Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0599.093\ ~ . . . t '.: ,.::.' ~ovember 18, 1993 HONORABLE Cay COUNCIL Palo Alto, California Members of the council: REPORT III BRIU . . " £.; / . ...... This is an informational report, and no Council action is required. Earlier this year, the City council acceptec1 staff's recommen­ dations from the Meadow/Charleston gchool corridor Safety St l 2dy,. directed staff to pursue six specific actions and to ~ork with the City School Tra'ffic Safety Committee to identify and prioritize other potential study corridors. In response to council's assignment, staff has deployed adult cro5siny guards at three new locations in the study area, pursued development of signalization and intersection i~provements along 21 Camino Real with Caltrans, and initiated discussions with the Barron Park Association on further pedestyian and bicycle improvements on Barron Park streets~ Sta:ff has also solicited recommendati.ons fro. every school within the Palo Alto Unified School District on traffic concerns in each school attendance area. Staff and the city School Traffic safety COlllDlittee are currently reviewinq these requests~ Staff expects to return to council in early 1994 with recommendations on the study of further school commute corridors. BACIUDtOOlfl) In February 1992, Council directed statf to initiate the Meadow! Charleston School corridor Safety Study~ The Council also referred the issue o~ further study corrido:-s to the Folley and services ccmm.ittee. The corridor Study was completed in early 1993. In MArch 1933, Council received a staff report and recommendations on policy actions and safety improvements to pursue within the Meadowl Charleston corridor. The Council accepted staff's findings on the complete list of study reco1T.mendaticns and directed staff to pursue six specific actions {as discussed in the following section) .. Council d,irected staff to return in six mOllths ... ith a progress report. Subsequently, in May 1993, the Coun~il approved an action C!!R:599:93 • ,.' plan [or the study of school s.afety issues .1.nd directed sta.ff, in consultatio~ 'With the City/School Traffic safety Committee. to include in the six-month progress report further recommendations reqardinq the identification and prioritization of other po~ential study areas. STATUS OF SAPBTY STUDY R!COKMBHDATIOBS The Mead~'/Charleston Safety study report identified over 26 individual actions which staff supported for implementation by the cicy. Of these, 19 are actions the City can implement indepen­ dently., ana an additiol1al 7 require cocrdination with Caltrans, since they involve improvements at intersections along E1 Camino Real, a State highway~ Staff has made progress on a substantial number of these issues. A summary of the status of each study recommendation is provided as Attachment 1. Prom amonq these reccmnendations, Council directed staff to pursue six specific issues which relate to the most substantive physical changes or safety improvements along city streets. The status of these council assignments are as follows: 1. Adopt t"be revised adult crossing guard W"a.rrants described in the study Report. Thg new ad~lt crossing guard warrants are beirl9 used to evaluate all new requests for adult cz:ossinq quards.. The city/School Traffic safety Committee has received one request since the adop.tion of the new warrants. The Comml ttee is still evaluating this request. :2 • Consider Lunding Lor U1ree .nev adul t crossing quard posi tians ill the ~993-94 Interbr Budget process, lUld to Lurtber t1irect staLE to discuss join.t funding or the adu~t" crossing guard positions with the School District. Funding for the three new adult crossing guards was includ~d in the adopted 1993-94 Interim B'Lldget~ The new adult. guards are