Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
0256.094
April 28, 1994 HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL Palo Alto l California Attention: Policy and Procedu~es Connittee I-{embers of the: Coullci 1: REPORT IN BRIEP Ii. small group of residents of Waver-ley stn!ct and Addison Avenue has developed and :refined a proposal for:' traffic irp:covements on those streets, focusing on the Waverley/Addison intersection. At the dir~ction of the Policy and services co~nittee, Tral\sportation Division staff \mrKed 'With these r(!sictents during the first. half of 1993 to help them revise their initial llroposal. The Committee discussed this revised proposal at its August 3, 1993 meeting (minutes included as Attachment 3). As a rostllt of that roe~ting, and with the committee's approval, the r-esictents furth€"r l"eviscd the pr.oposal during the latter half of 199). Staff did not assist the re.,.idents in this lat£'st n.wision. staff's initial review of the newly revised proposal is the topic of this ~taff l'cport. The residents have significantly reducod the scopo and cost of their ne~· proposal, COl"llpi:H"ed to tho one the Corrlmittee discussed in August 19c)). thereb}· .eliminating most of the drawbacks of the earlier propos<ll. Howover, in staff's opin,ion, th.o desirable impacts of the latest proposal have also been significantly reduced. St.aff h;)s, therefore, concluded that there is not sufficient merit in the propt)sal to \oIarr~lnt proceeding further. BlICKGROUND In 1992, t\i'O residents of A.dd ison Avenue and I-I\lverley Street (Messrs. Bill McGlashan and Michael Kastl submitted a proposal to Council regarding potential traffic :i.rnprovements on Addison A.venue and Waverley street (Plan 111\11). Staff prepared an evaluation for the Policy and Services Committee and concluded that the conditions on Waverley and Addison did not justify Installation of the proposed measures (CMR:362:92, July 30, 1992}~ At its August 4, 1992 meeting, the Pol icy and $fHvices Cornmittee asked the CMR:256:94 ~" . '. \ I, I ,- I-,-, i I I L I \ o o Tr~nsportation Division to wo~k with the residents on refinements t() their plan. The committee expressed interest in h,1ving an evaluation of v~rious types of traffic management strategies that had not yet been tried in Palo Alto, and possibly 'in testing one on Waverley street that might also be useful in other neighborhoods. Staff worked with the residents' working group during the first half of 1993, resulting in a new traffic: rroanagelrlent plan (Plan IIBIt). Statf prepared a detailed evaluation of this pl .... n. 'WhiCh was discussed by the committee at its August 3, 1993 :meeting (CMR:429:93, July 29 1 1993~ copy included as Attachrnont 2). staff recommended that Plon "B" not be pursued rut'ther~ dUQ to its high cost in addressing relatively benign traffic conditions <In Waverley and Addison. The residents requested th.at they be given the opportunity to develop revisions to this plan (i .e~ I to develop Plan nel') I and the Committee agreed. It w.\s understood that staft involvement \-/ould be as a resource to the res idents dur iny this phase, and that staff would review and comment on Plan nell wh~n it was completed and brought to the comnittce. DEBCRIP~ION OF THE REVISED WORKING GROUP PROPOSAL The working group submitted its revised proposal (Plan "ell) to staff in mid-January 1994 (Attachment 1). The working group's primary gOC'lls are essentially unchanged~ (a) to reduce noise and pollution at stop signs on Waverley; (b) to reduce negative parkinq impacts of the now bike lane on Addison between Waverley and Bryant; (e) to improve the visual appearance of Waverley and Addison; and Cd} to utilize traffic 111anagement elements that might serve as models for other neighborhoods. A fundamental constraint observed by the working group was not to impact tl'ilffic condit ions for neighbors on other streets. , The primary features of the revised plan are 1 isted below'. Details are in the attached proposal. • Remove the stop signs on I~averley c'\t Addison and install two small 111edian islands on Waverley at Addison. • "Install one small median iSland on Waverle~' on the sout.h side of Channing and a pair of islands on Waverley at I.incoln. • Move the 24-hour parking permitted zone located on the north side of Addison between Waverley and Bryant to the south side of Addison. (The current parking restriction was necessitated by the installation of bike lanes associated with tho bicycle boulevard extension.) • Modify the City· s resurfacing schedule to accelerate the r'csurfacing of Addison blObl'een Hiddlefield Road and A1T11i\ street. CI1R:256:94 4/?'8/9~ Page 2 . I I· i· TRANS['OR'TATION DrVISIOh' nEVIEW OF THE REVISED PROPOSJ\L The Tran-sportation' Division conducted the fallol-ling initial review of the revised proposal, as requested by the :!?olicy and services Committee. !d:mg~d Island~ The proposed landscaped area i~ small (a total of about 28 square feet in total for the five is lands) J and is exceeded by the area of concrete curbing that would contain it. Thus, it is debatable ho ..... much these islands will actually improve the visual appearance of the street. There is no evidence that the narrow (two-foot-wide) islands will have a measurable impact on driver behavior. To measurably decrease speed or volumes, it is usually necessary to have larger. islands, and a rather substantial h~r izontal dE!viation in the traffic lane. The proposeri islands produce a series of one foot devi~tions. Because of these minor impacts, traffic divl?!rsion to adjacent streets is unlikely and would not be a concern. Because the islands would be expected to have little or no positive impacts aesthetically and opcrationallYI it is unlikely that this proposal would serve as a useful model for traffic managel!lent in other neighborhoods. The idea of developing a prototype neigh borhood traffic management plan for waverley and Addison was one of the primary interests of the residents' group, as weI! as of the committee. §~Si~D_Removal The removal of the stop signs on Haverley at Addison, resulting in a two-way stop (versus the CU1Tent four-way stop). is one of the primary goals of the working group. This is alzo the clement of the pIau that would produce the most noticeable impact. Vehicle noise should be less noticeable, and engine emissions would likely be reduced. The removal could potentially attract an unnoticeable increment of additional traffic to Waver-ley. Being a collector street, l'iaVerley should have fewer-stop signs than local streets, The removal would produce a pattel'"n of stop s.igns that is 'more consistent with Palo Alto'S every-other-block "guard and go" system. The manner in which vehic~es( bicyclists, and pedestrians on Addison would cross Waverley tl'ould be aff~cted. New crosswalks are proposed on waverley (new crosswaH~s are a Iso proposed on Haver-ley at Lincoln, but the four-way stop would remain). The impact -of removing stop signs at the Naver-ley/Addison inter section on school children is similar to the situation at the Bryant/Addison intersection, which was analyzed in connection with the Bryant Street closure evaluation (CMR:380:93, July 8 1 1993). However, traffic volume is higher on Haverley (about 1500 CNR: 256: 94 , . -;\ , <. . 4/28/94 page 3 I I " ' ! :. r-. i I I r j I , I , I I , ' , I ,,' · ... ,. o vehicles/day) than on Bryant (estimated to range from 1000 -1900 vehicles/day). Toe Bryant/Addison evaluation referred to the 1976 conoultant study of Palo Alto's stop sign system, which found that only 30 porcent of driv.:!t,s stopped fully at stop signs, with the romainder passing through at speeds ranging from 2~ to 10 mph, even when other cars 'Were present on the cross 'street. That study, and statf's observations of driver behavior at such intersections, G\lg~ests that having four-way stop signs is not a panacea for s'Chotl ;crossinq safety. 'I'he stop sign study concludes that there are too 'h;.:any stop signs on collector. streets and recommends against the Inst~,llation of st>op signs for school crossing purposes, even on collector streets, if there are adequate gaps in traffic for a sals crossinq. NhetJoJer or not. stop signs are present, the safest way for chlldr:ell to cross Bryant, Haverley, or any street, .would be to cross when no vehicles were approaching. The residents. I proposal notes that school children can cross Waverl(>.y at a signalized intersection at Channing (one block north of Addison), or at a f"our-· .... ay stop at Lincoln (one block south). Nore eValuation of the impacts of the stop sign removal and of the advis'lbilityof installing crosswalks is required .. if this proposal is pursued fucther. Hoving the unrestricted parking (!:one from the north to the south side of Addison is feasible, and it ... !oula produce about two or three more 24-hour parkinCJ spaces in this block. The number of pt'lrking spac~s was substantiall~' reduced in this block, in order to install the new bike lane associated with the bicycle boulevard extension~ Driver visibility at the T-intersection of Scott and Addison would also be i~proved, because that side of Addison would ba clear: of parked cars during the day. No negative impacts on lnotOl-':ehicles or bicycl(!s would be expected. The residents I pro~Jsal does not indicate whethe~ a majority of residents of this bJ .)ck \Jould actually favor the shift of unrestricted parking from ~ne side of the street to the other. This change, however, does not really address the problems voiced by some residents of this block. Some residents' feel that the parking restrictions have resulted in a general shortage of parking spaces in this block. Some also feel that the l'pat"king z:llowed" hours of 7:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. on one side of the_ street does not correspond to their actual parking needs. For examplej some residents do not leave home until afte;c 7:00 a.m. Either they cannot park on the restricted side ill the evening, or, if they do, they i'!lust move their cars before 7:00 a,m. Residents expressed these concerns during the planning phase of tho bicycle boulevard extension and have continued to do so periodically, since project installation, and when evaluation studies and related topics are brought before the Council. staff observations, hO\lfever, have not indicated 8 serious prcblem with parking availabil ity I so staff has continued to support the continuity of the bicycle lane system on Addison. CMR:l56:94 'L::' " ''''-. , , '/28/94 Page 4 . , . c Tho impacts. of densor' resJdentla 1 devclopmont and t.ne intrusion of employee p3rking appear to have co~bined to create a distinctive sot of conditions in this ~ne block that has r,,"sulted in the rosidents' complaint$~ An alternative: to shifting the restricted pilrk1ng zone from' one aide of Adtlison t.o the other would be to reBove entirely the parking restrictions in this one block. This would result in the removal of the bicycle lanes (Class II facility) and th9 installation of .signs designating this .block as a ub~kE) l"Oute." (class III tacility). The block would still be part of the official bikeway sY$lom. This change would allow unrestrIcted parkltl\) during tho ant ir(' day on both sides of the street, as was the cas~ prior to tho extension of the hicycle boulevard. J;f tho oxi~tin'1 biko lanes ",ere retained, bike lanes would continue to be provided on a school travel route; and full systel1l continuity ~ould be mail1tained. If the bike lanes were rCl'!':'Ove() in this block, bicycle r idol'S 'Would prob.-.bly not be measurably afff'l'cted, ~s ~ddison is not a I:l:ajor street at\d the currant nunbet-of bicycle r idek-s On "del iSQn is lo·.... The removal of bike limes in this block tldS not UClH1 discussed with the Palo Alto Bicycle AdvisOl'Y cO!:'.f:lit tee or Add ison School l"eopk.-esentatives. 'fne road surface of AddisQn is rough, likely result.ing in increased vehicle noise, and dis(;ouraging increased usage by bicyclists. A positive aspect is the possible reduction in driver' speed on the uneven fHIt-face. The str.eet do~s not have s~rious structural pt'oblelQs (base reilUl-e), ""hich is the overriding criterion for resurfacing. Thus, its priority in the PlJblic Works Department 's Pavement Management Syston is low. public Works " .. ill soon review the condition of ~U streets, possibly resulting in some reprioritiz<ltionj ho'!,,·ever. it is urdikely that the low priority for Addison will change~ There is a backlog of high priority streets 'With 'base failures that are a'Wditin::J resurfacing. Even if Addison were moved to a higher priority by council action, there are other streets with similar conditions that J in fairness, should be given slldlar consideration. Staft believes tili\t the sinplicity of the revised proposal does not warrant a formal trial period. r~ven if there were to be a trial I the landscaped is.lands are the only elenents of the plan that could b~ constructed in a tenporary fashion. rn this proposal, the rninilllal negative impact of the snall i:;lands is nearly certain, as there aro existing examples of cmr,parable islands with known signing and striping re,quiremel1ts and minimal impact on traffic {e.g., the circular concrete islands at the bases of stop signs at the Headow/Wilke, Park/Stanford, and Channillq/Alester intersections}. Thus, this plan, if approved I should be installed in a permanent tashion. Staff ,.