HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 2511-5563CITY OF PALO ALTO
CITY COUNCIL
Special Meeting
Monday, August 10, 2026
Council Chambers & Hybrid
5:30 PM
Agenda Item
20.Approval to Proceed with Final Design for the Permanent Installation of the Crescent
Park Traffic Calming Project including a Bulb-out on Southwood Drive and East Crescent
Drive; CEQA status – categorically exempt. Staff Presentation, Public Comment
City Council
Staff Report
From: City Manager
Report Type: ACTION ITEMS
Lead Department: Transportation
Meeting Date: August 10, 2026
Report #:2511-5563
TITLE
Approval to Proceed with Final Design for the Permanent Installation of the Crescent Park Traffic
Calming Project including a Bulb-out on Southwood Drive and East Crescent Drive; CEQA status
– categorically exempt.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff evaluated three options in response to recent discussions with the Planning and
Transportation Commission in order to address concerns raised by adjacent property owners:
Option 1: Permanent Traffic Calming. Proceed with the proposed modified bulb-out
including further reduction in size where feasible, drought tolerant landscaping, new
ADA-compliant curb ramps, and stop signs (Attachment A) in alignment with the
November 2023 Council direction.
Option 2: Stop Signs. Remove the interim bulb-out and retain and relocate the existing
(pilot) stop signs along the pre-pilot curb location, including upgrading the existing curb
ramp to meet ADA requirements (Attachment B).
Option 3: No Traffic Calming. Remove traffic calming features including both the pilot
bulb-out and stop signs. Upgrade the existing non-standard curb ramp to meet ADA
requirements.
Based on the effectiveness of each of the options in addressing access and safety concerns and
the level of neighborhood support indicated in the project survey, staff recommends that the City
Council approve the final concept design and proceed with Option 1: Permanent Traffic Calming,
which includes the permanent installation of the bulb-out at Southwood Drive and East Crescent
Drive as part of the Crescent Park Traffic Calming Project.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Staff is returning to Council to confirm direction in relation to traffic calming design concepts at
the intersection of Southwood Drive and E. Crescent Drive in response to a request from Planning
and Transportation Commission (PTC) members who expressed concerns about a mismatch
between their prior communications and the PTC motion communicated to Council on November
6, 2023 (Attachment A).
BACKGROUND
1 and, on November 9, 2020,
City Council approved the concepts for pilot installation.2 Treatments included: a three-way stop
with a curb extension (also known as a bulbout) at the intersection of Southwood Drive and E.
Crescent Drive, and an oval-shaped traffic circle and channelizers at the five-legged intersection of
Southwood Drive, Center Drive and Hamilton Avenue. Features such as roundabouts, bulbouts and
channelizers are horizontal deflections that reduce the number and area of conflict points within
an intersection, reduce turning speeds, and reduce the collision angle (which reduces the potential
for head on collisions). The bulbout concept also squares up the Southwood/E Crescent
intersection, which in turn reduces vehicle turning speeds, pedestrian crossing distances and
pedestrian exposure to traffic. These features have been identified by the Federal Highway
Administration as safety countermeasures, and were implemented in the summer of 2021.
1 Planning & Transportation Commission, September 9, 2020; Item 2, Action Item, SR# 11517
2 City Council, November 9, 2020; Item 5, Action Item, SR# 11603
traffic, and vehicle speeds, which suggested that the pilot was likely effective (with the caveat
that ambient travel patterns had also changed due to the pandemic). Additionally, 74% of
Crescent Park residents who responded to the neighborhood survey supported making the traffic
calming improvements permanent, voting “YES” to permanently installing the traffic calming
measures. For residents along Southwood Drive and E. Crescent Drive in the immediate vicinity
of the bulbout, 75% of respondents supported proceeding with the permanent improvements at
this location.
5 At this meeting, PTC approved
a motion which was reflected in the following way in the meeting minutes:
“to make permanent [traffic calming improvements at location] number one
[University Avenue/W Crescent Drive] and number three
[Southwood/Center/Hamilton], but number three [Southwood/E Crescent] only
with a condition that it be landscaped. Also, PTC recommended that number two
needed more work and that the bulbout be made more suitable with direct input
from adjacent property owners.”
6 As part of this consent item, staff indicated that they would engage the
community to seek feedback while ensuring that the permanent improvements align with
planning and engineering standards.