stationed at the Alma/MeadOW, Wa.verley/Meadow, and El camino/Los Robles intersections during the morninq and afternoon school co:a.mute hours. The question of joint funding ot the Adult crossing quards was discussed at a staff level and subsequently referred to the City/SchOOl Liaison Coamittee.. This issue has been complicated by the recent passaqe or two new pieces of leqislation (S8 452 and S8 4SJ} which have conflicting languaqe as to the responsibilities of local gov-E!l"nments and school districts, related to the funding of adult crossing guard pcsitions. This legislation is currently being reviewed by the city i\ttorne}' to deteI"llline its impact on the City's adult crOSSing guard program. CMR:599~'9J 11/18/93 Page :2 '"- I I 3 • COnsider pT.Op05als for new Capital r.provement Projects in the develo~nt of the 1993-94 Budget: Proqra.. (a) (b) Installation of a traffic signal at the fllJ ... ~erley /HeadCM int:ersection Feasibility study of Grade separations at ~ilroad Crossings on School COJUrute Corridors Funding ($100,000) for the waverleY/Meado~ traffic signal vas included in ~he 199)-94 CIP budge"!:. The signal and intersection improvecents are being designed, and construction is scheduled tor Sp~in9 1994. The Grade Separ3tion Feasibility Study Project was also included in the Interilll Budget CIP, 'With funding of $150.000, identified in 1994-95. 4. Nork 'lfith Caltrans on the Ifaybell/Bl Ca.ino traffic signal and fntersectioJ; redesign Lilprove.ments, Los R.obles/Bl Caaino sig.r:us.l. ilIproveae.nts, 4nd Arastr4derolEl ClUlino island and curb reconrigura~lon; and report back ~o council .ith cost esti2a~es Lor potentiB~ future CIP projects. In August, staff met with Caltrans engineers to review each location. Caltrans agreed to prepare feasibility studies and preliminary cost estimates for each of the proposed improvements. To date we have received responses frem caltrans on all but one of these issues: Signal timit'lg changes: Cal trans :has implemented longer pedestrian signal phases ("walk~ and -Don't Walk-indications) consistent 'With the study recommendations at the intersections of £1 Camino Real and CUrtner, Los Robles. Maybell, and Arastrad@ro. LQs B9b1es1el camino Intersection: Cal trans has responded positively to the City's request to modify this traffic signal from five-phase to eight-phase operation to pr¢vide protected left turns from Los Robles and El Camino Way (see Attachment 2). The project would be jointly funded by caltrans and palo Alto, ~ith the City's share of the project costs estimated to be $43,000. Staff has identified this project as a potential CIP project in 1994-95, and ~ill continue to work with caltrans to refine the project design and costs. Mayhell/El camino Intersection: Caltrans has provided staff with a preli.inary plan and cost estimates to accomplish the improvements recommended for this intersection, which inClude modification of the signal to eight-phase operation, recon­ struction of the southeast corner of the intersection to clo~e off the free right turns from El Camino onto El Camir.o way, and an additional crosswalk en El Camino Real (refer to Attachment 3). The City's share of the cost of this proJect CMR:599:93 11/18/93 Page 3 >., . -' ", is estimat~d at this tim~ to be $6B,000. However~ Caltrans' estimate does not include any landscaping. irrigation, or other itnpro~Jements or the southwest corner of the inte!:'­ section, where the ott··ramo 'WQuld be closed. Because this is a more substantive projec-t with several such issues to be further evaluated, statf has tentatively identified this project as a potential elP p~oject in 1995-96. Arastradero/~minQ Real: Caltrar.s has not yet cOMpleted its evaluation of ~he feasibility of ~emoving or redesigninq the islands and/or curb radius on the southwest corner of the intersection, to facilitate bii:ycle travel. If Caltrans responds favorably, staff would propose implementing these improvements, which are expected to be low cost, together with the Los Robles/El Ca~ino Real improvements . 