. I would like to point out that as far as safety is concerned I am a
survivor of two heart attacks and I have no qualms at all about the response of the Fire
Dep .artrnent especially if the flexible bollards are put in. I first lived on Palo Alto Avenue in
1948 when I was going to school and I have been a resident on 267 Bryant Street for the last 12
years. I want to thank you very much for the calming trial. It was indeed great to once again
feel the safe quieter neighborhood instead of the dangerous flow-through traffic. Flow-through
traffic does not care about the neighborhood. Most they are not shoppers. Their attitude seems
to be the Downtown North is in their way. The small extra time to get to an arterial is more than
worth preventing even one accident. However, can a change be made knowing it will result in
more accidents? I certainly hope not.
Vice-Chair Cassel: Thank you. Doris followed by Elaine Haight followed by Tricia Ward-
Dolkas.
Ms. Doris Sukiennicki, 223 Cowper Street, Palo Alto: I represent myself and the three other
members of my household. I believe that the Planning Commission has a mandate and
obligation to safeguard the residential neighborhoods. In order to enhance and preserve the
quality of living in Palo Alto I believe commuter traffic should be funneled through the wide
arterial streets with traffic signals. Measures should be taken to properly time the traffic signals
to facilitate the flow of vehicles. It is not safe norappropriate to allow large numbers of
commuter vehicles to travel through the narrow neighborhood streets. It is simply unsafe.
I have been driving Everett and Hawthorne on almost a daily basis forthe past 27 years. As you
know the streets of Downtown North are used for parking by many Downtown employees in
order to avoid parking fees and fines. At many of the crossings especially where there is a stop
sign in only one direction it is due to the parking it is impossible to see cross traffic from the stop
signs. Therefore you must creep out into the intersection about a third of the way in order to see
the cross traffic. This is simply a very unsafe situation. I think neighbors on the whole are more
careful but the commuter traffic hardly makes those stops. So I would urge you again to retain
the present plan or the Augmented plan. I thJak it is safer for everyone who lives Downtown and
out weighs the few minutes difference it makes in commuting to go down to Lytton or Hamilton
or University. Thank you.
Vice-Chair Cassel: Thank you. Elaine Haight, Tricia Ward-Dolkas, Eric Filseth.
Ms. Elaine Haight, 166 Cowper Street, Palo Alto: Hi. I think Cowper is one of the blocks that
has increased traffic but I am more than happy to live with that in order to have a safe
neighborhood. I want to thank the City for listening to us through these many years that we have
been through this study. It has been such a huge open process where everyone in the
neighborhood has been asked for input beginning with the study and the design and the
implementation of this test. I want to congratulate you for getting the top consultants.
Everybody has done a great job and now it is this great success. I obviously support it but I want
to go back to some basic values and ask why is it that people pay a premium to live in Palo Alto.
I am sure as the Planning Commission you guys know the answer to that but maybe the other
people forget. Sometimes we forget and I think it is good to remember how are we different
from other communities on the peninsula. Cupertino schools are better than ours there are more
jobs in Santa Clara, Sunnyvale and I think the answer is that Palo Alto is one of the few places
City of Palo Alto Page 18
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
probably in the state that is walkable and bikeable. That is a value that we might just take for
granted here but the City luckily has consistently placed that value ahead ofmega stores and
expressways and our property values show that. You have to be pretty hardcore to walk or
bicycle to the grocery store if you live in Sunnyvale for example. But in Palo Alto generally it
can be more pleasurable to do that. Certainly it was getting less so in Downtown North before
we had this traffic calming come in. I would drive to Whole Foods just because I didn’t want to
deal with possibly getting run over and dodging cars. Since the traffic calming the streets have
been open. I don’t think of them as blocked. I think of them as now open to pedestrians and
bicycles. I now ride my bike to the store, to the shopping center, to Stanford, even to Portola
Valley. The basic value here again is that we in Palo Alto value people over cars. Our
neighborhood is for living in it is not for commuting through. As time goes on neighboring
communities that don’t have that same value will be encroaching upon us and their values of cars
over people, we have been seeing that before we had our traffic calming, they were driving their
cars and trying to impose their values on us. All what we are trying to do is protect what we
value and the value that we have worked hard to protect and why we pay more to live where we
do. Please just keep it in mind that Palo Alto and our neighborhood in particular is for people
and for living and it is a place to live and it is not necessarily for cars over us. Thank you.
Vice-Chair Cassel: Thank you. Tricia Ward-DoNas to be followed by Eric Filseth to be
followed Janice Hough.
Ms. Tricia Ward-Dolkas, 412 Everett Avenue, Palo Alto: Good evening. First of all huge thanks
to Carl and Joe, Ashok and all the incredibly dedicated Staff for all of your effort on this. It has
been a long haul and we really, really appreciate their efforts.
Secondly, I strongly support the wonderful aggregate benefit that the calming has brought to the
neighborhood at the same time the problems need to be fixed. Please, please only consider
something that is going to work for the aggregate and that also is not going to get rid of the
performance criteria 65% reduction of cut-through because that had meaning to it. Why get rid
of that? Please do fix the real problems and not the fictitious ones, not the philosophical ones.
We will never fix those.
Here are some specific thoughts. First of all there is a barrier in front of my house on Everett on
the east side of Waverly. Please move that barrier. Move it to the west side of Waverly so that it
protects. Right now cars are going around three sides of the park. Please move that barrier to
the other side so I get some of the traffic and the park is protected.
Secondly, there is a huge benefit to bicyclists and to children with the traffic calming. Let me
talk about that a little bit. Everett is a proposed east-west bike corridor. Please protect it in the
future arrangement that you have. Don’t lose the ability to have that bike corridor. My kids bike
to school every day. Since the trial has gone in it has been an incredible relief to me to have half
of the distance to Addison School be a safe school corridor for children. It is a huge relief, and I
can tell you from personal experience because we have had some interactions with cars that
haven’t been terribly positive with kids on bikes. There are over 370 kids who go to school at
Addison with significant traffic calming you are providing at least half the distance of a safe
school corridor to school. Thank you very much for all your had work.
City of Palo Alto Page 19
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
45
46
47
48
Vice-Chair Cassel: Thank you. Eric Filseth to be followed by Jan_ice Hough to be followed by
Mike Liveright.
Mr. Eric Filseth, 160 Palo Alto Avenue, Palo Alto: Hi I have lived at 160 Palo Alto Avenue for
12 years. Please do not remove the barriers in the Downtown North neighborhood. The barriers
have clearly accomplished their goal, which is a dramatic reduction in cut-through traffic from
Middlefield and E1 Camino and its diversion back on to the designated arterials of Lytton and
University. This was the intent of the barrier construction and it worked. I understand the
disappointment of some residents with regard to driving around the neighborhood. I do it myself
twice each workday, yes it is an inconvenience but nothing is perfect. There are fundamentally
larger dynamics here. The basic driver for all these issues is commercial growth and
development within Palo Alto, which bring more and more traffic into our town, which
continues. So while driving around the Downtown North neighborhood is inconvenient at least
that inconvenience will never get any worse. Without the traffic calming the amount of traffic
calming the amount of cut-through traffic through Downtown North would absolutely have
gotten worse, and worse, and worse. Please leave the barriers in place. They have clearly solved
an important problem, which is commuter traffic through residential neighborhoods in this case
Downtown North. Mission accomplished and job well done. This is exactly what city
governments are supposed to do. Thank you very much.
Rather the next step should be to look at the overall issue of commute traffic in the City. This
will not be solved as easily as the neighborhood problem was. Lytton, University and also
Hamilton Avenue are already crowded at the current volume of traffic and if University is an
artery then maybe arterial sclerosis is happening. Future increases are going to exacerbate this so
if continued growth is indeed our intent then the City will ultimately have to make some
complicated decisions on what we are going to do with the traffic. None of these decisions will
be popular with everybody and making and implementing them will require wisdom, vision and
fortitude.
At least the task is easier with the other problem, which is the commuter traffic in the Downtown
neighborhood already solved. The City Planning Commission should celebrate this success and
move on to achieving the next one. Thanks very much.
Vice-Chair Cassel: Thank you. I want to remind people that if you wish to speak this evening
you need to fill out a speakers card and take it to one of the Staff or to Olu and that we will be
taking a break at about eight o’clock. All those cards should be in by eight that will be the cutoff
for taking cards. Janice Hough followed by Mike Liveright followed by Joshua Mogal.
Ms. Janice Hough, 189 Bryant Street, Palo Alto: Hello, I am a 20 year resident of Downtown
North, first on Alma now at 189 Bryant and Hawthorne. I am a homeowner and a mother. I am
against the trial and the proposed modifications. Not because they are inconvenient but because
they are extreme, expensive and unfair. People say this trial is the only thing that ever worked
but no simpler trial like mm restrictions at commute hours was every tried. People say the
neighborhood didn’t want speed tables but that notion was never proposed to the neighborhood.
Other people, many who helped design this trial, said how much nicer the neighborhood is now
but that is a subjective opinion and one that may be based partly on real estate values. In fact,
one barrier that has never been removed in any trial in the City is in front of the home of the
Downtown North Neighborhood Association President, a real estate agent.
City of Palo Alto Page 20
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
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
This trial does nothing to calm traffic it just diverts cars from some streets to other streets.
People live on those streets. Seniors live on those streets. Families with children live on those
streets and pets live on those streets. Proponents of the plan call those arterials but residents
there already dealt with more traffic than interior streets. Now it is a lot worse. If any of you are
overloaded with stats and claims just go to Lytton, Middlefield or Alma now during commute
hours. Yes, Downtown has changed in the 20 years that I have been here. It has become a great
destination. There are businesses, restaurants, coffee, entertainment, anything you want. But a
lot of people can’t afford to live here or don’t choose to and realistically they are going to need
to drive here. The purpose of a trial is to learn and I think we have leamed a lot. It is clear that
people underestimated the costs of the road closures not least of which is the divisive effect it has
had on the neighborhood. Traffic is a Citywide problem in Palo Alto and we need Citywide
solutions, a solution that benefits the entire community not just an elite few to the detriment of
others. Thank you and thank you for your patience.
Vice-Chair Cassel: Thank you. Mike Liveright followed by Joshua Mogal followed by Dan
Lorimer.
Mr. Mike Liveright, 260 Byron Street, Palo Alto: First thanks to the Transportation Department
and you for doing your job though you may come up with a different answer than I want. I
really want to support the representative govemment and thank you for the job you have done. I
prefer the current plan with some fixing of course. I can work at my desk without the rum-rum
of traffic going stop, start, stop, start. I can get in and out of my driveway without cars bumping
into the back of me and I have noticed people are walking around, getting to know each others
names. Maybe to argue against their other plan but still we are getting some communication in
the neighborhood. I would have liked to see some improvements early in the project so that we
could get a little bit better plan to do the testing on. I would have liked to see the Lytton and
Hamilton lights timed and synchronized so that we could really get traffic on those streets. That
is coming but it is not here yet. I would like to see street lines where there are barriers so that
people would be reminded not to keep turning down a dead end. I would have liked to see an
improvement in one or two of the hot spots before we had to vote on the next generation. I
would like to see the flexible bollards so that we didn’t have this argument about fire and
ambulances. I think whatever happens I would like to see a commitment that there will be
measurements to be sure-that what the next step is really is analyzed if we go away from what we
have now, which I don’t want of course. Despite this there is more to be done. What we got is a
local solution for cut-through in our neighborhood. We really need to solve the transportation
problem in Palo Alto. That is going to take the improvement in the traffic flow, the
synchronization I have discussed. We want some automatic policemen so that when there are
violations cars can be snapped with cameras, ticketed and we can really start reducing violations
and we need some really expensive general traffic planning so that we can really deal with
traffic. Again, thank you very much for doing your job. I think you know what I support.
Vice-Chair Cassel: Thank you. Joshua Mogal followed by Dan Lorimer followed by Susan
Tachna.
Mr. Dan Lorimer, 465 Hawthorne Avenue, Palo Alto: I am President of the Downtown North
Neighborhood Association and Josh and I are switching here and he is going to put up some
overheads for me.
City of Palo Alto Page 21
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
45
46
47
First of all I want to reiterate something, which I guess a lot of people have said, which is that
many of us are just delighted with what has happened here. We feel that the original design
objectives of the trial were both met and were the correct design objectives in the first place.
The primary three design objectives where 65% through traffic reduction, to try and keep the
increases on all streets within the 25% parameter that is set by the Transportation Department
and good emergency response. Now we have heard a lot about emergency response being a
problem over these last few months. Actually with flexible bollards it should not be. This is a
complete red herring and that the emergency response issue can be actually not only taken off the
table, when you put in flexible bollards now we will have streets that don’t have a lot of traffic
on them and in fact the emergency response will be enhanced in the neighborhood. So once
again we are in favor of this.
We have here a slide showing the flexible bollard, one kind that is available. These cost $360.00
a piece. Obviously not a great cost item. So the first item, we think this is a great success. We
think the original design objectives should be retained in any subsequent work on this. We see
no reason why those objectives should be changed.
Now we see with the alternatives that have been presented there is one that is very close to what
I think is a very good suggestion. That is the Reduced plan. The Reduced plan has one major
flaw and that is that it takes out the closure at Bryant and Palo Alto Avenue creating this cut-
through route. It is quite easy for people to cut-through. We have always had a major problem
with people that wanted to go all the way across the neighborhood. Poe has been a racetrack.
The upper end of Palo Alto Avenue has been very fast. Now Ruthven is getting the traffic that
was formerly on Hawthorne, unacceptable. You put the closure in there and you don’t have that
problem. This costs only $27,000 1 costed it out by asking what would be the alternative on this.
It is the least expensive of all alternatives, meets all the design objectives and primarily meets the
65% through traffic reduction objective. So this is I think the best alternative. I think if we are
going to make changes to the plan we should make small incremental changes that improve the
plan, which now has known effects. If we change things in aggregate, make a whole new plan,
we would have a whole new set of undesired effects. Thank you very much for your
consideration.
Vice-Chair Cassel: Thank you. That was Dan so I take it Josh is going to speak next?
Mr. Joshua Mogal, 429 Ruthven Avenue, Palo Alto: Yes, I am the slide monkey. I live on
Ruthven just offWaverley. So I am also on one of the streets that have received increased
traffic. Our percentage increase was 80%, which sounds very powerful. We went from 200 cars
to 367 cars as opposed to the thousands that were cut off of Hawthorne and Everett. So like my
neighbor, Tom Kelly who spoke earlier, I concur that despite the large apparent percentage on
my street I find it relatively acceptable because my neighborhood as a whole has become much,
much better.
I think we have all watched this process unfold in the press and via email to Council and to the
Commission. I think we have all been deluged. I feel a huge dose of sympathy for the
Transportation Division. Joe and Carl have been hammered by this through the whole process
and it has been very difficult and divisive. When I look around and see "Unblock" stickers on
City of Palo Alto Page 22
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
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
people it just feels like a way of saying you are A and I’m B. I think that we are all a
neighborhood and I think we would all like to see that process end.
So on.e thing I should note that wasn’t mentioned during the Staff Report at the beginning was
that the Staffrecommendation, unless it changed between the packet that went out Thursday and
tonight, the Staffrecommendation was to adopt the Mixed Measures Plan, make it permanent
and the current trial now and not do a survey, take a few months see how the Mixed Measures
does and then measure that and see if there are major fixes that need to happen. I think
obviously the value in all that is that by ending the current trial now and going to something
permanent kind of wraps up the very divisive issue that has been tearing the neighborhood apart
and allows us to start to heal the rift that has happened between all of us. Also end some of the
loud screaming, which I think all of us would appreciate.
So I think we are very, very supportive. We have worked with the Council, with Staff
extensively from before the trial to plan it, to go through it, to measure it, to figure out how we
could make it better and we absolutely and positively support them. They know what they are
doing. They are the professionals and they are the ones who should be doing traffic engineering
not the citizens of the neighborhood.
At the end of the day when we look at the recommended Mixed Measures Plan we understand
why Staffwas more or less put in the position of trying to come up with a compromise that
satisfied the people who wanted them all out and the people who wanted to keep them all in. I
understand it is very [solomonic], if we just cut the seven in half to three and a half, well we
can’t do that, how about four? Gee that sounds pretty reasonable both sides get half of what they
want. I understand that but at the end of the day it really doesn’t address the metrics that we
were targeting. It doesn’t address the issues. Thank you.
Vice-Chair Cassel: Thank you. Susan Tachna to be followed by David Adams to be followed
by Jeff Snyder.
Ms. Susan Tachna, 614 Everett Avenue, Palo Alto: Thank you. I would just like to express my
strong support for the traffic calming measures in place. It has made a tremendous difference in
the quality of our family life in the neighborhood. Before the traffic calming measures were put
in place I was hit by a car while simply trying to make a left turn into my driveway. As I got out
of my car and the other driver got out of his car his first comment to me was, God, woman I am
late for work. That is sort of summed it up. I sort of hadn’t been paying a whole lot of attention
to the organization that was helping in the neighborhood I knew it was going on but my first
thought was, oh your are the reason my neighbors want to install a traffic calming program of
some sort. Now that they are in place, like many people have already said, I would like to echo
how much safer I think the streets are for my children and for myself as well. I recognize that
we may need to tweak the project. I am really in favor of working with the folks who are having
difficulties with the measures. I think that the Reduced plan may be the one that may sort of best
meet some of the safety and calm streets criteria that I feel like we so desperately want. I also
just want to thank City Staff and you and the neighborhood for working on this. Thank you.
Vice-Chair Cassel: Thank you. David Adams to be followed by Jeff Snyder to be followed by
Steve Fram.
City of Palo Alto Page 23
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
45
46
47
48
Mr. David Adams, 167 Bryant Street, Palo Alto: First I want to apologize, my name might show
up again due to the difficulties in the beginning of the meeting with the cards. I would like to
say that you have heard a lot of concerns from a number of citizens. One person feels more safe
ano~er person feels less safe. One person feels there is less noise and another feels that there is
more noise. Clearly this is not a plan that fixes these problems but one that redistributes them for
the benefits of some and at the expense of others.
Barriers are not good for our neighborhood..They are not good for the surrounding areas and
they are not good for Palo Alto. To this date no real survey of all those effected by the barriers
has been conducted. The only survey that was conducted was hopelessly inadequate, I being one
person who was completely left out even though I have been here since 1997. We ask for you to
give us a chance to fix this mistake and we ask for a similar survey to the one that we did to
install these barriers and that is done by household and that is fair and includes open street
solutions as well as closed street solutions. And we ask that everybody who is affected have the
opportunity to participate and everybody is asked the same questions. Then we ask the City to
fulfill its obligation and commitment to a super majority in this survey.
There were some good safeguards put in place in the trial plan and these were meant to protect
the neighborhood. First emergency response should not be affected and traffic should not be
diverted within the neighborhood and a survey of the neighborhood showing at least 51% of the
effected parties support the plan. Those safeguards were cast away and ignored and now I see
that emergency response has the potential to be significantly delayed and that all the studies
indicate the traffic has been diverted throughout the neighborhood and the other streets cannot
support the traffic. So we have a divided neighborhood. Please give us a chance to send a clear
message to the Council and allow us to fix the mistakes through the transparency of a survey.
Thank you.
Vice-Chair Cassel: Thank you. Jeff Snyder to be followed by Steve Fram to be followed by
David Solnick.
Mr. JeffSnyder, 380 Palo Alto Avenue, Palo Alto: Thank you. I live in that triangle there on the
far left. I live there with my two young children and wife. We have lived there for 12 years.
The calming is extremely important. I am going to try to just highlight a few things. I agree
with everything everyone has said in favor of traffic calming. I think you should go with either
the trial plan, the Augment or Dan’s solution the reduce but you have to keep the Palo Alto and
Bryant blockade there because that is a complete speedway through there. It was before that
went in. The Mixed Measures is good for me because it keeps that blockade but it is bad for my
neighbors because it is one jog to get from Hawthorne up to the children’s park at Waverly and
then through Everett and through the end. So I would urge you to keep Palo Alto and Bryant, the
blocker there.
Now another thing we are very inconvenienced when we drive because we are at the end of the
neighborhood there. It is the longest drive that you can do in here to get out to Lytton, to
Middlefield and up to Redwood City to see the Scott Peterson trial. So we used to just go down
Palo Alto Avenue and take a left on Middlefield. Now we have to go around there but we don’t
mind it is better for the neighborhood. There is more walking: There is more biking. I go
biking with my daughter. We walk to Downtown more and frequent those businesses so that is
probably a good thing.
City of Palo Alto Page 24
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
40
41
42
43
45
46
47
Josh made a great point about I would not compromise this just for the sake of compromise. We
asked for 14 measures and 14 measures went at the beginning of this now maybe we would be
talk~, g about seven. So I think there was compromise at the front end of this and to just say well
we should do a little bit of mix because we have some opposition to this I don’t think is the right
thing to do. I think you should look at the data. Thanks to Joe and Carl for doing a great job
sticking through this process.
Vice-Chair Cassel: Thank you. Steve Fram to be followed by David Solnick to be followed by
Ramona "Beth" Guislin.
Mr. Steve Fram, 614 Everett Avenue, Palo Alto: We have a PowerPoint presentation and I am
just waiting for the clicker to be able to show. Ready now. I am presenting with David Solnick.
I live on Everett Avenue and David lives on Webster. We are both parents and residents of
Downtown North. David also owns a Downtown North business and Downtown North rental
property. While David and I are pro calming we aren’t here to represent any particular group. I
would also like to say we respect the work from the Transportation Department and have some
thoughts and ideas, which may be new to the discussion.
So first take a look at this slide. We want to compare Downtown North to the Downtown
neighborhood south of University and try to answer the question, why is this neighborhood
different from other neighborhoods? I have lived south of University on Addison and I currently
live on Everett. In the case of Downtown North we handle traffic from south of Ravenswood in
Menlo Park, traffic exiting 101 onto Willow and many other sources. All of that traffic is
funneled through three avenues. South of University does roughly the same thing, there are eight
avenues. It is no surprise that the traffic data shows an unusually large amount of cut-through
traffic in Downtown North. Downtown North is in this regard unique and doesn’t set a
precedent for other neighborhoods. It is unique because of sort of the thinness of the area and
the amount of traffic that it has to channel through there.
I want to look at the ethicacy of the various plans described by the Transportation Department.
Our analysis in particular takes the viewpoint of a cut-through driver trying to find the best way
to pass through the neighborhood. Many of us have been in that position. First we have the
Augmented Plan similar to what is in place now where the best route across the neighborhood
involved four jogs through the neighborhood. This has been effective as shown by the
Transportation Department. Next the Reduced Plan, three jogs, still pretty inconvenient. Next
the Mixed Plan we will talk about it in a minute but one jog gets you across the neighborhood.
Finally the no closure plan, where you can get through in a straight shot even though there are
traffic circles. David and I both prefer the current plan or the Augmented Plan and in any case
support the 65% reduction in cut-through target.
However, David is going to talk in a little more detail about the recommended Mixed Measures
Plan and maybe give some insights into that.
Vice-Chair Cassel: Thank you. David Solnick and he will be followed by Ramona "Beth"
Guislin and John Guislin.
City of Palo Alto Page 25
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
45
46
47
48
Mr. David Soln_ick, 227 Webster Street, Palo Alto: Hi. We believe the Mixed Measures Plan
has a lot of merit and we certainly have a lot of respect for all the work that has gone into it and
all the thought and expertise that has gone into it. But we believe it has a couple of significant
problems. One of which is shown here and that is that the remaining cut-through traffic is
funneled through a single path which requires only one jog, a jog being a left turn followed by a
right turn or vise-versa. Therefore it has the potentially actually to be worse than no traffic
measures at all because now of course we have traffic funneling through both Everett and
Hawthorne and in this case with only on jog in that one route we are pretty certain that that
would be the route that most people would take. So that may actually have more traffic than
either Everett or Hawthorne did pretrial. The other disadvantage of this plan is that the cross
path uses Johnson Park. It goes by Johnson Park, which we certainly would like to protect. Just
looking at it in a broad perspective Everett and Hawthorne pretrial carried 84% of the traffic.
But in this plan they have only 50% of the closures. On the other hand Palo Alto Avenue carried
just 16% pretrial traffic but carries 50% of the closures in this plan and that seems quite out of
proportion to the requirements.
So here is how we think the Mixed Measures Plan could be improved. By taking the closure on
Palo Alto Avenue at the end of the blue line and moving it up to Everett and Byron we would
still have a four closure plan but the quick strap through the neighborhood would require two
jogs rather than one. That move of course is not actually a construction move because that
closure already exists at that location. So that also would allow the traffic circle which is at
Everett and Webster to be removed because it really would be redundant being right next to that
closure. So actually our chance would reduce the cost of the Mixed Measures plan by not
requiting the installation of one traffic circle.
So then with the same number of closures, this change creates a two jog rather than a one jog
path that is the easiest through the neighborhood and that easiest path is still easier than a path
that goes through Palo Alto Avenue and Poe which is shown in green there. So we believe that
would be the most likely plan. Thank you very much.
Vice-Chair Cassel: Thank you. Roger Craig to be followed by Irv Brenner. Sorry Ramona
"Beth" Guislin followed by John Guislin followed by Roger Craig.
Ms. Ramona "Beth" Guislin, 225 Middlefield Road, Palo Alto: I have lived here since 1977. I
moved here from Los Angeles. When I first came to Palo Alto I thought it was the greatest place
and I knew I wanted to live here sometime. I succeeded. I got a job up here, moved here. I like
it so much I commute 50 miles to Santa Cruz everyday to work because I really like Palo Alto.
But I have to tell you I am really disappointed. I am disappointed by the selfishness of those
who want to block off streets that are paid for by all Palo Alto residents. I am disappointed and
angry that a small number of residents can prevent others from driving on public streets. They
say that is because they are glad their children are safer but what about the rest of the people in
the neighborhoods that surround them? The fairness principle really gets me, I have to tell you,
it just doesn’t make sense to me.
So for me it really doesn’t have anything to do with an inconvenience. It is just the principle of
public ownership and public streets should not be blocked offto the public and these are streets
that we all pay for. I am not opposed to speed tables or roundabouts or additional stop signs. I
City of Palo Alto Page 26
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
45
46
47
48
certainly support increased traffic enforcement. I simply think it is wrong to block public streets.
The other part of it, which only one other person has mentioned tonight, I think there is an
elephant in the room. If you live on a blockaded street it is likely that your house values do go
up. I.fyou only ask people who do own homes in a particular neighborhood, do you want to have
your streets blocked off, they are probably going to say yes. But if you ask everybody around is
it fair I really don’t think it is. Thank you.
Vice-Chair Cassel: Thank you. John Guislin to be followed by Roger Craig to be followed by
Irv Brenner.
Mr. John Guislin, 225 Middlefield Road, Palo Alto: Hi. I am here because I feel the City is
failing to do its duty to manage an open and fair process and to look out for the welfare of the
entire community. With regard to Downtown North traffic diversions from the beginning the
Transportation Department did not follow its own guidelines. I believe it was bullied into
recommending a solution that its own policies state should be only a last resort that is barriers.
When I asked the Transportation Department how this came about the response was the DTNNA
rejected other options such as speed tables. Who gave this small group the power to override
City standards? Why did the City not stick to its standards? At the December 3 public meeting
on barriers I approached Steve Emslie and asked what the City had learned from this difficult
process? His response, we have known for a number of years that barriers are controversial and
should only be used as a last resort. If the City had this knowledge why did Transportation, the
Planning Commission and the City Council approve an initial trial of barriers? Planned as a key
component of the trial the now cancelled neighborhood survey itself has become controversial.
Again, City standard procedure and standard across the entire country is to survey by household
and to include area residents impacted by a change. DTNNA opposed both these City standard
procedures. While groups from opposing sides negotiated with the Transportation Department
on survey details the Vice President of DTNNA sent an email to City Council on October 7
pleading, "Don’t put it to a vote of the community." This is nothing less than bad faith
negotiation coupled with public image manipulation and has succeeded in derailing City standard
process once again.
Most disturbing to me is the presence of the Chair of this Planning Commission, tonight
recuesed, representing DTNNA in discussions with City government including participation in a
meeting held with the head of Transportation on October 23. This is clearly a case of bad
judgment and raises the specter of undue influence. I believe the City needs to investigate to
determine if his actions violate the Political Reform Act of 1974 and if they have tainted this
process. Has the City had the wool pulled over its eyes? Has the City not been doing its
homework? Or are there even more serious issues at play? None of these possibilities is
appealing.
Palo Alto has expended an enormous of energy to address traffic concerns on streets that
Transportation labels as having low volume, low accident rates and low incidents of speeding.
DTNNA is a small group with parochial interests. City government is charged with looking out
for the interests of all Palo Alto residents. Citizens do not expect City government to be perfect
we do however, expect and require that you look at the big picture and manage programs to the
benefit of all residents. Thank you.
Vice-Chair Cassel: Thank you. Roger Craig.
City of Palo Alto Page 27
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
45
46
47
Mr. Roger Craig, 101 Waverley Street, Palo Alto: I moved here in 1950. I attended Palo Alto
High School, Class of 1953. Mike Cobb your former Mayor was in my graduating class and he
is my friend. First of all I would like to say I strongly support the existing closures. If anything
augment them more. If for some reason it has to be reduced in its so-called draconian-ness it is
very, very important to keep Palo Alto Avenue blocked off. Those of us that live on Palo Alto
Avenue, including myself, have experienced it becoming a racecourse. I know it doesn’t look
like it is a very nice conduit for people commuting and it maybe isn’t but it is a very nice course
for people to test drive cars on. Stop signs are routinely ignored not slowed down for just
ignored. People go around the curves very fast. Some years back until the police stopped it the
used car dealers on University were telling the people to test drive their cars on Palo Alto
Avenue. To change this blockage has made has just been phenomenal. I implore you to keep the
blockages on Palo Alto Avenue.
Next I would like to talk about a very tangible benefit to the existing blockages that have been
kind of kept as a semi-secret. That is the number of police calls went from 675 down to 550 in
the four month trial period. That is 12% reduction. That translates to 475 in a year. Now I don’t
know how much police calls cost but I would guess a very conservative amount would be
$100.00 per call, an officer has to respond, write reports, time has to be taken. That translates to
$45,000 a year or alternatively better police protection for the rest of the City including our
neighborhood. It frees up perhaps one or one-half of a policeman. That compares very
favorably with the one anecdotal case with the person running through the blockages avoiding
the policeman. That is a very tangible benefit. Furthermore, as was related earlier, crashes were
reduced 60%: I don’thave a number on that but the offense cases went from 82 down to 68 that
is 42 less per year. These are very tangible numbers. These were given by the City in the first
meeting that we had. I don’t know how to exactly quantify them but this is very substantial and
more than pays for the blockages.
The other thing I would like to note if I have a moment is I wasn’t keeping track but I noticed a
number of people that came here took the bother to come and give presentations of those people
really enjoying the blockages greatly outnumbers the people who have for some reason found the
blockages uncomfortable. I don’t know but that might well represent the condition of the
neighborhood. It certainly is as I have observed it I was one of the survey takers on Palo Alto
Avenue where the support for the blockages is enormous. Thank you very much.
Vice-Chair Cassel: Thank you. Irv Brenner to be followed by Kathleen Craig to be followed by
Fred Bisharat.
Mr. Irv Brenner, 250 Byron, Palo Alto: Thank you. I have lived in Palo Alto since 1957 and
when it comes to traffic the Downtown North neighborhood is unlike any other. Before the
calming trial was in place we had more than 5,000 cars per day careening through our streets.
We had 16 accidents in one year at a single entry point. And these are by far the worst statistics
in the City. The traffic consultant described it as the highest cut-through traffic rate he had ever
measured in his dozens of similar projects throughout California. I know you understand that a
very high threshold must be reached to trigger traffic calming measures. The Comprehensive
Plan and Traffic Department defines these guidelines and our neighborhood unfortunately for us
qualified. Remember desiring traffic calming is not the same as need it and needing it is not the
Oty of Palo Alto Page 28
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
45
46
47
48
same as getting it. It has been a very long road but we need it, we got it and I think we deserve
it.
The result of the project is that many more seniors from Lytton Gardens and Webster house are
now taking their dally walks here. Children can safely cross the streets and cyclists can ride
safely without being threatened, honked at or sideswiped as I was. It is purely a safety issue
nothing more nothing less. The fact that an extreme traffic predicament was successfully
mitigated with target objectives reached is a truly remarkable achievement. What I find most
disturbing is that when a neighborhood is demonstrably at high risk whether it be of crime,
environmental or traffic other citizens don’t rally on their behalf and support a solution. I just
don’t understand their positions. Emergency response time has been raised as a major issue. We
have the good fortune of not only being within a few blocks of the police station but also having
a fire station adjacent to the neighborhood. The Fire Department’s target response time is less
than six minutes 90% of the time. Recently two emergencies occurred within the neighborhood
both within a block of my home. They were in the farthest diagonally opposite comer of the
neighborhood from the fire station. The first event, a fire, brought several engines and an
emergency vehicle within minutes. The owner couldn’t believe how fast they had responded and
told me so. The second event involved a child who stopped breathing just two houses from the
first and once again the response was immediate and successful this by the way without flexible
bollards or other enhancements to the current plan. I think you will agree that this project was
based on quantifiable data and has met its targets. There are always those who will put their
personal convenience ahead of the safety of others but it is up to you to discern the difference
and act accordingly. Thank you.
Vice-Chair Cassel: Thank you. Kathleen Craig to be followed by Fred Bisharat and at that point
we will have a break. There are bathrooms near the elevators and there are some down on Level
A as well.
Mr. Kathleen Craig, 101 Waverley Street, Palo Alto: Honorable Commissioners, I live at the
comer of Palo Alto Avenue and Waverley. I would like to thank Joe and Carl for all of their
hard work. They have really been troopers through all of this and I know it has been a difficult
process. I am speaking in response to an opinion that I have heard voiced by some, which states
that Palo Alto Avenue does not need traffic calming because it is narrow and winding and
therefore it is self-regulating. In response to that hypothesis there are two points that I would
like to bring to your attention. First I would like to remind you that Palo Alto Avenue runs along
the edge of San Francisquito Creek which to my knowledge is one of the few if not the only
natural creek left in our City. What does that have to do with traffic calming, you say? Well,
from the center of the creek up to Palo Alto Avenue is a dedicated City park. Now that there is
traffic calming in our neighborhood more and more people are enjoying access to this little
known City treasure. We see it all the time, bikers, walkers and parents with strollers can now
enjoy the park without fearing that they will be rundown by someone speeding down the narrow
and windy Palo Alto Avenue. Secondly, in my mind much more seriously, is the fact that my
husband and I were the unfortunate witnesses to a very serious accident at our comer. A
youngster who lived in Menlo Park was riding his bike and trying to cross Palo Alto Avenue in
order to get to the bike bridge. It would be helpful if you would show on your map where the
bike bridge is. He youngster was rundown by a motorist who had been driving recklessly on
Palo Alto Avenue. I can’t sufficiently explain my emotions, the emotions that I experienced
while trying to comfort this child while we waited for the paramedics to arrive. Palo Alto
City of Palo Alto Page 29
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
40
41
42
43
45
46
47
48
Avenue was like a speedway before the traffic calming went in. A lot of pedestrians and bikers
have to cross Palo Alto Avenue to get from the bike bridge to Downtown. Please don’t consider
any options that will remove barriers on Palo Alto Avenue and return it to being the expressway
between Middlefield Road and Alma. Thank you very much for your time.
Vice-Chair Cassel: Thank you. Fred Bisharat.
Mr. Fred Bisharat, 105 B~on Street, Palo Alto: I have been living here for the last 45 years and
we have seen the cows in South Palo Alto on the loose many a time but things are different and
the traffic has grown humongously and I am so glad you took the opportunity to implement the
traffic calming plan. I also would like you if you could to synchronize the signals on Lytton
Avenue so the traffic would flow a little better. Besides that all these children and their children
are my children and grandchildren and I love to see them all enjoying Palo Alto. The traffic
calming works. Thank you for all your efforts and for your courage in implementing this plan. I
trust your judgment in the details whatever you do will be to the detriment of the community. I
love you all. Thank you.
Vice-Chair Cassel: Thank you. We are going to take a ten minute break. We are going to set
the timer for ten minutes so the buzzer will ring and we will be back at that time. We are about
halfway through the public testimony.
We’d like the Staffto come back and the Commissioners and the people in the audience. We are
about halfway through the public heating. Thank you very much for settling down. This is a
long hearing but we want to hear all of you. It is going well and we appreciate your cooperation
and your conciseness with your statements. This has been very nice.
Those of you who are in the back who would like to talk would you please step out into the other
room. Joe, I need you. I need the Staff back at the table. Thank you. That was good and fast
appreciate that.