5 Planning & Transportation Commission, June 14, 2023; Item 3, Action, SR# 2304-1381
6 City Council, November 6, 2023; Item 4, Consent, SR# 2307-1777
Corner Daylighting Law). Under AB 413, parking would be prohibited at this location
in the pre-pilot condition.
4. The bulbout surface was changed from undefined or concrete, to drought tolerant,
low height landscaping to improve aesthetics and alignment with neighborhood
character.
On April 9, 2025, PTC reviewed the refined conceptual design.9 The resident and/or owners at
590 E. Crescent Drive provided public comment regarding the aesthetics and size of the bulbout,
and its effect on their ability to park adjacent to the existing non-standard curb ramp. Following
committee discussion, PTC voted to unanimously support the Council’s direction from November
6, 2023 to move forward with final design of the traffic circle at
Southwood/Center/Hamilton/Center intersection. PTC members also suggested that staff meet
again with the resident and/or owners at 590 E Crescent Drive to hear their remaining concerns
regarding the access ramp and on street parking, and to return to PTC with an update.
On April 16, 2025, staff conducted another follow-up field meeting with resident and/or owners
at 590 E. Crescent Drive. During the meeting, the resident and/or owners reiterated their dislike
of the traffic calming treatments, and requested removal of the bulbout and retention of the
existing non-standard curb ramp. As suggested by PTC, staff requested that the resident
demonstrate their preferred method for accessing their property, however, the resident
declined.
On September 24, 2025, staff returned to PTC10 and recommended proceeding to final design for
the bulbout and stop signs at Southwood/E. Crescent intersection. At this meeting, PTC members
expressed dismay that the resident at 590 E Crescent Drive remained unsatisfied with the design,
and recommended full redesign of traffic calming treatments at Southwood/Crescent including
consideration of channelizers, a new slip lane (not a traffic calming device), bulbout removal, and
relocation of the curb ramp to the west. PTC did not support the staff recommendation to
proceed with engineering design of the refined bulbout concept. PTC members also expressed
concern that their recommendations from July 14, 2023 had not been accurately communicated
to Council on November 6, 2023 (Attachment A)
ANALYSIS
Given concerns expressed by PTC, staff is returning to Council to confirm direction before moving
forward with the final design of traffic calming treatments at Southwood/E. Crescent. Key
concerns expressed by PTC include:
Questions about community engagement;
9 Planning & Transportation Commission, April 9, 2025; Item 2, Action, SR# 2503-5344
10 Planning & Transportation Commission, September 24, 2025; Item 2, Action, SR# 2508-5607
Aesthetic concerns regarding the bulbout size and landscaping;
Accessibility concerns related to curb ramps and property access;
Concerns about dissatisfaction of the abutting resident; and
Accuracy of feedback from PTC conveyed to Council.
Questions about Community Engagement
For this project, a range of traffic calming measures, such as speed humps, were evaluated in the
pilot planning process and determined to be not appropriate for addressing intersection related
safety issues. Pilot improvements were selected after consideration of various traffic calming
measures and the improvements that were installed as the pilot project received support from a
supermajority of neighborhood residents. In total, the design process for this project has
incorporated multiple opportunities for community input including two community meetings,
multiple PTC presentations and individual meetings with the resident and/or owners of 590 E
Crescent Drive. This engagement has helped staff to incrementally refine draft concepts for
potential permanent installation (see Attachment A).
Aesthetic Concerns Related to Bulbout Size and Landscaping
In response to PTC feedback, the project team modified the concept design to add drought
tolerant landscaping and reduce the bulbout size. During engineering design, staff will assess
whether the bulbout footprint can be further reduced by another two feet, beyond the current
reduction of five feet, without compromising its effectiveness. In addition, the proposed platform
could be widened to provided additional landing space for the resident’s access.
While traffic calming treatments may change the appearance of an intersection, many people
consider this change to be positive, particularly where landscaping is added. In addition to
potential aesthetic benefits, landscaped bulbouts slow traffic, increase permeable surface area,
provide a buffer between motor vehicles and pedestrians and reduce the potential for vehicle
incursion into pedestrian space or even private property.
Figure 1: Before (left) and After (right) Bulbout Installation at Kellog and Middlefield
Accessibility Concerns Related to Curb Ramps and Property Access
Following PTC feedback, staff reassessed accessibility conditions and consulted with the City’s
Chief Building Official / ADA Coordinator regarding concept plan design for the bulbout at
Southwood/E. Crescent. Under the proposed concept design, there are at least two accessible
means of accessing the property at 590 E. Crescent Drive from the public right-of-way. These
include an ADA-compliant pedestrian ramp that would lead to the crosswalk, and a standard
concrete platform (creating a break in the landscaped parkway) for stepping into a motor vehicle.
