HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-11-22 City Council (6)City of Palo Alto
City Manager’s Report
TO:
FROM:
HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
CITY MANAGER
® 7
DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND
COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT
DATE:NOVEMBER 22, 2004 CMR: 486:04
SUBJECT:RECOMMENDED TRIAL IMPLEMENTATION OF THE
SELECTED TRAFFIC CALMING PLAN IN THE COLLEGE
¯ TERRACE AREA
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that City Council approve the following:
1.Adopt the project’s Mitigated Negative Declaration (At(achment H of staff report to the
Planning and Transportation Commission);
2.Direct staff to implement the physical traffic calming devices shown on Plan A
(Attachment B of staff report to Commission) on a trial basis in the College Terrace
area; and,
3.Evaluate and.report on the effeetiveness of Plan A within one year of completion of its
construction.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
This project was initiated in response to a request ~signe~l by over 225-College Terrace
residents who raised theirconcerns regarding cut-through traffic and excessive speeding.
The request was submitted to the City Council on September 27, 1999. Development of the
College Terrace Traffic Calming Plan was funded by the Stanford University General Use
Permit (GUP). Design and implementation of the Plan will be fully funded by the
mitigations fund of 2475 Hanover Street. The Planning and Transportation Commission
requested that the subject condition of approval be stated in the staff report to Council. The
approval condition states: "The applicant shall pay the City the sum of $150,000.00 before
commencement of new construction at 2475 Hanover Street to be used by the City to assist
with traffic calming improvements in the College Terrace neighborhood." This condition of
approval (No. 11.4) was adopted by City Council on February 19, 2002.
CMR:486:04 Page 1 of 5,
Following a comprehensive process of data collection, traffic analysis, identification
alternative traffic calming plans and community consultation, the devices shown on Plan A
(Attachment B of staff report to the Commission) were selected and are now recommended
for trial implementation. The selected Plan does not include any additional closures and
employs less restrictive physical traffic calming devices namely traffic circles, speed tables
and raised crosswalks as listed below:
Stanford Avenue: From east to west along Stanford Avenue, Plan A recommends a
speed table west of Wellesley Street and a raised crosswalk just west of Oberlin
Street. The Plan also recommends speed tables west of Amherst Street and
Dartmouth Street.
College Avenue: Four traffic circles at the intersections of College Avenue with Yale
Street, Oberlin Streets Hanover Street, and Columbia Street.
Cambridge Avenue: A traffic circle at the intersection of Cambridge Avenue/Yale
Street.
California Avenue: A raised crosswalk at the west side of its intersection with
Wellesley Street, and a speed table west of Princeton Street.
Detailed description of the College Terrace Traffic Calming Project, its background,
performed analysis, developed alternative plans, and costs breakdown of selected alternative
is provided in the staff report to Commission (Attachment B).
COMMISSION REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The Planning and Transportation Commission reviewed and unanimously recommended the
trial implementation of this project during the Commission’s meeting held on October 13,
2004. Minutes of the Commission’s meeting are provided under Attachment C.
Commission member Bonnie Packer requested that the staff report to Council note the
following:
Relevant- section of the ~City’s Comprehensive Plan that illustrates consistency with
the project; and,
Performance measures to be employed during the project’s trial period that are
described in the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) document.
The City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan encourages the application of traffic calming.
Policy T-34 of the Comprehensive Plan states: "Implement traffic calming measures to
slow traffic on local and collector residential streets and prioritize these measures over
congestion management. Include traffic circles and other traffic calming devices among
these measures."
The recommended one-year trial period will be utilized to monitor the project in terms of its
effectiveness and level of community acceptance, as well as in terms of any potential
CMR:486:04 Page 2 of 5
impacts and possible corrective measures. The MND developed for the trial implementation
of this project (detailed in Attachment H of staff report to the Commission) covers
performance measures controlling potential projects’ impacts as summarized below:
With regard to short-term impacts during project’s construction, the MND identified
mitigations covering truck movements to and from the neighborhood, construction
hours, dust control and other construction specifications.
Pursuant to the guidelines of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District
(BAAQMD), the project should not cause deterioration in the operational level of
service of the two signalized intersections of Stanford Avenue/Escondido Road and
Stanford Avenue/Hanover Street during either of the AM or PM peak hours. Should
any significant deterioration is detected, appropriate corrective actions will be taken
that could include improvements in signal timing and phasing plans.
In compliance with the City’s Neighborhood Traffic Cahning Program (NTCP), the
plan should not cause significant traffic diversion impacts on neighboring streets.
Significant traffic diversion is identified by a 25 percent increase in traffic volume on
local and!or collector streets with "before" counts of less than 2500 vehicles per day
(vpd), and more than 10-percent increase on local streets with a "before" count of
2500 vpd or greater. In the event that monitoring shows substantial traffic
diversions, corrective actions will be taken that could be removing, relocating~ or
replacing one or more of the constructed devices.
The traffic calming plan should not significantly impact response rates of emergency
services. For example, travel times for Fire Department calls within and near the
College Terrace neighborhood will not exceed the department’s mission goals of 4
minutes for 90 percent of fire and basic medical responses, and 6 minutes for 90
percent of advanced medical responses (paramedics). Also, establishment of the
recommended traffic calming devices should not increase the demand for police
protection services nor substantially delay response times within the College Terrace
neighborhood. The Police Department has a 3-minute response time goal for
emergency calls. In the event that monitoring shows substantial increases in response
travel times, the necessary changes will be applied that could include removal,
relocation, or replacement of one or more of tl~e traffic calming devices contained in
the Plan.
Additional Crosswalks
The Planning and Transportation Commission also requested that staff investigate the
feasibility of establishing additional pedestrian/sch0ol crosswalks across Stanford A~cenue,
particularly at Wellesley Street and Oberlin Street. It should be noted that the establishment
of a pedestrian/school crosswalk at an uncontrolled location could give pedestrians a false
sense of security. Transportation staff typically establishes a pedestrian/school crosswalk at
CMR:486:04 Page 3 of 5
stop or signal controlled intersection approach. The establishment of a crosswalk could also
be considered at a physical device (such as a refuge center median, or a speed table)
constructed to increase motorists’ awareness/visibility of pedestrians and improve crossing
safety.
From site observations, Stanford Avenue is an east-west collector roadway bordering the
north side of the College Terrace area, This collector street has two vehicular travel lanes
and bike lanes. Curb-side parking is allowed only on the south side of the roadway. A
pedestrian sidewalk is also provided on the south side only. Pedestrian crosswalks across
Stanford Avenue are established on the easterly and westerly legs of the intersection of
Stanford Avenue/Yale Street, which is controlled by an all-way stop control. Marked school
crossings of Stanford Avenue are provided on the easterly leg of the intersection of
Escondido Road/Stanford Avenue and westerly leg of Hanover Street/Stanford Avenue.
Both of the intersections of Escondid0 Road/Stanford Avenue and Hanover Street/Stanford
Avenue are signalized. School crosswalks are also painted across Stanford Avenue on the
easterly and westerly legs of its intersection with Bowdoin Street, which is controlled by an
all-way stop control. Each of the intersections of Stanford Avenue/Wellesley Street and
Oberlin Street/Stanford Avenue is a four-legged intersection with stop signs only on the two
minor approaches (i.e., only on Wellesley Street and Oberlin Street, respectively).
During staff’s site evaluation, a considerable amount of pedestrian traffic to and from
Escondido Elementary School was observed using the sidewalk on the south side of
Stanford Avenue and crossing at the signalized intersections of Stanford Avenue with
Escondido Road and Hanover Street was noted. Some pedestrians also choose to cross
Stanford Avenue at Yale Street, then travel along the frontage road that runs parallel to
Stanford Avenue within the Stanford Campus. This frontage road has two travel lanes with
available side shoulders used for 90 degree angle parking. There is a paved sidewalk
provided along the north side of this frontage road.
The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) indicates that crosswalks
should be marked at intersections where there is a substantial conflict between vehicular and
pedestrian movements. The MUTCD criteria for establishing an all-way stop control and
associated analvsis are provided under Attachment A.
It has been concluded from the performed MUTCD analysis that the establishment of an all-
way stop control is not presently warranted at either of the intersections of Stanford
Avenue/Wellesley Street, or Oberlin Street/Stanford Avenue. Consequently, without the
traffic calming plan, it is not recommended to paint pedestrian crosswalks across Stanford
Avenue at these evaluated intersections. The requested crosswalks can only be considered if
physical traffic calming devices are established at the intersections.
CMR:486:04 Page 4 of 5
ATTACHMENTS
A. Criteria and Analysis of All-Way Stop Control Based on Provisions of the Manual on
Uniform Traffic Control Devices.
B. Staff Report to Commission, dated October 13, 2004 (including its attachments A-J).
C. Additional correspondence received from Mr. William D. Ross dated October 13 and
November 1, 2004 (Mr. Ross’s concerns are addressed in the report to Commission
and other attached documents).
Minutes of October 13 Planning and Transportation Commission meeting
PREPARED BY:
DEPARTMENT HEAD:
HEBA
Director of Planning and
Community Environment
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
EMILY HARRISON
Assistant City Manager
cc~Traffic Advisory Committee of the College Terrace Residents’ Association
Palo Alto. Bicycle Advisory Committee
City/School Traffic Safety Committee
CMR:486:04 Page 5 of 5
ATTACHMENT A
MUTCD Criteria and Associated Analysis
A crash problem, as indicated by 5 or more reported crashes in a 12-month
period that are susceptible to correction by a multi-way stop installation.
Such crashes include right- and left-turn collisions as well as right-angle
collisions.
A review of collision history over the four-year period from January 1, 2000
to December 3t 2003 revealed that only one collision was reported at the
intersection of Stanford Avenue/Wellesley Street in March of 2000. This
collision involved two eastbound vehicles on Stanford Avenue. One of the
two vehicles was making a right-turn onto Wellesley Street, and the second
was parked along the southerly curb of the roadway. The collision history
review at the intersection of Oberlin Street/Stanford Avenue, conducted
during the ~ame four-year period, also revealed one collision. This collision
was reported in March of 2002. The collision occurred at night and similarly
involved two vehicles, one of which was parked on the south side of Stanford
Avenue. The collision history therefore does not reveal collision types that
are preventable through the establishment of an .all-way stop control. It
should also be added that the number of reported collisions is low and does.
not meet the warrant requirement.
B) Minimum volumes:
1.The vehicular .volume entering the intersection from the major street
approaches (total of both approaches) averages at least 300 vehicles per
hour for any 8 hours of an average day; and,
2.The combined vehicular,-pedestrian and bicycle volume entering the
intersection from the minor street approaches (total of both approaches)
averages at least 200 units per hour for the same 8 hours, with an average
delay to minor street vehicular traffic of at least 30 seconds per vehicle
during the highest hour, but
3 If the 85th percentile speed of the major street traffic exceeds 40 mph, the
minimum vehicular volume warrants are 70 percent of the above values.
Multi-modal traffic counts were conducted at the intersections of Stanford
Avenue/Wellesiey Street and Oberlin Street/Stanford Avenue on November
9, 2004. Results of performed counts corresponding to the all-way stop
control warrants are summarized in the following table. Volume warrants on
both, the major and minor streets should be met. As can be concluded from
College Avenue: Four traffic circles at the intersections of College Avenue with Yale Street,
Oberlin Street, Hanover Street, and Columbia Street.
Cambridge Avenue: A traffic circle at the intersection of Cambridge Avenue/Yale Street.
California Avenue: A raised crosswalk at the west side of its intersection with Wellesley Street,
and a speed.tablewest.o~fPrinceton.Street
A short description of the three physical traffic calming devices recommended for trial
implementation in the College Terrace area is as follows:
Traffic Circles: Traffic circles are circular islands placed in the middle of relatively small
residential intersections. The small circular islands could vary in diameter from
approximately 18 to 26 feet, depending on location. Based on the nature of the intersection
and design of the traffic circle, vehicles are slowed down to about 15 mph as they proceed
around the circle. Traffic circles also reduce speeds of vehicles within 100 to 200 feet before
and after the circle as drivers approach and depart the intersection. A series of traffic circles
on a street can reduce the overall vehicle speeds to between 25 mph and 30 mph, depending
on spacing between them. Traffic circles can be landscaped to enhance aesthetics within
residential areas. There are traffic circles within Palo Alto located at the intersections of
Bryant Street!Addison Avenue, Lytton Avenue/Fulton Street, and Indian Drive/Moreno
Avenue.
Speed Tables: Speed tables are formed by a gradual rise and fall in the pavement to a height
of three inches over a distance of 22 feet in the direction of travel. The central eight-foot
section is flat compared to the parabolic speed hump design (refer to comparison profile on
next page). A speed table can be used singly for the purpose of speed reduction at a certain
location, or a series of tables can be used for speed reduction along a corridor. Tables extend
with no gaps across the entire pavement width, including travel lanes, parking space and
bicycle lanes, tapering down to street grade at die edge of the gutter (leaving the gutter open
for normal drainage). Parking is not affected by the tables. Many drivers can drive over
speed tables at the residential speed limit of 25 mph. Vehicle speeds across the table are
typically 20 to 25 mph. In between, vehicular speeds could vary from about 27 to 32 mph
depending on the spacing between the .tables, as well as between the tables and stop controls.
Much of the speed reduction comes from curtailing the "outlying speeds" (i.e., the highest 15
percent of vehicle speeds), with relatively little impact on prudent drivers. The zone of speed
reduction of.a single table is approximately 200 feet on either side. Speed tables were
implemented for traffic calming on Louis Road and on Channing Avenue.
Raised Crosswalks: Palo Alto has been implementing raised crosswalks with a profile
similar to speed tables. Depending on the pedestrian crossing volume, the flat top of the
Trial Implementation of Collego Terrace TCP Page 2
table could be widened to 10 feet. White or yellow zebra markings (for pedestrian or school
crossing, respectively) are typically painted across the flat surface of the raised crosswalk.
In addition to the speed reduction effect, the raised surface level and markings increase
motorists’ awareness of the pedestrian crossing location. This can be particularly useful in
the vicinity of land uses that generate significant pedestrian traffic. For example, a raised
crosswalk was constructed to assist small children in crossing.Channing Avenue adjacent to
an elementary school ......
COMPARISON OF SPEED TABLE AND PARABOLIC SPEED
CROSSECTION PARALLEL TO ROAD
Note: For clarity, vertical scale has been enlarged compared to
horizontal scale.
Speed .... - .... Parabolic Speed
Direction of Travel
12
As will later be explained in details, the College Terrace community was consulted with regard
to a few options in addition to the now recommended physical traffic calming Plan A. One of
the optionswas to retain existing conditions as shown on Attachment A. Another option was to
implement educational and enforcement measm’es as shown on Plan B (Attachment C). An
enhanced plan, shown on Attachment D, was also reviewed and eliminated early on in the
process due to community’s concerns and high costs of plan implementation.
BACKGROUND
Residents of the College Terrace neighborhood have historically raised their concerns with
regard to cut-through traffic and speeding. These reported concerns have been attributed to the
configurations of the roadway network and surrounding land uses of Stanford campus and
research park. The concerns were first brought to the public forum at a Planning Commission
meeting on October 11, 1967 in response to a petition presented by College Terrace residents.
Since that time, a number of studies have been carried out and traffic operational and calming
measures have been implemented. In May of 1976, a detailed engineering study was developed
by George S. Nolte and Associates. This 1976 study investigated a number of alternatives
including the establishment of a frontage road along California Avenue to separate the
residential use from the collector street traffic. The most restrictive alternative investigated by
the study was the closing of all north/south streets from Williams Street to Amherst Street just
north of their intersections with California Avenue..in the 1970’s, street closures, shown on
Attachment A, were implemented at varied locations on all of the area’s north/south streets
Trial Implementation of College Terrace TCP Page 3
including Yale Street. These closures intended to eliminate the north!south connections and
associated cut-through movements between Stanford Avenue and California Avenue via the
residential neighborhood of College Terrace.
The aforementioned street closures have proven to be effective for their adjacent street
segments. However, the closures .resulted in some shifts in .traffic and added impacts on street
segments .still ~open .to traffic. T#:reques~ additi0.,nal.gssistance fi’om .t!~e City. to address cut-
through and speeding concerns, over 225. College Terrace residents signed a petition submitted
to the City Council on September 27, 1999. The petition stated "We...are deeply concerned
about the amount and unsafe nature of traffic in, around, and cutting through our neighborhood.
We perceive an alarming increase in the volume and speed of non-resident automobiles and
trucks. We enthusiastically support a pilot neighborhood traffic calming program for College
Terrace and would like such a program to begin as soon as possible."
Subsequent efforts to quantify the issues and draw attention to the need for resolution, have
included City-sponsored speed surveys, as well as intersection turning movement and segment
counts. Volunteers of the College Terrace community also assisted staff in conducting origin-
destination surveys, circulating survey letters, and publishing, detailed information on the
neighborhood’s web site (www.cttc.info) and in the.Residents’ Association newsletters. A
detailed report on existing traffic conditions in the College Terrace area was produced by
Kimley-Horn and Associates on December 30, 2003. Kimley-Horn and Associates also assisted
the community in developing alternative traffic calming plans. Additional information on data
collection and analysis, as well as on the development of traffic calming plan alternatives is
provided in later sections of this report.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
There are no Council-adopted procedures.for area-wide traffic calming projects: In general, the
initiation, planning and recommendation of the College Terrace Traffic Calming Plan are
consistent, with the Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program (NTCP) that addresses spot
treatment on a residential street.
For the College Terrace Traffic CaLming Plan, the Transportation Division staff recommend a
project trial period of one year due to the reasons listed below.
To be consistent with the second DowntownNorth Trial Traffic Calming Plan with its one-
year trial period;
o To allow the-trial implementation of the College Terrace Traffic Calming Planto experience
the different seasons along with associated changes in traffic circulation patterns and
volumes; and,
.Extending the trial period will provide sufficient thne to permit changes in driver behavior
after the project implementation, and before conducting the "after" surveys of traffic
volumes and speeds. As part of the project monitoring period, plan effectiveness will also be
Trial Implementation of College Terrace TCP Page 4
assessed through community consultation prior to considering any changes or permanent
retention of the traffic calming devices. Once all results of trial plan are available, the project
will be scheduled on the agendas of the Planning and Transportation Commission and City
Council for review and decision on permanent installation.
SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ISSUES
Traffic
The physical traffic calming devices recommended within the College Terrace area are not
expected to significantly impact the operational Levels of Service (LOS) at the nearby
signalized intersections located along E1 Camino Real. In addition, the speed table and raised
crosswalk recommended on Stanford Avenue in the vicinity of Escondido School are not
expected to impact the LOS at the two signalized intersections at Escondido Road and Hanover
Street.
Locations of the traffic calming devices were selected to be effective in reducing peak traffic
speeds and cut-through movements, without diverting significant volumes of traffic to nearby
residential .streets. These locations were selected in light of surf. ounding land uses,
configurations of roadway network, existing street closures, results of speed surveys, and
identified cut-through routes.
Parking
Speed tables and raised crosswalks do not require the prohibition of curb-side parking, and
therefore has no parking impacts. Establishment of a traffic circle at an intersection requires that
parking be prohibited for at least one car length (measured from the curb return) at all
intersection comers. This is to allow the maneuvering of vehicles on the approach and leave
sides of the traffic circle. However, this does not constitute significant parking impacts due to
the following reasons:
In general, cars are prohibited from parking too close to an intersection not to restrict
visibility at the intersection comers;
There is a comer fire hydrant at three of the five intersections with proposed traffic circles.
Location of the fire hydrants requires comer parking prohibitions; and,
As shown on Attachment B, the subject five intersections have stop signs on one or two
approaches. Section 10.36.080 of the Municipal Code allows the City Manager to sign
and!or mark any place within fifty feet of the approach to any traffic signal, boulevard stop
sign, or official electric flashing device.
Public Benefit
As shown on Figure i, maintaining speeds at or beiow the speed limit is significant and
beneficial with regard to pedestrian and cyclist safety. According to studies conducted in the
United Kingdom, a pedestrian or cyclist struck by a vehicle traveling at 20 mph has a 15 percent
Trial Implementation of College Terrace TCP Page 5
chance that the collision will be fatal. However, when the speed is 30 mph, the likelihood of a
fatality increases to 45 percent and jumps to 85 percent at 40 mph.
FIGURE 1: Vehicle Speeds vs. Fatalities
100%
90%
80%
7O%
60%
50%
40%
30%-
20%
10%
O%
20 MPH 30 MPH 40 MPH
It is expected that the construction of Plan A will reduce vehicular traffic speeds in the
College Terrace area. It will mostly affect motorists who travel at excessively high speeds.
Approximate estimates of reductions in the 85tu percentile speeds are summarized in Table 1.
The 85a percentile speed is the speed at, or below which 85 percent of motorists travel. As
shown in the table, higher speed reductions are predicted for the boundary collector streets of
Stanford Avenue and California Avenue.
Stanford Avenue
California Avenue
College Avenue
Interior North/South
Streets
29 - 37 mph
29 - 32 mph
26 - 27. mph
, 26 - 28 mph-
Four Speed Tables
Two Speed Tables
Four Traffic Circles
Traffic Circles
7- 16%
6- 10%
3 -5%
4 -7%
In addition to vehicle speeding, the College Terrace community raised their concerns with
regard to high overall traffic volumes and cut-through traffic movements. Traffic calming
devices recommended as part of Plan A target the cut-through routes in the Co.llege Terrace
area..Asa result, one of the main public benefits expected from implementing the plan is a
general reduction in traffic volumes without diverting significant volumes to nearby residential
streets. Estimated reductions in traffic volumes are summarized in Table 2.. Similar to
estimated speed reductions, higher percentages in volume reductions are expected on the
exterior collectors of S[anford and California Avenues. It should be noted that the estimated
Trial Implementation of College Terrace TCP Page 6
future volume reductions would be affected by changes in the land uses and associated traffic
generations, as well as by the levels of congestion on nearby arterial roadways.
~: ,~2, ,;,Estimat~d Re~tions m ~ameNolumes as_:a R~ult of Ieme g Plan’A:
Stanford Avenue .......
California Avenue
College Avenue
Interior North/South
Streets
,~324 -.10653..~pd.~
2503 - 7926 vpd
1507 - 2739 vpd
374- 2182 vpd
~Four~Speed Tables ~.~
Two Speed Tables
Four Traffic Circles
Traffic Circles
8%
8%
5%
5%
The aforementioned reductions in vehiclespeeds and volumes are based on studies published
in the 1999 Traffic Calming - State of the Practice sponsored by the Institute of
Transportation Engineers (ITE), and by the US Department of Transportation - Federal
Highway Administration. Predicted reductions are also based on engineering judgment and
experience with other City traffic calming projects.
Department Comments
Fire :Station 2 is located in close proximity of the College Terrace area, on the northeast
quadrant of the intersection of Hanover Street/Page Mill Road. The Fire and Police
Departments were consulted with regard to the trial construction of the physical traffic
calming devices recommended in Plan A. E-mail correspondences with the two Departments
are provided under Attachment G. Based on the Departments’ response and past projects
experience, response time of the emergency services would not be compromised by the trial
construction of the College Terrace Traffic Calming Plan.
REQUEST PROCEDURE AND COMMUNITY CONSULTATION
Although there are no approved set of guidelines for area-wide traffic calming projects, the
College Terrace community supported by its Residents’ Association attempted to follow the spot
treatment procedures as outlined in the City’s Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program (NTCP).
The project initiation and community consultation process are described as follows:
Step 1 in the NTCP: Receive Request and DetermineEligibility and Ranking.
September27, ~999: The College Terrace community submitted to City Council apetition
signed by 225 residents. The petition reported community’s concerns with regard to
increased speeds and volumes by non local traffic, as well as requested a pilot neighborhood
traffic calming program be established as soon as possible.
®October 1999: The City’s Transportation Division carried out preliminary counts of traffic
volumes and speeds in College Terrace to determine the area’ s eligibility for traffic calming.
Key results indicated that Stanford Avenue served approximately 9,600 vehicles per day,
Trial Implementation of College Terrace TCP Page 7
which is relatively high for a collector street. Review ofbackgrotmd information showed
_that traffic volume on StanfordAvenue increased by approximately 37 percent compared to
the year 1974 volume, and by 22 percent compared to the1989 volume. Collected data also
showed that the 85tu percentile speed (the-speed at or below which 85 percent of motorists
travel) on some sections of.Stanford-and California Avenues exceeds 35 mph.
December 2000.: .~ e..City showed interests in~eyaluat~gan~:~.m, i~igat~g potential impacts
associated with growth of University traffic that travels through the College Terrace area.
As a result, a $50,000 fund was provided by a second Stanford University GUP for the
purpose of undertaking a study that estimate existing and future cut-through traffic
movements in the College Terrace area. Following a selection process, Kimley Horn and
Associates was retained to perform the study and assist in the development of the traffic
calming plan.
March 2002: Fund in the amount of $150,000 was designated by the development
agreement of 2475 Hanover Street for the design and construction of a traffic calming plan
in the College Terrace area.
Step 2 in the NTCP: Determine Project Area and Noti~ Residents.
o October 1999: Based on consultation with the City, the College Terrace Traffic Committee
(CTTC) was formed and began meeting regularly, Joseph Kott, Chief Transportation
Official, met with representatives of the College Terrace community to outline the project
process and define the study area.
February27, 2000: A well-attended neighborhood meeting was held. This initial meeting
was used to notify the residents of the project and to inform them of traffic calming. The
CTTC presented its document titled "Defining the Problems". After forming smaller groups
within the meeting, different traffic calming options were discussed and resident feedback
was collected on ranking sheets.
Fall 2002: The project web site www.cttc.info was Created in order to provide residents
with an easy access to collected data, other documents, and information on project progress.
November 2003: Lead article titled "Traffic Engineers to the Rescue: Help the City and
College Terrace Develop a New Traffic Management Plan" was published in the
community’s newsletter and delivered to every College Terrace front door. Other
notification initiatives included posting neon flyers on telephone poles and placing sandwich
boards atkey,intersections. Examples of information published on the project are included
under Attachment E.
Trial Implementation of College Terrace TCP Page 8
Step 3 in the NTCP: Hold First Proiect Area Meeting.
November 1.8, 2003: The preliminary ~ea meeting that was held in February of 2000 was.
mostly to notify residents of the proj ect. In November 2003, a second area meeting was held
--at Escondido Library, which was almost full to capacity. During this meeting, Joseph Kott,
Chief Transportation Official, explained the study process and the overall City NTMP. Jim
West, of Kimley-Horn and Associates,-presented mair~fmdings of the "Existing Conditions"
-analysis with regard traffic speeds,~¥~olumes and percentages .of;Cut,through traffic. Jim
West also provided an overview of different traffic calming plan options. Residents’
questions and comments were addressed, and individual written feedback sheets were
collected.
Step 4 in the NTCP: Gather Additional Data and Hold Workin~ Group Meetings
April 2001: A general neighborhood survey requesting residents’ c0mments/concems was
delivered to all front doors in the College. Terrace area. Replies received showed some
community concern with regard to traffic issues, especially speeding.
April-May 2002: The Transportation Division conducted detailed baseline counts of traffic
volumes and speeds. The data collection was timed prior to the opening of a housing project
at Stanford University that contains 326 units for graduate students. This housing project is
located in the vicinity of the intersection of Stanford Avenue/Wellesley Street. In addition to
the vol~ne and speed counts, 56 community volunteers assisted the City in conducting
origin-destination survevs. More detailed information on data collection is provided under
the next section of the report.
January 2003: A second, traffic, specific neighborhood survey letter was delivered to all
front doors in College Terrace. Replies to the individual categories listed in the survey letter
showed that 64 percent of respondents are very concerned about speeding, 58 percent about
cut-through traffic, 57 percent about the overall volume of traffic, and 28 percent about
Stanford campus development.
August 19, 2003: A study advisory group was formed, which includes 12 residents (diverse
in age, street of residency, and length of residence). Five of the residents had not been
previously involved in the College Terrace Traffic Committee (CTTC). The advisory group
also included representatives of Stanford University and neighborhood commercial facilities
(JJ&F). The advisory group met with Joe Kott, City’s Chief Transportation Official, and Jim
West, the traffic consultant in August and October 2003, and in February 2004.
Step 5 in the NTCP: Mail plans to resi’dents and hold second project area meeting.
o March 18, 2004: The Coliege Terrace Residents’ Association (CTRA) annual meeting was
used as an additional neighborhood meeting to provide the traffic consultant with an
opportunity to present four alternatives of traffic calming plans for feedback. Three
Trial Implementation of College Terrace TCP Page 9
alternative plans were selected to be included in the community’s survey letter.
May 25, 2004: Another neighborhood meeting was held at Escondido School. This meeting
served to further inform the community about the recommended solutions and possible
associated effects. Information on the circulated survey letter, and next project steps was
also provided.
Step 6 in the NTCP: Conduct survey to determine if a trial should be implemented.
June 3, 2004: A survey letter was circulated to all residents of the College Terrace area. The
survey letter requested that residents, select one of three options: (1) Maintaining existing
conditions of traffic control devices and street closures as shown on Attachment A; (2)
Establishing Plan A that employs physical traffiC calming devices namely speed tables,
raised crosswalks and traffic circles as shown on Attachment B; or, (3) Establishing Plan B
that employs educational measures such as electronic speed signs, safety banners, traffic
watch signs, and pace cars.
A summary description of the educational measures proposed under.Plan B is provided below.
As noted earlier in the report, the traffic consultant evaluated a fourth enhanced traffic calming
alternative shown in Attachment D. This enhanced alternative was eliminated at an earlier stage
of theproject due to high implementation costs and because it raised community concerns about
the hatensity of the depIoyment of the devices. Therefore, the fourth alternative was not included
in the survey letter.
"Vcalm" Electronic Speed Limit Signs: Vcalm changeable message signs are 45" high and
28" wide, and installed about 8 feet above ground level. The Vcalm sign operates 24 hours a
day, displaying "SPEED LIMIT 25" until it detects a vehicle exceeding 25 mph and then the
sign switches to display "YOUR SPEED XX". In other words, the sign draws drivers’
attention to the speed limit relative to their traveling speeds. The sign has a high intensity
LED display that can be seen from 500 feet and up. Vcalm signs are used in Palo Alto on
Embarcadero Road, Charleston Road, Arastradero Road, Middle field Road, University
Avenue and Channing Avenue.
Traffic Safety Awareness Banners: These banners are 84" x 28" photographs of bicyclists,
pedestrians and motorists safely sharing the street right-of-way. The banners, developed
from Palo Alto’s "Share our Streets" traffic safety education campaign, are typically hung
from light poles.
Trial Implementation of College Terrace TCP Page 10
Neighborhood Traffic Watch Signs: These signs are 24" x 36, and placed within the
public right-of-way adjacent to the street in a location visible to motorists entering a
residential area in which speeding and other imprudent driver behavior is a concern. These
neighborhood watch signs have been deployed on Ross Road in Pale Alto.
NeighborhoodPace C arProgram: The Neighborhood Pace Car Program is,a citizen-based
initiative that is intended to slow traffic and reduce car use. The Pace Car Program originated
in Boise, Idaho and is being implemented in cities like Salt Lake City, Santa Cruz, Boulder,
and in Palo Alto. The Pace Car Program idea is to use cars to calm cars, merely by
encouraging motorists to abide by existing laws. The two elements of the program are a
pledge and a bumper sticker. Motorists are asked to sign a pledge and implement it in their
driving habits and lifestyles. A bumper sticker is then sent to each participant, which
identifies the participant as a pace car driver. As pace car drivers, residents become "mobile
speed humps". If they drive within the speed limit, the cars behind them will do the same.
The central core of this program is that it puts the responsibility to drive responsibly on
motorists.
Results of the resident survey conducted in June 2004, are summarized in Table 3 for the overall
College Terrace. area. Table 4 summarizes the results for only the area streets with proposed
physical traffic calming devices. All resident comments noted on the survey replies are listed in
Attachment F.
Total Number of Surveyed Households is: 828 Residences
(Excluding 5 survey cards eliminated for selection of more than one option)
Replies Plan A
%of
[
°/oof 1%of
Houses #Houses Replies
398
(Excludes the
5 eliminated
survey cards)
48%278 34%70%69
Plan B
% of % of
Houses Replies
8%17%51
Neither (Existing
Conditions)
l %of % of
Houses Replies
6%13%
More than
One
Option
#
5
(Eliminate
d from
Survey)
Trial Implementation of Co!lege Terrace TCP Page 11
,Street
Replies
~% of
# Houses
California 49 22 45% 18 37%Avenue
Cambridge " 11 6 54%4 36%Avenue
College 121 66 54%45 37%Avenue
Stanford 60 25 42% 21 35%Avenue
Yale 46 23 50% 19 41%Street
Oberlin 51 26 51% 18 35%Street
Hanover
Street 53 28 53%17 32%
Columbia 35 22
.Street .(36-1)(23 63%.19 54%
-1)
Plan A
%of .... %~f
Houses Replies
Plan B
I~"%of ..... %~6~"
Houses ! Replies
Neither (Existing
Conditions)
#.....% of % of
Houses Replies
More
than
One
Option
82%3 6%I4%1 2%
67%2 18%33%0 0%
68%9 7%!4%12 10%
84%¯ 4 7%16%0 0%
83%¯0 0%0%4 9%
69%5 10%19%3 6%
61%7 13%25%4 8%
86% 1 3% 5% 2 6%
4%0
0%O,
18%0
O%0
17%0
12%0
14%0
9%1
The College Terrace area contains residential dwellings abutting both local and collector streets.
As can be concluded from Table 3, the overall response rate for College Terrace is 48 percent,
which is relatively high for an area-wide traffic calming study. Based on replies received, a
workable community consensus (estimated 70 percent of replies) l~as been reached in favor of
the trial implementation of the physical traffic calming devices recommended in Plan A.
Table 4 summarizes the survey results only for streets with proposed physical traffic calming
devices. Similar to the overall area results, the majority of residents on each of the subject streets
voted in favor of the trial establishment of Plan A. The majority percentage varied from 61 to 86
percent on the different area streets.
DATA COLLECTION AND STUDY
Daily and peak hour traffic volumes in College Terrace have been collected periodically by the
City, with the most complete sets of counts occurring in years 1974 and 2002. In December
2003, Kimley Horn and Associates produced an existing conditions report that documents and
analyzes avaiiable data. A copy of the consultant’s report is included as Attachment i to this
report only for the Commission, but can be viewed on the City’s website at
www.cityofpaloalto.org/transportation.
Trial Implementation of College Terrace -~CP Page 12
A comparison between the 1974 and 2002 daily traffic volumes in College Terrace is illustrated
on Figure 2. As indicated in the figure, the collector streets bordering the College Terrace area,
namely Stanford and California Ayenues, experienced the greatest traffic increases. For the
interior ’streets, the most significant increases in traffic volumes were experienced along the
easterly segments of California Avenue, as well as on Yale and Hanover Streets.
FIGURE 2: Traffic Volume Comparison between Years 1974 and 2002
Traffic Volume Increases 1974-2002
Stanford (Near El Camino Real)
Stanford (Near Comell)
Stanford (Near Dartmouth)
Stanford (Near Bowdoin
California (Near El Camino Real)
California (Near Wellseley)
Califomia (Near Dartmouth)
College (Near Yale)
Coltege.(Near Hano,,~r)
Yale (near Oxford)
Yale (near Cambridge)
Williams
Comelll
Princeton
Obedin
Harvard
Hano~r
Columbia
Bowdoin
Amherst
[] 1974
[] 2002
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000
Daily Traffic VOlume
Source: Existing Conditions Report, Kimley Horn and Associates - December 2003
A total of 56 community members volunteered to conduct Origin-Destination (O-D) surveys
based on guidance from City staff. An O-D survey is a license plate survey that assists in
identifying the percentages and routes of cut-through traffic. Cut-through traffic volumes and
patterns canbe detenllined based on knowledge of (1) entry .location "a" of a vehicle; (2) exit
location "b" of same vehicle; (3) travel time between points ,,a,, and "b"; and, (4) actual time
that the vehicle spent between points "a" and "b".
Trial Implementation of College Terrace TCP Page 13
The O-D surveys were carried out for interior streets on April 30, 2002 (a Tuesday) from 6:45 to
9:15 a.m., and from3:45 to 6:15 p.m. A third O-D survey was conducted on the exterior
cordons to the neighborhood from 3:45 to 6:15 p.m. on May 1, 2003, in order to determine the
volume of non-neighborhood traffic on border streets. Results of the O-D surveys were tabulated
and analyzed through the cooperation of the College Terrace Residents’ Association, City staff
and the traffic consultant. The O-D analysis results during the AM and PM survey periods are
shown on~F~igures 3 an~d 4, re~pectiyely ........................... ~ .................................
FIGURE 3: Percentages of Cut-Through Traffic during the AM Sur~ey Period
Source: Existing Conditions Report, Kimley Horn and Associates - December 2003
Trial Implementation of College Terrace TCP Page 14
It should be noted that a high percentage of cut-through traffic on a particular street does not
necessarily mean that the street serves a large overall volume oft~affic. For example, an interior
road such as Columbia Street serves low volumes of traffic, andhas relatively high percentages
of cut’through movements as can be concluded fi~om Figures 3 and 4.
FIGURE 4: Percentages of Cut-Through Traffic during the PM Survey Period
Source: Existing Conditions Report, Kimley and Associates - December 2003
As shown on Figures 2 and 4, the border collector streets " ~"o~ ~,~,~nford and,,-,alixu~na Avenues
carry significant overall volumes of traffic including high percentages of cut-through traffic.
The following Figa~res 5 and 6 illustrate the,main cut-through routesin College Terrace. As
mentioned earlier, the border streets were not included in the morning OrD survey, and thus cut2
through movements on Stanford and California Avenues are not shown on Figure 5.
Trial Implementation of Coflege Terrace TCP Page 15
FIGURE 5: Cut-Through Levels during the AM Survey Period
College Terrace - Cut Through Traffic AM
Based on 4/30/02 Study
15
33
32
I I
5
20
20
29 I 30
7
1
2
8
[
I12
8
47 "
4 2
E
Yale
Williams
Wellesley
Cornell
Princeton
Oberlin
Harvard
Hanover
Dartmouth
Columbia
Boudoin
Amherst
Traffic Volume I~evels
<10 10-19 20-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 70-79 80-89 00-99 100-199 >200
I -I:i I I11 III
20-29
30-39
50-59
100-199
>200
NOTE~S:
Data collected during 2 hour period during peak
Cut-through defined as traffic that enters
and exits in 5 minutes or less
No data available regarding cut-through on
Stanford or California in AM
XX = Number of cut-through vehicles in one direction
Trial Implementation of Coflege Terrace TCP Page 16
FIGURE 6: Cut-Through Levels during the PM Survey Period
College Terrace - Cut Through Traffic - PM
Based on 4/30/02 and 5/1/02 Studies
25
40
42
68
41
32
10
4
23
35
30
12
l
[
37
10
2
31
1
I30
15
4
30
22
11
38
I
II21
Yale
Williams
Wellesley
Cornell
Princeton
Oberlin
Harvard
Hanover
Dartmouth
Columbia
Boudoin
Amherst
Traffic Volume Levels
<10 10-19 20-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 70-79 80-89 90-99 IO0-199 >200
I I II-IIIIII
<1o
20-29
30-39
40-49
50-59
60-69
70-79
90-99
100-199
>200
NOTES:
Data collected dudng 2 hour period during peak
Cut-through defined as traffic that enters
and exits in 5 minutes or less
XX = Number of cut-through vehicles in one direction
Trial lmplementafion of College Terrace TCP Page 17
Figures 5 and 6 illustrate the movement patternsof cut,through traffic. For example; congestion-
at the intersection of E1 Carnino Real/California Avenue causes southbound E1 Camino traffic to
bypass the intersection and access California Avenue via Cambridge Avenue and Yale Street in
both the morning and afternoon commute periods. Similarly eastbound motorists on California
Avenue bypass the intersection and use Yale Street and Cambridge Avenue in the afternoon
commute period. The cut-through traffic along the border collector streets of Stanford and
California Avenues are mainly attributed to..the congestion on the nearby arterial network.
Capacitylimitations onFo.othill Expressway, Ju~pero Serra Boulevard, Page Mill Road, and E1
Camino Real cause regional traffic to exit the arterial roadways and seek a faster route through
College Terrace.
In addition to traffic volumes and cut-through movements, the College Terrace community
raised concerns regarding vehicular traffic speeds. In the interest of addressing community
concerns, speed data collection and analysis were carried out. To assess the extent of speeding,
speed surveys were conducted at the outset of the project in 1999. Additional speed surveys
were later performed as part of the project’s detailed data collection task in 2002. Data results
and comparison analysis between years 1999 and 2002 are illustrated on Figure 6.
Motorists typically drive at a speed that they perceive as safe. This is partially related to the
roadway environment which includes features such as lane width, curves in the road, comer
radii, on-street parking, sight distances, type of land use and its proximity to the street, and the
presence of driveways. Speeding is generally examined by comparing the 85th percentile speed
withthe speed limit. The posted speed limit on all College Terrace streets, including Stanford
and California Avenues, is 25 mph. As mentioned earlier, the 85th percentile speed is the speed
at or below which 85 percent of motorists travel. As shown on Figure 7, the average speeds in
Colle~ge Terrace decreased slightly between the years 1999 and 2002. This possibly is a result of
increased enforcement, education of residents on the need to reduce speeds, increased
congestion, or a combination of these factors.
Border streets in College Terrace commonly experienced top speeds as great as 44 mph, with
one section of Stanford (near Princeton) reporting peak speeds of 49 mph. Speed data was also
evaluated to identify the number and top speeds of drivers operating outside of the 85tu
percentile group. According to the results for some segments, nearly 2600 cars on Stanford
Avenue and more than 370 cars on California Avenue travel above 35 mph per day. It should be
noted that both Stanford and California Avenues have one side of the street without on-street
parking and with institutions/offices set back from the street. To create an alternative perception
of an appropriate speed, additional design features would generally be needed along the street.