5. Ini~i~te discussions with tbe Barron Park Association regarding the const;:uction or bikevay i.mproveaents on Los Robles Avenue, and pedestrian w-alkw-ays on Los Robles and Kaybel1 Avenues, and report back to councila staff met with the Barron Park Association Traffic Committee and Boa.rd in October to discuss the pedestrian and bicycle improveml!!:nt!l on Los Robles and Maybell Avenues, including installation of sidewalks on Los Robles Avenue fro~ El Catino Real to La Donna, bike lan~s the full l~ngth of Los Robles, and sidewalks on Maybell from El Camino Real to clemo. While these are primary school commute corridors within the neighborhood, pedestrian and bike ilflprovements along these streets would be of general benefit to the neighborhood. The Board has taken ~ pcsition in support of further study and development of a plan for s~ch sidewalk and bike lane improvements on Los Robles Avenu2 and sidewalks on Maybell Avenue (refer to Attachment 4) ~ In the context of this study, the Barron Park Association ~ould like the city to consider the followinq factors an~ design issues: • the design should be sensitive to the character of Barron Park and provide continuity with existiTtg improvements; • use of the creek right-cf-'IIi'ay on Los Robles for a pedestrian pathway should be considered; • safety improvements at the narro'ii Laguna/Los Ro.hles intersection should be evalu3ted; and • there 5hould be coordination with, and involvement of, neighbors in the immediate area in the stucly. Los Robles Avenue is tentatively scheduled to be resurfaced in 1994-95. Staff proposes to develop a conceptual plan tor the bike and pedestrian improvements over the next year, prior to the start of the design phase for the ~esurtacing project. CMR:599:93 11/18/93 Page 4 -------------------- ':-",..,: 'cjii:i>."""' " . ;::.~-....: . .. 5. PurSU8 inclusion ot poli~T stateaents rc~ated to (a) acquisii:ion or eas88&Dts through Jletf d'e,,"elopaents for pedestrian and bicycle paths, and (b) aitigation of future Lncreases in train activity by considering pedestrian/bicycle grade separations of intersections along routes to schools. Staff will pursue these policy issues at the appropriate time, during th~ Co~prehan&ive Plan update process. %DBRTIFle&T%OR OF FOTURS SrUDY AaBAS In October, statt sent a letter to th.e principal and PTA president of each of the 15 PAUSD schools, requestinq their formal input on their school co~unity's concerns abo~t traffic safety issues and potentia1 school corridor study iS6ues. To date, responses have been received from six &c.hools! Palo Verde~ Addison. Ohlone, Duveneck, Fairaeadow, and Cunn. Staff anticipates that responses fro. additional schools will be forthcoming. The broad range of issues the schools have identified include signing~ striping and street maintenance needs l on-si t.e traf.fic circulation problems, major street corridor safety concerns, motorist behavior prob1~ms, and requests for safety patrols and adult crossing guards. The citY/School Traffic Safety commit.tee will formally reviaw the list of issues identified by the schools at its November and December meetings. With the Committee's assistance, staft will cateqorize, evaluate I and prioritize the requests, and develop a prioritized list of study areas and an action plan for future school safety and/or corridor studies. Staff will return to Council with a complete report on this subject in early 1994. CHR,599'93 11/18(93 Page. 5 Respectfully 5ubmitted l ~. ~KENS~ p . /' / / /' 4/:~ /I. --.:ItAlt...a~/·L KENNETH 1<. SCl'.l<El