In additional, the property has a residential driveway.
Concerns about Satisfaction of the Abutting Resident
Accuracy of Feedback from PTC
Prior to the motion, one commissioner supported the bulbout design due to safety benefits,
another expressed hesitation about second guessing engineering analysis, and other
commissioners expressed strong dissatisfaction with the design of the bulbout. Some critiques
identified actionable concerns regarding the size of the bulbout, accessibility of pedestrian ramps
and a preference for landscaping instead of concrete. Other critiques were more general,
describing the current temporary pilot or the design as ugly, awful, bizarre and not acceptable.
Option 2: Remove the bulbout and keep existing stop signs; and
Option 3: Remove the bulbout and stop signs.
Comparison of Options
Table 1: Comparison of Options
1.Modified bulbout 2.Bulbout removal
with stop signs
3.Bulbout and stop sign
removal
Description
Accessibility
considerations
Table 1: Comparison of Options
Option 1.Modified bulbout 2.Bulbout removal
with stop signs
3.Bulbout and stop sign
removal
Effect on traffic
calming goals
Lower speed and less
cut through traffic
than pre-pilot, highly
visible stop sign
Likely lower speed and
cut through traffic than
pre-pilot but non-self-
enforcing i.e. drivers
may roll through or not
notice the stop sign
Similar to pre-pilot i.e.
concerns about
speeding and cut
through traffic
Aesthetic
considerations
Landscaping with
permanent
installation
Large, concrete
intersection
Large, concrete
intersection
On-street
parking
adjacent to 590
E Crescent
Permitted
(>15’ from crosswalk
with curb extension)
Prohibited under AB
413 (<20’ of crosswalk)
Prohibited under AB
413 (<20’ of crosswalk)
California’s Daylighting law (AB 413) prohibits parking within 20 feet of a crosswalk approach or
15 feet of a crosswalk approach where there is a curb extension or bulbout. Under the revised
concept design, the approach alignment has been modified to increase the available curb
distance. This adjustment allows for parking or short-term stopping behind the concrete path,
which may accommodate the resident’s request to park near the former curb ramp.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends that Council approve the concept bulbout design (Option 1), with the design
modifications indicated above. This option reconfigures E. Crescent Drive to intersect
Southwood Drive at a right angle, converting the existing three-legged intersection into a T-
intersection and adding a three-way stop control. This realignment has been shown to reduce
cut-through traffic and lower unsafe vehicle speeds for right and left turn movements to and
from E. Crescent Drive.
This option aligns with similar installations throughout Palo Alto and reflects a good faith effort
to balance resident input with access, engineering best practices and neighborhood concerns
regarding speed, cut through traffic and safety.
NEXT STEPS
Pending Council approval of the conceptual designs, staff will prepare final construction drawings
for both the traffic circle at Hamilton and Center and the approved design features, which might
include the landscaped bulbout, ADA-compliant curb ramps, concrete pad and stop signs, at
Southwood/E. Crescent (or changes indicated under Options 2 or 3 if one of those is selected by
Council) and initiate the construction phase for permanent installation. Staff will return to Council
for review and approval of the construction contract.
FISCAL/RESOURCE IMPACT
The project is funded through the existing Transportation and Parking Improvement Capital
Improvement Project (PL-12000), which supports neighborhood traffic calming projects. Staff will
be requesting dedicated funding in the next fiscal year budget process for the construction of the
permanent improvements
Staff has held three neighborhood-level community meetings, two meetings with residents
at 590 East Crescent Drive and four PTC meetings, to provide residents an opportunity to
share their comments on this project Residents have also provided feedback through a survey
card that was sent to every household in the Crescent Park neighborhood. Additionally, a
dedicated website has been established for the project, aiming to provide information and
seek feedback from residents. Furthermore, all households were notified by mail of previous
PTC and City Council meetings informing them that this item is being discussed and the
availability of the staff report.
