HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-10-14 City Council (6)TO:
City of Palo Altq
City Manager’s Reportl 2
HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND
COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT
DATE:
SUBJECT:
OCTOBER 14, 2003 CMR:464:03
PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION RECOM-
MENDATIONS TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR THE CHURCHILL
AVENUE TRAFFIC CALMING PROJECT
RECOMMENDATIONS
The Planning and Transportation Commission recommends the following Council actions:
(a)Addition of the "South of Embarcadero" area (exact boundaries to be defined), plus the
area from Alma to E1 Camino.Real, to a list of future neighborhood traffic studies, to be
undertaken when sufficient funding and staffing resources have been identified and City
Council approval to proceed has been given;
(b)Nomination of Churchill Avenue from Embarcadero Road to E1 Camino Real for
consideration on a future list of"school-commute corridors";
(c)Request staff to undertake a re-evaluation of limited interim measures to provide some
relief and traffic calming on Churchill without the risk of traffic diversion .to
neighborhood streets; and
(d)An additional change to the Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program (NTCP) procedures
for collector street projects: the identification of an appropriately-sized "notification
area" that would be notified of the collector street project and be included in an
"advisory survey".
With the exception of recommendation "c" (interim measures), staff recommends approval
of the Planning and Transportation Commission recommendations. Staff does not
recommend any action on the interina measures.
BACKGROUND
The Churchill Avenue traffic-calming project was one of the first started after the City
Council approved the Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program (NTCP) in April 2001. An
unusually large number of working group meetings (seven) and three project area meetings
CMR:464:03 Page 1 of 4
were held between June 2001 and June 2002. The working group meetings were
characterized by differences between the staff and residents over the residents’ desire for
large-scale circulation changes and substantial volume reduction as well as speed reduction.
The first two goals could not be accomplished by the "spot-treatment" NTCP, which is
designed to address mostly speed reduction on a limited number of street segments. By the
end of the process, many working group members, for various reasons, had dropped out of
the project effort.
In the end, staff developed two alternative proposed traffic calming plans for project area
residents to consider--one employing speed-reduction measures combined with a limited
volume-reduction element (a left-turn prohibition from Embarcadero to Churchill), and the
other employing the same speed reduction measures, but not including the turn prohibition.
After two area meetings to decide if one or both plans should go forward for an area opinion
survey, meeting participants voted in two straw votes to cancel further consideration of both
plans. Normally, a traffic calming project that does not have neighborhood support would
not be presented to the Commission at all. However, staff brought this project to the
Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) for two purposes--as an informational
item because it had been controversial, with some residents quite unhappy about the process
and the outcome; and to recommend that the PTC consider staff’s wider-area
recommendations.
PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION REVIEW AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
The PTC discussed this project at its meeting of September 25, 2002. About six residents
spoke on the project and a couple of written communications were received. The discussion
focused on the following issues:
¯The proposed school commute corridor designation;
¯Churchill’s role as a collector;
¯Churchill/Alma intersection and grade crossing of Caltrain tracks;
¯Police enforcement;
¯Interim traffic calming measures until/if a full neighborhood traffic study is conducted.
School Commute Corridor Designation. The PTC spent considerable time discussing the
issue of Churchill as a candidate for a school commute corridor, and if the corridor should
include other streets as well. It focused attention specifically on Coleridge as a possible part
of that corridor. Staff clarified that the full school commute corridor issue would be brought
before the PTC next year, when criteria would be developed and other candidate con-idors
considered. The nominations for candidate corridors are discussed in a staff report
tentatively scheduled for the October 27 City Council agenda.
Neighborhood Traffic Study. The PTC recognized that the causes of residents’ concerns
about Churchill go beyond the five blocks of Churchill included in this traffic calming
CMR:464:03 Page 2 of 4
study. The Churchill/Alma intersection, the Caltrain crossing and the connection to E1
Camino Real were discussed and recognized as perhaps the most important major issues of
this corridor. The PTC recommended adding the area between Alma and E1 Camino Real to
the scope of any future neighborhood-level study. Though the specifics of this area were not
discussed, this addition could simply be the segment of Churchill between Alma and E1
Camino Real, or it could more comprehensively be the entire Southgate neighborhood and
Palo Alto Unified School District properties. Adding the area west of Alma would greatly
expand the scope of such a study. Staff agrees that a proper future study of Churchill and the
areas served by it should include the entire length of Churchill from Embarcadero to E1
Camin0 Real, plus, as a minimum, the "south of Embarcadero" neighborhood suggested by
staff. The determination of the specific study area(s) would be made when!if such a study
were undertaken in the future.
Commissioners recommended that, while awaiting any future neighborhood study,
Churchill residents should have some limited, temporary traffic calming protection (without
substantial traffic diversion) in the blocks between Embarcadero and Alma. Staff disagrees
with that recommendation because the residents of Churchill and the immediate vicinity do
not seem to be sufficiently united to agree on such measures. Staff spent a year working
with these residents, and most of the working group members stopped participating before
the end of the study. No agreement was reached even on simple speed reduction measures.
It is conceivable that, after the PTC’s and Council’s recognition of a possible future
neighborhood study, that residents might be more disposed to agree on a temporary solution.
However, staff believes that the limited staff time for the traffic calming program should not
be spent on that discovery. Rather, it should be spent on the qualified traffic calming studies
on the waiting list.
Wide-Area Notification!Participation Procedure for All Collector Street Projects. Staff
recommended to the PTC that revisions be made to the NTCP procedures regarding wider-
area notification and involvement of residents for all collector street projects, based on
experience with the Churchill project. The PTC approved this recommendation at its
September 25 meeting, with no discussion. The issue of involvement of the wider-area
residents for a collector street surfaced again at the October 16 PTC meeting regarding the
Louis Road speed cushion traffic calming project. It appeared that at least two
commissioners disagreed with staff’s proposed method of working with residents in
collector street projects, but the PTC made no forrnal recommendation at the October 16
meeting to make any further changes to the NTCP procedure. Staff will review its proposed
procedure for notification of collector street projects before revisions to the NTCP are
brought to the Council, but this is not yet scheduled for a Council agenda.
RESOURCE IMPACT
Pages 5 - 6 of the attached report to the PTC provide a list of the possible scope and costs of
any future neighborhood traffic study and project implementation in the "South of
Embarcadero" area (recommendation "a" above). The study would be undertaken by a
CMR:464:03 Page 3 of 4
consultant at a cost of approximately $100,000. Approximately $50,000 would most likely
qualify for funding under Condition G10 of the December 2000 Stanford University General
Use Permit. Staff is hopeful that the proposed revisions and expansion of the City’s traffic
impact fee would provide funding for traffic calming projects, including the remaining
$50,000 for this neighborhood study. Physical circulation changes in the neighborhood that
might result from the study could range from a low of about $50,000 for a few simple traffic
calming measures, to multi-millions of dollars for major capital projects such as interchange
reconstruction and railroad grade closure. Arterial roadway and railroad-related projects
would need to be funded by future grants and regional funding (amounts and sources
unknown at this time). In the near future, staff expects to propose to Council that
neighborhood residents be required to fund any °’enhanced" designs of simple traffic
calming measures (currently, resident funding is optional). Any interim traffic calming
measures for Churchill that might be approved (recommendation %") would be funded
through the existing NTCP budget.
ATTACHMENTS
A. September 25, 2002 Transportation Division Staff Report to the Planning and
Transportation Commission (Available upon request).
B. Minutes of the above meeting (Available upon request).
PREPARED BY:
DEPARTMENT HEAD:
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
CARL STOFFEL \
Trans ation Engineer
STEVE EMSLIE
Director of Planning and
Community Environment
iLY HARRIS
Assistant City Manager
CC:Churchill Working Group Members
Residents who spoke at 9/25/02 Commission Meeting
CMR:464:03 Page 4 of 4
ATTACHMENT A
TRANSPOR TA TION DIVISION
STAFF REPORT
TO:PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
FROM:Carl Stoffel
Transportation Engineer
DEPARTMENT: Planning
and Community Environment
AGENDA DATE: September 25, 2002
SUBJECT:Churchill Traffic Calming Project
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Commission recommend to City Council:
(a)Addition of the "South of Embarcadero" area (exact boundaries to be defined) to a list
of future neighborhood traffic studies, to be undertaken when sufficient funding and
" staffing resources have been identified and City Council approval to proceed has been
given;
(b)Nomination of Churchill Avenue from Embarcadero to E1 Camino Real for a future
list of"school-colm-nute corridors".
(c)An additional change to the Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program procedures for
collector street projects: the identification of an appropriately-sized "notification area"
that would be notified of the collector street project and be included in an "advisory
survey".
PROJECT HISTORY
Qualification for the Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program
City of Palo Alto Page 1
The Churchill Avenue traffic-calming proj ect is one of the first started after City Council
approved the Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program (NTCP) in April 2001. Staff
received the initial residents’ petition in November 2000, well before the NTCP was
approved. The petition was from residents in the first block of Churchill (between Alma
and Emerson) and requested °°traffic calming measures to reduce traffic speeds, prevent
accidents, reduce cut-through traffic to 101, and make our neighborhood livable and safe
again." A second petition was received in April 2001 from residents in the blocks
between Emerson and Embarcadero with the same request. Staff began data collection in
February 2001. The 85th percentile speed on Churchill in the project area was measured at
30 mph. Even applying the five percent error allowance, the resulting speed of 31.5 mph
did not meet the minimum 32 mph criterion for a collector street. The average daily
volume was measured at 3680 vehicles per day (vpd). After applying the 10 percent error
allowance, this volume just met the 4000 vpd volume criterion for a collector street. The
project area is within 1000 feet walking distance of two schools, meeting a second
criterion. With two of the five criteria met, this request qualified for the traffic-calming
program.
First Project Area Meetin,~
The project began in earnest in May 2001. Staff determined that the "project area" would
be Churchill Avenue between Embarcadero Road and Alma Street (refer to map in
Attachment 1). An initial project area meeting was held in June 2001, to which
approximately 66 households were invited (a few household addresses in the 100 block of
Churchill do not appear on the map in Attachment 1). Approximately 20 residents
attended plus two City Council members. Most present thought there were serious traffic
problems on Churchill, especially in the two blocks between Alma and Bryant. Several
residents were concerned about bigger circulation issues affecting the neighborhood, such
as the railroad crossing and the Alma/Embarcadero interchange.
Working Group Meetings
A working group of about eight Churchill residents was formed at the initial meeting. A
PTA traffic safety representative from Palo Alto High School (not a Churchill resident)
also joined the group. This working group met seven times between June 2001 and
February 2002. Many members of the working group were interested in reducing cut-
through traffic by means of street closures or diverters. In order to consider these types of
measures, a license plate survey was required to determine the percentage of cut-through
traffic. Unfortunately, this survey introduced a six-month delay in the study, due to
having to wait for start of the school year and to problems with the survey contractor.
The license plate survey revealed that, on average, 40 percent of traffic using Churchill
between Alma and Embarcadero is "cut-through" i.e., does not have origin or destination
City of Palo Alto Page 2
in that immediate neighborhood. According to the NTCP guidelines, this is not sufficient
to consider a street closure or diverter (the minimum is an "overwhelming" level of cut-
through traffic, which staff has defined as 60 percent). But staff considers that 40 percent
is sufficient to implement a limited volume-reduction measure such as a turn prohibition.
Most working group members wanted more drastic action to reduce volumes. This
tension resulted in a large number of working group meetings in an effort to devise a plan
that would have the greatest volume reduction potential and still stay within the NTCP
guidelines. In order to try to come up with a plan that working group members could
support, staff devised approximately 12 traffic calming plans employing speed control
measures, limited street closures, and combinations of the two. With one exception, staff
considered all the volume control plans unacceptable because of the potential for too
much diverted traffic to side streets. The speed-control-only plans .did not satisfy the
working group members. The only plan that appeared to be feasible and minimally satisfy
working group members was the "’Proposed Plan" illustrated in Figure 1 of Attachment 3.
Because it did not greatly reduce cut-through traffic, the working group’s support was
best described as a "weak consensus", which was also reflected by the substantially-
diminished attendance by the end of a long string of working group meetings.
Working group members repeatedly raised the larger circulation problems that were well
beyond the scope of the spot traffic-calming program (elg., closure of Churchill at the
railroad, improved connections at the Alma!Embarcadero interchange, new signals on
Alma at California Avenue and Embarcadero ramps). Because of residents’ concern about
these bigger issues, and because the working group was not particularly satisfied with the
Proposed Plan, staff proposed two other recommendations for future action: (1) that the
wider neighborhood (boundaries yet to be defined) be considered for a future
neighborhood traffic study; and (2) that Churchill Avenue be considered as a candidate
for a "school co~mnute corridor" designation.
Second Project Area Meeting
In accordance with NTCP step # 5, the Proposed Plan that resulted from the working
group process was mailed to project area residents and a project area meeting was
convened in April 2002, the first meeting for the entire project area since the initial
meeting in June 2001. Due to the particular elements of the Proposed Plan, households on
side streets were added to the project area and noticed for the meeting: one block of
Emerson, Bryant and Waverley on each side of Churchill and three blocks of Cowper, for
a total of approximately 128 households in the project area (refer to map of mailing area
in Attachment 2). The purpose of this meeting was twofold: (i) for residents to understand
the Proposed Plan and suggest any modifications; and (ii) for staff to determine if there
was sufficient resident agreement for the plan to go forward for a formal project area
survey for a trial installation.
City of Palo Alto Page 3
There were several unexpected results from this meeting: (i) response was very low for
such an important step in the process (about a dozen attendees and four written
comments); (ii) side street residents were surprised that they hadn’t known about this
project earlier; and (iii) most of the discussion did not address the Proposed Plan itself;
instead, attendees addressed the bigger circulation issues and the fact that the spot
treatment process was not the proper way to address these issues. Because there were few
comments on the Proposed Plan itself, staff concluded and stated at the end of the
meeting that it would be appropriate for the Proposed Plan to go forward for a project
area survey. Residents who disagreed with the process and/or who were interested in
larger circulation issues would be able to vote against the Proposed Plan in the survey.
Third Project Area Meeting
Immediately after the April meeting, many residents living mostly on the adjacent streets
near Churchill (some of which had not been noticed for that meeting) contacted staff to
express their disagreement with staff’ s decision that there was consensus to go ahead with
the area survey. They believed that a considerably wider area should have been involved
in the decision. Most of the concern seemed to be directed at one element of the Proposed
Plan, the prohibition of left turns from Embarcadero to Churchill and Cowper. Due to this
large amount of concern, staff concluded that it would be best to repeat the project area
meeting to give residents another opportunity to present their views, and to have a clear
determination if there was consensus to proceed further. Approximately 136 households
were notified of this follow-up meeting. This meeting was held in June 2002 (see letter
and mailing area in Attachment 3).