BEl< Director of Pl~nninq and Com~unlty Environment Senior Planner, Transportation -City Manaqer Attachaents: 1. Statu5 of recommended actions from KeadowfCharleston study 2a Caltrans correspondence reqardinq traffic siqnal improvements at Los Robles/El c~mino Real 3. Preliminary plan and cost estimates tor Maybelll El camino Real intersection 4. Barron Park Neiqhborhood Association position regardinq improvements on Los Robles and sidewalks on Maybell cc; city/School Traffic Safety committee Ji. Brown, PAUSD Superintendent of Schools PTA Safety Represent~tives Joy Addison, Acting Principal£ J. L. stanford Middle School xay Vanderberg, principal, Hooye~ School Gary Prehn, Principal I Juana Briones School William Gratsy, Principal, Fairmeaaow School Christopher Rich, Principal, Gunn High School James Hathiott U/1S/91 Pd.ge 6 .:-j; t'~' ';~~:' ~<~~ . . -.;:;': .. \ • '"'" ATTACHMENT 1 STATUS OF MEADOW/CHARLESTON SAFETY STUDY RECOMMENDAnONS AfCQMMEND'" TION Wor!c by City 0' P ... Alto E"ducat. employers. 3t'ld emplovees in t~ Stanford R.selltCh Park re sch-ool roufes Estabfish po!iCV to gain e3lSemems mrough new de""eiOpmenu Establish porte.,. preventiMQ construction traffic: trom bkJc:king bike lanes, especiany In 5chool corridors. :Es.tablish por:cy that any fLltUr8 increases in train activity on CaltBin will be mitigated by providing ped'e5trianlbtcvela g(lde separat~cnl of intersections on routes to schoor of eiemenrarv and middJe $Cho~ ci'u1cken. Ask POrtee Department to provide inc;rNsed enfor~ment Mar af1 sct\oois for the first twO weekS of the ~ rear. Condv<;t Annl!2i tf.gh Acclden1 Location Study for an scl'toof commute routfls. Implement Pirking restrictions. a!1d new bike lant! improvements on EI Camino Way between Meadow Drive and Maybe«l/8 Camino Real. Increase 2nd enfOf"ce partcinQ restTM.."'tions 0(1 EI Camlr.o Way Exttmd daWd bik~ !.ane on M'eado\IV Drive at JLS driveway Repaint al faded p.3IV&mefIt legends in the study .. ea, Review arid ~ an school area markings and legends on school rootes priOf to beginning of -Instalt iraflic Signal at the. inter.$6(;tic;m of Wa.verle"j & East Meadow Drive STAniS No action to date. SHIff will work with the CirylSchool Traffic Safety Committee to develop appropriate materials to d'isr;;eminat6 ,0 major empio';'ef's. Council directed staff to include t~ is POrlCY in the update of the Comprehensive Pial). CurrEI'lt city policy. Cour.cil directed staff to lm:ltJde this policy in the update of ttl'! Comprehensive plan. rm.,le~nt1U~. Anl'luany. tho Police Departmont provides 1!X!riil e\"lforcement i'1 key C(lmmule comdors and :scnool zones at the start of the s.chool year. Accident analysis will btl conducted during thiEI third Quarter of '1993·94. No action to dale. S1aff ...... ill schedufe pu~1C meeting to di~vs.s thiS issue .and the proPQsed intersection imprOvements; .at EI Cami no and Mayben in ean-v 1 994. This project was not purstled ~caos.g me intersection win be completely restriped as a result of the inS"'.atlatkm of the nEW traffic signal. Completlld. Completed. In Prog(@$os. Fl,Jndino fOC" the tri:lffic. Signa! "#'<las incl\.l<krl in the 1993·94 lnterim Budget. The \raffie Signal is currentl\l being de-signed. ConstfUctioll is SCheduled for Spring 1994. , , "'<... " /' I\IiCOMMEMDATIOM STATUS Ado¢. re'<h$ed adult <:rossing guard war ra.nts. C~lJleted. furlli.ng for the three new ad\.!'t l;(o,sinQ Prol'id& fWlW Adult c:ros.s4ng llluarcis at "uards was included in tl"le , 9::13-94 Inter;m Budget, AlmaiMAOIdow, a CatTIinollj)$ Aoble$ and East The adult guards wer'f in pface for the firS1 day of !lchO<)! Meadowl'vVaveMy. jn $eptemWr. WC)rk with &anon Park Auociatiot'l f~atdi1"lg the In Progress.. Meetings were Mid with thG ~rfOr. Parte. fclIowing impl"O...emwIts: As.soc'&tion in OctoNr. n •• SPA