-ou]d notity Council only if there CMR:256:94 4/28/9. Page 5 \ , '. . ' . ", -.--....... ~= ...... -... ;,.;.;?.:.:.+.;;:--.:,;:~ .... ~~~~--;-".:-. -~;~~~~ were sOIT.e problem dernandil'g more than a Minor or l"oot.\nc adjustment. IDitl~~~T_i1'l1e_ to Imp--l_~_m!lD-t staff has not prepared a detai led cost estinatn of the propos a 1, pending further Committee direction. l\ concoptual-lev{tl (l-stimate of the cost to permanently install the elar.:ents of tho p.roposal, as submitted, is in the range of $10,000 to $15,000 ,,,ot including the cost ot resurfacing Addison, .... hich is a program'-'!ed (utura maintenance cost). If council approved and funded the project as proposed, it would take from 6 to 12 months for staft to develop plans and a SCOP(l-ot services, advertise the project, select a contractor, olnd oversee the installation. FO'R"!~HER REVIBW REQUIRED There are several aspects of the revised plall that .. :muld l·equire further study and review by staff:" and advisory cOTij:fittees~ if there is COin!l1.ittee support to pur.sue this proposal. • Determine the suitability of a two-foot-wide island to serve as a possible pedestrial\ retuge area, as alluded to il\ the plan. • Determine the ability of a one-foot wide l~ndscaped area to support lasting plant growth. • If islands were \Jidened beyond two feat, parking rdqht have-to be removed. If they became wido onough, additional si<]niog and striping might be lleeded. • Determine the liability implications of allowing citizens to wat.er or maintain landscapinq, eVC'n for an initial parioQ, in the middle of a busy public streat. • Non-irrigated xeriscape landscaping has not survived well in the eight street closures installed in 199Q. Determine whether this practice should be continued; ascertain the ability of the Public Works Department to :manually water landscaping, and/or the need for automatic irrigation syste111s. ~.19..n....Bemov,a I • A vehicle gap study \;"ould be needed to evaluate the CMR:256:94 4/28/94 Page 6 !. '" , ; .- i I'; :. consequences for school children of removing the stop signs. • EValuation is needed of the proposed cl'osswalks on Waverley at Addison--an uncontrolled intersection as a result of removing tho s.top signs. • Once the above issues have been analyzed , the pl.an should be reviewed by other City departments, such as Fire j Public Works, and utilities; and by the Palo Alto Bicycle ,t..dvisory Committee, tha Historic Resources Board, and Addison School representatives. • A more refined cost estimate would be needed. NEIGHBORHOOD REVIEW OF THE REVISED PROPOSAL Messers. HcGlashan -lild Kast met with several l"e.sident-s in the course of developing the revised proposal. In addition, staff mailed a letter, which included Figure 1 of the revised proposal, to the same group of residents that had been notified durin9 the previous phase of this study (see map on page 4 of CHR: 429 :9), Attachment 2). The letter outlines the goals of the working group, the basic elements of the plan, and staff l s initial conclusion re,garding the plan. Residents were advised of the date of the Committee meeting, and were advised to provide their comments in writing prior to the Committee r'leeting, and/or to present them verbally at the meeting. CONCLUSION The primary positive aspects of the revlsed residents I proposal (Plan lIe") are that it represents a grass roots planning effort to reduce traffic impacts in a local area, without iropairineJ vehicle access through the area or moving the problem to other-streets. Plan tlel1 has been significantly reduced in scope and expected cost compared to the one that was presented to the Committee in lnlgust 1993 (Plan IIBIt). Tbe high cost of a permaner.t installation was a major drawback of Plan "B". That. drawback has been overcome, but the tradeot-f is the substantial reduction of the desirable impacts of the plan. Staft thus doubts that this proposal would serve as a useful model for traffic.: calming in other neighborhoods, which-has been one of the main interests of the committee in this process. CMR:256:94 4/2e/94 PagE' .• , , , o stllft has, therefore, concluded that there is not sUfficient merit in the proposal to warrant proceeding furthe~. Respectfully subrnitted l CJ~ CARL STOFFEL Transportation Engineer .g~4tdf~~~ XENNETII R. SCHREIBER Direc.tor of Planning and Commun i ty Env i ronmen-t Manager Attachments: 1. RevIsed Resident:s I Working Group Proposal, Januat'y 12, 1994 (Plan lieU) 2. 3. CMR;429:93 (without attachments) Policy arid Services committee minutes, August 3, 1993 ce: Historic Resources Ooard Architectural Review Eoard Planning Cornmisoion Palo Alto Medical Foundation Palo Alto Bicycle Advisory ComrLlittep. Stoecker and Northway Associates Bill MCGlashan "'embers of the Residents Working Group Barbara Butterworth Richard "{orris CMR'~56'94 4/28/94 Page 8 t·· - ,,:> ' \ ',' ATTACHMENT 1 Jal1uary '2, 1994 CHy (i' f\ilo Atlo TrnnsJjortalioo Division ~tto: Mr. C.~ StQHel 25() Hamiltoo PaloMo.CA 94301 ()(tar-MI, Stoffel, E ildosed ls the revfS9d proposal from the Wever1ey-Addison Tf'l1 ffi c Study Woliting Group, This p(QpO~ YI'iI s; devetoped over th e last moolhS through rnrorma I oonversa I ions wilh wor1llr,g group me-moo~ and.~ schootlled me.etlng OIl Novtn'lber 3. 1 e~3, Yow Umely response It> qu.estions fiOfn Uie group was mosl helpful in relining Ihis p~an. and we 8,Wfe-d,ate yoor In~ and effOfls. 1r)'OU N ... 'e any qut-sfi.oos about tt'lis (f1.X"I1. please con!ad cilner Bill McGla'Sh~ul at 321·9{)91, or me 31 321.C4e:8, oc: Waverley<AddiSOfl WOlklog Gro'Jp membe/s responding It> Iho 1113193 meeling nolice; ' .... ne Alguard Geoff 8ertels.eI' Oarl6obro"N Vif{.(!nia and Don fiHM Michael K8~ aM Rebecca leon 8m Mc<>!3 shsn Ms, Msrgarel Milledge Ms. Jean Ramacciottl M$, Sus,1~ Ricllardson eft)' CoUncil Sp.).100f'S 0' the Stud), Requesl: M', GaryFsuloo Ms. Jea n McCown '",'. • ":,' Introductton o F!nal RepOr1~ Waverley...JI..ddi$-on T'~ffic Proposal Wa'l'e1ey'A~d\s.on Trs,fflC PII>pQs.af Working Gn)',Jp January 17. 1994 Thls dowmenl JXlS$.tnl$lhe revised propo.s.al from tM. Wavet1oy,Adcll'son Ttaffie PfopoSar wOrkIng Group. II is SigllirlCtilltly reduced ~h In scopo and expected cost from the pian pr;!senled 10 ,tM Policy & $etVk4$ Cornmrtlee: on A .. ~st 3, 1 Q9J.. Il11NOrpore1 f)S desig n elem61l!S pcesen!ed in Tlan.sporta1ioo:s 1m ropo.1, ~'nve~tOtY 01 N~lghbomood TrllH'tc M~ n~·rn(:"ot Mef.Sutes" sod mtcmpl.$ to re.$l'>lve !$sues raised In the ~ of pvbti<: review, Tha project was premised on too Idea I~ ne~hbo.ffioods whidl must suppotl City !'8(l$poJ(Slion needs 00y0nd tha norm can 6xpecl the City to' c.(fnside( Ploj"e-cis. whid1 mln'miz e the 8SSC>Ctated negs tive impad.$. Th'f$ le'V\s.ed p<'opos.al PR'-S9nt$ 8 pl3 n lMt sJgn,fK"03 nn",. reduces 1M lJImis1 of the traffie which mlJSt flow through OUf ne-ighbomood ..... lttlOU1, knpalriog vehlde, aocess Ihrough the area, v.riUtQlrl advers.o effects on neighbolio9 strt)('ls, aoo al modeM expell~. ProJ .. ct Ooals The specific-go.als or ~he Wortlng Group \o\~ r-~ a 50 f(),~: o Reduce vehkle: rrOi.s.e and poIjvlfc.n genefale--1 81 1M ~tc>p sign inlersedlons OJ) Wa ... .erfc)!. o Reduoo thft n~aH ... o effects o'th{l b'~e lana Ext":15o~ Of'! A~ison. o Imp!'ovo tha visual apPcar3OC-4) of WaYi'Jley aM Ad<jis.on. o Ji1corporalo tr<lffic ma,1age-menl ('iemen(S whk)l may $(>f'\'e as models ro' other neighborhoods. Tho woooll!l group lll(>mbE:~ obs.{NN it tuMamenUllimrt 0fJ the soo.oo 01 JX)SSibre solutions 10 our lrame tQncems • rxoposedi sollJlfooS rOf O\JJ neig'ht:>.:>mood should not reS-1!1t io Pfobiems fQ( our ne~hbofs.1Mng 00 other ~fcel$. Prc.,posal Summa ry Tho romplele p(oled pwposal C(){lS;SIS or" items, 8S .s-hO'\\"n j(1 FigulO 'I and desoibe(t beklw: t. ConVfr1 the Intersection 01 WSr'efley and AddiSon to a 2·way stoP. aoo ins(all a pair of median l~aoos on WfN~rfey 81 tP'le I_nlers.edion. 2. tn~aU a single median IslsfXJ on Wavelley."i ChAMing sod a pt;fr of m«Iian Is.I'ands on Waver16Y at lI~n. 3. S'Mlch th& 2-4 t»uf parkJng lMEI' on Addison t.etween Wa 'l'erle)! aoo 6-rygnllO the south s.ide Oof the street. 4. R6vJ~ City tiileria rOf sdledu::ng the resurfacing of hiOl1 vofume Slreel.5 and SGIledura AtM~n between Middlefield 800 Alma Bocordingry. Proposal Oetails Item 1: Conversion of the Waverfey-Add ison Inte/s ec lion to a 2'W4Y s-t¢p (sea rl9urs 2,3) Elimlnl~lion of Ihe stop sigo on W.wefiey 'ftilimairHalll cxlSling !/affie v{I!ume-s bul elimfnate approximalety 5000 Sl3r11J and 5000 stops of cars BOO frucks daB)' by a!lo-Mr.g Wa'l'erley Ifame to now smoothly thrOl,lgh the lntefSfdion. Nolse from Lh~ Inlcrs.eClion wm 00 r~ducoo and more easify blocked ou! (VaHlc oolse &L slead), speros ()fI a s.moolh surfacers largelY.!l1 higher frequencies aoo readitj blocked by wj:rrdows, while engin~ and ('.)(hausl noise J)fod'uced under acceleration Is largety low frequency and much mote difficult 10 SCfeen). Trame on Wa .. erley ,viII be allo'wed 10' travel 2 bloQ:.s 'Wilhout a stop, a CChlrlguration mCl'(e c:oo.slSl91'1t with the Cily grid. ".\ '\ ." " .; ---.--., ........ ,,~,~" .. Median r518005 on each side of!"a inle~dion will moderato vehic~e 'SpeNS!O near trle 25 MPH Hmil. Medi.1l1 islands rlave baen proposed for several ,eaS<ln~: o Effedivtness has bean shown in {Jlher c.omml,ni1i"s (CPA TransporsHctf'l Repor1 9/93). o TIle ortl'erty appea(anCG of the City's goo system fs msFnla'ned. o A mkt·road safely area tor pedestrians is p(Ovlded. o No significant drainage, slreet cI~aning or other maintManre problems ere e.xpeded o Con~ructior1 costs a:e modest. The delails of the Wavorfe~·A~json Inlers.ection includ'e( aJ 3 paFnle:d Ctosswalk, b) minima' r(lad slgoage and c) island ",yidlh suffictent to satisfy Ci1y 'aM 'Wid!" s!a nda rds, wf1 tie aHO'rYi:r"Ig (01 basic 10000mainienance planting 10 sonen the appeafl~nce or the ~ands. WOfIVng Group n1embefs would malnlsln the planlfng uilifl fully eslRbljshe\l. The Aug~ 1993 Policy and Services Commm8~ public commenl ind'uded roncem Lhal chiklren Cfosslng Waverley 10 aUend Addison school mlghl 00 exposed 10 3 poIentrally hazardous sflualion wilh !h e remolla! or Iha stop on Waverfe~. ConskJeraliM 01 p&de!tlrian imp3 CIs indudt-d (~vlcw of al!emale roules 800 lhe lavel of 80CE-SS 10 schools p«()vidoo In .s.lmi!f!{ si1tJa!!orl$. AJlema:h .... e crossings exist one bfoc); <rNay in bolh d'irecHons; Waverley at Channing Vtfl'lOO is s"i-gi1.s1izoo aod includes ped~lriFHl pushbullons, and the 4·way S10p on Wavel"1ey a! Lincoll'). In oompJri$O(l. neilher Channing nor Homer provide stops. bet'Neen Middlefield and Waveney. Item 2: Median Islands on Waverley lit Uncoln and Waverlay at Channing (see figures 4,5) A single median island on Waveney soulh oll,"-e Chanr:if~ sfgna~iled ;idersecUon ~r"es a Qatewa~ (unction, 800 is also expected 10 modefale speeds of vehides 10 flCar Ihl) 25 MPH lim~1 A singfe i~and js p,"oposed in lighl of traffic flows rrom Channing ooLO Waver1'ey ClI)(f bus turns onlo Chsf'loiog from Waverley. ihe ~ir of median Islands at the 1nterseC1ion of Waverely end Uncolll are expe~ed 10 (educe the rale of acceleration inlo and away from the intersedioo. (educing v.ehrC'~e noise l{) some degrec. Their placemenl a' a 4·wa~ SlOp oriees the opportuni1y 10 observe lhe perforrnan(..e of the deviU! ss a Iraffic moderaling fealure in comp.1rison 10 the 2·way s10p configuralion on Wavelley al Addison. It~m 3: Relocation of 24 hour Parking on Addisfln Between Waverley an(1 aryan I (se. fIlIu," 1) The hicycl& lane ex1llnsion on A<kIi50n eriminaled daytime part~r,g on the south.skJo of the ~{cel. Relocation of Ihe 24 hOur p.1rking side to the sooth is e~ed 10 relie\le some safet~ concerns of residents at the Scolt intersection due l('J poor visibiHty and al the same lime add ~\lelal needed 24 hour partdn:g spaces. MeastJremenlS jndical~ that J.eO fret of C")JID Is a .... ailable 'Of parting 00 Ihe north side of Add'Json compared 10 430 feel on Ihe sooth side (allO'M'rrg (or sel~cks 8\ fntersections and .;jf1vewa~s). 