We will continue the public hearing. The first person to speak is Mark Nanevicz and the second
person to speak is Jane Stem and the third person is Nancy Adler. Remember you are speaking
for a maximum of three minutes. If you don’t need to speak for the three minutes that helps us
out a lot. You can say I supported a statement that was made before. It is appreciated by
everyone, thank you.
Mr. Mark Nanevicz, 228 Waverley Street, Palo Alto: I live right by Johnson Park. I was part of
the neighborhood committee, which helped implement this entire project. I was with it from the
very beginning. First of all I would like to say I believe that this has been an incredibly
successful plan. It has worked very, very well and I am very happy with it so far.
I am deeply concerned about the suggested Mixed Plan. I would call it the compromise plan
rather than a mixed plan. It is basically going to take the traffic that we had, tens of thousands of
cars, driving on Hawthorne and Everett and reduce them dowia to one lane snaking through the
middle of our neighborhood. Then implementing turn restrictions requires police enforcement,
which the neighborhood decided a long time ago we wanted to avoid any use of police
enforcement because we basically have none right now and we never did before. No one has
stopped at any of the stop signs for the last 13 years since I have lived here.
City of Palo Alto Page 30
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
45
46
47
48
One thing I wanted to comment on is a lot of people said that there has been a polarization of our
neighborhood. I found it to be the exact opposite. I feel like it has really brought the
neighborhood together. People are out on the streets walking, people are out with dogs walking
in the streets, people feel a lot safer. There are many, many more bicyclists. It feels like a much
more unified neighborhood than it ever has since I have been there in the last 14 years now. So
would say it is the furthest thing from polarization. I would say it really brought the
neighborhood together and been a great success at that.
There have also been some comments regarding it being a privatized street or a gated community
and the residents here are not sharing their streets. Well, when I last looked we have about 300
or 400 cars parked in the neighborhood everyday to use Downtown. There are cars all over the
streets right now. It certainly is far from being private or closed.
There were also suggestions as far as, I guess with the bollards going to plastic bollards,
hydraulic bollards, whatever we need to do to ease people’s minds as far as response times. I
don’t think we have had any problem with response times but I think those are things we should
look at rather than reducing what we have with the existing barriers. I don’t think we should
take anything out. I think we should tweak it and improve it if we need to but let’s try to work
with what we have not reduce what we have. Thank you.
Vice-Chair Cassel: Thank you. Jane Stem to be followed by Nancy Adler to be followed by
Terry Davis.
Ms. Jane Stem, 230 Emerson Street, Palo Alto: Good evening. I would like to be the voice from
the other side of the pole ifI could for a second. I became involved in Unblock, the Unblock
movement, shortly after I found myself standing in the middle of Emerson Street with a
handmade sign that said slow down. Needless to say my efforts were futile and resulted mostly
in some unflattering hand gestures from passing motorists. Since that day I have watched
Emerson Street become a fast moving angry artery for frustrated commuters and residents as
well. Huge construction trucks, pickup tracks, delivery tracks, FedEx trucks, airport shuttles,
SUVs all vie for space on the narrow road that also houses parked cars on both sides of the street.
My concern tonight however is not really traffic. I knew when I bought a house in an area
known as Downtown North that I could not expect to live in a bucolic paradise. My concern is
fairness. The walk down Palo Alto Avenue now is like walking in a park. Mine and several
other cross streets sometimes feel like walking on the Embarcadero. Mostly I feel like I had no
real voice in the decision and that I have no real voice in it now. I have written letters to the
Editor, I have posted signs, some of which were tom down right in front of me. I have spoken to
the Council. Mostly I was eager for the follow up survey. I and others also walk the
neighborhood to find out how our neighbors felt. Things got a little wild from time to time. We
had petitions thrown at our feet and we were accosted and accused of being vigilantes. However,
to my amazement over 650 citizens were willing to sign a petition asking the City to reconsider
the blocking of the streets. 374 households who volunteered to sign were within the residential
area defined by DTNNA, 400 more households fell within the areas outside the boundaries that
were nevertheless affected by the closures. So I wasn’t alone in my frustration and feelings of
powerlessness. I can live with traffic as long as it doesn’t drown out my voice and my right to be
heard.
City of Palo Alto Page 31
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
45
46
47
48
Vice-Chair Cassel: Thank you. Nance Adler to be followed by Terry Acobo Davis to be
followed by Walter Sedriks.
Ms. Nancy Adler, 109 Emerson, Palo Alto: Good evening Commissioners. We come to you
tonight asking you to be a part of the checks and balances that are necessary in good government,
to hear our grievances, to consider our proposals and to allow those of us living in Downtown
North to choose for ourselves the traffic calming measure for safe streets without resorting to
street closures. Street closures are for neighborhood block parties, for farmer’s markets, for
annual arts and craft shows. As many traffic management departments have concluded street
closure is the most extreme measure in a traffic engineer’s tool box are rarely necessary for safe
streets. Yet tonight we find ourselves particularly disappointed that the Staff Repot before you
continues to show a bias for the DTNNA street closures. This stay the course Mixed Measures
plan continues street closures without offering a transparent open or closed community survey as
was promised through this six month trial. This is not a new traffic calming plan at all and that is
patently unfair. Without a survey the majority of residents of Downtown North will suffer a
disenfranchisement to choose for themselves. Therefore we hope you will accept the option
available to you in Mr. Emslie’s email of December 3, 2003 and choose to recommend an
independent survey of Downtown North that will help us to-get this right.
As you consider all of this before you this evening we would also like to take a moment to
register some objections and ask some questions about the Staff Report. Of the four options
three of the four keep streets closed while only one, the No Closure Plan offers alternative traffic
calming. This is called weighting the choices of any potential survey in favor of street closures.
Also a fairer, clearer name for the No Closure Plan would simply be Traffic Circles and Speed
Tables. In resource impacts wasn’t the cost of removing trial plan budgeted for already? If in
fact the removal of the trial wasn’t budgeted it at least infers a lack of candor and begs the
question as to whether this was truly a trial or a trick to close our streets. Additionally I would
request that you ask the Staffto revisit the cost estimate of the No Closure Plan. We found at
least in Seattle the DOT literature shows traffic circles at $7,000, speed table at $2,000. Thus at
least in Seattle that would mean the No Closure Plan is approximately $25,000. In closing we
would like to assure the Commission that we say yes to safe streets but no to street closures that
physically deny, divide and make a maze of our neighborhood, divert our traffic to other streets.
Privatized streets paid for with public funds and close public property to allow private
individuals to increase their property values and cost decreasing others. Know that safety cannot
be secured merely through locked streets but the path of safety for all of us lies in the opportunity
to discuss, freely supposed grievances and proposed remedies. I hope what we have
communicated to you tonight is that we need your help to get it right in Downtown North. I urge
you to remove the street closures and conduct a survey. Thank you.
Vice-Chair Cassel: Thank you. Terry to be followed by Walter Sedriks to be followed by Ed
Glasier.
Ms. Terry Acobo Davis, 169 Bryant Street, Palo Alto: I would just first of all like to thank the
City government for finally implementing a traffic calming measure. I have several
perspectives. I am sorry I don’t have something prepared. IfI did I would have a PowerPoint
presentation up there and I would tell you what you would see. I agree with everything that
people have said about traffic calming especially the parents that are here. I have been a nurse at
City of Palo Alto Page 32
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
45
46
47
48
Stanford Hospital for 28 years, 20 of those years I have spent in the pediatric ICU and one of my
jobs is that I am a critical care transport nurse. I have to get to work pretty fast and that is
probably to save some child’s life. I have seen life and death. I have seen children hit by cars,
hundreds of them, in my time as a nurse. I have seen children dye in my arms hit by cars. I have
seen cars run into each other. I have seen people drive way to fast on Bryant Street. I believe
that traffic calming should be stronger than it is. I think that there should be speed bumps or
something on Bryant Street because I live right across from the Hawthorne Apartments where
people drive like a conduit. They are driving like it is an expressway. If you have ever seen a
child hit by a car going 25 miles per hour, they are going to die, they are still going to dye. I
think 15 miles per hour would probably be safer. I agree with my neighbors that say that people
don’t look at signs. So I would be showing you children in the ICU ifI had a PowerPoint
presentation and you would not like that picture.
The other thing is I have lived in this neighborhood for 22 years both as a renter and as a
homeowner. When I got my dog I slowed down. I have had my dog now for five years. My life
is slower because I have to walk my dog everyday and I found out that I am blessed with
wonderful neighbors. A lot of my neighbors are here now. As an artist, as my other job, the
aesthetics of the neighborhood are beautiful that we have. When you drive down to get to work
and you don’t stop to smell the roses you are missing out. It is wonderful to be able to walk my
dog to the park and see that more children can come to the park now and be safe. The people
that have dogs can also be safe walking them. I have stopped for people that have been hit by
cars as a good Samaritan so I am here as that as well.
As far as those orange barricades as a person that rides in the back of an ambulance or in a
helicopter or in a plane I have gone through those orange barricades and you can get to where
you need to go very safely. I have lots to say, people can talk to me afterwards. Thank you very
much.
Vice-Chair Cassel: Thank you. Walter Sedriks to be followed by Ed Glazier to be followed by
Steve Kutner.
Mr. Walter Sedriks, 325 Waverley Street, Palo Alto: The area is zoned mainly residential and
has been down zoned to less dense residential in recent years however, the traffic levels in the
cross streets here have risen to the highest levels ever seen in a residential neighborhood with
about 32 accidents in a space of five and a half years at Everett and Middlefield alone. The non-
residential traffic represents up to 75% of the total. Now why this can’t so easily been seen from
the marked up map, I guess you have to look sideways, but we naturally expect higher traffic
levels because we are close to Downtown but that is not the reason. Where we are unique is that
we are connecting, this is 280 and this is 101, and we are a direct connection between those two.
Of course our erstwhile neighbor, Stanford, in between here. So our local streets provide really
like the lanes of the virtual Willow freeway.
Now let me relay something. Now if overlay that on that map you see, this is Supervisor
Simitian’s figures for development at Stanford and we of course have to be looking up here
rather than just down here. This is the obvious implication in terms of the traffic. Of course you
can see why with the combination of the two why we are being overwhelmed and why nothing
short of the diversion barriers will be effective in changing that. Cutting through is just too
attractive. Now in terms of precedent for diversion barriers that was set long, long ago in
City of Palo Alto Page 33
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
45
46
47
College Terrace and Evergreen in response to much less severe impacts. Downtown North need
not set any additional precedents because clearly it is exceptional. I will repeat that, it is
exceptional, no additional precedent. The Traffic Department scheme has worked out brilliantly
and really quite equitably in restoring residential character to the neighborhood. Although masks
in other guises underlying opposition to the barriers is mainly short-term inconvenience for some
together with the wonderful voice of the Palo Alto Daily reflecting the concerns of the
developers. I will therefore put it to you that it makes little sense to draw massing amounts of
cut-through traffic back into the neighborhood which approving the current scheme would of
course do. Thank you.
Vice-Chair Cassel: Thank you. Ed Glazier to be followed by Steve Kutner to be followed by
David Adams.
Mr. Ed Glazier, 255 Everett Avenue, Palo Alto: I rent an apartment for 23 years in Downtown
North at the comer of Everett and Ramona. I don’t own a car. I can drive but I choose not to
and I hope I am not part of the problem as a result of that. I walk, I ride my bike, I take public
transportation. It is my personal belief that public thoroughfares within the neighborhood should
not be blocked without a significant majority of all residents supporting such measures. The
most serious flaw in all the plans so far is that there has been no demonstrated substantive
neighborhood acceptance either in the initial survey or subsequently. The initial survey was only
responded to by 25% of the neighborhood and a subset of that was in favor of the barricades with
very little options presented. Vocal members of Downtown North Neighborhood Association
have pressed for barriers. I participated in some of the meetings in 1999 including those when
the traffic consultants presented the recommended preferred option. When any discussion was
attempted of any options other than barricades speakers were not listened to and were told
simply the assertion that these wouldn’t work, the end. I didn’t see any proof of that.
I want to say that the quantity of participants in tonight’s meeting on either side, the number of
petitions and surveys from either side, the letters sent to the City officials and the newspapers do
not represent a majority of the effected residents. People work, people have children, people
have other activities that preclude their active participation in the process. You are not going to
get everybody coming out and I feel that it is a red herring that someone should suggest that the
presence of people here shows you how much support there is. The only way that real support
can be shown is by a survey of all the residents in the neighborhood. My own preference of
course would be a Citywide survey but at least a City that was promised to us when the City
Council approved a six month trial which is now at seven months and which the documents show
will last at least 13 months.
One additional comment because I don’t know that I will ever be listened to, there is no
explanation in the report why the recommended Mixed Measures option and the other options
including barricades move the High Street/Emerson closure on Everett to the comer of Everett
and Bryant. That is at the end of my street and I don’t like it and I don’t see that there is any
reason been given why it is there. Thank you.
Vice-Chair Cassel: Thank you. Steve Kutner to be followed by David Adams to be followed by
Robert Freedman.
City of Palo Alto Page 34
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
45
46
47
48
Mr. Steve Kutner, 275 Hawthorne Avenue, Palo Alto: I would like to address several issues
concerning failures of process. First in the matter of Michael Griffin, Chair of this Commission,
you have before you a packet that presents information that suggest inappropriate influence of
office. I formally ask the Commission to request the City Attorney reexamine in depth prior
inquiry concerning Mr. Griffin’s role in this process.
Second I would like to address a process failure within the Planning and Transportation
Department. The Downtown North Traffic Calming Study is subject to the California Vehicle
Code, Section 21101. Traffic barriers proposed to be installed pursuant to Vehicle Code Section
21101F must meet certain requirements including: constructed, sited and managed in accordance
with the rules and the standards contained in a program approved by ordinance or resolution of
the City Council and b) approved in compliance with California Environmental Quality Act.
The City of Palo Alto has not met either of these requirements and has yet to adopt a plan that
will satisfy them. There is no clear indication that the proposed plan will satisfy these
requirements either.
Based on the performance measures approved by Council the current plan has failed. The
current plan was adopted based on a Mitigated Negative Declaration which states that there will
be no impact or less than significant impact on traffic among other factors. Because the plan did
not satisfy this and performance measure adopted by the City the Mitigated Negative Declaration
is demonstrably flawed. The results clearly undermine the conclusions in the Declaration and
mandate. A full Environmental Impact Report in compliance with CEQA is needed for any
future plan that may be considered.
In view of the court decision in Chamblin v. City of Palo Alto, you have packets of information
in front of you and a printout of that court’s finding, the City should be aware of the need for a
full Environmental Impact Report. Also note that the Public Resources Code Section 21167B
apparently provides that any action or proceeding alleging that a public agency has improperly
determined whether a project may have a significant effect on the environment shall be
commenced within 30 days. We therefore ask that the Commission request that the City
Attorney determine: 1) whether the Downtown North traffic barriers be removed pending
adoption of a new plan that satisfies the requirements specified in the California Vehicle Code
21101F; 2) whether the conclusions in the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the proposed plan
can stand or whether a full Environmental Impact Report in compliance with CEQA is required
and; 3) whether any action is required by the City now because of the Mitigated Negative
Declaration under which the current plan was approved.
Vice-Chair Cassel: Thank you. David Adams to be followed by Robert Freedman to be
followed by Ruth Hubert. Did I miss anyone? To be followed by Charlotte Nasar.
Audience Member: David has already spoken.
Vice-Chair Cassel: That’s right.
Mr. Robert Freedman, 604 Everett Avenue, Palo Alto: I have lived in Palo Alto for 30 years.
The first neighborhood I lived in was Evergreen Park and at that time the College Terrace
neighborhood adjacent had the benefit of street blockage for the purpose of traffic calming. It
was inconvenient to move around that area but it was worth it for the benefit of that
City of Palo Alto Page 35
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
45
46
47
48
neighborhood. Now in Downtown North we have the opportunity to try to preserve the
residential character of our neighborhood despite the increased traffic. I appreciate the efforts of
the City in their efforts to preserve the residential character of our neighborhood by providing
apprppriately safe residential streets. My comer, Everett and Webster, is a place where I can sit
on my porch and listen to screeching breaks. Perhaps they don’t result in accidents but there are
many, many near misses.
When I moved to Downtown North I didn’t expect it to be a bucolic neighborhood and looked
forward to the benefits of riving near Downtown but at that time Downtown Palo Alto was
sleepy, 24 years ago. Now it is a destination. I applaud the efforts of the City maintaining the
residential character of our neighborhoods and I support traffic calming in the form of street
closures and whatever modifications are necessary. Thank you very much.
Vice-Chair Cassel: Thank you. Ruth Hubert to be followed by Charlotte Nasar to be followed
by Leon Long. I am not taking any more cards the cutoff was to be at eight o’clock. I will take
this one.
Ms. Ruth Hubert, 101 Alma Street, Palo Alto: I live in a high rise. There are about 100
apartments in the building about 50% are occupied by working people many of them drive to
work on 101 using the Willow Avenue access. Many of us must go to doctors, dentists and
offices or other services or they visit their families or their grandchildren or baby-sit or whatever.
These trips may require them to drive on Middlefield Road between Palo Alto Avenue and
Ravenswood Avenue. There are no east-west roads on E1 Camino between these two streets.
They are not taking short cuts or cutting through someone else’s neighborhood if they were to
drive through Hawthorne for instance or Everett in order to get to Middlefield Road. They are
just in their own neighborhood and are going to the destination that they must go to. Most are
not driving in times of heavy traffic still they are blocked and must drive an extra eight blocks to
get back to the point on Middlefield Road that they could have reached directly just as recently
as last year. This access was available to them when they purchased their homes at high prices
because of a good location. They have been deprived of this access after the fact. I am just
going to mention that in all my driving and I used to drive two or three times a week on
Hawthorne I never saw anyone speeding, no one ever went through a stop sign. I go very slowly
myself and they would be approaching me in the same way. In addition I don’t know that
anyone here has ever mentioned a traffic light.
Vice-Chair Cassel: Thank you. Charlotte Nasar to be followed by Leon Long to be followed by
Jean Gillett.
Ms. Charlotte Nasar, 101 Alma Street, Palo Alto: Thank you. I live in a condominium complex
of over 100 families but in that building people who live there over 75% of them are over 70
years old. They are used to going through our little North Palo Alto area. Now we have to go
around. We are forced to go to Lytton. Lytton Avenue is so crowded and so bumpy I counted
the bumps from Alma to Middlefield one day, 19 big ones, not counting the little ones. That is
just Lytton. I think it got that way from all the big trucks building those big buildings. If don’t
go that way we go into Menlo Park. That is bumper to bumper. You take Ravenswood Avenue,
one lane. It is very inconvenient. But now getting away from our selfish motives. I would like
to know how North Palo Alto was able to get this marvelous isolation to be able to have their
children out in their yards, out on the streets and free as birds. We lived on Lowell Avenue for
City of Palo Alto Page 36
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
45
46
47
1 35 years, that is a residential neighborhood. They have old people, they have children, they have
2 pets. All the other avenues, Emerson, Bryant what about Fulton? What about Guinda and
3 Channing? There are so many. Take even Charleston Meadow. These are all neighborhoods
4 with children. Axe they going to get blockage like this too? I think this is something you need to
5 consider. They are going to start wanting some of their streets closed offtoo. I remember on
Lowell ears wanted to get from Middlefield to Alma and they would zoom right down and we
had to watch it.
Vice-Chair Cassel: Thank you. Is Leon Long here? He said he would come back. Jean Gillett
to be followed by Joanne Beasley to be followed by Kat Kohlsaat.
Ms. Jean Gillett, 101 Alma Street, Palo Alto: I have lived at 101 Alma Street for seven and a
half years. I walk through this neighborhood very frequently. In fact I never drive Downtown
just because I enjoy walking. Also I might say talking about seniors I am very much a senior. I
am almost 87. I have never ever felt unsafe walking in the area, which I do at all hours of
daylight except early in the morning. A car drives just as fast if not faster on the streets which
are still open if you go as far up as you could go to Palo Alto Avenue starting at Lytton and the
ones that are parallel to Middlefield and Alma. I frankly believe very strongly that streets are
meant first for horses and then for cars. Sometimes it is wise to have one-way streets and that
could possibly be worked out between Everett and Hawthorne. In Palo Alto High Street is one
way with two ways on either side. Homer and Channing go opposite to each other and this
seems to work very well for that area. If Everett and Hawthorne are one-way it will relieve the
traffic on Lytton. We could also have speed bumps and I am sure there are other solutions,
which could do this, better than we have now. Thank you very much.
Vice-Chair Cassel: Thank you. Joanne Beasley to be followed by Kat Kohlsaat to be followed
by Jamie Segiura.
Ms. Joanne Beasle¥, 125 Bryant Street, Palo Alto: I live with my husband, Mac, at 125 Bryant
Street at the corner of Poe, Palo Alto Avenue and Bryant. We have lived in this house for almost
30 years and we raised three children here and by far we have lived here longer than any place
we have ever lived in our lives. Mac and I are very happy with the placement of the traffic
barrier that was installed at the corner of Palo Alto Avenue and Bryant. Despite what somebody
said earlier we personally have lost three pets on particularly Palo Alto Avenue and one at the
corner of those three streets. Our neighborhood is blessed with its proximity to San Francisquito
Creek and it is this wonderful mix of the rural with the conveniences of and liveliness of
Downtown Palo Alto that initially drew us to make our home here. Unfortunately before the
placement of the recent barrier on Palo Alto Avenue this lovely road was often used as a testing
ground for new car buyers or as a racetrack for teenagers and!or as another way through the
neighborhood for people late to work. I am sorry a lot of this has been said already.
We are aware as Palo Alto grows and becomes more and more desirable as a destination that it
will absorb more and more traffic. Given that this particular Downtown neighborhood has taken
the brunt of the excess traffic for many years not it seems only fair that individuals, families and
pets calling this place home should get some relief. No one is trying to foist our traffic onto
others but the sharing of this excess traffic is long overdue. Of course there are streets within
this geographic neighborhood that need adjusting and all of us or most of us that call this place
City of Palo Alto Page 37
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
45
46
47
home are very sympathetic to our neighbors who are still waiting for some relief. We would
willingly work.with them to find a fair and equitable solution to the traffic concerns.
I think the worries about emergency vehicles is a bit misplaced in that one of the blessing of
livin~ in Downtown North puts us right next to one ofPalo Alto’s fire stations. A fire station is
within a stone’s throw of 101 Alma and also conveniently located for the Lytton Gardens
complex. I have been told that the flexible bollards costing up to $300.00 can now be purchased
allowing service and emergency easy access to these closed roads. My husband and I would
happily donate that amount if the City finds it necessary to ask its residents for more money.
Thanks to all of the people and the departments who have made this trial such a fine success. I
hope that those whose main objection is one of inconvenience might be able to understand these
long term objectives and see how civilizing they are to the life of the ongoing community.
Thank you.
Vice-Chair Cassel: Thank you. Kat Kohlsaat to be followed by Jaime Segiura to be followed by
Michael Harbour.
Ms. Kat Kohlsaat, 331 Poe Street, Palo Alto: I am speaking for myself and other of my
neighbors in the apartment building who could not be here tonight. Some of them didn’t get the
message from the City about this meeting. I chose to live on Poe Street because it was a nice
quiet relatively traffic free street in a neighborhood near Downtown. A bucolic neighborhood it
was. In the 26 years I’ve lived here that’s all changed. Our little neighborhood streets have
turned into a commuter’s paradise. People who are in a hurry to get somewhere else cut and race
through our streets as if they were arterials. You didn’t build it but people came anyway and
treated the streets of Downtown North as if they were the Willow Expressway that many who
don’t live here have long wanted.
The neighborhood became overrun with excess commuter cut-through traffic, with speeders and
stop sign runners and people who ignore the no left turn from Alma onto Palo Alto Avenue. Yet
many years ago when I first started the plans to apply traffic calming measures here I was
skeptical. I had unpleasant visions of a gated community with streets closed completely to non-
residents, privatized, as maybe critics imply that we have now. That is not true of the current
plan of course. The traffic patterns are altered and some streets are no longer direct through
routes following the examples of Evergreen Park and College Terrace.
I don’t hear anybody here complaining lately about those neighborhoods being privatized paid
for by all of us. We in Downtown North were not surveyed when the other neighborhoods
wanted their traffic closures. People want them to be surveyed for ours.
I love the current traffic calming measures. I find my stress level greatly reduced by the return
of peace and more normal traffic levels. I no longer worry as much as I used to about the danger
of my cats and my neighbors’ cats and dogs and their children, elderly, young people, whoever
getting hit and injured by cars. We have all been through that before. The current plan isn’t
perfect. It could use some tweaking and adjusting to improve it, repositioning of some of the
barriers and using flexible bollards for example, things that have already been mentioned.
City of Palo Alto Page 38
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
45
46
47
The plan does not need to be completely redesigned nor tom out. I love the current plan and I
urge you to keep and improve it where it is broken let’s fix it. After all the years of planning,
hard work and effort by all please don’t undo the good that has finally been done here. Thank
you.,
Vice-Chair Cassel: Thank you. Jamie Segiura followed by Michael Harbour followed by Sarah
Freedman.
Mr. Jaime Segiura, 654 Everett Avenue, Palo Alto: Thank you. My home is at the comer of
Everett and Byron. I am her speaking on behalf of myself and some of my neighbors on Byron
that are bounded by Everett and Lytton. Essentially I am not against traffic calming per se but I
am against the barricading of public streets. I am against it because our comer of the
neighborhood has not benefited in any way. Because we are on the comer of the neighborhood
our comer now is being used as basically a relief valve for traffic coming down Middlefield in
the mornings. So what’essentially has benefited many people in the core of the neighborhood we
haven’t gained any benefit at all.
The other reason why I am against this is that many parents have come up here and talked about
child safety and about the need for their children to be running around and things of that nature.
I take exception to that from the standpoint that I, myself, am also a parent. I also have a one
year old child. On my block alone there are three newborns and down Byron there are numerous
children that are less than four years of age. So the kids in our portion of the neighborhood
should not have to pay for the safety of the children in the interior portion of the neighborhood. I
just simply don’t think that that’s fair and equitable. I wouldn’t want anything to happen to their
children but I don’t think that that argument holds any water from my perspective.
The last thing that I would like to point out is that I think both sides have a lot of emotion and
they have aspects of their arguments that need to be listened to but ultimately I would like to see
a proposal or an implementation that is a Citywide proposal. Meaning that it is something that is
incorporated into an overall City plan and not just take the parochial view and fix something of
our portion of the neighborhood. So I would advocate some sort of City sponsored survey or
some sort of super majority to implement something. In this manner I would feel comfortable
with the outcome and I would feel that this was done in a fair and equitable manner for both
myself as a resident of that portion and also to the adjacent neighborhood. Thank you for
hearing me.
Vice-Chair Cassel: Thank you. Michael Harbour to be followed by Sarah Freedman to be
followed by Phil Roggeveen.
Mr. Michael Harbour, MD, 480 Palo Alto Avenue, Palo Alto: Hi, good evening. I live on the
comer of Palo Alto Avenue and Cowper Street. I also own another home at 421 Kipling Street.
I am here to strongly encourage you all to keep the traffic closing plan here. I am a physician at
Stanford, a former ER physician now I am faculty at Stanford. It is clear to me that the issue of
reduced response time is a non-issue and that can be mitigated quickly by the flexible bo.llards
and we don’t really need to be continuing to arguethat point any more. There is no evidence of
any decreased safety as a result of these current barriers.
CiO’ of Palo Alto Page 39
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
45
46
47
48
Second, for my neighbors that have said that these blocks have actually prevented the use of the
streets for other neighbors, they have not prevented the use of the streets. They have actually
prevented the abuse of the streets from the people who are utilizing our neighborhood as a pass-
throu.gh going from Middlefield and 101 out to 280. That is ridiculous. Living right on that
corner they zoom by my house. The music from so many cars reverberates against my window.
I have called the police numbers of times because of the noise and because of the number of just
drive right through the stop signs. I find myself not having to do that over the past seven
months.
I was initially against this to tell you the truth. I was kind of a selfish single physician wanted to
be able to get to work quickly. The first few times I did it I threw up my arms, I was mad. I
have now found myself knowing my neighbors. I have seen these people walk, run, bike and
roller blade out in front of my house now. Actually the neighbors now call Palo Alto Avenue
"The Avenue." It has become an avenue. It is amazing. I am so much happier. I personally
would donate money if it is a matter of not having enough money to buy these bollards and
whatnot. I imagine many other people would as well to help out with the neighborhood calming
project. I think trying to reduce it would be the wrong thing. It would only make it worse. If
anything we need to augment it. Thank you.
Vice-Chair Cassel: Thank you. Sara Freedman to be followed by Phil Roggeveen to be
followed by Jerry Schwartz.
Ms. Sarah Freedman, 604 Everett Avenue, Palo Alto: Hi, thank you very much for listening to
us especially as the evening goes on. I really appreciate the democratic process here tonight. I
am a 30 year resident of Palo Alto. I now live on Everett Avenue and have lived in Downtown
North for 25 years. I have raised a child in Downtown North and now I am a grandmother of
two very young children. I have waited a long time. I have watched a long time traffic increase
and waited a long time for this plan to be put in place. I think that it is a tremendous success by
all measures. It is not just I think it is also by all the objective measures it is a tremendous
success, accident reduction, reduction in cut-through traffic, lack of significant impact on
diversionary streets. I work in Berkeley and I commute to Berkeley and Berkeley is a city that
has lots of blocked neighborhoods. I think that in inevitably and from living in College Terrace
before inevitably whenever streets are blocked it creates some inconvenience to the people who
are not living immediately in the area. So it is always a little inconvenient however there are
reasons when streets are blocked. For us the amount of traffic was so extreme that it called for
extreme measures. The final thing that I would like to say is that I really don’t see a lot of
divisiveness in the neighborhood. I see people coming together more and more over this issue. I
am hoping that we can keep the current plan with slight modifications that will improve it in the
areas where there are some problems. Thank you very much.
Vice-Chair Cassel: Thank you. Jerry Schwartz to be followed by Robin Reynolds to be
followed by Mary Lou LeVarr.
Mr. Jerry_ Schwartz, 230 Emerson Street, Palo Alto: I want to address two myths that are floating
around. The first is that somehow Downtown North is a unique neighborhood. I lived in what I
will call Downtown South, two blocks from here, for ten years. Forest, Homer, Channing I
suggest anybody who lives on Hawthorne or Everett go take a look at those streets. Those have
a lot of traffic, well I wouldn’t say a lot of traffic, they have a moderately high amount of traffic
City of Palo Alto Page 40
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
by my standards. That is a neighborhood fight here that if somebody needs mitigation of traffic,
desperately needs it, Downtown North doesn’t have any traffic compared to that.
The .second myth is that somehow the cut-through traffic is going between Middlefield and
Alma. I took a look at the counts that are contained in Attachment A. The number of where they
count the all blocks that touch any of the arterials the amount of traffic on the blocks adjacent to
Lytton is more than the sum of the amount of traffic on the blocks adjacent to Middlefield and
Alma. Cut-through traffic at whatever volume it is is not going between Middlefield and Alma.
It is going from and to Downtown. Now we can argue about the benefits of that but we have to
understand that what we are doing is effecting people who are going to and from Downtown
either because they are shopping or eating or working there. But that is who is being affected not
people going between 101 and 280.
I would like to address the evaluation in Attachment A, the measures. Several of them I believe
the evaluations are just wrong. Evaluation two which is the amount of diversion onto low
volume segments, this is correct. There was a failure of the plan there. Seven segments out of
the 24 measured by count failed. There are approximately 16 segments in the neighborhood. If
you extrapolate that that would mean that approximately 15 segments are failing. Tweaking the
plan to improve one or two segments does not solve the problem of diversion onto neighborhood
streets. Measure three, well I knew I wouldn’t get through it.
Vice-Chair Cassel: Thank you. Robin Reynolds to be followed by Mary Lou LeVarr to be
followed by Chris Machala. I am sorry as I was putting these cards up and down I skipped
someone. Would you mind? Phil Roggeveen.
Mr. Phil Roggeveen, 432 Ruthven, Palo Alto: I have lived in the Downtown North section of
Palo Alto for around 28 years. I was already familiar with the neighborhood when I chose the
particular house that I got on Ruthven. It was a quiet street. It was a non-arterial street. A lot of
the other parallel streets in this town that cut through between Alma and Middlefield were in fact
arterial. In the Mid Peninsula there has always been inadequate east-west corridors. There are
major arteries going north-south, there are not in the east-west direction. This is nothing unique
to Downtown North. However, I chose a quiet street. This diversion of traffic has merely placed
the traffic that everyone is-raving the improvement of Palo Alto Avenue and of Hawthorne and
such. It has put it all right in front of my door. I would like to see how everybody else would
feel about it if all this had been diverted in front of their door. We all hear the rave reviews from
those who have had it diverted away from them. I am party to the nightmare stories that they are
speaking of, that they are complaining about for the conditions before.
We have to remember that we haven’t removed a single car in this while scheme from Palo Alto
or greater Palo Alto. We are just shifting the nuisance. I would say that here it is a scheme of
redistribution of the nuisance from those who moved to the nuisance to redistribute to those who
didn’t.
When I hear people mention their address I generally can tell what they are going to say based on
who has benefited by it and who has been stung by it. But for every place where some benefits
by it someone is stung by it. Mentioning it as a democratic process for a survey or something is
kind of a rim-ram. It is all a matter of who you would include. Are you going to include every
person who has been affected by it in an adjacent neighborhood who has the traffic diverted to
City of Palo Alto Page 41
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
45
46
47
48
them? In any case, it has concentrated traffic on certain streets and it may well distribute a
nuisance from a majority to a minority that does not properly address people’s property rights for
those who did not move to the nuisance.
Vice-Chair Cassel: Thank you and I am sorry, sir. Robin Reynolds. Mary Lou LeVarr. I would
like you to come down to the front when I say your name to follow so that you can stand right
up. Chris Machala. Thank you, Robin.
Ms. Robin Reynolds, 319 Everett, Palo Alto: I am here to say that I do support the measures that
have put in place in Downtown North of course. I would support some minor modifications to
solve the very few problems that have arisen particularly the blocks that have had increases in
traffic. I think the Augmented Plan or Dan’s plan would do that, would solve those problems. I
live at 319 Everett. I used to hold my breath when I used to exit my driveway weaving between
parked Suburbans and trucks and other large vehicles packing our streets to inch my way onto a
very narrow street carrying heavy volumes of speeding traffic. I would then get to the
intersection of Bryant where the bike boulevards creates a speedway for cars to go excessive
numbers of blocks unimpeded purely for the sake of preserving the bike boulevard, which of
course is a huge asset to our City but is something that has impacts on cars and surrounding
areas. No longer do I have to hold my breath when I cross these streets. I now feel that I can
simply maneuver my way to Lytton Avenue safety to get out of my driveway and out of my
home. The road closures are not selfish, as people have suggested. In fact it seems selfish for
people to say that they don’t want to drive down a street with stop lights because that adds 60
seconds to their drive. In fact, moving traffic from neighborhood streets to connector streets and
arterial streets that have stop lights, that have parking design, that have street design, that have
widths, that have multiple lanes, that have other features that make them appropriate for carrying
those volumes of traffic is smart planning. The Downtown North streets are not designed to
handle the volumes that come off of Willow Road. Traffic calming reduced automobile
accidents. This has been proven through the study and all of Palo Alto benefits from that. The
police can be free to serve other needs in the City they don’t have to be tending to people who
are trying to cut-through our neighborhood and end up in a traffic accident. Police enforcement
doesn’t have to be diverted to Downtown North it can focus on other problem areas in the City. !
hope that the Commission will acknowledge that the current plan has worked on almost all
measures. The neighborhood is safer and I hope that you will build on what you have. You can
refine it and you can work with it which is why it was a trial and why it was established the way
it was, for there to be a review at this point, but I hope you will be proud of what you have done
because it is amazing how this trial actually succeeded on almost all of the measures that were
setup for it.
Vice-Chair Cassel: Thank you. Chris Machala to be followed by Barbara Hart to be followed by
Michael Ecoft.
Mrs. Chris Machala, 301 High Street, Palo Alto: Good evening members of the Planning
Commission. I am the owner of Stanford Electric Works located at 301 High Street, part of
Downtown North neighborhood since the 1930s located in its present location since 1964 and
serving the Palo Alto and surrounding communities for 90 years. I just wanted to make three
points tonight. The first being that we support traffic calming for Downtown North but not in its
present form. We need some modifications. We don’t like it in its present form.
City of Palo Alto Page 42
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
45
46
47
48
We love the Downtown North customers as well as all of our Palo Alto customers. I have been
working there for 20 years and I have seen traffic increase. I have seen a lot of vehicles that
don’t belong there, restaurant delivery trucks, Brink’s trucks. Any plan that is implemented I
~ there should be also no through trucks into the neighborhood, local deliveries only. I think
every comer should have a four-way stop sign. I have seen very close calls also near our store.