ha.s .ndo/sad these recommendations in concept .trod supports further st"Jdy • BikeW3" ~ s!dewaftc: irr.prollem&tttS on los of thtt fea~fbit~ of IneS4 ims>lovemem.s. Staff int6f1ds to ftoNea AV8t\U8 ~ EI CafTlfr.o and La: Donna pursue d,,\l8Iopment of ttle cooclitPtuid pfans during the • &dew ..... irnpto'll'emem;s on MiI'{beI1 betwaen El coming yeilir. Camino and Clefnc. ConBt1'UCt PedestrianfBic"~c!a Grade Separation or Furlding fOl" & FeaSibility of Grade SepafiilUonS (for ~lma/Calt:rain tr.iJ.cks at Mlt.cdow On" •. Cfeat" T-?edestria"s and bicyc-fi$'s) at the Ra;lrosd Tracks was ir\tersection at raiJroad tracks to pf-!vent thrOlXfh include in thi!i 1993-94 Interim Bodoet Caprul tnffie to Arma Street Improvement Prooram w=tt'I fundlnQ U150,OOO, Kfentified in 1994-&5. W,"" by Cahtaroo: Imp£ement tI'ta tonovvlng sigrlal liming ch'r\geS at In October. in response 10 'tI'\oI!I Cfty's request. Caftrans intersections along 1:1 Camir!o Real in the study implamer>tErd $ignar timing ch3nget; in accord with these area: ~&comme"da::iQI"\S at the intersec!ions of Et Camino Real .and Cl,IrtMr, Mavben, Los Rob\e$ and A.rastra6ero. • ~ .III ted phi1ft' interval on EI C.mino Real irrtersecticM • lnct'8aN \NI!k ind"tCatioo to 7 $tIconds on EI CaMino Rital. in~ • [nc:rease pedestrian cfe4llrancf! imerval to 26 .seconds on 1:1 Camino RnA Cl\8ngt signal pha..smg to 8 ptla.se at EI Camino C~tTar\s h~s agreed to these moditications., and staff is ReaVt.os Rob4a purslJir.g inch.lsion of fuOOing in the 1994-95 CapiUl Improvement Program budoet for tl1i$ protect. Redesign May~!E1 Camino Way int~r$eCtlOn and CaJtranS has agfeed to these modi1icatkms. and staff is conV$fl sigMI PhaSing 10 6ight pl1,U •. pursuing! inclusion 01 funding in the 1995-96 CapitiJ lmprovement PrOQrctm budget tor this PfOiect Remove islands on the south ,ide of the Staff is awaiting ill response from Caftrans on mi1 issuo. ArastraderalEl Camino Rni int.er&e<;tion, ,--_._-----..,-" SOl( ";)660 OAIUA,,"O. 0, 9 ....... ~ [Sl(tr 2U-i.u .. f\)O {!l10l ~ Octcber 13, 1993 ATTACHMENT 2 4-sCI-82-Z3.1l ~' '" . . ~. Los Robles/El Camino r.'.ay Mr, Ashok Aggarwal City Traffic Engineer Tra:-.. sportation Oi vi eic·r" City of Palo ~lto P.O. Box 10250 Palo Al~o~ CA 94303 Dear Mr. Aggarwal: This 1s a follow-up to the August 6, 1993 meeting attended by you, your staff, myself and my st"ff !'egarding traffic siqn;;tl modification projects along El Camino Real (Route 82) in the City of P2lo Al to" My staff has co~pleted the preparation of a preliminary plan, along with a cost estimate, for an improvement project at the intersection of El Camino Real (Route 82) and Los Robles Avenue/El Camino Way. A copy is attmched for the City's review and comment. As ahown on the attached preliminary i mpro·"ernent plan, Caltran~ proposes to modify the existing five-ph;;lse signal opera­ tion to an eight-phase signal operation as requested by the City. i.ne existing traffiC signal standards facing Lo'3i Robles Avenue and El Camino Way would be replaced with l~nger ma3tarm siqnal standards. Left-turn arro~ indica.tion.'5 · ... ould be added ont.o the signal star.dardE on E1 Camino Real. The mod~fiej traffic signals would continue to be coordinated -,d th the f!:d5ting traffic signals along El Camino Real (Route 82) within the city limits+ In.addition, it would De nacessary to reconstruct the pave­ I!lent on Los Robles AVe.,.ue. tos RODle-s Avp.nue ..... ould be re-striped to provide adequate left-turn stol"ag-=. , .. ~'. Mr. Ast.ok AggArwal Paqe 2 October 13, 1993 The estimatea construction cost fO/: this proposed improve­ ment project is $54,000. which ..... ould bO! f.lhared equally by the City and the State. nO"'ever, the C'.i.ty of Pa'!.o Alto .... ·ould be re­ sponsible for the pavement reconstt'"uction cost for Los Robles Av~ enue. In addi tion to the cc-nstl-uction cost, 17 percent fer preliminary engine~ring and 20 percent for con9t~uctien ~ngineer­ in9 would be add~d to the City's shere. The City's total con­ tribution is esti~ated to be $43,000 3t this time. Thi9 preliminary cost estimate rnay ~e s'lbject t.o revision based on a refined cost e5ti~ate that will be developed during the detailed design stage of this project. Cal trans has tentatively scheduled t..