This was a very animated meeting attended by approximately 50 residents, with staff
receiving another dozen letters and e-mails. Residents from several adjacent blocks that
had not been mailed the meeting invitation also attended. To address residents’ concerns
about the impacts of the proposed left-turn prohibition, staff developed for this meeting
an "Alternative Proposed Plan" that excluded the turn prohibition, i.e, that employed only
speed reduction measures (see Attachment 3). In order to bring closure to a long public
process, staff defined rules for determining consensus and conducted two "straw votes"
with written ballots at the meeting. Each household present at the meeting or who sent in
correspondence was allowed to vote (one vote per household), even if the household was
not in the official "project area." At this juncture, staff felt that this was the best way to
give the concerned adjacent residents a voice in the proces.s. The purpose of the straw
votes was to make a clear, final determination if one or both of the proposed traffic
calming plans should go forward for the project area survey--it was not a vote on actual
implementation of a specific plan. Staff defined consensus as being 60 percent of the
straw vote in favor of proceeding with the survey. For the Proposed Plan (with the turn
City of Palo Alto Page 4
prohibitions), the results were 26 percent in favor and 74 percent against. For the
Alternative Proposed Plan (no turn prohibitions, speed-control only), the results were 35
percent in favor and 65 percent against. Even when votes for the Alternative Proposed
Plan were tabulated within just the original project area, the results were 50 percent in
favor and 50 percent against. In other words, even when the speed-control-only plan was
voted on only by the subset of households that were in the very limited impact area of the
project (Churchill and limited cross streets), the vote was still not sufficient to conclude
that there was consensus to proceed with a survey.
Conclusion of the Public Process
Thus, by all measures made and voted on at the June meeting, staff concluded and
announced at the end of the meeting that there was not consensus to continue with the
traffic calming project, and that it would end at that point. Staff announced that the only
action to go forward to the Planning and Transportation Commission would be the
recommendations that the neighborhood be considered for a future area-wide
neighborhood traffic study and that Churchill be considered a nominee for a "school
commute corridor" designation. Co~mnission action is not necessary to end the NTCP
process for this project, as that was ended by the straw vote at the June project area
meeting. Normally a traffic-calming project that has not passed muster with the
neighborhood (i.e., one that fails to endorse the proposed project through a project area
survey) would not be presented to the Commission at all. However, staff is bringing this
project to the Commission for two purposes--as an informational item because it has been
so controversial with many residents quite unhappy about the process and the outcome;
and to recommend that the Commission consider staff’s wider-area recommendations,
both explained in more detail below. Staff notified a wide area about the September 25
Commission meeting and availability of this staff report (refer to letter and map of area in
Attachment 4).
SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ISSUES
Nei.~hborhood Traffic Study
Under current City policy, a neighborhood traffic study requires City Council approval to
be initiated, as well as allocation of sufficient resources for staffing, conduct of the study,
and construction of traffic calming measures. Based upon residents’ COlnments about
circulation issues gathered during the Churchill Avenue project, staff developed a
summary list of issues that would need to be included in a possible future "South of
Embarcadero" area traffic study. Staff recolr~nends that such a study be placed on a list of
future neighborhood traffic studies, to be undertaken when sufficient funding and staffing
resources have been identified, and City Council approval has been given to proceed.
City of Palo Alto Page 5
¯Tentative study area: An area bounded by Embarcadero, Alma, Middlefield and a yet-
undefined southern boundary.
Churchill Avenue between E1 Camino Real and Alma Street: A policy would be
needed on how this study would address circulation issues on this part of Churchill
Avenue that might lie outside the study area.
The following problem areas were mentioned during the Churchill traffic calming
project and/or have been expressed to staff at other times:
,/Alma/Embarcadero interchange allows only limited movements, inducing through
traffic to use Churchill.
,,"Additional signals might be needed on Alma at Embarcadero ramps to facilitate
access to/from Embarcadero.
¢" School crossing issues, traffic speeds at Alma/Churchill intersection.
,," Possible closure of Churchill grade crossing to vehicle traffic (only bicycle and
pedestrian traffic allowed).
,/ Additional signal on Alma to add another neighborhood access point.
,/ Bryant/Churchill intersection concerns; possibly also Bryant/Lowell.
¢" Castilleja School traffic access.
,,/ Through traffic on Waverley and possibly other north-south streets.
¢" Through traffic and speeds on Churchill between Alma and Embarcadero.
¯ / Through truck traffic on Churchill and possibly other streets.
A consultant would be required to conduct a neighborhood study. Due to possible
consideration of maj or circulation changes affecting a large number of households,
such a study could be long (two years), controversial (requiring public facilitation
services), and expensive (perhaps $100,000 for consultant services). The
Transportation Division work program would need to be adjusted to allocate staff time
for managing the study.
Permanent circulation changes in a large neighborhood could encompass a vast range-
- from simple traffic calming measures such as multiple speed humps, traffic circles,
and street closures (perhaps $50,000 to $300,000), to major long-range engineering
projects such as traffic signals, interchange reconstruction and grade closure (perhaps
$500,000 to multi-millions).
School Commute Corridor Recommendation
Staff recommends that Churchill Avenue from Embarcadero to E1 Camino Real be
City of Palo Alto Page 6
nominated for a future list of °’school colmnute corridors". This designation was
developed during the recent Charleston Corridor Study and refers to the construction of
physical improvements to provide minimum levels of accommodation for pedestrians and
bicyclists. Among other things, such improvements could include traffic calming
measures to limit vehicle speeds and/or volumes. Churchill is a very reasonable candidate
for such a designation since it is one of two heavily used primary routes (and railroad
crossings) for Palo Alto High School students. The addition of traffic calming measures
on Churchill would help increase safety for the school commute as well meet the traffic
calming goals of some residents living on that street.
Next year, staff will present to the Commission and Council the criteria by which such
corridors would be distinguished from other arterial and collector streets. The streets so
designated would ultimately be a Council decision, once the formal criteria have been
established and adopted. Currently, the only other proposed candidate street for a school
commute corridor is Charleston Road between Middlefield and E1 Camino Real.
Wider Notification Area for Collector Street Projects
Two NTCP projects on collector streets have been in process recently -- the Churchill
Avenue project, and the ongoing Louis Road speed cushion trial. In both cases, residents
on adjacent streets have been surprised by these projects because they had not been
directly notified that a traffic-calming project was underway, nor had they been invited to
participate in the project. The NTCP, being a "spot treatment" pro~am that is designed to
be as streamlined as possible, specifically limits the project area and the survey area (refer
to NTCP steps #2 and #6).
Based on staff’s experience with these two projects, it is becoming apparent that a wider
area should be notified by mail that a collector street project is taking place. Collector
streets are supposed to connect neighborhood traffic to arterial streets and they generally
carry higher volumes than local streets. Thus, they have a larger "constituency" and it is
natural that this wider constituency would have an interest in traffic calming proposals for
collector streets. Nevertheless, staff believes strongly that the actual "project area" and
the "survey area" be strictly limited as defined in NTCP step #6. Only residents actually
living on the street should be included in the survey process for projects that do not result
in substantial traffic diversion (except for cross streets where traffic circles are installed).
Keeping the project and survey areas compact is an essential component of the "spot
treatment" aspect of the NTCP. This will be easier in the future since the Commission
recently recommended that volume-control measures (e.g., street closures) not be
included in the NTCP. Thus, few future projects (if any) will result in adjacent streets
being affected by excessive traffic diversion, which is one of the primary concerns of
residents living near a traffic calming project area.
City of Palo Alto Page 7
In addition to wider notification, staff proposes to implement an "advisory survey" for the
wider service area of a collector street. The "advisory survey" would be conducted at the
same time as the "project area survey" of the residents on the actual project street (NTCP
step #6). Staff would not use the results of the "advisory survey" in determining whether
or not a trial project should be recommended, but would report the survey results to the
Commission. The Commission would thus have a clear indication of the wider-area
resident opinion of a proposed collector street project. Staff is following this procedure
for the Louis Road traffic-calming project involving the speed cushions. For each
collector street project, staff would thus determine the appropriately sized "notification
area" that would be notified of the collector street project and be included in the
"advisory survey". Staff recommends that this additional change in the NTCP procedure
be added to the list of modifications already approved by the Commission at its June 12,
2002 meeting (all of which staff will transmit to the City Council for its approval later
this year).
The "Traffic Paradox"
The Churchill traffic calming experience illustrates the contemporary "traffic paradox."
While personal motor vehicle use is high and climbing in the United States (national
surveys suggest that nearly ninety percent of local travel is now by private automobiles),
so is the apprehension about any more car use on one’s own street.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
No environmental review is required at this time, as no specific project has been
recommended for implementation. If and when a neighborhood-wide traffic-calming
project is designed and proposed, an environmental assessment would be prepared at that
future date.
NEXT STEPS
No traffic-calming project is planned at this time for the Churchill Avenue area. Staff will
accept future traffic calming requests for other streets in the area, under the NTCP. Future
projects could be undertaken on Churchill if a neighborhood traffic study is eventually
conducted in the wider area, and!or if Churchill is designated as a school commute
corridor.
ATTACHMENTS/EXHIBITS:
A.Mailing area for first project area meeting (one page).
B.Mailing area for second project area meeting (one page).
C.Mailing area and letter for third project area meeting, including Proposed Plan and
City of Palo Alto Page 8
Alternative Proposed Plan (10 pages).
D.Notification area and letter for September 25, 2002 Commission meeting (3
pages).
COURTESY COPIES:
Churchill Working Group Members
Prepared by: Carl Stoffel
Reviewed by: Carl Stoffel
Division Head Approval: /~~/~ tlon
J~ph KotY, Chief Transporta " Official
City of Palo Alto Page 9
WEBSTER STREET
COWPER STREET
WAVERLEY STKEET
COWPER STREET
ALMA STREET
BRYANT STREET
SOUTHEP2J PACIFIC RAILROAD
The City of
Palo Alto
Attachment A
COWPER S’VREET COWPER STREET
oi
COWPER STREET
EMERSOn’
ALMA STREET
WAVERLEY STREET
BRYANT STREET
WAVERLEY STREET
TREET
ALMA STREET .&LMA STREET
~o b’TH E ~’¢’t’mZtP ~C-t~tt:RO
Churchill Avenue
Traffic Calming Study
Initial Project Area
for First Area Meeting
This map is a product of the
City of Palo Alto GIS
0’400’
Attachment B
COWPER STREET
WAVERLEY STREET
ALMA STREET ALMA STREET
WEBSTER STREET
B RY A.N~T STREET
ALMA STREET
EMERSON STREET
BRYANT STREET B RYAN~r STREET
ALMA STREET ALMA STREET ALMA STREET
SOUTHERN PACIFIC P~MLROAD
The City of
Palo Alto
This map is a product of the
City of Palo Alto GISChurchill Avenue
Traffic Calming Study
Expanded Proj ect Area
for Second Area Meeting
April 23, 2002
June 3,2002
City of Palo Alto
Department of Planning and
Community Environment
Attachment C
Dear Resident:
Transportation
Division
A project area public meeting will take place to discuss the proposed traffic calming plan for
Churchill Avenue. The purpose of this letter is to re-transmit the proposed traffic calming plan
for Churchill Avenue between Alma and Embarcadero, as well as an alternative proposed plan,
and to announce a follow-up project area meeting. The proposed plan is fairly complex and would
affect driving in your neighborhood, so please take the time to read through the enclosed
information. The proposed alternative plan retains all the features of the original proposed plan,
but excludes the left-turn prohibitions from Embarcadero Road. Detailed descriptions of each
plan are enclosed.
Backqroun~. In April 2001, the Transportation Division received a petition from some Churchill
Avenue residents requesting measures to reduce traffic speed and volume. This is the first
project undertaken following the procedures of Palo Alto’s new "Neighborhood Traffic Calming
Program" (NTCP). Data gathered in April 2001 indicates that speeds on Churchill between Alma
and Waverley range from 27-31 mph, and the volume from 3000 - 3700 vehicles per day (vpd).
Churchill is a "collector" street--providing local property access and carrying neighborhood
traffic to and from adjacent arterials (Alma and Embarcadero). It is part of the City’s Fire
Department emergency response network. In June 2001, the first project area meeting was held
for Churchill residents living between Alma and Embarcadero. Approximately 20 residents
attended, and most were very concerned about speeds, volumes, short-cutting traffic, driver
behavior, congestion at the signal, and increased future traffic. They were interested in many
types of possible solutions, including police enforcement, speed humps, turning restrictions and
street closures. One or two residents thought that the traffic problems were not serious.
Workinq Group Meetinqs. A working group of eight Churchill residents was formed to develop a
traffic calming plan. This group met seven times between June 2001 and February 2002. Many
members of the group were interested in reducing cut-through traffic by means of street
closures or diverters. For the City to consider these types of measures, a survey was required to
determine the percentage of cut-through traffic. Unfortunately, this survey introduced a six-
month delay in the study, party due to problems with the company conducting the survey.
The survey revealed that, on average, 40 percent of traffic using Churchill between Alma and
Embarcadero is "cut-through’--.e., does not have origin or destination in that immediate
neighborhood. According to the NTCP guidelines, this is not sufficient to consider a street
closure or diverter (the minimum is an "overwhelming" level of cut-through traffic, defined as 60
250 Hamilton Avenue
P.O. Box 10250
Palo Alto, CA 94303
650,329.2520
650.617.3108 fax
Project Area Meeting
June 3, 2002
Page 2 of 3
percent). But it is sufficient to consider a limited volume-reduction measure such as a turn
prohibition. Most working group members wanted more drastic action to reduce volumes. This
tension resulted in a large number of working group meetings in an effort to devise a plan that
would have the greatest volume reduction potential and still stay within the NTCP guidelines.
Project Area Meetinq, Includinq Side Street Residents. On April 23, 2002 a project area
meeting was held which included residents from affected side streets. Some residents who
attended said that there was an inadequate amount of time given to discussing the details of the
traffic calming plan. There was also some disagreement as to whether there was consensus
regarding the proposed traffic calming plan. An additional meeting is being held to provide more
time for explanation, discussion and determination of consensus.
Proposed Traffic Calminq Plans. The traffic calming plan for Churchill Avenue that emerged from
the working group meetings is described in the enclosures. It focuses on speed reduction, with
some volume reduction. The working group endorsement of the proposed plan is a "weak
consensus". Several working group members did not support the plan at all. The others
reluctantly supported it only because a stronger plan was not feasible within the limited scope of
the NTCP. Based upon citizen comment made at and subsequent to the April 23rd project area
meeting, Transportation Division staff developed an alternative proposed plan which excludes
the left turn prohibitions from Embarcadero Road contained in the original proposed plan.
Details of this alternative plan are enclosed.