Point two was that the location of the closure near our driveway. It is really affecting our
business in a negative way. This is my livelihood. I have customers calling me letting me know
that they can’t come our store. They have had to elsewhere, out of Palo Alto, other lighting
shows, the big box stores. I have to get concerned. I am really concerned about the loss of
future customers. While we have never relied on drive-by traffic there were several cases every
week, daily almost, of customers who were driving by and remembered they needed these light
bulbs or they didn’t know we were here, they just moved to the area. We try to build
relationships we have a lot of loyal customers. Business is still strong but I am looking down the
way and we need to continue our growth serving all of the area. This also hurts Palo Alto sales
tax revenues. We don’t do $50 million a year in sales but we do our share and have been doing it
for over 90 years. This affects your bottom line as well as ours, my employees and my own.
The third point is I did bring with me a petition that is signed with over 370 signatures with
concerned customers and well as inconvenienced customers. Yes, a lot of them will figure out
how to get to us but a lot of them are really worried that we are not going to be around.
One more comment please. The DTNA
Vice-Chair Cassel: I have to really cut it because I have to be fair to everyone. You can leave
those notes in writing to us and we would be delighted to receive those and hear from you.
Barbara Hart to be followed by Michael Ecof~ to be followed by Larry Alton.
Audience Member: Barbara had to leave.
Mr. Michael Ecoft, 621 Hawthorne Avenue, Palo Alto: Good evening. I live on the comer of
Byron and Hawthorne. I am going to speak briefly, really quick here. I would like to turn the
remainder 0fmy time over to my neighbor Monet Lane who didn’t turn in a card I am afraid by
the time you get to her it will be well past her bedtime and she will probably be passing out in
the aisles here.
I adamantly support the current plan possibly with minor modifications. Not because of my
personal experience which has been great and my area of the neighborhood went from 2,400 cars
through the intersection to about 400. We have about 15 toddlers in the area within a one square
block radius, they have benefited as well and I appreciate that. But I am speaking in terms of the
facts themselves and a broader scale. The one which I heard earlier which kind of struck me is
of the 38 streets surve3~ed six of which showed an increase in traffic. That is less than 15% of all
the streets surveyed had issues. The majority of which benefited. Those streets can be further
enhanced with slight modifications to the plan. That is outstanding in my mind. The standards
and performance measurements from my vantage point have been clearly met. I am not going to
belabor the many excellent points and arguments on why this is a success because I feel the data
justifies it and does not justify radical changes to this plan. I have only heard on the other side of
City of Palo Alto Page 43
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
the argument a lot emotional pleas regarding response times, fairness to all citizens and even
City mismanagement. I don’t buy it and I urge you to support the current plan with your vote.
Don’t be swayed by more surveys, more time, more studies and more data. It is just an effort to
delay a much needed decisions, which have been many years in the making. Please honor the
process of the last eight years of which you have been a part. Finally, this is about safety. Not
about elitism, not about artificially inflating property values. This is about safety. This is the
issue and being proactive is the key. Thank you.
Ms. Monet Lane, 660 Hawthorne Avenue, Palo Alto: I think we all in this room learned in
preschool that safety comes first. It is kind of upsetting to see adults ignoring that crucial rule.
Another point is that I don’t want to wait for someone in my neighborhood to get hurt or to get
killed. I think we should just act now and we can just prevent that, that doesn’t have to happen
for us to make a change. Also previous speakers mentioned that there were unfair surveys and
that not everyone had a chance to speak their opinion. Well, this is now our chance to speak our
opinion whether we are included in the survey or not. I think we can see that the majority of the
people here are for the calming project.
Vice-Chair Cassel: Thank you very much. Larry Alton to be followed by Bob McDonald to be
followed by Katherine Abu Romia. Is Larry Alton here? Bob McDonald to be followed by
Katherine Abu Romia to be followed by Alan McMillan.
Mr. Bob McDonald, 169 Bryant Street, Palo Alto: I am sort of between Hawthorne and Poe on
Bryant. Bryant is not a street that is affected on way or another. I think the traffic may have
increased a little bit but I am not sure. I am also a person who initially hated these barriers
because my wife consistently zipped in and out of the neighborhood to airports and it took extra
time and extra creativity to figure out quick ways in and out. But at this point I am very much in
favor of the current configuration with the fine tunes that have been talked about. I think it has
an overall benefit in the neighborhood. ! have seen a lot of decreased traffic on the other streets.
I have seen a lot of people out and about walking that hadn’t been out before. I strongly
recommend that no radial surgery be done to the current plan, that it be fine tuned because I
think it has been overall very beneficial. Thank you.
Vice-Chair Cassel: Thank you. Katherine Abu Romia to be followed by Alan McMillan to be
followed by Grace Ann Baker.
Ms. Katherine, Abu Romia, 525 Hawthorne Avenue, Palo Alto: Good evening. I have lived at
525 Hawthorne since 1978. I am speaking for my husband Montez and my son Rami. When we
first moved here it was a quiet street. That wasn’t that important to us in the beginning we had
come from New York and lived in other cities. I like living in cities but as the time went by the
traffic increased to such a degree that every morning, every afternoon and every evening I could
sit in my living room and I could hear, woosh, woosh, woosh, the cars going by. One time I was
talking to a friend of.mine and I was sitting in the living room and my living room is probably
about seven feet from the sidewalk and she asked ifI was on the street, am I on University
calling me at a payphone because the noise of the traffic was in my living room and going
through the phone. So I definitely support the traffic calming as it is. It has made an incredible
change that everybody spoke about. But I think it is so important that we have heard from the
people, I believe it was Emerson and Ruthven and Byron that the thousands of cars that were on
my street should not go onto theirs. I don’t think anybody wants that so it has to be really
City of Palo Alto Page 44
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
45
46
47
equitable. The other thing is that when I moved there and saw the traffic I thought well this is
my bad luck. Then when all of the information about the traffic calming came I found out that I
lived on a residential street and I wasn’t supposed to be an arterial. I wasn’t supposed to be an
arterial there and what a wonderful thought. So then it is the responsibility of us to work with
the City to just take these cars and put them where they should be and just move them over
where they should be on Lytton, onto the other streets, they are safer there and that’s where they
should be. Thank you for listening to us and all that. Thank you.
Vice-Chair Cassel: Thank you. Alan McMillan to be followed by Grace Ann Baker to be
followed by Steve Frankel.
Mr. Alan McMillan, 187 Bryant Street, Palo Alto: My neighbor Grace Ann has already left.
Just to let you know that. I live right by the corner of Bryant and Hawthorne with my wife
Kiterry and two young children, Robert four and happy birthday, Brian is one.
I heard the calming project called extreme tonight and I think it was because we had extreme
problems. I really want to stress that is the past tense you solved them. It has been terrific. We
thought that this was really amazing, the results. The neighborhood is a lot quieter. Right on
Bryant and Hawthorne hearing screeching tires and seeing accidents occasionally and screeching
tires many, many times a day was normal in the commute hours. Also being able to go down
Bryant Street and not be attempted broadsided a couple times a week was normal. You would
get that. That is all gone. Not once have I been attempted broadsided during this. There is more
walking. There is more biking. I think that really there is a better sense of neighborhood. You
walk outside and it is just quiet like a neighborhood should be.
At first we were ecstatic with the project with the results because we just got all these great
benefits that t just talked about. Then we went around to the meetings. I went around and I went
to both sides to listen and at that point early on we were optimistic this would become
permanent. Then towards the end I got really dismayed because the last few meetings I think the
Unblock group did a fantastic job of being more mobile, more vocal, more enthusiastic but it
didn’t feel like it represented the majority but certainly it felt like it in those meetings. Tonight I
am buoyed by optimism because I think this is a fair representation of the overwhelming support
for this project.
I will make a point. We don’t cut through other people’s neighborhoods. We pretty much stay
on 101 and the major arterials and we don’t want people to cut through ours. I am concerned a
lot about what I heard tonight about the dumbing down of the requirements. You have
something that is so good right now and I think has been overwhelmingly supported and you are
thinking of maybe tweaking the results and making it worse. I am going to ask you to please
avoid doing that because look at the comparison of how well it is going now with the
modification and making it worse than it is today. That would be regrettable. So I certainly
would trust yo.u that you do the modifications that you have to do but try not to diminish the
impact of what has been so successful.-
The other thing I would point out is that we talked about proposed bicycle boulevards. Bryant is
a bicycle boulevard. If there is ever a need for traffic circles at every intersection that would be
the street. We see that other places are lobbying for these traffic circles and certainly if you are
City of Palo Alto Page 45
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
45
46
47
going to do it on Bryant there is a lot of bicycle traffic and I suggest there would be a lot more.
Thank you.
Vice-Chair Cassel: Thank you. La Nell Mimmack to be followed by John Woodfill to be
followed by Jason Thrasher.
Ms. La Nell Mimmack, 422 Palo Alto Avenue, Palo Alto: Hello. I have been with this process
since I moved to Palo Alto Avenue in 1995. At first I was skeptical of it. Any time there is a
change I am skeptical but I think this time the traffic people did it fight. I am amazed and I am
very happy. I want to commend them for doing such a good job. I hope it is not majorly
changed. Thank you. Everybody else said everything else.
Vice-Chair Cassel: Thank you and that helps if you don’t have to repeat. You are allowed to
come up and just say I support one side or the other and not say everything all over again. It
does keep it moving. There has been a question of whether I missed someone again. John
Woodfill to be followed by Jason Thrasher to be followed by Sara Benson. I every so often slip
one down too fast, following John Woodfill Steve Frankel should be speaking. Is John Woodfill
here? Well that eases that one. Steve Frankel.
Mr. Steve Frankel, 351 Bryant Court, Palo Alto: Thank you. I wanted to say I appreciate your
patience in listening to all of the testimony tonight. I want to say thanks to the Traffic
Department for their work. Bryant Court was really unaffected. It is a 20 foot wide alley with
two speed bumps between Bryant and Waverley so it really wasn’t affected by this but I am fully
in support of the traffic calming that has gone on. So many good things have been said I will not
repeat them other than just to emphasize that by and large the report that I have been reading
from the Traffic Department supports all of the goals and the Mixed Measures plan seems to
want to throw out the first one that was listed which was the reduction of traffic. Why you
would want to throw it out when it was successful doesn’t seem to be supported by the findings.
Certainly this is not a new issue. Therefore it says on the first page that the traffic calming was a
concern in 1979 that City Council looked at it. So it has taken a long time. It seems inconsistent
to take a success that has taken so long to get to and just back away from it. So I urge you to not
reject the traffic calming that was to reduce the traffic volumes in the neighborhood. Thank you.
Vice-Chair Cassel: Thank you. Jason Thrasher to be followed by Sara Benson to be followed by
Susan Meade.
Mr. Jason Thrasher, 292 Waverley Street, Palo Alto: Hi, I have been in the neighborhood for
four years. I have been a renter and now I am a homeowner. I have seen the neighborhood
change with the increases in traffic over the past few years be reduced by the traffic calming that
is in place. I have property at locations on three different places on your map. Right now, 292
Waverley I am right next to Johnson Park but I was also at 121 Hawthorne, which is the comer
of Alma and Hawthorne, and I was a cut-through driver. I used to drive all the way down
Hawthorne to get out to get to work. I commute to work everyday. A friend of mine pointed out .
that the route through Hawthorne was actually faster than going down Lytton. After moving tO
292 Waverley I use Lytton every day it is no problem at all. I have noproblem with the increase
in the time that is spent to get to work.
City of Palo Alto Page 46
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
45
46
47
48
1 I was hit by a car on my bicycle in the neighborhood before the traffic calming was put in place.
2 People are talking about children getting hit by cars, I am a pretty big guy 200 pounds, getting hit
3 by a car and they actually drove off. I was really upset. So the fact that this is in place and also
4 it is ri.’ght next to where I live I have really appreciated it. I can sit on my deck and I can actually
5 see people going through, before the calming was in place, see people going through the stop
sign. They wouldn’t even stop and that is exactly how I got hit. They didn’t stop they just kind
of cruised through slowly doing one of these California pull-throughs, they don’t do that in
Virginia where I am from, but I have learned to deal with that around here. Glad to see it in
place. I hope you keep it up. Thank you very much.
Vice-Chair Cassel: Thank you. Sara Benson to be followed by Susan Mead to be followed by
Eric Filseth.
Ms. Sara Benson, 245 Emerson Street, Palo Alto: Good evening. I want to talk a little bit about
things that I am for. I am for calming in the neighborhood. I have been a resident of Downtown
Palo Alto for ten years. I am for calming. I am also for open streets and I don’t think that the
two are mutually exclusive. There are many devices and many ways that we can use to calm the
traffic through the neighborhood and still maintain a Downtown neighborhood that is open to the
public both to people in Palo Alto and the people who come to Palo Alto. Like it or not
Downtown is now a destination. We don’t want people just cutting through and zooming
through the neighborhood but we haven’t tried a lot of less restrictive devices in the
neighborhood to see what the effect of those are. I don’t want to see children being hurt I don’t
want to see adults being hurt but I would like to see this neighborhood remain open. When I
think of the word calm and when I saw the signs coming up saying ’traffic calming’ I think of
things like slow. I think of things like less. I am having a lot of difficulty reconciling blocking
roads with the concept of calm because to me a block is a stop, it is a preventative, it is a keeping
people out, it is keeping people away. While I applaud the parts of the neighborhood who are
having a greater sense of community and meeting their neighbors that is not consistent
throughout the neighborhood. I have been distressed listening to many of the people speak
tonight because they have sniped at the other side, both sides have done it. I am very distressed
by this because this isn’t about, when you snipe like that you cannot bring the community
together. I am really distressed that no matter what we choose at this point that the community is
very divided and I would like to encourage everyone to work together to find a good solution for
the neighborhood. I happen to be impacted negatively by the devices but it is not a big deal. I
found my alternate cut-throughs. I would have like it if Lytton had been worked on before we
implemented all these devices so that it was a better arterial route to get people in and out of the
Downtown area. But if this is the best thing we can come up with, okay, I can live with it but I
don’t like seeing what’s happened to the neighborhood and I don’t like the way that these
devices were put in. I don’t like the lack of involvement from the neighborhood. I have been a
resident for ten years and the first time I heard about any of this was six months ago. So I know
we have tried to be inclusive but we have not included everyone in the neighborhood. Thank
you.
Vice-Chair Cassel: Thank you. Susan Meade to be followed by Eric Filseth to be followed by
Jamie Leighton.
Ms. Susan Meade, 222 Byron Street, Palo Alto: Hi, I lived at 222 Byron Street for over 20 years.
I have seen Downtown North go from a sleepy town to a very busy one. The impact of the
City of Palo Alto Page 47
1 commuters on Hawthome and.Everett has been talked about by many people here. No matter
2 what we did, calling the police, asking them to be ticketed, they could never give enough tickets.
3 That is why barriers have worked. Please, please keep our hard won plan. It has taken a long
4 time. I have three children and I am here tonight to speak for many neighbors who could not
5 take tour hours in an evening and come here and talk to you. There are many children. My
6 street has more traffic than it did before because of where the barrier is at Everett and Byron. I
7 am willing to put up with more because overall the neighborhood is a much better place to live.
8 Thank you very much.
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
Vice-Chair Cassel: Thank you. Thank you to all of you for taking the time to come. It is a long
meeting. Eric Filseth. Is Eric Filseth here? Jamie Leighton to be followed by Vanessa Davies.
Ms. Jamie Leighton, 352 Middlefield Road, Palo Alto: Hi. I would urge the Commission to
reconsider the traffic diversion project that has been put forward by the Traffic Division and the
DTNNA. I said yes, traffic diversion because that is what it is really. If you remove traffic from
certain streets it must go elsewhere. In my case unfortunately it happens to be on my street but it
also affects other local narrow streets in the Downtown interior like Emerson.
Downtown North is a wonderful neighborhood. It is a beautiful and mature area and it is
wonderful because it is in walking distance from dozens of restaurants and shops. It is what I
would consider an ideal place to live. But living near the Downtown North area does have its
burdens and traffic is one of them. The problem with the traffic diversion plan is that the people
who want all these good things associated with living in Downtown North and near Palo Alto but
they don’t any of the bad things. They want easy access to shops, restaurants and the Downtown
area but they don’t want to have to deal with the traffic problems and issues of living close to the
Downtown area.
I can understand this desire. It is human to desire what they want but what is really sad and what
really scares me is they are willing to stomp on anyone in their way. In this case the proponents
of the traffic diversion are selfishly willing to divert the traffic burden from their streets and put
it on someone else’s street. The same traffic burden is out there it is just not their problem
anymore. This is classic having your cake and wanting to eat it too. I would ask the proponents
of the traffic diversion plan if they really want to live in a cul-de-sac community close to the
Downtown area why not move? We live in a wonderful urban area with many benefits but there
are also some burdens. Let’s not ruin it by unfairly redistributing our traffic burdens to favor a
select group. If the traffic diversion project is fair and equitable to all why do so many people
oppose it? Thanks.
Vice-Chair Cassel: Thank you. Vanessa Davis to be followed by George Hopple to be followed
by Jim Mimmack.
Ms. Vanessa Davies, 352 Middlefield Road, Palo Alto: I too live on Middlefield Road and we
have been negatively affected by the current project. Pretty much myself and my neighbors we
have tried to contact the City Transportation group and try and work through what can be done to
help my road of Middlefield and if eve~g could work together in some kind of resolution of
the negative impacts. Pretty much my road has always been at over capacity and now it is even
worse. Of all the options offered none are helping Middlefield at all. The one that has been
chosen the Mixed Plan only worsens the conditions of my street. All the crazy drivers, we had
City of Palo Alto Page 48
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
45
46
47
48
them before but now we have all of them. There are kids too on Middlefield where it seems to
me there are a lot of children playing in the streets of Downtown North interior now. When
there areaccidents on Middlefield there is no parking lane they end up on the sidewalk or in
front.yards. There are children on those sidewalks or their front yards. I don’t think it is a fair
argument to say that children are safe.
My other concern is.that the only metric that is being used when it comes down to Middlefield is
the level of service at the intersection of Middlefield and Lytton. My understanding of the level
of service from an email from Carl is that it only refers to the drivers on the road. It has nothing
to do with the pedestrians, the bicyclists or anyone who lives near the intersection. There are not
just homes but also a senior center, two of them. I would say pre-road blocks it probably took
about 60 seconds during rush hour to get out of our driveway and now it is virtually impossible
to actually exit out in a safe manner. As a driver it is my responsibility to look at the street and
exit in a safe manner. But it is impossible and I have emailed the City Transportation group
about it and their response was, yes, basically the way we setup the light we are not surprised
you can’t get out. There is either going to be traffic stopped or moving. I have the responsibility
to get out in a safe manner and that has been taken away from me and I don’t understand how
that can be right. Then just in conclusion I am not against traffic calming I am against traffic
diversion. The problem just continues somewhere else and I don’t think that improves safety for
all of Palo Alto.
Vice-Chair Cassel: Thank you. George Hopple followed by Jim Mimmack to be followed by
Katherine Pering.
Mr. George Hopple, 167 Webster, Palo Alto: Good evening. I have been a resident of
Downtown North for about eight years. I live on Webster between Palo Alto and Hawthorne. I
am not sure if anybody has spoken about our street but I feel the traffic calming has been a
success. The reason is the blockade or barrier at Palo Alto and Middlefield has stopped the
traffic from coming down our street to bypass Middlefield and of course stays on Middlefield.
Part of the reason it came down our street a lot is Byron had a previous barrier. You could say it
was the first traffic calming project in Downtown North. One thing I have always noticed, and I
could talk about my children, I have preschool children and I feel a lot safer but that area has
been covered. I can talk a little bit about neighborhoods. My children and I used to take walks
around the block. We would go down Byron and go down Palo Alto, Byron, come up
Hawthorne and go up Webster to our house again. Every time we went down Byron it felt like a
neighborhood. That barrier made a big difference I think in the neighborhood. People spent a
lot more time in front of their houses, kids played in the street and they would hold block parties ¯
and things like that. Webster didn’t see that. I think part of the reason is that we saw a lot of
traffic and the traffic had that sort of effect of keeping you more in your backyard than your front
yard. So what I am asking is that I think this traffic calming project has been a success. I think it
needs a lot more time to change a neighborhood and to improve the quality of life. So maybe it
needs a little bit of free tuning but I think overall the success has been very good.
Vice-Chair Cassel: Thank you. Jim Mimmack to be followed by Katherine Pering to be
followed by Tim Rondthaler.
Mr. Jim Mimmack, 422 Palo Alto Avenue, Palo Alto: Hi. I live in a farmhouse built in 1899. I
love my home. I love my neighbors and I love the Stanford Theater, etc., etc. Somebody asked
City of Palo Alto Page 49
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
how seniors felt about medical response time and you might remember that the same issue came
up during the Sand Hill Road discussion when President Clinton was spending a lot of time here
and how fast could the President get to the hospital and things like that. We are all very lucky
that we live dose to a world class hospital. I have been there a couple of times and the President
could not have gotten better care than I did, maybe better food. I support the traffic calming as it
is implemented but as a practical thing I think the Mixed plan is a very, very good alternative.
The bigger issue I have is that the traffic being a huge, huge problem the Traffic Department
budget doesn’t match the problems that they are asked to work on and I think that is a problem. I
don’t think you p~’y these guys enough either.
Vice-Chair Cassel: They would like you to tell that to their boss. Katherine Pering to be
followed by Tim Rondthaler to be followed by Gordana.
Ms. Katherine Pering, 388 Everett Avenue, Palo Alto: I have lived in Palo Alto 30 years and 12
years in North Palo Alto. I live in a condominium that is kitty comer to Johnson Park. I am
speaking just to that issue. I am fully in support of keeping the whole traffic calming plan in
place and if possible making it even stronger. But I want to limit my comments to Johnson Park
and my concern about removing the barriers there and pretty much making Johnson Park an
island to a lot of traffic. This is in the Mixed Measures Plan. I have seen from my condo, I don’t
use the park a lot but I watch what happens there. There is a whole habitat that has emerged in
that park since we have the traffic calming plan in place. The kinds of vehicles that I see now a
lot of are canes, walkers, scooters, bicycles, strollers, carriages, pedal cars, roller bladders and
skate boards. It has just been great because one of the streets has been blocked off and provided
a people safe way to access the park. In one of the plans here all of that has been removed. I just
think that’s a real shame. It just doesn’t make sense to me at all. So I would hope that is
seriously considered to keep a street closure if not were it originally is on Everett Avenue some
people have advocated putting it on the other side of Waverley. But somehow protect that
Johnson Park habitat. It is a habitat and it needs protection so that it can continue to be a center
for our non-automobile life. So I am speaking for that right now. I am very thankful to Carl
Stoffel and all the other people that have worked so hard on this plan. There is no perfect plan. I
lived in old Palo Alto before, my daughter has her family in College Terrace each one of these
neighborhoods has a life of its own and the uniqueness of that neighborhood from that evolves
the kind of traffic plan that is going to work best and we have to have courage ofidentity to stand
up and say yes we are going to decide to act and do this for the sake of the neighborhood. Thank
you.
Vice-Chair Cassel: Thank you. Tim Rondthaler to be followed by Gordana to be followed by
Chas Pavlovic.
Mr. Tim Rondthaler, 218 Middlefield Road, Palo Alto: All this talk about calming I wish it was
really so. The number of cars is the same. The speed is probably on average gone up since the
cars that are used to speeding down Hawthorne are now speeding down Middlefield at 50 or 55.
So I am not sure that traffic calming is the right name. I think we should take the spin off it and
call it traffic rerouting.
Child safety has been cited as a major reason for the traffic rerouting. Does anyone suggest that
the children on some streets are more expendable than the children on others? Kids on Middle
field are worth saving but we don’t need to block Middlefield Road in order to protect them.
City of Palo Alto Page 50
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
They learn to stay out of the street. Living on a residential arterial puts me on the leading edge
of the traffic frontier. As our City grows I expect more traffic every year and everyone should
expect more traffic every year unless we decide to be a no growth city. We Middlefieldtonians
are strong but we need your help in dealing with our increased traffic. We need the kind of help
that ls now being considered on Charleston and Arastradero. We need to slow the cars down
before somebody gets killed. We need smart traffic lights. We need to restripe Middlefield into
two or three lanes so that the speeding Dumbarton bus and bicycles can coexist together. Since
there is no way to reduce the number of cars the only way to calm traffic for everyone is to slow
the cars down.
I grew up in a small town next to Briarcliff, New York. Briarcliffwas special. If you drove five
miles an hour over the speed limit in Briarcliffyou got a ticket. It was automatic. I don’t know
how they did it, they came out of nowhere but everybody knew or soon learned you don’t speed
in Briarcliff. If we did that in Palo Alto the effect would be dramatic. It would calm the whole
City. I believe this speed reduction together with a few turn restrictions would offer real relief
from the worst of the cut-through traffic in Downtown North. This would be true traffic calming
for the whole City not just rerouting the problem into others’ areas. I also feel that the animosity
created by this issue is far more serious than the traffic itsel£ I enjoy living on Middlefield.
Vice-Chair Cassel: Thank you very much. Gordana.
Gordana Apovovitch, 302 Brgant Street, Palo Alto: I am Gordana Apovovitch and I am here to
speak both as a business owner and a resident. I have a design studio on Bryant Street and I am a
resident of Hawthorne Avenue. I would like to congratulate the traffic planners for terrific work.
I also would like to congratulate the Commission for their foresight to conduct a study of such
importance, which will hopefully improve life of many more neighborhoods in Palo Alto and
hopefully through the United States. Palo Alto has been a trail blazer in many areas and I happy
to support this one. The numbers speak for themselves and more than anything neighborhoods
really need to go back to the residents and you have succeeded in it. Congratulations again and
good luck.
Vice-Chair Cassel: Thank you. Chas Pavlovic and then Tim Reynders to be followed by Ann
Gila.
Mr. Chas Pavlovic, 602 Hawthorne Avenue, Palo Alto: First again I would like to thank Joe,
Carl and also Dan and the whole DTNNA group for years of hard work to improve our quality of
life in which now I can say they have succeeded. I strongly support a couple of things. First of
all I strongly support traffic calming with current performance measure and current is the key
word here. I also strongly support equitable plans, plan fair to all. If now we look at alternatives
I am not necessarily saying we should because I am pretty happy with the current alternative two
plans appear fair to all to me, current in its Augmented form and the Mixed. Some people may
not agree with that but they are fair. The Augmented plan also has the virtue of being effective.
Mixed at the moment is less effective but could probably be more effective by complimentary
turn signs. I also want to say that I strongly oppose all unfair plans. Number one on that list for
me is the Reduced plan in the original form or with modification because they channel all the
traffic right on some sections of Hawthorne for example between Bryant and Webster. Where
there were three avenues before Palo Alto, Everett and Hawthorne now all traffic goes by my
house. That is selfish but this is the characteristic of this plan and this is the traffic we are trying
City of Palo Alto Page 51
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
45
46
47
48
to prevent east-west and now we are sending them all into one street. So that is a very unfair
plan. In summary but I have another statement, I would like to urge you to use both of these
criteria, effectiveness and fairness. Fairness is the reason we have some of these problems today.
I wotild also like to state on a totally different note that many people are complaining that this
traffic went to Middlefield or Lytton. If you just briefly looked at the book provided by Joe and
Carl the increase on Middlefield is 4.6%. I think if the Unblock group wants to make this
argument I think they need to bring some Fremont people here.
Vice-Chair Cassel: Thank you. Gila to be followed by John Firman to be followed by Joyce
Fishman.
Mr. Tim Reynders, 436 Palo Alto Avenue, Palo Alto: I think you skipped Tim Reynders. First I
would like to commend the Commission on the way this evening has been conducted.
Everybody that has come up to speak I think that we all have valid points and people have been
very civil in the way they presented those points but at the end of the day I think all of us are
going to have selfish points because of where we live. I purchased the home at 436 Palo Alto
about a year and a half ago and enjoyed the frustration the first nine months being there with the
traffic that came off of Middlefield and offofAlma and zipped down through Palo Alto Avenue.
The last nine months have been wonderful for me there I am sure at the expense of other people.
I do support the plan with collapsible bollards. I believe the goals established for the calming
plan were met in their entirety and do not recommend compromising on any of the requirements.
I think that people consistently speak of emergency response. We have heard tonight of a
number of occasions where response times have been met. I don’t believe we have heard
anything or any situation where a response time was not met. I think the outpouring of support
this evening has been amazing for the plan. I am sure everybody keeps their individual tallies. I
know every time anybody comes up I note if they are for, I note if they are against, I am sure you
are doing it up there. More than 70% of the people who are here have said that they are for the
plan or for some version of this plan. The Unblock team has done a great job of rallying support.
They put their petitions together. Those petitions are there but I don’t see those people here
speaking this evening and I would like you to keep that in mind. Because the people who have
consistently gone around in support of this plan have gone through this process over all these
years with the Commission and with the team here, have gone through the studies and supported
it and are here this evening. So I wouldn’t recommend for a survey. I don’t think we are going
to be able to have any kind of a survey that would be unbiased. I think it is a very large rental
community in Downtown Palo Alto and you have a large turnover of those tenants because of
that you are not going to get the true flavor for what the neighborhood should be and has been in
the past. Thank you.
Vice-Chair Cassel: Thank you. John Firman to be followed by Joyce Fishman.
Ms. Ann Gila, 459 Hawthome Avenue, Palo Alto: No, Ann Gila first. I support the closures as
they are. I don’t want to repeat everything everybody else has said but many people that have
just come before me have said what I would want to say. It feels like finally we have some relief
in this neighborhood from the traffic but we also have a terrible parking problem. So it feels
wonderful to have some relief. I have lived in the neighborhood for 30 years and it has been
tough watching it get worse and worse and worse. The main thing I wanted to say was in
relationship to the emergency response time. On the night of September 25 we had to call 911
City of Palo Alto Page 52
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
40
41
42
43
45
46
47
48
1 because my husband though I was having a stroke. I didn’t have a stroke thank goodness but I
2 .live on Hawthorne where there is a dead end so the emergency vehicles got there in less than
3 four minutes. I was very satisfied with the response time. On the way in the ambulance I asked
4 the technician who was assisting me if they had any trouble reaching our house and they said
5 they had no trouble. So I want to say that we are pleased with response time and we are not
concerned about it even though we had to make a call. Thank you.
Vice-Chair Cassel: Thank you. John Firman and then Joyce Fishman and then Anne Feldhusen.
Mr. John Firman, 459 Hawthorne Avenue, Palo Alto: I am married to Ann and I am proud to be
married to someone who has the presence of mind that when she is on the way to Stanford
Hospital, in the hospital in the ambulance asks how is the response time. This is how
passionately she cares about this issue. I am fully in support of the closures as they stand maybe
with the addition to help people on Emerson and Byron with the no turn signs off of Middlefield
and Alma.
I wanted to just point to another thing, which is the word divisive. The word divisive is used in
this debate often and it is often used as something that is bad and something that is attached to
the closures. The divisive closures. I have heard it tonight. I have seen it in print. I have seen it
in op ed pages. All that is saying is that this issue has strong pro and cons. There is a big heated
argument about it. That says nothing about whether the closures should be there or not. Of
course it is divisive. 800 High was divisive. You don’t just remove it. So the word divisive is
not a word that speaks against the closures. I would respectfully suggest we remove the word
divisive because it is used as a way of saying oh it is too divisive let’s take it away, which is of
course divisive. Thank you.
Vice-Chair Cassel: Thank you. Joyce Fishman.
Ms. Jo¥ce Fishman, 180 Emerson Street, Palo Alto: My husband and I own the house on the
corner of Emerson and Hawthome. We are not living there now but we would like to move
back. And if you keep this calming thing in place we would move back with pleasure. Actually
one of the reasons we left is because the traffic became so incredible. We moved there in 1970
and it was like a little country road on the comer of Emerson and Hawthome at the time. As a
matter of fact I even remember at about eight o’clock at night we looked outside and there was a
horse prancing down the street on Hawthorne. It was incredible. Anyway, we walked over here
tonight from 180 Emerson and it was like heaven. It was truly heaven. The traffic is just so
much less and we ere there during the rush hour time. I have been gardening. I spend a lot of
time gardening in our little garden there. I have been gardening and it used to be so noisy before
this calming project went into effect and now it is wonderful. People stop when I am in the
garden they stop and talk to me. They didn’t even talk to me before when we had this huge
amount of traffic coming by because we are on a very incredibly busy corner. It still is busy by
the way but not as much as it was. We notice that it is down 48.2%. I would like to understand
why it has risen 52% on Emerson between Hawthome and Everett. I don’t quite understand how
that possibly could be. I also would like to say that the closure right near High Street there is
really not much of a closure and we have written a letter to these wonderful folks who did this
wonderful study and we asked them if they could please close it a little bit more because people
don’t seem to notice those gateways there. Or put up signs or do something to let people know
that really ahead there are closures. What we have noticed is people make turn from Alma Street
City of Palo Alto Page 53
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
and they come down Emerson and they see the closure way ahead and then they sort of get angry
and go down to the right or to the let~ and then we have seen them turn around on Palo Alto
Avenue and come back the other way. So it is not quite obvious that there is a closure there.
Thank you very much. We support the plan.
Vice-Chair Cassel: Thank you. It is ten o’clock but I have only two more cards and possibly a
third. If Anne Feldhusen could speak and then Ronjon Nag.
Ms. Anne Feldhusen, 323 Hawthorne Avenue, Palo Alto: I just want to speak in support of the
calming plan. I think its great. I primarily move about by foot or by bicycle so calling it a
closure isn’t accurate in my estimation. Everything is perfectly open in Downtown and the
improvement from my points of view is that it is much easier for me to see how I can separate
myself from the cars because now the throughways are much more predictable the residential
streets are a little more predictable and as a cyclist that’s great. So I fully support them.
Vice-Chair Cassel: Thank you. Ronjon Nag.
Mr. Ronion Na~, 204 Cowper Street, Palo Alto: Hello. I am going to keep this short as the final
word. I think you have a tough sort of decision process so will just talk about those comments. I
would just keep it as it is and fix the six streets that are supposed to have problems, just fix them
and put traffic lights on Lytton. No matter what decision you make you are going to have some
people that approve it and some people that disapprove it. So I would suggest that you need to
go back to first principles. What were the objectives of this study? What were the objectives of
the actual plan? See what the professionals said in our Traffic Department. Some streets are
going to have more traffic so just decide which streets those are going to be. If they are the
arterials, which I think is the current intent, meant to be arterials, decide that. There is going to
be tradeoffs in response times of various people and you are going to have to decide which is
more important be it a child run over in a traffic accident or the fire engine taking an extra 30
seconds to get to a certain place. I for me have made all of these tradeoffs myself and would
keep the plan as it is with these small changes. So what I would ask you to do is make a decision
whatever you do, just make a decision because I think people just want to get on with their lives
and go and do something more interesting. Go back to first principles. There was a process.
People looked at this plan a few years ago when it was first suggested and it was advertised. A
study was done. The trial has been done. Have the metrics been met? What were they? I think
the metrics have shown that it has succeeded and the people are here. Some people oppose it and
some people approve it. The people that are here I think have shown that there are more people
want it as it is rather than going on to something else. So I would just ask you to do that. Follow
the process, make a decision and we can move on.
Vice-Chair Cassel: Thank you. Now I have some cards here were people supposedly went
home and I just want to confirm that that’s the case. Leon Long? Barbara Hart? Grace Ann
Baker? Eric Filseth? Larry Alton? They are not here, okay. Then I will close the public
hearing and we will take a short break.
I want to thank everyone for coming. I appreciate all that you have had to say. The discourse
has been good. You have been very polite about fmishing when you need to finish and saying
what you need to say. I really appreciate what everyone has said and brought to us. Thank you.
City of Palo Alto Page 54
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
We will take a seven minute break.
Are we settling down? Is the Staff back? I am pushing an iron fist here. We want to do good
work and then we want to go home. Some people have been here since 7:30 this morning. In
case flae Staff are going home I want to thank all the Staff that helped us, Robin and Zariah, were
here this evening to help us so that all of you could know what was happening as you came in
and keep everything moving for us. Olu is here still taking minutes.
I want to bring this back up to the Commission. We obviously are not going to finish this this
evening. The items that we need to talk about that are essential are the tour that we had a request
to do last week. Then whether to do a survey or not and if so, whether we should talk about any
details about it tonight. Then how to handle any questions or whether we are just too tired and
will hold even all the questions until our next meeting. We have a temporary meeting to do.
Staff could you tell us a little bit about the tour because we had had a request from
Commissioners and people agreed they wanted a tour. That is what we heard last week.
Commissioner Bialson: I think it would be helpful if Staff could provide that with a timeframe.