'I-Ytlich translates inlo severaf more 24 oour spaoos. Ite m 4; Add I son Re-surfacin 9 Addison's 1"02" surface fS in poor COnd~k>n. resuN/ng in high levels or (Cad noise. VV'hile rough roed surfaces in otherw\se accepLabre condition are suitable tor IIghLly used roads, when Ihe roOtd fS heavily used and In a residential area. the noise impact is significan!. CiLy Stflooards shou'KI 00 reviewed 10 consider trJffic volum es in addition 10 road surface oondillon when scheduling r&surfaclng ~earinq the road surfa~ does not eppear to roouce road noise). If Addison meels the appropriale criteria. il should be sclledulc-d (or res'Jrfacing accordingl~. ·2· ! I , I I I t~t -,. .... " .... -60..1" .. · Ir@lj W"-V£"-U'. Y II ~-= L!J ------.---~-:. I vl 1 ~I --··-1 -I 1 I I" 11 I~ I." I" 1 I I~ 1.. ADP Mt:o:.vJ ~~ ONE ~oe oF== 1, .. J;";E~S.E<...Tro1!,J ONL.Y (~N~ CtoSfW.4>...t, E.K)i'O~~) 1 i I I 61 ~I Ii' ~ { '\ ® S<-vrr~H L~H" 1>uJ>-l, A.~ 'Tb sovt1-I Sire, THI" 6LO£...t. OJoJL.'1 @ S(.IJ.EOOi.c. AOPLIt>L.J lie.. r<. ~ Llt.If.o\("'I.-...lU"l Il:'~rr..IPo.~ (MIPO\..tE (n~i..1;) --A .... '.....,..) '-.------- '-.I '"'---U~ UNDEr. 6.VII,l..VI'I,,..,,,,,, (f-"Xlh't.J') I 3 1 J \ f' I ~ d01S~ '~ ... '''''' - ADD p....., ... ~ ---flo c.U:I).! (.o,JAi,..'r.. (z. , .......... ,) r:==-----n--:::J STOP WAVEQ..LE.'{ e ADDISON LU,J(oLAJ ------c- = A<>p MS>tMi l$eMo "'2..'11; ~r ( L P<A'-«S) - f S~O~"U'N /O'-O'MM .,t----~-. o fl I 1/ --~ --2.-0 M~....,,,,-,\ I 6 'I MJi.JN-1 vA.1 FoRa PU>..A.J ""'}.J(1 S~LI.. tc~a "-O,e~ AT 8VT11 e:'-Jt>S =Dw j __ =:a~_ •••• ---'-____ J2E.K ... £(.,"f/vE vlHl'rE AT 150m EAJ"$ FI(,l/R-E: 3; P~OPO'::>EC> MEV/lIN ISLAN.D ----------- .--;.. . \'-:,' ....... . -~ <> <> ----.-----,--"---------~--~----... --------------,-------- , ~ f5 J '>WP ,-,t;Ir J ~/ r-· N"lv f..l"",,,,.; j~'-"ND / Z,"t:JiOlr-X" JO! l-ON(. ['iW~..) ,~--~.,,~-~= c=~, (")("<'4) o " ====C@] (j) --1 o -0 ,"'. ~ , , ' . ,,' '" ',',;, i'Ej_IE:'~'~~§,~~~~ -', . d~~~,-'::..:~ co:;,. ". c:lOl.S r:::=-=-:=::::.... -, •• --<1 .... - j\pl':) PAIN Tl:» U<>lltIV.''"'~ _,. (L PIA,"'-\) ('-~----=---====:::1 STOP WAVERLEY @ LIN COLN [L g l!) ~')~-==-~~= A(JD I-f!;.CNMJ 'SUY.lD t-(1(.~~ ( <. p", «!\) I ~ I i ! i ,I I , \ , ., ,.' ,. . July 29, 1993 HONORABLE CITV COUNCIl, Palo Alto, California ~ •. ,::,<""."-.~"$"';"""'",,,,",,, ....... ATTACHMENT 2 ~aluatiQn of Residents' .. Tr.offic "lana9..~t~~!~t.M, ~~ddison Traffic study Attention: Polic~' and Services Committee Members of the Counc.! 1: REPORT IN BRIEF In August 1992, the Policy and Services Committee directed staff to \<"ork on the Waverley/Addison study within the s~rne tiMe frame as the evaluation of t.he stt'eet closure associated with the bicycle boulevard extension. Two working group meetings with residents 'Were held, from Which emerged a trdffic manager.wllt plan for Waverley and Addison. 'fhis was presented to the Professorville neighborhood through a mailing and a neighborhood meeting. The predo:rninant opinion at thE! neighborhood meeting was disagreement with the worki.ng group plan ami the nature of the study process. The Historic Resout"ces Board and the Palo Alto Bicycle Advisory COIDlTlittee both found the plan unacceptable. Staff believes that the plan could reduce speeds and volumes un both stree.ts, but that there are tradeoffs with pot.entially diverted traffic t.O othel' streets, increased maintenance costs, and interference with emorgency services. A trial of the plan would cost about $22,000/ with a potential tninimum additional expenditure ot $97,000 to install permanent circles and islands. Staff does not believe that current candi tions warrant such expenditures, and recommends that COUncil not consider the working group plan further. Staff has identified, but does not recommend, two oth-er options for Council's consideration; (i) authorize staff to take the necessary steps, including an environmental assessment, leading to implelnentation of the working group plan on a tl"ial basis, and potentially leading to a permanent installationj and (.ii) expand the study to include the entire ProfessOl'ville neigh borhood, to be conducted using consultant services at a cost ranging from $60,000 to $75,000. BACKGROUND rn 1992, two residents of Addison Avenue and Waverley Street (Messrs. Bill McGlashan and Michael Kast) subrr'litted a proposal to then Mayor Gary Faz~ino and Vice rlayor Jean McCown regarding ellR: 429: 93 '-'-<' '..;'-" .. " "., . . . -. -: :; ',,'.-;: . ,,' .,.;-w ... _~';' ... ~_~ ... _.-. , .: _"", • .,,,..< .¢, :,>."--",":,.,,.<..-:~~ .... ,,;-~ ~'''''''''lrt~:-.,,:'i-:?~~':'~~~:''':.' -~~j.5: o potential traff Lc improvements on Addison Avenue and Waverley street. Counoil directed staff to pl"epare an evaluation of the proposal f6r the Policy and Services Committee and the Historic Rcsout'ces Board (pleaso refer to council minutes, Attachment B). Staff prepared this evaluation and concluded that the conditions did not jl,lstlfy installation of the proposed measures (CMR:362:92,; July JO, 1992, Attachment D). staff, recommended that further (:onsiderAtion of the proposal be deferred until after council's review of the Bryant street closur.e, associated with the bicycle boulevard axtansion. "rho residcmts' proposal is designed to (in their words) ".incorpo rata features into Waverley, Addison and other streets in the neiqhborhood as required, that will reduce th~ impact ot traffic vithout i~pa!iring access". The residents' specific objectives are to (1) reduco noise g~nerated at stop signs on Waverley between E!nbarcadoro and ChamdnCJi (2) improve the visual appearance of Waverley and'hddisoni (3) reduce through and bypass traffic along A1dison; and (4) develop a parking plan for the area. The t'csidents· concerns were motivated by the apparent growth of traffic 1n t.he Professorville area, the prospect of the expansion of the Palo Alto Medical Clinic at its current location, and the changes in traffic patterns resul tiog from the ext,cnsion of thE'! Bryant streot Bicycle Boulevard. After considel"able discussion, the Policy and Selo'vices cormni ttee asked the Transportation Division to investigate strategies t.o accNllplish the fIrst three of the above objectives (i.e., not including a parking plan). The Committee expressed interest in the Qvaluation 6f various types of traffic management strategies that had not yet been tried in Palo Alto, and possihly in testing one on Waverley Street that might also be useful in other neighborhoods. '['he CO]!llQitten asked staft to work on this project within the same time frame as the evaluation of the street closure associated with the bicyqle boulGvard extension. It was understood that staff would ~ot be co~~itted to developing a fiued plan for Waverley and Addison, but would look at v<'Il:ious traffic roanagem'ent con,<;:epts, sh~re that information with the wider neighborhood, and thus return to the C1,:nrollittGc-with a better idea of what might be possible. The Committee dir~cted that the Waverley/Addison Study be brought back to the committee after Council had acted on the Bryant street closll);e issue. (Please refer to ComMittee minutes, Attachment C.) staft recently prepared a status report on the Waverley/Addison study (CKR~383:93), which was distributed to Council in the July S packet (the content of which is repeated in this latest report}. Council discussed the bicycle boulevard extension project at its July 19 Ji:eeting, and concluded that the Bryant Street closure should be. l'elnovad for a six-month trial period. Staff was given CHR:429:93 7/29/93 Page 2 i· , ,- ! .' i I J :-; ~ 1 ':j 'I I • " . "." " -, .. '.,," -.~~:.--..... .:..:..::~ the flexibility to take ilpprOpt" iate. traffic management measures during the trial j to correct any problcns that might arise from the removal of the closure. WORKINO GROOP HE£?INOS In t'ebrual."Y, staff tIlailed a letter desct'ibi~g. the W(lverley/Addison study to approxinately 415 rcsidenGes 1n tho PrQfessorvil1e Historic District (please rota}:' to Fiyure 1 in the body of this report), plus additional resiodcnces bot .... ecn webster and Emerson l'Io~th to ,Channing. Intftr~e.ted resident:; were asked to join a working 9roup that ... ·ou~d neat with stact twice to develop and review traffic ~"nagenent proposals for Waverley and Addison. Eigh.teen residents volunteered tor this qroup. In keeping ~ith the co~itte~'s direction, staff indicated In the letter to residents that tr",ffic ~<'lnage1tlent measures .... ould be considered only in the aroa initially targeted by Hessrs. XcGlashan and Kast. (La., \iavcrley between Enb,ncader-o and Channing, and Addison bet ... ·een Ramona and Cowper) and that staff did not int.end to develop strategies for ot'he:r.-streets in the area. However, staff indicated th1.lit the nuch .... ider itrea doesCl,-ibed .\11 the previous p1uagraph ... ould be included in ova Luating potentia 1 impacts (rom the plan and in intol"l':'Iing residents, Two working qroup Be~tinlJs were held in Hay, wit.h 14 residents attending the first ~eeting, and 9 attending the second meeting. Several of the attendees lived on Addison or ".'averley neal.' that intersection and had participat~d in developing the original plan submitted to Council. At the first ""orking <)roup meeting there ""as a discussion of the purpose and objectives of the study. '1"his .... ·as follo~ed by a discussion of t~affic ~anage~ent me3S~lres that could be considered for Waverley and Addison, including drawincJs of each measlJre ~9 applled to 'riavct'l(?;y and Addison. and numerous photographs of each, as \Ised i'n other cities. Aftel-the first meeting, a subgt'OUP of ","o'rking qn)up rn.cr.lbers, including Mr'. Kast, spant several hours developing a proposal to pres~nt as a starting point for discussion at the second meeting. The second me-et.ing' was int(l'nded to develop two or three altel'native traffic Jr.an~goMent plans tor each street. By the end of the second rn,eetin9, a single conceptual pIan had emc-l-gcd, which was essontial-· ly the one developed by the l"C'sidants' subgroup between the two 'Working qroup meetinqs. At both meeting::;. thek-€: was a cooperative spirit al'1long the members. Many thought the st_udy was too limited in geographic area. The issuC) most discussed was the loss of parking on Addison betwoen Bryant and Waverley due to the new bike lanes, and why bike lanes were aeeded anywhere on Addison. For the council's information, staff has prepared a series of exhibits describing traffic control devices and geometric design features that are most appropriate tOt-. ot-most. commonly used in, residentia.\ neighborhoods. collectively referred to as "neighbor- CMR:429:93 f;, L.. -", 11 7/29/93 Page 3 r-" i , i I I I ~ .' <c- ! t- " , ProfessorviHe Hisloric District L 411193 Page. 4, .~ , . \ , .•.. r "~ , • \ , , hood traffic management measures", In each exhibit, summary of the effects of each measure is provided, sketch and/ol' photograph of a typical installation. are contained In' Attachment A. DE8CRIP~ION OF THE WORKING GROUP PLAN ._j\.~:·':'~;';'."~L. ___ -'..J:.:...~. a very bX"iet along with a The e.hibits The primary purpose of the plan developed by the working group is to Ca) reduce speeds on Waverley, (b) develop an alternative to the four-way stop at the Waverley/Addison intersection, (c) reduce the impact of increased traffic volume on Addison, (d) improve the visual appearance of both streets, and (e) have no loss of parking on Addison. In addition, residents agreed that a variety of planter and circle arrangements should be tested for an initial trial, and that the cost of a potential permanent installation should be kept as low as possible. The overall working group plan is illustrated in Figures 2 and la, and detailed plans in Figures 3-6. On Waverley, the working group plan includes a landscaped traffic circle and planters, resulting in a 6-foot offset of the center line at each planter and a 12-foot Dffset at the cir.cle. Each location would be signed wi th an advisory speed of 15 mph. At the Waverley/Addison intersection, the traffic cil::cle ~.,oould substitute Tor the current stop signs on Waverley. To drivers ",pproachinq from a distance, the circle and islands would form an illusion that Waverley was not a through street. The planters also help to provide physical enforcement of the lane offsets. -rne working group plan does not propose any changes south of Kingsley. The basic intent. is to slow traffic on Waverley by introducing a rather abruptly curving center line, and to provide an alternative to the stop signs on Waverley at Addison, which residents feel aloe routinely ignored by drivers, On Addison, the Waverley/Addison circle would provide a visual impediment to drivers. The removal of the stop signs on IMverley would be a further deterrent to Addison drivers, by requiring them to wait for any approaching Waverley traffic b~fore crossing or turning. In addition' to this circle, a smaller circle. would be placed at the ScottI Addison intersection. Should the. Waverley/Addison circle not be implemented, the Scott/Addison circle would still have some of the sarno effect on Addison traffic. At least one resident felt that the circle would provide needed visibility improvement at this intersection, as short "no parking" zones \oJ'ould be required to accommodate the circle. On Addison between cowper and Bryant, bicycle lane striping would be redesigned to allow daytime parking to alternate between the north and south sides of the streets, creating a three-foot offset in the lane striping-at two locatIons. Residents purposely designed a plan that avoided the use of landscaped islands on CMR: 429: 93 <, 7/<9/93 Page 5 i, ", . RESIDENTS' WORKING GROUP TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR WAVERLEY "TI i5 c: :1J m N AddIson -......,. RESIDENTS' WORKING GROUP TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR ADDISON © FIGURE 3 n ;"l >-~ .