The modifications involve minor upgrades to an existing residential street right-of-way and will
not introduce any new environmental impacts. This project qualifies as a minor alteration to the
existing street system and is therefore categorically exempt under Class 1 Exemption, Section
15301 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
Attachment A: Letter to Council from PTC Chair
Attachment B: Option 1- Modified Bulbout Design
Attachment C: Option 2 – Remove Bulbout and Retain Stop Signs
:
Ria Hutabarat Lo, Chief Transportation Official
Mayor Lauing, Vice Mayor Veenker, Honorable Council Members:
At the Planning and Transportation Commission’s request, we write to make you aware that the
Crescent Park Traffic Calming Project suffered from miscommunications that affected City Council,
PTC, City Staff, and residents (especially Mr. Girand, the resident nearest the East Crescent bulb-out).
As we see it:
1.PTC intent was miscommunicated to Council, which then approved the item prematurely as
part of the consent calendar.
In June 2023, PTC reviewed the results of pilot installations for the Project. As stated in the
PTC Summary Minutes for June 14, 2023, PTC made the following recommendation to Council
regarding the three components of the project, and notably did not recommend the East Cres-
cent bulb-out for permanent installation without change:
“To make permanent number one [bollards for University Ave bike lane] and number
three [traffic circle at Center]... Also, PTC recommended that number two [bulb-out at
East Crescent] needed more work and that the bulb out be made more suitable with di-
rect input from adjacent property owners.
“Commissioner Lu understood that location two would remain in place during the re-
design and that Council would evaluate the proposal”
…
“Vice-Chair Chang noted part of the motion was that location two would return to PTC
for review if approved by Council to pursue permanent installation.
“[Office of Transportation Senior Engineer] Mr. Bhatia announced all three locations
would come back to PTC for review.”
In November 2023 when the item was brought to Council, it was placed on the consent calendar
as “Approval to Proceed with Design of Improvements for Permanent Installation of the Traffic
Calming Pilot Project in the Crescent Park Neighborhood” and Council approved the item.
The Staff Report on the consent calendar item did not accurately represent PTC’s motion, and
instead stated:
“The PTC members unanimously endorsed the project and recommended to the City
Council that the staff be authorized to proceed with the design of permanent improve-
ments. However, in response to concerns raised by the fronting property owners, the
PTC further recommended that the staff work with the adjacent property owners to
gather their input for the concerns of those directly affected in designing the permanent
improvements.”
2.There was not a shared understanding of the project review and approval process.
After the pilot installations were analyzed to create final designs, a review was placed on the
PTC agenda as an Action Item. PTC recommended approval of the traffic circle at Hamilton
and Center, but did not recommend approval of the bulb-out at East Crescent. PTC requested
that Transportation Staff interview Mr. Girand and refine or redesign the treatment on East
Crescent before PTC could recommend approval, then continued the item.
When the item returned to PTC on September 24th it had been reclassified as a Study Session,
implying PTC approval was no longer needed. From Transportation Staff’s point of view, the
design had been approved by Council on the consent calendar and no additional PTC
recommendation was expected or required. Therefore from Planning Staff’s point of view, the
original classification as an Action Item had been in error.
As a consequence, though, both PTC and Mr. Girand felt that a design known to be
unacceptable had been forced through.
3.There was not a shared understanding of the implications of a pilot project.
The informal concept of a pilot project is that it can be undone if determined to be
unacceptable. PTC suggested on September 24th that a straightforward resolution for Mr.
Girand’s concerns would be to undo the pilot bulb-out at East Crescent.
However, simply implementing the pilot project triggered a permanent consequence: All
modified intersections must be brought into compliance with the ADA, and the pilot itself is
considered a modification.
As a result, the non-ADA-compliant access ramp that Mr. Girand has depended upon must be
removed and replaced with a curb-height concrete pad, even if the piloted modifications were
not approved and the temporary bulb-out and stop signs were uninstalled.
4.Two separate pieces of the traffic calming project, the traffic circle at Hamilton and Center and
the bulb-out at East Crescent, were linked in a way they should not have been.
The traffic circle has enthusiastic community support and the PTC also gave its endorsement of
the circle in June 2023. However, installation of the traffic circle cannot proceed until the
controversy over the bulb-out is resolved because both parts of the project were quoted in a
single engineering consultant contract. According to Transportation Staff, obtaining new,
separate contracts for each piece of the project would result in substantial cost increases
because so much time has elapsed and construction has become more expensive.
We are considering process improvements to prevent similar situations in the future:
1.PTC believes that projects of this type are in its purview, and final designs should be subject to
review and recommendation.
2.Council Staff Reports should be reviewed early by the PTC liaison so that miscommunications
can be resolved, ideally before the Reports are distributed to Council.