Your Feedback Wanted. Please refer to the enclosed description of the proposed plans. This
letter is being sent to all the residences with frontage on Churchill between Alma and
Embarcadero. Cross streets for one block each side of Churchill are included because of
proposed traffic circles. Cowper from Embarcadero to Lowell, as well as Bryant from
Embarcadero to Coleridge are included because of the proposed left-turn prohibitions from
Embarcadero. Please provide us with any comments, suggestions or questions via telephone, e-
mail, or letter (before the area meeting), or by attending the meeting as noted at the beginning
of this letter. We will attempt to make any desired modifications in the plan. At the end of this
meeting, there needs to be ~ workable consensus on whether or not a project area mail-in survey
should go forward. We define a "workable consensus" on proceeding with a survey as at least a
60% affirmative "straw" vote. Votes can be cast at the meeting itself or prior to the meeting
via either e-mail or letter. E-mails and letters must identify the household and the household
address. One vote per project area household is allowed. The Transportation Division will ensure
that each household in the project area has only one vote. The final tally of votes will be made at
the meeting. Here is what the subsequent mail-in survey would look like, if you approve of it
going forward:
CHOOSE ONE OF THE FOLLOWING:
A.)PROPOSED TRAFFIC CALMING PLAN
B.)ALTERNATIVE PROPOSED TRAFFIC CALMING PLAN
C.)EITHER A OR B
D.)NEITHER TRAFFIC CALMING PLAN
NOTE: VOTES FOR nEITHER A OR B" WILL BE ADDED TO VOTES FOR A ONLY AND B ONLY.
Project Area Meeting
June 3, 2002
Page 3 of 3
Please note that the vote at this meeting (or made prior to the meeting via letter or e-mail) is
solely on whether or not the above subsequent mail-in survey of project households on plan
alternatives shall be undertaken. Whether or not the mail-in survey is approved at the June 19
meeting, or whether or not one of the alternative plans is subsequently approved, Transportation
Division staff will still present results of the Churchill Avenue traffic claming study to the
Planning and Transportation Commission with a recommendation that an area-wide traffic calming
study be undertaken of the entire network of streets on either side of Churchill Avenue.
Next Stel~s. Assuming that a workable consensus (defined as 60% in the straw vote) is reached,
we will mail you the postcard survey described above. Please save the enclosed description of
these plans to refer to when voting on this plan later. We will not mail the information again
unless there are some major changes. Following the survey, this project will be presented to the
Planning and Transportation Commission for a public hearing. The Commission makes a
recommendation about proceeding with a trial to the Director of Planning and Community
Environment, who makes the final decision.
If you have any questions about this project, please contact us. We hope to see you at the
upcoming meeting.
Sincerely,
Carl Stoffel, P.E.
Transportation Engineer, City of Palo Alto
P.O. Box 10250, Palo Alto CA 94303
(650) 329-2552
carl stoffel@cit¥.palo-alto.ca.us
ph Kott
Chief Transportation Official
P.O. Box 10250, Palo Alto CA 94303
(65o) 329-2578
j oseph_kott@city .palo -alto. ca .us
CHURCHILL AVENUE TRAFFIC CALh4ING STUDY
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED TRAFFIC CALMING PLAN
The Churchill working group developed the following proposed traffic calming plan for your
consideration. The purpose of the plan is to reduce speeds and volumes on Churchill between Alma
and Embarcadero. The working group feels that the primary problem area is between Waverley and
Alma, and the speed reduction aspect of the plan is focused in that area. The proposed plan
consists of four sets of speed cushions, two traffic circles, two left-turn prohibitions, and new
signs to direct trucks and through traffic away from Churchill. Two longer-term recommendations
are also part of the plan.
Speed Cushions. The Fire Department does not permit typical speed humps on collector streets.
A new speed control measure is being proposed that will reduce speeds for cars, while still
permitting fire and paramedic trucks to pass over it relatively easily. This is a "speed cushion", a
square device measuring three inches high (same as a speed hump) and approximately six feet
by six feet. Speed cushions are installed in sets of four cushions placed across the street,
including in the bike and parking lanes, with small spaces in between. Speed cushions are
proposed in four locations as shown in Figure 1. Figure 2 illustrates a speed cushion layout in
Texas. Like speed hump installations in Palo Alto, black and yellow BUMP signs would be installed
at each cushion location, as well as BUMPS AHEAD--20 MPH advance warning SignSl There will
not be any BUMP legends painted in the street.
Traffic Circles. Two landscaped traffic circles would be installed at locations shown in Figure 1.
The circles would look like the one at the Lytton/Fulton and Bryant/Addison intersections (see
Figure 2). Advance warning signs would be installed on each approach to the circle advising a
speed of 15 mph. Each proposed location currently has four-way stop control, which would need
to be changed to two-way stop control. At Churchill/Emerson, stop signs would be removed on
Emerson. Stop signs would remain on Emerson one block north and south of Churchill, consistent
with Palo AIto’s "guard and go" (every other block) stop sign pattern. At Waverley/Churchill,
stop signs would be removed on Churchill. Stop signs would remain on Churchill one block east
and west of Waverley--again, consistent with Palo AIto’s "guard and go" pattern. From the
perspective of a driver looking down Churchill, the traffic circles would appear as obstacles.
This perception would cause some drivers to seek other routes and could lead to slower speeds
in the corridor.
Alternate Location for Circle. The working group preferred locating a circle at Waverley, but it
could be placed on Bryant instead. There is an accident problem at caused mostly by Churchill
drivers who fail to yield to oncoming Bryant traffic. A circle would reduce driver speeds on
Bryant, giving Churchill drivers more time to judge an acceptable gap in traffic and reducing
accidents. Remaining accidents should be less severe due to lower speeds. No stop sign changes
would be necessary, since there is already a two-way stop on Churchill.
Left-Turn Prohibitions on Embarcadero. To help reduce traffic volumes, left turn prohibitions
are proposed as shown in Figure 1, affecting only westbound traffic. Left turns onto Churchill
would be prohibited with "No Left Turn" signs and legends and a physical closure. At Cowper,
only a "No Left Turn" sign and legend would be used. We expect that many of these drivers
would turn left on Waverley to reach Churchill and some would do so at Bryant. These routes
would add extra distance, which should encourage cut-through drivers to stay on Embarcadero.
Some drivers might turn left at Webster, but this is a difficult turn and is an indirect route.
4/9/02 1
Signing to Discourage Cut-Through Traffic and Trucks. Some signs are already in place on
Churchill and on Alma to regulate and direct trucks and other traffic trying to reach
Embarcadero and Highway 101 from El Camino Real. Two new signs would be installed on El
Camino Real north of Churchill and on Churchill at Alma. These would direct trucks to use El
Camino Real and Alma. A new sign on Churchill between Cashilleja and Mariposa would direct
eastbound through traffic to turn left on Alma to reach Embarcadero. These signs would affect
mostly drivers who are not familiar with the area.
Impact of Plan on Volumes and Speeds. Estimated changes in traffic volumes and speeds in
sample locations are shown in Figure 1. Volume reductions on Churchill result from two factors:
prohibition of left turns and the series of traffic circles and speed cushions. Volumes would
probably increase in three areas due to diversion of traffic as a result of the left-turn
prohibitions. These increases are well within the NTCP acceptable diversion threshold of a
maximum 25 percent increase in existing volume. Reduction in speeds on Churchill are due to the
speed cushions. Speeds at the cushions themselves would be about 20 mph. Because every
intersection along Churchill already has stop signs, the circles probably would not reduce speeds
on Churchill. Where stop signs are removed, speeds through the intersection would rise from
existing 5-10 mph "rolling stops" to about 15 mph around the circles. If a circle were installed at
Bryant, speeds on Bryant crossing Churchill would be reduced to about 15 mph.
Four Month Trial. The traffic calming measures would be installed for a four-month trial. A
temporary version of the circle and the westbound Churchill closure at Embarcadero would be
constructed of simple elements such as an asphalt or rubber curb with no landscaping. The
speed cushions would be installed in a permanent configuration for the trial, since there is not a
"temporary" design. However, if necessary, they could be moved or removed depending on the
outcome of the trial. Traffic volumes and speeds would be measured on Churchill and
surrounding streets before the trial begins and after about four months. Success of the trial
depends primarily on the amount of speed and volume reduction on Churchill and whether or not
there are any adverse effects on adjacent streets.
Cost. The approximate total cost for design and installation of the trial and permanent
measures for this project is $170,000. The largest cost component is the two permanent
traffic circles at approximately $40,000 each. This cost would be financed through the NTCP
budget, funded by the City’s general fund.
School Commute Corridor. In addition to the above traffic calming plan, two longer-range
recommendations would be made to the Planning and Transportation Commission and City Council
as part of this study. First, Churchill would be nominated as a "school commute corridor’°--a
proposed new corridor definition that would entitle a street to special funding and safety
improvements for bicycle and pedestrian safety (which might also include more extensive
traffic calming measures). This designation would be considered at a later date by the City
Council along with a few other streets in Palo Alto.
Neighborhood Study. The second long-range recommendation would be to add this neighborhood
(boundaries to be defined) to a list of future neighborhood traffic studies so that more
comprehensive volume reduction plans could be considered along with major circulation
changes/improvements on the adjacent arterials. There currently is no funding or staffing for
these types of studies.
4/9/02 2
!571
The City of
Palo Alto
538i537
ChurchillTraffic Calming Project
Proposed Plan
FIGURE 1
This map is a product of the
City of Palo Alto GIS
O’350’
FORT WORTH, TEXAS
~ Cushions on a 30’ Road" Cushion Sizes 6.25’ x 6.5’
Traffic Circle
Lytton/Fulton, Palo Alto
FIGURE 2
CHURCHILL AVENUE TRAFFIC CALMING STUDY
DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVE TRAFFIC CALMING PLAN
In response to some residents’ comments received at the project area meeting of April 23, 2002,
the Transportation Division developed a variation of the proposed traffic calming plan-without the
left-turn prohibitions. This plan retains all the features of the original plan, with one major
exception--the two left-turn prohibitions from Embarcadero have been deleted. Please refer to the
attached figure. Refer also to the description of the original proposed plan for descriptions of the,l
remainder of the project elements. In the Alternative Plan, left-turning traffic will notdivert to
Waverley, Bryant and Coleridge as expected for the original plan. The total cost for the Alternative
Plan would be about $140,O00--about $30,000 less than the original plan.
The primary purpose of the traffic circles and speed cushions is to reduce speeds along Churchill. A
secondary benefit would be a small reduction in traffic volume due to the increased travel time and
impediments in the roadway. This reduction is expected to be about 10 percent of the volume on
Churchill, or about 200 to 350 vehicles per day (vpd). At least half of this reduction would be
comprised of cut-through (i.e., discretionary) trips. These drivers (100 to 200 vpd) would choose
adjacent arterial routes such as Embarcadero and Alma, or another corridor entirely (University,
Oregon). In other words, these trips would "disappear" from the neighborhood. On the other hand,
residents/visitors of the immediate area who decide to deviate from Churchill (100 - 150 vpd) would
still need to access their homes. They would do so by using adjacent streets and/or by turning
on/off of Churchill at a different block than usual. In other words, the Small amount of residential
traffic diverted from Churchill by the speed reduction measures would tend to spread out over
many different blocks in the area. It is estimated that the increase in any one location would not
exceed about 50-70 vpd. Compared to the existing lowest volumes in the area of about 400 vpd,
this increase of 13-18 percent is within the 25 percent diversion threshold established in the
traffic calming program guidelines.
5129/02
[143
Churchill Traffic Calming Project
Alternative Plan
Without Turn Prohibitions
This map is a product of the
City of Palo Alto GIS
0’350"
WEBSTER STREET
!I
COWPER STREET COWPER STREET
WA\rERLEY STREET
.~LMA STREET
WEBSTER STREET WEBSTER STREET
~I ~_~,
STREET
COWPER STREET
BRYANT STREET
COWPER STREET COWPER STREET
ALMA STREET
SOUTHERN PACIFIC RAILROAD
EMERSON STREET EMFI~N,~ ~T~FFT EMERSON STREET
_ _~__~ ....~--
Churchill Avenue
Traffic Calming Study
Expanded Proj ect Area
for Final Area Meeting
June 19, 2002
This map is a product of the
City of Palo Alto GIS
0’400’
City of Palo Alto
Department of Planning and
Community Environment
Attachment D
September 13, 2002
-
ION COMMISSION MEETING
’T7.00 PM, CI Y COUNCIL CHAMBERS
Transportation
Division Dear Resident:
The Churchill Avenue traffic calming project began in early 2001 and is one of the
first undertaken under the City’s new Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program
(NTCP). The purpose of this project was to use traffic calming measures to reduce
vehicle speeds and volumes on the section of Churchill between Alma and
Embarcadero. Between June 2001 and June 2002, ten project-area and working group
meetings were held. This was a long process marked by tension between the desire of
some Churchill Avenue residents for strong traffic calming measures, and the NTCP
procedures which do not permit strong measures (such as street closures) unless strict
criteria are met. Many residents desired wider-area major circulation improvements
(e.g., changes at the Alma/Churchill intersection, a reconfigured Alma/Embarcadero
interchange, etc). The NTCP is designed to address relatively simple traffic calming
problems on only a few blocks of one or two streets.
At the final area meeting this past June, the Transportation Division presented two_
alternative traffic calming plans for Churchill. A decision needed to be made at the
meeting if the plans (one or both) should be mailed out to the full project area for a
survey to implement a four-month trial. Approximately 50 residents attended this
meeting, and a dozen letters and e-mails were received. By means of two straw votes,
residents decided not to proceed further with either plan. Thus, this traffic cahning
project will not proceed furthe~; due to lack of project area support.
Normally, this outcome does not need to be presented to the Planning and
Transportation Commission. However, the Transportation Division believes it would
be best to report on this project to the Commission because (i) the process has been
unusually complicated and has exposed an aspect of the NTCP noticing procedure for
collector street projects that needs to be strengthened; and (ii) many Churchill area
residents feel that a wide-area circulation study should be implemented to address
major circulation issues south of Embarcadero between Alma and Middlefield. Thus, a
staff report to the Commission is being prepared to chronicle the Churchill traffic
250 Hamilton Avenue
P.O. Box 10250
Palo Alto, CA 94303
650.329.2520
650.617.3108 fax
Churchill Traffic Calming Project
September 12, 2002
Page 2 of 2
calming project process, and to make recommendations for Commission action
regarding items (i) and (ii) above. No recommendations will be made regarding the
traffic calming plans presented at the area meetings.
The Planning and Transportation Commission meeting will take place as noted at the
top of this letter. The staff report will be available on Friday, September 20. You may
pick up a copy of this report starting at 3:00 p.m. on September 20 at City Hall, First
Floor Information Counter, 250 Hamilton Avenue (8:00 a.m.- 5:00 p.m. Monday -
Friday); or starting at 5:00 p.m. on September 20 in a box on the front porch of the
Schwaar residence at 160 Churchill. If you would like to present your opinion on this
issue to the Commission, please plan to attend the September 25 meeting.