~is project for conEtruction during the :994/95 fiscal year. The distribution of cost is as follows: Electrical Pavement Reconstrt1cti on (Los R~bles Ave.) Striping (Thermoplastic) Construction Area Signs Traffic Control Subtotal Contingencies (20%+/-) Total Construction Cost Prelimina.ry Engr. (17%-+/-) Construction Enqr. (20%+/-) Total City Contriblltion City State Total .$11.000 $11~OOO $22,000 8,000 -0-8,000 1 .. 500 1,500 3,000 1,000 1,000 2,000 5,000 5,000 10,000 --------------------------------- $26.500 5,500 $32.000 5,000 6,280 $43,000 $18,,500 H5,OOO 3~SOO 9,000 $22,000 $54,000 The modified traffic signal system would continue to b!!'! owned~ operated and maintained by Caltrans. Maintenance cost would continue to be shared betw!!'!en th~ City of Palo Alto and the State in accordance with Caltr.:.lns· established policy. Please let ':.lS kr..o'J in 'Writing j! the City has any comments on the att~ched proposed plan. We also need wrjtten confirmation that the City is villing to particip1".te in thF! financing of this proposed project. Upon receipt cf tho:-Ci ty' ~ ,oni tten confirma­ tion, Caltrans "'ill proceed with the preparation of a project re- · . • , Hz. Ashok Agg~rwdl Page :; October 13. 1993 port+ If you have .1.ny questions, please contact me a.t (510) 286-4611. Sincerely yours, JOE BROWNE ::st~;::;;/:r cL DAVID A. CHEW Senior Traffic Engineer AttacI'L'!Ient DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION {31!7)2~ roo [!!IOI ~'\. .. Mr~ Ashck Aggarwal Ci t.y Traffic Engin~er. Transportation rivision City of Palo Alto P.O. 80" 10250 Palo Alto, CA 94303 Dear Mr. Aggarwal: Octoboer 5, 199,3 ATTACHMENT 3 4-SCl-82~22. 7e· M'ilybell/F.l Camino \~ay This is a follow-llP to the August. 6, 1993 m.eeting attended bl j<OU. your staff; 'TlYEE'lf and my st.aff regarding traffic siqnl!l modification project.s alnng ~l Camino Re"3l (R..,ub~ S2~ in the City of Pale Alto. My staff has completed the prep<:I:'ation of 2. preliminary plan, along with a. cost ~stimate, for all improv-ernE'nt project at the intersection of El Camino Real tRcute B2) afld Maybell Av·cmJejEl Camino Way. A copy is att;:!r::hed f")r the City's revi-ew a.ni ccm.!'t'Ient. As shown on tht'" attached pl~~limin? ry imprQvsmenf:, plan. Cal trans prcpos~s to DICci'ify th,~ IO'xj st.i.ng five-phase s;j ?nal opera­ tion to an eiyht-phasE'" signAl ope rat i-.. H';. as rE'guested by the City. The existing tt'affic signal stanoarnG Wf)uld b",", replaced with longer rnastarm signal E'tandst"d!:. Th~ "!1·-)rJifi ~d traffic signals W'')uld continue to be c{)ordjnated "'Itll t:18 ~."<::isting traffic signals along El Camino Real (Pc·ute 8;~ witl1in the city limits. Tn additionl t]le intersection \(oGlri b~ :.:-econstructed to cl"ee of! the free-right turn,; frOM", n0rthbound El Camino Real (Route ;:;2) onto El C~minQ \vay~ Ri'Jht t'1!t'r:, ~louJd be controlled by the tl"affic siqnals through the modjfi~d. jntersection. A new crosswalk across El Ca:nlno P.eal ....,ould t'e add'9d OLl. th(!, sCllth side of the i utersec lion and i'!I portion C'f 1.r"l~ pCl· .... "!'d rnedi an at U.e pro­ posed cl:"oS3walk '""<'1]10: be t"emlTJed to Pl·v'.·ide a. five-foot whoeel­ chair path. Th·::o channelization i~:-3nd CD F:l CalT'in? Way would b~ cut back to ac>;:om1T1ode.te the ,","est-,blJ'lI~rl t:hrOL\gh tr::lffic. It ...... ouid also be fl.'9cf"1SS-3.ry to pt-ohjb~t. p;<JrJUnr,J C't. th~ '..rp.::::tb(")1J:n:::i e:ide of Mr. Ashok Aggarwal Page 2 October 6, 1993 bot:h El Camino 'tiay and Mi:l.ybell Avenue t.