3.During hearings PTC should produce more formal summaries of conclusions that Staff can
convey to Council.
4.PTC Liaisons should speak to Council more frequently.
We hope this summary has clarified matters. As always, we are available to answer your questions and
we are grateful for your advice.
Allen Akin
Chair
Bryna Chang
Vice-Chair
E C
R
E
S
C
E
N
T
D
R
SOUTHWOOD DRIVE
Install 10'
Crosswalk
Add detectable
warning surface to
existing curb ramp
Existing Stop
Sign to Remain
Red Curb 20'
from proposed
crosswalk
Stop Sign
Reconstruct
Existing Curb
Ramp for ADA
Existing Driveway
to Remain
Existing Driveway
to Remain
Install
delineators 10'
apart along
Southwood
Existing stop
sign to remain
From:Erica Pelavin
To:Council, City
Subject:Fwd: East crescent and Southwood drive
Date:Monday, August 3, 2026 4:56:56 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Erica Pelavin <erica.pelavin@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Aug 3, 2026 at 4:53 PM
Subject: East crescent and Southwood drive
To: <city.council@cityofpaloalto.or>
Council Members,
I am a Crescent Park resident writing to express my support for making the traffic calming
improvements at the intersection of Southwood Drive and East Crescent Drive permanent.
Since the pilot project was installed, I have noticed a meaningful difference in our
neighborhood. The efforts to reduce speeding and discourage cut-through traffic have helped
make our streets feel safer and more pleasant for everyone who lives here. Whether it’s
children walking or biking, neighbors out for a walk, cyclists, or residents pulling out of their
driveways, slower traffic benefits us all.
Our neighborhood streets are narrow and were designed to serve residents, not as high-volume
commuter routes. The purpose of these improvements is not to create congestion, but to slow
traffic and discourage unnecessary cut-through driving so that our streets remain safe for those
who live, walk, and bike here.
I recognize that opinions differ on changes like these, and no solution will satisfy everyone.
However, I believe the pilot has demonstrated that these measures improve safety and preserve
the residential character of our neighborhood.
I respectfully urge you to approve the permanent installation of the Crescent Park traffic
calming measures. Thank you for your service to our community and for considering my
comments.
Sincerely,
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
Mark Safe Report
Erica and Rich Pelavin
190 Southwood drive
Palo Alto ca 94301
650 465-0005
From:gretchen deandre
To:Council, City
Subject:Traffic-Calming Measures
Date:Monday, August 3, 2026 8:22:09 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Palo Alto City Councilmembers,
I am writing as a Crescent Park resident to encourage you to approve the
permanent installation of the traffic calming measures at Southwood Drive
and East Crescent Drive.
Since these measures were put in place, I have seen the positive impact
these changes have had on our neighborhood. Reducing vehicle speeds and
discouraging cut-through traffic create a safer environment for everyone
who uses our streets, and I can usually pull right out of my driveway during
rush hour instead of having to wait for an opening in the long line of cars
and then maneuver around those cars into the street.
I recognize that there will likely not be unanimous support. However, the
City’s survey results show that a significant majority of responding
residents support keeping these improvements in place. The pilot has
provided ample time to evaluate the results, and the data shows that the
project has achieved its intended goals.
I respectfully ask the Council to approve making these traffic calming
improvements permanent.
Thank you for your consideration and your continued work on behalf of
Palo Alto residents.
Sincerely,
Gretchen DeAndre
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to you.
Mark Safe Report
130 Southwood Drive
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
From:Richard Ho
To:Council, City
Date:Monday, August 3, 2026 9:16:47 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Palo Alto City Councilmembers,
I am a Crescent Park resident writing to express my support for making the traffic calming
improvements at the intersection of Southwood Drive and East Crescent Drive permanent.
My family regularly walks along this section of Southwood Dr and East Crescent Dr in the
morning and the early evening. Before the pilot project was installed, I witnessed many
instances of cars speeding through this intersection without slowing or stopping, which
endangered pedestrians, bikes and other cars.
Since the pilot project was installed, I have seen a reduction of speeding and cut-through
traffic in our neighborhood. Slower traffic makes our streets safer for everyone, including
children walking or biking to school, pedestrians, cyclists, and residents entering and
leaving their homes.