Alternatively, you may submit a letter or e-mail by noon Friday, September 20 to:
Planning and Transportation Commission c/o Carl Stoffel, Transportation Division,
P.O. Box 10250, Palo Alto, CA 94303 or to Planning Commission@cit¥.palo-
alto.ca.us, or hand carry it to the Transportation Division office, Fifth Floor, City Hall.
Written comments received after that time cannot be included in the Commissioners’
advance information packet, but will be given to them at the meeting.
If you have questions, please call me at (650) 329-2552.
Sincerely,
CARL STOFFEL, P.~
Transportation Engineer
MIDDL
Churchill AvenueTraffic Calming Study
Notification Area for
Planning and Transportation
Commission Meeting
September 25, 2002
This map is a product of the
City of Palo Alto GIS
500~
ATTACHMENT B
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
ll
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
MEETINGS ARE CABLECAST LIVE ON GOVERNMENT ACCESS CHANNEL 26"
September 25, 2002
REGULAR MEETING -7:00 PM
City Council Conference Room
Civic Centel; 1st Floor
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, California 94301
ROLL CALL: 7:05 PM
Commissioners:
Annette Bialson, Chair
Michael Griffin, Vice-Chair
Karen Holman
Patrick Burt
Bonnie Packer
Phyllis Cassel
Staff:
Steve Emslie, Planning Director
Joseph Kott, Chief Transportation Official
Carl Stoffel, Transportation Engineer
Zariah Betten, Executive Secretary
Chair Bialson: I’d like to call the meeting of the Planning and Transportation Commission.
Please have the roll taken. Thank you.
First item on the agenda is Oral Communications.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS. Members of the public may speak to any item not on the agenda
with a limitation of three (3) minutes per speaker. Those who desire to speak must complete a
speaker request card available from the secretary of the Commission. The Planning and
Transportation Commission reserves the right to limit the oral communications period to 15
minutes.
Chair Bialson: I have a Maryanne Welton. You have three minutes, thank you.
Maryalm~ Welton, 660 Kendall Avenue, Palo Alto: Good evening. I wanted to invite you to a
tour of Alma Place in preparation for the presentation at the Opportunity Center which will be
shown to you on the evening of October 30t~. I’m the project manager with Rob [Quiggley]
Architects and the Opportunity Center is a homeless services center and affordable housing
project proposed for [Encina] Avenue will come before you for the first time as a PC process on
October 30t~ and I just wanted to invite you all on a tour of Alma Place, so you have an idea on
City of Palo Alto Page 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
the type of housing that we’re looking at. Zariah, I think has given you possible times and dates
for the tour so if you can get back to her, then I will coordinate getting you all there and give you
a tour. Thank you.
CONSENT CALENDAR. Items will be voted on in one motion unless removed from the
calendar by a Commission Member.
Chair Bialson: Thank you. We do not have any Consent Calendar items.
AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS. The agenda may have additional
items added to it up until 72 hours prior to meeting time.
Chair Bialson: There are no Agenda Changes.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS.
Public Hearings: None.
Other Items: None.
Chair Bialson: There are no unfinished business.
NEW BUSINESS.
Public Hearings:
Churchill Avenue Traffic Calming Project: The Transportation Division will report
on the Churchill Avenue Traffic Calming Project, with a recommendation to place the
"South of Embarcadero" area (exact boundaries currently undefined) on a list of future
neighborhood traffic studies; and to nominate Churchill Avenue for a future list of
"school commute corridors."
Chair Bialson: I have some speaker cards. Are there any others? No. I think we’ll start with
perhaps the Staff in making the presentation first.
Joseph Kott, Chief Transportation Official: Good evening, Chair Bialson and members of the
Commission. You have before you a Staff Report on the Churchill Avenue Traffic Calming
Project which concluded in June of this year after about a year of work that was undertaken by
our Staff in conjunction with and in collaboration with residents of Churchill and environs. The
Churchill Project was a very difficult environment due to the nature of the street being a collector
street. It’s really a street whose catchman area is wider than just the residences on it. The street
that has experienced a rise in traffic and does experience many of these associated problems with
traffic, in terms of its impact on residential life. So micro-chasm of the difficulties that residents
face in dealing with traffic management on collector streets. This was the first project
undertaken under the Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program, which was adopted by Council on
April 2001. This street was petitioned for Traffic Calming actually before the Neighborhood
Traffic Calming Program began in November, that is November 2000. We began working with
the neighborhood in earnest to have the Council adopt the Traffic Calming Program guidelines.
And we have a report for you on the results of that work with recommendations that have come
out of our work with the Churchill neighborhood, not only pertaining to Churchill itself but to
City of Palo Alto Page 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
the Traffic Calming Program particularly notification of wider area residence as we pursue our
work in the future.
Carl Stoffel has that short discussion, had on this specific recommendations and the process that
he undertook in working with residents. I’ll be glad to answer questions now or if the
Commission would prefer, we would be glad to after Carl’s presentation is finished.
Carl Stoffel, Transportation Engineer: This would be a very brief presentation. We don’t have
as many complex technical issues as we did last week. As Joe said, this is the first project started
under our program. It’s a focus problem area even though the project area extended from Alma
up to Embarcadero. A lot of the more intense part of the problem really is in the first block or
two, east of AIma so the problem tended to drop off quite a bit in the remainder of the project
area. As Joe said, it was a very long public process. This was the first project started, but at this
point, there’s been several other projects that have started later that have moved quite a bit ahead
in the process.
In our working group, there really was very minimal consensus. There was just enough to
produce a Traffic Calming plan that we took to the neighborhood, but even that was quite
difficult. And one of the main reasons was that residents really wanted a lot more than what we
could offer them under the Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program. As pointed out in your
Staff Report, there was a lot of concern about cut-through traffic, about major circulation issues
in the neighborhood. And our program as you know, is very limited. It’s purposely meant to be
limited and streamlined in trying to deal with small project areas, small street segrnents. It is
difficult on collector streets to stick to the small scale because more people use those streets than
a typical local street.
The project basically got stuck or ended at Step #5 which is where we presented the Traffic
Calming plan to the neighborhood. We actually deviated a little bit from our procedure. There
were so many residents from adjacent streets that were not directly affected by the project that
really felt that they should have a voice in the project, that we included them in our
determination of consensus about whether the plan should even go forward for a vote. Normally,
we could hear what they had to say but we would not let them actually formally participate in
that way. Normally, those people would be coming to the Planning Commission meetings to
argue their point. We’ll be following that procedure for the Lewis Road Project in a few weeks.
So this project was the origin of this now famous quotation, it was in the paper on Sunday about
the Palo Alto process that we’re not voting on the plan, we’re voting on whether to give the
residents a chance to vote on the plan. So, maybe that will go down in history now as part of our
Palo Alto process. I think that was me, I said that.
Mr. Kott: I’d like to hasten to add that that was Carl Stoffel’s quote.
Mr. Stoffel: Basically what we were determining at that point, which was our last project area
meeting was to see if there was consensus, not so much on the plan itself but consensus to even
send the plan out to the neighborhood for one of our surveys, which is where we have in our
procedures certain percentages required of the residence who are on the affected streets to vote
as to whether the plan should go in for a trial. And then, of course, it comes to you to make that
final determination. We did that for the Lewis Road Project. So we actually did not get to the
City of Palo Alto Page 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
survey step, which was a Step #6. We basically stopped at the point where there was lack of
consensus to go that far.
So the outcomes of this study, as Joe mentioned, when we came to about a couple of months ago
about recommended changes in our Neighborhood Traffic Calming procedure, which by the way
have still not gone to the Council. We recommended and you did approve to remove street
closure and volume reduction measures from the Traffic Calming program and the reason we
brought that recommendation to you was because it was obvious from the Churchill Project that
those kinds of projects quickly get too big and too complicated for our spot treatment program.
So you’ve already made a recommendation on that one. Council hasn’t bought off on that one
yet but that will be soon.
Another which we’re bringing you tonight, which has become apparent both on this project and
the Lewis Road project is that with collector streets, there really are a lot of people that are quite
interested in the way those streets function. And what we’ve decided to do is explain in your
Report is to develop what we call a Notification Area which we define for each project to at least
let the people know what’s going on because I think that was part of the problem in both projects
is people were caught by surprise and understandably they were upset and they didn’t know
about it beforehand, so we think it would be best to at least notify people that a project is going
on. And then we would do some type of what we call Advisory Survey that we’re doing this for
the Lewis Road Project now for people to get a chance to say what they think about the project,
but it would still not be part of our more formal part of the process where the residents on the
affected street actually, we need a 50% or 60% indication that the project should go forward for a
trial. So this wider area would be information that we would be presenting to you when the
decision time comes but our decision about whether the recommendation should go forward for a
trial, we’d be looking at the more focused project street survey results.
And finally, the two recormnendations specifically for this study, which came about early in the
study process, not at the end. This came about during the Working Group meetings where it
became apparent that many residents wanted something bigger changes in the neighborhood. So
that’s where we want to recommend to you to place this project on a list of future neighborhood
studies, that as of yet we don’t necessarily have a means to do that but at least we can make this
statement, and we gave you some details as to what that might entail, if and when that goes
forward.
And finally, on what we were recommending that this be nominated or to be placed on a future
list, which I think will be next year of school commute corridors which would entitle those
streets to special Traffic Calming treatment and to enhance pedestrian and bicycle travel. So we
thought both of these would be good recommendations for the future looking at what we can do
on Churchill and the surrounding area. So that concludes the presentation and, of course, there’s
more detail on your Report. We can answer any questions that you have.
Chair Bialson: Do the Commissioners have any questions? Bonnie.
Commissioner Packer: I have a question about how the decisions about identifying a street as a
school commute corridor, or identifying a neighborhood for a wider study. How do those
decisions would relate to that citywide traffic study that’s being done now? And how that study
will help inform the process of making these decisions?
City of Palo Alto Page 4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Mr. Kott: This Commission asks awfully good questions. The two are probably only indirectly
related. The citywide traffic study is an upgrade of future projections. We’re going to look at
what’s likely to come about on our street and work in terms of congestion and traffic volumes
between intersections, the Levels of Service changes at intersections. These obviously do affect
nearby residential areas and residential streets. For example, the more congested an in.tersection
becomes in a major intersection, the more likely it becomes that some drivers will choose to cut
through a shorter route along the local residential street or a collector residential street. So
there’s a connection there but it isn’t really a direct connection.
The school commute work. The development of objective criteria by which a list of streets will
be formally designated by Council as school commute corridors. It will be a change in our street
classification scheme..We will add a classification called collector streets. This Commission has
already discussed some of the implications of that. For example, in the last Commission
meeting, discussion on study session on CEQA traffic thresholds. Other possible implications
would be in Transportation Investment policies. For example, focusing pedestrian and bicycle
facilities, investment of monies of City. The City may get through grants or through general
fund or street improvement funds to make improvements first on the school commute corridors.
A note on the school cormnute corridor work. We’re asking this Commission to nominate
Churchill, obviously we have to first develop this list of criteria, bring the list of criteria and the
candidates that qualify into the criteria to this Commission and then the Council. So we’re
saying here that Churchill will be next to Charleston, it’s the second street on the candidates list.
We’re not saying that because we don’t have the criteria, we’re not saying that asking you to
forw~ird the designation of school commute corridor on Churchill to Council. We’re not quite at
thatpoint yet. But this gives Churchill the kind of pride and place as being the second street that
will be considered. And we have every reason to think that at the end of any objective criteria
setting process, Churchill will be on that list, given to you later and then to Council.
Chair Bialson: Any other questions? Pat.
Commissioner Burt: Just a follow up on that. I was struck by the discussion of Churchill being
the school commute corridor when we have currently an excellent bike lane on Coleridge, one
street east of Churchill that dumps directly into the Embarcadero and Middlefield intersection.
Why are we looking at Churchill as the commute corridor rather than emphasizing bike route
down Coleridge?
Mr. Kott: Commissioner Burt, we’re not presenting a complete set of proposed school commute
corridors. Again, to clarify, we are asking Commission to nominate Churchill. We will get other
nominations of streets through the south Palo Alto school commute study and through north Palo
Alto, and through PTA’s and neighborhood associations. So we’ll have other sources of
nominations. But we thought in light of the work that had been done with the Churchill area
residence and the concerns expressed and information discovered, that Churchill belongs on the
nomination list. But we’re not saying Churchill is a final necessarily but on the nomination list.
Chair Bialson: Any other of the Commissioners? Bonnie.
Commissioner Packer: There is a joint committee between the school district and the City on
school safety. Is that another source of information for nominating school commute corridors?
City of Palo Alto Page 5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
And secondly, my other question is, do you need Planning Commission nominations for these
things? Can’t you just come up with from all these sources? Would our nomination
inadvertently give a different kind of weight to the nomination as opposed to you can just decide
on your own? In other words, why do you need the Planning Commission to do this?
Mr. Kott: Well, on the first question, the City school Traffic Safety committee will be asked to
nominate streets, as well as I said, the neighborhood associations and the PTA’s and so forth. On
the second question, I guess partly this is a symbolic gesture in recognition of the concerns and
the efforts. Concerns and the effort made by the Churchill area residents. We won’t do this
process inductively. We will develop logical objective criteria and compare those to all the
streets nominated. We won’t develop the criteria to fit the streets nominated, in other words.
But this is partly a symbolic gesture.
Chair Bialson: Any other Commissioners before we go to the public? No. Okay. I have six
speaker cards and each speaker will be given five minutes. The first card is John MacDaniels, to
be followed by Karen Ewart.
John MacDaniels, 1521 Emerson, Palo Alto: I’m John MacDaniels and I live on the 1500 block
of Emerson. I am not directly on Churchill but as of about 4 years ago after commuting for 33
years to San Francisco and walking out of my front door and down to the California Avenue
train station, I ventured in retirement down the right two houses and so at 7:45 a.m., a cacophony
of car horns and a mess of cars that were backed up from the intersection of Alma all the way to
the Emerson intersection and back almost all the way up to Bryant. So in that regard, I have
some traffic planning suggestions myself as of now. I thought that was an intolerable situation
and after discussing it with the people who live on Churchill, I realized this has been a growing
situation that has only gotten worse.
There are really two intersecting inseparable problems here. Number one, the increasing
intolerable traffic problems of volume and speeding on Churchill Avenue. Number two, the
confluence of imminent disasters called the intersection of Churchill, Alma and the trains. This
is a problem so serious, our Chief of Police admitted it as the most unique combination of
hazards in the City. This one intersection combines, and I’m just going to give you a rough off-
the-cuff indication of what transpires here. This one intersection combines 86 north, southbound
trains every 20 minutes, an additional third rail baby bullet to come exceeding current speeds.