<; > III ~ I --------l... " ." Z 0 !!.l Ow 0-' ~u _a: >--w U -'u a:-wu. >u. ~~ 3~ ~ o f i[) ., II ~ ,' .... "" " \ 0 FIGURE 4 ":> " -r w .--I >-cc -1! UJ Z Q) >0 :;; > 4;- '" ~ti ::; ~ :> <7> I-~(I) N 4;0:0: (l)WW 1-1":;1-to w .... _ z ~ (1)-Ll..r:) Ii Ll..wQ. 0.--1 w(l)C1 ~ ZC1Z 4;.?;Vi .--I~::> \ ,'J .,:., __ 1-__ _ 0: w f Z :) n. <D Z (j) ::> I-w en LL u. o w z :5 W ...J (!l Z (j) ~ U o _J co o :;.: FIGURE 5 t 1I00S ,~ '." LO ~ c II 0 '" 15 "0 ~ « w ...J U 0: u u u:: u. .~ CC I- Z 0 en 0 £:1 <! -l- I-- 0 U en ('.'." Page 10 ! " ':' o FIGURE 6 o "" ..... II ~Jlla 3" r" of (J) a: u, I-z -I ~ ...J " n. ~. l'J '-2 \{l iii ::> (J) I-w (J) u. u. 0 w 2 5 w ...J OJ ::> 0 0 ~ u 0 ..J OJ Q ~ .. r .. " z " " £ ~ c: 0 '" 'i5 .., <! +~ U\>f!;" IlIK!; page 11 "-, , . , If) ..... II ..... l'J 2 Q ex: ~ 0.. l'J 2 i= ~ 2: ex: w f .. ....J <t :r: I- ~ (J) w 2 ::i LI.J 2 5 I-w (J) u.. LL 0 ; ." , 'i'l }..1iiiliii;;,i.ii.lii;;ik~';;';"'"io'i.:,,,, < :;<~-d .. :i ir.i':e:":!!&$:i,\:"ia~'Hf,:;~l.£f~~.r~.+,,;,-._. Addif.;on, which are expensive and ""'ould re,";ult in the removal Qt substantial par:k.in9. Instead, pat'ked cars t when pt'esent, would servo as ph:rsical roinfQrcerncnt for the lane' offsets. Residents were hopeful that thero could be $~all mid-street islands at these locations:, if they coul~ be insti)llQd without losing parking. The traffic circle and the-lane offsets would be sir:rned with an adviaory spoed of 15 mph. The plan for Addjson {Figure 23) would result in the loss of. about 6-8 spaces beyond the recent loss of daytiN'3 parkin,)' for the neW bIcycle lanes between Bryant .and h"averle,Y. The ploCm does not propose-any changes west of Bryant or east: or COIo,lp"Ol:'. The chaTi99s on Addisoll are designed to slow traffic. and possibly to divert so~e of it to other streets, The exact locations ot planters on Waverlay and the reversals of parking on Addison 'Will depend on field verification of drive .... ay locations, utilitios, and fir-a hydrants. Planters would be appr'oximately 20 teet long and 10 feet 'Wirle, Would be tapered at each end to help facilitato stt"eet s .... eeping, and 'oIould be separated Erom the curb by .2 feet to all(li( for gutter flow. The Scott/Addison circle would be about 13 teet in diameter and the Wavarloy/Addigon circle, about 24 fcet in diamet~r. All planters and circles would be landsclioped. It has been assu~ed thatl should this or any other traffic roallagcf!:cnt plan ulti.natel)' he approved by Council, it would first be Imple~ented on a trial basis. Relatively inexpensive temporary asphalt ber?rs would be used to Sir:lU latr. the circles. and islands for the trial, NEIOHnoRHOOD HEil'l'INO In June, a lettal" ... as sent to the s~1ne 475 residences described above, pl"ovldinf} tho satao descrIption and exhIbit of the worKing group plan doscribed above:. Residents were invited to comment on tho plan by l.atter" and/or to attond a 'neIghborhood meeting on June 22'. Approximately 10 letters and telephone calls .... ere received, and 25 -30 people attended t.he me~tinq, including 5 participants from the 'Working group r:a:eetings. staff explained the origin, purposo, and process or the study, and presented the details of the working group plan. Hu~erous skotches and photographs of various traffic manage~ent t.echniquos were on display. This was ,follo .... ed by an hOUl" of coruat)nts and discussion. Staff encouraged attendees to commont on the working group plan ,and to propose other tech niquos and plans for Waverley and hddison" The predominant opinion oxpressed ".,ms cordial disagreement with the working group plan and the nature of the study" The most-expressed cOlrltt'tents arc paraphrased as follows. • The study approach is b"ckw..:Irds <lnd piecerne~l. The focus is too narrow. An overaU plan should first be developed for the entire neighborhood; then specific streets should be selected for tr.1!fic management. Residents of this ne':ghborhood want to \wrk together. CMRr429:93 7/29/93 Page 12 • Traffic from Waverley will be diverted to oth~r stroets j such as Cowper, 'Which WQuld then have (ewer irnpedir.wnts th6.n Waverley. This is al~otht'r reason why the entif(~. neiqhborhood needs to ba included. • Tl:\8 plan should include s01l1ething tot'" tile Bryant/Addison intersection because of drivcrs turning too fast (duo: to tho removal of stop signs and the street closure installed for the bicycle boulevard oxtcnsion). • Perhaps a test 1s not necessary. installatious 1n other cities. Use the results (ronll • There are not severe enough problcms on Waver loy to warrant such measures. • Safety for school chlldren will be c01':'lpro:r:'liscd by l"er..:ovinq stop signs on Waverley at Addison am) installing tho traffic circle. It already has been conpromised by the rCr.:lov<.'I1 of stop signs on Bryant at Addison for tho bicycle boulev~rd. • People constantly run the stop 5igl13 on Haver ley at Addison. 'l'he stop signs should be retained at Waverley/Addison, plus slowing techniques should be installed in advMicc of tho stop signs, so that people .... ould he tT'.ore inclined to stop. • The bicycle boulevard ext.ension is the l!l3jor causa of the proble~s that this study is trying to addrcss~ II The devices proposed for Waverley should be tried on Bryant in place of the street closure. Why experireent on Waverley when you are already experimenting on Dryant? • The working qroup plan carne about because a partlcLllar group of residents was concerned enough to dcvelop so~e ide~s and voice their opiniolls to the Council. One goal is to teat sOllie techniques that could then be used on other Protessorvllie f>treets. There is no intention to mova the problelll lL"oJ:a Waverley and Addison to other streets. RB!.ATIONSHIP '1'0 PALO 1ILTO HEDICIlL FOUNOATION (PM!") 1\NJ) BICYCLE BOULEVARD EXTENSION PROJEC~S The PAMF has indicated that it plans to move its facilities to another location within about five years. If this wero to happen, the traffic problems which the, working group plan is intended to address would probably be suhstantially reduced. Traffic patterns in the area 'Would change, possibly including the designation of Homer and Channing as t\<"o-way streets. CMR:429:9l 1f29/9l Page 13 The closure of Bryant Street between Channing and Addison, <"n ele,ment of the hicycle boulevard extension, has changed txaffic p"tterns in the area. A full discussion of these impacts is provided in CMRDeO:93 r 'Which was distributed in the July 8 Council packet. At its July 19 neeting, the City Council directe_d st.aff to remove this street efosure for a si)!; month trial poriod. This will change traffic patterns once again, removing most of the added traffic on Addison and} potentially, a large part of that on Waverley. If any problems were to develop as a result ot this removal, staff'could institute other traft'ic management measlu;es on Bryant. Thus, for at least the next six months, there is the potential for chanqE;'!s on Bryant which could impact conditions on Waverley and Addison. REVI&lI BY PALO liMO BICYCLE AOVISORY COHHITTEE (PABAC) PABAC reviewed the working group plan, and was not in favor of tho proposals for either street. Tho committee felt that the abrupt lane offsets would compromise the safaty of cyclists because the tl':"affic circles and islands would tend to cl..+Qwd bicyclists and drivers together, even where bicycle lanes were present on Addison. On WaveJ:!ey, cyclists would probably be best off by l1sinq the entire traffic lane. On Addison, parked cars may encroach on the transition areas and l theretore j encroach on the bicycle lanes. REVIEW BY HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD (HRB) In its original discussion of the residents I traffic proposa 1, Council felt that it was important that the flRB have the opportuni ty to review the plan, due to tho location of the project area within the profes6orville Historic District. The HRB reviewed the working group plan on July 7 I and was not in faVOl' of the proposals for either street. The predotT1inant feel ing expressed by the. HRB was that the grid street pattern and other public inCrastt.'ucture are as much a part of the Historic District as the homes. The proposed obstacles in the grid street. pattern, including the associated signaqe and possible modification of curb radii neal' the traffic circles, were seen as an introduction of inappropr late . elements into an historic street pattern in a downtown setting. It was suggest~d that the most that should be done is to review the placement of stop signs, and to return to' a regular pattel.~n of stop signs every other block on all the streets' in the area. The HRB also felt that the scope of this study is too narrow, and that the entire Historic District shoul~ be included. REVIEW BY TRANSPORTATION DIVISION General Comment~ The working group plan at tempts to seek the middle ground of dealing with traffic impacts without imposing unrJuc. hardships on drivers or residents. staff is not aware of a directly cornparable existing installation in other cities. 'I.'he Hilvia Ilsl ow stk:eet" in CMR:429:93 7/29/93 page 14 • o Berkeley employs a similar concept of landscaped islands in order to create, a mealldering centerline. but also employs road burnps ,refer to Attachment A). Seattlfl has several installations of landscaped islands which are used to creat_e sharp lane offsets to reduoe speeding, but the design restricts th~ pavement width to one direction of traffic at a time (refcI: to Atta9hment A). Neverthe less, the working group plan employs common, acceptable neighbor hood traffic management measures~-most of which have been used in some for~ in other cities, and som~ of which are recognized in the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. staff believes that the plan will accomplish the residents' goals to at least a reasonable degree, if not tully. standard .acceptable ditr,ensions for the circles, planters, and lane widths were suggested to the working group by staff and have been applied, and standard traffic signing would be used at all locations. Based on experience in Palo 1\1 to and othe)." cities, staff suggested to the working group that, to reduce speeds below the existing 85th percentile speed of 32 mph, a series of elements would need to be placed less than one blOCK apart, and that each element should b(,'. designed to reduce speeds t.o about 15-20 U1ph. Lane offsets around the planters have been so designed, based on a standard traffic engineering formula, and would be signed for an advisory speed of 15 mph. These areas might seem rather abrupt to drivers who are accustomed to driving considerably faster. Given the latitude in the design formula, it is expected that most drivers "Will be able to traverse these areas at about 25 mph and still stay in the designated travel lanes. One prOblem with this type of design is drivers "straightening the curves H , in an attempt to keep their speed close to what they have been accustomed. Tn order to encourage drivers to stay within the designated lanes, the centerline through the transition zones (nor·mally a single dashed yellow line installed with paint or tapo) "Would be rep1acp.d with a sing-Ie solid yellow line with closely spaced raised pavement markers~ Similar centerlines have been used on otherwise unmarked residential streets in Palo Alto when residents have complained of drivers cutting the corners on sharp curves. This type of lane marking would somewhat lessen the ~esthetic improvements. sought in the plan, and could Cause some noiso problems as vehiole tires hit the raised markers. Review of Plan for Waverley St~:~ ~. Based upon experience in Palo Alto and other cities with comparable devices, staff would expect that 85th percentile speeds between Channing and Kingsley {rr.idbloCK, between traffic management elements) would be reduced from the current 32 mph to approx·imately 25 mph. C!ffi:429:93 7/29/93 page 15 '.'" "' ',";T" .. ,£~;.i!";;]JS~.C ~...l~~. Based upon experience in Seattle and portland, the traffic volum& ,on I<l·av~.rley could decrease by a maximum of about 20 porc'.,mt (Le., could decrease by a maximum of about 1000 vehicles por day). A 10-20 percel\t deorease would be consistent with Palo Altols experience in the Midtown road .bump project. Any reduction in trattJ.c volum-o would bo the result of th,e twin deterrents of lougor travel timo and the visual impact of the planters and traffic circles. Diverted traffic would be expected to use parallel ~treets between Middlefield and Alma, the amount of which on each street would depend 01"1, the origin and destination of the urivers and their relative ease of using the alternate routes. For exaJlpl~, IDtllly rseidents were concerned that Cowper would be a likely alternative. with the ~orking group plan, there would be two stop siq"tls and two traffic lights on Waverley between (and including) Enbarc?