While no traffic project will satisfy every resident, I understand the City's neighborhood
survey found strong support for making these improvements permanent. The staff report
notes that approximately 74% of responding Crescent Park residents—and 75% of
respondents living closest to the Southwood/East Crescent intersection—supported
permanent installation.
Please approve the permanent installation of the Crescent Park traffic calming measures.
Thank you for your service and for considering my comments.
Sincerely,
Chianmin Ho
269 Southwood Dr
Palo Alto, CA 94301
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to you.
Mark Safe Report
From:Doug Valenti
To:Council, City
Subject:Support traffic calming around “Five Points”
Date:Tuesday, August 4, 2026 11:30:28 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
I write in strong support of the traffic calming measures taken in the Five Points, Southwood
Dive area. It has made a big difference for the quality of life and safety in the neighborhood. It
is super important that we keep these measures in place.
Thank you.
Doug Valenti
125 Southwood Drive
Palo Alto
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to your company.
Mark Safe Report
From:N Goggins
To:Council, City
Cc:Nita Goggins
Subject:City Council Special Meeting - Item #20 - Report #2511-5563
Date:Tuesday, August 4, 2026 8:23:24 PM
Attachments:Goggins - City Council Item #20 - August 2026.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear City Council Members,
My name is Juanita Girand Goggins and I am a co-owner of the home at 590 East CrescentDrive. I am writing to request that the intersection at East Crescent and Southwood bereturned to its original state.
Please see my attached letter addressing the Office of Transportation's request forapproval to proceed with the final design for the permanent installation of the bulbout infront of our home at the Special Meeting on August 10, 2026. Thank you,Juanita Girand Goggins
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first mail to some recipients.
Mark Safe Report
1
Dear City Council Members,
Re: Item #20, Report #2511-5563 (“staff report” or “report") Approval to Proceed with
Final Design for the Permanent Installation of the Crescent Park Traf7ic Calming Project
My name is Juanita Girand Goggins and I am a co-owner of the home at 590 East Crescent
Drive. I am writing to request that the intersection at East Crescent and Southwood be
returned to its original state. I virtually attended and spoke (when the City’s software
allowed) at all of the Planning and Transportation Committee (“PTC”) and City Council
hearings regarding the proposed traf/ic calming measures. With my family members, I
attended in person the two site visits with the Of1ice of Transportation (“OT”) and their
consultants. I also wrote to members of City Council via email (September 2025) regarding
the injustice of this project and wrote to the City Manager regarding the conduct of the OT
(May 2025).
This letter *irst identi*ies the material de*iciencies in the August 2026 staff report
and then sets forth the case for removing the berm at the intersection of East
Crescent and Southwood and returning the intersection to its original state, as
closely as is legally possible.
The OT staff report prepared for the City Council’s August 10, 2026 Special Meeting
presents a misleading account of the facts. The report contains material
misrepresentations, unsupported assertions, and signi0icant omissions. It repeatedly
presents opinion as fact, advances conclusions without evidence, and contains internal
inconsistencies. The following are eight of the most signi,icant concerns.
1. The August 2026 staff report acknowledges a “mismatch” between the PTC’s intent
and what the staff communicated to City Council in November 2023
The OT’s staff report states:
“Based on this review, staff concur with PTC member’s perception that there was a
mismatch between the Commission’s general conversation and the 5inal motion that was
conveyed by staff to Council.”
The attached letter from the PTC Chair is more direct. It states:
“PTC intent was miscommunicated to Council...” and that the staff report “did not accurately
represent PTCs motion.”
2
The OT's statement is an acknowledgment that the staff report presented to the City
Council in November 2023 mischaracterized the PTC's recommendation, reversing PTC's
direction to staff, effectively switching a "no" into a "yes."
2. The staff report seeks to diminish the signi2icance of its error
The body of the staff report of August 2026 describes the problem merely as a “mismatch,”
but the PTC letter states that the staff report of November 2023 did not accurately
represent the motion, and the intent of the PTC was miscommunicated to City Council.
These &indings are far more signi&icant than merely characterizing the issue as a
"mismatch." The discrepancy was not inconsequential - it had a decisive effect. By
misrepresenting the PTC's recommendation, the OT obtained City Council approval
to proceed with the bulbout. The OT then relied on that approval throughout the
process, repeatedly asserting that the Council had already authorized the design and
that there was no obligation to revisit or modify its 4inalized plans.