High schoolers biking and walking to and from school, Walter Hayes students with their parents
in two frequently, walking or biking or scootering or skating or skateboarding to and from south
gate, Jordan students biking and walking to and from south gate, north/south biking,
north!southbound traffic on six narrow lanes of Alma often exceeding the speed limits and often
intolerant of school kids crossing, the 100 block of Churchill residents trying to back out from
driveways into impatient drivers trying to make the light. A dozen school buses crossing Alma
in the track stopping, starting, stopping, aggressive Churchill drivers pushing the school bikers
into the curb. Castilleja’s gym classes crossing the Paly’s oval track for running and back, mix
in the emergency vehicles of fire, police and rescue pushing the envelope of safety, fighting
Alma and Churchill cars and the trains. Thus, the traffic problem of Churchill’s cut-through glut,
speed and driver attitude is just one of the crisis caused by the larger problem, the
Alma/Churchill train track convergence.
City of Palo Alto Page 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
A unique unusually hazardous situation in Palo Alto demands a unique solution. Now, not in
some vague distant long-term planning tack. Otherwise, the intersection is a major fatality
disaster waiting to happen and everyone can talk about near misses in the past. And despite
testimony from other people to the contrary, the traffic year by year has been getting worse. The
real solution to solve both interlocking problems together of the Churchill traffic glut and speed
problem and this disastrous intersection.
Number one, close Churchill westbound at Alma. Close Churchill eastbound at the train tracks.
Two, use radio activated retractable bollards enabling emergency vehicles to cross with little
time loss. Stanford University uses this throughout. Number three, construct pedestrian bike
underpass, long overdue, under Alma and the tracks. Number four, close following east/west
residential streets at Alma, full closings or maybe just removable bollards. Melville, Kellogg,
Coleridge, Lowell, Tennyson. If need be, seal Rinconada, Santa Rita, Washington. And the fifth
one is put a traffic light at Embarcadero westbound at Alma to allow left turns on to Alma in
addition to the right turns that already exists. My conclusion is, east/west traffic instead of
cutting through and violating smaller residential streets must use the volume capable of major
routes from E1 Camino, Alma and Bayshore, namely streets like Embarcadero and Oregon
Avenue. In erasing the growing thread of Palo Alto’s most hazardous intersection, this now
solves the major conundrum of this belabored transport project as stated by their own September
memo, "The desire of Churchill Avenue residents for strong Traffic Calming measures in the
NTCP procedures which do not permit strong measures. " Thank you for your forbearance.
Chair Bialson: Thank you. Karen, you are to be followed by David Fencl.
Karen Ewart, 120 Churchill Avenue, Palo Alto: I’m Karen, I live on 100 block of Churchill. I
came here with one thing to say, where these gentlemen had to say, now I have something else to
say. I found the process with the City was to emphasize, patronize and euthanize. I was on the
original working committee. There was consensus except for one dissenter at times who came in
deliberately, I guess as a rob. There were certain plans that Mr. Stoffel presented that his boss
might approve of and only to hear on the next week that these could not happen, different things.
As far as I’m concerned, we were looking at a bifurcated plan, a neighborhood Traffic Calming
Project that would put in traffic circles and speed bumps, with a second plan that would take
years and budget and the involvement of the neighborhood for the larger measures. This whole
thing seems to have gotten lost and I liken it to analogy of, if I was your personal secretary and
you all had something to get out, and I had something a cancer on my body. If I have to go out
on sick leave and get this addressed, it would inconvenience you, however, it’s still my body and
I should be able to address my situation.
The 100 block of Churchill is a nightmare. I feel the City is facing a future lawsuit on the large
angry beast who is out in the middle of the street screaming, slow down at people. I have taken
out the radar gun, clocked people in excess of 40 and 50 mph. Sure, they mentioned Charleston.
Charleston is double the size of Churchill. Recently, we’ve had new striping put in. It’s been
made larger on one side to park. We only have parking on one side. Now, people are swerving
around to miss the bicyclists coming to oncoming traffic. We have a nightmare situation. You
can see these pictures. This is in the morning and this doesn’t even adequately represent the
people coming at you fi-om both sides. We have the people coming eastbound on the train
tracks, who basically think this is great starting point to get airbound. I have seen people fly
City of Palo Alto Page 7
1
2
3
4
5
through the air. They seem to think it’s Streets of San Francisco. That’s one side. A lot of them
are teen-agers from the high school.
The second part is the other direction in the morning. Just yesterday, my daughter pulled into a
driveway right behind that jeep to back out and park her car. We can’t use our driveway, there’s
6 a house being built behind, I’m a tenant not an owner. She nearly gets creamed by a gardening
7 truck who didn’t think it was a great thing to wait. She took off after him. It is risking a life but
8 we’ve all had it. I’ve taken off after people myself and said, "Slow down." I’ve lost cats. I’ve
9 almost lost my dog. There’s many children. Everybody on the south side of street, a lot of
10 people are tenants. There are two properties, they cross the street to park. So you have a
11 constant influx of people, pedestrians, bicyclists, animals, kids, speeding BMW’s as you see
12 right there, people just think it’s a lot of fun to accelerate to that Emerson stop sign. It’s a living
13 nightmare. The noise level, the car horns tooting, the trains come, everybody is angry. I took
14 out my neighbor’s fence once, I didn’t try to. I was sitting twenty minutes, I angled my car and
15 angled to try to back down Churchill and took out two rungs of the fence. I was late for school, I
16 had to do something. They won’t let people in. So we’ve begged for police enforcement.
17 We’ve gotten very little response and now we’re hearing they’re incredibly short-handed. I’m
18 IT. And I swear to God someday I’m going to get blown away for yelling at the wrong person,
19 but the frustration is terrible. There is no peace. There is no safety. There is no intelligence
20 behind the planning of the street. And now, we get some sleek advertising guy who comes in
21 from all the surrounding streets after they come in and state this liberal opinion, "Ooh, we should
22 all forbear the progress and we should all deal with this." And then he passes this out saying,
23 "Churchill Avenue residents are demanding the City to divert commuter traffic to its side
24 streets." Will diverting help you? And he says, "3,700 vehicles a day, speeding vehicles." It’s
25 okay for us to take it? At the very least, under the neighborhood Traffic Calming, the circles at
26 Emerson and perhaps Bryant or Waverly, and the speed bumps on the 100 block are a necessity,
27 they are an emergency, they should have happened months ago. And it ~hould have nothing to
28 do with anybody and any other street because I don’t care about the undercarriage of their car
29 and I don’t care what the appearance of the street looks like to people who are worried about
30 their property values two blocks down, when it comes to possibly taking a life on that street.
31 I’ve seen more accidents. Barbara Mayhem that did a letter, she lives at 128, I lived at 128 in the
32 front house for the first half of my residence. I’v.e been there 13 years, I moved to 120, I have
33 had more blood on the white chair in my front yard of bicyclists who are injured. There’s always
34 this chair, they’ve been helped to the chair and the paramedics are there. It’s got to stop! And
35 you guys have to do something. It’s a potential lawsuit. Please help us. I’d appreciate it. Thank
36 you.
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
Chair Bialson: Thank you very much. David Fencl and following you would be Margaret Lane.
David Fencl, 159 Churchill, Palo Alto: My name is David Fencl and I live at 159 Churchill and
I’ve been a resident there for about 20 years. I was on the original group that noticed of residents
that things had deteriorated and we didn’t know what to do. And we had several meetings and
we were made aware of the Traffic Calming procedures and a number of very generous
residents, I couldn’t do it, but step forward and spend a lot of time trying to understand. It was
very disappointing because we realized very quickly that the magnitude of the problem was far
greater than what this little program could address, which Carl talked about.
City of Pa!o Alto Page 8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
¯ 22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
I have a slightly different opinion than Karen has. I see the quandary the City is in. We are
frustrated and we don’t know what to do. We realize that the amount of demand being placed on
our little street, which is designated a corridor, it’s a collector, but it really is a little residential
street. We only have one parking on one side. There is bike traffic in both directions. We have
heavy student traffic, pedestrian traffic going back and forth for all different reasons. High
school, people come in the other direction. A lot of bike traffic going towards Stanford, east and
west because you can get by at grade there and the train tracks, which as they’ve added trains
more frequently during the rush hour, the crossing arms drop and interrupt the signaling at the
light, which makes it more frustrating for people trying to get through and making turns.
You may notice that there is a very heavy left-turn traffic from Alma northbound on to Churchill
going west because if you’re trying to get to the entrance by the stadium at Embarcadero Road,
there is no way to make a left turn. So you really are required to make this left turn. Now in
most mornings, that back up is six blocks long. It goes past Lowell. Well, it doesn’t take
anybody sitting in that traffic very long to realize that it’s very easy to make a right turn on any
of the street, go down to Emerson, loop around and come in to Churchill that direction. And
what they’ve noticed is the police can’t be there, there is no forward traffic Churchill west
between 7:30 and 8:00. So either make the loop before 7:30 or you get there and you’ll look and
you see if there’s any enforcement and you go through and there is very frequently, more than
half the car just going through the intersection. The police can’t be everywhere. And so there’s
a great deal of non-compliance. With the students, right turns, it really is a safety issue. We
don’t know what to do as the back up gets further up Emerson.
If you happen to live on north side where the parking is, backing out is difficult. You have
students in both directions. You have cars that you’re trying to get in, and people that have
waited two and three light cycles. I’m sure you’d be frustrated, too, if you had been waiting in
traffic that long. I believe that the answers, we’re just indicative of a much bigger problem,
which is more regional and we recognize that. We were very disappointed to find out that many
options in the Traffic Calming process were removed from us. You just couldn’t allow that, the
police and the fire, we couldn’t have this. So there were very few features that we could get with
and we could use and the little committee tried to come up with a minimum little plan to try to
help a little bit, realizing that the problem was much larger. Many of the residents in the
neighborhood and outside of Churchill felt that it was such an imposition potentially on them.
Thus, they ganged up against us and it went nowhere.
We don’t know what to do. We love our neighborhood, we love Palo Alto. We realize that
things are getting worse. We’re concerned about the safety. The speeding is serious. I walk at
5:00 in the morning and it’s amazing at 5:00, how many people don’t make the stop sign at
Emerson and Churchill at a slow pace, roll through it and slam it to get through the light at Alma.
The amount of truck traffic on that street. This evening I came home early and between 5:00 and
6:30, 27 delivery trucks. I think that’s a little high on a residential street. It’s cut-through traffic.
It’s part of the larger problem of Embarcadero Road. We recognize that we sympathize with
those people because we are having the same problem. We just don’t know what to do. And we
ask your help in trying to fashion a longer, much more global answer with the train being one of
the most complicating factors. Thank you.
Chair Bialson: Thank you very much. Next is Margaret Lane to be followed by Kerry Yarkin.
City of Palo Alto Page 9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Margaret Lane, 1500 Bryant, Palo A!to: Thank you for the opportunity to speak tonight. My
name is Margaret Lane, I live at the comer of Churchill and Bryant, the southwest comer. My
address is 1500. Often times when I meet people and tell them where I live, the most common
response is, "I drive by your house all the time." And that’s why I’m in front of you, people
drive by my house all the time. Mainly going up and down Churchill. I have four children from
the age of 5 to 12. We moved over 7 years ago into this house. We chose the house because of
its location. A lot of times, the subject came up in the few working group meetings that I was
able to make that people on Churchill chose to live there. We chose to live by a high school.
We chose to live on a bike route. And, indeed, we did choose to live there. It’s a very
convenient place, you can walk to downtown. I can get easily on to major streets like
Embarcadero and E1 Camino or up to 101 or out to 280.
What I did not choose to do is to live on a comer where two years ago, an accident happened in
our intersection where one of the people involved in the accident came up over the rocks in front
of our house and banged into our front gate, pulling out two metal stakes in the gate. I’m sorry I
don’t have pictures to show you. It’s in the police reports from June 2000. The other thing that
we did not expect was to hear on a regular basis the screech of tires at that intersection and with
increasing frequency obscenities yelled by bikers at people who are raising up and down
Churchill and running that stop sign.
So, yes, indeed, we have all chosen to live in this neighborhood. But we’ve not chosen to have
the kinds of complications that I’ve discussed and that other people are going to be speaking and
have spoken about this evening. I was not part of the process long-term. And I feel bad that I
wasn’t able to do that because it is a very dangerous intersection and as most of the other people
who are here to speak to you tonight, we live in fear that a child will be hurt. We’ve already had
injury accidents at that intersection, and we’ve had lots of other accidents, too. Another point
that was brought up in our working meeting as that, well, there weren’t that many police reports
from that intersection. Well, there’s a lot of near misses. And there are a lot of situations
between Paly students where no one is really hurt, the car really isn’t hurt so they won’t make a
police report, so it won’t show up on their insurance.
So, a lot of this is anecdotal and we understand that. And a lot of it is not necessarily supported
by numbers that make it the worst intersection and the worst area in Palo Alto. But we are
anecdotes. We are neighbors, we are individuals and we have seen this. We’ve chosen to live in
this neighborhood. We would live probably nowhere else but as we will all say to you tonight.
We’re looking to your leadership to help us in all of our disagreement and various experiences
and anecdotes to somehow pull this together so that the unthinkable doesn’t happen. Thank you.
Chair Bialson: Thank you very much. Next is Kerry Yarkin to be followed by Bill Powar.
Kerry Yarkin, 135 Churchill, Palo Alto: Good evening, Commissioners. I know you’ve heard
from me before and I started this process two years ago, but actually the first letter we wrote to
the City was three years ago. And our families and property is in the middle of Churchill, the
first 100 block since the 1960’s. I rented there and my cousin lived there and my sister lived
there, I know the street for over 15 years very well. And the letter I read, the packet that I sent to
you was basically pretty calm and very nice and actually things changed. I kind of changed my
perspective a few days ago when I found out some other information. But basically I’m very
concerned about the safety issues on the street. I see a near-accident every single day, I am not
City of Palo Alto Page 10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
exaggerating. I’ve gone out there and looking at the intersection and seeing where cars are going
and how fast they’re going. And what is really becoming a major problem is just getting out of
our driveway or off the curb to in the morning to get on the opposite side, going the opposite way
of all the traffic that’s lined up on trying to cross the train tracks.
Well, first I l~ave to go out of my car and ask people to move so I can get my car in between two
cars because the back up is over a block long. So then I go out and they’re sitting there bored
and a lot of times they’re very, very polite and they’ll move their car back so I can move my car
out on to the street but then I have a blind spot because I can’t see if there’s traffic coming in the
opposite direction. So every morning, I have a blind spot. I can basically be hit and I can have
an accident every single morning of my life going to work. And I see that very often because my
neighbors behind me have a split lot. They have to back their car out back first into a line of
traffic and it’s becoming impossible. And I just saw my neighbor today this morning when I was
taking pictures of some intersections around [rear checks] and he said he had a near-miss the
other day when someone came 60 miles an hour off the train tracks and he was almost hit. So
this is a daily occurrence that we are now living with. It’s become this bad.