Nearly every interior street surveyed had vehicles traveling as fast as 39 mph, which suggests
rapid acceleration between closely spaced stops and along the relatively short block lengths.
Although no data was available, according to conversations with the Palo Alto Police
Department, a large proportion of persons cited for speeding on interior streets are residents of
the neighborhood. This indicates that a share of the traffic calming issues cannot be attributed to
non-residents or cut-through traffic.
Trial Implementation of College Terrace TCP Page 18
Vehicle speeding around corners was also commonly noted as a concern in College Terrace.
This issue is facilitated by the wide streets and by cut-through routes that do not have stop
signs.
FIGURE 7:85th Percentile Speeds in Years 1999 and 2002
85th Percentile Speeds 1999-2002
" Stanford (Near El Camino Real)
Stanford (Near Comell)
Stanford (Near Dartmouth)
Stanford (Near Bowdoin
California (Near El Camino Real)
California [Near Wellseley)
California (Near Dartmouth)
College (Near Yale)
College (Near Hanover)
Yale (near Oxford)
Williams
Comelll
Princeton
Oberlin
Harvard
Hanover
Columbia
Bowdoi~
Amherst
0 5 10 15 20 ~5 30
Speed
Source: Existing Conditions Report, Kimley Horn and Associates - December 2003
999 Avg.
1~2002 Avg.
35 4O
During the community consultation process, including,the recent circulation of a survey letter
concerning the trial plan implementation, College Terrace residents raised concerns regarding
violations of the existing closures. When the closures were implemented in the 1970’s, they
consisted of a mix of physical obstructions placed across the roadways, planters, raised concrete
blocks, wooden poles, curbs, and signs. With the present mix of vehicles and sport utility
vehicles, more and more motorists are able to drive over the raised blocks. Based on
observations, the closures with the .most violations are located on Oberlin, Harvard and Hanover
Streets just north of California Arcenue. As shown on Figure 8, each of these closures consists of
two bulbouts and a middle concrete block. There are also ramps On the approach and departure
sides of the middle raised block, which was originally intended to facilitate access of emergency
vehicles. However, these ramps now make it easier for a vehicle to drive over the block.
Trial Implementation of College Terrace TCP Page 19
FIGURE 8:
Closure on Hanover Street
at California Avenue
The Transportation Division is planning to perform a more detailed review of all existing
closures in the College Terrace area. Based onthe findings of this future evaluation, appropriate
modifications will be implemented to enhance the effectiveness of the closures. As always,
considerations will be given to emergency vehicles and cyclists when determining modifications
to the closures.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
A draft mitigated negative declaration (MND) is attached to this report (Attachment H). There
will ,be a 20-day public review period from September 3 to September 22, 2004.. The MND
will !be finalized following receipt of comments during the public review period.
PROJECT COSTS AND FUNDING
Based on preliminary cost estimates undertaken by the project consultant, the total cost of
implementing Plan A is approximately $150,000. The cost breakdown is as follows:
4 speed tables and 2 raised crosswalks: $48,000
5 traffic circles: $50,000
Signing and pavement markings: $5,000
Design costs: $24,000
Contingency provisions: $23,000
Design and implementation of this project will be funded by the Stanford University General
Use Permit (GUP) and the mitigations fund of 2475 Hanover Street. Landscaping of the
traffic calming devices will be subject to the availability of funds. Resident participation in
maintaining landscaped devices would be subject to community consultation and investigation
of possible City liability issues.
NEXT STEPS
Continuation of the project and approval process involve the following steps:
Review of tile Planning and Transportation Commission and recommendation of trial
plan implementation;
Review of City Council and approval of the trial implementation of the recommended
traffic calming plan;
Trial Implementation of College Terrace TCP Page 20
Conduct additional data collection in light of the existing conditions report, and
recommended locations of the traffic calming devices;
Design, solicitation of construction bids, and implementation of the devices;
Conduct "after" surveys of traffic volumes and speeds, and present trial results in a
project area meeting;
Circulate a resident survey letter throughout the project area. Main objectives ofthe
survey letter are to provide residents with the comparison results between the "before"
and "after" studies, and to seek residents’ input with.regard to.the permanent retention of
the devices;
Planning and Transportation Commission and City Council review results of trial plan,
including community input, and decide on the permanent installation of the plan; and,
Retention of the permanent plan and possible follow-up evaluation.
ATTACHMENTS:
A.Existing Traffic Control Devices and Street Closures in the College Terrace Area
B.Plan A: Physical Traffic Calming Devices
C.Plan B: Educational and Enforcement Measures
D.Enhanced Traffic Calming Option: This option was eliminated at an earlier stage of the
project due to community rejection and high implementation costs.
E.Examples of project information published in neighborhood newsletters
F.Community Comments Noted on Survey Cards Circulated on June 3, 2004
G.E-mail Consultation with the Fire and Police Departments
H.Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration
I.Final Existing Conditions Report
J.Letter Received from Mr. William D. Ross Commenting on’the Project’s Mitigated
Negative Declaration
K. Response to the Letter Received from Mr. William D. Ross
COURTESY COPIES:
Traffic Advisory Committee of the College Terrace Residents’ Association
Palo Alto Bicycle Advisory Committee
City/School Traffic Safety Committee
City Council
Prepared by: Heba Et-Guendy
Division Head Approval:
Ctg.~0h Kott, Chief Transportation Official
Trial Implementation of College Terrace TCP Page 21
ATTACHMENT A: Existing Traffic Control Devices and Street Closures
Legend
Traffic Signal
Stop Sign
Escondido
Escondido
School
Bowdoi~
Princeton
Oberlin
I
Harvard
Hanover ~1~
.~ Dartmouth i~ ~
I
Columbia ~ I"
Bowdoin
Amherst
Driveway
Driveway
Ddveway
~j~ Hanover
_Driveway
Source: KJmley-Horn and Associates. Inc.
ATTACHMENT B: Plan A
(Physical Traffic Calming Devices)
11
WellesleyI I
Legend
Traffic Signal
Stop Sign
Cornell
PrincetonI
I L___J t
Ddveway
Ddveway
Traffic Circle
Speed Table
,~, Table/Raised X-Walk
Escondido
Escondido
School
Oberlin
Harvard
Hanover
[
Driveway
L
Driveway
~ Hanover
Driveway
Bowdoin
Dartmouth
Columbia
Bowdoin
Amherst
Plan also Includes signal timing modification st Cambddge/ECR and pavement legend improvements
Source: Kimley-Horn and Associates, ]nc,
ATTACHMENT C: Plan B
(Education and Enforcement Measures)
~0 0 0 0
t I
Escondido
Escondido
School
Williams
L
Bowdoin
Cornell
ElCamino Real- ~ ..... ~
Princeton
Oberlin
Dartmouth
Columbia
Harvard
Hanover
Bowdoin’
I
~ " Amherst ]
I
Legend
Driveway
Traffic Signal
Stop Sign
Electronic Speed Sign
"[~]’-- Traffic Safety Ba£ner
Neighborhood Traffic
Watch Sign
Driveway
Driveway
~ Hanover
Driveway
Plan also includes targeted police enforcement, pace car, and other education programs
Source: Kim .=y-Horn and Associales, Inc.
ATTACHMENT D: Enhanced Option
(Eliminated at an Early Stage due to Community Concerns and High Implementation Costs)
I I
.....El’Camino Real
I 1
Williams
Corne!l
Princeton
Oberlin
Escondido
Escondido
School
Bowdoin
Dartmouth
L__
Columbia
Bowdoin
Amherst
Driveway
Driveway
Hanover
Legend
Traffic Signal
Stop Sign
Electronic Sneed Sign
Traffic Circle
~ Speed Hump"
~ Steed Table
~ Table/Raised X-Walk
~Raised X-Walk w/Island
~Center Island*
Hanover
One-Way Closure
Curb Extension~
Bicycle Crossing Imp,**
Driveway
Plan also includes signal timing modification at Cambridge/ECR and pavement legend improvements
* Contingency improvement implememea if unacceptable traffic diversion occurs, based on oerformance thresholds
" Imarovements anticieated to be funded from alternative funding source.
Source: Kimley-Horn and Associales. Inc,
ATTACHMENT E
Example Information Published on the
College Terrace Traffic Calming Project
Views From Terrace
Stanford Trails Meeting Thursday, 11/15
~ tan.ford University will soon dedicate two public trails for bikers and pedes-
~ triam thro ..u~h its.foothill lands, following guidelines in the CountywideMaster Trails Plan. The routes for these trails are supposed to be identified
by December 12, aeeording to one of numerous conditions of approval in the uni-
versitys’ new General Use Permit.
One of these trails, eatled the Matadero Creek/Page Mill Sub-regional trail, is near
our neighborhood. AS reported in ’local newspapers, the university has proposed
routing this trail along the south side of Page !vfill Expressway from JSB to Deer
Creek, then over the hill to the Arastradero Road/280 underpass. A coalition of
environmental groups is urging the county to approve an alternate route which
would use the existing dish trail and the livestock undererossing (aka cow runnel) a
half mile north of the Page Mill/280 cloverleaf.
Betiind the scenes, CTRA board members John Ciecarelli, Karie Epstein and Kathy
Durham have been involved in discussions with Stanford planners, eoumy and city
officials regarding a possibIe compromise. We hope that an akemativeean be
found that would be acceptable to the university but also reereationally valuable
and’conn~Cmd to Axastradero Preserve,
We also will be working with County Roads and the Stanford leaseholders’ group
to consider traffic calming measures that could redmce speeds and increase safety
along Junipe~ Sewa Bou!evm’d and u~’pper S*~,~ttf~rd Avenue.
Want more info?
You can review the Stanford proposal on the county’s web site ( under Proposed
Trails and Aerial Map) and compare with the alternatives proposed by the CTRA
board. See the trails section on the Stanford page of the CTRA website
(www.et-ra.org) for both links, or look at hard copies of the trail info in the CTRA
notebook at the College Terrace hqxm-y.
We would welcome your input and involvement with neighborhood efforts on this
issue! Please contact Kathy Datimm at kfdurham@earthlklk.net or 493-2623.
.!~Neighborhood Traffic Study And Parking Permi-------~
~.,iProgram Update
T~he,go.o.d n_.c~vs is ~ Stanford University is transferring funds to the city ofrato Alto tbr our neighborhood traffic study ($50,000) and for developing a
]:~king permit program for slreets affected by commuter p~Sng ($100,000)
as required in last year’s General Use Permit (GUP) for Stanford University.
The catch? Soon City Transportation Division staffwill ask us to appoint a few
lucky College Terrace residents to serve on project advisory committees that will
provide ktput and review proposals for designing and implementing these pro-
grams. Your imrepid Board of Directors hasbeen working overtie, l:mt we cannot
Trails Meeting Thursday
11/15 at 7PM
Come to next Thursday’s public
meeting on the Wails issue in the
Oak Lounge at Tresidder Union on
the Stanford campus from 7:00 to
9:00 PM. Santa Clam County officials
va21 explain the county trail dedication
requirements, then Sta~ord represen~
tatives will present their proposed
routing for the two open space trails.
During the second hour of the meet-
ing, public comment will be taken.
INSIDE Tins Issue:
do it all. We_in.ee. .d a f~w_.~goo_d people
to help us, ensurifig thatthese.two pro-
grams are implemented effectively and
with sensitivity to.~n~.e.ighbor_hood .con-
Cel’ns,
Last year’s s_urvey sl~owCd.th.a.t traffic
and parking, issues were;major-concerns
of College Terrace residents. Now is a
great time for youto get involved and
make sure ~at we make progess in
solving these problems. See the "Help
Wanted" column and ~onta~t us today!
You can even suggest a neighbor who
might be interes~(d"i~ this ~oiden
oppommity to make a difference.
Escon dido. Vill age
Construction
C onstruetion is ongoing for the
Escondido Village project
known as "Stmtios 5 & 6" (326
grad student apartments, off of Olmsted
Road near Wellesley). Studio 5 is due to
be completed in:September, 2002, and
Studio 6 in December, 2002.
Weekly updates..of eoustrucfion activity
axe provided on Stanford’s website:
http:I/epm.stanfor&edrdev/alert.html
Construction hours-are 8:00 - 6:00 dur~
ing theweek. There will be no con-
struetion on Sun,lays and they will try
to minimize Saturday construction.
CTRA officer Katie Epstein has been
working diligently to get truck traffic
minimized on Stanford Avenue, but
a longer term solution is still not
decided.
Questions about tmek traffic, con-
stmetion:hours or other eoncemsthe
project may be directed to Project
Manager Susan Rozakis at 723-i813
or by email at rozakis@stanford.edu.
Katie would welcome your assis-
tauee in monitofingthis project!
Pillsbury W’mthrOp, .._a !egal.firm will be
the occupant.
Other conditions may beimp6~d
before final approval of the application.
Public comments from CTI’,~k and oth-
ers focused on traffic generation, envi-
ronmen~l impact, and ~0nstru~tion of
offices instead ofho~asing. Katie
Epstein pointed out the lbgieal place for
housing along California Avenue west
of Hanover where three old buildings
are likely to redeveloped. Paul Garrett
submitted a memo with comments
approved by the CTRA Board.
Overall, members of the Board of
Directors are pleased that we have been
able to reduce the negative impact of
this project on the immediate neighbors,
and we look forward to working with
the city to implement some signifieaut
traffic calming measures on California
Avenue that will benefit us all in the not
too distant ftm~re.
Demolition of the two Alza buildings on
the site will be delayed by two weeks
(late November).
Construction status will be posted on
the CTRA website: www.CTRA.org
Our Welcome
on College Ave.(across the street from
JJ&F and the Klutz Store) on Sunday,
Odober I5th.
Food and drink were contributed by
~ neigh~b~s and organized by.the neigh-
borh0od hospita!_.ity queen, Maritza
Fmnkfitrt. Dignitaries on hand were
City Council candidates, Hon. Victor
Ojakian and our own, Pria Graves. Pria
was instrumental in helping to relocate
Common Ground to this prime new
location, proving that it is possible to
rebuild a neighborhood in a positive
way! They report that sales have
already increased at this new site.
PatdeiaBeeker, the store manager, led
the celebrants on a tour of the new
facility. There are two large storage
areas, an outdoor plant shelter, a
kitchen, a elassro0m for intruefioml
purposes and of course, their unique "~
and beautiful retail store and h’orary.
You’ll fred everything you need here for
your organic garden ~om tools and hats
to heritage seeds. An uncommon store "
is Comanon Ground! Patrieia, Severvin,
Ryan, and Judith invite you to visit the
Hanover/California
Avenue Office Project
F’~he Architectural Review
|Board hearing for this office
-~-building was interrupted then
completed without further public com-
ment on Thursday, November 1, 2001.Store Manager, Patricia Becket (right) takes her pi~e as neighbors bring
picnio gooch’es to celebrate-the new Common Ground store on College Ave.
e Terrace Residents’ Association Quarterl’November 2003
Views Terrace
TRAFFIC ENGINEERS TO THE RESCUE
Help the ~city and College Terrace develop a new traffic management plan
The nationally reno~med
transportation planning and
engineering farm Kimley-Hom is
coming to College Terrace. The
City of Palo Alto has asked them to
tackle our neighborhood’s traffic
problems. And to ldck off the
effort, the engineers want--and
need to hear from residents of the
Terrace.
This Tuesday evening,
November 18, at 7 p.m., at the
EsCondido Elementary School"s
library, Project Manager Jim West
will pres~nt~Kimley-Horn’s initial
report outlining the traffic situation
in College Terrace. This is a critical
juncture in the neighborhood effort
that began with our petition in 1999
calling attention to a growing
problem with car traffic in and
Page Mill Road. "Conclusions on "Solutions should focus on
the exact number of cut-through managing traffic to reduce speeds
vehicles and related percentages and volume without extreme
vary depending on the improvements that may create
interpretation of the data," the public opposition," the report
fm’n’s report says. "However, the concludes.
results clearly show that a large Indeed, before any Wial
proportion of traffic using interior commences, additional public
and exterior streets is cutting meetings will be held and city
through the neighborhood."officials will need to give a green
The report goes on to. say that light. Staff from the city’s
average speeds on neighborhood Transportation Division will attend
streets are routinely above the Tuesday’s meeting and can explain
posted speed limit, withthe most the process that must occur before a
significant violations on Stanford final planis adopted.
and California Avenues.For those who wish to study.up
The fLrm’ S team of traffic on the traffic issues before the
management experts has not yet meeting, background can be found
started to devise a plan, but they on the College Terrace Traffic
can tell you what has worked and Committee website (www.cttc.info)
what hasn’t worked in dozens of or at the College Terrace Library.
learn about the various options for
addressing the widespread
disregard of speed limits on our
streets and the increase in cut-
sis of our
~,enfially
congestion on E1 Camino Real and
range of traffic management
improvements, including raised
Kimley-Horn team will determine
broad-support in the neighborhood.
TRAFFIC
STUDY
MEETING
Tuesday Evening.
November 18
7:00 TO 9:00 P.M.
Escondido School Library
The library is at the rear of the
school on the corner of Stanford
Ave. and Escondido Rd.
March 2004
Vie ws ’rom the Terrace
NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC STUDY:-CONSlDERING OUROPTIONS
Experts present alternatives; Resident feedback encouraged by Advisory Group
How do we make College
Terrace streets safer for everyone on
foot, on bike, or in cars, while also
making them less tempting to cut-
through drivers? That’s the
$150,000 question we have been
~appling with since last November’s
first traffic study meeting.
Tree, we can’t change our
location between two major traffic
generators (Stanford University and
the Research Park). And Some larger
issues, like congestion on Page M!ll
or E1 Camino Real, require medium-
to long-range solutions outside the
scope of our current neighborhood
traf-fic study.
But the data collected since
1999 by the city and CT volunteers
on traffic speeds, volumes and cut-
through trips has helped us identify
¯ key problems on both our collector
streets (Stanford and California
Avenues) as well as the interior local
streets in our neighborhood. And we
children on their way to school.
Other options on our interior streets
will address safety issues while also
reducing the incentives for
commuters to "ran the maze" on our
interior streets. There will bc
safeguards to prevent traffic
diversion onto other nearby streets,
and specific mitigation for the high-
volume Cambridge/Yale cut-through
route from E1 Camino to California.
What if you can’t come on
March 18? We plan to record the
meeting and make the tape available,
along with feedback forms, at the
College Terrace Library. A meeting
summary will also be posted on the
traffic committee web site,
www.ctte.info, where you ~an find
the important "Final Existing
Conditions Report" by Kimley-
Horn, as well as the data collected
on vehicle speed; volume and cut-
through traffic. Or you can get
information and give input at ourhave been working hard to give spring picnic on April 10.feedback as city transportation staff
and members of theI~imley-Hom What happens next? Input
consultant team propose how to
address these problems.
Want to participate? Come
to the CTRA annual meeting on
March 18! The onsultant on the
city’s College Terrace Traffic Study
project will present a range of
options for the cmzent study, and
residents can get questions answered
and provide f~edb~ck.
At the March 18 meeting, you
will learn about various tools in
today’ s traffic management toolkit
that can reduce traffic speeds on the
collector streets and rna~e it safer for
from residents will be used to
compile a set of recommendations
that fit the $150,000 budget from the
Stanford Management Company for
traffic calming in College Terrace,
as well as other measures that may
be .funded from alternate sources.
These proposals will be presented at
a third neighborhood meeting later
in the spring (date TBA).
After this third meeting,
recommendations will be finalized.
The city transportation staff will
then prepare a packet of information
for each CT household, describing
the proposed plan as well as
outlining the remaining public
process (including pre- and post-trial
neighborhood advisory surveys, plus
two rounds of hearings and votes by
the Plarming and Transportation
Commission).
Members of the Advisory
Group look forward to hearing from
you! If you have any questions,
concerns or comments, please
contact one of us (call 493-2623 or
email hearti01 @pacbell.net).
-- Steve Wo.odward and Kathy
Durham, on behalf of the Traffic
Study Advisory Group
CTRA ANNUAL MEETING
Thursday, March 18, 2004
Escondido School
Multi-Purpose Room
Doors open 6:40 p.m.
6:45-7:05: Coffee &Cookies
Check out data summaries,
maps and visuals from
neighborhood traffic study
7:05-8:45: Annual Meeting
¯ Election of ’04-’05 Officers
(More info on p. 4)
Presentation of traffic
management options:
Joe Kott of the city’s
Transportation Division) and
Jim West of Kimley-Horn
Discussion and Feedback
Terrace Resident’s Association Newsletter June 2004
Views o rn F t;t C
LAST CALL:Traffic
Have you returned the mail-in
household survey card sent out by
the city’s Transportation Division
in early June?
The good news fs that with one
week to go before the June 25t~
deadline, over 300 College Terrace
households had sent in their cards,
according to Chief Transportation
Official Joe Kott..This is an
impressive turnout, but now is the
time to send your card in if you
want to pard@ate in the survey.
what are the options?
Plan A(Physical Measures/
Base Plan) focuses on reducing
excessive speeds on our collector
streets (Stan£ord and California
Avenues) an~ improving the safety
of Co. llege Avenue intersections on
the main interior cut-through
routes. The measures proposed
(22z speed tables that gently stow
Survey Deadline June 25
cars to. the 25 mph speed limit and Lomio (plomio@stanford.edu) or
local street traffic circles have Kathy Durham (493-2623).
worked well in neighborhoods Check out www.cttc.info for
with similar traffic problems,background info on the College
Plan B (Awareness and Terrace Traffic Study, data
Education) focuses on raising collected, meeting videos and (new
driver awareness Of speeding and item) responses to Frequently
encouraging civil driving through Asked Questions.
education efforts." -
You also have the option to
choose the status quo (neither Plan
A nor Plan B).
Where to get more info:
Detailed maps and descriptions
of Plan A and.B were included in
the city’s packet. See below for
how to get a replacement copy.
If you have questions about
why the consultant, city staff and
the residents on the Advisory
Group came up with the specifics
of Plan A or Plan B, contact Paul
Update on landscaping for the
proposed traffic circles:
The strong resident ’interest in
this option has been heard!
According to Joe Kott, "Should
residents wish to make the traffic
circles proposed in Plan A
("Physical Measures"/Base Plan)
permanent, the Transportation.
Division is committed to working
with other City depai-tments and
residents to ensure .that they are
landscaped in an attractive, yet
affordable manner."
LOST/NEVER RECEIVED
YOUR POSTCARD?
A replacement packet will be mailed out
upon request, but don’t delayt. Email Joe
Kott at: <joseph.kott@cityofpaloalto. org >
or phone .the city’s Transportation Division
at 329-2520. Address is required since
staff must verify that only one survey card
is received per household
At left: The 2004 College Terrace
spring picnic featured a visit by George
the tortoise, who enchanted this young
lady and many residents as he took his
afternoon constitutional.
Photo credit: Ken Van Vleck
College Terrace Traffic Calming
Co~ege Terrace Traffic
Page 1 of 6
College Terrace
Residents’ Association
TRAFFIC STUDY UPDATE
June 2004
ACT ’ON NEEDED ON
City survey coming your way: By.now all College Terrace residents should have received a mailing from the City’s
Transportation Division. The envelope is easy to recognize with its yellow caution sign saying "ROAD CHANGES
AHEAD." It contains information on three traffic management Options for our neighborhood, plus a postcard survey foryou
to return (one per household).
Your participation is important! The CTRA board of directors urges yon to participate in the household advisory sm-vey ¯
after reviewing the information in this flyer and the city’s packet. Cheek www.ctte.info or contact us’if you have any
questions, Then check one of thethree options on the survey card and mail it back to the city by Friday, :rune 25th~
How willthe survey re~Utts be used?
Both the percentage of residents responding and the percentage of respondents choosing each option will be important as tiffs
traffic study moves forward to the Planning & Transportation Commission_ "
Culminating five years of work on College Terrace traffic problems: Traffic issues have been salient in our
neighborhood Since the .1999 petition signed by 225 residents. Two years ago, 56 residents helped the city staff collect and
analyze aftdl set of speed, volume and mxt-throughdata to help us better tmderstand the specifies on each street_
Since last:~all, twelve residents serving on the Traffic Study Advisory Group* have been working with Joe Kott of the City of
Palo AltoTransportation Divisien and traffic consultant Jim West. This group defined key problems that can be mitigated
through the city’s Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program: speeding and commuter traffic on Stanford and California
Avenues plus safety issues and cut-through traffic on interior streets.
Plan A and PlanB (defined in the clty’s mailing) were developed with extensive resident input over thepast eight months.
Now it’s time for us residents to choose which optkm goes forward.
Which option should you check? It’s your choice, but please consider this:
Both the CTRA Board of Directors and the Traffic Study Advisory Group have voted to recommend Plan A (thePhysical
Meamn-egBase Plan).
* Members of the Traffic Study Advisory Group:include John Mark Agosta and Paul Oarrett (California Avenue), Pau!
Lomio (College Avenue), John Cieearelli (Yale), V’n-ginia Ferguson (Comell), Emily Marshall (’Princeton), Kim Raftery
(Harvard), Grace Liu and Louise Roche (Hanover), Kathy Durham (Dartmouth), Sharon Andrews and Steve Woodward
(Stanford Avenue’).
Need more information?. Here are some Frequently Asked Questions.
, 1VIaps of the final plans:
http ://www.stanford. edu/-pl omio/cttc.html 8/23/2004
College Terrace Traffic Calming
Here are detailed maps showing PtanA and Plan t3.
Note: These are slow-loading tides. And you may_need.to adjust the size in your toolbar to read them better.
Page 2 of 6
How we got to where we are
Since the secondneighborhood-wide meeting on March 18th, members of the study Advisory Group have been collecting
.... msidents~input on-the~fourdraff.optionspresented by the consultant (see descriptions below). Advisory Group members
..... havehosted information tables at the spring pionio, in front of the JI&F grocery store and atthe YalelCollege barrier. They
’have also invited nearby~eighbors to- 8 localized outreaoh meetings in front yards all over our neighborhood.
A video of the March 18 pmeeedin~ can be viewed here (a copy of the tape is aim available for overnight checkout from the
College Terrace branch library). Alternatively, plea~, send an e-mail including phone .number to board@.ctra.org and a
member of the Advisory Group will respond promptly.
The .third neighborhood-wide meeting was held on May 25, and a video of that proceeding is also available for online
viewing or checkout from the library. At this meeting the consultants presented final options based on the residential input
(summary coming soon) and professional experience. The next step is that a packet of information will be delivered to each
household and a postcard mailed to each address for residents to vote their preference. The major changes resulting from this
meeting andadvisory group input are as follows:
Under Low Option: "Neighborhood traffic watch" signs are added at either end (or gateway to) of Stanford Ave.and
California Ave,, and 25 mph markings
are added.
Under ~Base Option:
Moving the speed table on Stanford Avenue near Wellesley to a loealion farther from homes and closer to the church.
Changing stop control at CollegelColumbia, so that stop signs will be located on Columbia Slreet~
Not ~sing a partial closure on Yale between Cambridge and California but instead installing a T-circle there.
At this third meeting, Jim West presented a chart showing the results of a Boulder Colorado noise stud~, of noise levels
azsociatedavith the traffic features which are under consideration for College Terrace.
What options were considered?
The following information summaries the fottr options presented at the Mamh 18th meeting. Tfiese options are being
revised based on input received from residents, and updated information will be posted here as soon as it is available (late
May). Each household will also receive a newsletter and a packet from the city desen~oing the final options included in the
1. Existing Option. No traffic calming measures added or removed from the neighborhood.
2. Low Option/Plan 11. This option relies on electronic speed readout signs, pavement legends and other educational efforts
to reduce speeding on the two collector slreets, California Avenue and Stanford Avenue (two electronic signs for each street,
similar to those on Embarcadero near Bryant and on Channing near Addison). All other traffic controls remain the same.
3. Base ~ption/Plan A The base option is fully funded and uses active traffic calming measures to reduce excessive speeds
and enhanee safety for all users. On California Avenue and Stanford Avenue, excessive speeds would be reduced by ~
tables and raised crosswalks similar to those now in place on Channing Avenue between Addison Avenue and Duveneek
school ~ option further ealls for the installation of four lraffie circles on College Avenue; atYale, Oberlin, Hanover and
Columbia. Stop signs might be switched at the College/columbis intem:t~tion (stop sign~ placed on Columbia) and the four-
. ~ay.-stop at College/Hanover may be changed to a two-way stop (signs on Hanover). To eomater extremely heavy cut-
through traffic on Yale Street between California Avenue and Cambridge Street, the plan suggests making it one-way so that
motorists could not turn left onto Yale from Cambridge; this is now reader fmai review,.however, and a speed table or traffic
circle (a T-eimle) may be placed on Yale instead of a partial diverter.
http :/]www. stanford, edag--91 omi o/ettc.html 8/23/2004
ATTACHMENT F
Community Comments
Survey Letter of June 2004
ATTACHMENT F
COMMENTS NOTED ON REPLIES TO SURVEY CARDS
(Circulated on June 3, 2004 with a Response Due Date of June 25, 2004)
Amherst Street
Selected Plan A (Physical Traffic Calming Devices):
¯Critical to protect neighborhood public health and safety.
¯I think the Plan B alternative invites sarcasm and resistance.
¯This is a nic, e band-aid Solution (could Plan B be added). Yale near
California should be one way, (need) a study to find the root cause of our
neighborhood streets being turned into connector streets.
¯Kathy Durham has been incredible.
¯Plan.B is too weak. It is unlikely to slow traffic. If Plan B is selected, we
feel that the electronic speed sign should be moved to west of Amherst on
Stanford. A flag is not sufficient to make that curve safe.
Although I believe that.diverting traffic off of Stanford Avenue and into the
campus is the best solution, perhaps Plan B would help.
How can we prevent drivers of SUVs and mini-trncks from accessing
Cotlege Terraceby driving over existing road blocks at the end of dead end
streets? Will such practice become more common by implementing Plan A?
I am concerned about impacts of traffic circles on cyclist and pedestrian
movements. I support bumps/humps.
-" Please add-environmentally friendly trees/landscaping to the traffic circles.
Selected Plan B (Educational Signing and Banners):
When will the streets in our neighborhood be re-paved? They are a mess.
Plan A is too much. This city has bigger problems.
None of the Options:
Why don’t you folks find something productive to do, like fix the damn
sidewalks!
Our concern is a reduction in emergency response as has been documented
in several Bay Area jurisdictions.
The Plans A and B seen~ like a major waste of money -- traffic is not a
problem!
More than One Option:
My concerns- 1) I am very concerned about the traffic volume and speed
(supposed to be 25) on Peter Coutts Road. This does affect College Terrace
City of Palo Alto Attachment F
Page ]
residents. Thiswill also increase greatly with the new Stanford housing
that is proposed. 2) Traffic calming in some neighborhoods is good
looking - this should also be the case here.
Bowdoin Street
Selected Plan A (Physical Traffic Calming Devices):
o -Enormous thanks to Joe Kott and CTRA advisory group for your
remarkably thorough, fully understandable, carefully illustrated review and
presentation (6/3/04) of relevant factors to College Terrace neighborhood
traffic calming. Thanks, Kathy Durham! I am impressed with your
recommendations and specific reasoning: all so helpful. I drove to speed
table sites to try out some. Talked to 2 residents (near Guinda) both loved
speed tables except .one had unhappy husband who drives sports car. More
than a nice jo!! Thanks.
It’s important that the traffic circles be planted.
There is a need for more bumps along California and Hanover to
discourage pass-thru traffic. Perhaps speed tables best ensure that truly
reckless driving will be checked. I’m not seeing such dangerous speeding,
but if it has been occurring, physical measures may be needed to prevent
more of it. -
Selected Plan B (Educational Signing and Banners):
If results from Plan B aren’t sufficiently good, I would support speed tables
possibly on College, as well as on Stanford and California. I would not
support traffic circles. I bike daily in College Terrace, and have not felt
speeding on College Avenue to be a problem. California Avenue isn’t bad
either but could use calming.
None of the Options:
You have rigged the selection in favor of Plan A by splitting the anti-
change vote between choices 2 and 3. Bad judgment.
Too many traffic circles.
California Avenue
Selected Plan A (Physical Traffic Calming Devices):
¯Good plan!
¯I oppose Plan B. It just costs a lot, but doesn’t work, I think.
¯At the existing street closures, many of the concrete raised blocks (that
discourage cars from driving over them) are chipped and worn down almost
CiO~ of Palo Alto Attachment F
Page 2
to street level. Cduld they be patched back to original height and painted to
hopefully prevent cut through ~traffic? Thank you.
Need to adjust site of speed table at 1020 South California Avenue.
I’d like more information On how long such measures would take to
implement. I think Plan B would be fine as Well.
We need to slow traffic down in the evening hours. Too many speeders!
Plan A! If.there,,is enough money,for_electronic speed~.sign,.s oft Stanford and
California, as well as the other physical measures, then "just do it"! Thanks.
Selected Plan B (Educational Signing and Banners):
Vcalm radar speed display.
Cambridge Avenue
Selected Plan A (Physical Traffic Calming Devices):
I think this is a very good plan, and I am pleased with the responsiveness of
TSAG/CTRA to resident concerns.
~ We support physical measures since only these will be really effective.
Awareness and education is a good addition to physical measures but
unfortunately do not work on their own. Thank you for your help.
Plan A is the answer.
College Avenue
Selected Plan A (Physical Traffic Calming Devices):
~This support depends on landscaping of the traffic circles, to some extent.
-When traffic circles are installed, we would like the stop signs removed
from College Avenue. Traffic moving at a steady 15-20 mph uses less fuel
and makes less noise than stop and start traffic.
I also support any improvements aimed at increasing the safety of bicyclists
entering California from Hanover.
I support physical measures (speed tables) but wonder Why so many traffic
circles on College Avenue!
o City could pay postage might increase # of responses.
¯Thank you, every one of you, for your prodigious efforts to help the traffic
needs.
.Harvard Street (between College and Stanford) needs two speed humps.
¯We live at the corner where a traffic circle is proposed.
¯The Cornell-College intersection is dangerous as is. Cars malting a leftturn
onto College go much too fast and often turn wide. A stop sign would help.
City of Palo Alto Attachment F
Page 3
We would also like to see the placement of a new traffic circle at Cornell
and College.
This will not only save lives of people and animals, it will also be a lovely
addition to the neighborhood! However, College and Wellesley is where a
traffic circle is absolutely imperative, i.e. Child Care center and library on
Wellesley.
~Strongl,y support Plan A.
Yes for Plan A - enough of the SUV’s who drive over the existing barriers.
Traffic circle at Cambridge at Yale is a waste. One block from Yale and
College and blocking driveway on Yale. The alley ending at Cambridge is
seldom used. Please reconsider that circle.
I would prefer the greater measure of A to the lesser effect of B - with signs
only - not as physically effective.
We must have dirt in circles so we can landscape them.
Selected Plan B (Educational Signing and Banners):
¯Plan B is sufficient. Plan A is too extreme.
¯With stop signs every 2 blocks, pace cars would be useless. Traffic circles
only make it more inconvenient for residents.
¯Speed tables are OK. Traffic circles are not. Observation - living at the
west end of College Avenue, I have noticed that much of our erratic
speeding traffic is due to people holding ’Yahoo Maps’ directions! Yahoo
doesn’t know about our barriers.
I would prefer a paradigm shift from slowing and diverting traffic to park
and ride lots scattered around Palo Alto’s perimeters with frequent shuttles
and often incentives directed at commuters in particular. Also more
cooperation with schools to limit car trips by students.
o Traffic on College had’ never been a problem. Circles proposed in Plan A
will cause motorist to concentrate on the circles instead of looking out for
bicyclists and pedestrians. We are twenty plus year residents of College
Avenue who ride bikes to work!
¯o Another College Terrace resident just drove into me.while I was on my
bike last week. We should be doing something.
None of the Options:
¯ How about.a giant impenetrable wall around College Terrace so no one can
get m or out?
,Don’t bring strife to the neighborhood as we saw in North Palo Alto.
¯I believe existing barriers are enough, i do not want to see more. I do not
support further "calming, efforts.
I think just speed tables placed in the right areas will ~orkSetter and be a
lot more cost effective.
City of Palo Alto Attachment F
Page 4
Traffic is calm. Thi~ neighborhood is already a maze of closed off streets.
Stop pandering to all the spoiled whiners!
We do not need a traffic calming plan in College Terrace.
Please don’t do this! College Terrace traffic was sufficiently calmed when
the cross street barriers were installed years ago. Remember what
happened recently in North Palo. Alto, one person’s, improvement often
causes problems~ for~ one’~s neighbors,.
These are public streets. We don’t need ’traffic calming’. Just enforce the
existing laws.
I have lived at this address for 19 years and have worked at home for 1/3 of
that time. From my perspective, I don’t see the need for these measures.
Essentially my vote is for as little change as possible.
Columbia Street
Selected Plan A (Physical Traffic Calming Devices):
¯The greatest traffic inhibitor will be appreciated on our "through street".
°As a gardener/cyclist, I see a lot of the big vehicles speeding down our
streets. Speed tables will not slow down these selfish drivers. I also feel
strongly that speed bumps on side streets are very important as that is
where cars will try to make up time and .that is also where more
children/pets ar~. If you’ve ever raced anything, you know that one makes
up for slower sections of the course by speeding the unencumbered sections
(i.e. side streets).
¯Plan A will make a real difference! Plan B is~ust window dressing.
¯I would also ask that the City’s Planning Department will not rubber stamp
all of Stanford University’s requests for building. It is because the
University and Industrial Park do not have proper ingress/egress that our
area has horrible traffic problems.
None of the Options:
o Plan A would make driving in College Terrace miserable - we need at least
one quick route to E1 "Camino/Junipero Serra, ideally Stanford Avenue.
Plan B is fine,-but might not be effective and has major aesthetic drawbacks
for the neighborhood. The current situation is fine.
o We support the implementation of the speed tables and raised crosswalks in
Plan A, but not the traffic circles.
More than One Option:
°I .DO. support the speed tables on Stanfordand California, but I DO NOT
support the traffic circles on College and Cambridge.
City of Palo Alto Attachment F
Page 5
Cornell Street
Selected Plan A (Physical Traffic Calming Devices):
¯I would prefer to have raised crosswalks only, no traffic circles.
¯The College/Cornell intersection is VERY dangerous. I hear accidents or
near-accidents daily. Please put something!
¯We question,hawing 2,.,traffic circles.,,so c!ose toge,ther., (Y,..ale!College and
Yale/Cambridge).
¯EXCELLENT!
¯I doubt the encouragement of Plan B could have much effect on the speedy
drivers, would very much like to see the physical barriers of Plan A
implemented.
° We’ll help garden inside the traffic circles if neede!!
Selected Plan B (Educational Signing and Banners):
¯ I support barriers as a last resort - Thank you.
None of the Options:
° I do not want the clutter of signs. Who will maintain the circles? Our taxes
pay for the streets. They should be open for "everyone",
We have to drive four plus blocks to get to E1 Camino. City of Palo Alto
should save money and forget about this calming.
Dartmouth Street
Selected Plan A (Physical Traffic Calming Devices):
o Modifying the streets to change driver behavior 24/7 is the only meaningful
type of traffic calming.
° Plan B would be an ineffective waste of time and money.
None of the Options:
° We do not like flashing signs in this quiet place. We typically drive
slightly under the speed limit in college terrace.., we do not think it would
be right, though, to be forced to .drive more slowly by "traffic calming".
We do not want it to be cumbersome to go to and form our home.
City of Palo Alto Attachment F
Page 6
Hanover Street
Selected Plan A (Physical Traffic Calming Devices):
. Fix the traffic mess at Starbucks! (i.e. no turns into Starbucks from
westbound Stanford Avenue - no left turns out of Starbucks to westbound
Stanford Avenue).
.~Hoping ,we ~eceiv,.e an.~o~erwhelming,response, from~neigh..b~rs for Plan A!
Plan A is the best choice given, but it does not go far enough. I would be
happy to help fund more.
I would also support speed tables on Hanover near its intersection with
Stanford. Drivers actually speed up to make the green light and this is
clearly within Escondido School zone.
Would love it if you would fix the curb blocki..ng Hanover/California
intersection. It’s worn down, and tons of cars illega!ly cross it. Thanks:
Selected Plan B (Educational Signing and Banners):
¯ I live on one of the busiest streets of College Terrace and find the traffic
condition satisfactory. Plan A is overkill to me. It is important that people
drive carefully on Stanford since there are 5 schools in the area. Cars
should watch out for bicyclists. Otherwise, traffic is fine. Plan A would
cause more problems than it would solve. Cars need to get from here to
there.
Two things: 1) Would like an option that offered some physical measures.
(I think there are far too many in option A.)2) An estimate of cost for
each should be included.
None of the Options:
¯ The speed tables in Plan A may work. The traffic circles just become an
irritation. There are also other items that should be a higher priority in the
Palo Alto budget.
° Where there any accidents to justify this wasted money?
Harvard Street
Selected Plan A (Physical Traffic Calming Devices):
¯ Plan A is a minimum- we are very concerned about traffic on our street. At
least ten young children live on our block and cars race down it. This plan
must not drive more traffic our way. We’d like a speed bump on the street,
or other similar device.
°Pleasehave.cars park several feet:away from comers. Even with.stop signs,
it is often difficult to see oncoming cross traffic. Thank you.
City of Palo Alto Attachment F
Page 7
Please send an officer to monitor traffic speeds on Harvard .Street. Thank
you.
If the traffic circles further reduce the visibility down the side streets, I will
be very unhappy. Particularly at Oberlin and College (driving on College,
trying to see down Oberlin).
i hope that this plan will not create more of a probiem for Harvard Street
,.(between. ,Stanford ~and. Colle~ge)._~I suppo~;Plan ~ buL,plea~, continue
paying attention to Harvard Street (there are a lot of young children on this
"drive-thru" street),
I am very worried about cars speeding down Harvard to Stanford. There
are 10 ldds on this block. I’m not sure Plan A will address this particular
problem, and not make it worse. I would like a speed bump on this street.