Following Council approval of the bulbout, the PTC directed the OT, during a working group
hearing, to meet with us on site and work toward a mutually agreeable redesign. However,
at the site visit, civil engineer Shahla Yazdy stated that the OT was under no obligation
to make any changes because the project had already received Council approval and
the plans had been !inalized.
3. “Three quarters of residents supported the design” is misleading
The staff report repeatedly asserts that "approximately 75% of residents supported
permanent installation." While that statement may or may not accurately re1lect the survey
results, it omits critical context that is necessary to evaluate what the 4igure actually
represents.
Immediately after the pilot installation, our elderly father, assisted by his caregiver, went
door-to-door surveying the neighbors living closest to the project, most of whom are also
elderly. The response was remarkably consistent: the residents most directly affected
opposed the installation. Twelve neighbors signed his petition, which our frail father
personally delivered to the OT's of4ices. Yet the results of that neighborhood survey
were never presented to the PTC or the City Council. Instead, direct evidence that the
closest neighbors opposed the project was excluded from the public decision-making
process. The Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) records show the OT’s receipt of our
father’s survey, but no attempt by the OT to disseminate it.
3
Months later, the OT conducted the survey it now relies upon to claim broad community
support. However, the reported "75%" has never been accompanied by essential
information needed to assess its signi.icance, including:
• the total number of respondents,
• the survey response rate,
• who was eligible to receive a voting card and how those recipients were selected,
and
• whether support re+lected the views of residents closest to the project or was
concentrated elsewhere.
Without this context, the oft repeated claim that "75% of residents supported permanent
installation" likely overstates the degree of community support.
Equally signi,icant, through multiple FOIA requests, we have speci0ically sought copies of
the returned voting cards from the neighborhood survey. To date, the OT has never
produced them. As a result, the underlying data supporting its repeated claim of 75%
support has never been available for independent review or veri/ication.
4. “Multiple good faith efforts” is subjective
The report states:
“staff has made multiple good faith efforts…”
Whether the efforts of the OT were in “good faith” is subjective and should not be presented
as an objective fact.
At $irst, we believed a public agency representing the City of Palo Alto would approach the
process with transparency, fairness, and a genuine effort to consider the concerns of all
stakeholders, and anything indication otherwise was a mistake or misunderstanding.
Over time, we reached the dif0icult conclusion that the OT was not engaging with us in good
faith. We were repeatedly excluded from key parts of the deliberative process, we were not
directly noti,ied of public hearings (Greg Welch was noti%ied directly, according to FOIA
records), evidence contrary to the OT’s objective was dismissed, and elected decision-
makers were deprived of their essential role as impartial arbiters because they were
presented with incomplete and misleading information. After years of these actions, it
became clear that these were not isolated errors, but a pattern of conduct inconsistent with
a transparent and good faith public process.
Examples of the OT acting “in good faith”:
4
a) The OT deliberately excluded us from the process. FOIA records show that previous
efforts to install traf,ic-calming measures in nearby areas (such as Crescent Drive and
University) were successfully challenged early in the process by neighbors who organized,
retained counsel, and prevented the projects from moving forward. These records also
show Greg Welch expressing frustration to the OT with those residents who had joined
forces to successfully oppose medians, berms, and street closures. Given this history, it
appears the OT chose not to notify us directly in order to avoid similar opposition and
expedite the installation of the bulbout without meaningful community input. In fact, FOIA
emails show that on the day before the installation, Shahla Yazdy asked Greg Welch to
notify us (the residents at 590 East Crescent Drive), and he declined to do so.
b) There is no evidence - now or ever - that the intersection at East Crescent and Southwood
presented a traffic safety problem. The City’s own records show no accidents and no citations at
this location, and the OT’s data confirms that vehicle speeds before and after the pilot were at or
below the posted speed limit. Despite the absence of any demonstrated safety issue, the OT
continued to advocate for the bulbout. At the most recent site meeting, when questioned about
moving forward with the bulbout despite the absence of supporting data, Shahla Yazdy
acknowledged that the data does not support their claims of improved safety but stated
that she didn’t need empirical evidence because she simply “knew” the bulbout would
work. This is an unacceptable standard for any public infrastructure decision.
c) The OT’s own consultant, Fehr & Peers, found the traf8ic-calming results “inconclusive”
and attributed traf,ic changes to broader post-COVID citywide trends. Despite this
conclusion, the OT repeatedly led the PTC, City Council, and the public to believe that the
bulbout had been highly successful, using that unsupported claim to justify moving forward
with the project.