And one of my concerns which was brought up in our. committee was we had a recommendation
to one of the strongest parts of the plan was to do something about Embarcadero where you can
make a left turn on to Churchill. Now, I feel that this is very unsdfe and I know a lot of people
use it, my husband likes to use it but I keep telling him, this is not a safe turn. This is
Embarcadero going west and what happens is, you’ve got a lot of traffic on Embarcadero so they
do this quick little left turn here where Churchill runs into Embarcadero. But as you can see,
cars are lining up in this lane. So let’s say you’ve got 3, 4, 5 cars lined up, this car here is
making a left turn. Then you’ve got all these other cars that may not be making a left turn. They
have to get over into the right lane. Okay, now, this car, I wrote this up in one of my sheets that I
turned into you, he’s got to pass all the eastbound Embarcadero traffic. The Embarcadero traffic
sometimes backs up from Middlefield way over here all the way back to here. So, he is playing
a little game just to get across the center section, then all these cars here are moving over into the
number one lane with a lot of oncoming traffic that could hit them. So that is occurring all the
time, especially when the Walter Hayes school traffic is going on. That I think is very, very
unsafe.
This is just another shot I took of what’s going on with the bicyclists which have been mentioned
here. You’ve got a bicyclist, you’ve got like a speedway going there and you’ve got a lot of cars
and a lot of them are going over 35. The other area that I wanted to bring up was that the Staff,
every time in our 8 meetings that we had, Staff would bring forth some study or some
percentage. I submitted to you again, I already went to the Planning Commission and I
submitted this to the City Council that 40% cut-through figure is not correct. Now I have gone
through this. I want to go through it one more time. The license plate survey was taken ti:om
7:00 to 9:00 a.m. in the morning and 12:00 to 5:00 in the afternoon. Some of the busiest times of
the day, go up from 9:00 to 9:30 in the morning and the evening traffic is completely cut-
through. I will invite you all to come to my house and we can just watch all the cars going
through.
I could speak probably for 15 more minutes about this because I’m so upset about it and I feel
that our traffic pain is not really being felt either Commissioners or people or just the people on
Churchill. And I hope that you read this because this has really upset me. What happened with
City of Palo Alto Page 11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
the Palo Alto process I feel was very much usurped because if you read this, I just want to make
sure you know what happened here. A neighbor who does not live on Churchill, lives on a side
street and he distributed this to all the side streets, not Churchill residents to get them to go out to
the second consensus meeting, they all went there and they voted down the plan. So we did not
get to vote. We who have thousands of cars on our streets in unsafe condition. Thank you.
Chair Bialson: Thank you very much. Next speaker is Bill Powar.
Bill Powar, 1310 Emerson, Palo Alto: Hi, I’m Bill Powar. I live at 1310 Emerson Street and I
guess I’m one of the residents of that wider notification area. I think I’m the only one who
showed up tonight. And the reason that I did is we had been involved several years ago with
some discussions with the City regarding Castilleja’s parking and traffic patterns. And what I
would like the Commission to try to figure out a way to do if you can. I think my neighbor most
eloquently described the quandary that we face. But there’s no question that the street layouts in
Palo Alto were not, in particular in this area were not designed to handle the type of traffic that
we’re facing today.
Embarcadero is not a proper street to carry the cross traffic coming from areas in Palo Alto and
coming from 101 that want to go south on to Ahna. There’s no way to get from Embarcadero to
turn left to go south on Alma. There is also no way to get from Alma going northbound on to
Embarcadero to hit E1 Camino and the employment at Stanford, the shopping center. People
who want to get to areas that are west of E1 Camino. And if there is any way that the
Commission can put a priority on re-analyzing traffic patterns, re-designing the whole
intersection and traffic pattern between-E1 Camino, Embarcadero and Alma, I would really
recommend it. We really don’t have time as the Churchill neighbors have indicated to wait for
the normal 10 year process to go through, a detailed long-term plan and to line up for budgets
and the rest of it.
We seem to have been able to find $350,000 to put a bike lane on Bryant. I would hope we
could find half a million or a million to re-configure the intersections at Embarcadero because
that’s where the real problem is. It’s the confluence of those streets and the fact that Churchill is
the only way to get across the traffic there for across the train tracks for a lot of the traffic
patterns that exists.
I would like to answer Commissioner Burt’s question that was posed to the Staff as a resident of
the area of why that is a bike lane and why this is a designated corridor. The reality is, Paly high
school is on Churchill. It’s not on Coleridge, you can’t get across Alma at Coleridge and no
matter what the City would like to happen, the bicyclists will use Churchill. The walkers will
use Churchill because that’s the only way to get across the train tracks. And if we try to do
something else and we spend a lot of money to do it, it’s just going to be wasted because people
are going to go where the natural patterns are going to lead them. But again, I’d just like to
reiterate, that if there is any way that the Commission can make this a priority, not bury it as part
of an overall City study that will last 5 years and it’ll be another 20 years before implementation.
Thirty years ago, Kellogg and Melville were closed to cross traffic at Embarcadero when these
problems first started to occur. I was a graduate student at Stanford in 1968-69 when this
happened. I think the problems with Churchill are much greater than those that cause that to
happen with those two streets. And I don’t think we have a lot of time. And sophisticated,
City of Palo Alto Page 12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
complex plans are not necessarily going to work. I think we really do need a complete re-
analysis of how to configure Embarcadero and Alma. Thank you.
Chair Bialson: Thank you. I have no more speaker cards so I’ll close the public hearing on that
matter and bring it back to the Commissioners. Does Staff have anything to say? No.
Commissioners?
Commissioner Cassel: I had a question on the volume studies that were done and studies that
were done for cut-through traffic. Why did you choose the times you chose and why didn’t you
go through at least 7:00 p.m. on that count for the traffic license cut-through traffic?
Mr. Stoffel: I believe we had a problem with the license study. The first time we did it was
during the time of year when it was light until late and we did go, I believe until about that time.
But we had some problems with that study and the company that did it and it had to be re-done.
And by the time we got to be able to re-do it, it was December and it was dark at 5:00 and the
study was done by looking at license plates. So we had to end it at 5:00. But what we did was
we took those percentages that we find, from 4:00 to 5:00 is a busy commute time. There’s
plenty of cut-through traffic, there’s plenty of cut-through traffic in the morning. So we
extrapolated those rates that we measured during those times and we applied it. We just assumed
that it would take place for the whole day. So, I don’t live on Churchill. Surely, the residents
know perhaps more people do cut through at 6:00 to 7:00 but I know 4:00 to 5:00 and 5:00 to
6:00 is in the middle of the commute time. It would have been better to have that data, but it
would have meant waiting several more months and it was unfortunate that we did have a
problem with the license study.
Chair Bialson: Any other questions? Pat.
Commissioner Burt: It’s been a few months since we had the Churchill program go through.
Could you review for us a couple of aspects of it? One was the alternative plan that did not
involve street closures. What caused that plan to not have overwhelming support? Was it
partially people who wanted the closures objecting to something shy of closures or was it the
adjacent streets or some combination?
Mr. Kott: Speaking at the so-called third public meeting, we were surprised by that, too. And I
remember reading something about it’s impossible for someone who’s warm to understand
someone who’s cold, in reference to a Siberian labor camp. But it seems farfetched. But
empathy sometimes is very hard to achieve or to attain. I think the atmosphere was generally of
a lot of apprehension about traffic shift. And that’s what happens when you have a graded street
network and a lot of traffic bearing on it so that people I think were just generally very
apprehensive of any change that might shift any amount of traffic.
For example, the plan of this so-called alternative plan didn’t have the turn band, the turn
restriction off of Embarcadero, but it did have traffic circles. And sure, fine, we use those in
Palo Alto, not everyone loves them but they seem to work very well. But there’s some
apprehension that whereas I think that drivers would avoid Churchill to avoid these circles. Or
we proposed speed cushions. Before we had the uproar about speed cushions in town but there’s
some apprehension that any vertical device would shift traffic on to parallel streets or cause
City of Palo Alto Page 13
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
drivers to cut their trips short and go on to side streets. I’m only speculating. But we did have a
pretty resounding vote in the larger meeting against even the mild plan.
Mr. Stoffel: Could I just add that at that larger area meeting, when we tallied the votes for the
milder plan, I did tally them just for the Churchill corridor and the cross streets where the traffic
circles were which is our normal way of tabulating survey votes. And even in that area, it was
just 50-50. And we were at this point, to define consensus we were looking for, 60% of the
people in favor. So even looking at just that smaller area where the people really were concerned
about Traffic Calming somehow by that point of the process we still didn’t get what we were
considering to be consensus by that measure.
Chair Bialson: Any other questions? Karen.
Commissioner Holman: At what point would Staff and, in this case, I guess the Police
department also consider overriding what the survey or poll of the neighbors indicated to
increase safety on the street?
Mr. Kott: Well, as one of the speakers suggested that Police Staff resources are stretched very
thin and very difficult for them to cover all of the locations. And we have to figure out like we
have over a thousand intersections with stop signs or signals on them in Palo Alto. It’s very
hard. The accident data we have gotten was not compelling, you might say. It didn’t mean
immediate big triage effort. Maybe there are a lot of near-misses and I wouldn’t be surprised
because you’ve got all kinds of people getting frustrated waiting in long queues. And safety is
our first obligation, we didn’t feel that conditions on Churchill warranted what might one call
emergency measures.
Mr. Stoffel: Let me add that the study area did not include the intersection of Alma and
Churchill. Our Traffic Calming Program includes the street segments. It did not continue across
Alma. So when we talked about the accidents not overwhelming and so on, it did not include
what goes on at Alma and Churchill.
Chair Bialson: Okay, Karen.
Commissioner Holman: Mr. MacDaniels, I believe, said that and maybe you would need to
respond to this, I’m not sure. He said that the Churchill/Alma train convergence was a danger
point, even acknowledged by the Chief of Police. Is Staff aware of that? What could be said
about that?
Mr. Kott: Commissioner Holman, this Commission has, I think in past has discussed issues
about under crossings or at grade crossings. At grade crossings are safety problems waiting to
happen because you have the convergence of very, very dissimilar modes with different speeds
and crossing one another. You’ve got bikes, you’ve got motor vehicles and you’ve got trains. I
should say in a more perfect world, separating all of our at grade crossings, grade separating
them would be strictly from a safety perspective, would be highly desirable. But we don’t
operate strictly from a safety perspective. There are a lot of other issues that were covered in the
Comprehensive Planning process to bear on whether or not the City grade that separates works
with Caltrain, typically grade to separate these locations.
City of Palo Alto Page 14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
Chair Bialson: Michael.
Vice-Chair Griffin: More on that same line. Joe, you say that the amount of safety problems on
that stretch of road did not justify emergency action. Would you characterize Churchill a little
bit for us. Is it in the top 5% or where are we on this thing?
Mr. Kott: I will say, I don’t know whether it’s on the top 5%. We’ve recently done a report of
high accident locations in Palo Alto. And I don’t believe any of them are on Churchill, any of
the intersections are on Churchill. But I will say that collector streets like Churchill and I would
say Lewis, too, are streets that have a lot of conflicts on them. That is you’ve got in both cases,
you have residential streets which mean people will want to be walking across these streets, or
want to be cycling along them. You have people wanting to get out of driveways. You have
very intense use of these streets by people who don’t live on them. And these are embedded
conflicts. It’s particularly difficult in Palo Alto because of our very high level of motor vehicle
use which we’re all concerned about.
Vice-Chair Griffin: I understand. Carl, do you have a take on that?
Mr. Stoffel: Just an additional comment on that topic. As I said, Churchill and Alma were not
part of the study area so we did not look up accidents there. I think we know that many of them
do have them. I don’t think it’s the highest one in the City, by any means. We found accidents
at Bryant and Churchill and I believe that was probably were the largest number of accidents
was. It was worth looking at, we did try to address that during the study but it was not an
emergency kind of level of accidents. Generally through the corridor, in terms of reported
accidents that we can look up on paper which maybe is quite different from what residence
experience especially in terms of near accidents. The level was not that much different than
other places. In fact, the speed and the volume that we measured barely qualified the project
under our Neighborhood Traffic Calming program for collectors. The speed actually did not,
perhaps you can imagine since a lot of the time it seems to be stopped. So in terms of these ’
indicators, again, excluding Alma/Churchill, those kind emergency things were not there.
Chair Bialson: Bonnie.
Commissioner Packer: A couple of things. One of the things we’re being asked to do tonight is
to designate a wider area, what’s called a Neighborhood traffic study area and that’s on
Attachment B, but it doesn’t seem to include the intersection at Alma and Churchill or whether
to include that as when we study the area to be able to include that intersection.
Mr. Stoffel: I think you’re referring to the wrong Attachment. We do have a little problem in
the Report. That report refers to Attachments 1, 2 and 3 but they’re labeled A, B and C. There is
no exhibit to go along with the recommendation for the wider area. The wider area is described
in words on page 8 which is a tentative study area bounded by Embarcadero, Alma, Middlefield
and at some point to the south towards Oregon. So, it’s not Exhibit B.
Commissioner Packer: But it would include then in the intersection or would it be bounded by
it?
City of Palo Alto Page 15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
I5
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: Yes. It would need to. A good analogy would be the work that we’ve done on
downtown north. That included the intersections of Litton and Alma and Litton and Middlefield.
Mr. Stoffel: In fact, it would seem logical to include the rest of Churchill though, it would sort
of poke out of the area down towards E1 Camino but maybe the area should go down to E1
Camino but at this tentative stage, we haven’t gotten to that discussion yet.
Commissioner Packer: Then my other question is whether or not we have to look at our
definitions of collector streets, and maybe we find them a little bit more because you have the
streets that go across the tracks. And we have so few places where you can go across the tracks
at grade and those were the problems are that that’s where the traffic is going to go. And also,
you have because of the lack of a real grid in so many parts of Palo Alto where we have creeks
and other things that create these long stretches where there isn’t a grid, like at Lewis and Ross,
it’s not really cut-through traffic. It’s just people have to use, this is the only way to get from A
to B. I don’t know if you call that cut-through or that’s what a street is intended to be used for. I
think it’s a matter of perspective. But as something of this experience and experiences with
other streets that cross the tracks, I would suggest that maybe you want to define collector streets
in different ways.
Mr. Kott: I think it’s a good idea to revisit our whole street classification systems, for those
reasons and others.
Mr. Stoffel: I think you’re hitting on one of the issues that we did bring up during the study is
that it was Churchill does go across the tracks. And it’s one of the few places in that area in
town where you can cross the tracks. And as such, we were very hesitant in this spot Traffic
Calming study to do much to impede that what we think is a vital link, not that it’s good for the
people that live on the street. But as it stands right now, it’s there. And we were quite hesitant to
really do too much with that because it would cause radical changes in circulation and problems
in the area.