If you’re worried about noise, you can put it in front of our house.
This plan is much needed[ Harvard Street between Stanford and College
desperately needs, speed tables. Excessive through traffic endangers our
children, our senior citizens, and our pets, among others - all on this street.
Reducing speeds on California and Stanford is essential. I hope the speed
tables are installed. Traffic circles are ok - but tess important.
Please note that even though we strongly support Plan A, we are
disappointed about the potentially increasing traffic on Harvard Street and
the fact that Harvard itself doesn’t benefit directly from Plan A. There are a
lot of children living on Harvard.
Selected Plan B (Educational Signing and Banners):
¯Thank you for the traffic study.
¯Plan A is too disruptive for local traffic - way too many traffic circles.
¯As a dog walker and jogger, the traffic on College does not warrant all
those traffic circles. There should be some education indicating that the
lack of stop signs doesn’t mean that drivers can fl, y through the intersection.
None of the Options:
° Harvard Street would absorb disproportionate (and unfair) through-traffic
to avoid the traffic circles.
o Both Plans A and B are too severe. They are worse than the problem.
¯I like Plan A without speed tables. I don’t think speed tables are a good
.idea.
Oberlin Street
Selected Plan A (Physical Traffic ~2alming Devices):
Thank you-for allowing ~us-to--address this important safety)quality of life
issue!
City of Palo Alto Attachment F
Page 8
We like the speed tables and raised crosswalks. Not crazy about the traffic
circles. Prefer Plan A aesthetically. Plan B makes the neighborhood .ugly.
Selected Plan B (Educational Signing and Banners):
¯Enhance enforcement and issue speeding tickets.
¯The E1 Camino/California inter:section is dangerous for pedestrians. I
suggest4hat~hicular~right rams agaiast a~ed.light_.beA’orbidden, and that
the limit lines be. pulled back by 15-20, from the crosswalks, so that
pedestrians never feel threatened by aggressive cars. This system I have
seen successfully implemented in German cities.
None of the Options:
I believe both plans are unnecessary and ridiculous. We already have speed
limits and stop signs at virtually every corner; I don’t think we need to
waste money on signs. 0r bumps that will do nothing but pollute our
neighborhood.
College Avenue circles would be nice if and only if the vegetation is
ALWAYS maintained well. Stanford speed bumps would be nice only if
they are exactly like the one near Junipero Serra. Signs are commercial and
NOT "homey"!
I would support Plan B with speed signs but not with the safety banners and
watch signs.
I .moved to this neighborhood in 1965 and would like it returned to that
condition- nobarriers. Enough stupid studies and 1/2 bakedideas!
Princeton Street
Selected Plan A (Physical Traffic Calming Devices):
I think only physical measures will slow drivers down, others can be looked
at and ignored.
I strongly support Plan A. Plan B would be a waste of time,
Selected Plan B (Educational Signing and Banners):
1) WE like traffic circles, but not the speed tables. 2) "Vcalm"s should go .
further away from stop signs ,to remind people to slow down.
¯ Stanford Avenue
Selected Plan A (Physical Traffic Calming Devices):
Plan A is a lot more tangible than Plan B.
City of Palo Alto Attachment F
Page 9
¯I would object to this electronic speed limit sign as it would be just outside
my house. I think it’s. ugly and ineffective.
¯We need this. I hear screeching brakes all the time, andsee people rolling
through the stop signs all the time.
Without including graphs showing effectiveness of. each plan (they were at
last meeting), it’s hard to make an informed decision.
...... o-~-We:~need~pai.nted crosswalks on=S~anford~ttSNellesley., I£,you0,can only do’
’one, the east side of the intersection would be best.
Selected Plan B (Educational Signing and Banners):
¯ Please do not install: Speed table/speed hump in front of my house on
Stanford, or on Stanford between Oberlin and Wellesley..My bedroom
fronts on Stanford - 20 feet from the street.
Wellesley Street
Selected PlanA (Physical Traffic Calming Devices):
Plan A forces traffic to slow. down. It makes more sense to start here and
add all the signage as additional reminders.
¯Plan B takes away all the charm. The proposed traffic circle looks really
appealing.
Selected Plan B (Educational Signing and Banners):
*If Plan A, speed tables are preferable to calming circles on College.
*Safety banners are not necessary - I doubt anyone would pay attention to
them (Plan A is overkill).
None
O
of the Options:
Traffic circles are unnecessary and a waste of money- there is no
"speeding" where they are located - issue of traffic volume is the concern
on interior streets, not velocity.
College Terrace already has too many traffic barriers. I can barely get in or
out of my neighborhood, which causes more driving and is very
inconvenient.
People cut thru to avoid the thousands of red lights. It takes 25 minutes to
drive 7 miles. Hire better traffic engineers to synchronize the lights and
your problems will be solved.
Find a real solution to this problem. Driving in this area is tedious.
Remove red left turn lights (yield on green to oncoming traffic) but keep
green left turn light: This will reduce wait time at lights while maintaining
guaranteed left turns.
City of Palo Alto Attachment F
Page 10
,Williams Street
Selected Plan A (Physical Traffic Calming Devices):
As parents we feel traffic goes too fast on California. Awareness will not
slow non-residents down and it is an eyesore to the residents.
The more the better! Thank you!!
......¯ .,;.~Seems.~best halance between~di.s~ption a~ motivation. ,~. am .not at all in
favor of Plan B.
¯Actually, either plan is fine with me. I doubt Plan A will be voted in the
first time around, but as a person who has to cross Stanford onfoot twice
every day, I’m all for a change that will prevent me from having to play
human "Frogger" every day. ~
~ I would also support even more circles and speed tables.
Selected Plan B (Educational Signing and Banners):
Frankly, I don’t think either will improve the situation on my street, but A
would make it worse.
I am extremely appreciative for this. It is an extraordinary gift to feel that
one’s concerns have been heard.
None of the Options:
¯ . We have lived in many places, in many countries, and. College Terrace is
perhaps the quietest neighborhood we have ever known. We don’t
understand how so much money is going to be spent on something that
does not need fixing. Please don’t change things that are comfortable for
the residents..Spend the money wisely on things that need fixing. We love
this neighborhood and its current state. We don’t think it needs anymore
calming. It is perfect the way it is.
¯I don’t believe there is a traffic problem in this area. I believe it is the
typical selfish, .self-centered attitude that prevails in these kinks of
communities. Traffic circles create problems for emergency vehicle access.
Check on Menlo Park’s redo of thes!!
¯As an occupant of my 55-y~ar family-owned residence, I feel the traffic
here is minimal and the area does not need a bunch of impediments creating
an unnecessary eyesore. Of the recent break-ins on College and Williams, I
found out through, neighbors, not the CTRA...Please park the espresso and
maybe try to encourage library use, pursue illegally parked and abandoned
cars, and apprise us Of criminal activity so we may help things improve.
City of Palo Alto Attachment F
Page 11
Yale Street
Selected Plan A (Physical Traffic Calming Devices):
¯I only support A if the traffic, circles have landscaping.
¯Physical measures are the only thing that works. Existing closures need to
be modified to prevent barrier running by SUVs.
¯ o,,,_,As homeow~ners onthe only "imexior".:stree_t wSthtraffic ~compa~able to that
of the feeder streets (California and Stanford) I feel very strongly that
something needs to be done at the Yale/Cambridge intersection.
¯Landscaping the trial traffic circles is desirable. If the circles are made
permanent it is essential.
A lot of people run the stop sign at Stanford/Yale when driving to E1
Camino (along Stanford). A single red light ("stop") hung across the
intersection facing away from E1 Camino would probably fix this problem.
None of the Options:
¯ We strongly lean toward Plan A - but cannot vote for it without more
assurance about landscaping of the ~raffic circles.
¯I am against speed tables and electronic signs (which are an eyesore with
potential radiation impacts). I would be more amenable to a plan without
either of these elements. Electronic signs undermine (i.e., stack the deck
against) Plan B which could have been made much more attractive, and
desirable. For instance, better placement of existing speed signs (so they
are not blocked by trees) and better use of paint. I don’t understand staffs
opposition to turn restrictions. What about medians instead of speed
tables?
¯Please do not block or impede traffic in our neighborhood. In fact, please
remove the barriers that already exist. Thank you.
City of Palo Alto Attachment F
Page 12
ATTACHMENT G
Consultation with City Departments
EI-Guend~/, Heba
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Marinaro, Nick
Friday, August 20, 2004 10:50 AM.
EI-Guendy, Heba
Kott, Joseph
RE: Comments Needed - Trial Implementation of College Terrace Traffic Calming Plan
Importance:High
Heba,
have reviewed tlie document and map for the College Terrace Traffic Plan as submitted. In cocept, this looks
acceptable. Of all the
traffic calming-type devices, the Fire Department is most comfortable with tables and circles (tables being preferred
over all other
devices). The only other comment I have re:!he map is that the devices should be more uniformly distributed..Call me if
you have
any questions. There should be adequte Signage or striping (reflective in nature) for night time responses by emergency
units.
Nick
---Original Message .....
From=Kott, Joseph
Sent:, Wednesday, August 18, 2004 9:51 AMTo;Madnaro, Nick
Cc=EI-Guendy, Heba
Subje~."FW: Comments Needed - Trial Implementation of College Terrace Traffic Calming Plan
,Hi Nick,
FYI - please note below the request sent to.Judy by Ms. EI-Guendy. Are you still our contact person With the FD as
regards traffic calming projects review? If so, we would greatly appreciate your assistance in this matter.
Thanks!
Best regards,
Joe
..... Original Message .....
From:EI-Guendy, Heba
Sent:Tuesday, August 17, 2004 10:59 AM
To:Jewell, Judy; Venable, Mark
Cc:Kott, Joseph
Subje~=Comments Needed - Trial Implementation of College Ter.race Tr’affic Calming Plan
Hello,
I joined the Transportation Division about a month ago working under Joe Kott. I replaced Carl Stoffel after he retired.
Please find attached a file containing three exhibits as follows:
Existing Base Map: Showing locations of existing roadway closures and intersection controls (stop signs and
traffic signals);
Option B: Illustrating a mild traffic calming plan that relies on the visual effects of installing electronic speed signs,
traffic safety banners, and neighborhood traffic watch signs; and,
Option A: A physical traffic calming plan that employs traffic circles, speed tables and raised pedestrian
crosswalks.
Extensive public consultation process was carried out to obtain the community’s input with regard to the three above
1
noted alternatives (i.e., keeping status co, installing signs and banners, or constructing physical traffic calming
devices). The community consultation process included holding community meetings, circulation of a survey letter,.
having a community outreach booth at a~picnic,~publishing project information-in the community association’s
newsletter, etc.
Findings of the community consultation process and circulation of the survey letter concluded that the majority of the
impacted community is in favor of "Option A". In other words, consensus has been reached in favor of implementing
the traffic circles, speed tables and raised crosswalks.
I would appreciate receiving your comments with regard to the "Option A" plan. I realize that the devices are not yet in
.. place, and it is.difficult.to address their impacts on response time and whether the’emergency services would continue
.......... to.operate-within established goals. However, I would ask you to-provide general comments and observations based
on your evaluation.ef.the ~atta~hed.e~hibit, and knowledge of the area~ Your comments,could also include your
experience with traffic calming devices established in other neighborhoods.
The College Terrace Traffic Calming Project ispresently on the agenda of the Planning and Transportatio~ .
Commission scheduled for this coming September 8th. The staff report r~commends the trial implementation of traffic
calming plan"Option A". Most likely the trial period would last for about a year in order to allow a reasonable period to
carry out the after surveys of traffic speeds and volumes, consult with involved departments and agencies, consult with
the impacted community, schedule the project on Commission and Council agendas, etc.
This week, I will be preparing the staff report for the trial implementation of the College Terrace Traffic Calming Plan
(Option A). Therefore, I would kindly ask you to e-mail me your comments as soon as possible.
Thank you, and I look forward to working with you.
Heba EI-Guendy
Transportation Engineer
Transportation Division
Tel: (650).329-2552
Fax: (650) 617-3108
<< File: Trial Plan.xls >>
EI-Guend~/, Heba
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Hernandez, Jon
Sunday, August 22, 2004 9:00 AM
EI-Guendy, Heba
Kott, Joseph
FW: Comments Needed - Trial Im plementation of College Terrace Traffic Calming Plan
Heba: Sorry.to not getting.back to you ~so.oner.
emergencies in the College Terrace area.
Lt. Jon Hernandez.
This proposal-will not impact the Police De partment’s ability to respond to.
.....Odginal Message---
From:Kott, Joseph
Sent:Wednesday, August 18, 2004 9:16 AM
To:Hernandez, Jon
Cc:EI-Guendy, Heba
Subject:FW: Comments Needed - Trial Implementation of College Terrace Traffic Calming Plan
Dear Jon,
Please note Ms. EI-Guendy’s request. I am not sure if Mark is reading his e-mail, so thought that it would be wise to
forward this on to you in the event that you have assumed (or re-assumed) Mark’s traffic enforcement supervisory duties
during his absence.
Best regards
Joe
....Odginal Message .....
From.’EI-Guendy, Heba
Sent:Tuesday, August 17, 2004 10:59 AM
To:Jewell, Judy; Venable, Mark
Cc:Kott, Joseph
Subject:Comments Needed - Trial Implementation of College Terrace Traffic Calming Plan
Hello,
I joined the Transportation Division about a month ago working under Joe Kott. I replaced Carl Stoffel after he retired.
Please find attached a file containing three exhibits as follows:
Existing E3ase Map: Showing locations of existing roadway closures and intersection controls (stop signs and traffic
signals);
Option E3: Illustrating a mild traffic calming plan that relieson the visual effects of installing electronic speed signs,
traffic safety banners, and neighborhood traffic watch signs; and,
Option A: A physical traffic calming, plan that employs traffic circles, speed tables and raised pedestrian crosswalks.
Extensive public consultation process was carried out to obtain the community’s input with regard to the three above noted
alternatives (i.e., keeping status co, installing signs and banners, or constructing physical traffic calming devices)..The
community consultation process inc’luded holding community meetings, circulation of a survey letter, having a community
outreach booth at a picnic, publishing project information in the community association’s newsletter, etc.
Findings of the community consultation process and circulation of the survey letter concluded that the majority of the
impacted community is in favor of "Option A". In other words, consensus has been reached in favor of implementing the
traffic circles, speed tables and raised crosswalks.
I Would appreciate receiving your comments with regard to the "Option A" plan. I realize that the devices are not yet in
place, and it is difficult to address their impacts on response time and whether the emergency services would continue to
operate within established goals. However, I would ask you to provide general comments and observations based on your
evaluation of the attached exhibit and knowledge of the area. Your comments could also include your experience with
traffic calming devices established in other neighborhoods.
The College Terrace Traffic Calming Project is presently on the agenda of the Planning and Transportation Commission
scheduled for this coming September 8th. The staff report recommends the trial implementation of traffic calming plan
"Op{ion A". Most likely the trial period would last for about a year in order to allow a reasonable period to carry out the after
surveys of traffic speeds and volumes, consult with involved departments and agencies, consult with the impacted
community, schedule the project on Commission and Council agendas, etc.
This week, I will be preparing the staff report for the trial implementation of the College Terrace Traffic Calming Plan
(Option A). Therefore, I would kindly ask you to e-mail me your comments as soon as possible,
Thank you, and I look forward to workin.q with you.
Heba EI-Guendy
Transportation Engineer
Transportation Division
Tel: (650) 329-2552
Fax: (650) 617-3108
Trial Plan.xls
ATTACHMENT H
Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Palo Alto
Department of Planning and Community Environment
California Environmental Quality Act
MITIGA TED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
College Terrace Traffic Calming Project
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared by the Palo Alto
Department of P!anning and Community Environment for theproject listed below. In accordance with CEQA
Guidelines, this document is available for review and comment’ during a’~~uifi 20-day inspection period
beginning September 3, 2004 and ending on September 22, 2004. Written comments may be submitted to the
Department of Planning and Community Environment during the hours of 8:00AM to 5:30 PM in the
Transportation Division, Civic Center, 250 Hamilton Avenue, (fifth floor), or 8:00 AM to 4 PM at the Development
Center, 285 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, California or FAX 650-617-3108. The Initial Study prepared for the
Mitigated Negative Declaration may also be reviewed at the Department of Planning and Community Environment,
Transportation Division. ,
I.DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
Date: September 3, 2004 Application Nos.: Not Applicable-
Project Location: College Terrace Area, City of Palo Alto
The College Terrace area is bounded by E1 Camino Real on the east side, California Avenue on
the south side, Amherst Street on the west side, and Stanford Avenue on the north side. The area
predominantly contains single-family residences except for a small amount of commercial uses
along El Camino Real. The main land uses surrounding the College Terrace area consist of
Stanford University on the north and west sides, and Stanford Research Park on the south side.
Project Sponsor’s Name and Address:City of Palo Alto Transportation Division
P.O. Box 10250, Palo Alto CA 94303
Contact Person and Phone Number:Heba E1-Guendy (650) 329-2552
heba.elguendy@cityofpaloalto.org
Proj ect Description:
The attached Plan A illustrates the type and location of physical traffic calming devices
recommended for trial implementation in the College Terrace area. The plan contains a total of
six speed tables and raised crosswalks (similar.design), and five traffic circles as listed below.
Stanford Avenue: From east to west along Stanford Avenue, Plan A recommends a speed table
west of Wellesley Street, and a raised crosswalk just west of Oberlin Street. The plan also
recommends speed tables west of Amherst Street and Dartmouth Street.
College Avenue: Four traffic circles at the intersections of College Avenue with Yale Street,
Oberlin Street, Hanover Street, and Columbia Street.
Cambridge Avenue: A traffic circle at the intersection of Cambridge Avenue/Yale Street.
California Avenue: A raised crosswalk at the west side of its intersection with Wellesley Street,
and a speed table west of Princeton Street..
A workable community majority has been reached in favor of the trial implementation of Plan A.
The project’s Mitigated Negative Declaration provides the foundation under the California
Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA’Y) for the City Council’s approval Of the trial
implementation of the traffic calming devices in College Terrace.
The recommended plan~:also~includes~perfomaance meas..uresi~to ~eet ~.i.ty.,g0als ~.established for
the plan. These measures include reducing cut-through traffic, limiting diverted traffic, reducing
vehicular speeding, monitoring intersection delays/LOS, monitoring vehicular accidents
following plan installation, monitoring police and fire responses to the neighborhood, and
tracking comments from other agencies (USPS, transit operators, PASCO) regarding the plan
elements. Some of these performance measures also act as mitigation measures in the form of
"performance standards" under CEQA and are further discussed in the traffic and public service
sections below. The other performance measures are in place to meet project goals. The
recommended trial period is one year following the project’s construction. This will allow
detailed monitoring of the project and determination of whether the resulting conditions satisfy
the performance measures. If they are met, the plan will be considered for permanent
establishment. In the event that the performance measures are not being met, the Director of
Planning wiff authorize corrective (improvement) actions based on recommendations of the
Transportation Division, to modify the traffic calming devices so that the performance measures
are met. These improvement actions could include the removal of one or more of the traffic
.calming devices, changes to the device(s) design, installation of other traffic calming elements to
streets with greater than anticipated diverted traffic, etc.
II. DETERMINATION
In accordance with the City of Palo Alto’s procedures for compliance with the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City has conducted an Initial Study to determine
whether the proposed College Terrace Traffic Calming Project may have a significant
effect on the environment. On the basis of that study, the City makes the following
determination:
The proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION is hereby adopted.
X Although the project, as proposed, could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be a significant effect on the environment in this
case because mitigation measures have been added to the project and,
therefore, a MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION is hereby adopted.
The initial study, described in following pages, incorporates all relevant information
regarding the potential environmental effects of the project and confirms the
determination that an EIR is not required for the project. The Initial Study includes some
project performance measures and corrective actions that are included as part of the traffic
calming project.
College Terrace Traffic Calming Project MND
September 2004
AIR OUALITY
Mitigation AQ-1. 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 thereare" exposed or disturbed soil surfaces;-sweep daily (with-water sweepers);
e.Provide daily clean-up of mud and dirt carried onto paved streets;
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.
NOISE
Mitigation NOISE-l: Construction hours would 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 the City Noise Ordinance, Chapter
9.10 requirements. All construction track traffic shall conform to the City of Palo Alto Trucks
and Traffic Ordinance (10.48) that details city truck routes. Following construction of the plan, it
is not expected that the traffic calming devices will cause significant noise impacts. The
following bar chart illustrates noise levels in the vicinity of an uncontrolled location, a four-way
stop controlled intersection, a traffic circle and a raised crosswalk.
Traffic Noise Levels Near Feature
74
72
70
68
66
64
6O
58
56
54
Uncontrolled 4-Way Stop
Soume: City of Bot~der, Environmental Enforcement Department Somd Study,, 1~g7
Traffic Circle Raised Crossing
PUBLIC SERVICES
Mitigation FIRE-l: As additional assurance against any substantial increase in response travel
times, the recommended trial implementation of the traffic calming plan provides for monitoring
of response times for one year succeeding the plan’s installation to ensure that there is
compliance with the following performance measures.
Performance Measure: The travel times for Fire Department calls within and near the College
Terrace neighborhood will not exceed the department’s mission goals for travel time of 4
College Terrace Traffic Calming Project MND 3September 2004
minutes for 90% of fire and basic medical responses, and 6 minutes for 90% of advanced
medical responses (paramedics) attributable to implementation of the traffic calming plan.
Performance Measure: 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
Department within and near the College Terrace neighborhood attributable to the traffic calming
plan.
In the event that monitoring shows a pattern of substantial increases in response travel times,
further actions will be taken tff eiimina~e any such~incre~i~s. Im~sr0i~ement ileti6iiS Tor the two
aforementioned performance measures could include moving or removing one or more of the
traffic, calming devices recommended in the plan to address the specific problem, and
considering installation of an alternative device(s).
Mitigation POLICE-I: As noted earlier, the recommended traffic calming Plan A provides for
monitoring of response times for one year succeeding the plan’s construction to ensure that flaere
is compliance with the following performance measures.
Performance Measure: The travel times for Police Department calls within and near the College
Terrace neighborhood will not exceed the department’s mission goals for travel time of 3
minutes attributable to implementation of the traffic calming plan.
Performance Measure: There will be no serious impediments in any emergency activities,
including identifiable trends in increases in travel times during the trial period, of the Police
Department within and near the neighborhood attributable to the traffic calming plan.
In the event that monitoring shows unanticipated increases in response times, further actions will
be taken to eliminate any such increases. Improvement actions for the performance m~asures
associated with Police service could include moving or removing one or more of the traffic
calming devices to address the specific problem, and considering installation of an alternative
device(s).
TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC
Mitigation TRANSPORTATION-l: As additional 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: On local and collector streets with "before" counts of less’than 2500
vehicles per day (vpd), no average daily vehicle count at a peripheral or internal location will
increase by more than 25% of the "before" count. On local streets, the addition will not cause the
volume to exceed 2500 vpd +-10%.
Performance Measure: On local streets with a "before" count of 2500 vpd or greater, no average
daily traffic count at a peripheral or internal location will increase by more than 10% of the
"before" count.
In the event .that monitoring shows a pattern of substantial traffic diversions, further actions will
be taken to meet goals of the performance measures. The improvement actions for the
performance measures include: (a) install additional traffic calming measures on street segments
or at ends of street segments where the diversion standard is exceeded (such measures could
include center medians, speed tables, and/or electronic speed limit signs); (b) move or remove
College Terrace Traffic Calming Project MND 4September 2004
one or more of the constructed devices to address the specific problem; and, (c) replace one or
more of the constructed devices with alternatives.
Mitigation TRANSPORTATION-2: As an 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: The AM or PM. peak. hour Level of Service (LOS) at the signalized
intersection~ in..College Terrace (Stanford Avenue at Escondido Road and Hanover Street) will
not degrade ~o ~unacce~i~ible leveis~ ............................................... ...........
In the event that monitoring shows intersections worsen beyond LOS D, further actions will be
taken to meet the performance measure goal..For example, signal improvement could be
achieved through a change in 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.
Heba gineer
~ve Emsli~, Director of Planning
and Community Environment
Date~
Date
College Terrace Traffic Calming Project MND 5September 2004
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
City of Palo Alto
Department of Planning and Community Environment
=
=
=
Project Title: College Terrace Traffic Calming Project
Lead Agency~lame~and-Address: ~ Cit.y=of Palo..,.Alto.,.Transportation Division,
P.O. Box 10250, Palo Alto CA 94303
Contact Person and Phone Number: Heba EI-Guendy (650) 329-2552
Project Location: College Terrace neighborhood, City of Palo Alto
The College Terrace area is bounded by El Camino Real on the east side,
California Avenue on the south side, Amherst Street on the west side, and
Stanford Avenue on the north side.
Application Number(s): Not applicable
Project Sponsor’s Name and Address: Same as lead agency
General Plan Designation: The area predominantly contains single-family
residences except for a small amount of commercial uses along El Camino Real.
Main land uses surrounding College Terrace area consist of Stanford University
on the north and westsides, and Stanford Research Park on the south side.
Zoning: Improvements are primarily within the road right of way. Zoning within
the College Terrace neighborhood includes R-l, RMD (NP), PF, and CN.
Description of the Project: 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
specific traffic calming plan proposed for trial implementation by the
Transportation Division is shown on the attached Plan A. This initial study
analyzes the environmental impacts not only of the recommended Plan A, but
also other plans with slightly different traffic calming elements. In this manner, the
Mitigated Negative Declaration provides the foundation under the California
Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") for the City Council’s approval of the Plan A,
or alternate plans with similar or lesser impacts. These alternate plans could
include adding, removing, and/or relocating traffic calming devices relative the
presently recommended Plan A. The traffic calming devices recommended for
trial implementation are as follows:
Stanford Avenue: From east to west along Stanford Avenue, Plan A
recommends a speed table west of Wellesley Street, and a raised crosswalk just
west of Oberlin Street. The Plan also recommends speed tables west of
Amherst Street and Dartmouth Street.
College Terrace Traffic Calming Plan
Environmental Checklist Page 1 of 29
College Avenue.: Four traffic circles at the intersections of College Avenue with
Yale .Street, Oberlin Street, Hanover Street, and Columbia Street.
Cambridge Avenue: A traffic circle at the intersection of Cambridge.
Avenue/Yale Street,
Califothia Av~ue:~A’ raised~crosswalk~’at: the ’westside of ~its: intersection with
Wellesley Street, and a speed table west of Princeton Street,
Appropriate signing and pavement markings will be established along with the
recommended physical traffic calming devices. In addition, Caltrans will be
requested to apply some signal timing modifications at the intersection of
Cambridge Avenue/El Camino Real.
10.
The proposed Plan A includes performance measures to meet city goals
established for the project. These measures include reducing through traffic,
limiting diverted traffic, monitoring vehicular speeds, monitoring intersection
delays, monitoring vehicular accidents following plan installation, monitoring
police and fire responses to the neighborhood, and tracking comments .from
other agencies (USPS, transit operators, PASCO) regarding the Plan elements.
Some of these performance measures also act as mitigation measures in the
form of "performance standards" under CEQA and are further discussed in the
traffic & public service sections below. The other performance measures are in
place to meet project goals. Once the proposed project is implemented, it will be
monitored for at least one year following construction, in order to determine if the
resulting conditions satisfy the performance measures. If they are meti no further
action will be needed. In the event that the performance measures are not being
met, the Director of .Planning will take corrective actions (improvement actions)
based on recommendations of the Transportation Division to modify the traffic
calming measures so that the performance measures are met. These
improvement actions are summarized in the attached i"Performance Measures
and Improvement Actions for the College Terrace Traffic Calming Plan", which
include such actions as removal of one or more of the traffic calming devices,
replacement with alternative devices, installation of additional traffic calming
elements ito street segments ~ with greater than anticipated diverted traffic.
Recommendations taken to meet performance measures will not alter the
environmental analysis contained in this initial study, nor cause additional
significant impacts.
Uses and Setting: (Briefly describe the project’sSurrounding Land
surroundings)
The neighborhood consists primarily of single family residential, properties, with
some neighborhood and~ regional/community commercial properties on the
easterly edges of the neighborhood adjacent to El Camino Real. Local parks are
College Terrace Traffic Calming Plan
Environmental Checklist Page 2 of 29
located within College Terrace neighborhood. Stanford University is located on
the north and west sides of College Terrace area, Stanford Research Park is
located on the area’s south side.
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
Biological Resources
Cultural Resources
GeologylSoils
Hazards & Hazardous
Materials
Hydrology/Water
Quality
Land Use/Planning
Mineral Resources
Noise
Population/Housing
Public Services
Recreation
Transportation/Traffic
Utilities/Service
Systems
Mandatory Findings
of Significance
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,
X
College Terrace Traffic Calming Plan
Environmental Checklist Page 3 of 29
I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant
impact" or "po.tentially ~significant unless mitigated" impact on the
environment, -but at least one, effect: 1) has been adequately analyzed in
.an earlier.-documentpursuant to applicable legal .standards, .and 2) has
been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as
.described_onattached.sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is
-~requited, but it must analyze on ly .theeffects 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.
Transportatio Engin= .=r
~D~ec.t~r~f Pl’an-ning and
(~ord’munity Environment
Date
College Terrace Traffic Calming Plan
Environmental Checklist Page 4 of 29
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’sim’ply’does not ’apply to~-projects.iikethe 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).
College Terrace Traffic Calming Plan
Environmental Checklist Page 5 of 29
IsSUes and Supporting
Information Resources.
Have a substanti;~l adverse
effect-on a scenic vista?
b) Substantially damage
scenic resources,
including, but not limited
to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic
buildings within a state
scenic highway?
c) Substantially degrade the
existing visual character or
quality of the site and its,
surroundings?
d) Create a new source of
substantial light or glare,
which would adversely
affect day or nighttime
views in the area?
Sources
AESTHETICS. Would the project:
2;3
2,3
2,3
2,3
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
LessThan
Significant
Impact
X
No
Impact
X
X
X
II,
a)
b)
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:
X
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?
Involve other changes in
,,
X
X
College Terrace Traffic Calming Plan
Environmental Checklist Page 6of 29
Issues and Supporting
Information Resources
III.
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
IV.
the existing environment
which, due to their location
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation,
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
or nature,"cot~ld resultin "
conversion of Farmland, to
non-agricultural use?
AIR QUALITY.. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable
quality management or .air pollution control district may be .relied upon to make the
following determinations. Would the project:
Conflict with or obstruct ,X
implementation of the
applicable air quality plan?¯
Violate any air quality X
standard or contribute
substantially to an existing
or projected air quality
violation
Result in a cumulatively X
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)?
Expose sensitive receptors ~X
to substantial pollutant
concentrations?¯¯
Create objectionable odors X
affecting a substantial
number of people?
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
Have a substantial adverse
effect, either directly or
through habitat
modifications, on any
species identified as a
candidate, sensitive, or
No
Impact
air
X
College Terrace Traffic Calming Plan
Environmental Checklist Page 7 of 29
Issues and Supporting
Information Resources
special status species in
local or regional plans,
policies, 0rregulations,
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 community
identified in local or
regional plans, policies,
regulations or by the
California Department of
Fish and Game or US Fish
and Wildlife Service?
c) 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?
d) 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?
e) Conflict with any local
policies or ordinances
protecting biological
resources, such as a tree
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
.X
X
X
X
College Terrace Traffic Calming Plan
Environmental Checklist Page 8 of 29
Issues and Supporting
Information Resources
Sources Potentially
¯Significant
Issues
preservation policy or
ordinance?
f). Conflict with the proVisions
of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural
Community Conservation
Plan, or other approved
local, regional, or state
habitat conservation plan?-
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial
adverse change in the ’
significance of a historical
resource as defined in
15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial
adverse change in the
significance of an
archaeological resource
pursuant to 15064.5?
c) Directly or indirectly
¯ destroy a unique
paleontological resource or
site or unique geologic
feature?
d) Disturb any human
remains, including those
interred outside of formal
cemeteries?
VI. GEOLOGYAND SOILS. Would the project:
a) 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
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X
X
X
X
X
X
College Terrace Traffic Calming Plan
Environmental Checklist Page 9 of 29
Issues and Supporting
Information Resources
ii)
iii)
Geologist for thearea or
based on other
substa’ntial ~evidence of
a known fault? Refer to
Division of Mines and
Geology Special
Publication 42.
Strong seismic ground
shaking?
Seismic-related ground
failure, including
liquefaction?
No
Impact
X
X
X
X
X
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
iv) Landslides?
b) Result in substantial soil
erosion or the loss of
topsoil?
c) 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- oroff-site
landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction or
collapse?
d) 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?
e) Have soils incapable of
adequately supporting the
use of septic tanks or
alternative waste water
disposal systems where
sewers are not available for
the disposal of waste
water?
VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project?
a) Create a significant hazard t I I
Less Than
Significant
Impact
X
X
t X
College Terrace Traffic Calming Plan
Environmental Checklist Page 10 of 29
Issues and Supporting
Information Resources
to the public or the
environment through the
routing transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous
materials?
b) 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?
c) Emit hazardous emissions
or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous.
materials, substances, or
waste within one-quarter
mile of an existing or
proposed school? ~
d) 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?
e) 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?
f) For a project within the
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X
X
X
X
X
College Terrace Traffic Calming Plan
Environmental Checklist Page 11 of 29
Issues and Supporting
Information Resources
Sources
vicinity of a private airstrip,
would the project result in a
safety hazard for people "-
residing or working the
project area?
g) Impair implementation of or 1,2,3
physically interfere with an
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.
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
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Would the project:
No
impact.
X
X
X
X
College Terrace Traffic Calming Plan
Environmental Checklist Page 12 of 29
Issues and Supporting
Information Resources
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?
e) Create or contribute runoff
water which would exceed
the capacity of existing or
planned stormwater
drainage systems or
provide substantial
additional sources of
polluted runoff?
f) Otherwise substantially
degrade water quality?
g) 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?
h) Place within a 100-year
flood hazard area
.structures which would
impede or redirect flood
flows?
i)Expose people or
structures to .a significant
risk of loss, injury or death
Sources
2,3
2,3
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
X
No
Impact
X
X
X
X
X
College Terrace Traffic Calming Plan
Environmental Checklist Page 13 of 29
Issues and Supporting
Information Resources
J)
a)
b)
c)
X=
b)
Potentially Less Than
Significant Significant
Unless Impact
Sources
Mitigation
Incorporated
Potentially
Significant
Issues
involve flooding, including
flooding as a result of the
failure of a levee 0i~ dam? ..........
Inundation by seiche,
tsunami, or mudflow?
LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project:
Physically divide an 1,2,3
established community?
Conflict with any applicable 1,2,3
land 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 project:
Result in the loss of
availability of a known
mineral resource that would
be of value to the region
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
No
Impact
X
X
X
X
X
XL
a)X
College Terrace Traffic Calming Plan
Environmental Checklist Page 14 of 29
Issues and Supporting
Information Resources
in excess of standards
established in the local
general plan or noise
ordinance, or applicable
standards of other
agencies?
b) Exposure of persons to or
generation of excessive
ground borne vibration or
ground borne noise levels?
c) A substantial permanent
increase in ambient noise
levels in the project vicinity
above levels existing
without the project?
d) A substantial temporary or
periodic increase in
ambient noise levels in the
project vicinity above levels
existing without the
project?
e) 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?
f)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?
XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING.
a) Induce substantial
population growth in an
area, either directly (for
example, by proposing new
homes and businesses) or
Sources
2,3
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Less Than
Issues
Significant Significant
Would the project:
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Impact
X
No
Impact
.X
X
X
X
X
College Terrace Traffic Calming Plan
Environmental Checklist Page 15 of 29
Issues and Supporting
Information Resources
b)
c)
Sources Potentially
Significant
Unless
indirectly (for example,
through extension of roads
or other infrastructure)? ’. ...................
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Issues
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
public services:
No
Impact
X
Fire protection?1,2,3
Police protection?1,2,3
X
College Terrace Traffic Calming Plan
Environmental Checklist Page 16 of 29
Issues and Supporting
Information Resources
Schools?
Parks?
Other public facilities?
Sources
1,2,3
1;2;3 ....
1,2,3
XIV. RECREATION
a) Would the project increase
the use of existing
neighborhood and regional
parks or other recreational
facilities such that
substantial.physical
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.
a) Cause an increase in traffic
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
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Would the project:
1,2,3
1,2,3
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X
X
X
X
X
College Terrace Traffic Calming Plan
Environmental Checklist Page 17 of 29
Issues and Supporting
Information Resources ....
c)
roads or highways?
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)?
Sources
1,2,3
1,2,3
1,2,3
1,2,3
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
X
X
No
Impact
X
X
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS.
a) Exceed wastewater
b)
treatment requirements of
the applicable Regional
Water Quality Control
Board?
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?
Would the project:
c)Require or result in the X
construction of new storm
X
X
College Terrace Traffic Calming Plan
Environmental Checklist Page 18 of 29
Issues and Supporting
Information Resources
water drainage facilities or
expansion of existing
facilities,~ the~Cons~truction ....
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?
Sources Potentially
Significant
Unless
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
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
No
Impact
X
X
X
X
X
College Terrace Traffic Calming Plan
Environmental Checklist Page 19 of 29
Issues and Supporting Sources
Information Resources
b)
c)
Potentially
Significant
Issues
community, reduce the
number or restrict the
¯ range of arar6~or
endangered plant or animal
or eliminate important
examples of the major
periods of California history
or prehistory?
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 inconnection
with the effects of past
projects, the effects of
other current projects, and
the effects of probable
future projects)?
Does the project have 1,2,3
environmental effects
which will cause
substantial adverse effects
on human beings, either
directly or indirectly?
Potentially
Significant
,Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
X
No
Impact
X
SOURCE REFERENCES:
1. Planning and Transportation Commission Staff Report, October 13, 2004,
Colleqe Terrace Neighborhood Traffic Calminq Proiect--Recommendations to
Proceed with Trial Implementation of the Physical Traffic Calminq Devices in
Plan A.
2. City of Palo Alto Nei.qhborhood Traffic Calmin.q Program (Booklet), April 9, 2001
3.Traffic Calmin,q, State of the Practice, Reid Ewing, Institute of Transportation
Engineers, August 1999.
College Terrace Traffic Calming Plan
Environmental Checklist Page 20 of 29
EXPLANATION FOR CHECKLIST RESPONSES: Explain choice of impact
category.
Traffic calming devices in Plan A include a total of five traffic circles, as well as six
speed tables and raised crosswalks (similar design). Main objectives of this traffic
calming plan are to reduce cut-through movements in the College Terrace area, and
reduce-vehicularspeeding:"~’he"’recommended devices .wiil..be~ constructed within the
City’s existing right-of-way in a typical urban environment. Therefore, some sections in
the Initial Study are identified as not be impacted by the proposed project and only
briefly discussed below.
Some of the impacts discussed in this Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for trial
implementation are construction-related, such as short-term traffic delay and minor air
quality and noise impacts during construction. Construction traffic must use City-
established truck routes to and from the neighborhood. Construction hours must comply
with Palo Alto Municipal code. Installation and any street work repairs from removal
must meet established City of Palo Alto Public Works specifications.
I. AESTHETICS
I. a), b), & d): The proposed plan will not impact any scenic vistas, damage any scenic
resources, nor create a new source of light or glare that will adversely impact views in
the area.
I. ): Substantially degrade existing visual character? Less than Significant Impact.
Proposed traffic calming Plan A will result in addingsigning, pavement markings, traffic
circles, and speed tables in the College Terrace neighborhood. Although these features
will be noticeable additions to the street, they are not uncharacteristic features of a
typical streetscape. The proposed elements will not detract from the residential
character of the streets nor significantly degrade the visual charaCter of the
neighborhood.
II. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES a)- c): No impact, The proposed plan is located in
an urban environment and will not convert or result in the conversion of farmland or
Williamson Act contract lands,
III. AIR QUALITY
II1. a), d) & e): No impact. The proposed traffic calming elements will not conflict with
any applicable air quality plans, expose any sensitive receptors to substantial pollutants,
nor add any objectionable odors to the neighborhood.
II!. b) & c): Violate air quality standards? Less than significant impact. This traffic
calming project is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan as discussed in the Land
Use and Planning Section. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD)
Guidelines encourage cities to design and implement traffic calming measures and
ways to increase pedestrian and bicycle use. The City of Palo Alto utilizes the BAAQMD
College Terrace Traffic Calming Plan
Environmental Checklist Page 21 of 29
thresholds of significance for project review of potential air quality impacts. BAAQMD is
the responsible agency for regulating and providing guidance to jurisdictions for air
quality and pollutants of concern, ~Many pollutants of concern such as carbon monoxide
and ozone are regulated on a region-wide basis. The BAAQMD thresholds.for projects
look at 1) a project’s direct contribution to pollutants of concern (those in non-
attainment) to the region (most often through additional vehicle trips), 2) where project
-.-~..traffic causes intersections with Dor.worse..;to~decline ~further,.and .3) for projects ~that
’ directly-"a-ddi~’l~00~o’r-more,~ehicle ~trips,;whether-those..additional..vehicle ..trips cause
significant shifts in traffic patterns.
The proposed traffic-calming project does not add vehicle trips to the College Terrace
area; therefore the first and last BAAQMD thresholds do not apply. The two key
signalized intersections for the project are Stanford Avenue/Escondido Road and
Stanford Avenue/Hanover Street. Additional traffic counts will be conducted in the
College Terrace area prior to the trial implementation of Plan A. Based on the new
data, operational level of service (LOS) will be determined at the two signalized
intersections for the "before" conditions. During the one-year trial .period, "after" traffic
counts will be carried out, and the signals’ LOS will be reevaluated for the "after"
conditions. It is not expected that the traffic calming plan recommended for trial
implementation will degrade the LOS at the two signalized intersections. However, if
any significant deterioration in the signals operation is detected, appropriate corrective
actions will be taken. Such corrective actions could include improvements in signal
timing and phasing plans.