Mr. Kott: Thank you Commissioner Cassel. We are suggesting a tour if the Commission wishes
to do so and it is modeled after our recent so-called mobile workshop on the
CharlestordArastradero corridor, which was rather successful overall. The date we are
suggesting if the Commission wishes is Saturday, January 24, which is this Saturday. We would
assemble at 9:00 near the closure on Palo Alto Avenue near Byron and we would finish, we have
time points associated with locations on a map which I think you have now, and we would end
near the existing closure at High Street and Everett, not far from Standard Electric. That is our
proposed beginning and end point and the actual route is suggested on the map with time points.
Vice-Chair Cassel: We could either bike from point to point or drive ourselves from point to
point? We could walk but it takes you some time if you want to walk. Do you want to walk?
The times are setup for walking.
Mr. Kott: Biking would of course also be welcome and inviting in this neighborhood I think.
Vice-Chair Cassel: So we will call it a walking tour on Saturday the 24t~ at 9:00 AM for
approximately two hours. Is that agreeable with the rest of the Commissioners?
Commissioner Packer: Yes.
Commissioner Bialson: Yes.
Commissioner Burr: It is with me. I think we want to make very clear to the public that this is
not part of open hearing and it would not be for.purposes of having dialogue with the public.
Vice-Chair Cassel: Yes, that was next statement. First I wanted to find out if we could go. We
now have four of us able to go. This could be done without us all together and could be done at
a little later time if that worked. Go ahead Karen.
City of Palo Alto Page 55
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
45
46
47
48
Commissioner Holman: I have a question. Doing this on a Saturday morning as opposed to say
after work one day. Well, it is dark this time of year, which is a problem. I would suppose that
morning interferes with too many people going to work but is Staff prepared to compare
situations or how do you propose doing a Saturday morning walking tour and giving examples of
othe~ time situations or conditions?
Mr. Kott: Well, frankly the Saturday morning walking tour was proposed since our own work
schedule is fairly hectic these days but we would be more than happy to change the suggested
date and times to a more typical work commute period either morning or evening if the
Commission wishes to do so.
Vice-Chair Cassel: Is there anyone else who would rather do that?
Commissioner Bialson: I could see where that would be desirable but I think some of us have to
work.
Vice-Chair Cassel: I am facing that same problem. You too, Pat? So then it is agreed by
consensus that we will meet this Saturday morning. I am told that what we have to do is
continue this meeting to Saturday morning. It will not be a public hearing, it is going to be
discussion with Staff and Planning Commissioners but the public is always welcome to attend.
These maps will be available. I think they will have a mike for us so we can pass it around as we
talk. But we will not be engaging the general public in conversation at that time. Is that
agreeable? That is a little tricky to do but that is what we are going to have to do in order to be
able to do this.
Okay, then do I need a motion to do this? I need a motion to continue this meeting to that time
to hold a tour.
MORON
Commissioner Bialson: So moved.
Vice-Chair Cassel: A second?
SECOND
Commissioner Packer: Second.
MOTION PASSED (5-0-0-1, Commissioner Griffin absent)
Vice-Chair Cassel: All those in favor? (ayes) That is a unanimous vote with Commissioner
Griffin being absent.
That is taken care of. Copies of these will be available to the public and we will meet at that
time.
The next issue that we need to deal with is the survey. I think perhaps the Staff should give us
some comments on this survey and then we can discuss first whether or not we want to have one.
City of Palo Alto Page 56
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
I presume that you want to make some comments about the survey that you are proposing that
we do or don’t do rather.
Mr. Kott: Yes. Thank you very much Chair Cassel. We were just pouting over this tour map to
make sure we have the right route marked out. Yes we are not recommending an advisory
survey. There was considerable disagreement over fundamentals on the survey. We have done
many, many advisory surveys in the past in Palo Alto and I think rather successfully but I think
in this case just about ever issue was one of concern for the contending parties. The second
reason is we would like to be as expeditious as we can in moving to the next stage be that fi’om
one part of the continuum removal of these devices and another changing them, shiffing them
and adding or subtracting, in other words a construction project once Council decides. So for the
purpose of expedition and the first point was because we really didn’t have fundamental
agreement on you might say the legitimacy of the survey because of the contending parties we
don’t think it would be as helpful to do the survey as it ordinarily would be.
If the Commission chooses to recommend doing a survey we would be quite willing to do that.
We strongly urge though if a survey is conducted that it be conducted on a household basis. We
are more than happy to conduct it. We can do it in a very cost effective way because we know
how to do the household based surveys. The issues with not doing household base and going to
individual voters are in validation of status of individuals as residents and adults living in the
neighborhood. We can’t use voter registration lists because of course non-registered adults and
non-citizens for that matter would not be polled. On an all person survey it is very much like a
census. You just have to get in there and determine who actually is living in each one of these
structures and businesses as well, who is actually working there. It is very much more
complicated and very, very much more expensive. There is a fallback in doing a sample survey,
which is typical in opinion polls and market research and so forth. We would recommend based
on our own longstanding practice and I must say based on typical practice throughout the United
States a household based survey. We have suggested a format I believe in our Staff Report for
that survey. We are very open to how the questions are phrased and how many options are put to
the households. We would urge though that our recommended plan, the Mixed Measures Plan,
be one of those options.
Vice-Chair Cassel: Steve.
Mr. Steve Emslie, Planning Director: I would just like to add a couple of departmental issues to
Joe’s comments. One of the reasons for our recommendation is that the management of the
Transportation Division’s workload. They do not have the capacity to take on the work beyond
the typical survey that we do and that is the household survey. So it was part of our
recommendation that the time commitment that was going to be drawn off of other projects to
conduct a more elaborate survey was not possible without deferring Council identified priorities.
So I just wanted to say that it.is also the management of a very heavy workload that the
Transportation Division is currently engaged in that we would ask you to consider.
Mr. Kott: May I clarify.an earlier comment of mine, Chair Cassel? Attachment E in your Staff
Report packet, proposed opinion card format contains our suggestion. We are not in any way
providing this suggestion suggesting this is the only format that such a survey could take. That
would be our advice.
City of Palo Alto Page 57
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
45
46
47
48
Vice-Chair Cassel: So questions? Annette.
Commissioner Bialson: So I understand Staff is recommending that we not do a survey. Is that
correct and what is the reason again for that, please?
Mr. Kott: Yes, Commissioner Bialson. Two reasons, one is we have not been able to arrive at
an agreed consensus or a consensus with the contending parties in the traffic calming project
debate on just fundamentals such as who votes, which areas vote, how many plans should be on
the vote, even whether there should be a color coding of cards. The whole.process was really
one of dissent and not consensus. Secondly, we are very sensitive to moving on as quickly as we
can from this point forward. We will have to go through some contracting procedures once
Council makes a decision. We won’t be able to make the changes the next day, say. So we are
trying to cut out weeks.- People need to have enough time to think about their vote. We need to
have enough time to process and get the cards out and then when we receive the cards to tabulate
them and report them back and so forth. We are talking about weeks of delay in a proper
procedure. We suggest we really need to save those weeks at this point.
Vice-Chair Cassel: Karen.
Commissioner Holman: I can’t remember exactly when the survey was pulled and I am not sure
if there has been a meeting with Staff with the representatives from the neighborhood both pro
and con the plan. If there has been a more recent meeting with representatives has the level of
contention improved?
Mr. Kott: We have not had, ourselves as Staff, have not had a more recent meeting. I believe
that a couple of members of our City Council have with representatives of each side. I was not at
that meeting but from what I understand the level of dialogue is better. I think maybe there is
some incentive all the way around either to come to some better understanding on an agreement
or not have any survey at all. Perhaps Steve is better informed as to what that meeting with the
two Council Members has come to.
Mr. Emslie: Again we were not present but we were given a summary of the results of that and
while we believe there has been some progress in the methodology which we think is
encouraging because we can’t do anything other than the recommended methodology there was
still issues with the current form as it is drafted in terms of the choices that were offered and the
variety of choices, whether the plan had an equal number of open plan options versus an equal
number of barriers. There still was not consensus on the survey instrument itself.
Vice-Chair Cassel: Are there any other questions at this time? Pat, do you have something?
Commissioner Burr: I wo.uld just like to say that as I was trying to summarize for myself the
issues that would be involved should we support a survey I think we would need to address the
issues of the form of the survey, whether it is households or individuals. Staff has strongly
recommended the traditional format and that might be an easier question for us because we have
a history. We would have the question of the content and I frankly would not support the content
that is in Attachment E if we went forward. I would be much more in favor of a content that
would break it into basic questions. First, do you support closures or not? Then under each one
City of Palo Alto Page 58
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
1 of those if you didn’t support closures do you support a no calming or a calming program? If
2 you support closures do you support a severe one or a more moderate one? That sort of
3 conceptual one rather than posing specific plans to folks. But then beyond that what do you do
4 with the survey? Is this a binding survey of some sort? I don’t think that was ever the intension.
5 So it’would be purely advisory and if it is advisory we do have a real problem with how the-
6 participants in the survey might anticipate the results of the survey to be taken by the policy
7 bodies versus how the policies bodies and Staff might take it. That goes into the broader
8 question of do these sorts of issues of street closures properly get decided by a vote of those
9 people in a neighborhood and if so I suspect we would be walking down a path toward a lot
10 street closures in this community. So I think there are a lot of problems with the survey as much
as it would be in some ways beneficial to have those results. I just want to make us aware that
there are all of these issues if we should go down that path.
Vice-Chair Cassel: Annette.
Commissioner Bialson: I think the fundamental reason for a survey would be to receive the
input of the affected households to what we are thinking of having the City involved in in terms
of closures or whatever format we decide on. I think we have gotten plenty of information. I
don’t think a survey would be justified given the fact that we really don’t have agreement as to
the format of it, there is an incredible amount of Staff time and money that would be spent on it
and I think there would be confusion as to the use that is going to be made of the results. So I for
one would like to make a motion that we do not recommend a survey be taken.
Vice-Chair Cassel: I can accept a motion at this time if you would like to make it.
MORON
Commissioner Bialson: I would move that the Planning and Transportation Commission would
recommend that no survey be taken with respect to the Downtown North Traffic plans. I don’t
know how else you would want it expressed. Maybe Staff could assist me in that. Would that be
sufficient, Joe?
Mr. Kott: I think so, Commissioner Bialson.
Commissioner Bialson: Thank you. I would appreciate a second.
SECOND
Commissioner Packer: I’ll second that.
Vice-Chair Cassel: Did you wish to speak to that?
Commissioner Bialson: I think I have spoken to it.
Vice-Chair Cassel: Did you wish to speak to it, Bonnie?
Commissioner Packer: Just briefly. I think Pat and Annette have raised the reasons why a
survey at this point in time would not really add very much to what we already have been
City of Palo Alto Page 59
1 hearing over the years and tonight. I think this project has gotten by now people should have a
2 high level of awareness of their opportunities to have input about this project much more so than
3 when we first looked at this a couple of years ago. The processes that we have in place and the
4 fact that we are continuing this and we have gotten a lot of feedback from the public and that is
5 why we have surveys is to make sure that the policies considering are somehow in synch with
6 how people are thinking. Also designs like this really belong in the hands of the professionals
7 who understand and design it. We don’t always ask for a vote every time we design a traffic
8 light or a street. We don’t want to set a precedent for that and we have to respect our engineers.
9 So I think that is another aspect of why I don’t think we would learn anymore by having a
10 survey.
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
Vice-Chair Cassel: Karen.
Commissioner Holman: I will be really brief. I am going to support the motion of course and I
asked the questions because I wanted to know if there had been any improvement and because
the issue of a survey had come up quite frequently from the speakers tonight. I wanted there to
be an updated record of why we would or would not do a survey. I do agree that with the
voluminous and intelligent comments that we have gotten from all perspectives of this both
tonight and via email and in print form I think we have plenty of information about what the
community is standing on.
Vice-Chair Cassel: Pat, do you wish to make any more comments?
I will support the motion. I understand that the comments that there will be a survey is in the
parameters but we have not been able to accomplish that with an agreeable presentation between
the groups. I really feel I have received extensive amounts of information from a lot of people,
very intelligent information, very helpful information and that is in fact how this representative
form of government does work. Our recommendations will go on to City Council. That will
help bring this issue forward to City Council so that we can make decisions and begin to proceed
with what is happening. I will take a vote on that issue at this time.
MOTION PASSED (5-0-0-1, Commissioner Griffin absent)
All those in favor please say aye. (ayes) Opposed? There is no one opposed. The five of us are
voting yes and Mr. Griffin is absent.
The next issue has to do with how do we proceed from here. I am presuming we do not want to
have questions with Staff because it is a little late. We have done a good job with this. We will
continue this meeting to a meeting with the date certain. Would you kindly tell us what that is?
Pat?
Commissioner Burr: Phyllis I think this might be a good time for us though to make some
requests of Staff for future information at our next meeting so that they are prepared to do that.
Vice-Chair Cassel: Yes but I just wanted to make we had this issue out first and we know where
we are going before we get a motion to continue it. We have date certain to continue this to,
correct? Well we continued this to the 24tu but we will come back to this session for a meeting
City of Palo Alto Page 60
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
45
46
47
48
in these chambers to bring forward questions and to make a decision as to how to proceed to the
City Council.
Mr. Kott: Please forgive us Chair Cassel, we do have a continue date after the workshop date.
Vice-Chair Cassel: I would like to announce that date now and I understand that at the end of
the meeting on Saturday then I will say this date will be continued forward to another date but at
this point this is the public hearing that people are listening to and I would like to be able to
know that date at this time.
Mr. Emslie: The date is February 25, 2004. We will renotice the hearing so there will be no
need to continue the public heating to that date. We will renotice it as an agenda item for
February 25.
Vice-Chair Cassel: I am concerned that that will mean I need to go into another public heating.
So I think you want to word that differently. Could you help us with that, Nelly?
Ms. Nelly: I think that you close the public hearing on this item, that you are continuing the
discussion of this item for after the workshop to February 25tu.
Vice-Chair Cassel: Thank you. Now I have a request to be able to make some requests of Staff
for information. I would like to take a little of that but it is late and we would like to be moving
on. Annette.
Commissioner Bialson: would we also be able to forward to Staff our questions by emall? I
think I would like mine in written form that I could give to Staff maybe on Saturday and thereby
expressing them. Can I do that as well as if we say anything today?
Vice-Chair Cassel: That is agreeable isn’t it?
Mr. Emslie: Yes it is.
Vice-Chair Cassel: So that by Saturday we would bring in questions that would then be
available for each other to know what those questions are.
Mr. Emslie: Yes, we would share them and post them appropriately for everyone to see.
Vice-Chair Cassel: Thank you. Now is there anyone who has a few questions that need to be
urgently done tonight?
Commissioner Burt: I don’t know if urgent is the description. I just have some requests for
information for our next meeting. Firs for clarification is it the intension to convene that
February 25 meeting at our regular time of seven o’clock?
Vice-Chair Cassel: Yes.
Commissioner Burt: Let me see if I can find a few of them. One is that I would like to ask for
Staffto come back with an alternative proposal that includes more aggressive traffic calming
City of Palo Alto Page 61
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
measures that might include turn restrictions but does not include closures. We have a limited
one of those but I think with only one speed table and something that is more inclusive and not
so restrained by anticipated budgetary constraints on it.
Second, I would like to ask if the Commission can be provided with the previous Staff Report,
there is some very valuable information in there. I was, tonight, trying to go through and
compare what were the year 2000 traffic volumes versus the volumes at the beginning of 2003
and the anticipated reductions in volume from the program versus the actual. It is very difficult
to compare them because it is obvious we had an ov .erall reduction in traffic volume attributable
apparently to the economy. We had our anticipated impacts of the plan were based upon
baseline numbers that were peak numbers. So we may get some relevancy to comparing percent
reductions but we can’t compare absolute numbers very effectively. But it was very illuminating
and there were some anomalies that I was seeing there that probably have some explanation in
statistical glitches of some sort. One of them was extremely significant as an anomaly others
were enlightening. In areas where we thought we were going to have reductions we had
increases and I think that is going to be an important part of our discussion.
Another request would be if Staff or the City Attorney’s Office could provide us comments at
that time on what we received tonight on a report by the Unblock folks regarding California
Vehicle Code impacts and if the Staff could comment on those things.
Commissioner Holman: That packet I think also included issues of CEQA and I just wanted to
know if you wanted to include those as needing response.
Commissioner Burr: If Staff thinks that is appropriate. Then also if the Transportation Staffcan
give us some information on out of the cars that were diverted from this neighborhood do we
have any sense of where they went? I may have a couple more but I will let folks add theirs for
right now.
Vice-Chair Cassel: I would like to see us put them in writing for later if we can unless it is
something really urgent to be said in public now simply because it is getting very late.
Commissioner Holman: I have one which is I had concern about the traffic increases on two
sides of Johnson Park. I would like to have some methodology for how that might be improved
as opposed to it being worsened. Then I have kind of a wrap up comment when it is time to do
that just in general.
Vice-Chair Cassel: We are not going to be able to do a wrap up comment tonight because we are
going to continue this and I am about to lose some of our members here. Bonnie.
Commissioner Packer: My questions are similar to Karen’s. We heard about impact on certain
streets and the plans and the Mixed Measures and the Reduced and the Augmented. If you could
explain how each of those proposals that you have or any others that you come up with between
now and February how it impacts those areas where people are saying more traffic got diverted
to and how those proposals mitigate those. That would be really helpful.
Also my other question is in all the proposed plans except one I think the barrier that is in front
of the Stanford Electric was proposed to be removed. I don’t know if it is possible to look at that
City of Palo Alto Page 62
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
quorum and didn’t vote on them last time but they didn’t get put into this time. So if you will do
that for next time.
NEXT MEETING: Special Meeting of January 28, 2004 at 6:00 PM.
Vice-Chair Cassel: If there are no other comments from the Staff?. We have no other comments.
Then I would like to adjourn this meeting. Thank you everyone for coming and thank you Olu
and all the Staff for the work that they did that was very helpful to have all the support Staffwe
did this evening.
ADJOURNED: 10:47 PM
City of Palo Alto Page 64
1 one area just by itself and see if there is a way to alleviate that condition. I don’t know but if that
2 could be looked at.
3
4 Vice-Chair Cassel: Any other comments tonight? Karen, you wanted to say something going
5 forward, it will be brief, please.
6
7 Commissioner Holman: Yes. I just wanted to comment that I know this happens and I don’t
8 think anybody can ever pinpoint where something kind of goes awry. I really appreciate that all
9 the speakers tonight were very courteous and very professional and thoughtful in their
10 comments. I don’t know where things go awry. Things do get emotional and people say things
11 and do things at least as they have been reported that really aren’t productive to a good outcome.
12 I really do hope that going forward that we only experience the kind of demeanor that we have
13 witnessed here tonight both in public and in private. I think that is the best way to get to a good
14 conclusion, a good outcome and one that will bring people together and that will result in a
15 process and an end-product that will be the most satisfactory to everybody involved. I would
16 appreciate that.
17
18 Vice-Chair Cassel: That closes this item for tonight. This meeting will be continued. Do I need
19 a motion for that? Thank you.
20
21 COMMISSION MEMBER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, AND/OR ANNOUNCEMENTS.
22
23 Vice-Chair Cassel: We have Minutes for one meeting. I want thank everyone that has come for
24 your participation, for your politeness and for your thoughtful comments to us.
25
26 APPROVAL OFMINUTES: Special Meeting of January 7, 2004
27
28 Vice-Chair Cassel: We have a set of minutes that need to be approved for January 7, 2004. We
29 have at our place some corrections to go with that. I would like a motion to accept those.
30
31 MOTION
32
33 Commissioner Butt: So moved.
34
35 Vice-Chair Cassel: Is there a second?
36
37 SECOND
38
39 Commissioner Packer: I’ll second.
40
41 MOTION PASSED (5-0-0-1, Commissioner Griffin absent)
42
43 Vice-Chair Cassel: Noting the changes in the minutes. All those in favor please say aye. (ayes)
45 We had some Minutes from December 17tu that we were unable to vote on last time, can we vote
46 on them this time? Is it not noticed? Okay, Nelly I think the minutes for the 17tu were not
47 noticed and so we will have to have them noticed for the next regular meeting. We didn’t have a
City of Palo Alto Page 63
ATTACHMENT D
to CMR:180:04
TRANSP OR TA TION DIVISION
STAFF REPORT
TO:PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
FROM:Carl Stoffel
AGENDA DATE:February 25, 2004
DEPARTMENT: Planning and
Community Environment
SUBJECT:Downtown North Traffic Calming Project--Recommendations to
Remove Current Trial Plan and Implement New Traffic Calming Plan
RECOMMENDATIONS
Staffrecommends that Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) recommend that the
City Council take the following actions.
1. End the current Downtown North trial traffic calming plan;
Adopt the attached resolution (a) approving a mitigated negative declaration for
permanent implementation of the Downtown North Traffic Calming Project Mixed
Measures Plan (or other plan with similar or less impacts), (b) approving permanent
implementation of the Mixed Measures Plan including performance measures and
improvement actions, and (c) authorizing the Director of Planning to implement
improvement actions as necessary to achieve the Plan’s performance measures.
BACKGROUND
The PTC opened the discussion of this project at its January 21, 2004 meeting. A public
hearing was concluded after taking testimony from approximately 90 citizens. The PTC
approved a motion to recommend to Council that the resident opinion survey for the current
trail plan not be conducted. The PTC did not take action on staff’s recommendations, but
requested additional related information, and adjourned to a walking tour meeting of the
neighborhood for January 24, 2004, which was appropriately noticed in City Hall. No public
testimony was taken at that meeting. This staff report presents a substantial amount of new
information, as follows:
DTN TCP-Recommendations to Remove Current Trial Page 1
Plan and Implement New Traffic Calming Plan 2-25-04
1.A revised environmental assessment with mitigated negative declaration for the Mixed
Measures Plan or other plan with similar or less CEQA (California Environmental
Quality Act) impacts;
2.Performance measures and improvement actions for the Mixed Measures Plan
3.Answers to Commission questions and requests for additional information;
4.Summary of the January 24 walking tour; and
5.Some responses to public testimony.
In this report, extensive references are made to the January 21, 2004 staff report to the PTC
on the Downtown North project (attached). At the Commissioners’ request, two additional
staff reports are included (in the Commissioner’s packets only) covering the original
discussion and approval of the trial plan: October 11, 2000 report to the PTC and the
December 11, 2000 CMR:440:00.
Staff’s recommended Mixed Measures Plan is illustrated below and was described in the
1/21/04 staff report. The Mixed Measures Plan is expected to solve or reduce most of the
problems with the current trial plan while still maintaining Some through traffic reduction,
albeit substantially less than attained by the current trial plan. The plan consists of removing
three of the seven street closures of the current trial plan and relocating one of the remaining
four; removing the two gateway features near Middlefield; keeping the Waverley bulbout;
adding three traffic circles on Everett and Hawthorne and a speed table to the existing
gateway on Everett at High; and implementing peak hour turn restrictions into the
neighborhood from Alma and Middlefield. The intersection improvements at
Lytton/Middlefield and Lytton/Alma will remain as permanent improvements to the arterial
roadway system.
DTN TCP-Recommendations to Remove Current Trial Page 2
Plan and Implement New Traffic Calming Plan 2-25-04
HAWTHORNE & EVERETT
NOT THROUGH ROUTESTO ALMA
7-10 AI~
Bike
Johnson
Park
KEY
1~ Existing Stop Sign
-= Gateway
,~ Bulbout Pair
(~) Traf~c Circle
~-- Guide Sign
¯ Street Closure
Note: the gateway,
bulbout, and traffic
circles allow full two-way
traffic acces~ ~
~J
Relocated
Install New
Speed ~Elect~cTable at ~
Existing Gateway
Bike Bridge
NOR"~’I
CALMING FIF~JBCT
DTN TCP-Recommendations to Remove Current Trial Page 3Plan and Implement New Traffic Calming Plan 2-25-04
DISCUSSION OF IMPORTANT ISSUES AND ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Performance Measures and Improvement Actions
Performance measures for the Mixed Measures Plan are based on those originally established
for the current trial plan, but with modifications to conform to the new recommended plan.
Staff expects that the Mixed Measures Plan would meet all the performance measures and
would therefore not require and adjustments. Nevertheless, staff recommends that the
Director of Planning be authorized to implement "improvement actions" to address any
possible failure of the plan to reach any performance measure(s). Together, the performance
measures and improvement actions would insure that the Mixed Measures Plan (or plan with
similar impacts) could be implemented permanently with all performance measures being
met.
Monitoring and implementation of the improvement actions, if required, would proceed as
follows. Four months after permanent implementation of the Mixed Measures Plan (or plan
with similar impacts), staff would begin measurements to verify that the new plan meets the
performance standards, with certification by the Director of Planning and Community
Environment. This certification would occur approximately five months after implementation
of the plan. If a performance measure is not being met, the Transportation Division would
select the appropriate improvement action(s) from the list of actions already approved by the
PTC and Council (see list below), and recommend that the Director of Planning and
Community Environment approve implementation of the action(s). The revised plan would
then be monitored for another four months to make sure that the performance measures are
met, following the same methodology as the first round of monitoring and verification. If
necessary, additional improvement actions on the list could be implemented.
Following is a list of the performance measures and associated improvement actions for the
Mixed Measures Plan. Five of the performance measures are intended to also serve as
mitigation measures addressing traffic diversion, intersection level of service, and fire and
police response times (CEQA mitigations). These are further discussed in the Mitigated
Negative Declaration (included under separate cover). All the performance measures are
project goals and their implementation with the improvement actions will insure that these
goals are met in an efficient manner. Some of the performance measures do not have
quantitative standards, so are subject to some interpretation or are intended to provide
information. The CEQA performance measures take precedence over the non-CEQA
performance measures, and their implementation might result in non-CEQA performance
measures not being reached--most likely performance measure #1. Staff recommends that
the PTC recommend that Council approve the following list of performance measures and
improvement actions as an integral part of permanent implementation of the Mixed Measures
Plan.
DTN TCP-Recommendations to Remove Current Trial
Plan and Implement New Traffic Calming Plan 2-25-04
Page 4
Through Traffic Reduction (project goal," Non-CEQA Measure)
Through traffic will be reduced by an average of at least 35 percent compared to the
February 2003 "before trial" condition. The Downtown North neighborhood cordon
count of average daily traffic (sum of daily counts at all neighborhood access streets
along Middlefield, Lytton and Alma) will be the basis for this calculation.
Improvement actions for performance measure 1:
la. Increase hours of weekday turn restrictions into the neighborhood to 7 AM - 6 PM
on either or both Alma and Middlefield, as recommended by Transportation
Division to meet goal. (This action reduces the amount of through traffic entering
the neighborhood, and can be fine-tuned.)
tb. Implement Modified Mixed Measures Plan (refer to Attachment B) (This action
increases the difficulty to traverse the neighborhood, thus causing more through
trips to stay out of the neighborhood.)
Diversion of Traffic to Other Streets (CEQA Mitigation)
On local and collector streets with "before" counts of less than 2500 vehicles per day
(vpd) in the Downtown North and Lytton neighborhoods, no average daily vehicle
count at a peripheral or internal location will increase by more than 25 percent of the
"before" count. On local streets, the addition will not cause the volume to exceed 2500
vpd +10 percent.
Improvement actions for performance measure 2:
2a.Install the following additional traffic calming measures to the Mixed Measures
Plan on street segments or at ends of street segments where diversion standard is
exceeded, as recommended by Transportation Division to meet standard: one
speed hump per block and/or traffic circle at intersections where stop signs are not
present. (This action increases the travel time and adds inconvenience to street the
problem street .segments, thus slightly decreasing through trips.)
2b. Implement Modified Mixed Measures Plan (This action increases the difficulty to
traverse the neighborhood, thus causing more through trips to stay out of the
neighborhood and reducing through trips on the problem segments.)
2c.Implement No Closure Plan (refer to Attachment B) (This action removes all street
closures, so traffic diversion in specific blocks is greatly reduced.)
On local streets with a "before" count of 2500 vpd or greater in the Downtown North
and Lytton neighborhoods, no average daily traffic count at a peripheral or internal
location will increase by more than 10 percent of the "before" count.
Improvement actions for performance measure 3:
Same as items 2a, 2b, and 2c listed above.
DTN TCP-Recornmenda~ons to Remove Current Trial Page 5Plan and Implement New Traffic Calming Plan 2-25-04
The AM or PM peak hour level of service (LOS) at the Lytton/Alma and
Lytton/Middle field intersections will not degrade to less than LOS D.
Improvement actions for performance measure 4:
4a. Change signal phasing and!or timing. (This action is can be used to fine tune the
allotment of green time, thus increasing signal efficiency and improving LOS.)
4b. Reduce, change or remove totally weekday peakhour turn restriction hours as
recommended by Transportation Division to meet standard. (This action can be
used to incrementally reduce the forced use of the arterial streets during peak
hours, thus decreasing volumes passing through the intersections and improving
LOS.)
Speed Reduction ~on-CEQA Measure)
o This is not a performance measure for the Mixed Measures Plan. If the PTC or Council
wished to establish this (or something similar) as a performance measure, the following
associated improvement action is identified:
Install the following additional traffic calming measures to the Mixed Measures Plan on
street segments or at ends of street segments where speed reduction goal is not reached,
as recommended by Transportation Division to meet goal: one speed hump per block
and/or traffic circle at intersections where stop signs are not present. (This action
reduces speeds in the specific blocks.)
Crashes (Non-CEQA Measure)
It is usually not possible to identify a statistically significant pattem of crashes on local
streets in a four-month period, due to low traffic volumes. Crash trends on low volume
streets are usually only discernable after several years.
There will be no identifiable crashes directly attributable to the traffic calming plan
elements in the Downtown North neighborhood. If sufficient data is available, the crash
rate in the neighborhood and on the three surrounding arterials should be compared to
that before the measures were installed.
Improvement action for performance measure 6:
6a.Implement No Closure Plan. (This action assumes that the street closures in the
Mixed Measures Plan would be the primary cause of crashes, and would totally
change the traffic calming elements to remove them.)
At the Middlefield/Everett intersection, there will be no more than 3 crashes caused by
a vehicle entering or leaving Middlefield via either leg of Everett. [Since 1995, an
average of approximately six such accidents per year have occurred at this location.]
DTN TCP-Recommendations to Remove Current Trial
Plan and Implement New Traffic Calming Plan 2-25-04
Page 6
Fire
Improvement action for performance measure 7:
7a.Install right turn only restrictions on Hawthorne and Everett at Middlefield for
time periods as indicated by crash analysis. (This action can be used to fine-tune
the reduction of outbound left turns and through movements, which are the
primary crash-prone movements. Hawthorne must be included to keep drivers
from moving from Everett to Hawthorne.)
and Police Responses (CEQA Mitigation)
The travel times for Fire and Police Department calls within and near the Downtown
North neighborhood will not exceed the Departments’ mission goals for travel time of 4
minutes for 90 percent of fire and basic medical responses, 6 minutes for 90 percent of
advanced medical responses (paramedics), and 3 minutes for police calls--attributable
to implementation of the traffic calming plan.
Improvement actions for performance measure 8:
8a. Install flexible, break-away or automatic retractable bollards at one or more
closure locations deemed to be problem(s) by the Fire or Police Department. (This
action allows Fire Department vehicles to traverse the closures with only minimal
delay.)
8b.Implement No Closure Plan (This action removes all street closures as traffic
calming elements.)
There will be no serious impediments in any emergency activities, including identifiable
trends in increases in travel times during the trial period, of the Fire and Police
Departments within and near the Downtown North neighborhood attributable to the
traffic calming plan. This includes Fire Department access to Lytton Gardens and
Webster House.
Improvement actions for performance measure 9:
Same as items 8a and 8b above.
Citizens" Observations and Incident Reports to Police Department (Non-CEQA Measure)
10.Citizens’ reports of safety problems within and near the Downtown North neighborhood
attributable to the traffic calming plan will be compiled. Any reports or calls for service
to the Police Department (other than crashes reported above) will be evaluated. This
measure does not have a specific performance goal.
Neighborhood Acceptance (Non-CEQA Measure)
11. A neighborhood opinion survey will not be conducted for the Mixed Measures Plan.
DTN TCP-Recommendations to Remove Current Trial Page 7Plan and Implement New Traffic Calming Plan 2-25-04
Other Issues (Non-CEQA Measure)
12. i Impacts attributable to the traffic calming plan as reported by City departments,
PASCO, the Post Office, transit operators, and any other public agencies serving the
neighborhood (including bordering arterials) will be compiled and evaluated. This
measure does not have a specific performance goal.
Answers to Commission Questions and Requests
Commissioners requested additional information about this project at the 1/21/04 PTC
meeting and the 1/24/04 walking tour. The questions are listed below, with answers in
Attachment C.
Provide another alternative plan that uses aggressive traffic calming measures, not
including street closures, that is not cost-constrained.
Compare the traffic volume measurements from 2000 when the current trial plan was
originally proposed to the measurements from 2003just before the plan was actually
implemented. Discuss the change in volumes in that three-yearperiod. There were some
anomalies. Some areas where we thought there were going to be reductions there
actually were increases.
Comment on the pedestrian benefits of bulbouts and if we can consider installing
bulbouts at all four corners of Johnson Park.
Where did the diverted vehicles go?
Comment on Unblock’s report on issues related to the California Vehicle Code (CVC)
and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
How do levels of through traffic in Downtown North (before the trial) compare to
University South or other neighborhoods?
How can the volume increases caused by the current trial plan on both sides of Johnson
Park be improved (i.e, on Kipling and Waverley)?
Explain how each plan affects the problem of diverted volumes within the
neighborhood.
What are the possibilities to alleviate the condition by Stanford Electric?
January_ 24, 2004 Walking Tour
Commissioners requested a meeting in the Downtown North neighborhood to see certain
aspects of the plan up close, with staff present to provide comment and answer questions.
The number of members of the public varied from about two to six. No public testimony was
taken. Five Commissioners were present, with four staffmembers. The walking tour focused
on locations in the neighborhood where the plan has been most effective and where the most
problems were encountered. The meeting was held on a Saturday moming, so observing
actual weekday traffic flows was not possible nor was an objective of the tour. Much of the
information presented and discussed was in the January 21, 2004 staff report. Some
additional information is included in answers to Commissioners’ questions in Attachment D.
DTN TCP-Recommendal~ons to Remove Current Tdal
Plan and Implement New Traffic Calming Plan 2-25-04
Page 8
Further Information on Policy Issues Raised in Public Testimony
Policies_for Closure qf Streets to Through Trqffic
This issue has been discussed extensively in prior reports for the Downtown North project:
10/11/00 staff report to PTC, pp 4-7
12/11/00 CMR:440:00, pp 3-8 .
1/21/04 staff report to PTC, pp 9-10
CVC 21101(f) allows cities to use traffic barriers (aka street closures) and other design
features to implement the circulation element of the general plan. The Palo Alto
Comprehensive Plan, adopted by Council resolution, contains criteria for street closures to
through traffic in Policy T-33 ("overwhelming through traffic" and "no acceptable
altematives"). The Transportation element contains other goals and policies that promote
traffic calming. The requirements of Policy T-33 are not quantitative and thus require
interpretation. Transportation Division provided the interpretation of that policy: (a)
"Overwhelming through traffic" is 60 percent or more. (b) Based on the Dowling Associates
study in 1999; the neighborhood residents’ statements at the various neighborhood meetings
and surveys in 1999-2000, and staff’s knowledge of other neighborhood projects, staff
concluded that "acceptable through traffic reduction for this project could only be attained by
street closures". To come close to significant through traffic reduction with other non-closure
measures, such as circles and humps, would have meant installation of an unacceptably large
number of measures, both in terms of cost and neighborhood acceptance. The City Council
based its finding and determination on the traffic counts taken in mid-1999 (which
documented that some streets in the Downtown North neighborhood experienced through
traffic at a level exceeding 60 percent) and the Traffic Division’s judgment that those
conditions will continue and worsen in the future. The fact that the intervening traffic counts
(February 2003) showed a lesser percentage of through traffic represents only a temporary
departure from the trend of increased through-traffic on these streets (further information
about these counts is contained in the answers to one of the Commissioners’ questions).
Use of Street Closures in Staff-Recommended Mixed Measures Plan. On pp 7+ of the 1/21/04
staffreport, staffidentified several other plans to correct deficiencies of the current trial plan.
Staff explained on pages 7 and 8 that it does not have the staffing and funding to develop and
manage a trial and evaluation of a completely new aggressive, non-closure plan to meet the
project goals (see Guidelines on page 1 of Attachment D to the 1/21/04 report). Instead, staff
has proposed plans that tier off the current plan to varying degrees, most of which still
include street closures for the same reason as the current trial plan. Staff’s
recommendation--the Mixed Measures Plan--is the only plan that staff is reasonably
confident could successfully eliminate or reduce the problems with the current trial plan, yet
still meet the original project goals as much as possible.