\dero Elnd H(',mer, plus five locations where 15 mph Sl)aeds "'ould be advised. On the same section of Cowper, there are five stop slqns, with 3 25 mph speed limit throughout. For most tr~tfic l!()ve"~e"l1tst Waverley has better access to and from E'rrtbl'rcadcl.'o Ro .... d than Cowper. Waverley aJ.so serves the downtown cQ.Tw'!oercial area and the Palo Alto Medical Clinic more directly thzn Co .... per. The goa 1 of the '.wrk ing q.roup plon~ and of staff, is not to cause tt·affJ.c to shift .fror:l Waverley I a collector street, to local streets. Before a trial of the plan could be approved, staff would need to preparo an Environmental Assessment, Which would identify th.e amount of any expected traffic diversion to near-by streets. This inforr::aation "Would be cOllsidered by council before any decision to proceed was given, lli\Yj).Uf;Y::.A.g:"I;U .. ~.Q1LTraffic _CJL(::1.~._ The removal at the stop signs on Waverle.y at Addison and the ins.tallation of a traffic circle are key design aspocts of the working group plan. However, some residents ar-a concerned about potential impacts of the circle on podastrians, such as: s,chool children using Addison might not be able to crOss safely without stop signs; the cir.cle might inhibit visibility of pedestrians; traffic would be forced cl03e to the curb 'Whc;re pedestrians wait; and drivers would encroach on crosswalk areas. staff does not believe that it would be worthwhile to install a traffic circle ... ithout removing t.he stop signs on Waverley, even on a trial .basis~ With the stop giglls in place~ the. primary purpose at: the cjrclc""--speed contrOl-would bC! defeated, even though the visual impact w-Quld remain. With the working group plan, school children could still take advantage of the four-way stop at Lincoln, which is centrally located in the neighborhood. There is also a si9n&lized crossing of Waverley at Channing, on the north edge of the neighborhood. Also, crosswalks would be installed at the Waverley/Addison intersection, as described below. CIffi:429:93 7/29/93 page: 16 , , ~--. ~ : Ii four ... way stop provides a safe crossing for school chl1dt"en seems to be refuted by ~any of the residents p~rtlcipatin9 in this study, ~ho have observed that Waverley drivers routinely do not stop fully at the Addison stop signs. This is supported by a 1916 City stop sign study which fOlind that ",0 percent of drivers do not stop fully at four-way stops;, even when vehicles are prosent on the cross street. The: study inchlded several four-way stop intorsec tions On Waverley, ""here: tho .average speed of vehicles through the stop signs ranqed from 2.5 to 6.4 mph. - When approaching a traffic circle, drivors ~ust move to the right to ,drive around the circio l thus passing close to tho curb aOld tending to encroach on tho crosswalk areas. At sensitive loca tions l the City of Portland has aitigated the crosswa lk problem by painting crosswalks (""haro nona had prevIously been marked), in order to clearly delineate ttlO proper areas for driv'.Irs and pedestrians. In additIon, these crosswi'});.s were located a fm .. • foet furthor away fron the center of the intersection t.han usua!f in order to have enough lano width around the circlo so thdt this encroachment did not occur i13 feet). In the case of the proposed WaverleY-Addison circle, <::ross\,'aH::s would need to be p.l,)ved as describecl above by apPk:oxil:'latcly two feet, and 'then be mat'ked (they ine currently unmarked). To fUrther enhance v.isibility, these l'II.)rkings could be done in a i1ladder stripe ll pattern, which has been shown in tests to be the ~ost visible crosswalk narking. 00 this basis, staft bolieves that it would be acceptablo to replace the stop signs on Waver ley at Addison with the traffic circle, on a trial b.lSis. P1'!.Lting. Parking is currently not allowed on the east side of Waverley bet\\'een 7:00 a.m . .lind 1:00· p.~. becdusl) of the presence of bicycle la'nes. Theso bicyole lanes wi 11 bo renovod when waverley is repaved and rosh~iped: this fall, t.hus addinq about 50 new unrestricted parkini}' spaces betweon Channing and KIngsley. Tho working group plan would removo' a total of .l!bout 750 feet of parking frOB both sides of Waverley bAtw~en those hlocks l or about 34. spaces. Thus, even with that los~, ther-a would stIll be 'an overall net gain of spa:ces in that area, cOlllpat"ed to current conditions. HOlr/flver, parking "tould bo. prohibited in front of those residences where planters and tho circle were located. Aest~~. One goal of the worklnq group plan is to improve the visual appearance of "lavcrley and Addison. On Waverley between Channing and Kingsley, the six islands. and one circle would add about 1200 squ3t"e feet of landscaping to thfl three.-block area. These landscaped areas would iTllprove the appearance of Waverley, but the irnprove:rnent would be, offset somewhat by the additional signing and striping needed to 9uide drillers around the islands. Approximately 300 teet of new white edge 1 inc would be needed. Approximately 500 feet of dashed yello", centerline would be CMR:429:93 7/29/93 Page 17 i . " • -'. '" <. * -~-----" replaced with a single solid row of closely-spaced raised ~arkCl-S. IsV,md curbing may be painted whitc J and a small ceflector nay be installed on e~ch island. Approximately 11 yellow warning signs would b~ installed. LanE! widths. In most locations, traffic lanes would be a rnlnililu~ of 12 feet wide next to islands, which is the mirliroum width needed for a bicyclist and a motor vehicle to share the lane. This is the same lane width availabla when two cars are parked opposite each other on Waverley. Turning Moyements. ,Even though signing wou1d be placed at the traffic circle, requirin9 loft turns to be mado around it to the right, larqe trucks and fire engin~s Would not be able to negotiate this turn. Drivers of these vehicles would ~ither havo to turn at another intersection, or might decide to tUrn on the inside (to the left) of the circle. This has not b~en a problem in Seattle (left turns peudtted on either side of the circl~) I or in Portland (lett turns permitted only on the outside of the circle, but ar:e sometimes made on the inside). In some cities, the radii of" cllrb returns on the corners have been increased to facilitate turning; however, staff would not propose that change for either the Addison/Waverley or Addison/scott traffic circles. Wav~:tl_~L.1ti.n£l§...l~~_!.ands. At the Waverley/Kingsley intersection, the two offset islands should have a similar impact 011 speed as a traffic circle, though the visual impact on all appro,:,ching Waver!ey driver would be less than with a circle. Pedestrians crossing Naverley would be aided by a narrow travel way. Vehicles would be' travelling next to the curb l:.t only two corners, rather than all four, as with a circle. 'I'he islands would not inhibit turns by large vehicles as much as a ,circle. Unlike a ch-cle, the islands would have minimal effect on Kingsley trafric. The w,orking group plan calls for both :;inglc and pairad island installations. Single installations would cost less and usurp less pa-c},;inq than the paired islands. However, the visual impact of single islands wouin be less, and fewer offsets are mado in the centerline. If this plan were tested, both the residents and staff would like to compare the effects of single and 'paired islands. Review of Plan for Addison Avenue Speeds. The working group plan for the two-blOCK section of Addison between Bryant and Cowper includes similar speed-reducing elements as on Waverley. However, the lane offsets created by the shifting 'of parking would probably be less effective in reducing speeds than those on Waverley. Compared to Waverley, the later&l shift is less, the length of the transition zone is correspondinqly less, and there is less physical reinforcement of the transition. If parking is light, and/or at night when parking is permitted on CI1R:429:93 1129/93 page 18 ! , : I .. -'. both sides, there would effectively be no physical reinforcement of the lane offsets. It would not bo possible to install any landscaped areas to provide this reinforcement. without substantial removal of parking. staff is confident eiiough in this concept to test it, and estimates that the plan would reduce the current mid block 85th percentile speed of. 32 mph on Addison to about 28 mph. vOlumes. Addison 15 a local street, as contrasted with the collector street designation of Waverley. Addison carries a higher volume compared to other parallel local streets, due primarily to its closer. pro>:imity to commercial land uses.. As a local street, it would be appropriate that some amount of non-local traffic volume on Addison be diverted to collector and arterial streets (e.q., Homer, Channing, Waverley, Embarcadero, Alma). The proposed plan for Addison would probably result in some volume reduction, but less than that for Waverley, because there are fewer visual impediments, and speed reduction would probably be less. Before a trial would be authorized, an Environmental Assessment would determine how much traffic diversion might be expected on nearby streets. Parking. The plan avoids using landscaped islands on Addison, in order to mini1r\ize the loss of parking. currently, about 18 24-hour and 20 12-hoUl" spaces are available in that block. The plan would result in t~e loss of a total of about 130 feet of parking on both sides of Addison between Bryant and Waverley, or about 6 sp3ices (primarily due to the scott/Addison traffic circle), about evenly divided between the 12-and 24-hour spa(':es. About 30 tee"t, or 1-2 spaces, would be lost in the next block east. Bicycle l/anes. The existing bicycle lanes on Addison would be preserved throughout. Their width ... ,ould be reduced to four feet around the Scott/Addison tr.affic circle, the minimum acceptable. Neither bicycle riders nor drivers may totally stay in their respective lanes in the transition areas. Aesthetics. On Addison betweell Bryant and Cowper, the two tr~ffic circles would add about 400 square feet of landscaping to the two block ar~a (300 of which is" "common to both Addison and Waver.ley) . As on Waverley, the "visual "improvement of additional landscaping would be offset somewhat by th~ additional striping and signing rl::!quired. Approximately seven yellow warning signs would be installed. Approximately 80 feet of dashed yellow centerline. would be replaced with a single solid row of closely-spaced raised mark ers. conceptual Le.vel Cost~~timate~ cost estimates have been prepared for trial and perman.ent installa tions of the conceptual-level design discussed above. A trial of all elements of the working grol..'p plan would cost approximately $22,000, and would be installed by a privat~ Gontractor. All CMR: 429: 93 7/29193 page 19 \ ~ " ! '" '~" i"" ", . .