Mr. Kott: I’d like to add, too, that a lot of what we do is really to share it out good solutions that
don’t have unbearable unintended consequences. And it just ain’t that easy. It looks easy on the
surface, take our words for it, it’s not. There’s just a whole lot of potential for downside
problems that we’d like to anticipate and not have to face and try to fix later.
Commissioner Cassel: I guess in a similar vein, we have three grade crossings at grade crossings
that are all causing us this kind of problems that are all on school commutes, that all have cause,
at least the other two have had some very critical accidents, they weren’t near misses. What are
we doing to work with this train issue? Because these are all three of them bugging us. Is there
some way to combine this and think about or make this a plan like what we’re doing in the
downtown area? Some way of working with the Caltrain systems so that we can get better grade
crossings on all of them?
Mr. Kott: Well, Caltrains Staff is very eager, indeed, to increase the number of grade
separations. And they have offered to produce not quite full scale Feasibility studies which are
very carefully detailed out, but at least good order of magnitude studies for us on how much land
the grade separations would take and that’s a big issue and how much they would cost which is
another big issue because it would be not be lying, I don’t believe to fund the entire bill. Our
City of Palo Alto Page 16
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
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
Council has directed us to work with Caltrains at least exploratorily. As I say, we have to be
careful about this because the community has already gone through a Comprehensive Planning
process and has decided not to put grade separations on work program in effect.
Commissioner Cassel: I wasn’t presuming that these will be going over the train or under the
train that maybe some other thing that we need to do here. We need to take a look at that. This
is going to be an urgent problem.
Mr. Kott: There have been pretty significant improvements as much as we can get them,
particularly the small gate arms across the pedestrian walkways. The main safety benefits to be
quite blunt about it, come with separating trains from motor vehicles.
Chair Bialson: Pat.
Commissioner Burt: The question about Churchill’s role as a collector street and its historic.
designation as a collector street versus the present problem is one that we briefly addressed when
this program came forward to us. And one of the observations I have had on what has occurred
in recent years as well as having been active in the review of the EIR’s for the Pato Alto Medical
Clinic moving out to E1 Camino and the Sand Hill EIR, was how those traffic EIR’s anticipated
the impact of increased traffic flow on to Churchill. And it’s a question I had a couple of months
ago and I don’t know if you’ve had a chance to look into that. But my memory is that those
EIR’s did not anticipate any significant impact on to Churchill. And what appears to be the case
is that we have congested traffic at the Embarcadero and E1 Camino junctiori, Churchill became a
logical cut-through. And the EIR’s anticipated that the overflow would disperse all the way
down to Oregon Expressway and the natural cut-through of Churchill was not adequately
recognized and that I believe, and I would like to see this analyzed, that much of the problem on
Churchill is resulting from that occurrence, that major impact. And that the EIR may have been
faulty in that regard. And out of that, we may come to then recognize why it’s more appropriate
to acknowledge that Churchill isn’t just stuck with its historic designation as a collector street but
a fundamental shift that’s just happened in the last few years. Have you guys had an opportunity
to look into that in a month since I raised that issue?
Mr. Stoffel: I don’t think I can comment on the aspect of the EIR’s. I would like to point out I
guess you probably know anyway that portion of Churchill between E1 Camino and Alma is the
one that really gets the most hit from those people trying to get from Stanford to head south.
They turn right when they’re leaving town, they go south on Alma. And that portion of
Churchill definitely is serving as an arterial. Its traffic volume levels are three times what the
other part of Churchill is. And then the other side that we’re talking about tonight has quite a
different characteristic, you still get some of the overflow but the two pieces of Churchill really
need to be looked at and they operate very differently from each other.
Commissioner Burt: Well, I’m not so sure that they’re entirely different. I acknowledge that a
portion of that traffic that turns left, southbound traffic on E1 Camino turns left on to Churchill, a
portion of that certainly does turn right on to Alma. And in fact, it backs up into the bike lane
and occupies the bike lane and essentially prohibits use of the bike lane on Churchill in the block
between E1 Camino and Alma. But a great deal of that traffic goes forward and it’s a natural cut-
through when drivers traveling south on E1 Camino can no longer make that left-turn lane in a
City of Palo Alto Page 17
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
signal period, it’s logical and makes sense for those drivers to go up to Churchill and turn left.
And I believe that’s occurring and I think we need to analyze it.
Mr. Kott: Commissioner Butt, it strikes me that you’re probably right. I know there are
discouraged drivers who-can’t squeeze into the turn bay at Embarcadero and E1 Camino to make
that left turn. And instead choose to proceed on to Churchill and that’s likely to be occurring.
We don’t really know how much of that contributes to the problem but I think you’re fight that it
is a contributor. Just on the face of that, I think it’s right.
Commissioner Burt: If we could as a starting point, look back at what the EIR anticipated. And
then that would be the foundation from which to compare what we now have going on there.
And there are some perspective changes including shortening the left turn lane from E1 Camino
on to Churchill, left turn time, excuse me, that might have other impacts but at least it should be
evaluated in this context. And so I’m concerned that we’re only looking at the area east of Alma
in order to address this problem.
Chair Bialson: Michael.
Vice-Chair Griffin: Carl, I know that these license plate studies are not cheap. But is there a
possibility that with a couple of different cracks that this thing would perhaps have, in fact,
undercounted the amount of cut-through traffic that’s taken place? Is it feasible or reasonable for
us to schedule up another license plate study to look again and try to verify? I don’t know, I’m
listening to what these folks are saying. I’m pretty empathetic whenever I go through that
intersection and I’m through there a lot, I see a ton of traffic coming up that road. And I’d be
interested in what you have to say about that.
Mr. Stoffel: Well, I’d like for Joe to add some comments. They are expensive. It will cost
$8,000 for the one we did. But what happens when let’s say that we do find 60% cut-through
traffic which means it’s overwhelming, in order to deal with that, we’d be doing more than
putting in some speed humps. We’d probably need to be looking at these measures that we can’t
work with in the spot treatment program. So that a license survey would really be part of a
bigger study, I think. I don’t think we still couldn’t work with it because the solutions are too
complicated for this particular program and that would go into the bigger study.
Mr. Kott: That’s, for example, using a downtown north analogy again. We did end up being
able to recommend closings, putting in street closures as you know, Commissioner Griffin, in
downtown north. But that was only after quite a bit of work to figure out where the resulting
traffic shift would occur and being able to work out that it could be put back on to the arterials.
It’s not anything you do lightly. In a neighborhood like Churchill you would not lightly do a
closure, after consulting with a lot of the neighborhood and doing some fairly careful analysis to
be able to answer questions like where will the traffic go. Will it go by my house?
Mr. Stoffel: And we would do another license survey if we did the bigger study. We would
want to do it again and include more entrance and exit points because we’d have a bigger area
and cover a larger time as well, of course.
Steve Emslie, Planning Director: Thank you, Carl and Joe. I just wanted to may be provide a
little bit more context for the response to the general questions and concerns raised so far.
City of Palo Alto Page 18
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
Maybe come back and take a look at the whole premise of Traffic Calming. As our Traffic and
our Transportation systems become more and more stressed, the concept of Traffic Calming is
supposed to be a low key approach at influencing and not changing completely or dramatically
traffic patterns as opposed to by gentle persuasion through very minor means, change drivers
behavior in a way to improve situations for residential neighborhoods primarily. So that’s really
our purpose for being here.
I think there is a fundamental and unimpeded consequence that essentially Staff is trying to deal
with a problem with a program as it’s spelled out through this Commission’s involvement and
adopted by the City Council, the spot treatment program and the spot treatment program is really
the lowest level of Traffic Calming. The minor introduction of smaller types of traffic influences
to change behavior in a very small way. This is not the problem with Churchill, I think all of us
who use the streets in Palo Alto on a regular basis understand completely the reason for using
Churchill, the grade crossing, the fact that we have very few of them, the fact that we’re all very
aware of the pattern because we all as residents use that street on a regular basis. I think that’s
pretty clear.
And Staff is not by any means suggesting abandoning this neighborhood in terms of its
problems. I think what we’re saying is that this program is not the right fit, that there needs to be
a larger study of the more macro traffic patterns out there as pointed out by several of your
comments, particularly Commissioner Burt’s, about the influences that are feeding into this area.
I think another strong sign is the fact that you’ve got disagreement in the neighborhood, perhaps
there’s agreement on the street but that’s generally very easy to figure out because it’s about
protecting that particular environment because you’ve got concerns immediately adjacent, I think
they should be factored in and taken into account. But certainly on a larger basis because we all
know that we’re going to have to guarantee that the changes that we recommend and we would
never recommend any change that doesn’t go in place for a trial period and a period of testing.
That’s one of our basic principles that we will not violate, but has to be really done so that even
on a trial basis that there’s some understanding and appreciation of the larger dynamics of the
traffic. And I think that’s been the problem is that we’ve been trying to fit this into a very small
low level. This is intended to be a quick in and out hit and it’s clearly the problems are much
larger than that.
So I think that’s really the basis of Staff’s recommendation to you is that we do include this as a
much larger study that does take into account the variety of concerns. There’s no question that
Churchill really from E1 Camino all the way to Embarcadero is a major issue. This is really even
looking at one segment of that which I think does beg the issue of this as an arterial cut-through,
as a residential street serving vital community institutions, as well as very deserving
neighborhoods. So I think we’re really suggesting that we do need to do the broader study that
does get to a resource issue. There are lots of neighborhoods downtown north, an example, it is
a slow; it’s an arduous process, building consensus giving information in a way that doesn’t
undermine our basic intent. We don’t want to go and do something and rush it that creates such
a backlash that then you can basically forget about making any positive change because of the
tremendous amount of emotion that is generated through a program that isn’t thoughtful and
brings the community along. And it does take time and it is very arduous. I think the Staff is
very capable of doing that but we do need to let you know that these things need to be managed
in a very deliberate and proper way so that we can make sure that we make the incremental
City of Palo Alto Page 19
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
.38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
changes that are very important to changing behaviors, preserving neighborhoods and building
consensus in the community.
Mr. Kott: Steve, I’d like to just very quickly add that Palo Alto has had success. We do have a
history of neighborhood Wide Traffic Calming. In fact, Carl Stoffel had a lot to do with the
successes we’ve had in the past in College Terrace and Evergreen Park, in particular. We
anticipate success after probably one or two more minor rouse in downtown north with that
program. But it’s one, as Commissioner Griffin knows and other Commissioners I’m sure
understand, does involve a lot of very careful thought and collaborative thoughtful because lots
of people are potentially affected by a neighborhood wide change in traffic patterns.
Chair Bialson: I appreciate your sort of summing up the frustration that everyone involved in
this has been having. And more clearly defining what you’re asking for from the Commission.
Phyllis.
Commissioner Cassel: This is sort of a next lead question from where you’re at, I think. Is it
possible to put in some temporary Traffic Calming items that are on a minor nature but at least
might create some small amounts of relief to while we do this larger study? In other words,
sometimes it takes some people just saying, well, I’m sorry but this is a problem. When we do
these traffic studies, we do these as counts of cars and we aren’t doing them as counts of
pedestrians and as counts of bicyclists. And in this particular corridor, this is particularly heavy
because of the school and it’s particularly urgent because of that. Can temporary measures go in
without all of these long-term perhaps while we study long-term?
Mr. Kott: Commissioner Cassel, we’re not really particularly bureaucratic. Our outlook as you
know is fairly refreshing. Of course, compared to other traffic departments, we’re probably not
very high [inaudible] in comparison. But we do have a formally adopted Council procedure and
we are obligated to follow it. We try to be as ingenious as possible within the parameters that we
must follow. We did not get consensus to move forward with even a vote in the neighborhood to
put in a trial, even this so called alternative trial which did not involve the turn restriction. So
we’re essentially stuck at the end, without violating the process which is what we’re obligated to
follow.
Mr. Emslie: One thing we might suggest and I think with the suggestion of one of the speakers
about the lack of enforcement through traffic restriction during the school commute hours and
that is showing a great deal of flagrant violation that may be one thing certainly could be done
immediately to help reinforce the traffic pattern. Traffic enforcement is like anything that it’s
training a puppy, you know it needs to be sometimes whacked on the nose once in a while and
that’s an important part of traffic enforcement. So it’s something that I think we could explore as
a way to help provide in its own relief and some changing in traffic patterns as this is done.
Mr. Stoffel: Steve, could I add something to that? Maybe I’m just speaking a little bit in defense
of the residents that the Police department, the Police Chief spent quite a bit of time on one of
our meetings and ChiefDwyer, he was very often asked for more enforcement, including that
corner I think. In a sense, that’s been tried. Maybe you can get them to go out there and do it
again. But they’ll go out there and then they have to go elsewhere. So we can always keep
asking them to go, they may go out and take care of the problem in a particular time for a little
while but it really doesn’t last, to be honest.
City of Palo Alto Page 20
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. Emslie: And perhaps the frequency and duration of that, we could explore adding more. I
haven’t had the conversation with Chief Dwyer directly in something that he be willing to do,
but again, as like anything you can get expect a temporary improvement and it will slip back and
it needs to be done on an ongoing basis.
Chair Bialson: Michael.
MOTION
Vice-Chair Griffin: I’d like to move that we approve the Staff Recommendation as written for
advising Council to first of all, add south of Embarcadero to a list of potential neighborhood
traffic studies. To secondly, nominate Churchill Avenue for a potential list of school commute
corridors. Thirdly, change the notification area for collector streets when conducting one of
these neighborhood Traffic Calming program studies.
Chair Bialson: Do we have a second?
SECOND
Commissioner Packer: I’ll second it.
Chair Bialson: Does the maker of the motion wish to speak to it?
Vice-Chair Griffin: I think we’ve discussed a lot of the different issues that play here this
evening. Personally, I’m highly empathetic to what the people that have shown up tonight they
have to say about the frustrations dealing with a highly impacted neighborhood. I think that the
ultimate solution is just exactly the way you’ve laid it out which is it needs more comprehensive
study. And I think that we’re asking City Council to help us in that regard.
Chair Bialson: Would the seconder care to speak?
Commissioner Packer: Yes, I think Steve spoke very eloquently to what you intend to do and it
has to be a thoughtful process. And just I hope that what is done in the way the study, if it goes
forward will also be a model to study other neighborhoods because there are other areas in Palo
Alto that have problems. It’s not the same configuration but there are other impacted areas and it
will also help. I think the process should also be a way of raising the consciousness of all of us
who use the streets. And as the study is going on, if there are more articles in the paper about
what’s being done, it might help people be more conscious about the way they drive because
we’re all part of the problem.
Chair Bialson: Go ahead.