As previously discussed, installation ofPlan A elements will result in minor construction-
related impacts, including particulate matter releases with grading or paving that occurs.
The levels released will not be at significant levels given the small-scale nature of the
traffic calming improvements. The BAAQMD does not require the quantification of short-
term particulate matter emissions and does not consider such emissions to be a
significant impact to nearby sensitive receptors or others, provided that certain standard
construction practices to reduce fugitive dust are implemented. Accordingly, these
measures from the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines will be required of the City’s contractors
in the undertaking of the installation and removal of the traffic calming improvements.
To mitigate air quality impacts during project implementation, 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.
College Terrace Traffic Calming Plan
Environmental Checklist Page 22 of 29
Significance after mitigation measures: With mitigation incorporated~ there would be a
less than significant impact for short-term air quality impacts.
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES a) -f) No impact. The proposed, project plan is
entirely within a previously disturbed road right-of-way in an urban area, does not
involve wetland, riparian, HCP lands, nor stream habitats and will not affect
endangered, candidate, local, sensitive, or special species nor their habitat. Installation
ofthe~project~rneasureswill-not impact~tocal~’bio|ogicat.-resources (trees).
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES ......................................
V. a) - d) No impact. Change the significance of a historic resource? Destroy a unique
paleontological or unique geological feature. The proposed traffic calming elements are
located within the road right-of-way and there are no unique paleontological resources
or sites or unique geological features in the project area .....
VI. GEOLOGY & SOILS a)- e) No impact. The proposed plan is located in the
seismically active San Francisco Bay area so ground shaking during a major
earthquake would likely be severe, The College Terrace neighborhood is an area with
expansive soils. Even though the plan is located in a seismically active area and an
area with expansive soils, the traffic calming improvements would not increase the risk
to public .health and safety or increase the potential for geo-seismic hazards because
traffic calming elements do not bring any more people into an existing area with greater
,seismic risk than that which would otherwise be experienced,
VII. HAZARDS & HAZARDOUS MATERIALS a) - h) No impact.
Plan A recommended for trial implementation includes improvements within the existing
.right-of-way in a primarily residential area. The plan and its construction do not increase
the risk of exposure to. hazardous materials or material sites. The traffic calming plan is
neither located within 2 miles of either a public or private use airport, .nor in an FAA
designated civilian airport Runway Clear zone (RCZ), or within a military airfield Clear
Zone (CZ) or Accident Potential Zone (APZ). The project is within a developed primarily
residential area and would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,
injury, or death involving wildfires. No potentially explosive, flammable fuels or chemical
storage facilities are located directly on the corridor. There are no additional closures
proposed in the College Terrace area that. would.detour traffic. Existing and future
signing for all traffic calming devices would aid motorists in way-finding in the
neighborhood.
VIII. HYDROLOGY a) - j) No Impact. Construction of the proposed traffic calming
improvements would comply with City, State and Federal standards pertaining to water
quality and waste discharge, and storm water run-off. The Plan would not substantially
alter the existing drainage pattern of the roadway. City standard conditions of approval
require the incorporation of Best Management Practices (BMPs) for storm water
pollution prevention in all construction operations, in conformance with the Santa Clara
Valley Non-Point Source Pollution Control Program. BMPs would be added to address
short-term construction impacts as well as permanent storm water runoff. With these
College Terrace Traffic Calming Plan
Environmental Checklist Page 23 of 29
BMPs during construction and operation, the traffic calming devices would not increase
¯ the hazard of stormwater pollution. Placing project elements within a 100-year flood
hazard area is further discussed under XVI (c).
IX..LAND USE AND PLANNING
IX. a) Physically divides an established community? No impact.
This plan does include any additional street closures that could divide street segments
¯ anddetou~’~’~vehicular-traffic~-The’=plan elements.do .not -.impede residents biking or
walking through the areas. Thus, the recommended traffic calming ~devices do notconstitute a division of the neighborhood in the sense that denies access between any
two parts of the community.
IX. b) Conflict with applicable land use plan or regulations? No impact.
The proposed traffic calming plan is consistent with the City of Palo Alto Comprehensive
Plan and would not conflict with .the residential use of the College Terrace
neighborhood.. The. Comprehensive Plan Transportation discussion strongly supports
traffic calming and minimizing traffic impacts to residential streets, including Policy T-34:
"Implement traffic calming measures to slow traffic on local and collector residential
streets... Include traffic circles and other traffic calming devices among these
measures"~ Other applicable Comprehensive Plan policies include Program T-32:
"Improve pedestrian crossings with bulbouts, small curb radii, street trees near corners,
bollards, and landscaping to create protected areas." In this case, pedestrian crossings
are improved through the establishment of raised crosswalks along with associated
signing and zebra markings.
IX c) Conflict with Habitat Conservation Plan? No impact.
X. MINERAL RESOURCES a) & b): No impact.
The proposed Plan is located within an urban area, previously disturbed road right-of-
way and would not include any areas with important mineral resources.
Xl. NOISE
Xl. a) - c); e) & f). No impact .....
The proposed Plan A will not expose persons to noise levels in excess of established
standards. Some vehicle trips will be diverted from one street to another, but this
diversion will not cause a significant increase in noise levels in this residential
neighborhood. Construction related noise is further discussed under d) below.
XI. d) Temporary noise impacts. Less than significant impact. Some noise will result
from the installation of the Plan. Typical construction noise sources would include
mechanical equipment associated with excavation, removal of pavement, and
construction vehicles. Although this impact is probably insignificant because of its short
duration, the following mitigation will be incorporated to ensure that it will be less than
significant.
Mitigation: Construction hours will 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 the City Noise Ordinance,
College Terrace Traffic Calming Plan
Environmental Checklist Page 24 of 29
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.
Significance after mitigation measures: With mitigation incorporated with the traffic
calming improvements, there would be a less than significant impact for temporary
construction-related noise impacts.
XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING a) - c) No impact. The proposed Plan’s goal is to
reduce lhe~’effects~of traffic to~the-College ,Terrace-neighborhood.. The.-proposed Plan
improvements do not add any new, nor displace existing, land uses. The Plan
improvements will not induce population growth or displacement of the existing
population.
Xlli. PUBLIC SERVICES
Xlll. a) Substantial adverse impact or increase the need of facilities for the provision of
fire protection services (to maintain acceptable service ratios)? Less than significant
impact.
There is no substantial evidence that Plan A will result in inadequate emergency
response or that it will impede maintenance of acceptable service ratios, response times
or other performance objectives for fire protection or other emergency services. The
devices used for traffic calming in the project area do not themselves have any
significant impacts on these services. Traffic circles and speed tables do not block nor
substantially slow any traffic movements. They are designed so that fire trucks and
other emergency vehicles will be able to make all turning and through movements in a
safe fashion. It should be noted that fire trucks can make left turns in front of the circles
(i.e., against the one-way circulation around the circle). Based on consultation with the
Fire and Police Departments, as well as based on experience with other traffic calming
projects, it can be concluded that traffic .circles and speed tables do not, constitute
significant impediment. However, response times will be monitored to identify and
implement corrective measures if necessary.
Potential Impact FIRE;I: Less than significant. Fire Station #2 is located in close
proximity to the College Terrace area, at the northeast quadrant of the intersection of
Hanover Street/Page Mill Expressway. Although the proposed Traffic Calming Plan A is
expected to meet the Department’s response time goals, mitigation in the form of two
performance measures is included with the project. This mitigation will ensure that the
Plan causes a less than significant impact. ~
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 for one year succeeding the plan’s construction to ensure that there is
compliance with the following Performance Measure: The travel times for Fire
Department calls within and near the College Terrace neighborhood will not exceed the
Department, mission goals of 4 minutes for 90% of fire and basic medical responses,
ands6 minutes for 90% of advanced medical responses (paramedics) attributable to
implementation of the traffic calming plan.
College Terrace Traffic Calming Plan
Environmental Checklist Page 25 of 29
in the event that monitoring shows a pattern of substantial increases in response travel
tim, es, further actions will be taken to eliminate any such increases in response times.
Improvement actions for performance measures could include removal, relocation, or
replacement of one or more of the traffic calming devices contained in Plan A:
Comments on the traffic calming plan received from the Fire Department are included
under A~achmen~ t G~’ofthe~’staff report to-the.Planning and-’Franspertation Commission.
Potential Impact POLICE-l: Less than sigr~ificant. Establishment of the. proposed
traffic calming devices would not increase the demand for police protection services nor
substantially delay resp.onse times within the College Terrace neighborhood. The
Police Department has a 3-minute response time goal. Although the trial implementation
of the traffic calming plan is not expected to significantly impact the police response
time, the project will be monitored during’its trial period of one year. The following
mitigation measure will ensure that the Plan will cause a less than significant impact.
POLICE-1 Mitigation: In the event that monitoring shows an unanticipated increases
of response times, further actions will be taken to eliminate any such reductions in
response times. Improvement actions will consider removal, replacement, and/or
relocation of one or more of the traffic calming devices.
Co.mments on the traffic calming plan received from the Police Department are included
under Attachment G of the staff report to the Planning and Transportation Commission.
XlV. RECREATION a) & b): No Impact. The project, because it does not result in any
new land uses, does not increase the demand for recreational facilities or curtail the use
of existing facilities.
XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC:
XV. a) & b) Substantial increase in traffic? & Exceed level of service standards?
Than Significant Impact.
Less
The proposed traffic calming project (or options with similar or lesser impacts) will not
cause an increase in traffic nor directly add vehicle trips to the area. There may be an
adjustment period for traffic to acclimate to the proposed plan installation. Clear signage
,in the area will aid in changing drivers behaviors. The proposed project includes some
options for alterations of the traffic calming plan as discussed above, but slightly
changing or relocating traffic calming devices would not alter the analysis conducted for
the proposed project and would likely reduce the level of impact identified in this Initial
Study. Project elements are within the City right-of-way, and the main objectives of the
devices are to reduce non-neighborhood shortcutting traffic and excessive speeding.
Traffic calming devices, such as traffic circles and speed tables communicate to drivers
that they are in.a more residential environment. Traffic circles permit all intersection
movements, but require traffic to slow to about 15 mph to go around the circles. The
College Terrace Traffic Calming Plan
Environmental Checklist Page 26 of 29
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.
Potential Impact TRANS -1: Although the proposed Plan elements (or similar plan
elements) .are not anticipated .to cause a more than 25% increase in diverted traffic,
-mitigation in the form of performance measures has been added to the project. This
mitigation will ensure that the Plan causes a less than significant impact.
TRANSPORTATION-1 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: On local and collector streets with "before" counts of less than
2500 vehicles per day (vpd), no average daily vehicle count at a peripheral or internal
location will increase by more than 25% of the "before" count. On local streets, the
addition will not cause the volume to exceed 2500 vpd -+10%.
Performance Measure: On local streets with a "before" count of 2500 vpd or greater, no
average daily traffic count at a peripheral or internal location will increase by more than
10% of the "before" count.
In the event that monitoring shows a pattern of substantial traffic diversions, further
actions will be taken to meet the performance measure goals. The improvement
actions for the performance measures: (a) install additional traffic calming measures on
street segments or at ends of street segments where the diversion standard is
exceeded (such measures could include center medians, speed tables, and/or
electronic speed limit signs); (b) move or remove one or more of the constructed
devices to address the specific problem; and, (c) replace one or more of the constructed
devices with alternatives.
Potential Impact TRANS-2: Intersections.
The proposed traffic calming project will not add additional vehicle trips to the College
Terrace neighborhood, including the signalized intersections of Stanford Avenue with
Escondido Road and Hanover Street. Therefore, the operational level of service (LOS)
at these signalized intersections is not expected to deteriorate to less than acceptable
(i.e., LOS "D").
TRANSPORTATION-2 Mitigation: As an 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: The AM or PM peak hour Level of Service (LOS) at the
signalized intersections in College Terrace (Stanford Avenue at Escondido Road and
Hanover Street) will not degrade to unacceptable levels.
College Terrace Traffic Calming Plan
Environmental Checklist Page 27 of 29
In the event that monitoring shows intersections worsen beyond LOS D, further actions
will be taken to meet the performance measure goal. For example, signal improvement
could beachieved through a-change in signal phasing and/or timing. This action can be
usedto fine tune the allotment of green time, thus increasing signal efficiency and
improving LOS.
XV. (:) Impact air traffic patterns? No impact.
XV. d) Substantially increase design hazards? Less Than Significant Impact.
The recommended traffic calming devices do not introduce abrupt changesin 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 practices, 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 neigh borhood.
XV. e) Result in Inadequate emergency access? Less than Significant Impact.
Please refer to discussion under XIIl(a) above.
XV.. f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? Less than Significant Impact.
Some areas in the College Terrace neighborhood experience heavy parking deman~l,
due partly to parking intrusion from the adjoining Stanford Campus and the commercial
area near El Camino Real. 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. The elimination of comer street parking would not be considered a
significant loss of parking.
XV. g) Conflict with alternative transportation programs or facilities? No impact. The
traffic calming improvements will not impact existing transit, pedestrian and bicycle
facilities. Traffic circles and speed tables allow passage of all vehicles, bicycles and
pedestrians. Similar to automobiles, some construction delays during installation of
elements is anticipated, but will not cause .significant delay. Overall, it is anticipated that
the traffic calming plan will provide some additional incentive for the use of alternative
forms of transportation.
XVl. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
XMI. a), b), & e): Exceed or expand wastewater treatment requirements? No impact.
The proposed traffic .~alming devices will not result in changes to wastewater treatment
requirements, or existing wastewater treatment facilities.
XVI. ¢) Result in new or expanded stormwater drainage facilities? Less than Significant
Impact.
: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
College Terrace Traffic Calming Plan
Environmental Checklist Page 28 of 29
degree under severe storm-conditions where gutters overflow. 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.
XVi. d) Sufficient water supplies for project? No impact.
XVI. f)& g): Sufficient land fill capacity & comply with solid waste regulations?No
impact.
XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
XVII(a) Mandatory Finding of Significance: Substantially degrade the environment,
wildlife or fish species or habitat, threaten a plant or animal community, impact rare or
endangered species, or archeological/paleontological resources? No impact.
The proposed traffic calming devices including traffic circles and speed tables, signing,
and markings are contained within the existing city street right-of-way and therefore the
proposed project does not have the potential to significantly degrade the environment
as discussed above; Mitigation measures are incorporated into the project to address
potential traffic impacts of the project.
XVll. b) Mandatory Finding of Significance: Impacts that are cumulatively
considerable? Less .than Significant Impact.
There are no additional street closures recommended as part of the traffic calming plan.
Some cut-through traffic may divert to the use of surrounding arterial street system
(Page Mill Road, Foothill Expressway, Junipero Serra .Boulevard, etc.). Arterial streets
are meant to be the carriers of most through traffic. The combined impact of the existing
street closures in College Terrace neighborhood and the addition of mainly speed
control measures do not create a significant cumulative impact because of the relatively
small amounts of diverted traffic from speed control measures. In the long run, the
potential exists for additional traffic calming plans within Palo Alto neighborhoods.
However, the Comprehensive Plan discourages the use of street closures unless
certain conditions are met, and the time frame for neighborhood-wide street closure
projects is very long due to the level of resources required. Thus, there are no
foreseeable cumulative impacts of trafficcalming plans.
XVll. c) Mandatory Finding of Significance: Substantial direct or indirect adverse effects
on human beings? No impact.
The project would not cause substantial adverse effects on human beings.
College Terrace Traffic Calming Plan
Environmental Checklist Page 29 of 29
Plan A
(Physical Traffic Calming Devices)
Escondido
Escondido
School
Bowdoin
Dartmouth
I I
Columbia
Bowdoin
Driveway
Ddveway
Obedin
I
Harvard
I
Hanover
Driveway
Amherst
Legend
Traffic Signal
Slop Sign
Traffic Circle
Speed Table
~ TablelRaised X-Walk
Hanover
Plan also Includes signal timing modification at CambrldgelECR and pavement legend Improvements
Source: K~mley-Hom end Associates, Inc.
ATTACHMENT I
Existing Conditions Report
By Kimley Horn and Associates, Inc.
Final Existing Conditions Report
COLLEGE TERRACE TRAFFIC
MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
30 December 2003
Prepared for:
City of Palo Alto, CA
Prepared by:
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.,
in cooperation with the College Terrace
Traffic Committee
Kirnley.Horn
and Associates, inc.
Final Existing Conditions Report
College Terrace Traffic Management Plan
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................1
PURPOSE ANDNEED ..............................~ ....................................................................2
OBJECTIVES AND DESIRED OUTCOMES .............~ .....................................................2
GENERAL ISSUES ...............................................................~ .........................................3
Increased Traffic Volumes ........................................................................................................................
Cut-Through Traffic ...................................................................................................................................6
Speeding .................................................................................................................................................12
Violation of Closures ...............................................................................................................................14
Rapid Acceleration ..................................................................................................................................16
Noise .......................................................................................................................................................16
Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety ................................................................................................................16
Failure to Respect Traffic Controls .........................................................................................................17
Visibility at Intersections ..........................................................................................................................18
Non-Local Trucks ....................................................................................................................................18
Lack of Civil Driving..~ ...............................................................................................................................18
DETAILED ISSUES ......................................................................................................19
Interior Streets .........................................................................................................................................19
Exterior Streets .......................................................................................................................................21
POTENTIAL CONSTRAINTS .......................................................................................22
Perception of the Problem ......................................................................................................................22
Resident, Emergency Service, and Other Service Provider Access ......................................................23
Limited Parking Supply ...........................................................................................................................23
Capacity Limitations on Arterial Streets ..................................................................................................23
Funding ...................................................................................................................................................24
POTENTIAL MEASURES .............................................................................................24
CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................................30
REFERENCES CONSULTED
CollegeTerraceTC09.FinalExistReport.doc i 30 December 2003
Ki~ley-Hom
and Associates, Inc.
Final Existing Conditions Report
College Terrace Traffic Management Plan
INTRODUCTION
The College Terrace neighborhood, located between Stanford University and Stanford
Research Park, has historically been affected by cut-through traffic and speeding for
more than 20 years. The area consists primarily of residential housing except for a
small amount of commercial uses bordering El Camino Real. Figure 1 ~indicates the
limits of the College Terrace neighborhood in relation to surrounding uses.
Unlike neighboring streets with curvilinear alignments or disconnected superblocks,
College Terrace has a grid street layout with long straight roadways interrupted by stop
signs. Consequently, many drivers use the neighborhood as a cut-through route, and
residents and non-
residents exceed the
posted speed limits. Past
efforts to manage traffic
included street closures
that were effective for the
treated streets, but
resulted in traffic shifts
and additional impacts on
adjacent routes. Over
the years, particularly
since 1999, traffic has
increased noticeably,
thus placing further
pressures on the
remaining streets .open to
traffic.
Figure I - College Terrace Neighborhood
In an effort to request
assistance from the city
to address speeding and
traffic volume concerns,
over 225 College Terrace
residents signed a
oetition to the City
Council in September
1999.The petition
stated,
"We...are deeply concerned about the amount and unsafe nature of
traffic in, around, and cutting through our neighborhood, We perceive
an alarming increase in the volume and speed of non-resident
automobiles and trucks. We enthusiastically support a pilot
CollegeTerraceTC09.FinalExistReport.doc 1 30 December 2003
~mm~ .,mley.l.’lom
=rid A~o~:late~. In,:.
Final Existing Conditions Report
College Terrace Traffic Management Plan
neighborhood traffic calming program for College Terrace and would
like such a program to begin as soon as possible."
Subsequent efforts to quantify the issues and draw attention to the need for resolution
have included city-sponsored speed and traffic volume surveys, intersection turning
movement counts, origin anddestination surveys; documentation of observed concerns,
and posting of detailed information on the neighborhood’s web site (www.cttc.info). For
brevity, not all data contained on the web site is included in this report, particularly traffic
count results.
PURPOSE AND NEED
College Terrace residents identified improved traffic management and mitigation as
important neighborhood issues. Preparation of a traffic management study was also
part of the mitigation requested by the city and ultimately included in Santa Clara
County’s list of mitigations ........of Stanford University for its December 2000
General Use Permit.
The College Terrace Traffic Management Plan is being undertaken to identify current
issues and anticipate future improvements in traffic management and mitigation in the
College Terrace neighborhood. Improvements will be focused on enhancing traffic
safety, fostering travel within, and to/from the neighborhood by bicycle and on foot, and
reducing excessive motor vehicle speeds, cut through motor vehicle travel, and traffic
noise.
The intent of the College Terrace Traffic Management Plan is to tailor solutions to
specific locations and to help residents and non-residents recognze that a
comprehensive traffic management plan can benefit everybody in improved safety and
livability.
OBJECTIVES AND DESIRED OUTCOMES
The general objective of this project is to prepare a traffic management plan, i.e. a
traffic calming plan, for the (~ollege Terrace neighborhood that will manage traffic
volumes and speeds through the use of features such as traffic circles, speed humps
and tables, gateways, medians, bulb-outs, chicanes, or other appropriate measures.
Specific objectives for the projectinclude:
o Deter cut-through traffic on both local and collector streets
¯Reduce excessive traffic speeds
~Improve civil driving
~Improve effectiveness of existing blocked streets
,,Improve aesthetics of existing traffic calming measures
CollegeTerraceTC09.FinalExistReport.doc 2 30 December 2003
and AssOciates, Inc;
Final Existing Conditions Report
College Terrace Traffic Management Plan
Improve traffic safety by reducing accidents
Improve the safety and experience for pedestrians and bicycles
At.the same time, the project will focus on solutions that minimize traffic shifts onto other
residential streets.
Ultimately, the desired outcomes for the project include the following:
Prepare an approved plan for trial installation
Implement a successful trial
Prepare an approved plan for permanent installation
Implement a successful permanent plan of traffic calming measures
The process and eventual outcomes of this project will be framed in relation to the
city’s Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program (NTCP) adopted April 9, 2001.
Although the NTCP only contains procedures that focus on addressing "spot"
treatments (instead of an entire neighborhood), the College Terrace Traffic
Management Plan will be in harmony with the NTCP.
GENERAL ISSUES
Traffic and safety concerns in College Terrace vary depending on the
particularly whether considering streets internal or bordering the neighborhood,
location,
Neighborhood internal streets are located completely within the residential and
commercial areas.of College Terrace, and are considered to include the following:
Oxford Ave.
Staunton Ct.
College Ave.
Cambridge Ave.
Yale St.
Williams St.
Wellesley St.
Comell St. -
Princeton St.
Oberlin St.
Harvard St.
Hanover St.
Dartmouth St.
Columbia St.
Bowdoin St.
Amherst St.
CollegeTerraceTC09.FinalExistReport.doc 3 30 December 2003
Final Existing Conditions Report
¯ College Terrace Traffic Management Plan
Common concerns on internal streets encompass several issues, including increased
traffic volumes, cut-through traffic, speeding, violation of closures, rapid acceleration,
noise, pedestrian and bicycle safety, failure to respect traffic controls, visibility at¯
intersections, and a general lack of civil driving.
Internal streets can be further distinguished as being either Open or closed. Open
streets are open to through traffic and carry cut-through traffic passing internal to the
neighborhood. Closed streets have been blocked by previously implemented traffic
calming measures and experience little traffic.
Internal streets’are classified functionally as local streets by the City of Palo Alto.
Functional classification is intended to group streets and highways according to the
purpose they are intended to provide. Local streets provide access to individual
properties, particularly in residential areas; however, through traffic is discouraged.
Local streets generally connect to higher order collector or arterial streets with
intersections controlled by stop signs. On-street parking is generally encouraged on
local streets. Additional information is available in Table 1 regarding general functional
classification design characteristics.
Table 1 - Typical Functional.Classification Design Characteristics
Typical Functional Classification Design Characteristics
Characteristic
Length
Lanes
Min. Pavement Width
Access Spacing
Vehicle Volume/Day
Striping
Parking
Median
Turn Lanes
Traffic Signals
Pedestrian Crossing
Speed
Local
500. feet
2
32 feet
60 feet
Less than 2,000
None
Encouraged
No
No
No
Unrestricted
15-25 mph
Functional Class
Collector
t/2 mile
2
36 feet
300 feet
2,000-6,000
Center
Allowed
No
Sometimes
No
At intersections
25-30 mph
Arterial
Continuous
3 to 6+
40 feet
1/4 mile
6,000-40,000+
Center and lanes
Restricted
Yes
Yes
Yes
At signalized intersections
30-45 mph
Neighborhood border streets are located on two boundaries of College Terrace and
include:
Stanford Avenue
California Avenue
CollegeTerraceTC09.FinalExistReport.doc 4 30 December 2003
Klmley-Hom
and Associates, Inc.
Final Existing Conditions Report
College Terrace Traffic Management Plan
Common concerns on border streets encompass similar but fewer issues that include,
increased traffic volumes, cut-through traffic, speeding, pedestrian and bicycle safety,
failure to respect traffic ~controls, visibility at intersections, non-local trucks, and a
general lack of civil driving.
The border streetS of Stanford-and California :Avenues are both classified as collector
streets by the city. Collector streets serve as the connection between local streets and
arterial streets, accommodate internal traffic movements between different areas such
as residential neighborhoods, but do not handle long through trips and are .not
necessarily continuousfor long segments.
Increased Traffic Volumes
For many years the neighborhood has not experienced any sizeable internal growth in
the number of households that would be expected to generate increased traffic;
however, traffic volumes have still increased on internal and border streets. Based on
observations by residents and Kimley-Horn and :Associates, Inc., the increase in
volumes appears to be strongly influenced by significant growth outside of the
neighborhood, particularly at Stanford University (i.e. housing) and the Stanford
Research Park (i.e. office). With College Terrace "sandwiched" between the two large
traffic generators, and the education and research link connecting the two bordering
uses, University and Research Park drivers find the most direct path leads through the
neighborhood. Even with the existing street closures, a driver can often save a mile of
driving distance and several minutes of delay by traveling through the neighborhood, as
opposed to going around.
Daily traffic volumes have periodically been collected by the city on many College
Terrace streets, with the most complete sets of counts occurring in 1974 (shortly after
street closures were implemented) and in 2002. Count data indicates that open streets
experienced the majority of growth between 1999 and 2002.
Figure 2 shows traffic volumes from 1974 (after street closures) and 2002 on most
streets where data was available. As noted in the figure, the border streets of Stanford
and California showed significant increases in traffic, while College, Yale and Hanover
experienced the greatest amount of additional traffic for interior streets during the same
period. Most other streets experienced more modest growth and some streets actually
recorded a decrease in traffic. Williams, and a section of California, in particular, noted
the largest decreases in traffic. Possible reasons for the decrease in traffic volumes
include, but are not limited to:
Less traffic as result of a downturn in the economy
Driver education by the city and neighborhood to use other streets
Police enforcement
Increased capacity on nearby arterial roadways
CollegeTerraceTC09,FinalExistReport.doc 5 30 December 2003
Kimley.Hom
and Associates, Inc.
Final Existing Conditions Report
College Terrace Traffic Managemer~t. Plan
Figure 2 = Traffic Volume Increases 1974-2002
Traffic Volume Increases 1974-2002
-Stanford (Near.El ,Camino,Real)
Stanford (Near Comell)
Stanford (Near Dartmouth)
Stanford (Near Bowdoin
California (Near El Camino Real)
California (Near Wellseley)
California (Near Dartmouth)
College (Near Yale)
College (Near Hanover)
Yale (near Oxford)
Yale (near Cambridge)
Williams
Comelll
Princeton
Oberlin
Harvard
Hanover
Columbia
Bowdoin
Amherst
[] 1974
[] 2002
2000 4000 6000 8000 10000
Daily Traffic VOlume
12000
Cut-Through Traffic
Cut-through traffic is also a major cause of increased volumes in College Terrace as a
result of traffic generated by non-neighborhood development and congestion on nearby
arterial roadways that are, by definition, intended to carry the load of non-neighborhood
traffic. Capacity limitations on Foothill Expressway, Junipero Serra Boulevard, Page
Mill Road, and El Camino Real cause regional traffic to exit the arterial roadways and
seek a faster route through College Terrace.
To a lesser extent, congestion on Stanford Avenue and California Avenue also
contributes to increased traffic on neighborhood interior streets. The intersection of El
Camino/California, in particular, causes southbound El Camino traffic and eastbound
California traffic to bypass the intersection and use Cambridge Avenue and Yale Street
as an alternate path.
CollegeTerraceTC09,FinalExistReport.doc 6 30 December 2003
Klmley-Hom
and Associates, Inc.
Final Existing Conditions Report
College Terrace Traffic Management Plan
Cut-through motorists are time sensitive and traffic calming measures that induce
additional travel time on a cut-through route can help to deter this practice.
Cut-through traffic information was collected by College Terrace residents for interior
streets on April 30, 2002 during the AM and PM peak periods of the day. ~he following
day on May 1, PM peak, cut-through traffic was ~bserved on~the exterior cordons to the
neighborhood to determine the volume of non-neighborhood traffic on border streets.
Cut-through studies were completed under the direction and methodology of the City of
Palo Alto.
Results of the data collection were previously evaluated by members of the Traffic
Committee and later by Kimley-Horn. Conclusions on the exact number of cut-through
vehicles and related percentages vary depending on the interpretation of the data;
however, the results clearly show that a large proportion of traffic using interior and
border streets is cutting through the neighborhood. It should be noted that Kimley-
Horn’s interpretation of the data is the most conservative when compared with data
posted on the College Terrace web site. (Calculations by others generally showed.
higher cut-through levels.) This is a result of some vehicles being rejected by Kimley-
Horn from the data set because they entered and exited the neighborhood from the
same border street. For example, if a vehicle entered on Columbia from California
Avenue and then exited the same street (or other open street) to California, it was
concluded that the driver had a purpose in the neighborhood such as picking up a
passenger or dropping a child at day care. Vehicles that entered and exited from
different border streets were still considered as cut-through traffic.
Figure 3 and Figure 4 annotate the percentages of cut-through traffic as calculated by
Kiml~y-Horn. It should be noted that no data was available regarding border streets
during the AM period; therefore Figure 3 only shows data for interior streets.
CollegeTerraceTC09.FinalExistReport.doc 7 30 December 2003
Final Existing Conditions Report
College Terrace Traffic Management Plan
Figure 3 - AM Cut-Through Percentage
Co egeTerraceTC09 Fir~a ExistReporLdoc 8 30 December 2003
Kimley-Hom ¯ .
and Associates, Inc,
Final Existing Conditions Report
College Terrace Traffic Management Plan
Figure 4 - PM Cut-Through Percentage
Figure 5 and Figure 6 illustrate the locations with the greatest-amount of cut-through
traffic volumes on neighborhood interior and border streets. As previously mentioned,
no data was available regarding border streets during the AM period; therefore Figure 5
only shows data for interior streets. However, ,it is likely that AM cut-through volumes
on border streets are similar in magnitude to PM levels.
CollegeTerraceTC09.FinalExistReport.doc 9 30 December 2003
Klmley-Hom
and Associates, Inc.
Final. Existing Conditions Report
College Terrace Traffic Management Plan
Figure 5 -AM Cut-Through Volume
College Terrace - Cut Through Traffic AM
Based on 4/30/02 Study
1[
I
14
37 I
4
23~
I 10
.36
10
I
’[12
4 2
2
2
Yale
Williams
Wellesley
Princeton
Obedin
Hanover
Dartmouth
Columbta
Boudoin
Amherst
Traffic Volume Levels
<1o 1o-19 20-29 3039 40-49 50-59 60-69 70-7~ 8o-89 g0-99 1oo.199 >200
II I1.1 IIIIII
<10
10-19
20-29
30-39
0O69
70-79
NOTES:
Data collected dudng 2 hour pedod during peak
Cut-through defined as traffic that entem
and exits in 5 minutes or lass
No data available regarding cut-through on
Stanford or Califomta in AM
XX = Number of cut-through vehicles in one direction
CollegeTerraceTC09.FinalExistReport.dec 1 0 30 December 2003
Kimley-Hom
and Associates, Inc.
Final Existing Conditions Report’
College Terrace Traffic Management Plan
Figure 6 - PM Cut-Through Volume
College Terrace - Cut Through Traffic - PM
Based on 4/30/02 and 5/1/02 Studies
25
10
11 2
42 31 -
1
30
15
I 4
49 30
13 II
32 30
10
’ I23 27
3O ’121
42 I [ 2t 21
12
91
Yale
Williams
Wellesley
Comell
Princeton
Obedln
Hanover
Dartmouth
Columbia
Boudoln
Amherst
Traffic Volume Levels
<10 10-19 20-29 30-39 4049 50-59 60-69 70-79 80-89 90-99 IO0-199 >200
I Iii!11111
<10
50-59
NOTES:
Data collected dudng 2 hour pedod during peak
Cut-through defined as traffic that enters
and exits in 5 minutes or less
XX = Number of cut-through vehicles in one direction
CollegeTerraceTCO9.FinalExistReport.doc 1 1 30 December 2003
Klmley-Horn
and Associates, Inc.
Final Existing Conditions Report
College Terrace Traffic Management Plan
Speeding
Speed limits on all College Terrace streets are 25 mph; however, 85th percentile speeds
are above the 25 mph limit. The 85th percentile speed is used to establish the speed
limit on a particular roadwayand is considered~-to represent the .maximum~speed at
which reasonable drivers travel.~ For a given roadway, the 85th percentile speed is
determined such that 85% of the drivers travel at or below this speed. Normally the
speed limit is set close to the 85th percentile, but in some cases other factors lead to the
setting of a speed limit different from this standard. These factors include .collision
history, local ~traffic and roadside conditions, residential character, and pedestrian and
bicycle usage.
As shown in Figure 7, maintaining speeds at or below the speed limit is significant with
regard to pedestrian and bicyclist safety. According to studies in the United Kingdom; a
pedestrian or bicyclist struck by a vehicle traveling at 20 mph has a 15% chance that
the collision will be fatal. However, when the speed is 30 mph, the likelihood of a fatality
increases to 45% and jumps to 85% at 40 mph.
Figure 7.- Vehicle Speeds vs. Fatalities
100% ..........................................................................................
90%
80% ~
70% ~
60% ~50%
=~ 4OO/o ~~ ~
20%
10%~
20 MPH.30 MPH 40 MPH
than 3 mph over.
Figure 8 shows traffic speed
information collected in 1999
and 2002 on many College
Terrace streets. As shown in
the figure, speeding occurs at
the highest levels on
neighborhood border streets and
to a lesser degree on the interior
streets. Although the 85th
percentile speeds on the interior
streets are above the speed
limit, they are generally not more
This suggests that most drivers within the neighborhood are
conscious of the lower speed and drive accordingly. Speeds on the border streets
however, range from 4 to 12 mph over, with the highest 85=h percentile speeds occurring
on Stanford Avenue near El Camino Real and Cornell Street.
The higher speeds on border streets are, in part, a function of drivers’ inierpretation of
the physical surroundings. Both streets’ physical design suggests that a higher speed is
appropriate when compared with neighborhood interior streets.
CollegeTerraceTC09.FinalExistReport.doc 1 2 30 December 2003
Klml~y.Ho~
and A~oclat~s, Inn,
Final Existing Conditions Report
Co lege Terrace Traffic Management Plan
Motorists typically drive at a speed they perceive as safe. This is partially related to the
roadway environment which includes features such as lane width, curves in the road,
corner radii, on-street parking, sight distances, and type of land use and its proximity to
the street. Both Stanford and California Avenues have one side of the street without on-
street parking and institutional/office uses set back from the street. To create an
alternative perception of an appropi~iate speed, additional design features would
generally be needed along the street.
Figure 8 - 85th Percentile Speeds 1999-2002
85th Percentile Speeds 1999-2002
Stanford (Near El Camino Real)
Stanford (Near Comell)
Stanford (Near Dartmouth)
Stanford (Near Bowdoin
Califomia (Near El Camino Real)
California (Near Wellseley)
Califomia (Near Dartmouth)
College (Near Yale)
College (Near Hanover)
Yale (near Oxford)~
Williams
Comelll
Princeton
Obedin
Harvard
Hanover
Columbia
Bowdoin
Amherst t
0 5 10 15 20 ~5 30 35 40
’"Speed
The data also indicates that average speeds have decreased slightly between 1999 and
2002; however, the cause of the reduction is unknown. It is possible that it is a result of
increased enforcement, education of residents on the need to reduce speeds, increased
congestion, or a combination.
Speed data was also evaluated to identify the number and top speeds of drivers
operating outside of the 85th percentile group. Figure 9 illustrates the number of
vehicles driving more than 10 mph over the speed limit (i.e. faster than 35 mph) and the
highest reported speeds during the 24-hour survey period. According to the results for
some segments, nearly 2600 cars on Stanford and more than 370 cars on California
travel above 35 mph per day. Nearly every interior street surveyed had vehicles
CollegeTerraceTC09.FinalExistReport.doc 13 30 December 2003
~]/~ Kimley.Horn
and Associates, Inc.
Final Existing Conditions Report
College Terrace Traffic Management Plan
traveling asfast as 39 mph which suggests rapid acceleration between closely spaced
stops and along the relatively short block lengths. Border streets commonly
experienced top speeds as great as 44 mph, with one section of Stanford (near
Princeton) reporting peak speeds of 49 mph.
AlthoUgh no data was available, according to conversations with thePalo Alto Police
Department, a large proportion of persons cited for speeding on interior streets are
residents of the neighborhood. This indicates that a share of the traffic calming issues
cannot be attributed to non-residents or cut-through traffic.
Vehicle speeding around corners was also commonly noted as a concern in College
Terrace. This issue is facilitated by the wide streets and by cut-through routes that do
not have stop signs.
Violation of Closures
Road closures were implemented in 1974 after a long and complex process that.
included consideration of multiple closure options and trial installations before a final set
of permanent closures were implemented. The closures consisted of a mix of physical
obstructions placed across the roadways, and included planters, raised concrete blocks,
wooden poles, curbs, and signs. Closures were originally designed to prohibit
passenger vehicles from entering the closure but permit fire trucks and other high-
clearance emergency vehicles to pass. With the recent changes in vehicle mix away
from passenger cars to sport utility vehicles, more and more vehicles are able to drive
over the raised blocks. Observations by Kimley-Horn found that the most commonly
disregarded closures are located on California Avenue at Oberlin, Harvard, and
Hanover. These closures have curb ramps incorporated into the design that makes it
easier for a vehicle to drive over the raised concrete blocks.
CollegeTerraceTC09.FinalExistReport.doc 14 30 December 2003
~]~ Kimley-Hom
and Associates, Inc.
Final Existing Conditions Report
College Terrace Traffic Management Plan
Figure 9 - College Terrace Excessive Speeding Summary
College Terrace = Excessive Speeding Summary
Based on 5/15/02 and 5!16/02 Studies
Yale
¯ Williams
Wellesley
= Highest reported peak speed
= No. of vehicles over 35 mph
Comell
Princeton
Obedin
Harvard
Hanover
Dartmouth
Columbia
Bowdoin
NOTES:
Summary based on highest top speeds and volumes
over 35 mph reported during 24 hour period.
Data not available on all skeets.
* Results based on 3 hour sample only.
CollegeTerraceTC09.FinalExistReport.doc 1 5 30 December 2003
KlmlepHom
and AssoCiates, Inc.
Final Existing Conditions Report
College Terrace Traffic Management Plan
Road closures are occasionally
breached by police and fire services.Figure 10 - Closure at Hanover/California
According to conversations with
representatives of the Palo Alto
Police and Fire Departments, they .
generally try to avoid cutting through ’
the neighborhood unless responding
to an emergency. Police services do
not have a primary emergency, route
but commonly use Stanford, College,
and California, as well as any open
street. Fire trucks originating near
the intersection of Page Mill/Hanover
use any open street but commonly
use Bowdoin as their preferred
emergency mute from one side of the neighborhood to the other.
service providers indicated that they still become confused with the open/closed paths
through the neighborhood and occasionally find themselves having to turn around or
back out of closed streets.
Both emergency
All closures are marked with a sign indicating that the mad is not a through street;
however, it appears that the signs are overlooked by many drivers.
Rapid Acceleration
Rapid acceleration is commonly noted as a problem as vehicles turn corners and
accelerate down short lengths of open streets between stop signs. It also occurs when
unfamiliar drivers enter closed streets, recognize the barrier, and then turn around and
accelerate back out to look for another route.
Noise
Noise is a major irritation in the neighborhood. Overall noise is affected by traffic speed,
acceleration, volume, stops, number of heavy vehicles, road surface, and proximity of
homes to the street. At speeds common to the neighborhood (i.e. 25-35 mph), most
noise comes from engines, drive trains, brakes, and to a lesser degree road noise.
Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety
As noted previously, traffic speed has a significant impact on safety for pedestrians and
bicyclists. In addition, it was frequently noted that it is difficult to cross Stanford and
California, particularly during the peak periods of the day. There are few marked
crossings and pedestrians and cyclists find it uncomfortable to attempt the crossings.
CollegeTerraceTC09.FinalExistReport.doc 1 6 30 December 2003
~~’~ Kimley.Hom
,~~ and Associates, Inc.
Final Existing Conditions Report
College Terrace Traffic Management Plan
Traffic signals are present on Stanford Avenue at the intersections of Hanover and
Escondido Road which helps convey pedestrians between College Terrace and
Escondido School. The two closely spaced intersections are operationally tied together
and have a special pedestrian
phasing that occurs during the
school hours. However, this .Figure 1t--Crossing,at EscondidolStanford
phasing was noted to confuse some
drivers. While it allows pedestrians
to cross two intersection approaches
at a time, drivers prematurely
encroach on the intersection thinking
that the pedestrian phase has ended
and that they are about to see a
green light. (The signal at
Escondido was also noted to
malfunction on the side street which
results in a loss of valuable capacity
at the intersection. It appears to
automatically function as if there is a
car on Escondido when no vehicle is
present. It is possible that the Ioo
detector needs to be replaced.)
Failure to Respect Traffic Controls
The city has a "guard and go" policy that stops vehicles in residential areas every two
blocks. As a result, some drivers fail to respect the proliferation of stop signs, and
instead roll through the intersections. In addition, few bicyclists stop any time.