-." ,. sii;Jninq and stripin'g' for the trial would be done in permanent fashion and could be retained tOL' the permanent installation. Traffic circles and planters would be formed from asphalt concrete (shlllar to tha mail box iSland in front of the Post Office on Henniitan Av'en'ue). If the trial were not successful, and all trial eletnents had to be removed, the additional cost would be approxi mately $11,000. An ildditional $2,000 should be budgeted for possiblo changes dur.inq the trial. Thus, a total of $35,000 would nec~ to be budgeted to cover a trial of the plan and its possible reTlloval. If,the trial WerE!. successful, a'nd all plan elements were to be made ~manent, the berms would be reT.loved and replaced with permanent landscaped circles ~nd islands formed with concrete curbing, based on the minimum cost "basic rl design for the street closures approved by council in 1990 (e.g., Bryant/Lowell and Hryant/El Verano). Included in this design are dt'ought-resistant landscaping, bouldnrs, and one year of manual watering by a private contractor. The additiona 1 cost for the above work would be approximately $97,000 fo'r all elements of the working group plan. This cost estil:H\te was ext.-rapolated from the similar 1990 project, and should bE'l considered as very approximate. The total expendit.ure for a successful trial of the working group plan (with no modifications), plu-s permanent installation of the basic design, would be approxi matoly $22~OOO + $97~OOOj or $119,000. A permanent installation would be designed and constructed as a Capital Improvement program (CIP) project by the public Works Department. If the circles and islands were based on the IIlow-maintenance/high aesthetic tr design that is especially desired by the Public Works Departmont, the additional cost of the permanent installation of the _plan would increase to approximately $15-5,000, and possibly hi9her :l.f some long storm drain connections were required. With this desi9n, the total expenditure for a successful trial and permanent installation would be $22~OOO t $155 /000, or $177,000, and possibly higher. These cost estimates were extrapolated trom tho 1987 Evorgreen Park project~ and should be considercd as very approximate. For further discussion about the two types of island designs, please refer to the Public Wnl:'ks Department's evaluation of the working group plan (see below). REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS The Police Department is not in favor of additional obstacles to the provision of emergency services. Police vehicles could proceed around the traffic circles or down the center of the street around the other islands, but at a slower rate than usual, thus impacting response times. The Department is concerned about the precedent setting nature of the proposed plan. CMR:429:93 7/29/93 page 20 .'0. , , ,-. -';'-:'" ",~,\~~~?(~: ,".'. .". ~lll'~1~~ . ~ . \ ' . ') ,'.- i I,." . ; I ... ; o The Fh-e Department strongly re:comnll~nds that tho traffic circle at Waverley and Addison not be implemented, because it would impede easy access-to the fire hydrant on the corner, and would require that lq:ft turns b.~ r.tadll) ('In the inside of the circle into the opposing 13fles of traffic. The islands at t.he corner of Waverley and Kingsley woUld ilflpede easy access to a fire hydrant at that location~ The Dep~rtment notes that nighttime visibility at Wavarley and Addison is only f~lrf a~ the nearest street light is abcl1Jt 200 feet a'\ia~'. £l!!l.li£...1IQrlss Depuwnt The Public Works O-epar:tr:aent bellev~·s that the proposed basic design of the landscaped isla':1ds in the working group plan would havo a substantial negativQ i=PBct on A.-.lntonance. The two-f'Oot guttel." area bet .... een tha islands anl:t tho existing curb would tend to collect. debriu, ""'hich 'Would interfex-a-\lith storm drainage. Even thQugh tho islands lo'ould be angled -away from. the curb line, they ~ould still interfere with efficient tH.!chanical street ~ ...... eepinq. To be propet'ly cleaned, these areas \>ould have to be swept manually. Ths PublIc \forKs opcl-ations Division does not receive extra funding for ~"inten[\nco when projects such as these are approved. These is13nds, if installed. plus other existing islands 1Ft the City 'With th~ sar:':c desi9n, I';u!lulatively produce sllbstantial negative impacts on I!):aintenancc:. including street resurfacing projects. The Public Works Depal"t~ent Hotos that the island design proposed in the working group plan is UII) basic design, similar to that approved by Council In 1990 for eight stt'eet closure locations. That design 'Was devclopl::d in reaction to the relatively high capital cost of the low-~ainten3;ncc/hi9h-afHlthutic design used for several Qf the street closures _tn .. :vcrgreen park. The closure tlesiqn used in Evergreen Park was one that was integrate.d with t.he curb, included Ilew catch basins and storm draInage, was shaped specific~l.ly to accommodate mecl,anlcal street sweeping, and provided an extensive, hi9hHquality landscaped area with automatic irrigation. ('rna cost of tho basic street closure design is approximately $11.000, whoreas that of the low-maintenance/high aesthetic design ranges from about $25,000 to $40,000, depending on the amount of storl'Q drainage \t'ork required.) The Public ilorks OepartJllent continues to favor the lattet" design, with its substan tially higher initial cost, coupled with lower annual m~intenance req~lirernents' (and substantially greater aesthetic appeal). Cost estimates foX' th~~ working group plan based on both design approach es were discussed above. The Parks and Golf Division is responsible for maintenance of public landscaping. HOIo,revcr, the Parks Supe:t:'intendcnt reports that there has not beon clear direction nor a hudget allocation for maintenance of landscapinCj associated with the street closures. As CMR:429:93 : I 7/29/93 page 21 t I i .... ,~' ",', ~ , a result, this landscaping has not be-an ,:regularly rt'aintained. In :many cases, the drought-resistant landscaping planted in the 1990 street closure islands has not survived. lt is not clear ".,hrather the initial establishment period with contractor-provided w.o.tering w~s too short, or whether the intensity of the recent drought overwhelmed the ability of small patches of I(l .... en drought-tolerant landscaping to survive without water. The Public Works Depart!!ent, which is responsible for watering unirriqated public landscaping, does not water those islands with its water truck. Tllis project may have shown that, e ..... en tor drought-tolerant landscapinCj to survive in such islands, aut~matiG irrigation roay be necossary. Clearly, if the islands proposed in the ""orking gr()\lp plan 'Were approved for p~rmanent installatiof)~ a. pol icy would need to he: established and funds allocated, to enS\lre that proper Mainton?lnce and watering Qr irrigation were provided, uti 1 i tie!:Lpepa...r...tJ~ent The utilities Department docs not support the proposed plan becauso there al'e extensive services in the "'("ea l both ('Iver~lcad and soon to-be-underground, which would require l""!<lintenClnce. The isldnds and circles would iTTipede access to these utilitic:'; by linge trucks. Hav('!rley and Addison are crowded .,dth jntrastrucllll'e such as w<lter, sewer, gas, storm drains, and electric, telephone} and cable television lines. Any surface obstructions make nalntenancc nore difficult, and tha islands should be located in are~s whe~c thero are the fewest such utilities. The tt"affic ch'cles, which )":\ust be located in the centers of the intersections, r.'IlloV COV01~ If'.anholes or other utility accesses. These aCGess~s "'ou ld than have to be raised to the new grade in the circle aroo. ENVIRONHtNTAL ASSESSMENT No specific action is recommended at this timo; therefore, no Environment",l 1\ssessment has been prepared. Should tho council wish to proceed with a trial, an Environmental Assess~~nt would b~ propared for Council approval. CONCLUSION staff believes that conditions 011 theso two streets do not war-rant the type of measures or the expense of even the ba.sic design proposed in the • .... orking group plan. It, however, Council wishes to proceed with a traffic managemont plan for Wavorloy and Addison, staff would support'a trial of the proposed working group plan. stat'f recommends that Council not consider the working group plan further. CMR:429,93 1/29/93 p<lge 22 i I I i· " I i , o staff has identified, but does not recoromend, two other-options for Council '$ consideration: (i) (ii) Dil~ect staff to take the necessary steps leading t.o i'arplclllen tation of the working group plan on a trial basis, potentially leading to a permanent installation. Tho next steps 'Would include prelimJnary design, refined cost estimates, designa tion of funding sources, preparation of the Environmental Assess:uent, and return to Council for appToval to proceed with the tdal. Expand the study to include the entire Professor ville neigh borhood (and/or other contiguous areas identified by Council). This would require consultant services at a cost ranging from $60,000 to $75,000. Respectfully submitted, C::u£ Mu/#-~ CARL S'l'OFFEL Transportation Engineer KENNETH R. SCHREJBER Dir-ector of Planning JU~~~ and Community EnvirOlHncnt City Manager Attachments: A. Inventory of Neighborhood Traffic Management Measures. B. Minutes of. 5/18/92 City council meeting C. Minutes of 8/4/92 Policy and services committee meeting. D. CMR:362-:.9? (attached for City Council members only; other copies are available in the TJ."anspol"tation DJvision office) co: Historic Resources ~Qard Architectural Review Board Planninq Commission Palo Alto f.fedical Foundation Palo Alto Bicycle Advisory committee Stoecker and Northway Associates Bill McGlashan Member.s of the Residents Working Group CMR:429:93 7 /?9 /93 Page 23 .-J' ATTACHMENT 3 Excerpt of Minutes from the August 3, 1993 Polley and S~rvic('s Committee Discussion of 1he Wa~'er!ey/Addls(m'Trnrnc l\'1an:lgement Plan 5. ~l'yation, of Residents' TUtrfic Management Plan for tllft Waverley/Addison Traf~~ Transportation Engineer carl Stot'fel said the report (CMR: 429: 93) summarized staff's efforts over the past six months in working with residents from the Waverley/Addison area on a traffic plan submitted in 1992 by two residents of the area. In August 1992, staff was directed by the Policy and Services (P&S) committee to take the plan into t,he neighborhood to obtain input from residents and ret.urn to the committee during the time of evaluation of the bicycle boulevard barrier. staff had conducted two working group meetings with the residents' out of which came the Working Group Plan (the Plan). The PI'an 'Was then taken to the wider neighborhood through a roailing and a neighborhood meeting and also was reviewed hy the Historic Resources Bo"rd (HRB), the Palo Alto Bicycle Advisory Committee (PABAC), and staff. staff's basic recommendation was not to proceed with the Plan ba~ed on its cost and the relatively benign conditions on Waverley/Addison. Council Hemb(!X' Anderst.!n asked j in terms of traffic problems associated with two-lane streets, whether staff considered the Waverley/Addis~m intersection the most burdensome in the entire City . .Mr. Stoffel stated that it was probably less burdensome than other collector streets '\<,'hich carried cQnsideroElbly more volome. Addison was also part of the intersection which was residential and carried more volume than other local streets. In general, the problem was not that unusual. Chief Transportation Official Harvin Overway said stl"eets which carried significantly more traffic than Waverley and Addison were Channing with altuost 6,000 and Los Robles with, 5,000. Mayor McCown" said other aspects were the ,measures being considered and the potential applicability in other neighborhoods, not just the Waverley/Addison location. ,She asked how the process had served sta~f or the community in dev&loping a bett~r understanding of the merits or demerits of different npproachos, Le., if more generalized learning came out of the study which would be. applicable to other neighborhoods which had petitioned Council for traffic calming devices, etc. Mr. Stoffel said the study had been produotive in tho manner portrayed by Hayor McCown, as elements of the Plan revealed the issues which could be addressed in other neighborhoods. Staff would support council's decision to proceed because it was something which was typically used il') other places and had the potential for addressing some of the issues about which residents were concerned. Staff had gathered data through the study which .allowed a closer look at so-me of the issues. 8/3/93 P&S: 16 -.. -' "! I I c- o _~ ~;.);_""·i_"--r'.~-;;_o?