DTN TCP-Recommendations to Remove Current Trial Page 9Plan and Implement New Traffic Calming Plan 2-25-04
Length of Trial In all past and current neighborhood and spot treatment traffic calming
projects, a four to six month trial has been employed. The evaluation period usually begins
bef6re the trial is over, and almost always extends significantly beyond the trial period. For
the Downtown North project, staff began the collection of evaluation data unusually early--
just three months into the trial period--to respond to the intense controversy of the project. In
many past projects, changes to the trial have been proposed and designed while the trial
elements remain in place awaiting the changes. In many cases, significant delays occur due to
heavy staffworkload as well as heavy demands for PTC and Council agendas. Staff does not
attempt to define a trial period to include the full potential time period that a trial plan will be
in place, including all foreseeable delays and extra time needed in case a trial plan needs to
be modified. The length of the trial periods are viewed as guidelines and not as binding
deadlines as long as the evaluation task is proceeding as expeditiously as possible.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
A mitigated negative declaration (MND) was prepared for proposed traffic calming project
and released on February 24, 2004. The MND is circulating for 20-day comment period
ending on Monday, March 15, 2004. The MND was provided to Commissioners under
separate cover and is available to the public in the Transportation Division office and public
libraries.
The PTC received a previous draft of the Initial Study with the January 2004 staff report.
The Initial Study has been modified to incorporate the staff’s recommended Mixed Measures
Plan, and other plans or variations that have approximately similar, or less, potential
environmental impacts than the proposed plan, as described elsewhere in this staff report.
This provides the PTC with more flexibility in its recommendations for the Downtown North
Traffic Calming project.
The MND includes mitigation measures to reduce potential environmental impacts of the
Mixed Measures Plan and variations to a less than significant level in the areas of traffic,
public services, air quality, cultural resources & noise. Mitigation measures in the form of
performance standards are incorporated into the project and monitoring of the proposed
project will occur for 4 months following installation. In the event that the performance
standards are being exceeded, the Director of Plalming will take steps based on
recommendations of the Transportation Division to modify the traffic calming measures (as
described above) so that the standards are met.
PUBLIC NOTICE
Notification was mailed on February 10, 2004 to each household, business and non-resident
owner of property in the area described in Attachment B of the 1/21/04 staff report. The
mitigated negative declaration was noticed as described in the preceding paragraph.
DTN TCP-Recommendations to Remove Current Trial
Plan and Implement New Traffic Calming Plan 2-25-04
Page 10
ATTACHIVIENTS/EXHIBITS:
A. ’Resolution
B.Modified Mixed Measures Plan and No Closure Plan
C.Commissioners Questions and StaffReponses
D.January 21, 2004 Commission Report Downtown North--Recommendations to
Remove Current Trial Plan and Implement New Traffic Calming Plan
E. January 21, 2004 Commission Meeting Minutes
The two reports listed below are being provided only to the Commission Members
F. CMR:440:00, 12/11/00, Downtown North Neighborhood Traffic Calming Study
G. October 11, 2000 Commission Report, Downtown North Neighborhood Traffic
Calming Study
COURTESY COPIES:
DTNNA representatives (Dan Lorimer, Chas Pavlovic, Mike Liveright, Josh Mogal)
Unblock representatives (Joe Durand, Dana DeNault, Pat Markevitch)
Lytton neighborhood representatives (Alan and Bonnie Luntz)
Palo Bicycle Advisory Committee Members
City of Menlo Park Transportation Division
Prepared by: Carl Stoffel, Transportation Engineer
Reviewed by: Joseph Kott, Chief Transportation Official
Division Head Approval:
Joseph Ko~ Chief Transportation Official
DTN TCP-Recommendations to Remove Current Trial Page 11Plan and Implement New Traffic Calming Plan 2-25-04
NOT YET APPROVED
ATTACHMENT A
PTC REPORT 2/25/04
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO
ALTO ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
ACT FOR AND APPROVING THE- PERMANENT
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE MIXED MEASURES TRAFFIC
CALMING PLAN FOR THE DOWNTOWN NORTH NEIGHBORHOOD
WHEREAS,California Vehicle Code section 21101 (f)
authorizes the City of Palo Alto to adopt rules and regulations
by ordinance or resolution that prohibit entry to, or exit from,
or both from any street by means of islands, curbs, traffic
barriers or other roadway design features to implement the
Transportation Element of the City’s Comprehensive General Plan;
and
WHEREAS, the Council of the City of Palo Alto by
Resolution No. 7780 adopted the 1998-2010 Comprehensive General
Plan in 1998, including Policy T-33 of the Transportation
Element, which consistent with Vehicle Code section 21101(f),
sets forth criteria for when streets may be closed to through
traffic; and
WHEREAS, Comprehensive Plan Policy T-33 allows closure
of streets to through traffic when there is a demonstrated
safety or overwhelming through traffic problem and there are no
acceptable alternatives, or when a closure would increase the
use of alternative transportation modes; and
WHEREAS, Comprehensive Plan Policy T-34 prescribes
implementation of traffic calming measures to slow traffic on
loca! and collector residential streets to return through
traffic to nearby arterials; and
WHEREAS, the Transportation Division of the Planning
Department has determined that through traffic of sixty percent
or more on local and collector residential streets constitutes
an overwhelming through traffic problem within the meaning of
Comprehensive Plan Policy T-33, and performed a traffic study of
the Downtown NOrth Neighborhood (located between Alma Street,
Lytton Avenue, Middlefield Road, and San Francisquito Creek)
that documented a level of through traffic exceeding sixty
percent on some Downtown North Streets and determined that there
were no acceptable alternatives to closing streets to through
traffic that would reduce through trips in the neighborhood to
an acceptable level; and
040220 sm 0100197 1
NOT YET APPROVED
WHEREAS, following neighborhood meetings, opinion
surveys and hearings before the Planning and Transportation
Commission, on February 5, 20QI, the City Council approved
implementation of a six-month trial t~affic calming plan for the
Downtown North neighborhood (~Trial Plan") including closures of
streets, to through traffic along with performance measures to
evaluate .the success of the Trial Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Trial Plan consisting of seven street
closures to through traffic,gateways and bulbouts, was
installed on June 16, 2003; and
WHEREAS, Transportation Division staff have evaluated
the Trial Plan against the performance measures approved by
Council and have determined that the Trial Plan was effective in
reducing through-traffic in the neighborhood to acceptable
levels but did not meet all the performance measures; and
WHEREAS, Transportation Division staff have developed a
revised traffic calming plan for the Downtown North
neighborhood, which includes four closures of streets to through
traffic, three traffic circles, one gateway with a speed table
one bulbout, and peak hour turn restrictions as shown in Exhibit
~A" to this Resolution attached hereto and made a part hereof
(the ~Mixed Measures Plan") and also includes, revised
performance measures for future evaluation of the effectiveness
and impact of the Mixed Measures Plan as well as improvement
actions that could be taken to ensure achievement of the
performance measures as described in Exhibit ~B" to this
Resolution, attached hereto and made a part hereof; and
WHEREAS, the City has prepared an Initial Study and
Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Mixed Measures Plan and
for alternatives to or modifications of the Mixed Measures Plan
in conformity with the California Environmental Quality Act; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Transportation Commission
reviewed the Mixed Measures Plan and heard public comment on
January 21, 2004 and further considered the Mixed Measures Plan
and the Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the Mixed
Measures Plan on February 25, 2004; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed and considered
the information contained in the staff report, presented at the
hearings before it, and contained in the Mitigated Negative
Declaration prepared for the Mixed Measures Plan and the views
040220 sm 0100197 2
NOT YET APPROVED
and recommendations of the Planning and Transportation
Commission thereon and the comments of other City departments
and. the public thereon.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Palo Alto
does RESOLVE as follows:
SECTION i. CEQA Findings. The City Council of the City
of Palo Alto (~City Council") finds, determines, and declares as
follows:
A. The City prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration
for the Mixed Measures Plan. The Mitigated Negative Declaration
was released for a public comment period beginning on February
24, 2004 and concluding on March 15, 2004. The Planning and
Transportation Commission at its meeting of February 25, 2004,
reviewed and considered the Mitigated Negative Declaration.
B. The Mitigated Negative Declaration consists of the
following documents and records: The Mixed Measures Plan
Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial Study prepared by the
City of Palo Alto dated February 24, 2004, including those
documents referenced and included therein, including without
limitation those listed as "Source References" on Page of
the Initial Study, and the comments and responses to comments on
the Mitigated Negative Declaration, and the planning and other
City records, minutes, and files constituting the record of
proceedings. The Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared
pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, Public
Resources Code section 21000, et seq. (~CEQA"), and the State
CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14,
section 15000, et seq. The Mitigated Negative Declaration is on
file in the offices of the Director of Planning and Community
Environment and, along with the planning and other City records,
minutes and files constituting the record of proceedings, is
incorporated herein by this reference.
C. The Mitigated Negative Declaration was written by
the City and City environmental consultants and reflects the
City’s independent judgment and analysis. There is no
substantia! evidence on the basis of the record as a whole that
the Plan will have a significant effect on the environment.
SECTION 2. Adoption of Mitigated Negative Declaration.
The City Counci! finds that the Mitigated Negative Declaration
has been completed in compliance with the California
Environmental Quality Act and adopts and approves it. The City
040220 sm 0100197 3
NOT YET APPROVED
Council has reviewed and considered the information contained in
the Mitigated Negative Declaration, staff reports, oral and
written testimony given at public hearings on the proposed Plan,
and all other matters deemed material and relevant before
considering for approval the various actions related to the
Plan. While the City Council finds that there is no substantial
evidence that the Mixed Measures Plan will have any significant
adverse~ environmental impacts; it is nevertheless requiring the
implementation of the performance measures that are also
identified as mitigation measures in Exhibit ~B" attached to
this resolution t~ provide ~additional insurance that impacts
will be maintained at a l~ss than- significant level and to
further reduce even those impacts which are less than
significant. The City Council finds that these measures will be
effective for this purpose.
SECTION 3. Mitigation Measures and Reporting Plan. The
mitigation measures and reporting plan set forth in Exhibit ~B"
are hereby adopted. The Director of Planning is hereby
authorized to and shal! implement the mitigation measures and
improvement actions set forth in Exhibit ~B".
SECTION 4. No Recirculation Required. The City Council
finds that no new significant information has been received that
requires recirculation of the Mitigated Negative Declaration.
SECTION 5. Project Findings.
determines, and declares as follows:
The City Council finds,
A. The Mixed Measures Plan, including the four closures
of streets to through traffic, satisfies the criteria for such
closures set forth in Policy T-33 of the Transportation Element:
i) Overwhelming through traffic. In this regard, the
City Council concurs with the Traffic Division in finding and
determining that through-traffic exceeding sixty percenton
local and collector residential streets constitutes an
overwhelming through-traffic problem within the meaningof
Comprehensive Plan Policy T-33, and that the conditions within
the Downtown North Neighborhood satisfy this condition. The City
Council bases this finding and determination on the traffic
counts taken in mid-1999 (which documented that some streets in
the Downtown North neighborhood experienced through traffic at a
level exceeding sixty percent) and the Traffic Division’s
judgment that those conditions will obtain in the future. The
fact that intervening traffic counts showed a lesser percentage
040220 sm 0100197
NOT YET APPROVED
represents in the City Council’s view only a temporary departure
from the trend of increased through-traffic on these streets.
2) No acceptable alternatives.There are no
acceptable alternatives to closing these streets to through
traffic that would reduce through trips in the neighborhood to
an acceptable level because non-closure measures such as circles
and humps would need~ to be installed in exceptionally large
numbers and at a high monetary cost to achieve a significant
reduction in through traffic.
B. The Mixed Measures Plan, including the four closures
of streets to through traffic, implements the following goals
and policies of the Transportation Element:
¯T-3: ~Facilities, Services, and Programs that
Encourage and Promote Walking and Bicycling".
¯T-4:~An Efficient Roadway Network for All Users".
¯T-5:~A Transportation System that Minimizes Impacts
on Residential Neighborhoods".
¯T-6: ~A High Level of Safety for Motorists,
Pedestrians, and Bicyclists on Palo Alto Streets".
C. The Mixed Measures Plan is likely to achieve the
revised project performance measures as described in Exhibit
~B" The performance measures for the Mixed Measures Plan are
similar to those established for the Trial Plan. The Mixed
Measures Plan addresses the areas where the Trial Plan did not
achieve the performance measures. There are three fewer street
closures, including removal of one next to the fire station,
resulting in fewer impediments to Fire Department access. Some
street closures have been removed or relocated to provide more
streets in the ~center of the neighborhood for east-west
movements, thereby relieving traffic concentration on streets
next to Johnson Park, and on other east-west streets. Turn
restrictions will reduce through-traffic entering the
neighborhood during peak hours, which helps offset the more open
street pattern.
D. The streets that will be closed to through traffic
are designated by the Comprehensive Plan as local streets and
are not designated as residential arterials or arterials. None
of the three streets are regionally significant and do not serve
as arterials to or from other jurisdictions. The City’s street
network shows that Alma, Lytton and Middlefield are major
arterials that serve and connect to neighboring jurisdictions.
040220 sm 0100197 5
NOT YET APPROVED
E. The Mixed Measures Plan including the closures of
streets to through traffic is consistent with the City’s
responsibility to provide for the health and safety of its
citizens in that it will result in reduced through traffic in
the neighborhood; reduce vehicle speeds in some areas of the
neighborhood; and as found in the Mitigated Negative Declaration
does not’ cause any significant adverse impact on the provision
of police, fire and emergency services or otherwise cause a
significant environmental impact in the Downtown North
neighborhood or surrounding areas.
Section 6. Adoption of Mixed Measures Plan. The City
Council hereby approves the Mixed Measures Plan, as described in
Exhibit ~A" together with the performance measures and
improvement actions described in Exhibit ~B" and directs that
the Mixed Measures Plan be implemented permanently in place of
the Trial Plan.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Mayor
APPROVED:
Sr. Asst. City Attorney City Manager
Director of Planning and
Community Environment
Director of Administrative
Services
040220 sm 0100197 6
NOT YET APPROVED
F~X!~XBIT ~A"
MXXEDMT_~KSUR~S PLAN
The Mixed Measures Plan consists of four street closures,
three traffic circles, one gateway with a speed table, one
bulbout at Waverley Street, and peak hour turn restrictions into
the neighborhood from Middlefield Road and Alma Street, as
illustrated below:
HAWTHORNE & EVERETT
NOT THRToOUGA~H ROLrI’ES
7-10 AI
Johnson
Park
Bike
KEY
~) Existing Stop Sign
-_ Gateway
: Bulbout Pair
(~) Tra~c Clrcte
I’-- Guide Sign
¯ Street Closure
Note: the gateway,
bulbout, and traffic
circles allow full two-way
~
MIXED
MF_AS.FES FLAN
NOR]H "IRAFFIC
CALMING PRDJE~T
Install New
Table at
Existing Gateway
7-10 AM3-6 PM
Stanford
Electric
Station
7-10 AM
3-6 PM
040220 sm 0100197 7
NOT YET APPROVED
EXHIBIT
P~rformance Measures and Improvement Actions for the Downtown
North Mixed Measures Traffic Calming Plan
The performance measures are based on those that were
originally established for ~the trial plan with seven street
closures installed in June 2003, but with substantial
modifications to pertain to the new Mixed Measures Plan. Five of
the performance measures are intended to serve as mitigation
measures in the form of "performance standards" under CEQA to
provide assurance that the Mixed Measure Plan will not cause any
significant environmental impacts - specifically, preventing
diversion of undue amounts of traffic to local or collector
streets, intersection level of service, and ensuring adequate
fire, emergency and police response times. These five
performance measures are labeled as "CEQA Mitigation," and the
specific kinds of actions that would be taken to ensure
compliance with these measures are also described in the
Mitigated Negative Declaration. Other performance measures are
project goals or other measures and are labeled as "Non-CEQA
Measure" Some of the latter performance measures do not have
quantitative standards, so are subject to interpretation or are
intended to provide information. The CEQA performance measures
take precedence over the non-CEQA performance measures and their
implementation might result in non-CEQA performance measures not
being reached-most likely performance measure #i.
Approximately four months after implementation of the Mixed
Measures Plan, staff will gather data in order to determine if
the plan is functioning according to the performance measures
and whether implementation of the improvement actions listed
below is required. The Director of Planning and Community
Environment will certify that the performance measures are being
met. This certification would occur approximately five months
after implementation of the plan. If a performance measure is
not being met, the Transportation Division would select the
appropriate improvement action(s) from the list of improvement
actions, and recommend that the Director of Planning and
Community Environment approve implementation of the action(s).
The revised plan would then be monitored for another four months
to make sure that the performance measures are met, following
the same methodology as the first round of monitoring and
verification. If necessary, additional improvement actions on
the list could be implemented.
040220 sm 0100197 8
NOT YET APPROVED
Through Traffic Reduction (project goal; Non-CEQA Measure)
Through traffic will be reduced by an average of at least
35 percent compared to the February 2003 ~before trial"
condition. The Downtown North neighborhood cordon count of
average daily traffic (sum of daily counts at all
neighborhood access streets along Middlefield, Lytton and
Alma) will be the basis for this calculation.
Improvement actions for performance measure #i:
la. Increase hours of weekday turn restrictions into the
neighborhood to 7 AM - 6 PM on either or both Alma and
Middlefield, as recommended by Transportation Division to
meet goal. (This action reduces the amount of through
traffic entering the neighborhood, and can be fine-tuned.)
lb. Implement Modified Mixed Measures Plan (This action
increases the difficulty to traverse the neighborhood, thus
causing more through trips to stay out of the
neighborhood.)
Diversion of Traffic to Other Streets (CEQA Mitigation)
On local and collector streets with ~before" counts of less
than 2500 vehicles per day (vpd) in the Downtown North and
Lytton neighborhoods, no average daily vehicle count at a
peripheral or internal location will increase by more than
25 percent of the "before" count. On local streets, the
addition wil! not cause the volume to exceed 2500 vpd +10%.
On local streets with a ~before" count of 2500 vpd or
greater in the Downtown North and Lytton neighborhoods, no
average daily traffic count at a peripheral or internal
location will increase by more than i0 percent of the
~before" count.
Improvement actions for performance measures 2 and 3:
2a. Install the following additional traffic calming
measures to the Mixed Measures Plan on street segments or
at ends of street segments where diversion standard is
exceeded, as recommended by Transportation Division to meet
standard: one speed hump per block and/or traffic circle at
intersections where stop signs are not present. (This
action increases the travel time and adds inconvenience to
040220 sm 0100197
NOT YET APPROVED
street the problem street segments, thus
decreasing through trips.)
slightly
2b. Implement Modified Mixed Measures Plan as described in
the staff report (This action increases the difficulty to
traverse the neighborhood, thus causing more through trips
to stay out of the neighborhood and reducing through trips
on the problem segments.)
2c. Implement No Closure Plan as described in the staff
report (This action removes all street closures, so traffic
diversion in specific blocks is greatly reduced.)
o The AM or PM peak hour level of service (LOS) at the
Lytton/Alma and Lytton/Middlefield intersections will not
degrade to less than LOS D.
Improvement actions for performance measure #4:
4a. Change signal phasing and/or timing. (This action can
be used to fine tune the allotment of green time, thus
increasing signal efficiency and improving LOS.)
4b. Reduce, change or remove totally weekday peak hour turn
restriction hours as recommended by Transportation Division
to meet standard. (This action can be used to incrementally
reduce the forced use of the arterial streets during peak
hours, thus decreasing volumes passing through the
intersections and improving LOS.)
Speed Reduction (Non-CEQA Measure)
o This is not a performance measure for the Mixed Measures
Plan.
Crashes (Non-CEQA Measure)
It is usually not possible to identify a statistically
significant pattern of crashes on local streets in a four-month
period, due to low traffic volumes. Crash trends on low volume
streets are usually only discernable after several years.
There will be no identifiable crashes directly attributable
to the traffic calming plan elements in the Downtown North
neighborhood. If sufficient data is~ available, the crash
rate in the neighborhood and on the three surrounding
arterials should be compared to that before the measures
were installed.
040220 sm 0100197 1 0
NOT YET APPROVED
Improvement action for performance measure #6:
o
6a. Implement No Closure Plan as described in the staff
report. (This action assumes that the street c!osures in
the Mixed Measures Plan would be the primary cause of’
crashes, and would totally change the traffic calming
elements to remove them.)
At the Middlefield/Everett intersection, there will be no
more than 3 crashes caused by a vehicle entering or leaving
Middlefield via either leg of Everett. [Since 1995, an
average of approximately six such accidents per year have
occurred at this location.]
Improvement action for performance measure #7:
7a. Install right turn only restrictions on Hawthorne and
Everett at Middlefield for time periods as indicated by
crash analysis. (This action can be used to fine-tune the
reduction of outbound left turns and through movements,
which are the primary crash-prone movements. Hawthorne must
be included to keep drivers from moving from Everett to
Hawthorne.)
Fire and Police Responses (CEQA Mitigation)
The travel times for Fire and Police Department calls
within and near the Downtown North neighborhood will not
exceed the Departments’ mission goals of 4 minutes for 90%
of fire and basic medical responses, 6 minutes for 90% of
advanced medical responses (paramedics), and 3 minutes for
police calls-attributable to implementation of the traffic
calming plan.
o There will be no serious impediments in any emergency
activities, including identifiable trends in increases in
travel times during the trial period, of the Fire and
Police Departments within and near the Downtown North
neighborhood attributable to the traffic calming plan. This
includes Fire Department access to Lytton Gardens and
Webster House.
Improvement actions for performance measures 8 and 9:
8a. Install flexible, break-away or automatic retractable
bollards at one or more closure locations deemed to be
problem(s) by the Fire or Police Department. (This action
040220 sm 0100197 11
NOT YET APPROVED
allows Fire Department vehicles to traverse the closures
with only minimal delay.)
8b. Implement No Closure Plan as described in the staff
report (This action removes all street closures as traffic
calming elements.)
Citizens" Observations and Incident Reports to Police Department
(Non-CEQA Measure)
i0. Citizens’ reports of safety problems within and near the
Downtown North neighborhood attributable to the traffic
calming plan will be compiled. Any reports or calls for
service to the Police Department (other than crashes
reported above) will be evaluated. This measure does not
have a specific performance goal.
Neighborhood Acceptance (Non-CEQAMeasure)
Ii.A neighborhood opinion survey will not be conducted for the
Mixed Measures Plan.
Other Issues (Non-CEQA Measure)
12.Impacts attributable to the traffic calming plan as
reported by City departments, PASCO, the Post Office,
transit operators, and any other public agencies serving
the neighborhood (including bordering arterials) will be
compiled and evaluated. This measure does not have a
specific performance goal.
040220 sm 0100197 12
MODIFIED MIXED MEASURES PLAN
ATTACHMENT B
PTC REPORT 2/2511N
Staff developed this plan after public comment was received at the January 21, 2004
Commission meeting. It is included in the performance measures for the Mixed Measures
Plan as an "improvement action". The purpose of this plan is to solve or reduce most of the
problems with the current trial plan while still maintaining substantial through traffic
reduction. The plan consists of removing two of the seven street closures and relocating one
of the remaining four; removing the two gateway features near Middlefield; keeping the
Waverley bulbout and both arterial intersection modifications; adding two traffic circles on
Everett and Hawthorne and a speed table to the existing gateway on Everett at High; and
implementing peak hour turn restrictions into the neighborhood from Alma and Middle field.
Approximate cost to remove some trial measures, install new measures, and gather new
traffic counts: $76,000
Advantages
¯Provides substantial volume reduction with a combination of measures, including five
street closures--about 65 percent through traffic reduction (reduction of about 3600
daily through trips or 7200 daily entries/exits) compared to about 90 percent with
current trial plan (reduction of about 5000 daily through trips or 10,000 daily
entries/exits)
¯Maintains protection for Palo Alto Avenue
¯Speed reduction to 15 mph at one location each on Hawthorne, Everett and
Webster
¯Less traffic diversion within the neighborhood than with current trial plan, not
expected to exceed the 25 percent maximum increase threshold on most local streets
(see disadvantages below). Less driver confusion and unexpected behavior
¯Slightly fewer impediments to Fire Department vehicles and other services than
current trial plan (two fewer street closures, including removal of one next to Fire
Station 1). Circles are acceptable to Fire Department
¯Less congestion on a daily basis on arterials and at Alma/Lytton and Middlefield!
Lytton than with current trial plan
¯Closure next to Stanford Electric removed
¯Two gateways near Middlefield removed
¯Maintains crash reduction potential at Middlefield/Everett
DTN TCP-Recommendations to Remove Current Trial
Plan and Implement New Traffic Calming Plan Attachment B
Page 1
Disadvantages
¯Traffic diversion on some low-volume segments on north side of neighborhood (such
as Cowper, Ruthven and Tasso) might still exceed the 25 percent maximum increase
threshold--verification required
¯Despite improvements, most impediments to Fire Department vehicles and other
services Still remain
¯Weekday peak hour turn restrictions cause moderate increase of peak hour traffic and
queuing on arterials and at AlmafLytton and Middlefield/Lytton intersections, but
LOS remains acceptable
¯Palo Alto Avenue traffic at Middlefield added to traffic on Hawthorne and Everett
(as with current trial plan)
¯Inbound weekday peak hour turn restrictions will force residents to use Lytton and
north-south neighborhood streets for access to/from neighborhood during those hours
¯Weekday peak hour turn restrictions require Police Department occasional
enforcement, competing with other peak hour traffic enforcement needs. Expected
violation rate of approximately 20 percent would generate some complaints to the
City, with little to no additional enforcement response possible.
DTN TCP-RecommendatJons to Remove Current Trial Page 2Plan and Implement New Traffic Calming Plan Attachment B
NOT THROUGH ROU’I’ES
TO ALMA
7-10 AI
® @
Johnson
Park
Bike Bdd
KEY
~ Existing Stop Sign
=_ Gateway
~ Bulbout Pair
(~) Traffic Circle
}... Guide Sign
¯ Street Closure
Note: the gateway,
bulbout, and traffic
circles a Ilow full two-way
traffic access
Relocated
Install New
Speed ~Table at
Existing Gateway
NOT TI-~OUGH IROUTES I3"0 M]DDLEF1ELD I 7-10 AM 7-10 AM
¯3-6 PM 3-6 PM
StanfordElectric
Station
MODtRED
MIXED
MEA~ FLAN
NO R3I-I 3RAFRC
CALMING PFOJB3T
DTN TCP-Recommendations to Remove Current Trial Page 3
Plan and Implement New Traffic Calming Plan Attachment B
NO CLOSURES PLAN
This plan was originally presented in Attachment D of the January 21,2004 staff report. It is
now included in the performance measures for the Mixed Measures Plan as an "improvement
action". The purpose of this plan is to provide an option without any totally closed streets
that provides a minimal degree of through traffic reduction. The plan consists of removing all
the street closures and.the two gateway features near Middlefield; retaining the bulbout on
Waverley and both arterial intersection modifications; adding three traffic circles on Everett
and Hawthorne and a speed table to the existing gateway on Everett at High; and
implementing peak hour turn restrictions into the neighborhood from Alma and Middlefield.
This option keeps streets mostly open and offers a minimal level of through traffic reduction
by means of the combinations of measures. The circles and speed table also help reduce
speeds in their vicinities. Traffic circles permit all intersection movements and would be
similar in concept to the one on Lytton at Fulton. An example of a speed table is located on
Channing at Lincoln. Approximate cost to remove most trial measures, install new measures,
and gather new traffic counts: $94,000
Advantages
¯Returns streets to mostly "open" status with substantially reduced detours, driver
confusion or unexpected behavior
¯Speed reduction to 15 mph at 4 locations on Hawthorne and Everett
¯Substantially less traffic diversion problems than with current trial plan--mostly
during weekday peak hours. Cases of exceeding 25 percent maximum increase
threshold on any given local neighborhood street not expected but should be verified
through a trial
¯No impediments to emergency access and minimal for other services. Circles are
acceptable to Fire Department
¯Less congestion on arterials and at Alma/Lytton and Middlefield~ytton on a daily
basis than with current trial plan
¯ " Less maintenance required than with current trial plan
Disadvantages
Minimal volume reduction from combination of measures--about 20 percent through
traffic reduction (reduction of about 1100 daily through trips or 2200 daily
entries/exits) compared to 90 percent with current trial plan (reduction of about 5000
daily through trips or 10,000 daily entries/exits). Consequent decrease of advantages
resulting from less traffic on neighborhood streets, as originally desired by
neighborhood representatives and as embodied in City Council approval to implement
the plan
DTN TCP-Recommendat~ons to Remove Current Trial Page 4
Plan and Implement New Traffic Calming Plan Attachment B
¯Weekday peak hour turn restrictions cause moderate increase of peak hour traffic and
queuing on arterials and at Alma~ytton and Middlefield/Lytton intersections, but
LOS remains acceptable
¯Inbound weekday peak hour turn restrictions will force residents to use Lytton and
north-south neighborhood streets for access to/from neighborhood and somewhat
restrict access for non-emergency services during those hours
¯Accident reduction potential at Middlefield/Everett less than current trial plan
¯Weekday peak hour turn restrictions require Police Department occasional
enforcement, competing with other peak hour traffic enforcement needs. Expected
violation rate of approximately 20 percent would generate some complaints to the
City, with little to no additional enforcement response possible.
¯Most expensive to implement
DTN TCP-Recommendations to Remove Current Tdal Page 5Plan and Implement New Traffic Calming Plan Attachment B
7-10 AM
7-10 AI
KEY
Existing Stop Sign
Gateway
Bulbout Pair
(~) Traffic Circle
Note: the gateway~
bulbout and traffic
circles allow full two-way
traffic acces~
Johnson
Park
Bike Bridge
Install NewSpeed ~
Table atExisting Gateway
Stanfo~
FJectdc
FireStatio~
7-10AM3-6 PM
7-10AM
3-6 PM
NO
PLAN
DOVVN’IOV~N
NOR3H ~C
CALMING PROJBST
DTN TCP-Recommendal~ons to Remove Current Trial Page 6
Plan and Implement New Traffic Calming Plan Attachment B
PTC REPORT 2/25/~4
ATTACHMENT C
COMMISIONERS QUESTIONS AND STAFF RESPONSES
Questions and requests from Commissioner Burt.
1. Provide another alternative plan that uses aggressive traffic calming measures, not
including street closures, that is not cost-constrained.
The Downtown North neighborhood includes approximately 17 interior streets, 3 external streets,
with 63 internal blocks and 18 external blocks, and 45 intersections. Several typesoftraffic calming
measures could be considered for each of the blocks and intersections, including speed humps, speed
tables, traffic circles, turn restrictions, medians, and bulbouts. Thus, there are literally hundreds of
traffic calming plans and permutations that could be considered for Downtown North. Several non-
closure plans were presented to residents in the 1999-2000 planning process for this project. These
were included and discussed in the October 11, 2000 staff report to the Commission and the
December 11, 2000 CMR:440:00 (both attached for Commissioners). Two of these alternatives most
favored by residents at that time were discussed in Attachment B of CMR:440:00 and compared to
the current trial plan that is now in place. In response to Commissioner Burt’s request, the most
aggressive of these two plan (Plan 03) is illustrated below. It consists of 22 traffic calming measures,
including t4 traffic circles. The approximate cost to implement this plan using low-budget designs
similar to the current trial plan elements is approximately $255,000 (not including about $30,000 to
remove the existing trial street closures). During the planning process in 1999, that cost was
approximately 3 -4 times higher because cost estimates for the permanent installation were based on
high-quality landscaped and irrigated circles, which the City does not now fired. Both staff and
residents did not consider this plan as acceptable because its cost was much higher than the current
trial plan that was ultimately recommended, with only 11 traffic calming measures.
Another possible aggressive non-closure plan would be a plan with a speed hump or table in every
major block, instead of a traffic circle at each intersection. An example of such a plan would have 34
speed humps or tables on nearly every street in the neighborhood (not illustrated). The cost of such a
plan using speed humps would be about $170,000. If speed tables were used, which cost about twice
as much as speed humps, the cost would be about $375,000. Neither estimate includes about $30,000
to remove the existing trial street closures. During the neighborhood meetings held during the
planning process in 1999, residents attending the meetings strongly disapproved of speed humps as
an alternative. The primary reasons given were the large number that would be needed, the impact on
emergency response, and the aesthetic impact of the measures. Cost was not the issue with speed
humps. Staff therefore did not offer this type of plan as an alternative for Downtown North.
DTN TCP-Recommendal~ons to Remove Current Trial Page 1
Plan and Implement New Traffic Calming Plan Attachment C
L
ii
J
Downtown North Neighborhood
Traffic S~dy
Plan 03
DTN TCP-Recommendations to Remove Current Trial Page 2
Plan and Implement New Traffic Calming Plan Attachment C
2. Compare the traffic volume measurements from 2000 when the current trial plan was
originally proposed to the measurements from 2003just before the plan was actually implemented.
Discuss the change in volumes in that three-year period. There were some anomalies. Some areas
where we thought there were going to be reductions there actually were increases.
Anomolies, variations, error range. All traffic counts for this project were taken with hose counters
for a minimum of 48 hours of data taken on two midweek days, then averaged to a single 24 hour
count representing a typical midweek day, .expressed as vehicles per day (vpd). Traffic volume
measurements can easily vary by+ 10 percent on any given day, with additional seasonal variations.
Schools being open and closed, including Stanford University, also affect counts seasonally. (Note:
even when Stanford is not in normal session during the summer, many functions continue summer-
long, including staff functions, some graduate students, undergraduate summer school and many
special activities.) Measuring counts for 48 hours instead of just 24 hours improves accuracy
somewhat, but does not overcome the random daily or seasonal variations. Roadway conditions,
including unknown construction activities outside the area, can also affect travel pattems and volume
counts at any time. Further substantial differences in counts can result from "measurement errors".
For example, the May 1999, February 2003, and September 2003 counts were all made by different
data collection contractors using different types of equipment. In some cases, a counter can be placed
before or after a major driveway in the same block, resulting in some major count differences just
due to an improper location, despite engineers’ best efforts at quality control. This would be
especially tree in the north-south blocks next to Lytton where there are commercial driveways.
Between the initial project planning counts in May 1999 and the "before trial" counts in February
2003 are numerous long-term trends affecting traffic flows. In this case, the most important are the
substantial downturn in the economy and (possibly) new development projects in the area. All these
numerous factors can produce anomalies and inconsistencies in the data that are difficult to avoid.
Staff always emphasizes that the comparisons of before-after counts must be considered
approximate, with an error range of at least + 10 percent. One can be more confident that large
changes in volumes, such as +30 percent or greater, indicate "real" changes caused by the physical
changes that one is trying to evaluate (such as the traffic calming measures). Nevertheless, the actual
change could be at least 10 percent larger or smaller due to all the factors mentioned above.
1999 versus 2003 data. The first set of Downtown North counts was made in May 1999 at the start of
the study. These counts were presented in Figure 4 of the Dowling Associates Final Technical
Memorandum, Data Collection and Analysis, October 8, 1999, and included in Attachment B of this
staff report. Staff has been using the 24-hour "perimeter cordon count" as the basis for comparing the
effectiveness of various plans. This is the sum of the daily volumes at all the streets in/out of the
neighborhood along Middlefield, Lytton and Alma. The total cordon count in May 1999. was
approximately 28,000 vpd (using substitute counts for two minor streets not measured). Extensive
traffic counts were taken again in February 2003 in preparation for implementing the trial, including
numerous interior counts not taken in 1999 (see Attachment B). The cordon count total in February
2003 was approximately 24,000 vpd, a decrease of about 15 percent from the May 1999 planning
counts. The decrease in traffic flows in and out of the neighborhood in those four years is most likely
due to the economic downtown mentioned above, and specifically a combination of (i) reduced
tripmaking by Downtown North residents due to a higher residential vacancy rate in the
neighborhood and (ii) reduced through trips associated with Downtown Palo Alto, Stanford, and
other mid-Peninsula areas.
DTN TCP-Recommendations to Remove Current Trial Page 3Plan and Implement New Traffic Calming Plan Attachment C
In mid-1999, peak hour through traffic on Everett and Hawthorne was measured at 62 percent. It was
on that basis that street closures were proposed and justified. By early 2000, the local economy was
at its peak and traffic levels were higher than 1999. but by February 2003, when the pre-trial counts
were measured, the economic bottom had already been reached, and a slight upturn was beginning.
Local economic activity and, with it, traffic levels were low compared to 1999. The 15 percent
cordon count reduction between 1999 and 2003 represented reduced the peak through traffic
percentage to less than 60 percent, which is staff’s minimum threshold to justify use of street
closures for traffic calming. Thus, the downturn in economic activity eliminated some of the through
traffic that the trial plan was designed to reduce. Staff believes that the prior conditions which
formed the basis of the 1999 study will return and probably be exceeded, thus returning through
traffic levels to at least the prior level that justified this project. This can be seen in the past history of
volume counts on major arterials in Palo Alto over the past 30 years--a count in a given year or
years can be lower than the preceding counts, but the long term trend has been an increase of about
1-2 percent annually.