Consequently, significant risk occurs when a driver or pedestrian assumes the other
person will stop and they do not.
Drivers were also reported to run the traffic signals near Escondido School. Some
motorists appear to see the light changing and accelerate to go through the yellow/red
at the first light but stop abruptly at the second signal or run it completely.
CollegeTerraceTC09,FinalExistReport.doc 1 7 30 December 2003
Klmley-Hom
and Associates, Inc.
Final Existing Conditions Report
College Terrace Traffic Management Plan
Visibility at Intersections
Many locations (interior and border) were noted by residents as needing increased
visibility at the intersections. Visibility limitations along interior streets were noted to be
generally caused by parked cars rather than-vegetation.. Observations-by. Kimley-Horn
verified that, although .more visibility would be preferred, drivers generally could
adequately see at the intersections and
that removal of parking spaces would
likely impact the currentl~ limited parking
supplies. Parking removal would also
require painting red curb, new signs,
and inc~:eased enforcement or require
more expensive curb extensions to
physically prohibit parking. On the
other hand, it was noted that several
parked vehicles along Stanford Avenue
and California Avenue encroached
slightly into the intersection corners
an;:l blocked visibility for motorized and
non-motorized traffic, thus adding to
the difficulty of crossing the street.
Mitigation at these locations may be
necessary, especially since vehicles
more frequently exceed the speed limit
along these routes.
Figure 12 -:Partially Blocked Intersection
Non-Local Trucks
Trucks were noted by residents as using Stanford and California as alternatives to
arterial streets. Trucks often have long trailers and create significant noise for
residents. Smaller delivery trucks occasionally breach the closed streets and use
College Terrace as a convenient shortcut.
Lack of Civil Driving
The underlying concern of many residents is a general lack of civil driving, with little
concern for the livability and quality of life of other residents. Based on the data it
appears that the lack of civil driving applies to both residents and non-residents.
CollegeTerraceTC09.FinalExistReporLdoc 1 8 30 December 2003
~~Kimley.Hom
~ ~nd Associates, Inc.
Final Existing Conditions Report
College Terrace Traffic Management Plan
DETAILED ISSUES
Detailed information regarding specific, locations was provided by residents and
representatives of the Traffic Committee. Information is briefly noted below with, more
detail available at Www.~:ttd:inf0. Not all streets were identified with spec!fic concerns.
Interior Streets
Oxford Avenue
Commercial businesses on Oxford, as well as Staunton Court, College, and
Cambridge rely on convenient access from the neighborhood and El Camino
Real to be successful and viable~Consideration of closures could have a
negative impact on business.
College Avenue
= College Avenue is wide, open, straight and the major link in most of the local
street Cut-through routes. ~
¯ College Avenue serves as a commercial district between El Camino Real and
Yale Street which generates significant traffic.
; .Yale Street forms a boundary between the commercial/office and residential
sections of College but there is no identifying feature or gateway on College at
Yale.
¯The street is heavily used by bicyclists, including children going to and from
school.
¯College Avenue is interrupted with stop signs, but these "guard and go"
alternating two-way stop signs along College may encourage some cut-through
traffic patterns.
Stop signs are routinely ignored by bicyclists and many motorists roll through
them, .
¯ Two-way stops, where side streets have the right’of-way can be hazardous,
especially for bicyclists, particularly due to visibility concerns. This is in part
contributed by the fact that cyclists often do not stop at the signs:
Cambridge Street
¯Motorists cut-through from California/Yale to Cambridge/El Camino Real and vice
versa. They find that the signal at Cambridge/El Camino has less congestion
and delay and it allows them to bypass the signal at California/El Camino.
° Motorists inbound from El Camino Real do not recognize that they are entering a
residential block because the commercial/residential boundary located mid-block
between El Camino and Yale has no identifying feature.
CoilegeTerraceTC09.FinalExistReport.doc 19 ,30 December 2003
Final Existing Conditions Report
Col!ege Terrace TrafficManagement Plan
Yale Street
¯~ Motorists cut-through from Cambridge to Yale to California and vice versa.
Motorists inbound from Stanford Ave speed around the corner of Yale and
Oxford.
¯ .~Motorists inbound.fr~om .California Avenue speed around the right turn to
Cambridge and also speed down the 2-block stretch to College.
Many drivers still inadvertently enter the closed block of Yale between Oxford
and College.
= Yale is a heavily used bike route from campus to California Avenue and beyond.
The north leg of the Yale/College intersection may need modification to increase
cyclist safety and sight distance.
¯Service vehicles such as telephone repair trucks park on College at the Yale
Street closure and block the passage of cyclists through the closure.
Princeton Street
Groups of 3-5 cars spaced very closely have been observed to travel together
down Princeton Street heading towards California Avenue. This event occurs in
the morning and may be caused by the operation of the traffiq signal at Hanover/
Stanford. It is reported that the vehicles appear to be trying to get through the
neighborhood as quickly as possible without regard for the surrounding
environment (which can include children on foot or bicycle).
Princeton is a common cut-through route. In the morning, the majority of traffic
enters from Stanford Avenue onto Oberlin (although there is also incoming traffic
from Hanover Street) and then exits on Princeton Street while the other half
filters down the various open streets to California Avenue. In the evening, the
direction is reversed.
Oberlin Street
Oberlin is also a common cut-through route. In the morning, the majority of traffic
enters from Stanford Avenue onto Oberlin (although there is also incoming traffic
from Hanover Street) and then onto College Avenue. From there about half of
the traffic turns onto Princeton Street while the other half filters down the various
open streets to California Avenue. In the evening, the direction is reversed.
Hanover Street
Hanover Street is a bicyclist thoroughfare. It is heavily used by children riding
their bicycles to various schools and also by adults commuting to and from
Stanford University. It links up to a bike path in the research park that provides a
route to a high school and another bike path leading to Los Altos.
There is a large elementary school (Escondido Elementary) located at the
intersection of Hanover Street and Stanford Avenue, plus a preschool and an
after school program. The school’s existence is not readily apparent to motorists
because its entrance is not on Stanford Avenue. The intersection is heavily used
CollegeTerraceTC09.FinalExistReport.doc 20 30 December 2003
Final Existing Conditions Report
College Terrace Traffic Management Plan
by children walking, bicycling, or riding scooters during times that coincide with
business and university commute hours. Parents also use the area as an
unofficial drop off location for Escondido Elementary.
In the evening, motorists have been observed to accelerate rapidly down
Hanover.Street in order to catch the green light at the traffic signal.
Cars rapidly accelerate up and down Hanover Street. "
Cars park close to the corners such as at Hanover/College and
Hanover/Stanford, obstructing the ability Of pedestrians and bicyclists to see and
be seen (especially small children.),
Few bicyclists stop at stop signs.
Border Streets
Stanford Avenue
¯ All bordering property is residential (except near El Camino Real). There are two
elementary schools on Stanford Avenue. It is a major bicycle and pedestrian
travel route.
¯Stanford is a long, straight, wide road with nothing to slow traffic between
Bowdoin and Hanover, and from Escondido to Yale.
Stanford Avenue is commonly used as an alternative to Page Mill Road and is
also used as a cut-through route by many Stanford University students and
workers.
¯Stanford University recently added large amounts of student housing on the side
of campus near Stanford Avenue. The Stanford residents plus employees and
visitors generate high traffic volume at all hours of the day. Campus housing
also creates significant parking demand on Stanford Avenue and the nearby side
streets. Students use the neighborhood to avoid having to pay for campus
parking permits.
Traffic generated by Stanford has very few convenient campus entrance and exit
points, thus increasing congestion at the campus intersections, particularly at
Stanford Avenue and Bowdoin Street.
It is difficult to cross Stanford Avenue and there a~e corner visibility issues at
many unmarked crosswalks.
Stop signs at the Yale and Bowdoin intersections are over capacity and
sometimes create long vehicle queues during peak traffic. Other times,~ drivers
roll through the stops or decelerate and accelerate quickly.
Safety and congestion concerns were noted at the intersection of Stanford and El
Camino Real due to traffic entering and exiting Starbucks. However, it is
anticipated that a future El Camino Real redesign project will address these
concerns.
-Traffic volumes have increased significantly.
¯85th percentile speed exceeds 35 mph near Cornell.
CollegeTerraceTC09.FinalExistReport.doc 2 1 30 December 2003
Kimley-Hom
and Associates, Inc,
Final Existing Conditions Report
College Terrace T~raffic Management Plan
California Avenue
Many vehicles use California Avenue as a means to bypass multiple traffic
signals and long delays at El Camino Real and Page Mill Road.
Cut-through traffic is attracted to/from Bowdoin, Columbia, Cornell, Princeton,
¯Yale, and all the research park parking lots that e~pt.y onto California Avenue.
Cut-through traffic from office buildings on California is partly due to driveways
that connect opposite the open ends of College Terrace interior streets (e.g.
Yale, Williams, etc.).
¯;A large number of trucks use California Avenue as a shortcut from Page Mill
Road.
Trucks with trailers loudlyback into research park driveways or parallel park in
the bicycle lane to offioad.
¯The long, unobstructed street from Yale to Hanover allows cars to routinely
speed.
Research park employees and visitors park on California Avenue for shaded
parking places.
Nearby business employees from the east side of I=1 (3amino Real park along
California to avoid the district’s parking restrictions.
It is difficult to cross California Avenue and visibility is often blocked by parked
vehicles near intersections. Crossings at El Camino, Yale, and Hanover were
specifically noted as hazardous. At El Camino Real the concern is due to the
volume and speed of right turning traffic; at Yale because of drivers focusing
ahead to the El Camino signal; and at Hanover because pedestrians and
bicyclists are unexpected from the closed street segment, even though Hanover
Street is a major bicycle thoroughfare.
¯There are visibility issues at many corners for cars exiting onto California
Avenue, problems exacerbated by the on-street parking of research park
employees.
POTENTIAL CONSTRAINTS
Along with general and specific traffic issues, there are constraints that may ultimately
affect the results and recommendations developed in the College Terrace Traffic
Management Plan
Perception of the Problem
Perhaps one of the greatest constraints is that not all people may agree that there is a
problem that requires fixing. As discussed earlier, some residents live on border streets
and may have different expectations with regard to issues such as traffic and speed;
whereas, others live on interior streets, part of which are open and part are closed.
Residents living along open and closed streets also may have differing perceptions of
the problem and opinions about the appropriate level of improvement. Included in the
CollegeTerraceTC09.FinalExistReport.doc 22 30 December 2003
KImley’Hom
and Associatesi Inc.
Final Existing Conditions Report
College Terrace Traffic Management Plan
mix are non-residents who feel they also have a right to be in the neighborhood if they
have a destination or if it offers the most direct route or lowest travel time.
As mentioned previously, a key to the success of the project is to tailor soiutionsto the
specific locations and to help residents and non-residents recognize that a
comprehensive traffic management plancan ben-efit everybody in improved safety and
lival~ility. ....
Access for Residents’ Emergency, and Other Service
Providers
Residents and emergency service providers will continue to have an expectation of
reasonable access to the neighborhood. Traffic patterns in College Terrace have
already been significantly-altered as a result of past street closures. In addition, Palo
Alto Sanitation Company relies on the fact that their trucks can pass through the
closures in order to serve the neighborhood.
Consideration of additional closures (or even making the closures less permeable) may
be unacceptable to many residents, businesses, service providers, and city staff. Other
measures are more likely to be supported.
Therefore, solutions should focus on managing traffic to reduce speeds and volume
without extreme solutions that may create a public backlash to the improvements.
Limited Parking Supply
College Terrace experiences heavy impacts to on-street parking supplies as a result of
vehiclesfrom Stanford Universit.y and the Stanford Research Park. Both areas have
parking restrictions, some of which require fees and/or permits, thus resulting in many
non-residents parking along border streets and deeper into the neighborhood. In some
cases the vehicles are left multiple days, primarily by students; As a result, it can be
difficult and frustrating for residents to park in front of their homes or nearby.
Addressing the solution to .manage the parking problem is the subject of a separate
study to be conducted by the city; however~ this project should seek solutions that
preserve existing parking spaces, to the extent possible~
Capacity Limitations on Arterial Streets
Palo Alto has a policy to not add more capacity to arterial streets and intersections
unless there is a traffic safety issue that needs to be addressed. Without increased
capacity on streets such as El Camino Real, Page Mill Road, and Junipero Serra
Boulevard, it, is difficult to attract cut-through traffic away from the neighborhood.
Improvements in the management of traffic flow on adjoining arterial roadways would
ease the incentive for traffic to overflow onto College Terrace streets.
CollegeTerraceTC09.FinalExistReport.doc 23 30 December 2003
and Associates,
Final Existing Conditions Report
College Terrace Traffic Management Plan
Funding
Funding of traffic management/traffic calming measures is nearly always an issue.
Improvements that are recommended as part of the College Terrace Traffic
Management Plan are being funded by a $150,000 contribution by Stanford University.
It is assumed that recommended ~improvementswill.be implemented within ~the amount
of the contribution but could be increased if there is adequate justification to use other
funding sources such as Safe Routes to School grant funding. Another source of
possible funding is to strategically time traffic calming improvements with street paving
projects, thereby utilizing infrastructure capital budgets ....
POTENTIAL MEASURES
Traffic calming is a combination of public education, police enforcement, and physical
measures, that reduce the negative impacts of motorized vehicles, alter driver behavior,
and improve conditions for other users of the street. These measures are commonly
referred to as the three Es.
Education
Enforcement
Engineering
Education solutions help people understand how they can improve livability of their
neighborhood by reducing their speed or being more cautious around pedestrians and
bicyclists. Education is most successful when neighborhood residents are the primary
cause of traffic calming problems.
Enforcement solutions enlist help of the police department to focus enforcement efforts
on problem areas and increase community awareness of speeding issues.
Enforcement can significantly reduce speeding but the effect is typically short lived. Not
long after the officer leaves, traffic speeds generally return to previous levels.
Engineering solutions modify the roadway in some manner to encourage drivers to alter
their behavior by reducing speed, raise awareness of pedestrians and bicyclists, or
divert traffic to a more appropriate street. Engineering solutions are intended to create
long-term improvements that are self enforcing, i.e. they cause drivers to travel at an
appropriate speed without the need for regular police enforcement.
Typical engineering solutions include but are not limited to the following:
Full or partial closures
Diverters ..............
Curb extensions and chokers
Traffic Circles
CollegeTerraceTC09.FinalExistReport.doc 24 30 December 2003
~]~ Kimley.Hom
and Associates, Inc.
Final Existing Conditions Report
College Terrace Traffic Management Plan
Raised crosswalks
Textured pavements
Speed humps and tables
Medians and islands
Roundabo.uts
Chicanes
The following briefly describes the advantages and
effectiveness of these engineering solutions to traffic calming.
disadvantages, and the
Table 2 - Comparison of Traffic Calming Measures
Traffic Calming Measure Advantages Disadvantages
Full or partial street closures
are barriers placed across the
roadway to close the street
completely or partially, usually
leaving only the sidewalk or
bicycle accesses open.
Diverters such as diagonal
diverters block specific traffic
movements to cause circuitous
movements through the
neighborhood, thus discouraging
cut-through traffic.
Curb extensions and chokers
narrow the street by extending
the curbs at an intersection or
mid-block. In some cases the
street becomes so narrow that it
functions as a one.lane slow
point.
Eliminates cut-
through traffic
Provides area for
landscaping
Reduces intersection
conflicts
Increases pedestrian
safety
Can include bicycle
pathway connection
Eliminates .through
traffic
Provides area for
landscaping
Reduces intersection
conflicts
Increases pedestrian
safety
Can allow bicycle
through movements
Slows traffic
Regulates parking
and protects parked
vehicles near curb
features
Reduces pedestria~
crossing distances
Provides area for
landscaping
Has minimal impact
on emergency
vehicles
Inconvenient for
residential access
May inhibit
emergency vehicle
access
May shift traffic to
other nearby streets
Inconvenient for
residential access
May inhibit
emergency vehicle
access
May shift traffic to
other nearby streets
Most effective at
slowing or diverting
traffic when very
narrow
Only partially
effective as a visual
obstruction
CollegeTerraceTC09.FinalExistReport.doc 25 30 December 2003
Kimley.Hom
and Asso,ciates, Inc,
Final Existing Conditions Report
College Terrace Traffic Management Plan
Traffic Circles are raised
islands, placed in intersections,
around which traffic’passes.
Their size and shape are
intended to cause vehicles to
slow down while traveling around
the circle.
Raised crosswalks are similar
to a fiat-topped speed hump
Iocate~l at an intersection. The
raised crosswalk reinforces the
location of the pedestrian
crossing and causes the vehicle
to slow down while passing over
the crossing.
Textured pavements are street
surfaces that are paved with
brick, pavers, stamped concrete
or othermatedal that increase
the bumpiness of the roadway
surface.
Speed humps and tables are
raised areas placed across the
road and can be respectively
rounded or fiat-topped in their
design. The size and shape of
the hump/table generally
dictates the speed of vehicles.
Medians and islands have
many forms but are often located
along the centerline of the street
or through an intersection to limit
turning movements or block
through movements across an
intersection.
Reduces accidents
compared to stop
signs
Reduces speeds
Provides space for
landscaping
Provides visual
obstruction
Delineates location of
crosswalk
Reduces speeds at
intersection
Increases visibility of
pedestrians
Provides a visual
indicator that the
surroundings have
changed
Increases driver
awareness of other
roadway users
Has minimal impact
on emergency
vehicles
Slows traffic
Better when esed in a
series
~Provides a refuge for
pedestrians
Reduces through
traffic or specific
turning movements
May cause vehicle
to encroach on bike
lanes
May inhibit
emergency vehicle
response time
May create a safety
hazard at locations
with grades over 8%
May inhibit
emergency vehicle
response time
Bicycles have to go
over crosswalk
Creates a safety
hazard at locations
with grades over 8%
Little affect on traffic
speeds or volumes
May Increase noise
Less aesthetic than
other measures
May inhibit
emergency vehicle
response time
Creates a safety
hazard at locations
with grades over 8%
Inconvenient for
residential access
May inhibit
emergency vehicle
access
May shift traffic to
other nearby streets
CollegeTerraceTC09.FinalExistRepert.doc 26 30 December 2003
Final Existing Conditions Report
College Terrace Traffic Management Plan
Roundabouts are similar to
neighborhood traffic circles but
are used on streets with higher
traffic volumes and generally
replace the need for traffic
signals or stop signs. Traffic
entering the ro.undabout.yields,to
traffic already in the roundabout.
Reduces certain
types of collisions
compared to stop
signs and signals
Reduces speeds
Provides s ;)ace for
landscap=ng
Creates median
refuge for pedestrians
Provides visual
obstruction
Relatively new to
U.S.
May inhibit ’
emergency vehicle
response time
Generally not
appropriate for small
intersections
Generally requires
more right-of-way
thanJs available in
residential areas
Chicanes are a form of curb
extension that alternate from one
side of the street to the other,
forming an S-shaped curve.
Their serpentine ,shape causes
vehicles to slow down while
traveling through the reversing
curves,
Reduces speed =May inhibit
Provides space for emergency
landscaping response time
Provides visual ¯Vehicles may drive
obstruction on wrong side of
street
Empirical data has been collected on the effectiveness of several traffic calming
measures on reducing vehicle speeds and reducing cut-through traffic. Figure 13
illustrates the ability of selected measures to slow traffic. As seen in the figure, half
closures, speed tables and humps are generally the most effective in reducing speeds.
CollegeTerraceTC09.FinalExistReport.doc 27 30 December 2003
Final Existing Conditions Report
College Terrace Traffic Management Plan
Figure 13 = Speed Impacts of Traffic Calming Measures
Speed Impacts of Traffic Calming Measures (% Change)
Diagonal Diverter
Half Closure
1-Lane Slow Point
Narrowing
Circle
Raised Intersection
Longer Table
22’ Table
14’ Hump
12’ Hump
0%5%10%15%20%25%
Percent Change in Speed Reduction
Source: Traffic Calming - State of the Practice, ITE
Figure 14 shows the effect of traffic calming measures on reducing traffic volumes. As
illustrated in the figure, diverters and closures have the greatest effect on reducing
traffic volumes.
CollegeTerraceTC09.FinalExistReport.doc 28 30 December’2003
Kimley.Horn
and Associates, Inc,
Final Existing Conditions Repot[
College Terrace Traffic Management Plan
Figure 14 -Volume Impacts of Traffic Calming Measures
Volume Impacts of Traffic Calming Measures (% Change)
Other Volume Controls
Diagonal Diverter
Half Closure
Full Closure
1-Lane Slow Point
Narrowing
Circle
22’ Table
14’ Hump
12’ Hump
o%5% 10%15% 20% 25% 30% 35%40%45%50%
Percent Reduction in Volume
Source: Traffic Calming - State of the Practice, ITE
The above measures represent only a sample of traffic calming techniques that are in
use today. Often, these measures are used in combination with each other or are
modified to create variations on the same concept. In any case, their use should be
carefully matched with the specific traffic need and in consideration of factors including
street classification, effectiveness at reducing speed and volume, potential for traffic
diversion, impacts to emergency vehicles and other service providers, impact to on-
street parking, potential conflicts with bicycle and pedestrian mobility, noise impacts,
and construction and maintenance costs.
CollegeTerraceTc09.FinalExistReport.doc 29 30 December 2003
Kimley-Hom
and Associates, Inc.
Final Existing Conditions Report
College Terrace Traffic Management Plan
CONCLUSIONS
Regardless of the type of street (i.e. internal/border, open/closed), traffic and safety
issues affect virtually everybody to some degree in College Terrace. Even residents
living on internal, closed streets are exposed to increased risks and impacts by the
additional traffic "and speeding vehicles passing through the neighborhood. Many
children and others walk and bicycle in College Terrace which raises the potential for
accidents caused by unsafe driving.
Therefore, solutions should be prepared in consideration of the impacts to all users and
should be comprehensive in nature. Solutions should focus on managing traffic to
reduce speeds and volume without extreme improvements that may create public
opposition. Residents and-non-residents should be educated that a comprehensive
traffic management plan can benefit everybody in improved safety and livability.
CollegeTerraceTC09.FinalExistReport.doc 30 30 December 2003
Kirnley.Hom
and Associates, Inc.
Final Existing Conditions Report
College Terrace Traffic Management Plan
REFERENCES CONSULTED
Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program, City of Palo Alto, Department of Planning and
Community Environment Transportation Division, April 9, 2001.
www.cttc.info
College Terrace Issues and Opportunities, College Terrace Residents Association,
October 31,2001
College Terrace Map of Stop Signs and Traffic Signals, John Ciccarelli, Transight LLC,
15 December 2003.
College Terrace Traffic Committee, Occasional News #1, September, 2002.
College Terrace Traffic Calming: Defining the Problems.
CTRAnews - Neighborhood Traffic Study Update #2.
College Terrace Traffic Counts: 1974, 1999, 2002.
Cut-Through Traffic Summary Charts, April 30, 2002 and May 1,2002.
College Terrace Cut-Through Traffic Routes and Percentages, John Mark Agosta.
2002 College Terr.ace Traffic Study, Speed [and Volume] Survey Summaries,
Baymetrics Traffic Resources.
2002 Stanford Avenue Radar Speed Counts, Baymetrics Traffic Resources.
Corridor Accident Data for College Terrace, 10/1/2000 to 9/30/2002, City of Palo Alto.
List of planned public works projects in College Terrace, City of Palo Alto.
Map of School Walking Corridors.
1117 California Avenue Traffic Impact Study, Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc., Se, ptember
29, 1999.
El Camino Real/Caltrans demonstration Grant Project.
Traffic Calming - State of the Practice, Institute of Transportation Engineers, August
1999.
CollegeTerraceTC09.FinalExistReport.doc 31 30 December 2003
~d A~,,oe-late~,
Final Existing Conditions Report
College Terrace Traffic Management Plan
Conversation with Palo Alto Police Department. Sgt: Scott Wong (Traffic Services~
Division). ¯
Conversation with Palo Alto Fire Department, Chief Nick Marinaro (Deputy Chief of
Operatio~ns). ¯
Conversation with Palo Alto Sanitation Company (PASCO), Chris Siebenthall.
CollegeTerraceTC09,FinalExistReport.doc 32 30 December 2003
ATTACHMENT J
Letter Received Commenting on the
Project’s Mitigated Negative Declaration
William D. Ross
Robert D. Pontelle
Scott E. Porter
Kypros G. Hostetter
Diane C. De Felice
Of Counsel
Law Offices of
William D. Ross
A Professional Corporation
520 South Grand Avenue, Suite 300
Los Angeles, CA 90071-2610
Telephone: (213) 892-1592
Facsimile: (213) 892-1519
Paio Alto Office:
400 Lambert Street
Palo Alto, California 94306
Telephone: (650) 843-8080
Facsimile: (650) 843-8084
September 8, 2004
File No: 1/15
The Honorable Phyllis Cassel, Chairperson and
Members of the Planning & Transportation
Commission
City of Palo Alto
City Hall
250 Hamilton Avenue, Fifth Floor
Palo Alto, CA 94303
College Terrace Traffic Calming Project; Staff Report 3; Associated
Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration
Dear Chairperson Cassel and Members of the Commission:
The following is offered by a resident of the College Terrace Area, City taxpayer and
business-owner ’m opposition to the currently proposed City Staffrecommendationto implement
physical traffic calming devices as shown onPlanA inthe Staff.Report for the agendized matter
of "Trial Implementation Of College Terrace Traffic Calming Plan.’’1 _The comments result
from a Staff Report available for public review late on Friday, September 3, 2004 which was
personally delivered to the office of the undersigned at 400 Lambert Street within the City.
The comments in opposition are offered under the declared State Legislative policy to
maximize punic participation in the land use planning process (Government Code section
65033),- because there is no articulated standard for the Traffic Calming Plan proposed,there
is no analysis of the Traffic Calming Plan with either the applicable City General Plan policies
1The agendized matter will be referred to as the "Traffic Calming Plan" in this
communication.
’-This policy is also repeated in the City General Plan.
G:i001.015\LTR\Pato Alto Commission 090804,wpd
The Honorable Phyllis Cassel, Chairperson and
Members of the Planning & Transportation
Commission
City of Palo Alto
September 8, 2004
Page 2
or the Capital Improvement Plan of the_City _.and there is no adequate environmental analysis
of .the Traffic-Calming Plan in. compliance with the Ciilif6rfiih Efivitonmental Quality Act
(Public Resources Code section 21000 et seq., "CEQA’).
It is initially noted Nat City Staff, specifically Ms. Heba E1-Guendy and Mr. Dan
Sodergren, Deputy City Attorney, have been helpful in articulating what they respectively
believe to be the Project aiad the applicable City procedure that governs its consideration both
by your Commission and by the City Council.
Notwithstanding the cooperation of Ms. E]-Guendy and Mr. Sodergren, the Project
proposed does not comply with applicable land use law nor with a legally sufficient analysis
under CEQA.
NOTICE ISSUE
The Commission Notice of Public hearing on this matter contains the following textual
provision:
Interested persons may attend the meeting and may be heard or
submit written comments to the Planning & Transportation
Commission at .... address and location listed. Comments must
be received by Noon, Friday, September 3 to be included in the
Commissioners information packet.
As indicated above, the Staff Report was not available until after 5:00 p.m. on Friday,
September 3, 2004 for public review and based on that time of availability could not have
served for timely comments to your Commission. The matter should be continued to your next
Commission meeting to be consistent with the declared policy of Government Code section
65033 and the implementation provisions of the City General Plan encouraging public
participation.
G:\OOt.OIS\LTR\Palo Alto Commission Og0804.wpd
The Honorable Phylhs Cassel, Chairperson and
Members of the Planning & Transportation
Commission
City of Palo Alto
September 8, 2004
Page 3
....... LACK OFAI)EQUA[lZE-NOTICE FOR ................
PROPOSED MI’rIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Included within the Staff Report is a proposedMitigatedNegative Declaration ("MND")
consisting of five pages of text and based upon the City Environmental Cheek List Form and
Initial Study provisions consisting of 29 pages. The MND project description provides as
follows:
The attached Plan A illustrates the type and location of physical
calming devices recommended for trial implementation in the
College Terrace Area. The plan contains a total of six speed
tables and raised crosswalks (similar designs) and five traffic
circles as listed below.
Table A is presented at the conclusion of the Environmental Checklist and Initial Study
support documentation indicating among other things that, traffic circle devices will be placed
at designated locations without justification for the placement where existing traffic control
devices .exist. A review of the text of both the Initial Study and the Environmental Checklist
Form as well asthe text to the MND likewise reveal no r.a.ti?n._al.e for the placement o~the trafl~_
calming devices, specifically the traffic circles.
CEQA Guidelines section 15073 provides that ~ negative declaration to be considered
by a lead agency must be made available for public review 20-days before the actual decision.
When construed with the balance of CEQA Guidelines section, CEQA Guidelines section
15074, it is clear that an advisory decision-making body, such as your Commission, must also
consider the MND prior to making a recommendation to the City Council and must do so. only
after receiving public and-agency review concerning the proposed project.
Bypassing for the moment the lack of defimition of the actual project purportedly
examined in the MND, regardless of past practice of the Commission, the only sensible
construction of the applicable CEQA Guidelines section is that in order for your Commission
to make a fully informed decision on this matter, full and complete environmental review of the
MND is required- something that can only be accomplished after it has been available for the
20-day review period required by CEQA Guidelines section 15073.
G:\001.015YLTR\Palo ~lto Commission 0908.04.wpd
The Honorable Phyllis Cassel, Chairperson and
Members of the Planning & Transportation
Commission
City of Palo Alto
September 8, 2004
Page 4
It is also.noted that because of the nature of the MND, that is, that it is a "mitigated"
negativ~e"decIiifafi6n pa~of~arpubIicreviewand commem pr~3cess..must describe the Project
as modified, rather than as originally proposed. Public Resources Code section 21080(c),
CEQA Guidelines section 15070(b)(1); section 1507t(e). See also, PerIey v. Board of
Supervisors (!982) 131 Cal.App.3d 424. Stated plainly, it is unclear what is being modified -
there is no statement of what the Project was that is now being modified.
In evaluating the purpose behind the applicable CEQA Guidelines sections, it is apparent
that one of the reasons for the 20-day requirement especially in conjunction with the MND, is
to ensure that the mitigation measures themselves do not have a significant impact on the
environment. See, CEQA Guidelines section 15070.
In any event, it is respectfully suggested that Commission consideration of this matter
be continued until after the 20-day period has occurred.
On a pragmatic basis, the undersigned is informed that the 20-day review period for
environmental documentation occurring with respect to both proposed General Plan
Amendments and Zone Change Applications is honored. There is no ftmcfional difference
between the land use effect of those actions and that.now before you. The lack of standards as
to what constitutes traffic calming measures but the need for their legislative approval should
mean that they are treated no differently than a General Plan Amendment or a Zone Change.
In fact, as is developed below, one of the weaknesses of the actionrequested of the Commission
and the Council is its ad hoc nature, e.g., it is in effect a General Plan Amendment and a Zoning
Ordinance change which is being accomplished by popular review, something which is not
authorized by the Government Code or City Regulations.
LACK OF DEFINITIVENESS OF PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project description of the IvlND is set forth above. A comparable description is
contained in the Staff Report pages 1 through 3. However, there is no specific application of
the general dimensions set forth to the specific locations designated on Plan A. This becomes
critical.when known standards for public safety, those contained in the California Fire Code
¯ ("CFC")and the Uniform Fire Code ("UFC")~ are applied for emergency vehicle access. More
specifically, the CFC and the UFC set forth, parallel regarding minimum road access for ftre
~The Uniform Fire Code has been adopted by the City.
G:\001.015~LTR\PaI~ Alto Commission 090804.wpd
The Honorable Phyllis Cassel, Chairperson and
Members of the Planning & Transportation
Commission
City of Palo Alto
September 8, 2004
Page 5
safety apparatus. They provide:
Fire apparatus access roads shall have an unobstructed width of
not less than 20 feet (6096mm) and have an unobsumcted vertical
clearance of not less than 13’ 6" (4115mm).
CFC section 902.2.2.1.
The roads must also be "designed and maintain to support the
imposed loads of fire apparatus and shall be provided with the
surface to provide all weather driving capabilities.
CFC section 902.2.2.
In addition, the City must approve all proposed turning radius and dead end roads. CFC
section 902.2.2.3-902.2.2.4.4
The Staff Report does not set forth fully the long-standing position of the City Fire
Department with respect to Traffic Calming devices. More specifically, the position of the City
Fire Department is that they would prefer to not have the devices at all and that there must be
a demonstrated need for their imposition and that they should not interfere with established
response times adopted by the Department.5.
Like the Fire Department, the criticism of the matter before the Commission is that it is
"piecemeal", that is, one neighborhood ostensibly requesting Traffic Calming devices when
what is needed is a comprehensive Master Traffic and Circulation Plan for the City. At the
bottom of the issue before your Commission is that the real problem is the proper regulation and
phasing of traffic on E1 Camino Real, a State highway and Page Mill t~oad and Stanford
Avenue. ’
4As with all State and local regulations the use of the word "shall" defines a mandatory
duty. Larson v. State Personnel Bd. (1994) 28 Cal.App.4th 265, 276.
5The adopted response times for the Department are four to six minutes from dispatch t,o
scene for fire and life safety requests and six to eight minutes fromdispatch to scene for specific
-paramedic responses. Telephone conversation with City Fire Marshall, Nick Marinero,
September 8, 2004.
G:\001.015~LTR~Palo Alto Commission 090804.wpd
The Honorable Phyllis Cassel, Chairperson and
Members of the Planning & Transportation
Commission
Cityof Palo Alto
September 8,. 2004
Page 6
In deed, the description of the project, which is subject to verification by personal
observa~ion~u’ch "as -residents-of-the-area ~ such -as ,.theo.unde~signed,6-,wou!d indicate that the
existing environmental condition on almost every one of the streets set forth in Exhibit "A"
allows for on-street parking limiting .the ability of fire apparatus to proceed down the given
street under current conditions. In fact this,has been personally observed on Bowdoin Street on
several occasions as the main p_a_~s-through thoroug!ffare-from the Hanover ~Street Station to
Stanford institution and residential properties to the west.7 Absent some analysis of this
standard, there is an inadequate Project description as to what actually will be accomplished.
The "looseness" or lack of precision of the Project description is amplifiedby the Staff
Report itself on page 7:
Although there are no approved set of guidelines for area-wide
traffic calming projects, the College q?errace Community
supported by its Residents’ Association attempted to follow the
spot treatment procedures as outlined in the City’s neighborhood
traffic calming program (NTCP).
The Staff Report then proceeds to describe a community process whereby nonspecific
traffic measures other than by category and by the dimensions described in the Staff Report
(Pages 1-3) were advanced on a less than due process basis. It is respectfully suggested if there
was going to be a change in the infrastructure for the City, that like any improvement to a street
or drainage system, it be by an assessment means where notice is assured, opportunity for
protest is provided and only then is a capital improvement i~Sjec-t allowed to proceed.
A more formal way of stating an objection into the method of the formulation of the
traffic calming measures, is there appears tobe no prescribed procedure.which authorizes the
imposition of this type of capital improvement, In the absence of such a procedure, the action
is void. This would be no more than a restatement of the accepted legal maxim with respect to
local government law that the mode is the measure of the power. Lockyer v. City & County of San
Francisco (2004) 33 Cal.4th 1055, 1086.
6See, Orofino Gold Mining Corp. v. County of EI Dorado (1990) 225 Cal.App.3d 872.
7This over pa}ked condition has also been observed by the undersigned on C01umbus,
Oberlin, Hanover and Yale where they intersect College.
G:\001.015~LTR\Palo Alto Commission 090B04.vrpd
The Honorable Phyllis Cassel, Chairperson and
Members of the Planning& Transportation
Commission
City of Palo Alto
September 8, 2004
Page 7
LACI~’~)F"GE~~ PI:,NN CONSISTENCYANAIsYSIS
It is well established that the City must ensure that this Project like all projects of the
City must be consistent with all local zoning and planning regulations including the General
Plan. Government Code section 65104(b), 65860, Lesher Communications, Inc, v. cir, of Walnut
Creek (1990) 52 Cal.3d 531,536. One definition of consistencyis:
An action, program, or project is consistent with the General Plan
if, considering all its aspects, it would further the objectives and
policies of the General Plan and not obstruct their attainment.
Corona-Norco Unified School Dist. v, City of Corona (1993) 17 Cal.App.4th 985,994, quoting
General Plan Guidelines, p. 212, Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, 1990. See,
currently adopted version General Plan Guidelines 2002, p. 164. There must be "substantial"
evidence to support a finding that a Project is consistent with the General Plan. See, Public
Resources Code section 21168; Guardians of Turlock’ s Integrity v. Turlock City Council (1983)
149 Cal.App.3d 584, 598; Laurel Heights .Improvement Assn. v. Regents of the University of
California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 407. Here there is no GeneralPlan consistency analysis. Even
assuming that such ala. analysis was present, it would have .to follow the further "without
obstructing" language of the General Plan Guidelines.
Such an analysis would also deal with the interplay with emergency access standards.
Here, there is absolutely no ~arantee that emergency access vehicles for medical or other
purposes would always take access from the Hanover Street Station. Therefore, the ability
to have the clear access required by the CFC and UFC with respect to any traffic calming
devices so as to assure that response time is paramount. Although the City Fire Marshall has
listed as a reference on this, a persona! conversation with the Chief indicated that the issue
of strict compliance with the UFC with the CFC was .not discussed concerning the actua!
dimensional aspects and placement of the traffic calming devices squared with the
longstanding position of the Department to not have traffic calming devices.
G:\001.015~LTR\Palo Alto Commission 090804.wpd
The Honorable Phyllis Cassel, Chairperson and
Members of the Planning & Transportation
Commission
City of Palo Alto
September 8, 2004
Page 8
LACK OF AUTHORITYFORNCT1DN PROPOSED
Again drawing on the Staff representation on page 7 that there are no approved set of
guidelines for area-wide traffic calming projects it is respectfully maintained that there is an
actual lack of authority for implementation of the traffic calming measures as proposed.
Authority for the City to regulate traffic emanates from Vehicle Code section 21000 and
applicable portions of the General Plan. A review of applicable portions of the City General
Plan specifically those dealing with transportation, as well as the Implementation Section do
not reveal specific policy and implementation measures dealing with traffic calming devices
specifically those dealing with roundabouts. The lack of authority for such imposition absent
a more definitive General Plan Policy and Implementation Measure is also confirmed by a
review of Vehicle Code section 21000 which also sets forth the basis for cities to regulate
"highways" under their jurisdiction. Particularly apropos is Vehicle Code section 21000(f)
which :authorizes a city to prohibit entry to or exiting from any Street by means of islands,
curbs, traffic barriers or other roadway design features to implement the circulation element
of a General Plan. However, there is no indication as to a device such as a roundabout
(traffic circle) and it is noted that the purpose here is to slow traffic rather than to prohibit
entry or exits. An examination of case authority interpreting this seqtion, Save the Sunset
Stip Coalition v. City of Hollywood (2001) 87 CaI.App.4th 1172 suggests. that any
examination of City action taken in this area should do so, so that it absolutely clear that it
will not interfere with emergency services. Such an analysis i~ not present in the Staff
Report,
In short, there is a policy choice to be made between traffic calming devices when
there is no clear showing of need and interference with prospective fire and emergency
response. The Commission should, not substitute these traffic calming devices without a
clear basis of need supported by substantial evidence something that is not present.
SUMMARY
Accordingly, until there is compliance with the minimal time for public review of the
.,MND and_an adequate general plan consistency analysis accomplished with respect to the
G:\001.015~LTR~Palo Alto Cammission 090S04.wpd
The Honorable Phyllis Cassel, Chairperson and
Members of the Planning & Transportation
Commission
City of Palo Alto
September 8, 2004
Page 9
¯ .--proposed.Project, ~the,matter before your. Commission should at a minimum be continued.
Assuming that those actions and analysis are get forth, the~Project should then~be the subject
of a revised pubIic hearing schedule,
Very truly yours,
William D. Ross
WDR:mg!
co: Dan Soder~en
Deputy City Attorney
G:\001.015\LTR\Palo Alto Commission 090804.wpd
ATTACHMENT K
Response to Letter regarding the
Project’s Mitigated Negative Declaration
Response to Letter Dated September 8, 2004
,Page 1 of 6
The City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan supports the use.of traffic calming devices on
residential streets for the purpose of reducing vehicular traffic volumes and speeds.
Policy T-34 of the Comprehensive Plan states "Implement traffic calming measures to
slow traffic.on local and collector residential streets and prioritize these measures over
congestion management. Include traffic circles .and other traffic calming devices among
these measures." Objectives and applications of the speed tables and traffic circles
recommended for eatablishment inthe College Terrace ’area "are consistent ’with the
Comprehensive Plan guidelines. Also, as referenced in the staff report of September 8,
2004 (revised to Agenda Date October 13, 2004), the planning and recommendation of
the College Terrace Traffic Calming Plan correspond with the Neighborhood Traffic
Calming Program that addresses spot treatment on residential streets.
I.Notice Issue:
Comment: "The staff report was. not available until after 5:00 p.m. on Friday, September
3, 2004 for public review and based on that time of availability could not have served for
timely comments to be consistent with the declared policy of Government Code section
65033 and the implementation provisions of the City General Plan encouraging public
participation."
Response: The comprehensive community consultation process that took place from year
1999 to 2004 during the different phases of the project is outlined in the staff report
(Pages 7 to 12). Prior to the Commission meeting of September 8, 2004, an August
Notice of .Public Heating was mailed to all residences in the College Terrace area.
Comments received were forwarded directly to the Commission, or were copied by staff
and submitted to the Commissioners. Due to the time demands of other agenda items, the
College Terrace Traffic Calming Project was not addressed by the Commission on
September 8th, and is now scheduled for the meeting to be held on October 13th. ’Since
September 8th, we have received comments from a few area residents. All additional
comments will be included in the new packet to be circulated to the .Commissioners and
made available to the public.