~_~"3·' '-:h;;~~J~-,:' o Chti1t'pe~son Simitian questioned Mr. Stoffel's statement about st.aff"s supporting Council if it decided to proceed, i.e. I what stco.ft 'Would support, 9iven the staff recommendation was not to procoed; Mayor McCo'Wn suggested that the co:mment related t.o supporting certain ~e~sures on a trial basis. Mr. Stoffol sAid the elements considered in the Plan 'WGre of a good enough qual1ty that there was nothing ",rong with trying it it counoil so da~ired. Chairperson Sim\tian asked whether Hr. Stoffel was saying that if Council wanted to proceed, the ele~ents were 'Worth trying for traffic nitigation. Hr. Stoffel replied yes. City Traffic £n9ineer Ashok A<jCJiu .... ·al said back in the nlid-1980s, Council had requested staff to investigate methods of reducing speeding 1n Palo Alto. At the time, staff conducted extensive resea.rch and determined that most of the studies which dealt with tr~ffic circles, :moandering streets, chokers, and chicanes were inconclusivo. HOlole'/er, evidence had been obtained in the latest studie9 trom Seattle and Portland using similar methods which indicated reasonable succeSG. Mayor HcCo~n asked if it would be beneficial to the city to develop standards by which to accept neighborhood applications for the use of th~ d~vices. communities such as Portland and Seattle, with programs sil'llil21r to Palo Alto's for speed bumps, had a set of standards to evalui'tite whether the particular device was appropriate or not for City exponditure. Hr. stoffel said a very small step had been taken in that direction. Mayor ~cCown asked if ~ore work would be required to determine what standard would be applied if a, program were to be instituted for potential use of devices by different neiqhb~rhoods. Hr. Overway said the criteria and evaluation which Portland and s'eatt-le -utl1iied ?.,...ere in part prioritizing to meet a minimum to ~eiqh one request against another, which was an important aspect. staff's experience with road bumps was one of much interest. As a rosult of the Midtown study propos;).!, the city proceeded to put speed bumps into the area. The expeX'ience resulted in rigid standards; the question was whether the ~tandards were too rigid or not rigid enough. staff's original concern was t.he proliferation of speed bu~ps allover the area, so a conservative view of the standards was taken. Staff was beginning to rethink: some of the 8/3/93 P&s: 1"1 ·'··.·· •• ··-]·;]l.- : /~,;, ;.~~~{~->~;~ ., ..... "~ ,;.-~;;"<:.:; .~',!,<. ~'-'."' -: issues. After much delIberation, staff established credible criteria to be used In evaloat·i.ons. Council Member Andersen queried when a neighborhood desired a level of response beyond, whht the city generally deemed desirable, where the expectfltions did not have an adver!'lo affect on other neighborhoods ~ut the criteria did not tit, if other cities utilized a similar parkin9 E\sseSSr.'Iont district to do sOlllo'~hin9 extr.r;loordinary. The funding 1!16ch8lniSia otten .assumed sol'tlething ... ·ould either proceed or not depending Ilpon the total budget mechanism; i.~~, a corollary to a parking assessment district. Hr. stoffel said in SOJll9 cities, road bunp proql'a!!!S had been paid for by the. residentB, but it ho.1d only occurred one or-t'lo'O times. 'l'he Portland and seattle pl:'og),"a~s wore city-funded programs except for a littl~ resident partlcipation as far as landscaping, watering', etc. Mr. overway said Portland had established a Capital IMprovell',ent Project (CIP) or capital buuqet .... ·hich set (lside so :r.'iuch money each year into the fUnd and staff 'Would go through the program criteria to establJsh pl'iorities. There was probably a backlog of requests. M'ayol'." McCot.ln unden;tood thilt Port land had a designated ai':lount which could not cover every request. t'eighborhoods interested in corning into the prQ9rarn wore placed' into son"~ order and had to meet certain criteria to be eligible for the funds. She asked whether staft knew the amount of the progr"m. Mr. Stoffel sr.id one of the pl'og .. -ams had a fi9ure of approximately $600,000 per year. Soma ,of the budgets Wdro fairly sizeable with well established programs including fliers ~nd brochures, Mr, Aggarwal said a traffic t'U'lOiOI,gcnent stratel"}Y minimally cost $100,000 cOl1pared with a parking 'assessment district which could Cvst in the millions of doU'1rs,' The cost ot: creating an assessment district itsolf was very hiqh. Chairperson Sinitian'said that Oaniel Bohr-ow, 326 Addison Avenue, had submitted a form in order to =aKa a co~ent about p05tpone~ent of Item No. 5 but had to leave prior to being called upon. Sandra Hartignetti, 1018 Cowper Street~ agreed 'With the staff recoll' .. "'i'lendations that tho traffic conditions at waverley did not warrant $22,000 to $9/,000 worth of expenditure of City funds. It was especially true stnep. Waverley was already designated as a collector street. Traff~c patterns night change if the Palo Alto MedIcal Foundation (PAMF) rolocatAd, Which was likoly. If any city funds 'Were to be spent, a n()ighbo.rhoorl-wido solution should be sought. What occurred on one street in ProfessorvillQ: affected others, just as the Bryant Bicycle Boulevard had chl:lnged the traffic patterns on cowper and construction on Waverley, The 8/3/93 P&S: 18 i'~~;J~-i<J-.-.· ... .. : ;~"';: .. ~ ":- ,".£ "" ~;>:<. "~ .. --<" .'~1'~ \ o higger issue was that one neighborhood should I.ot be pitted aqainst ~,nothe.'t". A better solution would involve all neighborhoods lookinq into the situation together. She questioned the: expenditure of two years' wOl'th of time and money considering the situation~ It seemed less like a study than a group of neighbors wanting thel~ street to lOOK better and be more pleasant, which everyone want~d. She hoped future traffic .nanaqernant pla\lS inoluded calt'oful consideration of entire neighborhoods, especially ones: like Professor.ville which wero already congested and well travelled. Linda Scott, 1051 Ramona street, Historic Rosources Board Ho~bor, said most of the information in the staff report (CMR:~29,9)1 was not inclusive of the MRS's rnossaqe, which she vanted to clarity. The existing street system 'Was established in the 1880&. The issue was not so much a traffic issue as' it was to reduce the nUrWor of vehicles. The street scape, consisting of the strcet# lighting, sidewalk details, etc., was as much a part and contributor or detr-iment to the district as the houses. Ho· .... the olcnents were treated in the district could have a direct effect on tho district's eligibility for inClusion in the National Regi5ter (tho R~.gister), even after it had been placed on the Register. The IfRB strongly felt the need for more sensitivlt.y in the ilrea of public improvements in general. If there .... ere contributing and non contributing factors in Professorville, where the number of houses dropped belOW a certain percentage, the district would lose its eligibil:tty and \.IoulC\ not be included in th& Register. The street scape was a factor and consequently, if the:t:e .... ere more non ... contributing factors or elements in the stroet scape than contributing, the district could also be taken off the Register. The HRB was 1n the process of expandirlg the area of Professorvilla for inclusion into the Register, and it coUld be! diffic~llt it' the National Register indicated the area was decimated and could no longer be included. At the time of the oriqinal expansion, the HRB spoke of inlprovements to the public spaces in the existil'lq Professorvl1le. It was felt at the titte that it an expansion would be done, the improvements would come after the expansion. 'fhe HRB was very concerned about the proposed i~provenents 3S not appropr"iate for a historic district and would he detrimental to the effort. Therefore, the lIRB was opposed to the project~ As a resident, she supported an expand~d study for the area, although she questioned the use of a consultant. .An initial joint staff and neighborhQod effort could be an alternative to address the problems, etc. The PAMF, touted as a l:eason Ilot to do the study for five years, would move, and it was a good idea to have a study conducted prior to the tnove as it Il'!ight have a major effect at a "later time 'When a smaller change was considered and might be beneficial to the process. Anything which was done should illvolve more city coordination rather than grabbing at a solution for a particular area. The city became a potpourri rather than Palo Alto's having a IIlook. II She hoped something more comprehensive would ba done in the future. 8/3/93 P&S: 19 I I r , '" -", ,. ;. Michael Kast, 420 AdcHson Avenue, was one of the two contributors to the or.iqinal proposal. Hc2 complimented Nr. Stoffel on the staff report. 'l'he information was very valuable for the Cit~r at large. The presentation was ,a good start to see how measures might or might not be i:mplemented, including costs and effectiveness. The analysis of the study group plan was also very good as it pointed out:: the diff.iculty of designing sornethin9 in a committee mode. It wa~ clear that the propos~l put together by the Residents Working Group was not feasible, and he would not support council/s doing a study primarily due to cost factors. Original discussions centered around something which was relatively inexpensive. The extension of the diversion was excessive for what was being attempted. It was not the aim to att.ain a 20 percent diversion, and no target had been set,' Any study required a better job of setting criteria for success and fai lure. The number realistically should have becn set at 5 percent and no attempt 'Was made to divert traffic frolll Waverley. An ,:,.ttempt was being made to configure traffic so that resident.s would enjoy their hom.:as more. Maintenance problems 'Were well described in the report. Some mea!::>ures 'Were more pl"oblematic than others, but the information could be put to good usc, Fmergency services and other utilities conflicts seemed t.o reveal traffic circles WOuld be difficult to implement in a city environment. He-did not agree with Mr. Stoffel's conclusions, as the list of options went beyond whether or not the plan should proceed. The study group should review on the Plan from which feedback had recently been received to offer something rat.ional about the issues and problems associated with the various measures. He hoped there would be an opportunity for closure on the study group's effol"t. A plan had been put together which was submitted to a cOJTUliunity which did not like it. It aPJ',eared to impact other streets more heavily than at first anticipated, causing unintentional distress to members of the neighborhood. There was still opportunity to come up with a plan which was supportable, viable, sensible, and useful for the City, to explore. To do so, the study group needed an opportunity to generate an appendix to the plan, incorporating new information. Not much was required frOM staff to do so, but staff would need to critique what was qenerated. The philosophy behind it all was one of a minority issue. Collector streets were required to carry a burden of t:raffic which other streets did not have to carry. It was to the benefit of the city; however, caution was required to ,protect the interests of residents on the collector streets within the limits of what was known about traffic management. Mayor McCown asked Hr. Kast whether the scope of the study should be broadened for a more comprehensive view. Mr. Kast'thought it was not in conflict with anything he wanted to see, A broader scope would not get to any end effect whiGh would necessarily be beneficial to the commllnity. Waverley was a collector street which carried more traffic than other streets. Ilo one proposed closing Waverley or making it a non-designated 8/3/93 p&s: ZO '. I "::. ~~ .~' ». ..;~~"lii,~,iL~";.