"After" trial data. By September 2003, when the traffic counts were again measured after the trial
plan had been in place for about four months, the cordon count had decreased substantially to about
13,700 vpd, a decrease of 43 percent from the February 2003 "before" cordon count (refer to map in
Attachment B). The same daily and seasonal variations affected these counts also, but the longer-
term issues are much less for a period of only six months. Perhaps the biggest changes in that six-
month period were the opening of IKEA and the gradual upturn in the economy. There are
substantial differences in individual counts between 1999 and 2003, as can be seen by comparing the
counts for those years in Attachment B. A few examples stand out, such as Emerson between Lytton
and Everett (4138 in 5/99 and 2085 in 2/03) and Webster between Lytton and Everett (865 in 5/99
and 1508 in 2/03). Staff does not have explanations for these individual anomalies other than some
combination of the factors explained above. Fortunately, when performing a summation of many
counts, such as the cordon count, the individual anomalies tend to become small compared to the
total.
3.Where did the diverted vehicles go?
As noted in the evaluation of the current trial plan (Attachment A of 1/21/04 PTC report),
approximately 5000 through trips were removed from the neighborhood. Stafftook extensive counts
in the neighborhood and on the bordering arterials (Alma, Middlefield, Lytton), but only a few
beyond that immediate area (five locations in the Lytton neighborhood and three in the Linfield Oaks
area of Menlo Park). Staff and Dowling Associates had projected that the majority of the diverted
trips ~om the traffic calming project would logically use the bordering arterials, which were the
desirable routes for through trips. These increases were projected to be about 15 percent of existing
volumes (or about 2500 vpd). In reality, the September 2003 "after" volume measurements at the
four arterial count locations (D4, D10, D21, D26), showed no change at two locations. There was
one notable increase (+23 percent on Lytton east of Cowper), and one notable decrease (-28 percent
on Alma between Lytton and Everett). Three of these counts defy the logical predictions that there
would be measurable increases on the bordering arterials.
DTN TCP-Recommendations to Remove Current Trial Page4Plan and Implement New Traffic Calming Plan Attachment C
The wider-area counts in the Lytton neighborhood east of Middlefield and the Linfield Oaks are in
Menlo Park showed no measurable volume increases. Based on these counts and on feedback
received from residents, staff believes that volumes have increased by varying amounts on parts (if
not all) of Lytton between Middlefield and Alma, due to the traffic calming trial. But indications are
that volumes have not increased as expected on Alma and Middlefield.
The street network is a wide "open network", where drivers can choose any substitute route they
want, based on the factors most important to them (travel time is typically the most important). The
number of diverted trips caused by the traffic calming trial (about 5000) can therefore disperse to a
large number of major and minor routes near and far from the neighborhood. In the portion of the
network just a few blocks beyond the neighborhood, the 5000 diverted trips can easily disperse to
many streets, and be less than the +10 percent random daily fluctuation of the existing volume level--
especially on the busy downtown area streets. Thus, it is not feasible to measure diversion beyond the
first few blocks because the relatively small dispersed increases would be easily lost in the larger,
vaI34ng volumes of most of these streets. If the origin and destination of each trip were known, it
would be possible to roughly estimate what routes these drivers would choose. But it is not
logistically or financially feasible to gather such data, and even with the data, the estimation of routes
is fraught with inaccuracies. Drivers who used to cut through Downtown North streets who had non-
local origins or destinations (e.g. live in San Marco and work in the Stanford Research Park) could
actually "disappear" from the nearby network by moving to a distant corridor, such as Ravenswood,
Embarcadero, or Oregon Expressway. Staff suspects that E1 Camino Real and even Highway 101
might be serving as substitutes for some north-south trips that do not seem to have moved to Alma
and Middle field.
Clearly, it would be good to know exactly the impacts of traffic diversion projects in the wider
context, but it is not practical. It is not even practical to measure small increments of change even on
nearby roadways if they are major carriers (e.g., University Avenue). Staff focuses on measuring
volume changes on the most vulnerable streets--the low volume local streets that are the most likely
substitute routes within a few blocks of the project area.
4. Comment on Unblock’s report on issues related to the California Vehicle Code (CVC)
and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
Some information is provided in this staffreport in the section "Further Information on Policy Issues
Raised in Public Testimony."
5. How do levels of through traffic in Downtown North (before the trial) compare to
University South or other neighborhoods?
Through traffic on Everett in Downtown North was measured at approximately 62 percent during the
AM peak in 1999. The average for the entire neighborhood for all streets (i.e., including even the
low-volume streets off the main cut-through routes) was estimated to be about 45-50 percent.
Through traffic on a particular route can only be determined accurately by a license plate matching
study or an origin-destination questionnaire, both of which require extensive staff resources, so such
studies have only been done for a few problem areas. Staff does not have through traffic data for the
south of downtown area. Following are measured cut-through levels for some past traffic calming
DTN TCP-Recommendations to Remove Current Trial Page 5Plan and Implement New Traffic Calming Plan Attachment C
studies. Percentages represent the level of cut-through trips compared to total trips during the peak
weekday hours on major internal cut-through routes (not neighborhood averages).
Lytton neighborhood (1993, before traffic calming): 65-70%
Evergreen Park neighborhood (1981, before street closures): 45%
Churchill between Alma and Embarcadero (2001, no traffic calming): 40%
College Terrace (1973, before street closures): 80%
College Terrace (2002, with street closures): 65-70% (limited routes)
6. Comment on the pedestrian benefits of bulbouts and if we can consider installing
bulbouts at all four corners of Johnson Park.
The best bulbout design extends the curb line further into the street on one or both intersecting
curblines of a comer. This enlarges the corner pedestrian area further out into the street and gives
more area for pedestrians on the corner, as well as shortening the pedestrian street crossing. Bulbouts
slightly narrow the driving area, but do not cause drivers to change course (such as for a traffic circle
or chicane). Thus, they do not noticeably reduce speeds except for certain turning movements. The
best nearby examples are on many of the comers of University Avenue and intersecting business
district streets. The University Avenue bulbout corner radii are large to accommodate tracks and this
limits how fa~ into the street they can protrude. In Dowtown North next to the park, the radii could
be smaller, so the bulbouts could extend into the streets about as far as a parked car. This would
shorten crossing a 36-foot wide street to about 22 feet. The bulbout area is at sidewalk grade and thus
provides protection for pedestrian waiting on the comer. The bulbout can be attractively paved or
landscaped. This design requires a new drainage system for each bulbout, which is a high cost item.
The paving and other surface amenities are also expensive. This design is relatively maintenance-free
¯ compared to the simple design described in the next paragraph. This design costs about $40,000 per
pair. The four intersections bordering the park would require at least two pairs ofbulbouts each, for a
total of eight pairs, or about $300,000.
The set ofbulbouts that was installed on Waverley next to Johnson Park for the Downtown North
project is a simple, inexpensive design that provides only limited pedestrian protection by
"shadowing" traffic flow in one direction. This design provides the same limited traffic calming as
the expensive design because it narrows the street by the same amount. It lacks almost all of the
aesthetic improvement that the full design would provide. It has relatively high maintenance costs,
primarily due to the need for manual street sweeping and gutter clearing. This design was selected
because it is far less expensive than the full design described above, at only about $5,000 per pair.
The total cost of installing two pairs of these bulbouts at each corner of the park (8 pairs) would be
about $40,000. Bulbouts (of any design) replace at least one on-street parking place on each comer
(unless parking is already prohibited for other reasons). This will improve corner visibility for both
drivers and pedestrians.
The primary purpose of the Downtown North project is to reduce cut-through volume and, to a lesser
extent, reduce speeds. As noted above, bulbouts provide only minimal benefit in these areas,
especially in vol .ume reduction, so staff does not believe that they should be installed as basic
elements of the traffic calming plan, even around the park.
DTN TCP-Recommendat~ons to Remove Current Trial Page 6
Plan and Implement New Traffic Calming Plan Atlachment C
Question from Commissioner Holman:
1. How can the volume increases caused by the current trial plan on both sides of Johnson
Park be improved (i.e, Kipling and Waverley)?
One of the main reasons staffis recommending the Mixed Measures Plan is to specifically address
that problem. The park, with its more concentrated pedestrian activity, is an area where volume
increases are especially sensitive. The current trial plan provides only one north-south route (Kipling)
between the closure on Hawthorne at Cowper and the one on Everett at Waverley; and two north-
south streets (Waverley and Bryant) between the closure on Everett at Waverley and the one on
Hawthorne at Bryant. The street closure locations in the Mixed Measure plan have been modified to
open up the north-south routes in the central area of the neighborhood around the park. With the
Mixed Measures Plan, there would be three north-south streets (Kipling, Waverley and Bryant)
between the closure on Hawthorne at Cowper (unchanged location) and a relocated closure on
Everett at Bryant. The turn restrictions in the Mixed Measures Plan are expected to offset some
increase of cut through traffic due to the more open streets with this plan. Staff expects that these
changes will keep any volume increases on the north-south streets near the park to an acceptable
level (i.e., no greater than 25 percent increase over the "before" volumes measured in February
2003). The No Closures Plan should totally remove this problem of increased volumes on the north-
south streets (but at the expense of less through-traffic reduction on other streets).
Questions from Commissioner Packer:
1.Explain how each plan affects the problem of diverted volumes within the neighborhood.
Most of the unacceptable diverted traffic problems occurred on the north-south streets (one major
exception was Ruthven). Staff identified four alternative plans in addition to fully removing the
current trial plan. If "Remove Trial Plan" were implemented, there would be no diverted traffic
within the neighborhood, although traffic levels would substantially rise on many street seglnents,
especially along Hawthorne, Everett and Palo Alto Avenue, which would presumably return to the
February 2003 "before trial" volumes. The "No Closures Plan" does not include any full time
diversionary measures. The weekday turn restrictions would divert traffic around the neighborhood
during the peak hours, with some of this re-entering the neighborhood via the north-south streets
along Lytton. On a 24-hour weekday basis, these diverted volumes should be small enough to not
cause unacceptable increases of traffic on any streets. The "Mixed Measures Plan" was discussed in
the answer to the prior question from Commissioner Holman. The larger number of open north-south
streets in the center of the neighborhood, counteracted by the peak hour turn restrictions, should
reduce the increases measured on Cowper and Ruthven. In addition to expected reduction in
diversion near the park, the removal of the closure on Everett next to Stanford Electric and the
closure on Hawthorne at Bryant would open up the street network in that area and should therefore
decrease the volume on Emerson. "Reduce Current Plan" opens up an additional north-south street
(Waverley) between the closure on Hawthorne at Cowper and the closure on Everett at Waverley, as
opposed to only one (Kipling) with the current plan. Removal of the closure near Stanford Electric
should decrease the concentration of traffic on Emerson. Increases on Ruthven are not directly
addressed by this plan. "Augment Current Plan" is based on the premise that much of the internal
volume increases are caused by through traffic still passing through the neighborhood and making
DTN TCP-Recommendations to Remove Current Trial Page 7Plan and Implement New Traffic Calming Plan Attachment C
several jogs on the north-south streets to travel between Middlefield and Alma. The peak hour turn
restrictions would further "tighten up" the neighborhood by adding even more out-of-path travel for
through traffic. The hope is that these through trips would stay out of the center of the neighborhood,
resulting in decreases in internal diverted traffic.
2.What are the possibilities to alleviate the condition by Stanford Electric?
Except for "Augment Current Plan", all the alternatives call for removal of the closure on Everett
between High and Emerson, next to Stanford Electric, for two reasons. One is to make access into
the neighborhood easier for Fire Department vehicles exiting Station One on Alma at Everett.
Second, is to open up the first three blocks of Everett east of Alma to increase the traffic volume
passing by Stanford Electric. This still does not give Stanford Electric access to the prior full-volume
flow from which the business derives some "pass-by"customers, but at least there will be some flow.
Note that, even with the current trial plan, Stanford Electric has unimpeded access from two major
artefials: Alma and Lytton. The recommended Mixed Measures Plan, even though removing the
Everett closure by Stanford Electric, will block direct access from southbound Alma during six peak
hours on weekdays. The current closure design employs a concrete block and flexible post which can
be traversed (in the eastbound direction) by fire trucks. Stanford Electric tracks can also traverse this
closure (not legally) if they need to use Emerson to exit the area. Neither the current block/flexible
post closure design, nor any other "permeable" design, is intended to help Stanford Electric
customers. These designs are only meant for emergency vehicles and possibly PASCO trucks.
DTN TCP-Recommendations to Remove Current Trial Page 8
Plan and Implement New.Traffic Calming Plan Attachment C
ATTACHMENT D
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
MEETINGS ARE CABLECAST LIVE ON GOVERNMENT ACCESS CHANNEL 26
ROLL CALL: 6:30 PM
Wednesday, February 25, 2004
City Council Chambers
Civic Center; 1st Floor
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, California 94301
EXCERPT
Commissioners:
Michael Griffin - Chair- conflict with Item 3
Phyllis Cassel- Vice-Chair
Karen Holman
Patrick Burt
Bonnie Packer
Annette Bialson
AGENDIZED ITEMS:
Staff:
Steve Emslie, Planning Director
Lisa Grote, Chief Planning Official
Dan Sodergren, Spc. Counsel City Attnys
Joseph Kott, Chief Transportation Official
AnO, French, Current Planning Manager
Nellie Ancel, Assistant City Attorney
Jon Abendschein, Admin. Analyst
Zariah Betten, Executive Secretary
SPECIAL MEETING AT 6:30PM
1.Commission Review and discussion of the Draft Caltrain StrateNc Plan 2004-2023.
REGULAR MEETING AT 7:00 PM
2.Annual Individual Review Report
3.Downtown North Traffic Calming
4.Capital Improvement Progam
SPECIAL MEETING AT 6:30PM
Chair Griffin: Good evening ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the Special Meeting of the Palo
Alto Planning and Transportation Commission for Wednesday, February 25, 2004. Would the
Secretary please take the role? Thank you.
The subject of this special meeting is to have a public hearing on the Commission review and
discussion for a Draft Caltrain Strategic Plan for the years 2004 to 2023. Would the Staff please
make a presentation?
CiO, of Palo Alto Page 1
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
MOTION
issioner Packer: So moved and perhaps even later than that.
Second.
MOTION PAS[
Chair Griffin: I
say aye. (ayes) Opp(
That now brings us to our
we will do this quickly befo
(6-0-0-0)
there is any discussion necessary. All
That item carries unanimously.-
item number four the
take our break. Is there a
of that motion
and
NEW B USINESS:
Public Hearings
4.Capital Improvement
Timeline Schedule.
Proposed Capital Improvement Program
Ms. Grote: There isn’t really a Staff di~
your
to endorse the schedule that is on two of the
is simply a matter for you to designate
Improvement Program items and then
That concludes the Staff report.
Chair Griffin: Thank you.
month of April. I am
Commissioner Burt and
Thank you very much
have a timeline that
say that we have had
both and I
will be the consists of our CIP
most of the work on this item in the
,lunteers for this committee,
for a third. Bonnie?
It appears that all we need to do on this item.
So at this
OVer
will take a break and before we do so I will
of this meeting. I live in the subject neighborhood
there for the last 20 years and will not be participating. So I
Thank you.
that I am recusing
~ have been a
turn the meeting
The next item on the agenda is Downtown North Traffic Calming. We have started this hearing
already. The item on the agenda is the current Downtown North Traffic Calming trial ended
December 2003. Staff is requesting Commission review and recommendation on whether or not
to implement a new, modified trial traffic calming plan for the Downtown North neighborhood--
the area bounded by Alma Street, Lytton Avenue, Middlefield Road and San Francisquito Creek.
City of Palo Alto Page 27
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
The public hearing for this project was concluded at the January 21 meeting, and no additional
public input will be taken this meeting.
This is a legislative action and not a quasi-judicial one for everyone’s information.
Downtown North Traffic Calming: The current Downtown North Traffic Calming trial
ended December 2003. Staff is requesting Commission review and recommendation on
whether or not to implement a new, modified trial traffic calming plan for the Downtown
North neighborhood--the area bounded by Alma Street, Lytton Avenue, Middlefield
Road and San Francisquito Creek. The public hearing for this project was concluded
at the January 21 meeting, and no additional public input will be taken at the
February 25 meeting.
Vice-Chair Cassel: We left this offlast week having the public hearing and we are now ready
for questions of Staff. Is there anyone who would like to start?
Ms. Nellie Ancel, Assistant Ci_ty Attorney: I would just like to report briefly on the items that
Unblock submitted at the last meeting to let you know that we have reviewed both letters that
were distributed at the last hearing. One containing allegations concerning the conduct of
Chairman Griffin and the conflict of interest regulations. Our role as City Attorneys is to review
conflict of interest matters from the point of view of the City to see if there are any impacts on
the actions that are being proposed. The matters referred to in the letter would not invalidate or
jeopardize any action of the City with respect to the action that is before you tonight. Conflict of
interest investigations are within the domain of the Fair Political Practices Commission. So if
someone believes there has been a violation of the conflict of interest regs that is where they
would go.
We also looked at the procedural issues that they raised in their communications as well as the
CEQA issues and we don’t see anything that prevents you from moving forward at this point.
Vice-Chair Cassel: Thank you. Does anyone else on the Staff want to make some introductory
remarks?
Mr. Kott: Just one comment Chair Cassel. I would like to note that the Deputy Fire Chief,
Debbie Prior is in attendance as is Susan Ondik..Susan worked with the Transportation Division
Staff and the City Attorney’s Office to prepare the Mitigated Negative Declaration.
Vice-Chair Cassel: Any other comments from Staff?. Okay, questions from the Commission to
Staff, I am sure we must have some. That is the presentation you had it last time.
Commissioner Burt: I’ll start then.
Vice-Chair Cassel: Pat.
Commissioner Burt: The first subject I would like to ask a few questions on is safety. When we
did our walk through tour of the neighborhood I believe our first street was Byron that we
walked down. Fifty percent of the cars between Hawthome and Palo Alto Avenue were parked
City of Palo Alto Page 28
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
45
46
47
48
in the wrong direction and that seems to have become a common practice now with the closed
streets. Has Staff evaluated or included that safety impact in any of the considerations?
Mr. Carl Stoffel, Transportation Engineer: No.
Commissioner Burr: About two months ago I did a little drive through myself and within the
first 100 yards of entering the neighborhood on Everett and Middlefield first I encountered the
street closure on Everett and there was a car parked at the bollard. It just looked like now the
dead end of the street has become in some cases an alternative parking spot. Then I see at our
places someone, I don’t know who, provided photographs of that as occurring on other
occasions. I don’t know what frequency. Has Staff evaluated that safety concern?
Mr. Stoffel: In our other street closures for instance Evergreen Park and probably College
Terrace also part of the design was to have no parking signs to keep that entire closed end of the
street as a no parking area. I think in this design, which actually I didn’t get involved in the
detailed design, that those no parking signs were not included. I don’t know and I believe they
are not there. That should not be a parking area. I don’t know exactly the reason that they aren’t
there but they probably should be added. The idea of course is it is okay to park in front of the
little islands in a normal parallel parking fashion but not across the area that is intended to be
opened up in an emergency.
Commissioner Burt: Joe, given that you guys hadn’t up until now evaluated this problem of
wrong-way parking and vehicles that would come out from that direction do you have any
thoughts on it and whether it is a safety consideration that we need to include?
Mr. Kott: It hasn’t surfaced as a safety problem during our evaluation. I am not saying that it is
not a perhaps latent safety problem but it has not surfaced on our observations and not in
feedback we have gotten from the community.
Vice-Chair Cassel: Can I ask if other people have issues relating to safety that they would like to
talk about?
Commissioner Bialson: Just in general?
Vice-Chair Cassel: Well, Pat started talking about safety questions.
Commissioner Bialson: I have some thoughts about them but I don’t know if we want to
entertain them at this point.
Vice-Chair Cassel: At this point we are doing safety questions.
Commissioner Butt: I share the other half of my observation on my little drive through a couple
of months ago and it leads to another question. After entering on Everett I turned right on Byron
and as I approached Hawthorne a car came backing out-of Byron at maybe 20 or 25 miles an
hour and just whipped out onto Hawthorne. So it seemed to me we have occasions of either an
issues if someone parks on the wrong side of the street then at least they drive out in a correct
direction from there or and I couldn’t tell whether this vehicle had come from a parked position
or had turned down there and had been frustrated at turning into a blind street when they didn’t
City of Palo Alto Page 29
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
45
46
47
48
anticipate it. That was probably one of the most dangerous maneuvers I have seen in a long
time. It just in reverse backed out onto Hawthorne at a good 20 miles an hour. Has Staff looked
at that sort of additional safety problem?
Mr. Kott: Commissioner Butt that is an imprudent driving maneuver and certainly an illegal
one. We would be very displeased if we thought that this project caused a rise in that kind of
driving behavior. But as Commissioner Burr knows the general incidents of uncivil driving
seems to have increased in our society and I am not quite sure what the reasons for that are. We
would definitely take corrective action if we thought that anything we did on the streets caused
that kind of behavior. We are not sure of the incidents of that behavior and we certainly cannot
identify that or associate that behavior with the traffic calming project in Downtown North.
Commissioner Burr: I am sorry Joe. I have to follow up on that. I couldn’t understand it in any
other context except in its relationship to a street closure and you are saying that you would not
assume that it was related. I can’t imagine that it is related to anything else based on the
observation. It may not be an overwhelming issue but ! just logically can’t figure out how it is
not related to the closure.
Mr. Kott: That particular closure has been in place for a few years now prior to the installation
of other closures in Downtown North. Just on the face of it you would expect nearly all drivers
who are familiar with Downtown North would know by now that there is a closure there. I am
not saying that there might have been a driver totally new to the neighborhood that might have
chosen to back out. It is very difficult to assign causation to erratic driving behavior, as it is in
fact very difficult in math to assign causation to particular crashes unless you do some detailed
investigation.
Vice-Chair Cassel: Okay. In honor of our meeting last week and sharing these questions who
else would like to ask a question at this time? Carl?
Mr. Stoffel: I just want to add to that. We did and I think it is even pointed out in our Staff
Report in the performance evaluation when the project was first put in we got a lot of you might
say anecdotal reports from citizens saying people are driving down the street, they are backing
out, they are making U-turns, they are doing crazy things. We got some of those reports. Our
official measure of that other than sort of recognizing that those came in and I think that
diminished a little bit as time went on we asked the police department ~o tabulate any crashes
that they had reported, accidents that were directly attributable to the closures, to the plan, and
one directly attributable type of thing would be somebody backing out of a street and getting in
an accident. They didn’t report any of those kind of actual reported accidents but I think that
behavior does occur and frankly it is as you can see with the one that has been in there for a long
time it is somewhat of an inherent, when you have a closure at the end of a long block, it is
somewhat of an inherent problem with that but certainly as those things are there longer then
many people learn where those are but always the outsiders may come in and do that kind of
thing.
Vice-Chair Cassel: Does someone else have a question?
Commissioner Bialson: I don’t have a question but I have to support Pat’s comment because I
have seen the rather bizarre driving occur in Downtown North. It may have dropped off but I
City of Palo Alto Page 30
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
45
46
47
48
saw a couple of incidences which I would describe as unsafe activity and I know anecdotal
evidence is to be sort of questioned but I think it is absolutely valid.
Vice-Chair Cassel: Bonnie.
Commissioner Packer: I have some questions on the various possible plans that are before us.
One question I have is that in the Mixed Measures plan it is proposed to relocate the closure on
Everett fi:om near Waverley to near Bryant. The Reduced Current plan would just relocate that
closure on the other side of Waverley. Can you tell me what benefit Staff sees in moving that
closure to Bryant as opposed to Waverley?
Mr. Stoffel: The idea of doing this moving it down to Waverley open up as many east-west
streets as possible between Hawthorne and Everett all along from Alma to Middlefield and
especially in the area of the park. The current plan as you know there is only way to transition
between Everett and Hawthorne in that central area of the neighborhood and that is using
Kipling. So we are trying to have more streets for people to make that jog. This will allow three
streets in the center part of the neighborhood, three streets at the west end and three street up at
the east end. So we hope that people jogging back and forth then will be split up a little bit more
and will reduce the load on any one street.
Commissioner Packer: Thank you. If Commissioners will indulge me the difference between
the Modified Mixed Measures and the Mixed Measures is that there are no circles on Webster
but there is a closure at Everett and Byron. Can you explain what difference in impact the
Modified Mixed Measure would have versus the Mixed Measures? Why did you propose that as
a possible modification?
Mr. Stoffel: There is one primary difference and that is that there is an additional street closure
up there in fact it is the one that is there now. It is the one on Everett at Byron and then by
keeping that we took out the circle that was going to be proposed just down the block. So the
real difference is just keeping one of the street closures. This came up actually in part of the
public hearing last month. Some residents mentioned something similar to this as another
alternative. We thought it had some merit we changed it a little bit. Just in case the Mixed
Measures plan being more open because of it has one less closure, if by chance somehow a lot of
through traffic still comes through and jogs back and forth and perhaps still exceeds our
thresholds that we are Wing to keep under then one way to clamp down again, in other words
you are kind of going back a little bit towards what we are now is to make it harder for through
traffic to get through the neighborhood. It is another step more difficult. Yet it is combined with
this Mixed Measures, which has the more open network of streets in the middle of the
neighborhood. We were hesitant, we thought maybe we should recommend this one but we just
didn’t feel comfortable in keeping the five closures rather than four. So we thought it could be a
possible solution if a problem developed with the Mixed Measures plan because it is a little bit
stricter.
Mr. Kott: May I add Carl that all but one of our so-called red streets, the streets with larger than
25% increase over base conditions and traffic volumes, all but one measured and reported in the
red zone were in fact cross streets. So the overall strategy of both Mixed Measures and Modified
Mixed Measures is to de-concentrate the center of the neighborhood so that there are many
options for drivers rather than just one or two.
City of Palo Alto Page 31
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
3!
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
45
46
47
Vice-Chair Cassel: Annette.
Commissioner Bialson: We are still focused on safety issues?
Vice-Chair Cassel: You can ask a general question.
Commissioner Bialson: This is going somewhat to safety. Access for emergency vehicles, I
know that the response times are still within acceptable limits when we are dealing with
ambulances and Palo Alto Fire and Police Departments because we have people who are familiar
with the structures we have put up. In the case that we should ever call upon mutual aid or have
perhaps Palo Alto units that are not neighborhood units how would we deal with those types of
emergency response teams going through this neighborhood?
Deputy Fire Chief, Debbie Prior, Palo Alto Fire Department: As far as our neighboring
jurisdictions and our mutual aid response plans are concerned we provide them with copies of
our district maps within our city limits. So any time there is a change such as when a traffic
calming plan is installed we see that information as well. We don’t have a formal process for
bringing them in and training them and familiarizing them with the different changes that we do
especially for traffic calming but we provide them with that information whenever we receive it.
As far as our own fire companies each station is responsible for district familiarization and it
changes for a variety of reasons. It is not a formal drill but they practice this as one of their daily
routines on a regular basis.
Commissioner Bialson: Do you know if we have ever had to call upon mutual aid or other
community’s emergency response team in any of the community areas where we already have
street closures and traffic calming devices?
Deput5r Fire Chief, Debbie Prior: I don’t know the answer to that. This particular community is
close to the border of our city so it is very likely that in this area we would be receiving mutual
aid in the event that either our normal engine companies are unavailable or the incident is large
enough to call for additional resources.
Commissioner Bialson: To follow up on that if we had a situation that required more paramedics
than Palo Alto has and we called upon Menlo Park, etc. you are saying that they are required to
become familiar with our street closures as well?
Deput, Fire Chief, Debbie Prior: We provide them with that information. When we receive
them as part of our Fire Department information we automatically provide that to our
neighboring fire jurisdictions. You actually raise a pretty good point with the private ambulance
companies. Sometimes we do have to call private ambulances in the event our resources are
depleted. They would be less familiar with these types of plans. But the other fire departments
would be familiar because we would provide them that information.
Commissioner Bialson: I appreciate that and I don’t want to say that this is a likely instance that
may occur but it is a concern of mine given the earthquake environment we live in.
City of Palo Alto Page 32
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
45
46
47
48
Deputy Fire Chief, Debbie Prior: We actually didn’t look at data on outside agencies coming in
when we were looking at that information for you.
Vice-Chair Cassel: Karen, do you have a question?
Commissioner Holman: Yes I have a question of Staff about the no right hand turns off
Middlefield onto Hawthorne and Everett. When we did our tour it was a Saturday morning and
still we saw many cars run those stop signs on Byron. So I was curious as to the placement of
the traffic circles on Webster as opposed to on Byron.
Mr. Stoffel: Are you referring to?
Commissioner Holman: I apologize. I am looking at the Mixed Measures plan.
Mr. Stoffel: Could you repeat your question?
Commissioner Holman: There are the no right turn signs here and there are hours indicated but
when we were there on a Saturday morning tour, and we have heard neighbors comment too, that
the existing stop signs get run quite frequently and we were witness to that. So kind of logically
it would seem to me if the traffic circles were put closer to Middlefleld it would slow people
down as opposed to them running stop signs there. The placement is on Webster.
Mr. Stoffel: We are trying to place the traffic circles at intersections that only have two-way
stops and where the two-way stops are on the cross streets. We are trying to impede the flow on
Everett and Hawthorne that ordinarily wouldn’t stop for instance at Webster there is no stop at
Everett on Webster. So we are trying to prefer intersections that did not have stop signs on
Hawthorne and Everett. That is one reason why the Hawthorne and Everett location was chosen.
Excuse me, Everett and Webster that is why that circle is there because there are no stop signs on
Everett. On Hawthorne there are stop signs there but Hawthorne has stops at nearly every block
on Hawthorne. So the reason we put one on Webster, it doesn’t quite meet that criteria but the
basic reason we didn’t put them up where we have four-way stops is because our guideline or
policy for traffic circles is we really want to only have a maximum of two-way stops next to a
traffic circle. We would probably take out one set of those stop signs if we put a circle at a four-
way stop intersection because everybody is stopping anyway the circle isn’t doing much good
other than sitting in the middle of the road. Taking out stop signs is pretty contentious so we
didn’t really want to locate any traffic circles where we have existing four-way stops. So it is
kind of a circular way of answering your question.
Commissioner Holman: I am puzzling a little bit about since Byron is already closed up at the
creek I am still struggling how effective those stop signs are since people are running them
anyway and if traffic circles might be more effective.
Mr. Stoffel: To be honest we put the traffic circles there we were not thinking of taking care of a
stop sign problem. We were trying our best to select locations along Hawthorne and Everett that
would impede east-west traffic flow. So we weren’t necessarily focusing on a place where
maybe people ran the stop sign or trying to slow people down in a particular spot. We wanted to
find spots where we could put things in the way of somebody driving clear down that street or
several blocks of that street. So I still don’t know ifI got to your point there.
City of Palo Alto Page 33
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
45
46
47
Vice-Chair Cassel: Bonnie, you wanted to ask a follow up question on signs?
Commissioner Packer: Yes, thank you. Is that all right Karen? On these signs, the no turn
signs’, what is the experience in the City or other cities of the effectiveness of these kinds of no
mrn signs in people actually paying attention to them? Do we have data on that?
Mr. Kott: I will jump in and Carl will certainly follow. Our rule of thumb is about 80%
compliance. This is confirmed in talking to colleagues in the area. With police presence there is
a dramatic rise in that number. Without police presence it is about 80%. Most folks are pretty
law abiding but not all.
Mr. Stoffel: We have been generally pretty skeptical of using turn restriction signs just because
they are so passive. You have probably noticed we don’t have many of them in Palo Alto. We
have some at school comers, no right turn when children are present, we have the one that
everybody knows about at Churchill and Alma that is a very unusual one that a lot of drivers I
think have difficulty with it is quite a bit different than this. So we don’t have many of these
kinds of signs that are just during certain peak hours. Other cities like Menlo Park have them
along Willow Road. East Palo Alto as you know put in not too long ago a whole series of no
fight turns out of a neighborhood. We did try to get some information from them and from what
we understand from our police contact to them they have been quite effective and they have not
had that much staffing to be able to enforce them. But apparently with their occasional
enforcement they feel that they are doing a very good job. Our police department feels that these
can work. There will be people who disobey them. There will be complaints and a lot of times
those complaints will not be able to be answered because the police don’t have or they can’t all
of a sudden put a lot of time in there. We think they will work but we know that there will be
this at least 20% who are not going to abide by them.
Vice-Chair Cassel: Pat, you had a follow up question?
Commissioner Burt: Yes. So if our objective is traffic calming or even reduction in volume in
the neighborhood and you have a passive device like this that would be an 80% reduction
approximately in peak hours if we make those assumptions what anticipated volume reduction
would occur just from the turn restrictions versus the baseline prior to the plan?
Mr. Stoffel: I have those numbers buried in here. We actually have the traffic counts or we were
able to interpret how many people are making those right turns during those peak hours and then
took 80% of that. I would have to dig around to find that. Those numbers which are all kinds of
people, they weren’t necessarily just people making through trips they might be residents turning
in, but those numbers are somewhere at least at each street for the three hour period somewhere
around 200 cars or somewhere in there that would be prevented from making that turn. ! would
need to look that up.
Commissioner Burr: The percentage, and I will take ballparks on this, the percentage of cars that
are entering those streets via left turns at those hours is it half of the cut-through traffic that
would be entering there?
City of Palo Alto Page 34
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
45
46
47
48
Mr. Stoffel: I see, you are talking about the ratio of people making the - what was the question?
I was thinking about the right turns on Middlefield.
Commissioner Burt: No. We are talking about the left turn restriction signs during peak hour,
right?
Mr. Stoffel: Well they have no left turns from Alma and no right turns from Middlefield.
Commissioner Burr: Yes, the combination of no left turns from Alma and no right turns from
Middlefield what 15ortion of the cut-through traffic would be eliminated if 80% of the prospective
left turns from Alma and right tums from Middlefield were eliminated?
Mr. Stoffel: IfI recall I think I came up with approximately a ten percent reduction in through
traffic comes from that element of the plan. I wouldn’t mind looking that up again in my notes
but it is roughly about ten percent of the through trips that we are talking about is represented by
those hours of turn restrictions.
Commissioner Burt: I thought our greatest problem initially was the peak hour trips. If we are
looking at least half of the I don’t know whether we call them north-south or east-west, I guess it
is east-west, but nearly half of the trips between Middlefield and Alma would be eliminated by
these signs. That seems a lot more significant than a ten percent reduction but maybe you are
talking about over a 24 hour period and I’m focusing on the peak hours.
Mr. Stoffel: It is definitely a 24 hour period. We don’t really know, you might think that a lot of
the through trips are just peak hour but really don’t really know but we think that a lot of them
just occur all day long various types of through trips. So that ten percent is definitely averaged
over a 24-hour period. Also the ten percent includes people, it takes into account for instance the
person who does not turn left on southbound Alma they do not turn left into the neighborhood
but they go down to Lytton but they may reenter the neighborhood maybe down at Cowper.
They will go back into the neighborhood to avoid perhaps Middlefield and Lytton. So I assumed
in that calculation that not everybody that was kept out of the neighborhood at one end would
stay out of the neighborhood all the way around that some of them would go back in and still be
a portion of a through trip at the other end.
Vice-Chair Cassel: I have a follow up question for that. If what we are doing is taking in theory
all of the traffic going down Middlefield Road forbidding them from making a right hand turn,
the right hand is going to be the hardest one to stop, they must all go down Middlefield will that
not severely impact the intersection at Middlefield since that one is fairly heavily impacted now
and you won’t have any of them making that turn?
Mr. Stoffel: Middlefield at Lytton you mean? Well, we took those numbers and of course the
peak hour in the morning which I think is eight to nine is the worst time so we added all of those
numbers and added them into the calculation and came out with a level of service and it does
change by one level of service from a C to a D, which is in your report. So it gets worse. Of
course during the other parts of that three hour period it is a little less worse and then during the
rest of the time it goes back to whatever it was before. But it doesn’t get worse enough that we
find it unacceptable.
City of Palo Alto Page 35
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
45
46
47
Vice-Chair Cassel: Even the neighbors have to go down to Lytton to get back into the
neighborhood.
Mr. Stoffel: Everybody will have to go.
Vice-Chair Cassel: Not anyone can turn into the neighborhood if you do those signs.
Mr. Stoffel: That is correct. That is one problem with that kind of device or it would be the
same thing if the street were closed there. It affects everybody, which is one reason why we
didn’t in the first place propose peripheral measures for this plan. It would keep people from
being able to enter the neighborhood such as residents.