-, provlde adeguatf'l left­ turn storage. The estimated corrstruction cost for this p~opo~ed ireprove­ ment project is $102,000, ""hich would be shared o::qually b~' the City and the State. In addition to the construction cost, 15 percent for preliminary engineering and 18 percent for con­ struction engineering .... ould be added -to tho!! City's share. The City's total contribution js estimated to be $68 r OOO at this time. This preliminary cost ~stirnate may be subject to revision b~sed on a refined cost estimate th~t will b~ developed during the detailed desiqn stage of this proJect. Caltrans has tenta­ tively scheduled this project fo~ constluction durinq the 1994/95 fiscal year. The dis.tribution of cost is as follo ...... s: Electrical Roadwork stripinq (Thermoplastic) Construction Area Signs Traffic ":ontrol Subtotal Contingenciee (20%) Total Construction Cost preliminary Engr. (15%+/-) construction Engr. (18%+/-) Total City Contribution City $22,>DO 12 r 500 1,500 1,000 5,000 $42,500 8,500 $51,000 7,720 9,280 S58,000 state $22,500 12,500 1,500 1,000 5,000 $42,SCO 8,500 $51,000 Total .$ 45,000 25,000 3,000 2,000 10,000 $ 85,000 17,000 $102,000 The modified traffic signal system would contin\.!e to be owned, operated and maintained by Caltrans. Maintenance cost would continu~ to be shared between the City of Falo Alto and the state in accordance with Caltrans' estRblished policy. Please let us know in ~riting if the City has any comments on the attached proposed ~lan. We also need written confirmation that the City is willing to participate in the finan-:ing of this proposed project. Upon rec~ipt of the City's ~ritten confirma­ tion, caltrans wjll proceed with the preparation of a project re- . - • , Mr. Ashok Agg.rwal Page 3 October 6, 1993 port__ If yO'..l have any questions, pll"'!ase contact: me at. (510) 286-4611. 5j ncer-ely yours, JOE BRO .... 'NE: ::str;21izr DAVID A. CHEW Senior Traffic Engineer Attachntent Gay!e L.ilr;ens TransportatieD Division City of Palo Alto 250 Hanulwr. Ave. Palo Alto. California 94301 Drear Gayle, BARRON PARK ASSOCIATION '_,-ALU Al TO. CALIFORNIA ATTACHMENT 4 The Board of thl! Barron Pule As~ociation r~'r't~we~ the T raffle Commit1c:e re-pon lh:ot rer;;omi"llends. that you continue witb your srudy of safety impwvem.:ats to lm Robr~ and Mayben. The fsoar~ vo:ed to endorse the commin=',s recommendatioa tor you IL' p~rslJt' me lnvcstigalion of ioptO~'eme!ll5 ~d 0:1 tfle following: 1) That the design be: sensitive LO charac~ of the Bartoo Pa..1c llC'ighhorhood. 2} Provide a CQ::J.tin:OOWi and cohesive wlUlio.n Ie each side of me street that invlfeS 1.lSt.and man::lk:s 'With e-~g ~i~ Specifically review the transition area from the creek righ:-(lf·way. near the trailer p.ark:. fro :he curre!li side walk in front of the apartment bwJdlng to assure it inv:ile~ usc. by walkers. 4) Review Ii..:: pos.!'ibl~ use (1C ~ creek rlght--of-way as a 9.'3ndng area for !:be full length of Los Robles 10 Laguna. 5) CODSider rigru angle curbs "'"'here parkiog will be [!eeded and 9oi:;ere it filS tile etisting design 6) In .... olve w:i&boon in d1e process of de"eloping che design ar.d be sensitive lo yegecatioD aad properly Jine l"-..'1le1 ass.oci&ted with Uly i!nprovements. 11 i:; our imeru to make the s..--ope of your options broad so t..~.:u you [fIjgbl bc:ter find a :rolution both as a true safety en.~ and p[easing to the ch.ar.lc-ter of the neighborhood. The Board would IfXe to thank you for the effort yoo have ~ put fanh trYing to improve the safety tor children "ommU!:inllo Khooa LIz our .area. If yon !houhi have: any further question!! ple.w: f~el free to COalaer me. -..,,-,.