II. Lack of Adequate Notice for
Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration
Comment: "A review of the text of both the Initial Study and the Environmental
Checklist Form as well as the text to the MND likewise reveal no rationale for the
placement of the traffic calming devices, specially the traffic circles."
Response: Throughout the staff report and especially on pages 7 to 12, it is explained
how the initial data collection sponsored by the City warranted the placement of the
College Terrace area on the Transportation Division’s Work_ Program for Traffic Calming
Projects. It also explains the initiation of the project through a petition signed by 225
Response to Letter Dated September 8, 2004
Page 2 of 6
area residents, as well as the level of community consultation throughout the project that
included the selection of the types and locations of the recommended traffic calming
devices. Pages 12 to 19 of the staff report provide information on the location and degree
of excessive vehicular traffic speeds and volumes in the College Terrace area. There is
also an explanation of the routes and percentages of cut-through traffic movements in the
area, upon which locations of the devices, including traffic circles, were selected. For
example, the "traffic circlerecommended at the intersection of Cambridge Avenue/Yale
Street addresses the cut-through traffic route identified between E1 .Camino Real and
California Avenue via Cambridge Avenue and Yale Street (due to motorists trying to
avoid the congested intersection of California Avenue/El Camino Real). Other traffic
circles recommended on College Avenue address the cut-through connected routes
identified between Stanford and California Avenues. The traffic circle recommended at
the intersection of College Avenue/Yale Street also provides a physical separation
between the commercial and residential segments of College Avenue located to the north
and south of Yale Street, respectively. Additional information in this regard can also be
found in the attached MND and consultant’s report.
Comment: "CEQA Guidelines section 15073 provides that any negative declaration to be
considered by a lead agency must be made available for public review 20-days before the
actual decision. When construed with the balance of CEQA Guidelines section, CEQA
Guidelines section 15074, it is clear that an advisory decision-making body, such as your
Commission, must also consider the MND prior to making a recommendation to the City
Council and must do so only after receiving public and agency review concerning the
proposed project."
Response: Section 15074 of CEQA states "(a) Any advisory body of a public agency
making a recommendation to the decision-making body shall consider the proposed
negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration before making its recommendation.
(b) Prior to approving a project, the decision-making body of the lead agency shall
consider the proposed negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration together
with any comments received during the public review process".
The project’s mitigated negative declaration was attached to the staff report submitted to
Commission. The 20-day public review period ended on September 22nd. This period
would have ended prior to City Council, the decision-making body, potentially
addressing the project. The College Terrace Traffic Calming Project is now scheduled
for Commission review on its meeting of October 13th. To date, the Transportation
Division received Mr. William Ross’s comments on the Project’s MND. Despite that the
20-day public review period has ended, we will bring to the Commission’s attention any
additional public comments that we may still receive with regard to the MND.
Comment: "It is also noted that because of the nature of the MND, that is, that it is a
"mitigated" negative declaration part of that public review and comment process must
describe the Project as modified, rather than as originally proposed. Public Resources
Code section 21080(c). CEQA Guidelines section 1507.0(b)(t); section 15071(e). See
Response to Letter Dated September 8, 2004
Page 3 of 6
also, Perley v. Board of Supervisors (1982) 131 Cal,App.3d424, Stated plainly, it is what
is being modified - there is no statement Of what the Project was that is now being
modified."
Response: The City of Palo Alto is one of the lead agencies that allow for a trial period
before deciding on the removal, applicationof modifications, or permanent retention of
traffic calming devices. ’ The project’s MND provided a "set of ’recommendations to
mitigate any temporary noise and air pollution impacts that may occur during the
construction of the traffic calming devices. In addition, the MND established a
monitoring program to assess and help mitigate any impacts that could potentially occur
during the project’s trial period of one year following construction. The recommended
monitoring program covers assessment and mitigation of any potential impacts with
regard to the following: .....
Any unanticipated increases in response time of emergency services including fire
and police services;
Any unacceptable diversion of traffic, based on stated performance measures, to
neighboring local and collector streets; and,
Any unexpected deterioration in the operational Level of Service (LOS) of
signalized intersections in the College Terrace area.
Lack of Def’mitiveness of Project Description
Comment: "There is no specific application of the general dimensions set forth to the
specific locations designated on Plan A. This becomes critical when known standards for
public safety, those contained in the California Fire Code (CFC) and the Uniform Fire
Code (U-FC) are applied for emergency vehicle access. More specifically, the CFC and
UFC set forth parallel regarding minimum road access for fire safety apparatus. They
provide: Fire apparatus access roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less than 20
feet (6096mm) and have an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than 13’6"
(4115mm)."
"CFC section 902.2,2.1: The roads must also be "designed and maintained to support the
imposed loads of fire apparatus and shall be provided with the surface to provide all
weather driving capabilities."
"CFC section 902.2.2. In addition, the City must approve all proposed turning radius and
dead end roads~ CFC section 902.2.2,3-902.2.2.4."
Response: Pages 1 through 3 of the staff report list locations of the recommended traffic
calming devices, as.well as the typical dimensions of each device. It should be noted that
the minimum horizontal and vertical clearances required for fire apparatus will be
provided at all devices. It should also be noted that traffic circles are constructed with
mountable curbs, and that fire apparatus could turn left against the circulating one-way
Response to Letter Dated September 8, 2004
Page 4 of 6
traffic in case of an emergency. Parking prohibitions are typically applied for a distance
of at least 20 feet at allcomers of an intersection that has a traffic circle. As part of the
design work of a traffic circle, truck taming templates are applied for the main
movements. In addition, it has been the practice of City of Palo Alto staff to try on site
the turning movements .of a fire apparatus.prior to e0nstmcting a traffic circle..Speed
tables have been implemented at several locations within Palo Alto and their design and
construction materials can support the loads of fire apparatus.
Comment: "The Staff Report does not set forth fully the long-standing position of the
City Fire Department with respect to Traffic Calming devices. More specifically, the
position of the City Fire Department is that they would pre.fer to not have the devices at
all and that there must be a demonstrated need for their imposition and that they should
not interfere with established response times adopted by the Department."
Response: The Transportation Division sought comments of the Fire Department prior to
recommending the trial implementation of the College Terrace Traffic Calming Plan.
Attachment G, attached to the staff report, includes the responses received from the Fire
and Police Departments. The recommended implementation of the traffic calming plan is
not expected to cause the Fire or Police Department to exceed established goals of
response travel time. In addition, to ensure compliance with the set goals, a one-year
monitoring program is recommended for trial implementation of the plan. In the event
that project’s monitoring shows unanticipated increases in response time, corrective
measures will be taken that could include the moving, removing, or replacement of one or
more of the devices.
Comment: "Like the Fire Department, the criticism of the matter before the Commission
is that it is "piecemeal", that is, one neighborhood ostensibly requesting Traffic Calming
devices when what is needed is a comprehensive Master Traffic and Circulation Plan for
the City. At the bottom of the issue before your Commission is that the real problem is
the proper regulation and phasing of traffic on E1 Camino Real, a State highway and Page
Mill Road and Stanford Avenue."
Response: On April 9, 2001, City Council approved the Neighborhood Traffic Calming
Program for spot treatment on local and collector residential streets. Area-wide traffic
calming plans have been approved on an add-hoe basis, and based on extent of traffic
issues, recommended measures and community’s support. Changes to established
procedures and guidelines may be considered in the future.
With regard to improving traffic circulation on arterial roadways and diverting traffic
from residential streets to the use of the arterial roadway network, it should be noted that
the traffic calming plan recommends modifications to signal timing at the intersection of
¯ Cambridge Avenue/E1 camino Real (please refer to attached Plan A). This traffic signal
is operated and maintained by Caltrans. The recommended signal timing changes and
other potential improvements will be addressed with Caltrans (and Santa Clara County if
. needed) during the trial period.
Response to Letter Dated September 8, 2004
Page 5 of 6
It should also be noted that the Metropolitan Transportation Commission .(MTC) is
fimding a signal retiming project (RSTP fund) for signals along Ei Camino Real and the
expressways. The City of Palo Alto is one of the cities that is collaborating with Caltrans
and Santa Clara County on this ongoing project.
’Comment: "The existing environmental condition on-almost everyone ~of the .streets set
forth in Exhibit "A" allows for on-street parking limiting the ability of fire apparatus to
proceed down the given-street under current conditions, In fact this has been personally
observed on Bowdoin Street on several occasions as the main pass-through thoroughfare
fi:om the Hanover Street Station to Stanford institution and residential properties to the
west. Absent some analysis of this standard, there is an inadequate Project description as
to what actually will be accomplished."
Response: The Fire Department requires a minimum horizontal clearance of 20 feet.
Street widths within the College Terrace area allow for curb-side parking and clear travel
lanes that permit the passage of fire apparatus. Recommended speed tables would not
impact on-street parking, or narrow down the street width.. As explained earlier, the
establishment of a traffic circle is accompanied by parking prohibitions at the individual
intersection comers for at least a distance of 20 feet (about one car length).
There are no traffic calming devices recommended for implementation on B0wdoin
Street. As shown in the staff and consultant’s reports, Bowdoin Street serves very low
daily traffic volumes based on the counts conducted in years 74 and 2002. Pages 14 and
16 of the staff report show that Bowdoin Street carries relatively small percentages of
cut-through tr.affic in the AM survey period (a total of five vehicles in both directions in a
period of 2.5 hours), Pages 15 and 17 of the report show that there were no cut-through
movements assessed on Bowdoin Street during the PM survey period.
Comment: "The staff report then proceeds to describe a community process whereby
nonspecific traffic measures other than by category and by dimensions described in the
staff report (Pages 1-3) were advanced on a less than due process basis. It is respectfully
suggested if there was going to be a change in.the infrastructure for the City, that like any
improvement to a street or drainage system, it be by an assessment means where notice is
assured, opporttmity for protests is provided and only then is a capital improvement
project allowed to proceed."
Response: Pages 7 through 12 of the staffreport explain the comprehensive community
consultation process that took place as part of the initiation and development of the
College Terrace Traffic Calming Plan. The number of neighborhood meetings and
notices circulated .to all area residents exceeded the requirements of the City’s
Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program. Representatives of Stanford and area businesses
were also part of the project’s advisory group. With the guidance of City staff and the
traffic consultant, the project’s advisory group and the overall cornmttnity participated in
selecting the type of traffic calming devices and their installation locations. Similar
Response to Letter Dated September 8, 2004
Page 6 of 6
evaluation and community consultation process will be carried out during the project’s
trial period before a recommendation is made with regardto the employment of any final
set of traffic calming measures.
IV. Lack of General Plan Consistency Analysis
Transportation related issues ’are addressed in the ~aforementioned response,to comments.
V. Lack of Authority for Action Proposed
Comment: "The lack of authority for such imposition absent a more definitive General
Plan Policy and Implementation Measure is also confirmed by a review of Vehicle Code
section 21000 which also sets fOrth the basis for cities to regulate "highways" under their
jurisdiction. Particularly apropos is Vehicle Code section 21000(f) which authorizes a
city to prohibit entry or exiting from any street by means of islands, curbs, traffic barriers
or other roadway design features to implement the circulation element of a General Plan."
Response: The recommended speed tables and traffic circles do not prohibit the entry of,
or exiting from any City street. As noted earlier, design and operational considerations
are taken to ensure that traffic calming devices do not prevent the movements of
emergency vehicles. For example when designing the cross section and construction
materials (resistance to loads) of speed tables. For traffic circles, using mountable curb,
applying turning templates, establishing comer parking prohibitions, installing regulatory
and warning signs, applying pavement markings, etc.
VI. Summary
Transportation related issues are addressed in aforementioned response to comments.
10/13/2884 1fi:SB 2138921519 WILLIAM ROSS PAGE fl3/08
The Honorable Phyllis Cassel, Chafrperson and
Members of the Planning & Transportation
Comndssion
City of Palo Alto
October 13, 2004
Page 2
(A)There is no analysis of the Plan with currently existing applicable General Plan
policies;~
There are no specific findings made by City Staffwith respect to provisions of
the Uniform Fire Code which would be applicable to the Plan’s improvement;
(c)There is no adequate environmental analysis of the Plan in cornplianee with the
California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Codesection 9_ 1000,
et seq., "CEQA’). With respect to CEQA compliance, that mitigation
proposed for a claimed less than significant impact with respect to emergency
response times is legally and factually inadequate.
II.
THE PLAN IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE GE1NERAL
PLAN AND IS NOT PROPERLY NOTICED UNDER CEQA
A~ indicatedpreviously, the Plan before your Commission lac~ precision with respect
to the project description under CEQA and concedes that a critical requirement of the
General Plan with respect to the formulation of guidelines for Neighborhood Traffic Calming
Programs has not been established.
Again, the Staff Report provides the following on page 7:
Although there are no approved set of guidelines for area-wide
Traffic Calming Projects, the College Terrace Community
supported by its resident’s association attempted to follow the
spot treatment procedures as outlined in the City’s
Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program (NTCP),
A review of the applicable General Plan policy which has not been implemented
provides as follows:
tThere is no statutory authorization for the procedure contemplated and the actua!
Plan is inconsistent with the City General Plan.
G;\001,01~LTR~aI~ Alto Cmnmi~.~io~ 0@2304,wpd
1011S/2BB4 ifi:56 21S8921519 WILLIAM ROSS PAGE B4/08
The Honorable Phyllis Cassel, Chairperson and
M~mbers oft.he Planning & Transportation
Commission
City of Pale Alto
O,tober 13, 2004
Page 3
Transportation Implementation Plan***
No.Program General Financing
Establish a Neighborhood
Calming Program t~ implement
appropriate traffic oalming
measures. Consider using
dev~lopmgnt fees as a funding
soume for this program.
Lead Depl.
or Agency
Plmning/
Transportation
Timing
(in years)
0-7
New
(CG unless
noted
$50,000-
$500,000
Existing
As conceded by City Staff, them are no stmadard~ or impl~nentafion (which is
.required by Government Code secticrn 6~1.02(b), of this policy. The NTCP is not
impl~nented because it does not set forth uniform standards for lra~c calming measures
which ,nsure ¢omplimace with UFC standards mad preserve adequate emergency response
time,. Rather, what is proposed is an info.n’nal initiative measure whereby a supposed
majority of a neighborhood can effectually make Iaw which amends a G~nctal Plan policy
(which again has not been implemented) with an Ad Noc Traffic Calming Program. The
proper procedure would be to adopt citywide guidelines for traffic calming which are
consistent with provisions of the Uniform Fire Code and apply those standards to specific
mquest~ for traffic calming, som~t~.ug which has not occurred here:
The standard f~r determining consistency is that set forth by the Genera!. Plan
Guidc_Iines 2002, p. 164 which provides:
An action, program, or project is consistent with. the General
Plan if, considering all its =peers, it would further the objectives
and policies of the General .Plan mud not obsmict their
attainment, " Corona-Norco Un’,fied School Dist. v. City of
Corona (1993) 17 Cal.App,4th 895, 994.
O:\00 !.0 ~ $\L’~Lealo Alto Comm|~ion 097204.wpd
18f13/2B84 16:56 2138921519 WILLI~N ROSS PAGE
The Hon.orable Phyllis Cassel, Chairperson and
Members of the Planning & Transportation
Commission
City of Palo Alto
October 13, 2004
Pag~ 4
Because there are no adopted guidelines, there cannot be consistency with something
that does not exist as is proposed in the proposed Traffic Calming Plan.
B5/88
Again, this necessarily means that there must be integration of the Traffic Calming
Plan with the established standards of the Uniform. Fire Code for access and response times
for requests for emergency response.
This lack of General Plan consistency Js paralleled with the lack of analysis of the
impact on response times in the proposed MND.
It is respectfully suggested because there is no such analysis that there is no substantial
evidence to support the conclusion on page 25 of the MND that there is less than a Significant
.impact on the need for provision of fire protection .services.
City Staff seeks to avoid assessment of this impact and then illegally formulates
mitigation which is in fact deferred mitigation. The MND in the Environmental Checklist
provides as follows:
There is no substantial ovidence that Plan A will result in
inadequate emergency response or that it will impede
maintenance of acceptable service ratios, response times or other
performance objectives for fire protection or other emergency
services. The devices used for traffic calming in the project area
do not themselves have any significant impacts on these
services. Traffic clreles and speed tables do not block nor
substantially slow any traffic movements. They are designed so
that fire trucks mad other emergency vehicles will be able to
make all mining and through, movements in a safe fashion.. It
should be noted that fire trucks can make left turns in front of
the circles (i.e., against the one-way circ~afion around the
circle). Based on consultation with .the Fire and Police
Departments, as well as based on experience with other traffic
calming projects, it can be concluded that traffic circles arid
speed tables do not constitut~ signifi.cantimpediment. However,
response times ,.411,~,, be mO~l.ltoted tO lde.tl~.y and implement
IB/13/2BB4 16:56 2138921519 WILLIAM ROSS PAGE B6/B8
The Honorable PhyIIis Cassel, Chairperson and
Members of the Plamaing & Transportation
Co,~tmission
City of Pa!o ARe
October 13, 200z,
Page 5
corrective measures if necessary, .
Potential Impact Fired: Less than significant. Fire Station #2
is located in close proximity to the College Terrace area, at the
northeast quadrant of the intersection of Hanover Street/Page
Mill Expressway. Although the proposed Traffic Calming Plan
A is expected to meet the Department’s response time goals,
mitigation in the form oftwo performance measures is included
with the project. This mitigation will ensure that the Plan causes
a less tha~. significant impact.
FIP,.E-1 Mitigation: As additional assurance against any
substantial reduction in response travel times, the proposed
traffic calming Plan provides for monitoring of response t~me
for one year succeeding the plan’s construction to ensure that
there is compliance with the following Performance Measure:
The travel times for Fire Department calls within and near the
College Terrace neighborhood will not exceedthe Department’s
mission goals of 4 minutes or 90% of fire and basic medica!
responses, and 6 minutes for 90% of advanced medical
responses (param, dics) attributable to implementation of the
traffic calming plan. (Emphasis added.)
Assuming for the moment only that there is substantial evidence to support the less
than significant impact in. thi.s area, mitigation, nonetheless must be designed to minimize a
significant environmental impact, Public Resources Code section 21002.1 (a), 2 ! !00(b)(3);
CEQA Guidelines section 15126.4(a)(1). Mitigation measures must be designed to alleviate
~eeific project related impacts.
Mitigation is defined to include the following:
Avoidlxag an impact altogether by not taking a certain
action or part of an action;
2138921519 WILLIAM ROSS PAGE 071B8
The Honorable Phyllis Cassel, Chairperson and
Members of the Planning & Transportation
Commission
City of Palo Alto
October 13, 2004
Page 6
Minimizing an ,impact by limiting the magnitude of a
proposed action and its implementation;
Rectifying an impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or
restoring the affected enviromnental resourc;
Reducing or eliminating au impact or a period of time
through preservation or maintenance operations during
the life of the action; and
Compensating for the impact by providing substitute
resources or ~avironments.
CEQA Cmidelines section 15370,
The proposed mitigation which is a monitoring of response times mad then taking such
action after the monitoring period is concluded meets none of the required def’mitions of
mitigation. Further, the potential impact in this area also is incomplete as previously noted.
It does not deal with the more than common situation when. the apparatus and personnel of
the Hanover Street Station ~ire Station #2) are already deployed and emergency response
must come from mother area of the City. In conversations with Fke Department Officials
this has been a consistent eorxeem of the Department because it can only be properly
addressed if the traffic impacts and the Station placement and response times are addressed
on a citywide basis.
Apparently, in an attempt to accommodate a specific number of individuals in a
specific neighborhood, the City avoids the methodology to comprehensively address this
program. The proposed mitigation actuatly provides for prohibited deferralz.
Again, the proposed mitigation is not mitigation. The very practical question would
be how is it mitigation if in the monitoring period., because of an inadequate or in.sufficient
response time, a request for medical a~sistauee results in severe injury, physical impairment
or even death? This obviously cannot be fixed after the fact.
2See, Sundstrom ~. County of Mendoc~Tno (1988) 202 CaI.App.3d 296, 308.
O:\O01.01 b"tLTKWalo Aim ~..~mf~ion O~04,vcpd.
1811312884 I~:5B 2138921519 WILLIAM ROSS PAGE BB/B8
The ttonorable Phyllis Cassel, Chairperson and
Members of th.e ,Plaunlng & Tr~spo~ation
Commission
CiW of P~o Alto
OcWb~r 13, 2004
Page 7
What wi!l the mitigation be area" the fact if there is an untimely response to a medical
incident or request for fire suppression? Monitoring does not replace property damaged by
fire or rrtedieal injury or death because the City Emergen¢y Medical Teelmieians or
Paramedics ~ould not get to the ineidem site in time. The rush to judgment on this Plan
should not defer this issue. Staffshould be instructed to further evaluate t.~is issue now- not
after a death, injury or flae destruction of property.
Very truly yours,
William D, Ross
WDR:mgl
co: Dan Sodergren
Deputy City Attorney
II/15/2B84 89:26 2138g2151~WILLIAM ROSS P~GE B2/83
Of Cottmsel
Law Offices of
William !3. Ross
A Professiopa! Corporation
52{) South Gr~nd Av~nll~ Suite 300
Los Angel~% CA
Telephon
Fa~tmile: (213) 89~15~9
Pulo Alto
400 Lambert SWeet
Alto, Cs|iforaia 94306
Tdephone: (650) 843-81)80
Fa~lrMle: (650) 843-8{)84
November 1, 2004
VIA ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION &
TE, LECOPIgR
hab.~,eJgu~ndv@,ciw.ofgaloako.org & (650), 617-3108
Ms. Heba El-Guendy
Transportation Engineer
City of Palo Alto
Po~t Office Box 10250
Palo Alto, CA 94303
College Terrace Traffic Calming Project; Staff Report 3; Associated
Proposed Mitigated Negative Dec]aragon; October 13, 2004 ~Planning
_Commission ~eeting
Dear Ms, E1-Gu~ndy:.
The purpose of this communication is to request timely notice under the provisions
of Public Resources Code section 2] 092.2, Government Code section 65092 and the Ralph
M Brown Open Meeting Act (Government Code section 54950 et seq.) of any City Council
consideratioe of flee College Terrace Traffic Calming Plan.
Fu~her, this communication requests copies of any document and/or minute orders
adopted by the Planning Commission at its meeting of October 13, 2004.
G:W01.015~,LTR\P~Io AIIo Commiasioll I 0;1904.w~
Ms: I-Ieba E1-Guendy
Transportation Engineer
’City of Palo Alto
November 1, 2004
Page 2
Your timely response to this communication is respectfully requested.
Very truly yours,
William D. Ross
WDR:rngl
ec: Dan Sodergr, en
Deputy City Attorney
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
2324
2526
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
Chair Cassel: There are no Agenda Changes, Additions or Deletions.
AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS. The agenda may have additional
items added to it up until 72 hours prior to meeting time.
Chair Cassel: We are then ready to do New Business. The item this evening, the first item on
our agenda is a trial implementation of College Terrace Traffic Calming. The Staff is
recommending that the Planning and Transportation Commission recommend that City Council
approve the following: implement the physical traffic calming devices shown on Plan A,
Attachment B, on a trial basis on in the College Terrace area and evaluate and report on the
effectiveness of Plan A within one year of completion of its construction. In the announcement
in the paper but not here but included in our packet they would like us to review and recommend
to City Council and approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration. Staff, would you like to make
a presentation and introduce your Staff?. Thank you.
NEW B USINESS:
Public Hearings.
College Terrace Traffic Calming: Review and recommendations on proposed traffic
calming plan for the College Terrace Neighborhood. Environmental Assessment: A
Negative Declaration will be prepared.
http://199.33.43.1/portalici _tyagenda/publish!planning-tr,-msportation-meetings/3691 .pdf
http://199.33.43.1/portal/cityagenda/publishiplanning-transportation-meetings/3692.pdf
http://199.33.43.1/portal/citvagendaJpublish/planning-rransportation-meetings/3693,pdf
http ://199.33.43.1/portal/citgagenda/publish/planning-transportation-meetings/3694.pdf
Mr. Kott: Thank you very much Chair Cassel. I am very pleased to introduce to the
Commission Heba E1-Guendy, a new member of our Staff who has replaced Carl Stoffel who
retired, as the Commissidn may know in July. Heba comes to us after ten years of experience in
traffic engineering in the Bay Area and in Ottawa, Canada. Also with us tonight is Jim West, a
traffic engineer with the firm Kimley-Horn and Associates who worked with the City
Transportation Staff and the residents of College Terrace in developing the College Terrace
Traffic Calming Plan.
Traffic calming is not new for Palo Alto and certainly not new for the United States. I looked in
my files recently and I found a 1980 document called "State of the Art Report Residential
Traffic Management" from the Federal Highway Administration of 1980. Our own
Transportation Division files include a September 1993 report "Inventory of Neighborhood
Traffic Management Measures." Then of course Reed Ewing who spoke in Palo Alto in 1999 at
our first lecture on sustainable transportation developed this text traffic calming state of the art
or state of the practice, rather, jointly published by the Federal Highway Administration and
Institute of Transportation Engineers in August of 1999. Our Council adopted our local street or
so-called spot treatment traffic calming program April 9, 2001. Palo Alto has been doing
neighborhood and residential street traffic management for around abdut 30 years now. The
terminology changes a little bit but the whole intent is to make streets more livable.
In our 1998-2010 Comprehensive Plan adopted by Council in 1998 the City of Palo Alto
committed explicitly to implementation of traffic calming measures to slow traffic on local and
City qfPalo Alto(P&TC)October 13, 2004 Page 2 of 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
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
collector residential streets and prioritize these measures over congestion management, include
traffic circles and other traffic calming devices amon~ these measures. The College Terrace
Traffic Calming Plan conforms very well indeed to this Comprehensive Plan mandate. The
citizens themselves, this is really a California tradition citizen initiative and referendum, we
didn’t have a referendum here other than a postcard advisory survey. We certainly had an
initiative, 225 College Terrace residents signed a petition and came to City Council. I was at
that meeting. I had been here about eight months, I was really amazed at the amount of
participation and it has continued strong ever since. As you will learn more this evening there
was extensive outreach, exemplary outreach for neighborhood wide meetings, many smaller
group meetings to discuss site specific problems and issues, an array of newsletters and flyers
and so forth. There was also an extensive and exemplary amount of resident participation in the
study. I think Heba and Jim and I are going to write a journal article eventually about this. We
had 56 College Terrace residents do what is called an origin-destination survey or study for us in
the neighborhood. They devoted a considerable amount of time both on the street if you will
working in teams as well as working with us to process the data and evaluate it. We are so
grateful for all of that help. Then we had in the evem substantial resident support for the
recommended plan.
I did take a little bit of time to go to the Internet, we all do that these days. I wanted to compare
the turnout on our advisory survey, which is 48% for College Terrace with some representative
turnouts in local elections in Palo Alto. The best article I could find, the only data I could find
really, I didn’t spend enough time on it probably, was a November 9, 2001 article from the Palo
Alto Weekly in the online archives where Jeff Bline at the time talks about the turnout in the
2001. Council election. That was 33.5% andthe election before in 1999 the turnout was 36.5%.
The amount of support for the recommended plan rose to over two-thirds, about 70% in all.
Just a reminder to the Commission and the public the Palo Alto approach to traffic calming is
trial before final. We are occasionally, not often, criticized for not getting it right the first time.
It is very difficult to do that on a complex street grid, as ours tend to be. So we always do trials
and will recommend a one-year trial in this case. The plan envisions moderate measures that is
measures that induce more civil driving or vehicle speeds but at the’same time don~t compel
people to change routes, don’t deter people from using streets, don’t close streets off from
drivers. The measures as you will find out in the latter partof this presentation are targeted to
the specific problems that were evaluated. There was extensive study done of the patterns of
traffic in this neighborhood. They were very well documented and indeed I think the
Commission has a report called The Existing Conditions in College Terrace that shows that
documentation. The traffic calming plan is key to reducing speeding, inducing more civil
driving and the purpose of this really is not for its own sake but to create a street environment
that is safe for everybody drivers, cyclists, pedestrians. Probably the most advantage occurs io
pedestrians and cyclists who are the most vulnerable on our streets. It creates in general a more
livable environment while keeping our streets usable and. accessible to all.
Finally, and this point has been made in some other public discussion on this project the funds to
implement the traffic calming plan should Council decide to do so have already been dedicated
by a traffic mitigation for 2475 Hanover, Stanford Research Park development. With that
preface I would like to turn the program over to Heba E1-Guendy.
Ms. Heba E1-Guend¥, Traffic Engineer: As Joe mentioned the project was initiated through a
City ofPalo Alto(P&TC)October 13, 2004 Page 3 of 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
44
45
46
47
48
petition that was submitted to City Council in September of 1999. Two hundred and twenty-five
residents signed this petition. In the petition the residents raised their concerns about excessive
vehicular speeds and volumes in the College Terrace area and they requested a pilot traffic
calming project be initiated. In response the City sponsored a preliminary data collection
program of traffic volumes and speeds, which confirmed the reported concerns. The project was
added to our work program for traffic calming. The project objectives were set to deter cut-
through traffic especially along the north-south local streets that connect between Stanford and
California avenues and to reduce excessive speeding especially along the collector border
streets, Stanford and California and to encourage civil driving and improve sense of security
among all roadway users especially pedestrians and cyclists. For instance Stanford Avenue is a
designated bike route with bike lanes and to enhance the effectiveness of the existing traffic
calming devices and the street closures that are in the College Terrace area.
Significant amount of data was- later collected by the City and through the support of a large
number 0fvolunteers from the community. The origin-destination survey alone had about 56
volunteers from the area residents and Jim will explain the data collection process in more detail.
The project also included a comprehensive community consultation process. From the very
beginning a traffic committee was formed from area residents and was later expanded to include
representatives from the Stanford University and the area businesses. Information about the
project was published on a regular basis in the association’s newsletter and on the project
website. Three community meetings plus one of the two yearly meetings of the residents
association were used throughout the different phases of the project to inform the residents about
the data that was collected, the findings of the data collection to educate them about traffic
calming in general in terms of enforcement, education and engineering measures. Also to have
their participation in identifying alternative traffic calming plans and selecting a few alternatives.
This community consultation process ended up with three alternatives that were recently
included in a survey letter that was hand-delivered to all dwelling units within the College
Terrace area. All alternatives again will be explained in more details in Jim’s presentation but
the three alternatives that were included in the survey letter in summary included first to
maintain existing conditions without, any changes. The second alternative is to implement Plan
A that employs physical traffic calming devices namely five traffic circles, four of them along
College Avenue and one at the intersection of Cambridge at Yale Street and six speed tables,
four of them along Stanford Avenue and two along the easterly segments of California Avenue.
Locations of the physical traffic calming devices were selected based on the identified speeding
issues on the local streets as well as the cut-through routes on the local streets through the
neighborhood. The third alternative employs enforcement and educational measures such as
safety banners and neighborhood watch signs and pace car program and the V-COM changeable
signs that show the motorists driVing speeds. Page 12, I believe of the staff report has another
table that categorizes the results of this survey based on the different individual streets that have
proposed traffic calming devices. Now I am going to pass the laptop to Jim so that he can start
his presentation. Thank you.
Actually, before we move forward I just wanted to emphasize what Joe explained in his
presentation. As shown in the table 70% of the residents supported Plan A that employs the
physical traffic calming devices. Seventeen percent supported the enforcement and educational
measures and only 13% felt that there are no traffic issues and no action is required. Similar
results are also shown in the second table that I mentioned to you for the individual streets.
City ofPalo Alto(P&TC)October 13, 2004 Page 4 of 4 7
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
Thank you.1
2
3 Mr. Jim West, Kimley-Hom and Associates: Good evening. Joe asked me to take just a few
4 minutes to explain in a little bit more detail about the development of the program itself. The
5 process really followed what I would refer to as a three-step process for its development. The
6 first step was to identify the issues and as has already been mentioned a lot of the identification
7 occurred before we as the consultants were even brought on board. The neighborhood and the
8 City did a great job in collecting some of that information. Then after we were brought on to the
9 project and there were. additional meetings and conversations with individuals and
10 representatives of the neighborhood to be able to sort of supplement that information and then to
be able to distinguish and decide what all that information meant. Based on that data we then
developed alternatives that we felt would address those issues. We were working under
essentially a budget cap so we knew that there was a fixed amount of money so we tried to focus
traffic calming or traffic management features that would provide the greatest benefit and still be
able to stay under that budget which we knew we needed to do.
Once the concepts were developed they were presented to the neighborhood. There were several
neighborhood meetings and then those concepts were adjusted a little bit. In some cases we
removed them perhaps at the request of a resident saying could you move that one house down
and there were a lot of one-on-one conversations. Again the neighborhood did a great job in
facilitating those conversations to try to make sure that we had good buy-in from residents to not
only the feature itself but the placement of the feature. In some cases we made minor
adjustments to the feature again to try to meet specific neighborhood needs. As we did that
though we wanted to focus and we kept in mind that we didn’t want to diminish the
effectiveness of those features so we operated within those limits.
Let me know talk a little bit more about these three items starting with the neighborhood traffic
issues. The study area, which we were focused on, is shown on that overlay. It includes
neighborhood commercial areas. It includes the library as well as the nearby Stanford Research
Park, the University and the Escondido School. Traffic volumes were an item of great interest
as we began the project. This graphic shows the way in which traffic volumes have increased
since 1974 following the closures of a number of streets within the neighborhood. The dark bars
represent the 1974 volumes and the periwinkle bar is the 2002 volume. You may have a little bit
difficult time reading some of the names of the streets but the first four data sets are Stanford,
the next three are California, the next two are College and then these others are the interior
streets of the neighborhood. You can see particularly on Stanford that in some locations traffic
volumes in the last almost 30 years have more than doubled. In some locations on Stanford
there are over 10,000 vehicles per day driving along the border of the neighborhood so in some
locations as I said traffic volumes have significantly increased. We spent a little bit of time
trying to distinguish the causes of those. I believe that there are a number of causes let me
mention three in whicti we believe are primary. One is growth on the Stanford Campus
particularly growth on the side of campus nearest to the neighborhood. Also growth within the
Stanford Research Park has added to those volumes on the border streets of the neighborhood.
The third itemtoo is related to the congestion, which is occurring on the arterial streets that
surround the neighborhood. As those streets have become more congested over the years people
are finding it more convenient to jump off those facilities and pass through the neighborhood in
order to reach their destination. So there are a number of causes for that and you can see it has
contributed greatly to the traffic volumes.
City ofPalo Alto(P&TC)October 13, 2004 Page 5 of 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
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
As I mentioned some of the traffic is leaving the arterial roadway system and cutting through the
neighborhood. In the AM cut-through traffic typically ranges from more than 20% on some
streets to over 70% on others. In the PM it gets a little higher, it is more than 20% and up to
80%. If we were to graphically show the locations of those percentages you can get a little bit of
an idea of where they are occurring. The number on the left represents the cut-through traffic
that is entering the neighborhood on that particular street. The number on the right represents
the percentage of cut-through traffic that is exiting at that location. So for example on Hanover
Street in the morning 72% of the vehicles on Hanover Street coming into the neighborhood are
simply passing through they do not have an end destination within the neighborhood. You can
see some others up on Yale at 68% of the traffic exiting on Yale at that location again is cut-
through traffic. Down in other parts of the neighborhood those numbers are lower but again you
can see that they are quite high in many locations. That is the AM cut-through. In the PM you
see some similar numbers and in many cases the sort of direction switches between the AM and
the PM. For example this is the location where the 80% occurs, right there.
One of the things we also did with regard to cut-through traffic was to actually try to plot the
actual number of vehicles because sometimes percentages can be a little bit misleading
particularly on very low volume streets. Just a few cars on a very low volume street may show
up to be a huge percentage so we also tracked volumes themselves. Unfortunately in the AM we
did not have any data for the border streets of California and for Stanford but we did interior to
the neighborhood. You can see for example on Cambridge and Yale there is a huge cut-through
component that occurs there. Also onto Princeton, Hanover, Oberlin and on Columbia you can
see where those locations are occurring as well as on College are where the concentrations of
cut-through traffic are occurring in the AM. In the PM we actually had border information and
those heavy bars represent hundreds of vehicles during the peak hour cutting through the
neighborhood. Again.the same streets interior to the neighborhood seem to be carrying the same
loads sometimes the directions are reversed.
We also concentrated on the speeds within the neighborhood. We looked at 85th percentile
speeds, which are regarded as the maximum speed at which reasonable drivers will travel.
Basically this is the speed at which 85% of the drivers are traveling at that speed or less. Again
the first four data sets are Stanford, the next three are California, the next two College and then
into the neighborhood for individual streets. On Stanford and on California -the 85th percentile
speed is around 30 miles per hour and in some cases it gets even higher than that. On one
section of Stanford it goes to 37 miles per hour. So you can see that there are a lot of people that
are exceeding the posted speed limit, which is 25 for all of those streets. Interior to the
neighborhood most people are driving pretty close to the speed limit somewhere between 25 and
30 miles per hour. You might as what are the other 25% doing? Basically on Stanford we found
that peak speeds were commoniy up to nearly 50 miles an hour, on California they were up to 44
and interior to the neighborhood they were up to 39. Obviously all of those numbers are well
above the posted speed limit and they present a great hazard particularly to pedestrians and
cyclists for those individuals that are driving at those kinds of speeds. So we wanted to focus
many of the measures on trying to knock those peak speeds down to a more reasonable level.
Aside from the traffic volumes cut-through traffic and speeding a number of other issues were
raised by the neighborhood including the occasional violation of closures, rapid acceleration in
the neighborhood often times between stop signs with that comes an associated noise
City of Palo Alto(P&TC)October 13, 2004 Page 6 of 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
44
45
46
47
48
component. There were concerns for bicycle and pedestrian safety particularly crossing at
intersections. Many people commented that they found it nearly impossible to cross Stanford
University during peak travel periods. Drivers were not only traveling so fast that they just
wouldn’t even slow down to allow them to cross the intersection. There were concerns about
intersection visibility as well as failure to respect the traffic controls within the neighborhood.
There were a number of people who would jus sort of coast through the stop signs within the
College Terrace neighborhood. There were also comments regarding non-local trucks and sort
of a general lack of civil driving.
As we began to develop the concepts we took a look at a number of toolbox options. Those
options included strategies in the three areas of education, enforcement and engineering.
Education solutions help people understand how their actions can improve the livability of their
neighborhood by reducing their speeds, being more aware of pedestrians and bicyclists.
Education can be very effective if the problem is contained within the neighborhood however if
the problem is associated with a lot of people who live outside of the neighborhood it has less of
an effect. We also looked at enforcement solutions. Enforcement in this is the police
department to do targeting enforcement efforts on problem areas and increase community
awareness of speeding problems. Enforcement is a very effective tool howeverit generally
doesn’t last very long once the police officer leaves the area. The third area was engineering
where we physically modify the street or roadway in some manner to encourage drivers to alter
their behavior by reducing their speed, being more aware of pedestrians and cyclists .or perhaps
diverting to a more appropriate street such as an arterial. Engineering solutions are intended to
be self enforcing in that they work 24 hours a day and do not require a police officer to be
present. Some engineering measures that were considered as part of the process included
gateways and entry treatments, traffic circles, speed humps and cushions, tables and raised
crossings, curb extensions and bulb outs, median slow points, chicanes, median barriers, other
types of channelization also including diverters and closures. I should mention that the
discussion of closures was fairly short but it was a discussion item. There were a few people in
the neighborhood that seemedto have an interest .in closures but I think there was definitely a
consensus within the neighborhood that implementing closures really would not be the right
approach for the neighborhood. So.our focus was.really on implementing other types of
measures but they were discussed. There were additional measures that were also considered
some of those got included in the plans that were presented to the neighborhood.
I should mention a little bit about the effectiveness of these different types of measures. The
Institute of Transportation Engineers in traffic calming state of the practice documented the
effectiveness of some types of traffic calming features. For vehicle speed the effect on vehicle
speed, speed humps and speed tables tend to have the greatest effect on vehicle speed. That was
taken into consideration. You can.see for example the raise intersection where the whole
intersection is lifted up a few inches tend to have very little effect on vehicle speed. We also
took a look at the effect of features on diversions of traffic volumes and as you can imagine
diverters and closures had a huge effect on volume but those weren’t on the table very long as a
discussion item so we focused on other measuresbut these things were taken into consideration
as we developed the plan.
Let me mentionnow a little bit about tl~e concept plans themselves. This is a diagram of the
existing street network. You can see the [raffic signals that are located, there are five of them on
the border of the neighborhood and then the red dots are stop signs. You can see that there are
City ofPalo Alto(P&TC)October 13, 2004 Page 7 of 4 ~
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41~
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
many stop signs within the neighborhood. So that is one of the reasons I think that .we got a lot
of comments ofpeopte saying that there is sort of a disregard for the traffic control devices in
the neighborhood. This is the low option or what was on the survey as Option B which basically
focuses on increasing community awareness and using education strategies to get people to be
more civil in their driving habits. Let me just highlight a few. of those. There were four
electronic speed display signs that are shown approximately in the locations on the graphic.
They would be the same as signs that are already within the community. There were also four
traffic safety banners. These banners the City already has they use them in a number of different
locations. Basically, they encourage drivers to share the road space with pedestrians and
cyclists. There were also four neighborhood traffic watch signs and basically those alert drivers
that traffic laws will be strictly enforced in the neighborhood. So that wasOption B which was
presented to the neighborhood or basically developed after a number conversations with the
neighborhood because there were people in the neighborhood who were interested in having a
choice of an option that wouldn’t necessarily cause them to have to slow down more of a
reminder that they needed to slow down or have good driving habits. So that was Option B.
This option also included targeted police enforcement activities, the implementation of a pace
car program and other educational programs. I should mention that the neighborhood actually
does a great job in doing educational programs right now through the school and Other methods
of encouraging people within the neighborhood to drive very civilly. The estimated cost for that
particular option was $36,000. It was pretty much all tied up in the electronic speed signs
themselves.