··' ... ·' ... ",' .. ,.; .... ; .. \ n o o collector street~ If the city at large, or its neighborhoods were taken together, T<10st likely everyone would want all traffic on Ern.b8rcad~ro, Middlefield, Channing, a'nd Alma which might not be beneficial to the City. There were many thin9s ha~penin9 in the downtown .z!Il"ea which had changed over the past 10 years which warranted a traffic study. Hr. Over way said Daniel Bobrow had wanted to make similar corr~ants about having an opportunity for'more information since receipt of the st.ff report. ~ill McGlashan, 1019 Waverley street, had bean one of the original proponents for the City's taking a look at the issue. He had received 50::"0. information during his year's stay in Czechoslovakia. At the outset, the intention ..... as to determine , .. )lether staff and the neighbors could come up with an exemplary solution for all of Palo Alto. The tone in the comments appeared similar to the Russian mentality of , .. anting to bring others down to their own levels - llke the story of a Russian neighbor wanting to kill one of his neighbor's pigs if the neighbor had two pigs and he only had one, It was not intended to be to the disadvantage of anyone else but. to bo exemplary. It was hoped that all of Palo Alto would be improYcd. He was loath to see Council adopt an attitude of not looking for diverse solutions from the grass roots and applying them to the City, everything alwal's had to be a huge neighbor.hood study. If so, he would feel the same as Mr. J<ast and would want Palo Alto to hire professionals because it would be t,oo big. However, local people could corne up with proposed solutions. It was the free enterprise way which 'Was the strength of the city and the nation. It was ironic that the HRB was so vehemently opposed bucause only a small portion of waverley, before it intersected Lincoln, and a small portion of Addison from scott to Bryant, was even 1n the HRB district. The major part of the study had nothing to do with the historic district. He was also surprised that the HRB ""'as so strong when it was not even on record with the Bryant stre~t closure, which he was pleased to see Council had reversed. CItizens should be strongly in favor of exemplary solutions j arrived at by citizens, with comments by staff. He proposed that the noighborhood group and staff t:t'y to build a consensus 'in the neighborhood to a sensible solution. The traffic circle was clearly the killer in the proposal. However, item 9 in the report with the median islands, leading to an 8 percent reduction in traffic speeds, not diverting tt'affic, was a winner. It was inexpensive, and with a fcw minor changes, it could be an exomplary, winning ~olution for Palo Alto without opening it to a Citywide study. Mel E. pratt, 1136 Waverley stre~t, thought it was unnecessary to change Waver lay from a collector street. The speed had been reduced considerably by the fact there were stops Oil nearly every street, however, the impact. of the Bryant traffic light had not had time to work out. If the issue were one of speed, the speed limit 8/3/93 ~ . -' , P&S, 21 .. could b~ changed. Three of his cars had been hit while the street was strtlight; therefore, the addition of planters, making the street ~i<jza9'1 rai.ght produce ~ora danger. An issue which was overlooK~d vas tho fact tho~e was considerable pedestrian traffic; the sl-.'erving situation might btl disconcerting for pedestrians and should be considered in the studies. He supported the staff report rcconmondation to drop ,the study. Richard DI'and. 281 Addison AVElnuc, was a newcomer to the Professorllilla .erGa. Many house.s in Professorville were qrondfathered in 'Without garages, causing :more stl'eet parking with ~ultlple fa~iliGa living in each facility. He respected Hr. Stoffel/s wOi'k f especially the bicycle boulevard, There were always traffic changes resulting from any action, e.g., removal of the barricade, cable instnllat.\on on Waverley, PAMF move, etc. He fl\VOL"ed ., larqer study of the overall area which would include parkinq, bi.cyclo traffic, etc., and applauded residents making thG~r own attenpts and proposals. Tay Gallager, 440 Melville Avenue, had attended the meeting in June 1993, ~hen 25 to 30 residents attended and only five supported the o..-igini'll proposal. There was no animosity among the residents on differol1t strcetf>, and reasonable cornnents were given. Waverley street did_flot scere to have the sa~~ problems as other streets in the City. It was ~ collector street ~ith traffic, but she thought the residents did not think it was critical to have a study. Once staff .... .,s pulled in, the plan b(!ca~a l'Iuch t~ore costly than originally anticipated. The rest of tho community then questioned the ar;,ount <>f l!lOney expended on only two streets. The nine points in tho staff repot-t tl"uly covered most of the remarks which had been made, but none of the ramarks, e.g., "two pigs versus one tl ... ero in tho maating at 311. The majority of residents had children attending Addison School Cor ~hlch reltloval of stop signs would not btl positive. :f'rOJl\ Embarc.adero to University on Waverley, the trllffic was fairly well controlled as to speed. She believed the neighborhood .... anted a traffic pattern which would work and was willing to work with anyone at any tine. Dana Mossar, 102:4 Emerson, supported the concept of lItwo piqs for every neighborhood" in Falo Alto. It,wils inaccurate to say anyone wanted ,others to ~uffer the consequences of any parttcular traffio situation. The co~unity was very aware of Downtown North and the time spent 011 sEdd neighborhor:xl. It was considered one which should be protected from non-residential use as llmch as nossible. Someholol, Professorville had not received the same -k'ind of rocognition as Downtown North. It provided the same east/west passage at peak periods and provided the same entrance and egress, and it was thao the neighborhood was provided an opportunity to find ways to live compatibly with the commercial ingress/egress and parkinq problems of ttlC neighborhood. She wanted Council to begin talking about Sout.h of Forest Avenue (SOFA) and Downtown north in the Same way. 8/3/93 p&s: 22 ,L- < -_:;:. ". ';c: ):::;. -' ;-'-::":~:~£;t-_;','-. ,. . __ ~ . . \,., .. '-'- \' " o Chairperson Simltian recapped the co~ent~ hoard during tho eveniTI9t .including: (1) conc.orns about speod and volume, (2) enthusiasm for development of exornplary Golutions t (J:) support tor localized qrass roots solutions as corop~red with neiqhborhood-wldo sol1ltlons, (4) the nacessity for local traffic solutions to be developed in a way which was consistent vith some Citywide desi9n or aesthetic appearance, (5) concerns tlbout historic considerations 1 (6J concerns about tho .issue of a minoritl' 'Which bore a somewhat groater burden for the public benefit, and P) tho wHlingness or ability of the community to t"espond to mltigations which might in some way .. inilOizo tho burdon of tho "inority bearers. The couittee then had to reconcilo tho comments or issues. He asked staff what 601utiom; it had. Mr. Overway said there'w.18 no urgency to finding a solution. The people most interested should be providt';!d the opportunity to act in an approprJate manner. Tho staff ret¢n:r:'londation indicated stafr collectively thought the situation did not ... ·arrant the expenditure; however, there was a leqitinate argu~erlt which could be J:lada to test the reality of some of the sU9gestions for diversion and/or speed divorsion as a learning exp~rience-. If it ·,.'!as worth the information and learning procGss, it was, in staff's opinion, an appropriate vehicle. It did not pl"eclude COUPlcil frol''' rer:oving it .a later time if it proved to be as bad as sottle people thought :it would be. Mayor McCown wanted the neighborhood to be a 1 lowed to take the iterative step. She would have boen disappointed it all that vas received ""as a specific an.llysis of one intc.rsectioll and "'hat should be done there. council always hoped to get tho kind of analysis Which Mr. Stoffel had pl"oduCl!d of long...;.torm benefits. She was encouraged by MI'. A99ar~al's statcI!lont about nower information and the Viability of sorne of the measures cOli\pa·r~cl with tha last time the P&S committeo loo);:od at it. She concurred \lith staff and th~ proponents that th~ Working Group Plan vas not tho right plan an~ should not be pursued because: it "'ould, not achieve the goals. She was comfortable with tho staff recomNendation and the recommendation that the Plan not be tried on a trial basis. If something '.4ere tried on a trial basis, it should go through another step. She wa:s: unclear abo~t the requost to 100)( at the whole neighborhood. On the one hand she fav(>rod the trial basis because a broader study would not allow a deterlJination ,of the fine tuning in the developtTtcnt of standards. She was concerned about investing the community and staff's time in a rouch more global, non-specific study of the whole neighborhood instead of traffic issues. She was left only with, as a specific next step, the suggestion to allow the people who had been involved to work over the study and give their feedback through staff. Council Member Andersen concurred with Hayor McCown's colto.ments. He also had difficulty going be.yond identifying issues. There were too many dynamic Variables which would make it dift icult for an~' 8/3/93 NS: 23 r '- analysis to have long-lasting ~ffects. The City already had a six month study on Bryant Street, a Comprehensive Plan Update of the entire City of which the Waverley at'oa would be given careful assessmant l and the whole issue of PAMF and how it would impact or change the area, arId he was not sure what the city already had \lhich staff had already gat.hered. Before determining tho gaping holes, he \>1ould not recommend going beyond the pl'crnature identific'ation of the problem. lie supported more resolution hrought with regard to other issues before giving a go-ahead with a study. Chairper$on Simitian clarified the P&S Committoe preferred follow up work be narrowly defined instead of looking to neiqhborhood-wid~ solutions. Council "'ember Andersen said M'r. Kast requasted an appendix: to the material, and staff had indicated a willingness to react to the materiaL He supported the staff recommendation with the one exception. Mayor McCown was willing to talk with the illt(>rested people in the neighborhood about devices which could be used to look at broader neighborhood circulation, characteristics, and historic value. Sh(.l questioned what the study would act.ually analyze since there was not enough material to do so on a broader basis. The people who were interested in the problem should be given the material to examine. Then a determination could be made as to whether anothe): step should be taken and what the step would be. She was interested, long term, in pursuing the idea of a modest capital budget on an experimental level, Le., $75,000 to $100,000 per year, for a pilot of three to fiVE:-~'ears where measures could be applied for by neighborhoods with criteria to try some of the devices. COI~ents had come in from people on Lytton impacted by the extent of traffic going down Lytton to Wi How Road and the freeway. The issues came up over and ove~. Chairperson Simitian aSKed whether staff considered the appendix, as suggested by a 'member of the public, as a feasible suggestion. Mr. Overway said 'When staff began"the study a yea't' before, it had been directed to fit it into the eXisting schedule; the appendix could also be fit in. Council Member Andersen said the issue could be explosive, dJld even though there had been tension, the general feeling was of goodwill with all who had participated. He felt reasonably good about the way in which the concerns people had and different views on the issue were carefully communicated. He commended all of the neighbors. Chairperson Simitian said Mr. Kast made a comment about the fact the City did ask ,varioUS segments of the community to assume a. 8/3/93 P&S: 24 " , l ]" l- I I L f i i , . ! ;,., .. ',': " o greator burden because of the community-wide need. It was fundamental to what a community was, e.9., a place wher~ people of various points as members of the community wore willinq to accept a ,little greater burden than what was broadly taken by the community~ It was not unreasonable to ask how the impact of the greater burden could be mitigated to some degree and was a point well made and well taken. To the extent the broader issue had been raised about how it could he, roitiqated when there were people who c.lrried a greater burden 'Was an issue which had citywide ramifications. He was skept.ical of traffic solutions which relocated the traffic problem at another neighbor"s expense. Althouqh not a supporter· of barriers, he had voted for the bicycle bar~ier because it was a specific exception he could support. The point of ~he bicycle barrier was to remove traffic from the street and redirect it elsewhere. To the extent any of the approaches was a solution, to put the problem on someone elso's shoulders was unacceptable. HO~ION: Mayor McCown moved, seconded by Andersen l that the Policy and Services com.'Oittee accept the staff recornroendation not to implement any specific measures or specifically pursue the Waverley/JI.ddison Traffic Study or a broader areaj to allow the working group to prepare a further response which would include the participation of the interested neighborhood, to which staff would then respond for creatioll or forrroulation of a set of standards ot' criteria; to set aside the implementation of the Working Group Plan; ~nd to return to the Policy and Services Committee. H~ION P~99r.D 4-0. 8/3/93 P&S: 25 " ".-.. ... ,,,('