Commissioner Cassel: Well, I was struck by looking back at the Comprehensive Plan maps that
the traffic volume on the street is not that much more than the traffic volume on a number of
other streets in south Palo Alto. So there had to be something different because the several of the
streets that I was looking at were not clamoring in the same way. I think it has to do with the
train crossing which causes a severe back up on to these intersections. So obviously the
City of Palo Alto Page 21
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
intersection has to be included, I think we may have to look at all three intersections that have
train crossings because we want to deal with Caltrain all at once and look at some kind of dream
team kind of process with this. It’s hard and that takes time. And in the meantime, I think we
have to look at something that may be temporary that may not be in your normal process and that
may take some people making some decisions, not at your level but at some other level that may
seem a little bureaucratic.
Chair Bialson: Karen.
Commissioner Holman: I’m supporting Phyllis’ comments ~)ery much and I’m wondering if the
maker and seconder of the motion would accept a friendly amendment to include that area from
Alma to E1 Camino as a part of the study area.
Vice-Chair Griffin: I would.
Chair Bialson: Seconder?
Commissioner Packer: Sure, it would only help the process.
Chair Bialson: So I think the motion would include that.
Commissioner Holman: Okay, thank you. And additionally, and hopefully the passage of this
motion, I would like to go just a little bit further to follow up on my initial question and on
Phyllis’ comments as to what might be able to be done in a more immediate fashion to give some
relief.
Chair Bialson: Pat.
Commissioner Burt: Well, I’d like to concur with Phyllis and Karen about that it would be
appropriate for us to have an additional discussion about some more limited measures still being
possible preceding a more comprehensive approach. I’d also like to suggest, Phyllis, when you
refer to Comp Plan volumes, what would be useful would be to compare Comp Plan traffic
volumes which were generated six years or so ago versus current.
Commissioner Cassel: I was doing that. I was looking at the old number of 4,000 and
comparing to 4,000.
Commissioner Burt: Okay. And finally, earlier I brought up the issue of the most appropriate
school cormnute corridor in this area and one of the members of the public had a concern with
that but I fully recognize that, of course, Churchill is the place of which we cross the tracks. My
point had to do with what is the prospectively more appropriate school commute corridor
between the choices of Coleridge and Churchill. And whether we want to emphasize trying to
promote school bike riders on such a congested, dangerous street. While we certainly want to
retain the bike paths and make them as safe as possible on Churchill, Coleridge runs parallel as
an excellent bike lane and it intersects right at Embarcadero and Middlefield. And certainly for
parents of young children commuting to Walter Hayes, it is recognized as the safer route. They
don’t take their young kids on Churchill, they take it on Coleridge for the most part. Teen-agers
riding to Paly are border daredevil and may welcome Churchill. But I would like us to at least
City of Palo Alto Page 22
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43.
44
45
46
47
48
examine those two streets and in that vein, I’d like to ask whether the makers of the motion
would consider a friendly amendment that might agree to effectively evaluate Churchill and
Coleridge Avenues as possible school commute corridors. And leave open the question rather
than trying to pre-determine at this time which of those is the most appropriate corridor.
Chair Bialson: Michael.
Vice-Chair Griffin: I will accept that.
Chair Bialson: Bonnie.
Commissioner Packer: I think it’s going a little bit beyond the information that I have available,
not that I disagree with the concept. I just wish that our nomination would be limited to
Churchill. I mean, I could think of a lot of streets that are good school commute corridors. I
could name a dozen of them for you right now and I think we’re going a little bit beyond if we
start taking them all. So that’s why as a seconder, I just like to stick to the focus of this Staff
Report and Churchill Avenue and have a later discussion on all the possible school commute
corridors.
Commissioner Burt: We’re not talking about the school commute corridors across the City.
We’re talking about this path. And actually by your motion, we would be restricting and
narrowing the option of what’s the most appropriate one and making a pre-determination, that
Churchill is the most appropriate. Whereas my motion would defer to Staff the evaluation of
those two alternatives and I guess I’d be open to whether Staff has any comment on their
thoughts on that subject and I’d probably be willing to defer if they don’t think that’s appropriate
direction.
Chair Bialson: The way I read this recommendation of Staff’s, it is to nominate Churchill for
future list of school commute corridors. It does not deny the possibility of including Coleridge at
some point in the future. And so I don’t want to expand this discussion this discussion beyond
the matter at hand which is the Churchill Traffic Calming project.
Commissioner Burt: Well, I certainly see the two as intrinsically interrelated. It’s an alternative
in all likelihood of Churchill and Coleridge.
Chair Bialson: Then I think at some point, both of them can be nominated and can be studied but
that’s not the purpose of this meeting. And it was not on the agenda. So I will, as Chair, take the
position that I’d like to keep the motions focused unless I have agreement of both the maker and
the seconder to amend their motion. I don’t have that at this point. So I think what we would
like to do at this time is perhaps get a sense of the Commissions’ feeling with regard to the
motion as made by Michael and seconded by Bonnie as to what the vote is and then we can have
a vote on another motion if you wish to make one at that time. So do I have any other comments
with regard to the motion that Michael made? I believe everyone have spoken but myself. And
I’m going to be supporting that motion. And I’d like to vote on that motion.
MOTION PASSED
All those in favor of Michael’s motion, please say aye.
City of Palo Alto Page 23
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
All: Aye.
Chair Bialson: All those against? Okay. That’s 5 and 1 abstention. Now, if you’d like to make
an alternate motion, an additional motion then you may do so.
Commissioner Holman: Can I get clarification first that might make a motion. I’m sympathetic
to your point, Pat, but I want to get clarification from Staff. Would the nomination of Churchill
as a school commute corridor preclude the consideration of Coleridge as the school commute
corridor? Are we maybe well intentionally complicating perhaps our direction?
Mr. Kott: In terms of our own process, we will be coming back to the Commission to solicit
nominations. This is across the board citywide, this Commission being one source of
nominations and the neighborhood associations as being another and so forth. Commissioner
Burt’s point was well taken. There’s no doubt though that Coleridge will be considered as one of
the possibilities. The Commission will have a big say in the criteria we use and the future
nominations, as well as the final list to be sent off to Council. So Commissioner Burt, you will
have at least two more cracks at it.
Commissioner Holman: I think ifI could follow up on one. Again, as Pat said earlier though not
as a part of the citywide but as a part of this study would we by not making a separate
motion...let me put it this way. Do we need to make a separate motion to include Coleridge as a
possible school commute corridor in addition to Churchill being considered in this study?
Mr. Kott: I don’t believe that that is necessary, no. Our intent in offering Coleridge at this
meeting is as I said earlier, to some extent symbolic. It’s a recognition that there is a very big
problem facing residents on Churchill and also their children who are commuting to school.
However, as Commissioner Packer has noted we all know that there are many, many school
commute streets in Palo Alto that also have many dangers for school children. So there’ll be
other opportunities. We did provide quite a bit of material to this Commission on conditions on
Churchill. We have not provided anything like that for any other streets this evening.
Chair Bialson: Okay. Do you have another question? Go ahead.
Commissioner Burt: Yes. Joe, are you saying that Staff may consider both establishing both
Churchill and Coleridge as school commute corridors? That both might become them?
Mr. Kott: Sure, Commissioner Burt. There’s no doubt we would. In practice, we would, sure. I
think the intent tonight was to kind of do a Churchill recognition night you might say. Or nearly
we think a recognition as being something to inspire in this case, it’s recognition of a real
problem and kind of an emphasis on it. And one of the things we can do is through these school
commute corridor program, we can address particular problems through investments and
inhibitions on more traffic.
Mr. Emslie: I would say it’s essential and not in just this school commute corridor to consider
bifurcated school routes that since we have a directional influence towards traffic, we may want
a.m. commute traffic to travel on one path and have a parallel path for p.m. So it’s actually
going to be a very common thread. It’s goila.g to involve the whole discussion at school commute
City of Palo Alto Page 24
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
corridors so it is very much in line with our thinking in terms of providing parallel routes that
goes counter commute, if you will, to provide the maximum degree of safety.
Chair Bialson: Thank you.
Commissioner Burt: On that basis, I think I’m comfortable with deferring further discussion of
that issue. I remain concerned with a perspective practice of choosing a more dangerous,
congested street to place a school commute corridor on when they’re immediately adjacent street
is inherently safer, but we can hold that discussion in greater depth in the future.
Chair Bialson: Thank you. Now, I understand that the Commissioners wish to speak to perhaps
some temporary measures that can be taken. Is that correct, with regard to what might be done
for the Churchill Avenue residents? I heard that from Karen and I believe I heard that from
Phyllis. I think we can spend a few minutes talking about that but I’d like to make sure we don’t
go too far because I think Staff has already spent a great deal of time on this and perhaps we can
float some ideas.
Commissioner Cassel: I’m not sure what Staff can do without it coming from City Council. In
other words, it may have to be a City Council direction to try to do something that would be
temporary and so perhaps several of them might have to decide whether or not they would like
that to have and rather the Staff is working under guidelines that they currently have.
Chair Bialson: Does Staff think there is anything that we can do to assist in this process?
Mr. Kott: We will definitely convey in our reports to Council the Commission’s interest in
short-term measures. When reports like the one we’re preparing for Council after this meeting
go to Council, Council has alleged can override its own procedures, you might say, in a way that
we can’t without endangering the whole program.
Chair Bialson: Well, I think it’s clear that the entire Commission empathizes a great deal with
the residents of Churchill and surrounding areas and we feel like something needs to be done. If
nothing else has been accomplished these past several years, we’ve more clearly defined the
problem and recognize that we don’t have a solution for it under the presently mandated
programs. So I think I speak for the Commissioners and I think that Karen will add to this that
we would like it strongly conveyed to Council that something needs to be done even though we
do have these wider areas that we need to study.
Commissioner Holman: Yes, I’d much appreciate it as Steve’s comments indicated about how
we’re trying to close the dam with a needle and thread kind of thing. In a way, that wasn’t what
you said, so hope you take no offense in my paraphrasing that. But I’m wondering if it would be
helpful, I think Annette did speak well that we are interested in doing something on an interim
basis and on a more immediate basis. So would it be helpful if we had a motion that we ask
Council or would it be enough just to convey in our words as opposed to a motion that we would
hope that Council would take more immediate action to be able to give some relief to the
neighborhood? Would you prefer a motion or just our comments?
Mr. Emslie: A motion I think is a good way of communicating with the Council. Clearly, if
there is an interim solution that we can do quickly and have, in fact, have them change, Staff is
City of Palo Alto Page 25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
100% in support of that, the caveat though is I don’t want perhaps temporary measures to be a
diversion that takes attention away from what maybe very substantial long-term solutions and
ends up being the cause to [inaudible], if you will, for attention. And really diverting Staff’s
attention away, your attention away, and the Council’s attention away from really concentrating
some of the more systematic solutions which we think are at play here. So that would be the one
kind of criteria that we want to make sure that we don’t have something that just becomes such a
lightning rod that really prevents us from looking at and concentrating on the real solutions. And
I think the Commission is getting very close to describing those in terms of some of the larger
traffic patterns and the development that has occurred in the last 5 to 10 years.
Chair Bialson: Thank you, Steve, I appreciate the warning and I think it’s very appropriate
because we have seen just that sort of dynamic occur where a fix has been, shall we say, re-
characterized by some of the community and the press in the way that takes attention from the
underlying problem. Given that, I would ask the Commissioners, do you think it is appropriate
to do anything more at this point or recognize that Staff has wrestled with this mightily for a long
time and that they have recommended their best in the Staff Report. We have moved that Staff
Report. We’ve asked for them to indicate in their report to Council that we all feel that this is an
item that needs to be addressed. I would hope that whoever is liased on it, the time that the
Council is meeting to discuss this matter emphasize and perhaps paraphrase some of the things
that we have said and that Steve has said to get the Council’s attention. Does the Commission
feel that it’s necessary to do anything further by way of a motion at this time? Pat.
Commissioner Burt: Yes, I think as Steve who indicated, they thought that a motion would be a
clear message to Council, I think it would be appropriate. And I would just like to add that I
think a reflection on how we got to here is important. We basically had a convergence, as I see it
of two ways that we ended up with a non-solution. We had a built-up problem and a great deal
of frustration as this problem had escalated for the residents on Churchill. And when an
alternative was offered, at that time the alternative did not restrict street closures. And basically,
it was the same sort of problem we had in the downtown north traffic plan. It was inconsistent
with our Comprehensive Plan. It did not set parameters for the neighborhood identifying that
street closure is supposed to be a last resort and not a first choice.
We now have that in the neighborhood Traffic Calming program and it’s something more
comprehensive may deal with a variety of measures. But I suspect very strongly that if street
closures had not been one of the options on the table, then we wouldn’t have had all these people
come out of the neighborhood and block the whole plan all together. That we would have had
some compromise that would have occurred, shy of street closures that would not have done
everything that may need to be done eventually on Churchill, but would have given some interim
relief for now while we go forward with more comprehensive measures.
And I don’t know if we can take that step backward and restart constructively, but I think that
this issue can’t wait for a 5-year program, to give some degree of relief. And if we are very clear
like Steve emphasized, that this would be just an interim measure as a pre-cursor to something
more comprehensive for that entire neighborhood, I think I would like to support that.
Chair Bialson: Pat, do you have a motion to make at this point?
MOTION
City of Palo Alto Page 26
1
2 Commissioner Burt: Yes, I’ll make a motion that the Planning and Transportation Commission
3 recommends to the City Council that Staff be requested to undertake a re-evaluation of limited
4 interim measures to provide some relief of or some Traffic Calming on Churchill without the risk
5 of diversion on to neighborhood streets.
6
7 Chair Bialson: Do I have a second?
8
9 SECOND
10
11 Commissioner Cassel: I’ll second that.
12
13 Chair Bialson: Would you care to speak to it?
14
15 Commissioner Burt: I think I already have.
16
17 Commissioner Cassel: I think I already have, too.
18
19 Chair Bialson: Karen.
20
21 Commissioner Holman: I seem to be the amendment person tonight so I’ll certainly support the
22 motion but I also was wondering if we could add to that some language that says, that we’ll take
23 the action that’s indicated in the motion with a clear and published understanding these measures
24 are to be considered as interim and trial basis measures only.
25
26 Commissioner Burt: I have no problem with that amendment.
27
28 Commissioner Cassel: I have no problems with that.
29
30 Chair Bialson: Great. Do we have any comments or would the Commission like to vote? Let’s
31 vote.
32
33 MOTION PASSED
34
35 All those in favor?
36
37 All: Aye,
38
39 Chair Bialson: All those opposed? That’s 6 in favor, no opposed. And with that, I think we’ll
40 close the hearing on this matter. Thank you very much.
41
42 Mr. Kott: Thank you, Commissioners.
43
44 Other Items: None.
45
46 Chair Bialson: I don’t think we have any reports. I think we have the representation pretty well
47 established.
48
City of Palo Alto Page 27