This was Option, A which also was referred to as the base option. It relied on physical changes
to the roadway to encourage drivers to slow down or drive more civilly. Let me point out a few
of those: There were two speed tables or raised crossings. They were located right at
intersections to facilitate the crossing of pedestrians. There were additional speed tables, two of
those at one time were located right at the intersection but at the request of residents who live
right there we slid them down a little bit into a location where they were more compatible with
the desires of the neighborhood feeling that we would still get the slowing effect and it was close
enough to the intersections where the pedestrians could still benefit and be able to allow them to
cross much more safely on these high volume streets. They would look something similar to
this. There were also five traffic circles and it was assumed that they would not have for
example a large tree in the middle of circle but they would rely on more low level type of
landscaping if it went in that direction. The neighborhood clearly expressed a desire to have
those be landscaped. The reason why they were not assumed to have a tree is there is a major
storm water or sanitary sewer line that runs right down College and every manhole is right in the
center of the street right where the tree would go so we would not be able to put large tress in
those features. Those features were located interior to the neighborhood at locations where
major cut-through paths were going to occur in each direction so that they would essentially the~
greatest number of cut-through drivers would have to pass by that feature. So that is the reason
they are located where they are. This also included some minor pavement legend improvements
such as pavement legends that remind people that the speed is 25 miles per hour for example.
The estimated cost for this option was $103,000, the breakdown is as shown there and it was
assumed that some of the additional money, I believe there was $150,000 available, some of the
money would be used for design and then with the reserve of some funds to be able to come
back after the trial and perhaps adjust it if necessary and have that money in reserve. So that is
why it is around $1000,000.
City ofPalo Alto(P&TC)October 13, 2004 Page 8 of 47
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 There were a number of other variations that were discussed at one time and basically it included
2 discussion as additional speed hump interior to the neighborhood, improvements to the traffic
3 signals near Escondido School, bicycle safety improvement on Hanover. Several of those
4 improvements were assumed that they could be funded under another funding source for
5 example Safe Routes to School Project. So while they were identified as being an important
6 need the City Staff felt like there was another opportunity to fund those projects so we sort of
7 kept those for reference and it is assumed that they will be pursued in another way. Then also
8 some of those were also kept for reference so that if we get an unintended diversion of traffic or
9 something that wasn’t necessarily anticipated we have sort of an additional plan that we can
10 refer to and perhaps pull a feature off that plan. That concludes my presentation and I think we
are back to you, Joe.
Mr. Kott: Thank you very much, Jim. We are very pleased to answer any Commission
questions.
Chair Cassel: Do the Commissioners have questions? Let’s start with Lee and move down.
Commissioner Lippert: Great, thank you.
Chair Cassel: Do one or two questions and we’lI keep going.
Commissioner Lippert: Did you look at anything including ladder striping? If you look along
certain areas like Channing they have ladder striping with the caution pedestrian crossing sign.
That has a tendency of slowing traffic. In front of Whole Foods there is ladder striping and then
there are a couple of other places where I have seen it. That also has a tendency of calming
traffic. Did you look at that at all?
Mr. West: It was considered and certainly that could be added to the plan but we felt that the
raised crossings and the speed tables generally have a much greater effect on slowing speeds
than the ladders do. The ladders though are very effective in sort of raising people’s awareness
as to the specific location of the crossing.
Commissioner Lippert: Okay. Then with regard to the tables that you proposed here does the
size or make of vehicle are they impacted more or less by these? An SUV would have an easier
time getting over these and not even bother to slow down whereas a smaller vehicle like a Mini
might have some problems.
Mr. West: I think you will find that most of the vehicles are going to slow down. Basically the
profile is they are about 22 feet across the top and Joe remind me the height, about three inches
tall that Palo Alto is commonly using right now. It is going to have a very similar effect both on
large and small vehicles.
Mr. Kott: It is important to note that as the speeds rise above the speed limit, above 25 miles per
hour, the effect tends to be like an extreme sport going over the table or a hump with any
.vehicle.
Chair Cassel: Pat.
City ofPalo Alto(P&TC)October 13, 2004 Page 9 of 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
4O
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Commissioner Burt: You mentioned I think two locations where the tables were relocated in
response to requests from immediate neighbors. What were those locations and did that in effect
change them from being opportunities for raised crosswalks and convert them to strictly speed
tables.
Mr. West: To answer the second part ofy0ur question the answer is yes. Originally, because
we heard a lot of Comments about people saying it was difficult to cross the street and obviously
there was a speeding problem our initial recommendation was to make a raised crosswalk right
at the intersection so that the vehicle would have to slow to its very slowest speed right at the
crossing, As I mentioned there were some people who. were concerned about having that feature
near.their home they asked if we could relocate those so we did. At that point they needed to
turn into a speed table and not a raised crossing. But we felt that they were still close enough to
the intersections where traffic would still be going nearly as slow as the slowest speed and the
pedestrians would still get the benefit of having traffic going slow at the intersection while they
were trying to cross.
Commissioner Burt: So what locations were those? Then another related question is you
mentioned the response of some residents at those particular locations. What was the response
of the neighborhood as a wholeto those changes?
Mr. West: The locations are right here. Initially I think it was on this side of the intersection
and then this one used to be right there. So it was alittle closer to the intersection. The
neighborhood didn’t seem to have a strong opinion one way or another. I think there were some
people who felt like the very best place was right at the corner but obviously this was a
community process and people within the neighborhood wanted to get strong support for the
plan. So I think that there was definitely some consensus building that went on within the
neighborhood and people saying okay, if we can get several more people on board with this
concept by moving it a little bit away from the intersection then we are comfortable with that.
Commissioner Buff: Final related question. Among those residents immediately adjacent to
where the raised crosswalk would have gone what was their notion as to why that would be
detrimental to them to have a raised crosswalk right at the intersection versus a speed table a few
feet away?
Mr. West: As I recall I think the primary objection was noise. I think there were some
individuals who said I leave my windows open at night and I am concerned about a vehicle
coming through the{e and making a clanking noise or some sort of a noise when it goes over the
feature and it would be nice if it was a little farther away from my window. I believe that is the
primary thing that came up.
Commissioner Burr: Joe, is it your experience that speed tables as opposed to humps are noise
generators from vehicles to any significant degree?
Mr. Kott: Because speed tables have a more moderate profile they would generate less noise. I
think Jim did show a graph in terms of noise effects of traffic calming measures. I think there is
pretty good information from studies on that. A lot depends .on the sensitivity of the receptor
and the proximity to the noise generator. If you keep the windows open a lot and if your
bedroom window is right perpendicular to the device and if you are very sensitive to any kind of
City of Palo Alto(P&TC)October 13, 2004 Page 10 of 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
44
45
46
47
48
sound, yes. So it is highly variable. I must say we have discussed this before in the past with
the Commission Palo Altoans are very engaged and they do let us know what they think in all
the forms of communication available to them and we really haven’t gotten a lot of feedback
about noise effects of speed tables. I won’t say no one has complained but we haven’t gotten
very much at all even with respect to speed humps which have a less moderate profile.
Chair Cassel: Bonnie.
Vice Chair Packer: Since Pat was asking questions about the two speed tables on California I
notice those are very near bus stops. Is that going to affect the bus stop there? Have you looked
at that?
Mr. West: We don’t anticipate any problems at all with the transit vehicles being able to do that.
Similar tables have been placed in other locations near bus stops and have not presented a
problem.
Vice Chair Packer: That was the easy question. The other question I have is about the
interrelationship of stop signs and the circles on College. When I looked at the maps that we
have in our Staff Report it seemed that except for the circle that is at Oberlin there are no stop
signs when you are going west on College there isn’t a stop sign at the intersection before you
get to the circle. You just slow down and go around except there are existing stop signs going
east or west at Oberlin. What are the pros and cons of having stop signs together with these
kinds of circles in these kinds of intersections?
Mr. West: Typically with a traffic circle you would have stop signs on two of the four
approaches and what we did with regard to the stop si’g~s and I forgot to mention this, I
apologize. You will see the slightly larger circles, dotted circles around the traffic circle itself,
those two locations for example at Hanover we actually took two of the stop signs off, it is a
four-way stop right now, we took two of them off. Then at Columbia we flipped the location of
the stop signs. What we did was we followed the path of the primary traffic path particulariy the
path of cut-through traffic. So we tried to orient the stop signs so that the cut-through traffic
would receive the greatest amount of friction as they tried to go through the neighborhood. So
that is why they are on the particular approaches that they are. So if the could for example make
a really quick right turn we said okay, let’s make sure the stop sign is there so they still have to
stop and then make a right turn past the traffic circle. Did that help?
Vice Chair Packer: Yes, so in other words you have thought through thb location of the stop
signs vis-a-vie each circle depending on the data that you have for what is happening at those
streets.
Mr. West: Correct.
Vice Chair Packer: Okay, thank you.
Chair Cassel: Michael.
Commissioner Griffin: Considering what I would almost like to call a drag strip that Stanford
Avenue has become over the years I am a little surprised you let it escape with only four devices.
City of Palo Alto(P&TC)October 13, 2004 Page 11 of 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
Was there any thought of turning up the wick on features on that particular street?
Mr. West: Actually yes in this sort of supplemental plan there were additional speed tables~ I
think there were one or two additional speed tables showt~ on this particular plan. The other
thing I wanted to mention though is for example there is a stop sign right here so drivers would
hit a speed table then they hit a stop sign then they hit a speed ~able then they hit a signal and
then another table, another table, a stop sign and then they are out to E1 Camino Real. So there
were actually other features alreadyp~esent on the roadway so we felt we didn’t want to do too
many right. Let’s start with these as probably the most essential locations and then after the trial
again We kept some money in reserve and if we find that maybe there is one more ¢e need out
there we still have enough money to go out and do that.
Mr. Kott: Commissioner Griffin ifI may add to Jim’s excellent point. We are sensitive to the
potential people pretty much giving up on Stanford Avenue and diverting through the
neighborhood and in fact exacerbating the through traffic intrusion into the neighborhood with
too many devices laid down.
Chair Cassel: Annette.
Commissioner Bialson: Well, my fellow Commissioners have asked a lot of the questions but
let’s stay focused on Stanford Avenue. I am very familiar with the area find have been familiar
since the 1960’s. I may be one of the few people that have been around since that time living in
proximity and working in proximity to this area. One of the frustrations I have in taking
grandchildren to school off Stanford Avenue brings me to the point of what the intersection with
E1 Camino is like. At this point a lot of people avoid Stanford Avenue because it is very
difficult to get in and out of Stanford Avenue from E1 Camino. Did you consider adding a lane
or doing something to deal with that traffic problem? Part Of it is volume, a lot of it is
businesses located at that intersection and cars blocking driveways and blocking the street, ¯
Mr. Kott: IfI may? The Commission may recall from the E1 Camino Real Corridor Study there
is a plan to redesign the Stanford/El Camino Real intersection. In fact it was in line for funding
but something slipped between the cut and the lip with the budget crisis in Sacramento and we
don’t yet have funding to do that. I should say we need considerable collaboration with Cal
Trans to change the intersection because E1 Camino Real is a Cal Trans street.
Commissioner Bialson: Is there any way to increase the number of lanes on Stanford? We have
gotten some communication I think from a citizen in this area about the necessity for that.
Mr. Kott: We could do that in collaboration with Cal Trans and that would be properly part of
this intersection redesign project.
Commissioner Bialson: My concern is that part of the cut-throug.h traffic is because of our not
improving that intersection and the difficulty of transiting onto Stanford, which is what we
would like people to do. So while I understand that we need to work with Cal Trans that is
something that I feel needs to be looked at.
My second question is the concern that the fire department and PASCO raised with regard to the
circles and the parking around the circles. I know Staff feels otherwise but it seems like the fire
City ofPalo Alto(P&TC)October 13, 2004 Page 12 of 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
4O
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
department and PASCO specifically made a request there. What keeps you from abiding by
some of their reasoning?
Mr. Kott: Well in terms of parking by circles we red curb one space in on all approaches to our
traffic ci~:cles. The compliance is very good. I am not saying it is 100% but is very good.
People do generally obey the red curbing. It is important to emphasize that these circles are
navigable by fire trucks for all movements. The left turn movements can be made by short
cutting the circles and fire trucks are allowed to do that. The circles are designed so the curbs
are mountable by fire trucks. They are not mountable if you have a civilian vehicle but they are
by fire trucks. So they are perfectly navigable. The effects on emergency response are minimal
since fire trucks generally do slow down on the approach to intersections like all drivers do, they
slow down just a bit more with the circles in order to go around but the effect isn’t really very
dramatic. I should note that one of our fire officials, Nick Mariano, did issue an email, which
described the .department’.s position.
Chair Cassel: Karen.
Commissioner Holman: The thrust of my couple questions are going to be around trees~
College Avenue, the traffic circles there and you say that the manholes preclude trees from being
there in those locations. Have other communities come up with any kind of design solution that
might be more appealing than what we saw the visuals for?
Mr. West.: In some cases communities have actually relocated utilities in order to be able to do
that. We felt that because of the size and nature of that particular utility that it was way beyond
the budget or the scope of the project. So at that point we kind of concluded that probably the
most appropriate thing would be some sort of low level landscape rather than a tree. Those
utilities could be relocated but it would be very expensive. That is generally how it gets done if
they want to do a circle or they would have to simply change to a completely different feature
that maybe is located at the middle of the block or something.
Commissioner Holman: I was hoping there was something in between those two alternatives but
I don’t think moving the service I agree is within the scope of this. The other question having to
do with trees is along Stanford and California Avenue there is this effect of cars speeding
because as the Staff Report indicates there are large setbacks and no parking on one side of the
street. Is there opportunity on Stanford and California Avenue for more street trees and the same
thing along College because trees are traffic calming? Maybe even to include some bulb outs,
was that considered?
Mr. Kott: Jim or Heba may wish to add to this but we do have some right-of-way constraints on
Stanford Avenue. I know we were looking at the potential of doing some restriping on stanford
and found that it would be difficult to do. Jim, .did you have something to add?
Mr. West: We actually did look at or consider curb the speed tables typically have a much
greater effect on vehicle speed than a curb bulb out does. The same is true for street trees.
While they do have an effect and help raise people’s awareness of theirsurroundi-ngs the greatest
amount of speed reduction was going to occur as a result of implementing the speed tables.
Again, we were working under sort of a $150,000 budget so we decided to move forward and
make the recommendation for the tables~
City ofPalo Alto(P&TC)October 13, 2004 Page 13 of 47
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
ll
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
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
Mr. Kott: May I add Jim the comment about restriping was with reference to striping around
potentially new raised center medians. We found we really didn’t have the room to create the
rmised center median and do the restriping required and keep an adequate lane width on either
side.
Commissioner Holman: Just to be clear, the bulb outs I was referencing would.be bulb outs to
implement trees in the bulb outs it is not just strictly a bulb out but a bulb out for the purpose of
implementing a tree. Just a consideration also besides being traffic calming trees also have other
kinds of environmental benefits too.
Chair Cassel: Are there other questions at this time people would like to ask before we go to the
public? Lee, you have one and I know Bonnie has one.
Commissioner Lippert: I have a question for the City Attorney, Dan. With regard to where the
City boundary is located is it in the middle of the street or is it to the north side of the street?
Where does it specifically happen?
Mr. Dan Sodergren, Special Counsel to the City Attorneys: That is a good question. I would
assume it would go to the middle of the street. Perhaps, Mr. K0tt has information.
Mr. Kott: That would be my working assumption, yes.
Commissioner Lippert: What is the City’s obligation with regard to taking into account the fact
that half the street is in County land?
Mr. Kott: Well we have been consulting with County Roads and also with Stanford University
but we are really responsible for traffic operations on Stanford Avenue. It is really not a County
street so we have just historically assumed those responsibilities. It is not workable to have one
authority do one direction and one do another so Stanford is pretty much ours.
Commissioner Lippert: We are guided by the Comprehensive Plan here. Are we in any way
obligated to consider Stanford’s general comprehensive plan?
Mr. Kott: Well, we have as I said been working with Stanford in particular Campus Planning
and Campus Architect. I think Teresa Brekke is here from Campus Planning and Campus
Architect this evening. We are very interested in facilitating Stanford’s achievement of the no
net trips with implementation of the GUP. So that is a major issue and major constraint. We are
7ery keen to analyze the effect of Stanford’s future development on traffic growth in this
neighborhood particularly Stanford Avenue and we have asked Jim to do some follow up work
for us on that. But with that said and with conformity of the no net trips in other words holding
the line on traffic growth particularly on Stanford Avenue we think we are in conformity with
the campus plan. Teresa is here and she could address that more authoritatively than I can.
Commissioner Lippert: Thank you.
Chair Cassel: Bonnie.
City ofPalo Alto(P&TC)October 13, 2004 Page 14 of 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
44
45
46.
47
48
Vice Chair Packer: I was wondering if one of you could go over the performance measures, the
things that you will be looking at and measuring during the one year trial. I know it is
referenced in the Mitigated Negative Declaration but it isn’t outlined in the Staff Report and I
thought it.would be good to hear those, what you will be looking at in the trial.
Ms. E1-Guend¥: It is actually referenced in the Staff Report and it covers any change to the level
of service at the signalized intersections of Stanford Avenue with Hanover and Escondido. It
also covers the percentage of traffic diversion to other nearby residential streets. I am just trying
to find the page. They are listed on page five of the Staff Report. It covers the level of service
as I mentioned at signalized intersections. It covers parking especially at the intersections that
would have traffic circles. Also listed the public benefit in terms of reduction of vehicle speeds
and impacts of that on safety conditions.
Mr. Kott: So in summary we are looking at traffic diversion or shift effects. We are looking at
effects on moderating speeds and we are looking at effects on the operation of a signalized
intersection. As well as input from our police and fire departments in terms of meeting their
emergency response time goals mandated in the Comp Plan.
Vice Chair Packer: Aren’t these also the mi.tigation measures that are listed in the MND, the
increase in volume on streets that have more than 2,500 vehicles per day and those that have less
than 2,500 vehicles per day. I thought it might be useful to highlight some of these for the
benefit of our record here so that people are aware of the specifics to see whether it is working
and whether there are any problems.
Mr. Kott: Heba may add to this but looking at the MND there are a list of mitigations all
through here in fact. Among them of interest is the traffic shift effect. We have as a
performance measure on local and collector -- this is page 27 of 29 of the Mitigated Negatiye
Declaration under the Transportation heading. Performance measure on local and collector
streets with before counts, that is before we do the traffie calming trial project, of less than 2,500
vehicles per day no average daily vehicle count ata peripheral or interior location will increase
by more than 25% of the before count. The Commission may note that our estimations for
traffic shift are well below this threshold. Our experience in Palo Alto guides our estimate. You
may want to take over here, Heba. I am getting lost in this text.
Ms. E1-Guend¥: I would say you already covered it but it may be worth mentioning that we are
doing some research work citywide to determine what would be the acceptable volumes of
traffic on the different roadway classifications, collectors, local, arterial and so forth. Based on
that as well will determine what would be an acceptable percentage of cut,through traffic on the~
different roadway types.
Mr. Kott: I just found the second piece. Streets with before counts of 2,500 vehicles per day or
greater the traffic shift effect threshold is lower, it is not to increase by more than 10% of the
existing conditions. In both cases the 25% threshold and the 10% we would expect the real
effects to be considerably below that. The purpose of a trial is to determine or validate these
expectations. If in fact they are violated and we are violating this performance measure then we
need to take counter measures, we need to implement mitigations.
Ms. E1-Guendy: Th~se are the thresholds that are referenced in the Neighborhood Traffic
City ofPalo Alto(P&TC)October 13, 2004 Page 15 of 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
44
45
46
47
48
Calming Program. Some community members raised their concerns about the percentages and
so forth because it really relies on the volume of traffic on the streets. Some streets carry high
volumes of traffic and the percentage of 25% out of 3,000 vehicles per day is not the same as
1,000 vehicles per day. That is why we are doing the additional analysis work to confirm our
numbers here.
Chair Cassel: Thank you. I would like to go to the public heating now and if we have more
questions later we can continue to ask them. So I would like to open the public hearing. Each
person who would like to speak needs to have filled out a card. I have a number now if there are
any additional ones please turn them into Zariah over here. We are going to be hearing
comments both on the project and on the environmental impact report at this time the Mitigated
Negative Declaration. If you would like to comment on either please do that. You have five
minutes to talk. You do not need to take all five minutes if don’t need to. Bonnie will be timing
you. The mike is up here and it does lift up and down if it is too low or too high for you. The
first person to speak Jeannie Siegman to be followed by Katie Epstein.
Ms. Jeannie Siegman, 550 Junipero Serra, Stanford: Hi. I am a Stanford Campus resident and I
am also the Vice President of the Campus Leaseholders Association. I want to mention that I
also sit on a multi-jurisdictional traffic group, which was formed by Santa Clara County under
the General Use Permit to Stanford. IfI forget please remind me to come back to that and
comment a little further. I don’t think Teresa [Breckyl is here tonight.
The Campus Residents you could kind of think of as the neighboring neighborhood. We are the
neighbors to the College Terrace neighbors. I want to make some brief observations about the
context of the project, how it sits relative to the surrounding area, us in particular. Your Staff
and the consultant have shown you the data on the hugely supportive views of the people who
live within this community that is going to be traffic calmed and you may be asking yourselves
how people feel outside that area, those of us who adjoin. I can tell you that our homeowners
board has looked at this project not in a formal way, I am not here to comment formally nor on
any specifics of the design. Also we have had a fair amount of feedback from our community
and this is overwhelmingly positive. The traffic issues on Stanford Avenue do not go away at
the Palo Alto City limit when Stanford Avenue becomes Santa Clara County jurisdiction beyond
Bowdoin Road or maybe it is a few hundred feet around that creek. Pato Alto indeed does as
Joe said have some operational responsibility to continue patrolling it but it is Santa Clara
County jurisdiction all the way up to Junipero Serra. While there aren’t residential driveways up
there there is definitely a speeding issue, there is yet another school and as I am sure you are all
very aware there is parking for recreational trails and commuter traffic coming in from Junipero
Serra. So I think the main thing I want to tell you is that the character of this plan looks to be
exactly in the direction that most of us hope to see the other part of Stanford Avenue catchup
with some day. I think if this plan is implemented and proceeds successfully it will put you way
out ahead of the rest of us who have been having these quarterly meetings in our multi-
jurisdictional traffic group. It has been productive but it is a slow process. We did in the
meeting when this plan was presented have the County representative from County Roads there
also and while they don’t have any formal jurisdiction over the City part still it is nice to know
we are all on the same page on what is going on out here.
Can I answer any questions about the traffic group, the multi-jurisdictional? We have a College
Terrace representative there, Kathy Durham. We have County representatives, we have CHP,
City of Palo Alto(P&TC)October 13, 2004 Page 16 of 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
we have City of Palo Alto, Heba now following from Carl Stoffel and Joe Kott earlier. They
have been tremendous contributors. We are looking at various other traffic issues having to do
with the County Roads and the whole of Stanford Avenue.
Essentially I just wanted to come here tonight and let you know that the neighboring
neighborhood is very positive about seeing this go forward. I hope we can catch up with you
some day. Thank you.
Chair Cassel: Thank you. The next person to speak is Karie Epstein followed by Robert
Phillips.
Ms. Karie Epstein, 1143 Stanford Avenue, Palo Alto: I wanted to let you know that I am here
tonight to support the proposed traffic calming plan that is proposed for College Terrace.
Chair Cassel: I’m sorry, could you please tell us your address?
Ms. Epstein: Yes, 1143 Stanford Avenue. I wanted to speak specifically tonight about the
collector streets of Stanford Avenue and California Avenue. First of all I was a little uneasy
when I heard some comments I just wanted to make sure that you understood that Stanford
Avenue and California Avenue are neighborhood streets even though they happen to be
designated collector they are not on the periphery of the neighborhood but there are houses along
those streets. There are children that walk to school on those streets, people that ride their bikes
on those streets. I hope that people understand t.tiat even though they have a busier traffic flow
that they are part of the neighborhood. I know sometimes visually it throws people off because
on one side you see Research Park and on the other side you see Stanford housing but it is our
neighborhood. As you know, and I mentioned in my email the irony of collector streets is that
they get the most traffic and yet they are only given a few traffic calming tools that they can use
for various reasons. So I think it is very important when you look at this whole plan that it goes
together and pieces aren’t taken out but it is put together comprehensively and that we keep in
the proposed traffic calming tools on these collector streetsto help slow them down. As
someone else had mentioned it is a straight shot and it is a problem for people to divert. Even
trucks that are over seven tons that aren’t even supposed to be going down our streets everybody
tries to skirt the busiest intersection in Palo Alto which we know is Oregon Expressway, Page
Mill and E1 Camino. So we have a lot of pressure on our neighborhood and we would hope that
you at least consider that the year trial would be worth it to see if we can’t relieve some ofth0se
pressures that we have on our borders of Stanford, University and the Research Park and E1
Camino.
Lastly, I just wanted to stress the money. While these funds come from Stanford I just wanted
you to know how hard we worked to get these funds. We got money through the GUP process
for studying the cut-through traffic and we got also funds from the Hanover project for traffic
mitigation. We looked at this as a strategic plan to try and get funds for our traffic calming
problems with our traffic group way before the City had any budget problems. We just wanted
you to know that this is the kind of project that these funds are earmarked for and I hope that you
would consider that because it was the purpose of trying to do all this hard work to come up with
a solution to be able to mitigate the problems that are a constant pressure and are continuing to
grow in our neighborhood. So I hope you consider the plan that will help to make our
neighborhood a wonderful place to still live. Thank you.
City of Palo Alto(P&TC)October 13, 2004 Page 17 of 47
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
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
Chair Cassel: Thank you, Katie. Robert Phillips to be followed by Doria Summa. Robert,
would you please state your name and address? Thank you.
Mr~ Robert Phillips, 2290 Yale Street, Palo Alto: I live on Yale Street that if you look at the
map is fight at the nexus of Cambridge and Yale, which happens to be the heaviest cut-through
intersection for interior streets. I certainly appreciate that the focus of much of the energy is on
the collector such as Stanford and California and College but I really wanted to state thatthose
of us who live along Yale Street have seen a lot of cut-through there sometimes at fairly high ¯
speeds. So I wanted to emphasize that we think that is a very important part of the plan, which
we support. I also wanted to both thank Staff for what I thought was a great presentation, very
much appreciated, and supp6rt it and also emphasize the nature of the process which again I
think was characterized as an extensive and exemplary in terms of both resident outreach and
participation with a five year process and 70% support. I am sure, as you all know anything in
Palo Alto where 70% of the people support it should be taken very, very seriously. So once
again I very much support the recommendation. Thank you.
Chair Cassel: Thank you. Doria Summa to be followed by Paula Sandas.
Ms. Doria Summa, 2290 Yale Street, Palo Alto: I also live at 2290Yale. I also encourage you
to go ahead and let this trial happen. I feel very strongly about the Speed. The cut-through I
think is a harder-thing because traffic is getting worse everywhere. I think this is a very sensible
recommendation because really all it is asking people to do is slow to what is already the legal
speed..I also really appreciate all the work. There have been really dedicated people in the
community working on this for a long time and then the expert consultants. We could all give a
million anecdotal little horror stories about things that happen. I will say one thing I wanted to
say is that the traffic is so noticeably different on weekends that it is a very obvious problem.
The other thing I wanted to say is that I am not sure this will solve everybody’s problem
perfectly, each individual, but I do think it is important to consider it as a whole for the whole
neighborhood and that it was very thoughtfully and carefully and thoroughly prepared with a lot
of participation from the College Terrace.
Chair Cassel: Thank you. Paula Sandas to be followed by Cheyenne Woodward.
Ms:Paula Sandas, 2140 Columbia Street, Palo Alto: Most of everything has been said so far
already and I am only like the fourth or fifth person here. Of course I am here to support the
Staff recommendation and very eager to see this trial put into action. We have lots of
suppositions as to things that might go wrong or might not work well with the trial but it is only
supposition and we won’t know until the trial has been put into action what works and what
doesn’t. The other thing as you know I just want to reiterate that Stanford is the source of
funding for this project and that this trial is not competing with other City funded projects. It is
pretty much encapsulated.
Finally, to address Karen a little bit I wanted to talk for a moment about the landscaping Qfthe
traffic circles. Our neighbors overwhelmingly said we want those traffic circles landscaped,
come hell or high water we want them landscaped. And there are a lot of people in the
neighborhood who are very interested in participating in the whole landscaping process as well
as people who are interested in raising the money to do so. So I am here to tell you that we are
City of Palo Alto(P&TC)October 13, 2004 Page 18 of 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
prepared and we are exploring the idea of a public-private partnership with the City to go
forward and raise money to landscape the traffic circles. It is very important to the
neighborhood. Thanks.
Chair Cassel: Thank you.. Cheyenne Woodward
Ms. Cheyenne Woodward, 1655 Stanford Avenue: Hi. I live right next to Stanford Avenue and
some people may think that is very good but it is not really because it is really close to where all
the traffic is. So I guess I am just here to represent like 400 out of the 600 kids that cross.the
street every day at Escondido. I cross like two times a day. Pretty much everyone who crosses.
crosses two times a day except for the people who frequently forget their homework. I guess
that I just want to say I am here to represent that. I kind of forgot what else I was going to say.
Chair Cassei: Thank you very much for speaking. Wait a minute we havea question for you.
Pat.
Commissioner Burt: Cheyenne, do any of the kids cross over near where youlive?
Ms. Woodward: Yes," actually everyday ! cross with one of my best friends.
Commissioner Burt: Where about do you cross and where do the other kids? Do they all cross
up by the school or do they cross at various places?
Ms. Woodward: Well, there is like Bowdoin~and I am right next to where Bowdoin crosses
over. So we cross on that sort of crosswalk right here. But most people cross down further that
way.
Commissioner Burt: Thank you
Chair Cassel: Thank you very much for coming. Steven Woodward to be followed by John M.
Agosta.
Mr. Steven Woodward, 1655 Stanford Avenue: Thank you very much. I am happy to speak
before the Commissionin support of the plan, I Would hope that you would consider that we
have on Stanford Avenue a perhaps unique level of competition between elementary school kids
all under 11 and anxious commuters. By my count there is on the order of 40,000 elementary
school kid crossings per year on Stanford Avenue at either Bowdoin or at Hanover or
unfortunately mid block. Over those Same days on the order of 2.0 million commute trips
according to extrapolating from the date you have seen here. I think it is obvious that they’re an
unfortunate nexus of kid commuters and adult commuters on Stanford Avenue. Combined with
the peak speeds it is really something of a miracle that there hasn’t been a tragedy there yet.
This plan provides an opportunity to mitigate that level of competition and make this a safer
place for kids to walk to school. Thank you.
Chair Cassel: Thank you. John Agosta to be f~)llowed by John Ciccarelli
Mr. John M. Agosta, 1648 California Avenue, Palo Alto: I live at the top of Calif0rnia Avenue
the south end between Amherst and Bowdoin with my wife and two young children. I
City of Palo Alto(P&TC)October 13, 2004 Page 19 of 41
1 participated as a volunteer with College Terrace Residents Association to analyze the data that
2 we collected independently of the City and of Kimley-Horn. So three independent analyses of
3 the cut-through data were done and I am proud to say that they were substantially in agreement.
4 That we all agreed on the numbers based on our analysis and that the findings we came to also
5 were very closely aligned both with the data and with each other. It has been a very nice
6 example of working on a case where both the facts and the findings agree. This has been a
7 process for me of over two years of involvement. The original survey was done back in 2002 so
8 quite a bit of time and effort and consideration has gone into this and I think you may well have
9 gathered that .fact from the discussions that people have given you so far.
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
Let me make just a few substantial comments. Yes, Stanford Avenue is perhaps the most
.outstanding problem. My kids cross each day to go to nursery school and we see that. In terms
of the comments about emergency vehicles I think it should be noted I think it is very important
to note that the emergency vehicles don’t pass by the traffic circles. That the original plans for
the barriers thatwere put in the neighborhood allow emergency vehictes to pass. So we see
emergency vehicles come out of Hanover Station come up do a straight shot across Bowdoin
and continue on from there. Their paths when they cross with the neighborhood are not the
same as the cut-through paths that we have investigated with the traffic circles.
I think the last thing to say is that the traffic circles I think have a very nice visual value and
perhaps we can say that we are making a modest step in terms of trying to reduce cut-through
traffic by asking people to just stop and perhaps and slow down and look at the flowers a little
more. Thank you..
Chair Cassel: Thank you. John Ciccarelli to be followed by Paul Lomio and please state your
name and address. Thank you.
Mr. John Ciccarelli, 2065 Yale Street, Palo Alto: I live on Yale near Oxford. I would like you
to support what I see as a moderate, balanced refined and. supported plan already. It is kind of
" fuhny what came to mind sitting in the audience and listening to the comments was a cooking
metaphor and I am not really a cook. If I had to compare this result to date it would be
something where we have spent a long time preparing and cooking this thing and it is ready to
serve. It is ready to go to trial. It doesn’t need any more stirring. It doesn’t need any more
ingredients added. It had to be a balanced plan because it is attempting to serve two needs to
calm the exterior streets which as someone else pointed out have only a smalI set of measures
because of their width and their function as collectors that can be applied to them. As well as to
discourage cut-through activity through the interior streets which have a different character. ’
They are quieter in terms of volume and they have different expectations set on them. We think
the plan that Jim West in collaboration with the neighborhood has come up with serves that
balance need. It is not extreme because it can’t afford to be extreme. If you over-calm the
collectors we will see diversions that undoes the good work of the plan on the internal streets. It
has been refined, not only refined from the consultant’s perspective, from the textbook
perspective but refined measure by measure to make sure that those were the measures that
could not only do the job but be supported in each corner and in the heart of the neighborhood.
We have done that work. It doesn’t need to be refined and it is really .timely to do the trial.
Someone asked a question I want to.answer, That is where the property line between the City
and County lies on Stanford Avenue. I happen to know that first hand having been Stanford’s
City of Palo Alto(P&TC)October 13, 2004 Page 20 of 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
44
45
46
47
48
Bike Program Manager and asked who trims the trees out here so our school kids can ride to
school. The City-County line is a little bit on the Escondido Village side of the curb of Stanford
Avenue and Palo Alto maintains the bushes although technically they are not Palo Alto’s to
maintain under the agreement that Joe mentioned.
Lastly, a lot has been said about the measures on Stanford and the measures on Califomia and
the internal measures in the uphill side of the Terrace and you have heard from two residents of
Yale and Cambridge the corner there about the need to calm the cut-through there. I wanted to
also point out that Yale itself, the four blocks of Yale that passes through our neighborhood is
for all intents and purposes a bicycle boulevard. It is a street that is a priority street for bicycles
because of a blockage midway through that is not also a throughway for cars. It serves that
function not only for our citizens but for the students of Stanford Univ.ersity that patronize our
businesses on California Avenue by cutting down Yale to California. So part of the good work
that these measures would do on Yale Street in calming our neighborhood traffic will also
benefit safety of bicyclists and walkers patronizing neighborhood commercial by virtue of this
extra function of Yale Street.
So I want to urge you to support our trim and help it go forward. Thank you.
Chair Cassel: We have a question for you.
Commissioner Burt: John, I want to draw off your expertise a little bit as I had raised a question
earlier about this change from a raised crosswalk or two raised crosswalks to relocated speed
tables. The one in particular that ! am concerned about is at Wellesley which is not only one of
the routes for College Terrace children to cross over to get to Escondido but for Escondido kids
to get to the College Terrace Library perhaps. Can you give me a little insightinto why that is
not important to the neighborhood to have it as a raised crosswalk?
Mr. Ciccarelli: Let me tell you how this was approached from the consultant’s perspective and
how I would approach a similar thing in my professional capacity working on traffic calming in
other cities. When we look at applying any measure with the aim of reducing speed on a
corridor say the unstopped corridor between the signal at Escondido and the four-way stop at
Yale we look at the recommended spacing from the traffic calming handbooks and what that
spacing translates into in terms of the number of measures to deploy in order to achieve a speed
target. The number turned out to be two. Three would be .too much it is just too frequent in that
five or six block stretch and one would be too few. So the first textbook approach is to divide
the space evenly in thirds. Now if you want the additional benefit that accrues from putting a
speed table at an intersection that is that you can stripe it with a crosswalk then you try and shift
it maybe past that one third point one way or the other to put it at the intersection. But in terms
of speed reduction it is critical that it be exactly at the one-third point because cars don’t speed
up and slow down instantaneously. The speed diminishes as it comes up to a measure in
expectation of having to negotiate the measure but then picks up afterward. So shifting it a little
bit either way I would say 10% or 15% either way of the one-third point doesn’t have a dramatic
effect. What that means is although you can’t put a striped crosswalk on top of it because it
would be a mid block crosswalk the pedestrian crossing at the nearby intersection receives the
benefit of the vehicle speed still being quite low because they are not too far from the measure
that you moved. So from an engineer’s perspective it is not a critical factor to precisely locate it
at a particular intersection as long as it brings the speed curve down in a way that we want along
City of Palo Alto(P&TC)October 13, 2004 Page 21 of 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
44
45
46
47
48
the whole corridor. Did that answer your question?
Chair Cassel: Let me ask a slight variation on that. By putting the speed table slightly before
the intersection does that slow the traffic down such that it is able to stop at the intersection? If
you put it on top of it is it not too late?
Mr. Ciccarelli: In the case of Wellesley there is no stop ,for Stanford Avenue at that intersection.
If you were trying to slow people down and you already had a stop sign in place there would be
no real point in having a speed table. The reason that we were deploying speed tables in this
trial is to calm the parts of these corridors that have no stop or signal.
Chair Cassel:. Thank you very much for your help. Paul Lomio to be followed by Kathy
Durham.
Mr. Paul Lomio, 1467 College Avenue, Palo Alto: I live one door down from Columbia. I live
in what happens to be one of the major cut-through routes through the neighborhood. Back in
1974 before any College Terrace streets were closed when it was an open grid there were about
600 cars a day that .passed my house and today this number is at 1,500. My fear is that unless
something is done it will just keep creeping upwards and upwards. This plan is something that
can be done. Motorists that are seeking a cut-through route past my house will now be faced
with four features they will have to navigate. So it is my hope that facing four features will have
the result of either reducing slightly this 1,500 number or at least having those that do cut-
through to do so at a safe and careful manner.
Chair Cassel: Thank you. Kathy Durham to be followed by Alexandra McFarland.
Ms. Kathy Durham, 2039 Dartmouth Street, Palo Alto: Good evening Commissioners. I live
one house off of Stanford Avenue and ! speaking tonight as the President of the College Terrace
Residents Association as well as a member of our neighborhood traffic study advisory group.
Actually, you have heard from several members of the advisory group who didn’t all identify
themselves as such. Could you holdup your hand if you are on the advisory group. You will
hear from some others.
First I want to state a little bit about the CTRA. We have always had a very inclusive definition
of members, all residents over 18 unlike many neighborhood associations where only
homeowners are given that membership. Also we include residents of our border streets not just
the interior streets. And dues are voluntary so anybody residing in the neighborhood that is the
only thing required: Second, our elected Board of Directors takes its job providing College
Terrace residents with information about issues affecting the neighborhood very seriously. We
have newsletters delivered to doorsteps, every front door in the neighborhood for free three to
four times a year. We have done neighborhood surveys, three of them since 2001 and we are
constantly inviting residents to get involved in issues to give us feedback. So this is not a closed
group of folks who are sitting there deciding what is the neighborhood interest. We are
constantly trying to get information and give information and work with everyone in our
neighborhood.
For the past five years the number one issue for our neighborhood has been traffic, volume,
speed and safety issues and the high proportion of cut-through vehicles without a local origin or
City ofPalo Alto(P&TC)October 13, 2004 Page 22 of 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
3t
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
destination both on Stanford Avenue, California Avenue and on our open interior streets. I want
to quote a definition of a collector street that i s in our Comp Plan because I think it is relevant
here. "A collector street is a roadway that collects and distributes local traffic to and from
arterial streets and provides access to adjacent properties." What we have because of our unique
geographical situation is a collector street that is now at 60% to 80% in peak periods of traffic
that is going straight through with neither a local origin nor destination.
I believe that it is abundantly from the documents in front of you tonight that the concerns that
have kept people going to meetings about traffic calming, reading, setting up a website, these
concerns are valid and it is not a small group of whiners. In fact we are trying very hard to be
constructive, to move forward in a positive way and build a broad coalition towards making
improvements and solving some of these problems. So I just want to jump to the punch line
which is that I want to urge your support for the Staff recommendation which is that you
recommend to the City Council that they approve a one-year trial for Plan A which I believe is a
carefully crafted set of physical measures that in combination with each other will mitigate the
most serious speed and safety issues identified in the existing conditions report.
I want to tell you a little story. Early last June after extensive study and discussion and a lot of
compromises the 12 residences on the traffic study advisory group endorsed this one-year trial of
Plan A. Then the CTRA Board of Directors voted to support this after further review. I want to
emphasize that this endorsement of Plan A was not predetermined. That was not what we sat
down in 1999 saying this is the solution. We tried very hard to spend our time defining what the
problems were and then looking at what the professionals are telling us would actually mitigate
those problems and to specifically restrict ourselves to the problems that are identified as things
that you can deal with in a neighborhood traffic calming program. Yes, we would love to fix the
Starbucks problem. Yes, some of us would like to put barriers at various places on Stanford
Avenue, close-off Bowdoin. We have all sorts of creative ideas. We actually have some long
term proposals for the spine road in the Research Park that will take a lot of the pressure off of
California and E1 Camino. What happened as a result of the outreach process that we did going
out to all of the streets where the physical measures were going to be, meeting in people’s front
yards, meeting in front of JJ&F, is that those of us who originally supporting the enhanced plan
that you say that Jim described realized that that had what politicians call high-negatives. We
instead chose to go for a moderate plan that will result in a successful trial both in engineering
terms and political terms.