Mr. Kott: One reason why we don’t use turn restrictions much in Palo Alto is because of effects
downstream on signalized intersections. They are very easy to talk about somewhat cursory you
might say but in practice they can cause some problems at intersections. To the best of our
ability we have analyzed the likely effects and they remain at minimally acceptable levels, which
in Palo Alto would be level of service D at a Palo Alto intersection like Middlefield and Lytton.
Vice-Chair Cassel: Other questions?
Commissioner Holman: On the other end at Alma the no turn sign I would be interested in what
Stanford Electric’s that business what the impact might be on them to have this no turn sign
there. As I recall they were concerned about people being able to get to them during even
commute hours.
Mr. Stoffel: I am sure he is aware of that. I have not heard anything from him nor did we go to
him and say we are going to take out the closure there which you didn’t like but in its place is
something that you could say is more severe depending on where the people are coming from.
We have not heard from him nor have we taken this directly to him and asked him.
Commissioner Holman: Just a quick follow up to that. By any chance did the City’s Economic
Development Planner have any comment on this given our retail situation?
Mr. Stoffel: I haven’t heard any comment and I am not sure to what extent she has looked at
this. Does anybody else on Staff know?
Mr. Kott: We have not. In general though this merchant and others are concerned about traffic
volume and pass by volume is considered good for business. Our Economic Development
Specialist has not commented to us.
Vice-Chair Cassel: Do I have any more questions from this side of the table on any issue? Let’s
go back to the other side then.
Commissioner Butt: Back on a safety question can Staff comment on the different ways to look
at the accident rate total accidents versus accidents per vehicle trip and in terms of accidents for
vehicle trip has the closure plan resulted in a lower accident rate?
City of Palo Alto Page 36
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
40
41
42
43
45
46
47
48
Mr. Stoffel: You have hit on an area that has been very difficult for us. We gave you some
accident numbers that came from the police department. They were just numbers of accidents in
I think the six month period while this was in plus the prior three years. It is true that doing
accident rates is the best way, the number of crashes per million entering vehicles. There are two
different ways of doing it. At an intersection it is per million entering vehicles and on a street
segment it is per million vehicle miles. We did not calculate accident rates. I think the Unblock
group took those numbers and did an accident rate as if it were intersections, a million entering
vehicles. We would probably want to do that per million vehicle miles calculating all the street
segment lengths in the neighborhood and on the arterials. One problem has been I have not yet
gotten from the police department a dis-aggregation of accidents within the neighborhood and
the ones just on the arterials around the boundary. I wanted to do a calculation of knowing how
many of these accidents were on Lytton, Middlefield and Alma as opposed to the inside. We
have had some problems getting that data from them and also I have run out of time. So we have
not done this rate calculation and essentially I don’t have an answer for how the accident rate has
changed.
Mr. Kott: I would like to add Commissioner Burr ifI may a couple of points or problems
associated with crash rates. I don’t want to get off on a dissertation here but there is a fine book
by K.W. Ogden called the Handbook of Road Safety Engineering, which develops this very well.
One is on lower volume streets it is very difficult in a statistical sense to determine trends. It is
different on arterial streets. But more seriously it is very important in analyzing crashes to assign
causation of crashes so that there are many different multiple possible causes of road crashes.
They could be weather related they could be pavement related they could be related to rise or fall
of traffic volumes and other reasons. We are very careful about this, about associating a change
in a street with a crash rate. You have to disentangle other intervening variables in order to
speak with any authority on this topic.
Vice-Chair Cassel: Annette.
Commissioner Bialson: Thank you. With regard to crash statistics and other things which I just
understand you do not have specifics on in looking at the entire area we are dealing with it seems
to me that Palo Alto Avenue needs to be dealt with differently than the rest of the streets. I
assume that was Staff’s understanding as well. What were the reasons for that?
Mr. Stoffel: Now when you say dealt with differently we have closures on Palo Alto Avenue as
we do on the other streets.
Commissioner Bialson: In your mind was the fact that it was not part of the grid system a
consideration or that it had been used by local car dealerships as a wonderful test route?
Mr. Stoffel: Actually we have kept the two closures that are on Palo Alto Avenue now we have
kept those in these other plans. Some many residents have said, gee, Palo Alto Avenue doesn’t
carry near the volume as Hawthorne and Everett why do you keep those closures there? We
have kept them there, the one up at Middlefield as you know the nature of that curve is very easy
to make a quick right turn and I think the police have even cited that as an area that they really
wanted addressed just outside of traffic calming. Palo Alto Avenue all along the north side is a
dedicated park and also of course it is a little narrower than some of the other streets and it is
very curvy. So the combination of the fact that it is a park and it is curvy in our minds we
City of Palo Alto Page 37
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
thought it deserved some special attention. We had heard, we don’t actually know the
percentage of through trips, but we have heard people talk about that it is a cut-through route and
the car dealers and whatnot. We felt that we should keep the protection there because of the
geometry of the road and the park issues along the whole length of it and of course the comer up
there at Middlefield.
Mr. Kott: There is one final consideration and that is the function of Palo Alto Avenue if it is not
adequately treated to be part of what has been called a virtual Willow Expressway since it really
emulates a desired route that takes drivers potentially all the way via Sandhill Road from 280 to
101 and the Dumbarton Bridge via Willow and so forth.
Vice-Chair Cassel: Bonnie, do you have a question?
Commissioner Packer: Yes, this is a follow up to the discussion we just had about crashes. One
of the performance measures, number six, says there will be no identifiable crashes directly
attributable to the traffic calming plan. So my question is are you going to ask the police when
they do the reports on traffic to specifically address that when they evaluate a crash? Is it just
going to be one crash that would trigger a change in the fourth month period? How are we going
to look at that performance measure?
Mr. Stoffel: The intent of that performance measure was to find out if when we said directly
attributable, I am the one who wrote that so my thinking was we didn’t want crashes where
somebody was driving down the street and ran right into a street closure and ran over it or
somebody went into the street and then backed up and got into an accident. In other words
something you could say that definitely wouldn’t have happened if that thing weren’t there. That
is a little bit different than if somebody didn’t go through the neighborhood because it is not an
attractive route and then they went down Lytton and got into a crash. It is hard to say. That is a
different kind of cause. So our feeling was that if there were one crash where somebody got into
an accident with one of those measures we would not be meeting that performance measure. So
I guess that is one answer is it is one. Then we did ask the police were there any of those types
of crashes and we wanted them to answer the very direct type of crashes and that was a
performance measure. They also gave us all the other crashes in the area that has been a little bit
of the source of a lot of analysis by other people too.
Mr. Kott: A point about assignment of crashes comes up again. If someone crashes into a
barrier and it is determined through investigation of the incident that the driver was impaired and
that was the reason or the assignable cause the driver could have just as well crashed into a
parked car or a telephone pole or whatnot.
Vice-Chair Cassel: I have one question and that has to do with the retractable bollards and the
costs. We have a $30,000 cost figure for putting one in. Does that change as you put in several?
Ln other words do you have I presume one triggering mechanism that you use all over town to
push those bollards down so you don’t need a whole new system just the bollard itself.
Mr. Stoffel: Each of those units has to have a control mechanism that is the high cost. One of
the elements of the high cost is to put in the electronics and the mechanism at each location. The
minor cost is how many little garage opener type push button units you have. They can all be
programmed for the same frequency but that doesn’t reduce the cost.
City of Palo Alto Page 38
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
Vice-Chair Cassel: The primary cost is in that bollard going up and down and having to put all
of that mechanical equipment in there.
Mr. gtoffel: Then there are all kinds of the control mechanism we have loops and the thing that
receives the signal and so on. Presumably if we had them put in five we would get some kind of
cost break I would think compared to just one.
Vice-Chair Cassel: Annette.
Commissioner Bialson: With regard to retractable bollards we did have the photographs at our
places that indicate that some of the bollards that are there have been damaged and there have
been some collisions with regard to those. I imagine the cost of repairing those bollards if they
are ones that can go up and down and in addition that they would then not be functioning, as we
would want if they had been damaged. Is that correct?
Mr. Stoffel: I got some information from Stanford and I did not ask them about that kind of
thing. However those pneumatic bollards are very, very crash-worthy. They are not these little
four inch poles like we have out in the barriers. These are massive things that presumably would
withstand that kind of thing. In fact some of them are designed for high security installations to
keep those kinds of things from happening. I doubt that there are a lot of them. I think the
maintenance issues are probably more in the control mechanism and going up and down and
maybe dirt getting in some of the electronics or something like that. I don’t know a lot about the
maintenance.
Mr. Kott: Stanford’s experience has been very good. As the Commissioners may know on the
[Sara] Transit Mall Stanford runs their Marguerite on a quite frequent basis and the retractable
bollards keep other vehicles out other than the Marguerite and of course fire trucks on occasion
as well Stanford service vehicles.
Vice-Chair Cassel: Karen, you had a question on this?
Commissioner Holman: Yes I do. I had asked a question or posed a question to Staff about if
there were retractable bollards that they were only up some percentage of the time or during
those particular critical hours. Would Staff like to respond to that?
Mr. Stoffel: Well, the idea of having part time things comes up in other aspects too maybe have
a certain way a signal functions that would only do so during part of the day or maybe have it off
part of the day and on part of the day. This is similar to that. That kind of thing is always I
guess e generally don’t do that because drivers are pretty habitual and they get used to certain
things being in certain places and signals operating certain ways and so on. I think it would be a
difficulty with having it change during the day in terms is it open or closed and possibly causing
some accident problems.
Mr. Kott: One of our main concerns in what we do is not to violate driver expectations because
we know that can lead to safety problems.
Vice-Chair Cassel: Annette.
City of Palo Alto Page 39
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
45
46
47
48
Commissioner Bialson: When this matter first came before us a few years ago one of the things I
think the Commission really stressed was perhaps the sequence of how we went about this plan.
We stressed if my memory serves me correctly that Lytton be improved, the intersections with
Lyttdn at Middlefield and at Alma but that Lytton itself in terms of the time that would be
required for people to go through Lytton would be improved the cycles on the traffic lights being
adjusted, etc. Was that done and how much was able to be accomplished in making Lytton more
attractive to those people who go through from Middlefield to Alma?
Mr. Stoffel: I will say something and then you can. Some I think relatively minor changes were
made about the time this plan went in but we have gotten a lot of complaints about the lights on
Lytton, there is no progression, it is just not working well. The signal people in our office said
gee we have pretty much done what we can for the moment. However there are two pieces of
good news now. They did find just the other day that there is a problem there and the
expectation is we are going to be able in a pretty short order to change the timing sequence a
little bit in fact maybe all three downtown streets to help the progression on Lytton. Apparently
there were a couple of signals that were not responding to what they thought it was supposed to
be doing. That is a short term improvement that I think will make some difference better
progression at least in the peak hour direction maybe even both. I think that the best hope is
when our new signal equipment is going in almost as we speak but we need to have the traffic
counts along Lytton re-measured because you have to keep updating all the signal timing
patterns. We have not been doing that because this plan is in flux and we wanted to wait until
we really know what we are going to do here before we go out and take all these extensive
measurements. Once those are made they will be able to input all this data into the new software
package and come up with an even better coordination plan along Lytton. It still will never be
perfect because it is difficult to have traffic flow progress in both directions. It is easy when it is
really heavy one-way and hardly anything the other but to have it go both directions where the
spacing is not even is fairly difficult.
Mr. Kott: I would just like to add quickly that apart from the very short term improvement we
realize we can make in upgrading all of our traffic signals in town which involves swapping out
all of our cabinets and interconnecting all of our signals with fiber optic to a central signal
management server we will be able to do much more sophisticated signal timing which will give
us much more flexibility, in the future within this calendar year on Lytton. Somewhat longer
depending on money we will be able to through installation of as this Commission is familiar
with traffic adaptive signal operations we will be able to do highly sophisticated signal timing on
basically automatic. That will ring out maximum efficiency out of Lytton. Whether that is
enough to cope with all of the long term traffic growth trends we are not sure yet but it is
certainly promising.
Vice-Chair Cassel: Pat.
Commissioner Burt: Joe, do you have any ballpark range of improvement that the traffic
adaptive signals might provide once they went in the length of Lytton?
Mr. Kott: We have estimated on other streets like Charleston and Arastradero we would get
about a 20% improvement. I think we would do better on Lytton because our base is not quite as
good because we have so many signals in sequence.
City of Palo Alto Page 40
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
45
46
47
48
Commissioner Burr: One other Lytton related question. The signal between Bryant and
Waverley I have wondered whether that is really a necessary signal. Do you have any comments
on that?
Mr. Kott: We are always reluctant to put in signals on a travel corridor from the standpoint of
delay but signals do provide some positive control for cross street traffic as well for pedestrians
and crossing cyclists. So there are some interesting tradeoffs. We would certainly expect a fair
number of pedestrian traffic and we do get it in near Downtown neighborhoods. So it is
probably a good tradeoff to keep the signal there.
Commissioner Burr: Are you looking at that one that doesn’t have a Downtown North street that
connects to it?
Mr. Kott: I guess Commissioner Burt I was speaking somewhat more generally about leaving
signals in or putting them in or taking them out. We look at them case-by-case and it is a
question of how much tradeoff do we make of safety versus efficiency? That is it.
Commissioner Burr: Then I won’t attempt to go after it in this meeting but I would encourage
you to look at that particular one as the only one on Lytton that strikes me as perhaps
unnecessary.
Vice-Chair Cassel: Do we have more questions before we bring this back to discussion. Karen.
Commissioner Holman: As we say, and Staffhas addressed this, but as we saw that the traffic
has had increases alongside Johnson Park and Staff has made some adjustments to this plan there
was also a mention made about painting the pavement around Johnson Park as like a
neighborhood project and do some kind of design on that. It has been proven to be traffic
calming in other communities and I am really hoping at some point we try this somewhere. I
think this might be one area. Could Staff comment on that?
Mr. Kott: Yes. As the Commission knows we are big fans of visibility as a safety measure in
fact we really like the idea of tinting or painting our bike lanes as proposed on
Charleston!Arastradero. We just think raising awareness, raising visibility is generally a good
thing if it doesn’t also violate driver expectations all the better. Painting a street surface would
not. The only caveat would be maintenance issues and that is not usually our bailiwick someone
else in our organization has to go out there and repaint the street. So given that caveat we think
it is a good idea.
Commissioner Holman: The suggestion was actually to just have it be a block party and the
neighbors paint the street. Let kids have at it. They can be very, very creative, no hopscotch, but
let them do it and maybe once a year it gets repainted or something of that nature so there is
really not much cost to the City and you get some creativity going and you get neighborhood
involvement and potentially some traffic calming.
Vice-Chair Cassel: I have a question related to private versus public roads and I want to know if
the City Attorney could address that question. What is a private road and what is a public road?
City of Palo A lto Page 41
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
Ms. Ancel: That is a pretty general question. A public road has two defirfitions one that is
accepted into our street system that we maintain that is open to the public. The other would be
one that may not have been accepted into our street system like Los Trancos but that we maintain
and has an easement more or less in favor of the public. It is not a private road.
Then you have private roads I have seen more in the context of some subdivisions that are gated.
Those roads are private. I don’t have a context for your question.
Vice-Chair Cassel: Well we had a lot of discussion at the last public heating about these areas
being private roads when we put in some kind of a closure. My understanding is we are
maintaining, we own it and that anyone can use those roads.
Ms. Ancel: Right. They do not lose their character as public streets.
Vice-Chair Cassel: Karen. And I hope we are getting close to the end of these questions.
Commissioner Holman: Does Staff have any notion of what the usage is of the bike bridge at
Waverley and Palo Alto Avenue?
Mr. Stoffel: I do not. Joe, I don’t know if you know anything. I know there are counts I just
don’t know what they are.
Mr. Kott: Carl is right we periodically do take counts. I didn’t bring any with me. I didn’t bring
that file I am sorry. We can get back to the Commission on that though.
Commissioner Holman: The reason I ask is as a follow up to something I mentioned on our
walking tour and it had again to do with slowing down traffic alongside Johnson Park. There
were two different responses I got from Staff. In regards to a notion of bending the bike
boulevard on Everett over to Waverley because it is a direct shoot then up to the bicycle bridge
across the creek and one comment from one staffer was bicyclists like straight shot. It is a
straight shot all the way up and down Bryant if you keep it on Bryant but it is a straight shot
across the bicycle bridge if you bend it on Waverley. Another staffer said well there are no
absolutes about not diverting bicycle boulevards. So my question goes to this, your comment
again about painting if bicycle boulevards and bicycle lanes are painted would that not act as a
traffic calming measure beside the park if the bicycle boulevard were diverted from Bryant over
to Waverley and run alongside the park especially if the bicycle boulevard were painted?
Mr. Kott: Thank you Commissioner Holman I do remember that question. Our division has a
very lively internal intellectual life and we sometimes don’t come to consensus very easily. We
did have a difference. I am a great believer in straight paths for all travel modes if possible. I
don’t particularly like circuity because I think it deters use of a mode, however, other Staff
members believe that it is logical to have a direct connection to that Waverley bridge. Certainly
any measure even if it is at the margins that increases traffic safety and possibly decreases speed
some what and increases awareness and is a bike facility is all to the good and logical. I think
the answer is there is no hard and fast rule about it. I think we would need to consult with the
bicyclists themselves because they tradeoff the likely increase in safety however marginal with
the loss of convenience however marginal that might be.
City of Palo Alto Page 42
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
Commissioner Holman: To follow up on that is there any street difference in width between
Bryant and Waverley so would there be any impediment to that?
Mr. Stoffel: I think the width is the same and I believe you were mentioning bike lanes weren’t
you? Because the idea of the painting was the bike lanes. But to put in bike lanes on that street
you would have to take away parking on one side and we used to do it in the old days but it is
pretty difficult especially where there is such a high demand. So the bike boulevard does not
need bike lanes and to put in bike lanes and paint them we are going to get into this parking issue
of no parking areas.
Vice-Chair Cassel: Are there other questions or can we bring this back to the Commission?
Commissioner Burt: Yes, I have questions.
Several members of the public raised concems over furore additional traffic volume that might
come to this neighborhood as a result of the Stanford development that has been authorized. In
light of their no net peak hour commute trips mandate for that development how would you
anticipate the impact might be on total traffic volume once Stanford has built out their rights?
Mr. Stoffel: Well, if they have and they do have this no net new trip policy at least in the
campus now I don’t think that applies to the housing and the medical center and the senior and
all of that. So there will be new trips from that but as you know they can’t directly go across
Sandhill at Alma. I do remember when the EIR was done for all those projects they looked at the
increase of traffic in the Downtown North area and found it to be ifI recall very minimal because
the only way you could get there would be to be using University and then to cut over. So we
are not expecting, I guess there is always going to be increased pressure when you have people
going east-west even they are over on another street but there won’t be a direct increase because
of that lack of connection there at Alma and Sandhill. But perhaps indirectly as more people try
to go down University then some of those people may move over and try to go down through
Downtown North or down Lytton but not a lot of solid numbers there.
Commissioner Burt: Also back three years ago when we were first reviewing this I recall public
comments that a portion and according to some people a significant portion of the trips in the
neighborhood were as a result of transient parkers who were Downtown workers searching for
parking spaces in the neighborhood. Has Staff on any level looked at the impact of the new
parking garages on reduction of those trips in the neighborhood?
Mr. Stoffel: We have not. All of the references to through trips in this neighborhood do not
include the people driving around in there looking for parking. We figured that they are for right
or wrong part of the neighborhood so they are not considered through trips. So for instances if
the garage removed parkers out of the neighborhood it would lower the traffic in the
neighborhood but it would not enter into these through trip calculations that we are doing. We
have not made any attempt to I have an estimate of how many people park in the neighborhood
and a rough estimate of one trip in, one trip out. We have a rough idea of how many people are
going in and out of the neighborhood for parking. That number would go down if those people
moved into the garage but we would still have all of these other through trips that we have been
talking about all this time because they are different than the people that are parking in the
neighborhood.
City of Palo Alto Page 43
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
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
Mr. Kott: It might be helpful to define a through trip. A through trip is, as we measure them in a
study, is one that is identified entering a gateway to a neighborhood and assuming a reasonable
transit exists the neighborhood at an exit point. A car coming in and then parking on a street
would not be considered a through trip. In that sense it is possible that the calculations of
through trips might be somewhat conservative if you look at it from the standpoint of
neighborhood people and non-neighborhood people driving in the neighborhood.
Mr. Stoffel: Our consultant, Dowling Associates, when they did the study he through out a
number and I guess he probably added up some numbers to get it but he came out with sixty-
some percent through trips at least on Everett and Hawthorne. Then I think there was also a
sentence in there that said if you counted the people who go in there to park who don’t live there
as through trips then. the number would go up to something like 70 or 75% but we have not been
using that number.
Commissioner Burr: Based on the methodology used to define through trips I read in the Staff
Report that at the time of the implementation of the trial is it correct that that percentage had
fallen below the Staff threshold of what was a, I forget how you characterized it.
Mr. Stoffel: A cordon count?
Commissioner Burr: But an overwhelming or very significant level of through trips.
Mr. Stoffel: When we did all the planning for the study a license survey was done by our
consultant and that is where they came with about I think it was 62% on one of those major
routes of all the entries and exists were through trips. Then there was a certain count that we
called the cordon count where we just added up all the trips going in and out of the neighborhood
based upon those 1999 numbers. By the time we put the trial in that total had decreased by 15%.
That decrease we are attributing it mostly to the down mm in the economy and obviously there
were probably fewer through trips because there was less business activity. There were also
probably fewer people going in and out of the neighborhood because there may be more rental
vacancies. But any diminishment in the number of through trips since we were right on the
borderline of 60% to start with presumably we dropped below the 60% at that time.
Mr. Kott: Carl, I would like to clarify. We did not do a second origin/destination study. To do
one is quite labor intensive. It is certainly the proper way to approach a subject like this but it
does involve people literally taking down typically the last four digits of a license plate numberi
They are long lists on pieces of paper that people have to keep. Then someone at exist gates
compiles a long list of last four digits with time associated with the arrival of that plate if you
will and then the lists are compared. So it is extremely intensive work. We can’t usually afford
to do this kind of work more than once in a neighborhood study.
Commissioner Burt: My final question has to do with the Mixed Measures plan. As I look at it
if we have a closure on Palo Alto Avenue, now this is coming from Alma at this point, and
closure on Everett then wouldn’t the traffic volume that historically might be distributed among
those three streets fall on Hawthorne and then it looks like it would take a zig at probably
Waverley and then have a through route right up Everett to Middlefield. My question is has
City of Palo Alto Page 44
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
45
46
47
Staff evaluated whether we are potentially creating a funneling of that traffic volume so that
certain streets might see a significant increase in volume?
Mr. Stoffel: With fewer street closures there will be more people, through people, entering and
going through the neighborhood than before but we are also partially offsetting that with the turn
restrictions. That is the reason why they are there. Also people don’t just necessarily go straight
through the neighborhood. There are people wanting to go defmitely east-west trying to sort of
follow the Willow Road corridor. There are people that want to go diagonally across in four
different directions. So if people are just going in the neighborhood and then exiting and
wanting to go Downtown they would not be funneling through the neighborhood. So those trip
people who are going straight down Hawthorne or Everett yes there will be moreof those and
they will be crossing back and forth but they also have more streets on which to cross back and
forth compared to what we have now. But we still think that the total will be, we may get some
increases on some of those streets compared to the old base case but we still think it will be less
than this threshold. We are only doing some projections as best we can. We think that it is
going to be beneficial. There is still the possibility that somehow there is going to be more of a
certain kind of a directional trip than we think.
Mr. Kott: I would like to add that it is not possible to computer model traffic shift effects in
advance on a network of purely local streets in the context of an open street network. What you
have here is many different alternative paths that drivers can take other than going though
Downtown North including paths through Menlo Park, paths through other portions of Palo Alto
and gosh knows where else.
Vice-Chair Cassel: Can I bring this back to the Commission?
Commissioner Holman: You kind of led into what I think is my last question. There are always
unintended consequences and traffic is a science and you guys are certainly well informed, well
educated and well trained in this but if there are unintended consequences and we adopt a plan is
there any amendment potential in the future if something turns up that we really had not
anticipated?
Mr. Stoffel: There you are getting into an important area where we have made a change since
the last meeting if you notice. We are recommending that you approve this plan but not only this
plan also a whole series of mitigation measures or improvement actions that we would be able to
institute at a Staff level for just such a case if there was either an unintended consequence,
essentially it would be unintended because we think it will work. So the idea is to be prepared
for that and not to have to come back to you have to go through all of this again but to take care
of it tonight and in a much easier fashion at a Director level be able to implement lets say a
change in this plan or to change the turn restriction times, move a street closure and that kind of
thing.
Vice-Chair Cassel: Carl, would you summarize those changes? I think that would be helpful.
Mr. Stoffel: Okay. They are listed in several places. Should I list them fi’om the Staff Report,
Nellie?
City of Palo Alto Page 45
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
Ms. Ancel: The Mitigated Negative Declaration, Attachment A has a summary of the
performance measures and the CEQA mitigation measures as well as the improvement actions
that are being recommended. That is the one that we should be working from.
Mr. Stoffel: Okay. So they are also in the Staff Report but that would Attachment A to the
Mitigated Negative Declaration. There we list the performance measures and for each
performance measure is an improvement action, one or more improvement actions. Are you
finding those? It is page A-1.
This is not the Staff Report this is the Mitigated Negative Declaration. They are also in the Staff
Report in almost the same language starting on page five of the Staff Report.
Vice-Chair Cassel: Because some people haven’t heard that would you kindly summarize it?
Mr. Stoffel: Improvement action 1 a is associated with performance measure one, attaining a
certain level of through traffic reduction. By the way some of these can cancel each other out,
they can contradict each other so depending on the situation that occurs we may not be able to
choose one of these because it may have another impact that we don’t want. So we would have
to make a judgment each time we choose one of these if we did. So la is to if we have below
average through traffic reduction then is to increase the hours of turn restrictions into the
neighborhood, which means more traffic would be forced to stay out of the neighborhood. Of
course we wouldn’t want to do that if it might have a significant negative impact on the
intersections. So we would have to see how that was performing at that time.
These are generally listed in the order of less severe to more severe so 1 b is to implement the
Modified Mixed Measures plan which makes it harder for drivers to get through the
neighborhood thereby increasing the through traffic reduction.
Then for any of the diversion problems, too much traffic, over 25% increase on some of the
interior streets. We have item 2a, 2b and 2c so the first one would be if it is exceeding the
threshold by a very minor amount if we installed one or more speed humps or one or more traffic
circles we may be able to just drop below the threshold because those do provide a very small
amount of volume reduction if there is a series with three of them. 2b would be again to
implement the Modified Mixed Measures plan because perhaps we would think that by making it
more difficult for through traffic to get in the neighborhood we would cut down on some of these
people cutting across on some of these so-called red streets. 2c would be to remove one or more
of the street closures and essentially be leaning towards the No Closure plan, which is to take
them all out and replace them with circles and turn restrictions. That is one of the plans in your
StaffReport.
This one is worded, in some places we called 2c implement No Closure plan but we made it a
little bit more flexible here to when it involved a CEQA mitigation such as the exceeding a 25%
threshold is to instead of just taking them all out perhaps there is a way to take just one or two
out and still accomplish the same thing. So far we don’t have one of those kinds of plans we
drop from four down to none but at least this preserves some flexibility. So that is 2a, b and c.
Then level of service problems 4a and 4b. One would be if we still find further ways to change
the timing or the phasing of signals it would perhaps accomplish a small change or small
City of Palo Alto Page 46
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
1 improvement in level of service. Let’s say we had a level of service E there that would be the
2 situation. If that is not enough another way is to reduce the hours of the turn restrictions. In
3 other words, let more people go through the neighborhood. Some of these as you can see would
4 contravene the first performance measures which is to try to have a certain level of through
5 traffic reduction but anything to keep a CEQA impact from being significant is more important
than the level of through traffic reductions. So if we have a level of service impact due to a turn
restriction it is more important to make the turn restriction less severe with this improvement
action rather than worry about the through traffic reduction. I think it is just those two.
We don’t have any action for speed reduction because we are not having that as a performance
measure for this plan.
Six and seven, 6a in case we have crash problems due directly to traffic calming measures. We
would take the closures out and implement a No Closure plan. That is 6a. Obviously then again
we drop way down in our through traffic reduction. At Middlefield and Everett if crashes went
back up, right now we have decreased that level of crashes quite a bit, if they went back up due
to the Mixed Measures plan because we are opening up that street a little bit more the
improvement action there is to install a right turn only restriction out of the neighborhood. That
is something we might do anyway even if there was no traffic calming plan in the neighborhood
because there have been accidents due to people exiting at Everett. That is what 7a is.
Police and Fire response problems if somehow they were unable to meet their times in the
neighborhood 8a would be to go to some other closure design that so far we haven’t done and
you folks have mentioned that, more flexible bollards, breakaway bollards or even ultimately the
higher cost item of the pneumatic bollards at whatever locations the Fire Department feels is
critical. If those didn’t work for some reason then the ultimate one would be to begin to remove
the street closures and maybe even go to the No Closure plan that is 8b.
That is the list of those and we are actually asking for your approval of all of those measures
along with the Mixed Measures plan. I don’t know if any other Staff want to chime in on that
aspect of it but it relates directly to our environmental analysis wanting to essentially have a set
of backup measures just in case so that we don’t have to come back and start coming up with a
new plan here again.
Vice-Chair Cassel: Those will be implemented when the Staff does its evaluation and not wait
for a hearing with the Planning Commission of any sort.
Mr. Stoffel: That is correct. Assuming this worked we would not come back. If we did have the
problems we still wouldn’t come back but we would implement one or more of these measures at
a Director of Planning level.
Vice-Chair Cassel: One other thing. We received this EIR that we are referring to today
yesterday as part of the Mitigated Negative Declaration. Would you explain the open period and
the heating for that?
Ms. Ancel: The Mitigated Negative Declaration was setout for public comment, there is a 20
day public comment period, and we put it out on Tuesday. I think it says someplace in here
when that public comment period ends. I think it is March 15, 2004.
City of Palo Alto Page 47
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
45
46
47
48
Vice-Chair Cassel: It is.
Ms. Ancel: Okay.
Vice-Chair Cassel: What we are doing tonight will be commenting on that and using that as a
basis for our review but the formal public hearing for that will be at City Council meeting at their
hearing. Bonnie.
Commissioner Packer: I have a question on that performance measure 6a which is the one that
says if there is one crash that is directly attributable to the traffic calming plan that the whole
thing goes away, it goes back to the No Closures and all the closures would be removed. You
have an evidentiary issue here as far as defining what is directly attributable, who is going to
confirm this, to go back to something that there has been a lot of hard work to create. So I have a
concern with that and when we have our discussion we may want to ask Staff to consider some
kind of language.
Vice-Chair Cassel: Can you ask the questions now?
Commissioner Packer: Well, I don’t know what kind of a question to ask. Would you consider
changing the language to make it so it is not automatic or have some kind of standard for
determining this one time event that would wipe out almost the entire project? So a crash were
somebody is injured or something as opposed to a fender-bender. Something that doesn’t.
Mr. Stoffel: I agree it is a little aggressive and it probably should be changed in some fashion to
make it more qualified. I am the one who wrote it and for some reason there should be no
crashes but I can see your point that it all it takes is one and maybe it is even a questionable one
and we say well that’s it. Now that that has been raised it doesn’t seem quite right I don’t think
at this moment would know the best way to reword that. Obviously we don’t want a fatal
accident so I think it would be something other than that.
Mr. Kott: I think Commissioner Packer suggested something that might be doable. An injury
accident that is properly assignable to the traffic calming plan or a given barrier would be one
way to qualify it to raise the bar and the seriousness of the incident.
Vice-Chair Cassel: Can I bring it back then for us to have discussion? Annette would you like
to start the discussion? Let me tell you first I think it would be helpful if what we do is discuss
the plans themselves first, look at the EIR for adequacy and then there are some other questions
that we may want to discuss that relate to what type of monitoring we are doing some of that
now in the performance measures, who is authorized to make changes to the plan, when should
the monitoring be done and when should the changes take place if there are questions that we
have on that. We may want to do it all together but I thought perhaps we should start with the
plans.
Commissioner Bialson: Could you start with Pat first, please?
Vice-Chair Cassel: Go ahead Pat.
City of Palo Alto Page 48
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
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
Commissioner Burr: I guess I would like to start with kind of a general statement on how I view
this area and then work towards the specific. I am a very strong advocate of traffic calming
throughout the City. We as a Commission have worked at promoting traffic calming and
adopting that principle. One of the things that we did over this last year was adopt a
Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program, which as a result of the work of the Commission is
pretty consistent with the Comp Plan. The Comp Plan basically looks at true calming measures
and doesn’t treat closures as a calming. Closure is a closure it doesn’t calm vehicles it
essentially prevents them from driving through. So I think the Comp Plan has it right and I think
the Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program has it right. I think this neighborhood was
deserving of significant traffic calming and a reasonable goal would be to have this
neighborhood be provided with conditions that mitigated the degradation that they found in their
neighborhood over the last decade which caused this request and need for measures to be taken.
When we looked at this thing three years ago what we saw was that there was about a 20%
increase in the traffic volume over that decade. Now most of that went away as a result of
changes in the economy but if we assume that it will return eventually then that is the level of
mitigation that we would need to address in order to give this neighborhood back what it used to
have in volume. Interestingly enough when we looked at that time at the volume that had or the
problems that existed on Lytton Avenue east of Middlefield which is a connected neighborhood
in a lot of ways volume that funnels right from there into here, they had had a similar problem.
The City had adopted a program such as this. I saw the statistic in the Staff Report, the recent
one, for the first time that they actually had a 65 to 70% cut-through volume at that time. So this
neighborhood had a very strong cut-through volume but not unique within the City one of the
worst within the City.
Well, through no tum restrictions in that neighborhood and modest traffic calming measures of a
few circles and speed tables they achieved a 20% reduction in volume. They got what had if that
was applied to this neighborhood approximately what would be giving this neighborhood back
what they had ten years before but they got better than that because the safety of those streets
improved I’d say by 50%. The speeders don’t go through those areas where there are constraints
in the speed. The volume that stays favors those drivers who drive a bit more safely than the
speeders. So my general theme is to provide aggressive traffic calming measures that are
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, consistent with the Neighborhood Traffic Calming
Program but other than the turn restrictions I am not inclined to favor the closures. I am inclined
to favor the measures that we are taking elsewhere. We have in Lytton we have the speed tables
now that were not looked at as part of this. We had speed bumps that this neighborhood
association looked at and rejected out of hand but not speed tables which we now all agreed are
very favorable versus speed bumps and a lot of other creative measures, the gateways that choke,
the mm restrictions which I think would have a very major impact on what was described at that
time as one of the most significant problems which was peak hour trips. This would have a very
major constraint on that so I favor us seeing an aggressive traffic calming program with mrn
restrictions with gateways with bulb outs with speed tables and raised crosswalks and traffic
circles as a mixture, a palette for the Staff to choose from. I wouldn’t presume to pick which of
those precise tools should be in what proportion and what location. But we have seen that they
can be very effective and so that is my general theme and I will toss that out and let other people
go from there.
City of Palo Alto Page 49
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 Bialson: I generally agree with Pat with regard to the general comments he has
just made. I differ somewhat with respect to Palo Alto Avenue. I think that the closure we now
have at Palo Alto Avenue should probably be preserved. To me the grid street system we have is
too valuable to impact for any reason but safety. I think that from all the various descriptions
that have been given to us by Staff over the many meetings we have had about this it is come to
me that we perhaps went to too far an extreme too quickly. I would like to lay less intrusive
measures. I also think we perhaps did not hear fully from the neighborhood itself. We had
neighborhood representatives but it is true that people don’t appear and voice their feelings until
their ox is being gored. I think we have found that to be the case in Downtown North.
I am also very concerned with respect to Stanford Electric and I would like to see something
done to make sure that we respect it and any other commercial activity that is in the area where
we can avoid impacting them. I think we should state in the rights we give to Staff to make
modifications that they need to respect those institutions that are very important to us.
I don’t want to go any further I would like to hear from other Commissioners at this time.
Vice-Chair Cassel: Bonnie.
Commissioner Packer: Well this has been a very, very difficult issue and I have gone back and
forth. On a philosophical level closures seem to be offensive because you are blocking the street.
Yet we have a number of them throughout the City. I have lived on streets that have had
closures and people just get used to them. Park Boulevard was one of the first and I moved there
right after they installed the closure of Park Boulevard a long time ago. I was very impressed by
the public testimony we heard a month a go about the impact that the current plan has had on the
ambiance of the neighborhood. I had to go back and look at the problem that was trying to be
solved. It wasn’t traffic calming per se it was reducing cut-through traffic. I went back and
looked at the Staff Report from year 2000 and that was what was emphasized to us when we
looked at the plans that we ultimately recommended approval for.