Chair Cassel: Thank you. Bonnie has a question of you.
Vice Chair Packer: Kathy, Pat has been asking questions and I think they are interesting ones
about that table that is near Wellesley.
Ms. Durham: On Stanford?
Vice Chair Packer: On Stanford. Everyone is talking about this plan as being very carefully
crafted. If after we discuss it up here we think it might be better if it were a raised crosswalk at
Wellesley do you think that would improve the plan or are you afraid that tweaking it would
change the flavor of the thing that you have cooked up too much?
Ms. Durham: The question is what side of the intersection would you put the raised crosswalk
City ofPalo Alto(P&TC)October 13, 2004 Page 23 of 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
on? One side is the Mormon Church the other side is a series of residential properties. Because
of the placement of utility poles and Jim can talk about this better than I and the storm drain and
several other physical characteristics of that particular location, I think there is a tree in there as
well, the originally proposed location has problems. It also would require taking away a parking
space from what is the most impacted part of our neighborhood in terms of the spillover parking
from the Escondido Village, which we will come back and talk to you about another time. So I
would just respectfully say that we worked very hard and I would rely on the judgment of Jim
West and Joe Kott on where to place that for the trial.
Vice Chair Packer: Thank you that is very helpful.
Chair Cassel: Thank you, Kathy, Alexandra McFarland to. be followed by Erika Enos.
Ms. Alexandra McFarland, 583 Stanford Avenue, Palo Alto: I am going to sort ofreemphasize
a couple of things that you heard already this evening. Specifically I want to emphasize that
there was an overwhelming neighborhood participation in this project.-We had three
neighborhood-wide meetings to gather input and really listen to what people had to say about the
plans along the way. We have had numerous newsletters that you actually have in your
Appendix E in the Staff Report. Then we also had several personal outreach programs. The
result of this was about 48% of the College Terrace households participating in the survey in
June. Of those, 70% of those people voted for Plan A. All of this amounts to about 34% of all
the College Terrace households preferring Plan A which is a pretty significant amount of effort
to have gotten that much outreach to come up with those kind of results. I would like to
compare that for a sense of magnitude toa different statistic which is that 75% of eligible voters
in Santa Clara County are registered and of those oniy 35% participate in a typical City Council
election which means that only 26% of all the eligible voters participate in a local election. So
just to give you a sense of the magnitude of how much was done and what it resulted in in terms
of the participation from the neighborhood and the amount of support we got for Plan A. So I
would like to leave that thought with you from a data point of view.
Then on a more emotional note I live on the lower half of Stanford Avenue so I am witness to
some of the drag racing that Mr. Griffin talked about a little bit earlier. That can be everything
from if you think about the cars that were noted as going 50 miles an hour, going so fast between
E1 Camino and Yale that they can’t stop at the Yale stop sign and they will go right through that
because they can’t stop. Then you just consider what is possible, as they get farther into the
neighborhood when you think about animals and you think about kids and you think about what
you find in a typical neighborhood. So Iam hoping that you will take all that into consideration
as you think about this just because from my point of view this needs to get under control, It is a
neighborhood. Thank you.
Chair Cassel: Thank you. Erika Enos to be followed by Joy Ogawa. I have two cards after that.
If there is anyone else who would like to fill out a card and speak they should do it now.
/Ms. Erika Enos, 2110 Columbia, Palo Alto: Hi; I live on a closed off street, I think that is
something you should know. i just wanted to say that one of the inherent rights, of property
ownership is the fight to quiet enjoyment. I feel that with this plan that the neighborhood and
Staff has put forth College Terrace can maybe look forward to some quiet enjoyment of their
neighborhood and their homes again. This process has been going on for five years and as other
City ofPalo Alto(P&TC)October 13, 2004 Page 24 of 47
1 people have said there has been a lot of outreach, a lot of information passed on to the whole
2 neighborhood. I have some visuals because I think that they help of newsletters that we put out,
3 special fliers that we have put out. This is what we had when we had neighborhood meetings
4 that we put out. So it is not like nobodyknew about this until it came out. I personally am
5 responsible for distributing the stuff so I know it goes out. I have a team of about 15 neighbors
6 who have little designations in the neighborhood and they are the ones who disseminate all this
7 information. So it is really quite organized and really quite effective. The only otherthing I
8 wanted to say is that some people just don’t like change. Some people are going to feel
9 inconvenienced. But we need to look at the greater good. The greater good is the majority of
10 the neighborhood is going to benefit from this plan so therefore I would respectfully request that
11 you vote yes but don’t mess. Thank you.
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
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
Chair Cassel: Thank you. Joy Ogawa to be followed by Roger Pierno.
Ms. Joy Ogawa, Yale Street, Palo Alto: I live on Yale at Cambridge. I voted for neither Plan A
or B because I don’t think that either plan is best for the neighborhood. I basically don’t support
speed tables. I don’t support electronic signs. Nevertheless, I am willing to try Plan A or B and
if the folks on California Avenue and Stanford Avenue who are located near to the proposed
speed tables end up being happy .with these speed tables then that is fine with me. I rarely drive
on those streets and I canlive with those speed tables when I do.
Yes, there is to be a trial first but there are limited dollars and I believe we should not waste our
dollars implementing a plan that is not as good as it could be. By the way, the $150,000 that
came from Stanford as mitigation for the large office building at 2475 Hanover it is the folks on
California Avenue who bear the brunt of that traffic impact for the 2475 Hanover project. That
is what it was supposed to be mitigation for. Yet when I look at Plan A California Avenue gets
only two speed tables at a cost of less than $19,000 total. College Avenue which according to
the traffic counts does not suffer from the same traffic volume, speeding or cut-through as does
California Avenue, College Avenue is slated to receive four traffic circles which supposedly will
get landscaped in the long term at a cost of $40,000 plus landscaping costs. So I guess it seems
to me that California Avenue is getting some short shrift compared to College Avenue. I really
would like to see California Avenue residents have an option of landscaped center medians.
I personallywould not tolerate a speed table close to my home and luckily for me an earlier
version of Plan A was changed and the speed table proposed to be located right in front of my
bedroom was replaced with a traffic circle 50 feet away. While maybe I can live with a traffic
circle for me no way the speed table. No person should be forced to live with a speed table
located close to her home if she doesn’t want that speed table there. No individual should be
made to suffer so the rest oftheneighborhood can enjoy traffic calming or their peaceful
enjoyment at that individual’s expense. Palo Alto like the City of Portland must give any
resident adjacent to a traffic calming device veto power over that device. Speed tables generate
noise from trucks and buses. Noises that come from cargo clanging, springs squeaking, air
brake noise and acceleration noises, etc. The noise is especially bad on a collector street that
carries buses and lots of trucks. I understand the City of Phoenix does not allow speed tables on
collector streets. Recently a speed table at 1585-1586 Channing Avenue, a collector street, was
removed by the City. One of the complaints of the nearby residents was the noise. Bike and
pedestrian safety were also issues. I heard that many of the residents of the 1500 block of
Channing never wanted the speed table to begin with but the speed table was installed anyway.
City ofPalo Alto(P&TC)October 13, 2004 Page 25 of 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
44
45
46
47
48
Contrast this with the 1700 and 1800 blocks of Channing that got organized earlier on those
blocks gathered 100% of resident signatures in order to get a proposed speed table that was
originally proposed and approved by the Planning Commission, changed by Staff to raised
center medians from speed table before installation. So they got organized early they got what
they wanted. The 1500 block of Channing was less fortunate and the City ended up wasting
money installing a speed table that the residents of that block did not want in the first place and
then later the City had to pay to remove it. Sometimes the supposed cure can be worse than the
disease. I hope that we don’t end up learning that lesson again the hard way.
Chair Cassel: Thank you, Joy. Roger Pierno to be followed by Grace Liu.
Mr. Ro~er Pierno, 1200 College Avenue, Palo Alto: Good evening. I live at the corner of
Harvard Street and College Avenue. I support the base plan overall as proposed. I would like to
see one change and that is that I believe when I looked at the plan it doesn’l mitigate any of the
traffic problems that I see on Harvard Street. Every day I sit on my porch, well maybe not every
day but when I do sit on my porch I see traffic traveling down towards E1 Camino and College
Avenue turning down left onto Harvard towards Stanford Avenue driving at higher rates of
speed. I see that that traffic will only increase since the stop signs have been removed on the
upper part of College Avenue. So I would like to see some kind of mitigation for that or at least
some kind of monitoring to see if speed increases and traffic increases on Harvard Street
between College and Stanford Avenue.
Chair Cassel: Thank you. Grave Liu and my last card is Bruce Andrews.
Ms. Grace Liu, 2120 Hanover Street, Palo Alto: Good evening, I have been working on .this
traffic calming project in conjunction with being aPTA volunteer at Escondido School for the
last five years. For about two of those years I was formerly the traffic safety rep at Escondido
School. So I am here really to talk to you about my personal perspective of what is happening
on Stanford Avenue and how that impacts the whole neighborhood. As part of the traffic safety
reps job it is our job to find out what are the concerns of the community not just the community
of College Terrace but the concerns of the entire community of Escondido School. Time and
time again it was the traffic safety along Stanford Avenue. You have to understand we have
fifth graders less than 11 years old who stand out there every day guarding the safety of kids
crossing. So I maple it my job to make sure that Stanford Avenue was sate. I attended two years
worth of meetings at the City-School Traffic Safety. They addressed concerns such as sagns that
were blocked by trees and so by me going to the meetings they trimmed the trees. I pointed out
a problem that we had for ever and ever on Stanford Avenue and there just never was a solution
mainly because the solution was too expensive.
So I want you to please look at the map up there and you will see that there are signal lights right
there on Stanford Avenue near Escondido School those two signal lights are actually .two
separate signal lights on two separate intersections but cars driving both directions if they are
going too fast believe it is one set of signal lights. So imagine how many red light running cars I
have seen out there as a traffic safety rep, as a person who trains kids as safety patrollers. The
City looked at various solutions and finally one day at a meeting Kathy Durham who was also in
the meeting said, you know, Grace the only way we are going to fix that is to reduce the speeds
along the school because then they will see the lights. They will see that they need to stop at the
first signal light and not run that first one. It took five years and now we finally have a plan that
City ofPalo Alto(P&TC)October 13, 2004 Page 26 of 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
44
45
46
47
48
is going to address that problem and more problems than I am outlining but I wanted you to be
aware of this one. This one has just driven me crazy for the last tive years. My kids aren’t even
at Escondido anymore. They are at Jordan and they are at Paly. I don’t let them ride down
Stanford Avenue. I don’t feel that it is safe enough for them but with the speed tables I think it
is going to be a wonderful thing.
I wanted to mention another thing. In the mornings during commute hours it happens to
coincide with when kids go to school as Cheyenne mentioned and one of the most heavily used
intersections where kids cross is actually at Hanover Street. That is just one. I want to point out
that the cut-through onto Hanover Street is 72% in the morning. Seventy-two percent of the cars
going by there right in front of those kids if they had an alternative route wouldn’t be driving
and speeding in front of these kids. When I train safety patrol kids I have to tell them to be
careful of these cars making the right turn. I have to make them make sure kids don~t come
anywhere near the sidewalk because of the handicap access it rolls down a little bit. I have had
to make sure that these kids make sure that kids stay way up because they right turn cars not
only go fast but they make tight turns. I am thankful when a cat actually parks there because
that works like a bulb out, a semi-permanent or temporarily it makes it safer. So that is the cut-
through factor and how it impacts our kids safety.
So one last thing, Joy mentioned about the fact that this plan does not address equitably
California Avenue. Where do these cars go when they leave California Avenue? Do they
magically disappear and not interrupt any other streets or do they cut-through the neighborhood
to get out? So when you look at the impact and the mitigation of a building on Califomia
Avenue you can’t just say the impact is just California Avenue, we are part of a whole system.
Thank you very much.
Chair Cassel: Thank you. Bruce Andrews and that will be the end. That is the last Card I have.
Mr. Brace Andrews, 731 Stanford Avenue, Palo Alto: Thank you. My wife and I and my son
who is eight years old moved in a couple of years ago and since then we have been observing the
traffic on Stanford and got involved in the committee and the neighborhood trying to do
something about the speed and volume of cars that are going past the front of our house. We are
really pleased with all that the committee has done and the research that the professionals have
done. There is one, the Wellesley crosswalk area we watch kids, Stanford students, people that
park their cars along Stanford, bicycle riders coming out of the Escondido Village area they all
cross at Wellesley. That speed table is a really good thing to Slow down traffic but I think it was
Lee that mentioned before I got here that you talked about a painted crosswalk. My wife
mentioned in the committee earlier to get a painted crosswalk there because it is a really key
place for people coming out Stanford, bicyclists coming from Escondido going across E1
Camino into Evergreen Park community will not allow their children to ride along Stanford
Avenue they go down Olmstead and then they come out Wellesley because they don’t feel that it
is safe to run along that corridor. A crosswalk painted there even a ladder type of a thing that is
out in front of Whole Foods that would definitely slow the traffic, the visual effect of a painted
crosswalk. This plan is great but that I think would be just one more little added thing for
Stanford because there are 10,000 cars that go by there every single day and there are all these
little kids out there trying to ride their bicycles. They allow third graders to ride their bicycles
with parent permission on Stanford Avenue by themselves. I think it is a scary situation because
I sit there on my front porch and I watch cars going by at 50 miles an hour. We had an occasion
City ofPalo Alto(P&TC)October 13, 2004 Page 27 of 41
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
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
where we had to have some street work done out in front of our house and they had one of those
metal plates out there and the pavement was uneven. People were going by on their bicycles and
hitting that bump and cars were speeding by at the same time and we saw it. It was just amazing
that people didn’t get hit because people just do speed on that street. So our concern is not only
for the interior and California but Stanford really needs to be addressed. If you look at the maps
and all the statistics that is the volume of traffic on Stanford Avenue. The only way they can get
into the College Terrace area is through Stanford Avenue. They come down from Junipero
Serra, they come up from E1 Camino the only way they can get in except for Yale and some of
those others, California but the volume of traffic is going in Stanford and then into the interior.
Stanford really needs to be addressed for the safety of our children. Thank you.
Chair Cassel’ Tl~ank you. I have no more cards I am going to close the public hearing. Would
the Commission like to have questions now or would you like a break? Then we will take a
seven minute break. Thank you.
I would like to call the meeting back to order. Would the Commissioners and Staff come back?
It is time to restart this meeting would the Commissioners and Staff please come back.
May I call the meeting to order, please? Thank.you.
Would the Commissioners care to have a round of questions and comments? Shall I start down
here? Karen, do you have something?
Commissioner Holman: I am going to go back to something that I have raised before and just
came up again with Bruce Andrews. I have commented before about the success of painted
pavement and how that acts to slow traffic. We have a.situation here where we have a school
crossing and people have made many, many comments about speeding and even people running
stop lights. So was painting, I am not talking about just painted crosswalks, but a painted
pattern, something that is a lively thing that will get traffic to slow which has been proven in
other communities, was that considered at all? We have talked about this like with Downtown
North and even on Channing I think.
Mr. Kott: Well, for the kind of speeding problem we have documented on Stanford and
California Avenue we reallydidn’t have any faith that a painting solution would work. I think
the Commission has heard our mantra about striping crosswalks as a primary measure for
¯ inducing drivers to be cautious and guaranteeing pedestrian safety it is really not a very good
measure it has to be supplemented by other things that are more effective. So we did I think in
passing consider painting for traffic calming purposes but we saw the problems were really
larger than that solution.
Commissioner Holman: Again, I don’t mean an isolation of anything else I mean supplemental
to the solutions that are being proposed. Wouldn’t that be an additional benefit or could it be an
additional benefit?
Mr. Kott: I am very sympathetic to the whole issue ofpedestriari safety of course and I think the
entire community is and our main job though is to make sure that whatever we do makes a better
situation rather than exacerbate a problem. Just in terms of painted crosswalks what has been
found over time in studies is that just painted crosswalks does induce what is called and you
have all heard the phrase and I don’t like cliches but it is a good one really, a false sense of
City ofPalo Alto(P&TC)October 13, 2004 Page 28 of 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
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
security. That it does induce people.to have more confidence as they step off the curb but if we
have prevailing speeds that are 30 miles an hour and above that doesn’t allow a lot of reaction
time. We have a lot of distracted drivers out there I am not saying anyone is bad it just happens
to be a fact. So before we rely on paint we have to make .sure that we reduce the speeds to make
sure that the visibility improvements can be effective because by themselves even ladder striping
doesn’t workquite well enough. We need the physical measures most of all. In terms of
striping itself someone asked me about double yellow striping on Stanford for example. We
could do that separate from this project. We haven’t yet reached the point where we have to go
to Council for lane striping. That may happen and we could do that but considerations in Palo
Alto are mundane. I mean there is a mundane consideration in terms of maintenance Cost but
there is also a consideration about whether a community will accept it or want it. It makes the
street look somewhat more urban, it may have a visual impact for some folks but then we have
to balance off the benefits. Are we getting traffic calming benefits that? We may disagree here
a bit but I would be cautious about the benefits from paint per se. I think it is a good
supplemental measure but no vcay could be a primary measure. But we are willing to consider
the double yellow for Stanford with or without this project.
Chair Cassel: Let me try a different angle, okay? You have a table and it was originally going
to be at the intersection but the intersection didn’t work out. The table was going to have a
pedestrian marking across the top of it, which would have given you a marked crossing. You
moved the table. Can you not put the marked crossing where it was going to be so that you have
a table slowing it down at least one direction and then marked crossing continuing where it
would have been? Now that doesn’t give you the two humps right beside it but you have at least
one direction slowing down before it gets to that intersection.
Mr. Kott: We are more than happy to do the evaluation on the crosswalk warrant. It would
require a warrant that is an uncontrolled crosswalk. If we determine that the speeds are
moderated sufficiently and there would be sufficient use of the crosswalk, those are two
considerations. The third on crosswalk warrants is accident history or crash history of the site.
If we determine it would warrant upgrading to the status of an official crosswalk we would
certainly do so. Again, that could be independent of this project or the Commission could
recommend that we include this evaluation in our work before we got to City Council.
Commissioner Holman: Then I think it looks like you have gotten the answer to the question I
was posing during the break. Joy Ogawa referenced the $150,000 that was acquired if you will
through the Hanover project and if memory serves I believe it was Joy and Dorothy Bender who
appealed that project so I am trusting her memory to be pretty accurate on that but I want Staff to
comment on the conditions of the $150,000 if there were any attached to it..
Mr. Kott: Well, I got some marvelous cheatnotes here from Kathy. I haven’t gotten cheat notes
quite this good since I was in high school. Kathy Durham’s notes indicate originally the
$150,000 was part of the four party memorandum of understanding for Mayfield not related to
2475 Hanover. When the 2475. Hanover project was split from the Mayfield plan $150,000 was
added so money could be used for implementing traffic calming. Kathy’s further notes are
Stanford and Oberlin and Wellesley are not school crosswalks they are too far away and so forth.
Is that an adequate representation of what you have here? Thanks.
Commissioner Holman: Just to be clear here because I think it is a procedural thing that is very
City ofPalo Alto(P&TC)October 13, 2004 Page 29of47
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
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
important so you are reading from Kathy Durham’s notes or you are reading from a document
that references the agreement?
Mr. Kott: No, I am reading from a document. In fact I wasn’t even at that particular Council
meeting but Kathy was and I believe Kathy has the documents that pertain. I don’t have any
handy with me. So perhaps the Commission might want to query Kathy further that is about the
limit of my knowledge.
Mr. Steve Emslie, Planning Director: Let me just jump in. I do believe our sense of the
agreement although it is not in front of us is that we have the flexibility to use it to implement
traffic calming which is appropriate for this project. We can confirm that before it goes to
Council.
Chair Cassel: Annette.
Commissioner Bialson: Just as a follow up to the dollars and cents we have available here it is
always nice to have some more money available to do these things but I am sort of surprised that
our investment shall we say in these traffic calming devices is solely going to be the physical
features. I assume we are paying something to the consultant and that there have been some
other dollars not to mention Staff time that the City has expended. Is that true or not?
Mr. Kott: Yes, we have I think Kathy Durham might have referenced this or perhaps Paula did,
one of the citizens who testified, but there are two pots of money we have referred to. The
$150,000 is from this mitigation at 2475 Hanover for physical measures or traffic calming
implementation. The planning and study part of it $50,000 was funded throughthe Stanford
General Use Permit process and that mitigation was imposed by County Commissioners and
accepted by Stanford. We were to match that dollar for dollar so we have included our own
Staff time priced out like we would as consultants as well as direct costs like in our traffic counts
we lay down tubes and other direct costs we have had associated with this project. So we really
haven’t expended any City funds on this other than some dollars for traffic Counts and portions
of our salaries over gosh how long has it been now, Jim? More than two years.
Commissioner Bialson: So from what you are saying there were $250,000 available?
Mr. Kott: In dollars there were $200,000 and then we were to match either in kind or with
supplemental dollars and most of our match has been in kind that is staff salaries, imputed
salaries. We are paid anyway but we spent a fair amount of time over two years severn of us on
this project.
Commissioner Bialson: Okay, so we had $250,000, $50,000 of in kind Palo Alto dollars and we
are still within that shall we say dollar figure, is that correct?
Mr. Kott: Well, we are. We have a little bit.left in our study monies from the General Use
Permit and as you saw from the slide on the project implementation cost thev will likely be
somewhere around $100,000 to $105,000 but we have to reserve some money for contingencies.
We are not quite sure how the bids will come in for example or we may have to do mitigations.
We may have to modify a traffic circle or modify a speed table or add one and so forth so we
hold back some of that money.
City of Palo Alto(P&TC)October 13, 2004 Page 30 of 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
Commissioner Bialson: So it is essentially almost all committed at this point. This is no free
lunch to a certain extent if we put this trial into effect and then have to remove any of these
barriers or physical features?
Mr. Kott: Well we have certainly learned over time in Palo Alto and we don’t claim to be
perfect. Occasionally we do have remove measures or modify them always for good reason. So
that contingency considers the possibility that we would be removing devices. If we removed
everything we could accommodate that within the $50,000 roughly or $45,000 in contingencies.
That is really kind of the worse case. We certainly don’t anticipate that.
Commissioner Bialson: Okay, I will let my fellow Commissioners .speak now.
Chair Cassel: Michael.
Commissioner Griffin: Thank you, Commissioner Bialson. You and I have been grumbling a
little bit this evening about the inordinate amount of time that we both spend on Page Mill and
the intersection of PageMill and E1 Camino. It reminds me that probably one of the chief
reasons for all of this business that we are looking at this evening and the problems that the
neighborhood is experiencing with speeders and cut-through traffic is because of the failure of
our City arterial system. Joe you have talked to us on a couple of occasions about the grand
plans that we have for timing traffic lights for example. It appears that we are somewhat in the
clutches of the County here to get some money to do that sort of thing but I am wondering could
you give us or do you know what is the status of timing the street lights on Page Mill Road.
Mr. Kott: There are a couple of things. One is, we, Cal Trans and the County have all gotten
traffic engineering technical assistance funding from the Metropolitan Transportation
Commission to do retimings of signals. For Cal Trans it is E1 Camino Real. For the County it is
Oregon and Page Mill and for us we are doing Middlefield and I think Alma. So that is
proceeding it should be in place in a few months and that will help to some extent. The County
also has plans to improve Oregon and Page Mill lengthening turn lanes and so forth but they are
not dramatic improvements that have come out of the expressway study. But in general a
caution about this, even if Page Mill and Oregon is improved dramatically what we will see is
some relief for the neig!iborhood butgiven historical traffic.growth we will probably see an
erosion of that relief over time. I can imagine just a whole dramatic change to Oregon and Page
Mill, a grade separation, an urban interchange type thing which may be more effective but the
cost of doing that makes it so prohibitive it is not likely to happen. So I don’t think that in itself
is going to give us the magnitude of relief we need in this case.
Commissioner Griffin: So meanwhile we are left with this more fundamental approach that we
are looking at tonight,
Chair Cassel: I had a question. I noticed in the report that at the intersection of Hanover and
California Avenue that is a major bicycle route over to Gunn and Terman and other schools. I
don’t know if many kids in this neighborhood go to Terman but the Research Park area. Has
anything been thought to do with that intersection in terms of its bicycle crossing.? There are
crosswalks there. I noticed when I was in Denmark that they actually have signs for bicycles.
One of the problems where the bicycles come out there and no one is expecting them out of
City ofPalo Alto(P&TC)October 13, 2004 Page 31 of 41
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
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
there because there are no cars coming out of that direction and people are concerned about that.
Do we ever use bicycle signs, stop signs for bicycles or a warning sign? Again here is another
area where you might mark a crosswalk where the bicycles are coming out there and crossing
over to Hanover.
Mr. Kott: We certainly could do that and there have been some improvements to what is called
the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices, which allows a little more creativity in that
respect. We are very concerned about having signsthat are you might say somewhat traditional
so drivers know what they mean but we are willing to innovate within the range we have.
Chair Cassel: In this case there is a three-way stop and the only sign actually would be for the
bicycles crossing.
Mr. Kott: I think that is a good idea Commissioner Cassel. We would be willing to consider
that, yes.
Chair Cassel: Thank you. Lee, did you have another question?
Commissioner Lippert: I had a practicality question. College Avenue is much wider than many
of the cross streets that come along there. Now you are proposing putting these traffic circles
periodically up College and I have noticed this I guess in the Downtown North area where you
have smaller traffic circles along Hawthorne Avenue and Everett Avenue and what happens is
that cars come along and they are driving pretty straight. If there wasn’t a stop sign often times
they do put on their brakes but it is almost like a chicane where they sort of jog around it at a
fairly quick clip. These are going to have to be substantially larger in radius in order to be able
to fit the full effect of College Avenue but it is going to pinch down the cross streets there. How
is this going to work mechanically from a safety point of view?
Mr. Kott: Well, we.do design the diameters of the traffic circles to fit the intersection sizes so
you won’t find a uniform diameter of traffic circles in Palo Alto. A note about College itself, a
tiny digression, in the 1920s I saw a street map of College just as an example of how we over
time have refit American streets to fit the automobile. College used to have traffic squares on it
all the way along for in effect circles but they weren’t really shaped like circles. The street was
designed really for an earlier age when there wasn’t this mad rush going on. It is a wide street
and I think we could consider further measures on College including, I am just throwing this out
here, bike lanes and so forth to narrow the overall travel-way. But we do the design intersection
by intersection. We look at where the manholes are, we look at the size of the intersection and
we size the circle to suit. Our experience and in fact our measurements of speed effects of traffic
circles in town has been generally pretty positive. We have seen some drivers who tolerate the
deflection and continue going too fast but mostly people don’t. I think mostly they have been
rather effective.
Commissioner Lippert: What about the use of- my colleague mentioned earlier bulb outs but
there is the inverse of that which are islands placed in the middle Of streets to sort of narrow
them. Is that a possibility used in combination with the circles, does that w6rk effectively?
Mr. Kott: Yes, in fact I am really glad you mentioned that Commissioner Lippert because that
gives me the opportunity to rave once again about roundabouts. In fact that is what a
City ofPalo Alto(P&TC)October 13, 2004 Page 32 of 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
roundabout is is a traffic circle with four islands on the approach streets and it is marvelously
effective in every single way you can think of. You have heard .my whole speech about
roundabouts. Typically though we are concerned about not constraining the cross streets with
too much so we have to just consider the location. Heba just reminded me we would even do an
oval shaped circle if we have to in order to fit with the College street requirements.
Commissioner Lippert: Okay. I have one other sort of follow up question. This is along both
Stanford and California Avenue. Both of those are identified as not only bicycle routes but they
are also in the Draft School network. Hanover is also identified that way. So those are basically
the routes or the collectors not just for cars but also for pedestrians. Do students typically stay
on the College Terrace side of Stanford Avenue and then cross over at Hanover, is that what
they would generally do?
Ms. E1-Guendy: Actually, we had the walk to school day last week and mostly we stayed on the
southerly side of Stanford. Most of the crossing takes place at Yale and at Escondido.
Commissioner Lippert: Okay, so would it.be appropriate to have some additional some sort of
indication that those are endorsed school crossings? In other words, with some sort of ladder
stripe and some sort of additional signage that would say this is where the kids are going to
cross?
Mr. Ko-tt: We are keen about ladder striping. We think it is a good measure to. take it really
raises the visibility of the crosswalk. Our only caution about striping crosswalks has to do with
if you have high prevailing speeds it is just simply way short of what you need. But if we are
confident and comfortable that the location has moderate approach speeds we are more than
happy to upgrade the striping at a crosswalk, sure.
Chair Cassel: Do you have any more questions, Pat? No comments?
Commissioner Burt: First a couple of comments. I would like to commend the Staff and the
consultant and the neighborhood on both an excellent technical process and an excellent
participatory process. I think this is a very good model for a successful program and I think it is
the sort of thing that will become replicated more in the City, hopefully.
Second, two technical comments. One is I saw an excellent innovation that frankly I hadn’t seen
before. The traffic circles that were put in in Downtown North recently had a striping preceding
the circle which directs the cars to not cut in front of the circle but instead to make the loop
behind. That has been, as we know there is a real difference between modem roundabouts and
traffic circles and that helped mitigate one of the negative aspects of a traffic circle. I am
presuming that that’s an intention to include similar striping here.
Mr. Kott: Yes we are cautious innovators and we are very pleased at the results of the striping at
those traffic circles in Downtown North.
Commissioner Burt: Was that a Palo Alto Staff innovation?
Mr. Kott: No, it-is not an innovation nationally but it is an innovation for us.
City ofPalo Alto(P&TC)October 13, 2004 Page 33 of 47
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
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
Commissioner Burt: It was great. Second, on the speed tables I saw in the Staff Report it was
quite explicit on the height and the angle. One of the things that has been a concern to me
including on Channing is making sure that we get it exactly right the difference between having
a 20 to 25 mile an hour speed table where it will calm but not divert traffic versus a 15 to 20
mile an hour is a very subtle design difference and it can make all the difference in the world on
the success of the implementation. It looks like Staff has been explicit in the intention and !
presume that is a major consideration for you.
Mr. Kott: Well, our contractors or if we use our own forces they working with this hot asphalt
and they are trying to roll it and it is difficult to get it exactly right. We are still as Jesse Jackson
likes to say the Lord hasn’t finished with all of us yet and we are still trying to get everything
right. But it is really important to get about three inches height. There is a big difference
between two and a half and three or three and a half and three, amazing difference.
Commissioner Burt: And a big difference making sure that that top is flat and not rounded.
Finally, my question, this clarification, the consultant earlier had indicated that the changes in
the two locations of what were originally considered to be raised crosswalks and relocated to
become speed tables were because of complaints from the immediately adjacent neighbors in
each case it looks like it would be a single neighbor and then Kathy Durham had said that on the
one that I am concerned about on Stanford Avenue, or several of the Commissioners are
concerned about on Stanford Avenue, there were actually a variety of other physical reasons that
it couldn’t be a raised crosswalk right at the comer. I wanted to get clarification on that and the
same time I would just like to clarify that there are a number of reasons why that is a particularly
important location not only is it the all those hundreds of kids that are at Escondido Village there
but we have two of the parks, Mayfield and Cameron Park, that are on Wellesley there and the
College Terrace Library. So it is a major pedestrian and child thoroughfare there. Sd can you
clarify in the case of that one particular location what are the reasons for what you are
recommending?
Mr. West: I don’t recall all the details about that particular location however I believe that
originally it was proposed to be on this leg of Stanford and at that location there was an
underground utility or a storm drain but it was sufficiently far enough that we could get it in
there but if we moved it just to the opposite leg though there was definitely a conflict with a
storm drain and we really couldn’t get it right at the comer. So on one side we could fit it in
there if we wanted to and tiie other side we would probably have to relocate a storm drain inlet
which then would start to drive up the cost. So we felt like we could do it but inthe end it got
moved for other reasons.
Chair Cassel: Bonnie.
MOTION
Vice Chair Packer: I would like to make a motion that the Planning and Transportation
Commission recommend that the City Council approve the implementation of the traffic calming
devices for College Terrace as reflected in Plan A which also includes evaluating the plan for a
period of one year with the mitigation measures that are set for in the Mitigated Negative
Declaration. I think we are supposed to recommend approval of the Mitigated Negative
Declaration as part of my motion.
City qfPalo Alto(P&TC)October 13, 2004 Page 34 of 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
44
45
46
47
48
SECOND
Commissioner Lippert:I will second that.
Vice Chair Packer: Now first I also want to echo Pat’s comments to thank the Staff and to thank
the residents of College Terrace and .the committee and all the people involved in working so
well together and putting together such a thoughtful and well balanced plan. Balance is what
comes to my mind hearing the answers to our questions about the specifics of the plan. I really
was impressed about the level of thoughtfulness that went into each of the devices and then all
the devices the way all fit together.and looking at making sure one device doesn’t squeeze the
balloon and vhove something over to another place. So balance is what really impressed about
this plan. It is moderate it is not extreme. There are no closures. I think it is clear that we are
not going to get rid of the traffic, which goes through College Terrace. It is sandwiched between
the Research Park and Stanford and those cars will move through there. You can call it cut-
through or you can call it just cars traveling that are just going to be there. But what these
devices do is make the driving of these cars more civil, more safe, at safer speeds and it is really
good to see a plan that does that. The evidence of the neighborhood outreach is very good. One
gets the sense that people did have plenty of opportunity to have input into this process and that
is good.
As part of my motion I don’t know ifI have to go back and state that it is part oEmy motion I
think we should also ask Staff to look into addressing what are the warrants for some of the
places where children tend to cross Stanford Avenue to see whether some additional ways of
dealing with it whether it is striping or whatever is best from the way the engineers see it to
make it safer in those places that they look into that. I don’t wantto dictate what that will be I
don’t think we are the engineers.
Chair Cassel: Is that okay with you, Lee?
Commissioner Lippert: It is more than acceptable to me.
Vice Chair Packer: I also want to say that the tables and circles we are getting used to them the
ones on Louis and the ones in Downtown North. It is a change but they are very easy to digest
and get used to and it does change traffic patterns and behavior and this is a good thing. So
again I thank you all and hope my colleagues will support this motion.
Chair Cassel: Lee, do you wish to speak to your second?
Commis~ioner Lippert: Yes. I think this is a very, very workable plan. I think that it is well
thought out, well conceived and I think one of the things that I think is great about it is to see so
many people in the community embrace the plan. I think that is a positive aspect of the work
that Staff has .done here in their outreach efforts.
I am very interested to see its implementation. I thinklthat one aspect of it that I think will be
successful, I hope will be successful, will be that people will be slowed by the measures that are
being implemented here and they will not be frustrated enough that they are diverted onto other
streets so it doesn’t become a shifting of the traffic problem. I think that there is a very, very
City ofPalo Alto(P&TC)October 13, 2004 Page 35 of 47
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 careful balance that needs to be sort of handled here in terms of the fine tuning. You want to
2 slow the traffic but you don’t want to divert the traffic and that is what traffic calming is all
3 about here. I agree with Bonnie’s comment with regard to the school crossings. I think that that
4 is a really important feature here and I would encourage Staff to look at some ways of getting
5 the students safely across not just across Stanford but also across California as well as through
that neighborhood.
Chair Cassel: Would anyone else like to say something?’ Michael ..................
CommissionerGriffin: We will all probably wind up repeating the same mantra here but I am
certainly joining with the rest of my colleagues in expressing my being.impressed really with the
degree that the neighborhood association was able to turn out the troops and to come up with a
working majority of people that are in favor of this plan and not only in favor of it but actually
created a level of participation that was quite impressive and working with Staff and the
consultant in developing the data. I agree with colleague’s comments that this will be a model
that will be used by other neighborhoods inthis town. I think you folks have really set the
benchmark for how to get this accomplished. I will be very pleased to support the motion,
Chair Cassel: Karen.
Commissioner Holman: Yes I also want to congratulate Staff and the neighborhdod on how
much outreach there has been and how much broad participation there has been. That has been a
model I think for projects going forward. Congratulations on that.
I want to be really clear on one thing because I think it is very important I mentioned earlier a
question that had been raised by a member of the community about the $150,000 and the
expenditure of that. The .Staff Report on page eight I think it is even references that this was
mitigation money from 2475 Hanover. I think it is very, very important and I am sure would
agree to get this clarified and cleared up before it goes to Council, it puts us in a little bit of an
awkward position and I think Staff understands that. Also I wanted to clarify the record too ifI
seemed a bit st~ort with Kathy Durham I wasn’t being short with her I just wanted to make clear
that it wasn’t comments of hers but I want to be clear in the record what was being read from by
you Mr. Kott.
I am going to ask for a friendly amendment which is related to an amendment that was already
agreed to and that is that the painting at the crosswalk not just be considered as striping which
does have a more urban characteristic but some other kind of pattern or fine art kind of painting
that I think Staff is familiar with that has been used in other communities very, very successfully
and if that would be acceptable as a friendly amendment.
Vice Chair Packer: I think it is an engineering detail that my motion addressed that issue was I
wanted Staff to look into what would work and what would be best from their perspective for
any of those crosswalks. If they decide on paint what the paint looks like I don’t want to go
there at this level. I appreciate the aesthetics and the thought behind what you are saying but I
don’t think it is appropriate in my motion so I am not going to accept it.
Commissioner Holman: Well the only reason I mention it is I thought your motion specifically
mentioned striping.
City ofPalo Alto(P&TC)October 13, 2004 Page 36 of 41
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
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
Vice Chair Packer: I suggested that they look into whatever techniques would be appropriate for
example. I don’t know if striping is the right thing or whether circles or squiggles or diamonds
or balloons or whatever would work.
Commissioner Holman: Okay, that is fine then. The only other comment that I would have then
is Staff referenced oval circles if you will and the community has been very vocal in the Staff
Report and tonight too referenced how important-plantings are at these traffic circles. So if there
is opportunity to consider oval circles I am hoping that Staff will do that because the might
facilitate plantings more easily than these current traffic circles do.
Chair Cassel: Any other comments?
Commissioner Burt: Just one clarifying question for Bonnie, Bonnie, in your request for Staff
to evaluate pedestrian crossing on Stanford did that intend to include this thing we have been
talking about of Staff re-looking at the possibility of the raised crosswalk at Wellesley?
Vice Chair Packer: If that is what they come up with as appropriate and doable. I don’t.know if
that would be part of this particula{ trial or if it would ultimately come outat the end of the trial
year but whenever it would be appropriate. I wouldn’t want to hold up this trial before that
happened. My motion is that this trial go forward and on a separate or parallel track that they
look at other ways to improve the safety of pedestrians and bicyclists who would cross Stanford
at various points and whatever that takes. As I say, not to hold up this plan until that is
evaluated but to do it on a separate track.
Commissioner Burt: So my concept was in no way to hold up the plan. From what I heard from
Staff and the consultant this option of whether to go to a raised crosswalk or a speed table at that
location is one that they kind of went back and forth on. The consultant ended up clarifying that
on the east side of Wellesley and Stanford Avenue that it was feasible. I don’t think it is within
our ability tonight to make a determination on that. I would like to specifically make a request
that before it goes to Council that the Staff and the neighborhood take another loo1~ at that and if
you are willing on that being a little more clear on .a friendly amendment on that issue I heard a
lot of sentiments on the Commission that that was a concern but I wouldn’t presume to stipulate
an outcome from the Commission on that subject but just to request to take another look at it
before it gets to Council and I will be comfortable with whatever Staff ends up recommending in
the final verdict. If that is okay as a friendly amendment I don’t think that slows the process in
any way.
Vice Chair Packer: Since I see Staff shaking their heads in an affirmative way it appears that
that is doable so I will accept that as a friendly amendment.
Chair Cassel: Lee?
Commissioner Lippert: That is acceptable with me as well. I do have one question though as a
point of clarification. The raised crosswalks are perpendicular to the traffic flow so you don’t
just have automobile traffic flow you also have bicycle traffic flow. How do these raised
crosswalks and tables impact the bicycle lanes that you have?
City of Palo Alto{P&TC)October 13, 2004 Page 37 of 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
44
45
46
47
48
Mr. Kott: We have reviewed the use of speed tables and even speed humps with the Palo Alto
Bicycle Advisory Committee and they are perfectly comfortable with them. The cycling
community is very accepting. The main benefit for cyclists is that the cars sharing the streets
with them are slowed down somewhat so it is a more comfortable environment. Navigating the
tables is really not an issue for cyclists.
MOTION PASSED (7-0-020)
Chair Cassel: If there are no other comments then I would like to take a vote. Would all those
in favor please say aye? (ayes) All those opposed? That is a seven to nothing vote in favor of
the motion. I. want to thank everyone for participating and the Staff and we appreciate your
time. We have a little more of the meeting to go so we will pause a moment so you can go out.
Mr. Kott: Thank you very much Commissioners.
Chair Cassel: Thank you. We have some small items of business.
The first piece is the minutes. We need to approve two sets of minutes.
APPROVAL OFMINUTES: Minutes of August 11 and September 8, 2004.
MOTION
Commissioner Bialson: I move that both minutes be approved.
Chair Cassel: Do I have a second?
SECOND
Commissioner Griffin: Yes, second.
MOTION PASSED (7-0-0-0)
Chair Cassel: Is there any discussion? Any corrections? All those in favor please say aye.
(ayes)
COMMISSION MEMBER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, AND/OR ANNOUNCEMENTS.
The next item of business is we have a retreat coming up on November 3 and we need to
develop an agenda. I need any items for that that you may have. Bonnie and I would like to be
working on that tomorrow morning so that we can get it to Zariah in good time. Annette.
Commissioner Bialson: I realize that we have to publish an agenda for that retreat and I would
suggest that you in your meeting tomorrow be broad enough in the agenda items that as items
come to us perhaps a little closer to the time for the retreat that they will fall within general
broa’d categories.
Chair Cassel: We will also lo0k at if it doesn’t look like we can get it done some item where we
City ofPalo Alto(P&TC)October 13, 2004 Page 38 of 47