So I have come to feel that the Mixed Measures Plan that Staff is proposing is probably a pretty
good compromise for the reasons that Carl mentioned. It opens up a few more streets. It has
some of the closures and the no turn restrictions that will help address the problem that was
intended to be solved that is to reduce the cut-through traffic. And it does increase safety for
pedestrians and bicyclists. These are things that as a Commission we are concerned about. So
those concerns counter-balance the Comp Plan ambivalence about having no closures. It is a
difficult thing to come to but we put the closures in, the neighborhood has experienced the
impacts of those. It is a little hard to take them out.
I am not as concerned about the emergency response times. The fire station is very close. The
new opening that the Mixed Measures proposes they seem to say we can get anywhere in under
four minutes so that doesn’t seem to be that much of a concern. I think we have to realize that a
slight inconvenience has to be sacrificed for a neighborhood ambiance and a community. That is
why I am willing to consider the Mixed Measures Plan. Also the performance standards really
insure that we keep looking at this and look at the level of service issues at the intersections on
Lytton that may be negatively affected. Then we go back and look at it. I would even suggest
the Modified Mixed Measures it might be a little bit more cost effective because there is less you
have to do initially but that may be going a little bit more toward the closures that some of my
City of Palo Alto Page 50
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
fellow Commissioners would not like. So that is why I would prefer the Mixed Measures at this
time.
Vice-Chair Cassel: Karen.
Commissioner Holman: There have been some very good comments made and I think largely
the comments of Commissioner Packer are the ones that I concur with the most. I have concerns
as I stated earlier and as Commissioner Bialson mentioned I have real concerns about Stanford
Electric and what this plan might do, even this revised plan, to its viability. I am concerned that
outreach wasn’t made to them and that they may not have commented but I am concerned that
outreach wasn’t made to them. We pretty much know that most retail relies a fair degree on pass
by traffic so I have real concerns about that. I don’t know that I could support that no left turn
during the peak hours when there would be the most traffic. It is kind of counter-intuitive to
trying to reduce cut-through traffic while you are still trying to provide enough traffic to support
this retail business but it has been there for a zillion years. I think the City needs to support that
operation as well.
One of the reasons that I support this as opposed to some of the other traffic calming measures
that were mentioned by others is there are parks along Palo Alto Avenue. Palo Alto Avenue is a
major cut-through. I have experienced that and witnessed it. Also this provides some other
safety features around Johnson Park. It is a way to bring some community back. The
neighborhood has spoken much to community and how much the current plan has helped. I
think this is probably a reasonable compromise.
There are some other things that I would hope that other Commissioners would consider too.
That if there are blockages that those blockages be signed. Then maybe even as a penalty clause
added to that like there are fines imposed for parking there to really try to deter people from
doing that. I think there is also probably a period of time that people living in a neighborhood
and people who are used to cutting through a neighborhood take to get used to a new plan. So
some of the things that have been witnessed as this plan has been in place are people turning
around and they are annoyed because they can’t go the way they have been accustomed to and
there is an adjustment period. Something that also came up on the walk about that we did was
the closure heights and the gateways didn’t have the effect in some cases that Staff was intending
them to or expected them to and some of that appeared to be because they weren’t visible above
cars. So I am certainly not going to try to design them but I think there could be taller features
that could be more visible from a little further distance that would be more effective. I am going
to watch with curiosity how effective the turnabouts or traffic circles are at Webster as opposed
to Byron since there are a lot of street sign or stop sign pass throughs at those locations. The
only other thing I would throw out there for Commissioners to comment on is I am dead serious
about painting the pavement around Johnson Park and it may seem like an art project but it is
traffic calming, it has been used in other communities and in other countries even as traffic
calming devices. We do have a neighborhood park here and I would like to see it tried
somewhere in this community. It has been proven in other communities and this would be a
good place to do it. It doesn’t have to cost the City money. I think it is a great opportunity for a
community project where the neighbors could get out and make a party of it in the park and paint
the pavement.
City of Palo Alto Page 51
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
Vice-Chair Cassel: General comments. I will start with Palo Alto Avenue I think that putting
closures on Palo Alto Avenue meets our goal and our natural environment goal and it has to do
with puling back from the creeks and impacting the creeks less. We are very close to those
edges and those creeks and we should not be impacting them by having traffic speeding down
then-i in many different directions. I have been watching, sort of like a busman’s holiday, every
time I go through I have been watching this neighborhood. I have been stopping and walking. I
did as the neighbors asked I walked around Lytton and Middlefield and I walked down into the
Lytton neighborhood and back up around those streets and spent time both at morning commute
and evening commute. I don’t do it every day so I only got that one day glimpse plus some other
times to get a sense of what was going on. My sense when I got through all this was to want to
go to Modified Plan without any of the turn restrictions as you might have guessed from my
questions. I am concerned that for one thing right hand mm restrictions are going to be very
hard to enforce. With the traffic so heavy coming in the morning and people are just going to
slide through. It is harder with left hand turns because you have to cross the traffic. I am
concerned that the Middlefield-Lytton intersection is going to be very heavily impacted if you
increase the traffic stops on that intersection and stop anyone at all from turning into the
neighborhood even people who use the neighborhood and make everyone go down to Lytton and
then back into the neighborhood for legitimate uses.
Obviously the bollard where Stanford Electric is at High needs to come out and needs to come
out rapidly and more rapidly than I think we have the general plan in place to go. It needs to be
done quickly. I think the closures will have more effect than you believe. The major goal of
what we have been doing and working on has been the through traffic that comes through here
and that is what I think we are addressing with the closures is the through traffic that is going
through and not all of the traffic. When we originally did this I felt that the closure at Johnson
Park was too much that we needed less closures and I still think that we need less closures. I can
go with the Mixed plan and see how it goes. But I think it is extremely important that no matter
what we do that Palo Alto Avenue remains closed.
Annette.
Commissioner Bialson: I tried to reserve some time for myself. I appreciate all of the comments
that were made and all of Staff’s time that has been put into this project. I have three points to
make. Number one, with regard to the precedent that we are setting here it was pointed out by
Pat cut-through traffic exists in every community of Palo Alto. While I see it important to
benefit the neighborhood, to improve the neighborhood ambiance as Bonnie mentioned, to sort
of bring the community back which is what Karen mentioned, I see no basis upon which we
could distinguish Downtown North from the other neighborhoods that are going to ask for
restrictions and closures. I again go back to the grid pattern of our streets being very important
and should be maintained for whether you consider mutual aid issues that I raised previously,
just the desirability of how traffic engineers would have us handle our traffic. I think you leave
it to safety issues to be the only thing that destroys the grid pattern.
Next I would like to look at item number two the traffic shifts that have occurred. I hear no
mention of the damage that is being perceived by other neighborhoods that this plan and similar
plans are going to have upon them. We are speaking of benefiting the neighborhood ambiance in
Downtown North but we are up here trying to determine how other neighborhoods are going to
be harmed. And I would some discussion on that point and I would like some input on it. So I
City of Palo Alto Page 52
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
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
think it is yery important to keep in mind and again keep in mind what would happen if we start
doing this throughout Palo Alto.
Third I think the carrot rather than the stick approach might be better here. We have Lytton not
being improved because of the trial that we have had. I think that will continue without giving
an opportunity for traffic to migrate to where it should migrate to to the arterial, which is Lytton.
I would like to see all the improvements done to Lytton. If this Commission remembers when
this was first brought before us in 2000 we asked and made a condition I believe in our
comments that Lytton be improved as much as possible before we had any street closures and
now I hear that we somehow had some mission creep or something with regard to that and we
are no longer addressing what was our primary concern back then.
Last but not least I agree with Karen, we should color the streets around Johnson Park. Enough
said.
Vice-Chair Cassel: Bonnie.
Commissioner Packer: I would like to comment on the uniqueness of Downtown North as
compared to other neighborhoods in Palo Alto and the grid pattern. I think Downtown North is
unique because it is so close to Downtown and all the commercial traffic and just the way it is
designed. Also the streets and blocks are kind of short. In comparison just think of where there
is a lot of Palo Alto, which is probably many more square acres, South Palo Alto, which doesn’t
have a grid pattern. For me to get to my daughter’s school I have to go a very circuitous route
just because of the way the creeks are and the way there are lots of cul-de-sacs. It is the way we
live and it is not any more dangerous than any other place. Perhaps these closures are going to
create something like a post-1950s neighborhood and this is an earlier kind of neighborhood to
some extent but that is not necessarily a bad thing. Whether it is Modified Mixed Measures or
Mixed Measures there aren’t that many closures and there are lots of different ways to get from
point A to point B you just have to make a turn or two instead of driving direct. So in theory
good patterns are nice but they are not absolutely necessary and you have to balance that against
the other Comp Plan goal, which is having walkable neighborhoods.
As far as diversion of traffic in other neighborhoods we asked that question and the traffic got so
disbursed from what I understand that we haven’t heard about a negative impact on other
neighborhoods. Nothing has come from Staffabout that so I don’t know if we can speculate on
that when we don’t have any data. I do agree that Lytton should be improved and that it would
be nice to explore the painting of the streets around Johnson Park. So that is just addressing your
points.
Commissioner Bialson: Just a quick response. I believe we did have other neighbors to
Downtown North come in and point out by letter and by their testimony that the impacts on them
as a result of the closures that we have created in Downtown North. So rather than speculating I
don’t think we are doing that and I don’t think we are getting the information. Thank you.
Vice-Chair Cassel: The studies showed that in the Lytton area on the other side of Middlefield
the traffic actually reduced. There was actually a reduction in traffic on that neighborhood.
Interestingly enough they came and complained about us doing this plan because they were
afraid that the traffic on Lytton would dump into their neighborhood and cause a problem. They
City of Palo Alto Page 53
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
have not come back. They have not come back and said anything or that this is helpful to them
but the numbers show that the amount of traffic in their neighborhood is down.
Commissioner Bialson: I don’t want to debate this subject. I see that Pat wants to speak though.
Commissioner Butt: Well, I will just say that for me the simple logic of passing through that
neighborhood and the east of Lytton neighborhood means that we have created an inducement
for traffic to go south of University rather than north of University. So it is not surprising that
the east Lytton would see no increase or a reduction because if the cars that formerly would go
through that neighborhood and then cut straight through Downtown North no longer can cut-
through Downtown North then they cross over University and they go up Forest or they go up
Homer. I can tell you I have done it now and I have a friend that I have surveyed on this who
lives in that Lytton Avenue neighborhood and before this closure went through he reluctantly
went down Everett because he said Lytton was so much slower than Everett and now he goes
down Forest. We have no data that has evaluated the impact on moving that traffic to the other
side of University. I would say that it doesn’t surprise me in the least that many of the residents
and a very good chance that a majority of the residents of this neighborhood would feel very
favorably about what has been provided to them as a result of street closures. I would also say
that there are a great many neighborhoods in the City that are part of our traditional grid pattern
that the Comprehensive Plan supports retention of that grid pattern despite what Commissioner
Packer may have an inclination toward and that those neighborhoods would favor that. I have
lived on two of them. On Byron Street down toward Embarcadero I can tell you that at peak
commute hours anecdotally we probably had 80% cut-through traffic there. It is an easy way to
avoid one of the worst intersections in the City, which is Middlefield and Embarcadero. People
on those streets would very definitely favor that. The street I live on right now, on Harriet Street,
we get a tremendous amount of cut-through traffic to avoid the same intersection and traffic that
is not neighborhood traffic that goes and uses the facilities at Lucie Stem. I would be willing to
bet that a majority of people in my neighborhood would support closing their street and tradeoff
the inconvenience of their car route being greater in order to have a street that they can have
almost no traffic impact on. It is just not surprising that many, many neighborhoods in this city
would welcome virtual closure.
When we have a neighborhood and a street system we really have four sets of stakeholders. We
have the people who reside in there and that is undoubtedly the number one stakeholders. Then
we have a second set of stakeholders who are other neighborhoods who would potentially
adversely impacted by this, so the surrounding neighborhoods. Then we have a third set of
stakeholders who are all the other citizens of Palo Alto who share for the maintenance of these
streets and view their use of the streets now restricted as a result. Then a fourth set which is
other non-Palo Altoans who use this who shop here or nearby and work in these areas. Those are
all stakeholder groups who would have a voice and I would give primacy to the neighborhood
itself. Now we haven’t worked through also a proper policy for determining an impetus to allow
closures. This was done somewhat on an ad hoc basis and we have seen now that many, many
cities require super majorities and supel: majorities of all resident households in order to petition
the consideration of a closure. Then it becomes a policy decision of a Council to do so. We
didn’t go through that process of determining it. We have not got in our Neighborhood Traffic
Calming Program a bunch of policies that if we applied them to this circumstance we wouldn’t
put this closure in. I think this Commission needs to reflect on whether we are supporting
something that is contrary to what we have adopted as a citywide best policy and practice.
City of Palo Alto Page 54
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
I have some more points but I will let other people speak and than I would like to be able to
revisit.
Vice-Chair Cassel: I can tell you that I ride along in a van when I go to work and I have to go
meet at a central location and then go all over the region. When we go north we go around and
up and through this neighborhood and we no longer go down Everett and neither does the great
big blue bus that used to go down through that neighborhood. So there are a lot of businesses
that are using Lytton instead of the immediate neighborhood that shouldn’t have been in that
neighborhood. So if we are doing something and a lot of people knew how to get through that
neighborhood, I only drive rarely, so people go where they are going and that is what they know
and they go down Everett. So I know that that was a cut-through for business.
Commissioner Burr: If our choices were do nothing or closures then we have a different
decision. But those aren’t our choices. Our choices are, I don’t think this Commission would
consider doing nothing for that neighborhood. We believe that this neighborhood needs and
deserves traffic calming. It rates among the highest in the City in deserving that. So then our
choices are what sorts of measures. So let’s not put a false choice here of do nothing or street
closures. It is closures of the existing type, it is the Mixed Measures or it is a variety of traffic
calming measures. Then what we have to do is ask ourselves if we have other calming measures
that are more in consistency with the Comprehensive Plan and with our Neighborhood Traffic
Calming Program would it meet objectives that we have.
I frankly have problems with defining the objective as reduction of cut-through traffic. That is a
means to what should have been the objective. The objective should be safety, pedestrian and
vehicular safety in this neighborhood. We went through that same discussion in the
Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program. It shouldn’t be cut-through by way of exaggeration if
there were very few residents on the street and only a modest number of vehicles that were cut-
through but a very high percentage of the car trips on the street that were cut-through. What
would it matter? If it is a low traffic volume street and cars are driving safely then that should be
the objective not whether it is cut-through or not I think that was a bad basis to look at this issue.
Let’s look at providing pedestrian and vehicular safety and how it balances against the other
issues that we are weighing it against.
Vice-Chair Cassel: Pat, in our Traffic Calming program we do have a statement that when we
have overwhelming cut-through traffic we will use barriers.
Commissioner Burt: I believe that is not how it is stated. And that it is only as a last resort and I
think Annette is looking it up.
Vice-Chair Cassel: Karen, did you have something to say?
Commissioner Holman: Yes I do have a few comments. One is I am not trying to bail on
anything here just one as a reminder I wasn’t here to discuss .this when it came to the
Commission first so I don’t have the benefit of being a part of that discussion. I agree with Pat
about the four categories of people who are affected by this type of an action. I also think that
this neighborhood is to a fair degree pretty unique in that it has E1 Camino traffic and Stanford
traffic that just shoot right into this neighborhood and I think that’s a unique aspect of this
City of Palo Alto Page 55
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
neighborhood as opposed to say University south. I wish we did have numbers for University
south to see if there has been an impact here. There have been some individuals at least who
have said that they use other streets besides Lytton. But we don’t have that information is that a
reason to go forward it is a hard call. It is a hard one.
I would like to know if there is a timeline or any kind of prognostication about when
improvements could be made on Lytton Avenue.
Vice-Chair Cassel: Did we have that in our discussion when that would happen?
Commissioner Bialson: No and with respect to the issue that was just being raised does the
Commission want me to mention policy T-33 of our Comp Plan. The full text of it is, "Keep all
neighborhood streets open unless there is a demonstrated safety or overwhelming through traffic
problem and there are no acceptable alternatives or unless a closure would increase of alternative
transportation modes." I don’t think we have explored acceptable alternatives.
Vice-Chair Cassel: Did you want to say anything, Bonnie?
Commissioner Holman: IfI could just follow up on that. It is almost a question back to Staff
that traffic calming measures, how much do they really reduce cut-through or pass-through
traffic? We did have a great increase in this neighborhood of cut-through traffic. Is that
anything that you can even answer?
Vice-Chair Cassel: Let’s see if we know the answers up here before we take it back to Staff.
Commissioner Burr: If we take the east Lytton Avenue neighborhood notion that they had 65 to
70% cut-through traffic prior to fairly modest traffic calming measures without closures. Then
they had a result of a total reduction of 20% of their volume as a result of those measures. That
means that they had approximately a 30% reduction in the cut-through traffic and that is without
the turn restrictions, which for peak hours, which despite the discussions we had tonight three
years ago that was a very prime consideration. The turn restrictions would have a very
significant additional impact. So the volume reduction of total volume might be in the
neighborhood of 30 %, the cut-through traffic might be 40% or so. This neighborhood at the
time the trial went in actually had dropped below the Staff established threshold for determining
overwhelming cut-through traffic. So then it would have a 40% reduction in that. I still go back
to the point that the traffic calming measures provide much more safety than they do merely
volume reduction. So if we have a 30% or 40% reduction in cut-through traffic as a result of a
mixture of measures we would have better than a 50% reduction in safety. That is significant.
I’ll tell you that is a level that a lot of neighborhoods in this City would welcome. I would
support additional costs associated with those measures.
That was one of the reasons right from three years ago that a lot of other altematives were ruled
out was because of cost. Well what have been the costs of this program and the Staff time and
the City labor and all that has gone into this hullabaloo overgoing through what has been a
closure? I will give another example on every time we overshoot on our measures. We had the
same sort of thing on Churchill which when it was allowed to go in a direction of street closures
we had a very divisive outcome with neighboring streets that were experiencing overflow and
they ended up not getting any measures when in fact they deserve some good traffic calming
City of Palo Alto Page 56
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
1 measures. That is another very sever problem in our City. I think we have a problem in that we
2 allow a problem to grow and grow and then we overshoot on the correction. The point that we
3 had talked about three years .ago was consistent with the Comp Plan put in substantive traffic
4 calnfin." g measures. If over time we see that is inadequate to address the needs of the
5 neighborhood then closure is something we should consider but we have screwed up the
sequence. We are backwards. The way that we are supposed to do it per the Comp Plan and the
way I fully agree is you put in good measures first and evaluate how effective they have been
and look at ratchefing it upward as opposed to overshooting it and then having a big hullabaloo.
Commissioner Holman: I just want to follow up to Pat and I am truly not trying to be
argumentative here just the way I look at it is Lytton east of Middlefield I do view differently
because it is a very short stretch and I used to work on Lytton so I am really, really familiar with
that route. It is just so easy. You don’t have a big funnel offofE1 Camino there it is just very,
very easy to avoid Lytton on the other side by going down Middlefield. It is such an easy thing
to skirt. I think that is an easy one to explain why the traffic volumes reduced that much. I could
be wrong and I am happy have anybody else comment on that but that is my suspicion on that.
Vice-Chair Cassel: Annette.
Commissioner Bialson: Thank you. I just want to go back to the point that Pat was making. I
absolutely agree with your analysis of the process that we have had here. I want to remind us all
that when we were looking at this in 2000 1 think my memory serves correctly the reason we
went to the extreme we did was we had a belief that signs don’t work because they will not be
obeyed. We are now heating that 80% of the people will obey them. I found it difficult to
believe at the time because I don’t know how many people sort of go through the calculation of
what happens if I violate the law and no one catches me and what are the odds I will be caught at
some point or other. I think we started with a misapprehension and a lack of understanding of
what the alternatives were. I hate to now feel that somehow we have created something that we
are stuck with. The process was flawed. I am willing to admit it and accept responsibility for it
and I don’t want to go on because of that continuing to make flawed decisions.
Vice-Chair Cassel: Annette, the intersection at Lytton and Middlefield I was there. It clears and
it moves at least most of the time. A great deal of the traffic that was coming out of the
neighborhood was coming out obviously at five o’clock at night onto Lytton was parked into that
neighborhood. So part of the problem is parked in the neighborhood and shouldn’t be. But that
intersection has had improvements. It has not had its peak improvements but they have in fact
made two left hand mm movements at Lytton as it is pulling up Middlefield towards Menlo
Park. So that a great deal of traffic turns that way and they do have a dedicated tight hand tum at
Middlefield that goes down Lytton. In the moming that traffic is moving, moving, moving,
moving. It happens to be that with that closure that is now at Byron and Everett that people
come into that and go down to come back out onto Lytton and it actually takes more time than
the other way. It was very interesting. I was going out onto Middlefleld and around the comer
and they were coming in and then tumed down towards Lytton and I beat them so that the traffic
was actually faster to go around the comer. But improvements have been made along Lytton
they just aren’t to the max that they can make them. They have done some changes. They did
do some changes at the other comer they just haven’t maxed it yet. I think these signs are going
to push everything down to that comer. Bonnie.
City of Palo Alto Page 57
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
Commissioner Packer: Phyllis, I would like to go back to what you were saying you were
inclined to be in favor of. Was it the Modified Mixed Measures Plan but without the turn
restrictions? Was that what you were referring to?
Vice-Chair Cassel: Actually yes that is what I was referring to which of course is exactly the
opposite of where Annette and Pat are.
Commissioner Packer: I understand that. I am intrigued by your concern about the no tum
restrictions and the more I look at the Modified Mixed Measures and the proposed location of the
closures I come to realize that maybe those aren’t necessary if you also have closures especially
the no left turn that would effect Stanford Electric. I don’t see why you would need a no right
turn at Everett from Middlefield if there were a closure just a block away. So in the interest of
moving the discussion along, Karen, did you want to say something?
Commissioner Holman: Never mind. I wanted to comment on what you were just saying but
never mind.
Vice-Chair Cassel: When you have a good discussion sometimes you don’t need a Chair. Go
ahead Karen.
Commissioner Packer: Do you want to comment on what I was saying?
Commissioner Holman: No, I answered my own question.
MOTION
Commissioner Packer: In the interest of moving a discussion along I am going to make a motion
so that we can consider recommending the Modified Mixed Measures Plan without the turn
restrictions on at least Everett as my proposal at this point.
In speaking to that I would like to address the comments that Pat and Annette have made. I
agree with what Pat and Annette have said. Those were all important perspectives on the policy
and the history of what has happened. However, because some of the closures that are in the
Modified Mixed Measures Plan are already in existence and the neighborhood has experienced it
whether that was a good idea to put them in or not in the first place they are there and they have
had the obvious effect of reducing the cut-through traffic which is what one of the goals was. I
am not convinced that the traffic calming measures that are in place in the City today really are
very effective in traffic calming. The Louis Road speed tables for example I go over them every
day and I have to confess they don’t slow me down that much. That is just the way they are
because the ones that become acceptable are really not that effective. Calming measures are nice
when you really want spot traffic calming. Changing the ambiance of this neighborhood through
closures which is what was the goal whether you call it calming or diversion of traffic that had a
positive impact on the neighborhood and I would hate to take that away.
So anyway, my motion is to have us recommend the Modified Mixed Measures Plan without the
turn restrictions on Everett and to approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration except to have
Staff reconsider the wording of performance measure six and to also consider painting streets
around Johnson Park and to move with all due speed to remove the closure that is affecting
City of Palo Alto Page 58
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
40
41
42
43
45
46
47
48
Stanford Electric without waiting for a final, if this has to go through a lot of iterations after we
review this, if there is a way to get that removed sooner that would be great.
Vice-Chair Cassel: Do I have a second?
Commissioner Holman: Would you consider doing the Mitigated Negative Declaration as a
separate motion so we could discuss them separately?
Commissioner Packer: Okay.
SECOND
Commissioner Holman: Then I will second your motion for the Plan.
Vice-Chair Cassel: Is there any further discussion? Pat.
Commissioner Burt: I want to make three points. One I got to disagree that our objective was to
create a certain ambiance in the neighborhood. I will use as an example that we have created
that. I don’t dispute it. When we did our Planning Commission walk through of the
neighborhood I had a heck of a time getting the Commission and the Staff with us to walk on the
sidewalks we were walking down the middle of the street every time. Why? Because we have a
concept intuitively we had a concept that it is now a neighborhood that is safe to walk down the
middle of the street. Well I don’t think that should be the objective and the goal. I certainly
understand that almost any neighborhood that is offered that would welcome it. That is not hard
to understand.
Second, I do think that despite that perception there is some real unintended safety impacts,
negative impacts, that have occurred here that have not been evaluated properly and that really
concern me. I think we have fewer cars and more of them that are doing very unsafe actions and
I don’t think it is things that are going to just go away as a result of people experiencing these
closures more. I think we have to be looking at those actions and properly evaluating them and I
don’t think we have yet.
Finally, I will just say that I think the turn restrictions are a very cost effective approach. They
are passive, they are cheap and if they achieve and 80% compliance I don’t care that much
whether 20% of the people are risking getting a ticket. I care that 80% stop cutting through the
neighborhood in those periods. That is what really matters 80% of the people who would make
that turn. So I am kind of at a loss as to why it looks like a majority of the Commission doesn’t
want to do something that is low cost, high value for whatever reasons and there is second
benefit to that that we haven’t been talking about and that is the safety on those major arterials.
Primarily the restriction of left turns which are the unsafe measure if anything I would have been
interested in exploring more with Staff left turn restrictions from Middlefield rather than the right
tumbut I certainly think the left turn from Alma not only benefits the neighborhood it benefits.
the traffic safety on Alma. So I think a measure that has the most merit has among the least
support among Commissioners.
Vice-Chair Cassel: Annette.
City of Palo Alto Page 59
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
45
46
47
48
Commissioner Bialson: I agree with everything Pat has said and in addition I am sure everyone
has heard me but I am going to say it again for the record and for the Council’s use, I still think
there is a question with regard to response time in an emergency that is bigger than just what can
be responded to by the local fire department location or emergency vehicles responding, and I
am sigeaking of ambulances, etc. I think it is wonderful that we give this information out to other
communities. I don’t think they necessarily have that in mind when all of a sudden they get
called for mutual aid. They don’t look up the map. They don’t think of the map they just get on
the street and say grid street and they assume that it is something that they can go through. I
think that is part of why we have a Comprehensive Plan that raises a very high bar for us to have
closures. I don’t see this as being justified to change the ambiance, to do anything that I have
heard of that we should justify a closure. Remember we do have to follow the Comprehensive
Plan in those few occasions where it is clear and is not internally inconsistent it is clear with
regard to what closures need by way of proof of benefit to justify the destruction of the street
system.
Vice-Chair Cassel: Karen I don’t think I gave you a chance to respond to your second. I am
sorry.
Commissioner Holman: You didn’t so thanks. I have to say this is one of the more complicated
and difficult issues that has come before us since I have been on the Commission. I agree with
much of what Pat and Annette have said and at the same time I still come down with the
Modified Mixed Measure Plan with the changes that have been suggested as being the best
solution here. What I am finding more comfort in is that there are some modifications that can
be made down the line if they need be. I don’t think in this situation that there is a right answer.
I really don’t. That is why I am willing to support the motion for the Modified Mixed Measures
Plan as amended by Bonnie. It is the best solution that I see given a very difficult situation.
Vice-Chair Cassel: I should make a couple of comments. The ambiance is nice but I believe this
is overwhelming cut-through traffic from my experience as well as the numbers I’ve seen and the
direction that traffic goes. I think that that’s the reason that I believe I am within the
Comprehensive Plan guidelines to make that decision. I believe that the ambulance services will
manage quite nicely and the police and the fire in this neighborhood. It is relatively small and
they manage to protect all of us in South Palo Alto, which has something even worse, and that is
cul-de-sacs everywhere you turn. Now at the end of a cul-de-sac you turn around a little easier
but in terms of ambulances finding us and getting to us in adequate amounts of time it is the
same situation. It is a road closure. People drive down our street come to the end look around
and turn around and go back out to Middlefield Road. I don’t live on a cul-de-sac but they get
there and they think I am they just can’t cut through to Cowper or over to Alma from the street I
am on. So in terms of safety of the vehicles getting there when they need to, in fact one of the
numbers that is impressive is that the number of police calls for other incidents went down in this
neighborhood. I was quite struck by that.
I think the traffic has disbursed and I think Pat is probably right some of it has gone south but it
has gone other places and it has gone south on E1 Camino as well.
There are a number of reasons and I do appreciate that there will be other ways to assess this as
we go through that if it is too much we will be able to let it up with the evaluations that we are
doing. Thank you. Do you want to make another statement before I call the motion?
City of Palo Alto Page 60
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
40
41
42
43
45
46
47
48
1
2 Commissioner Bialson: I just want to point out that the streets in South Palo Alto are known to
3 be not grid streets but when someone looks at the map in this area or when you have emergency
4 vehicles come in they expect grid streets not to have closures. It is not like a cul-de-sac. I don’t
5 think that that analysis that was made with all due respect can be applied to grid streets that all of
a sudden have a closure in the middle of them.
Vice-Chair Cassel: Do you want to make another statement?
Commissioner Burt: Yes. I will try and be brie£ In our Comp Plan it talks about retaining our
grid pattern as well. It recognizes that South Palo Alto does not have a grid pattern and North
Palo Alto does. But two other quick points. One I am concerned that the Mixed Measure Plan is
going to have another set of unintended consequences. As I look at the logical pattern, which I
would go through that neighborhood and I think most drivers end up finding simple logic, on
what they do I wouldn’t want to be living on Hawthorne between Hawthorne and Bryant. I
expect we will probably see an increase on the bike path street between Hawthorne and Everett
on Bryant and also potentially increased traffic around Johnson Park. So I think we are going to
have some unintended consequences.
I would just like to reiterate the thing I said three years ago and said earlier tonight, if we went
through a process of aggressive traffic calming and it did not adequately meet reasonable
- objectives for providing significant calming and safety for the neighborhood I would be willing
to then consider a closure as a last resort which is what I believe is the practice that is in the
Comp Plan and our Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program and I would follow that and ! would
be open to it in all honesty. I don’t think we have gone through that sequence this process that is
backwards and for those reasons and the others that I stated earlier I will oppose the motion.
Vice-Chair Cassel: Before I call the motion? Another statement? Go ahead.
Commissioner Packer: I just want to clarify my statement about ambiance being misconstrued.
That is just encompassing a whole lot of other concepts that are in the Comprehensive Plan about
preserving neighborhoods, making our streets safe for pedestrians and bicyclists and that is
essentially what I meant by that. So that I was saying that in addition to T-33 which I understand
exists and I remember being one of the people when I was on CPAC supporting T-33 very
strongly. This is a special case and that is why I am proposing the Mixed Measures Plan with the
changes.
MOTION PASSED (3-2-0-1, Commissioners Bialson and Burt voted no with Commissioner
Griffin not participating due to conflict)
Vice-Chair Cassel: Okay I would like to call the question and then go on to the EIR. May I
please?
All those in favor please say aye. (ayes) All opposed? (nays) That is three yeas, Packer, Cassel
and Holman, two nays Pat Burt and Annette Bialson and Michael Griffin not participating.
Now let’s have some discussion on the EIR if we want to or have we discussed it enough?
Discussed it enough? You wanted to say something Karen?
City of Palo Alto Page 61
1
2 Commissioner Holman: Yes. The reason that I wanted it to be a separate motion to approve this
3 or not was because the measures sometimes of pulling back seem to be pretty extreme. Also on
4 2a, on page A-2, it talks about a speed hump per block. I was interested in why speed hump as
5 opp6sed to speed table. I know there is some cost difference but why speed hump as opposed to
6 speed table? It is the fourth line down in 2a.
7
8 Mr. Kott: Speed humps are more effective at speed reduction than speed tables.
9
10 Commissioner Holman: Then there was the comment that was made earlier about 6a, that
11 change that was suggested.
12
13 Was there any place else that Staff might consider something other than removal elements to
14 consider a speed hump or a speed table or something of that nature?
15
16 Vice-Chair Cassel: Did you want to answer that, Joe?
17
18 Mr. Kott: We are coming to a consensus here. We would be willing to consider, as I understand
19 your question, rather than just plain removal of barrier with nothing in its place we would
20 consider putting in a speed table in its place, yes.
21
22 Commissioner Holman: It is just a comment on the Mitigated Negative Declaration so the
23 process for that doesn’t mean it would be a recirculation it is just a comment on the Mitigated
24 Negative Declaration, correct?
25
26 Mr. Kott: We will have to defer to our attorney.
27
28 Vice-Chair Cassel: What she is saying is she is making a comment on the Mitigated Negative
29 Declaration that comment is just added to the comments that go to City Council on that.
30
31 MOTION
32
33 Commissioner Holman: I would make a motion to approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration
34 with the comments just mentioned included in the approval of it.
35
36 SECOND
37
38 Commissioner Packer: I’ll second it.
39
40 MOTION PASSED (5-0-0-1, Commissioner Griffin not participating due to conflict)
41
42 Vice-Chair Cassel: is there any other discussion? All those in favor please say aye. (ayes)
43 Opposed? That is five to nothing with Michael Griffin absent due to conflict.
44
45 Commissioner Holman: I would like to make a comment and maybe a suggestion.
46
47 Vice-Chair Cassel: Well we have some other issues here I want to make sure that if anyone had
48 any other questions related to authorizing making changes in the plan so if it doesn’t work we
City of Palo Alto Page 62
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
45
46
47
48
know that Staffis doing it and that’s acceptable? The monitoring to be done is in that report.
That’s okay we didn’t talk about that specifically. And when should any changes take place and
the comments in the Staff Report are acceptable for that with everyone?
Oka3~, now did you mean an additional comment on something else related to this item?
Commissioner Holman: I guess it come later as comments.
Vice-Chair Cassel: Okay, then let’s bring it in later as comments.
We have two sets of minutes that we need to review.
Ms. Ancel: I’m sorry one last comment nobody made reference to the resolution. I am assuming
in your motion on passing the Modified Mixed Measures Plan that that would incorporate all the
findings that are in the resolution with respect to
Vice-Chair Cassel: Do we need a motion to say that?
Ms. Ancel: the resolution includes approval of the Modified Mixed Measures Plan as you
moved earlier as well as the Mitigated Negative Declaration and it includes findings related to
the Mitigated Negative Declaration.
Vice-Chair Cassel: Give us a page number. What you mean is the resolution related to the
Mitigated Negative Declaration.
Ms. Ancel: It covers both recommending approval to the Council of the Modified Mixed
Measures Plan as well as recommending to the Council that they adopt the Mitigated Negative
Declaration.
Vice-Chair Cassel: Okay.
Commissioner Packer: Well our motion was intended to well the resolution that is before us
relates to the Mixed Measures Plan.
Ms. Ancel: We would modify it.
MOTION
Commissioner Packer: You would modify it so the motion would be to approve the resolution
taking into account our recommendation for the Modified Mixed Measures Plan as amended
with the elimination of two of the turn restriction signs. Is that what you want us to do? Is that
the motion? Does that work for you? So moved
Vice-Chair Cassel: I need a second.
SECOND
Commissioner Holman: I will re-second it.
City of Palo Alto Page 63
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
45
46
47
48
MOTION PASSED (3-2-0-1, Commissioners Bialson and Burr voted no with Commissioner
Griffin not participating due to conflict)
Vice:Chair Cassel: Okay is there any other discussion? All those in favor please say aye. (ayes)
All those opposed? (nays) That passes with three yeas, Packer, Cassel and Holman and two
nays Bialson and Butt with Commissioner Griffin absent and conflicted.
Commissioner Holman: Does Stafftake the comments? It just now occurs to me did you want
them in the motion about the closures and the height of those and the signage and painting
around the park? You will just take those as comments and they don’t have to be in the motion?
Mr. Emslie: They will be included in the CMR that goes to the Council.
Commissioner Holman: Thank you.
Vice-Chair Cassel: Okay let’s go the minutes. We have two sets of minutes to approve. The
first one is on Wednesday, January 14, 2004. Do I have a motion to approve?
APPROVAL OFMINUTES: Approval of minutes for the Special Meetings of January 14 and
21, 2004.
MOTION
Commissioner Packer: So moved.
Vice-Chair Cassel: Second?
SECOND
Commissioner Bialson: Second.
MOTION PASSED (5-0-0-1, Commissioner Griffin absent)
Vice-Chair Cassel: All those in favor? (ayes) That passes five to nothing with Commissioner
Griffin absent.
We have another set of minutes for Wednesday, January 21, 2004. Do I have a motion to pass
those minutes?
MOTION
Commissioner Bialson: So move&
Vice-Chair Cassel: Second?
City of Palo Alto Page 64