5. “The resident declined” is misleading
The staff report states that staff asked our father to demonstrate his preferred method of
accessing his home and that "the resident declined" at the most recent site visit. While it is
true that staff made the request and our father declined, the report omits critical context
that explains why.
At the time of the site visit, our father was using his wheelchair because of signi6icant
mobility limitations. He could not safely get into or out of a vehicle without
assistance. Under those circumstances, asking him to physically demonstrate his normal
means of access was neither practical nor reasonable. Moreover, the City and its staff
should be aware that asking a disabled person to demonstrate their disability violates state
and federal discrimination laws. This request was offensive and humiliating. By reducing
5
the encounter to a statement that "the resident declined," the report creates a misleading
impression while omitting the very facts necessary to understand his response.
6. “At least two accessible means” is misleading
The report states that two routes remain available between the house and a parked vehicle,
but it fails to acknowledge that the most direct - and our father's preferred - route is now
longer. For a man with signi$icant mobility limitations who walks slowly, has balance
issues, and at times relies on a walker or wheelchair, that additional distance is not trivial; it
is a meaningful burden.
The report also offers no objective analysis to support its conclusion. It provides no
measurements, grade calculations, turning-radius assessment, wheelchair evaluation, or
accessibility analysis. Instead, it simply asserts that access remains adequate while
ignoring the increased distance and physical demands now imposed on our father.
7. “Shown to reduce” is misleading
The report states that “this realignment has been shown to reduce cut-through traf*ic and
lower unsafe speeds,” yet provides no evidence speci5ic to this location. Instead, it relies on
data from pandemic era traf'ic conditions and an installation at a different location. The
conclusion exceeds what the evidence supports: the OT’s own data shows speeds were
already at or below the speed limit before and after the pilot, and its consultant found the
pilot’s effectiveness inconclusive, attributing traf3ic reductions to broader COVID-era
changes consistent with citywide declines.
8. Internal inconsistency regarding the PTC recommendation
The report states that “PTC approved moving forward in June 2023,” yet later acknowledges
“commissioners actually wanted substantially more redesign.” These statements are
inconsistent. The attached PTC letter con2irms that the latter accurately re2lects the PTC’s
concerns. Continuing to characterize the PTC’s position in a way that minimizes or obscures
those concerns perpetuates a misleading narrative and appears intended to in3luence
Council's understanding of the project rather than accurately represent the PTC’s
recommendation.
6
The Case Against Permanent Installation
The bulbout should be dismantled and the intersection should be returned to its original
state because the OT never established that the intersection was unsafe in the 3irst place,
nor has it demonstrated that the pilot improved safety.
The OT’s own data shows that vehicle speeds were already at or below the posted speed
limit before and after installation. No before-and-after analysis has demonstrated a
reduction in unsafe speeds, collisions, or other measurable safety bene5its attributable to
the bulbout.
The claim that the project reduced traf2ic and improved safety is similarly
unsupported. The OT relies on data from pandemic-era conditions and different locations,
while its own consultant, Fehr & Peers, concluded that any reduction in traf6ic volume was
consistent with broader citywide declines and could not be attributed to the pilot.
Finally, the residents who were most directly affected did not support the
project. Neighbors living nearby raised immediate concerns and communicated those
concerns to the OT via a survey, but the OT never presented the survey to the PTC, City
Council, or the public.
A permanent alteration to a residential intersection demands evidence - not assumptions
or gut feelings. To date, the OT has demonstrated neither a documented safety problem
requiring correction nor a measurable bene1it resulting from the bulbout. Without clear
evidence that this permanent change improves safety or serves the community, the bulbout
should not be made permanent and the intersection should be restored to its original
condition.
Collectively, our family has devoted hundreds of hours and over $20,000 in legal fees to
ensure that this decision is evaluated through a fair and transparent process grounded in
facts. We are deeply grateful for the considerable time, attention, and care that the PTC and
City Council have invested in reviewing this matter, and we look forward to the Special
Meeting on August 10, 2026.
From:Lisa Lawson
To:Council, City
Cc:Clerk, City; Laurie McGregor (ljg@beyondmarketing.com); N Goggins; Jim Girand
Subject:8.10.26 Council Agenda Item No. 20 re Report #2511-5563 (page 342 of Packet)
Date:Wednesday, August 5, 2026 3:40:42 PM
Attachments:image001.png
Ltr to City Council from Lisa G. Lawson re Item No. 20 on 8.10.26 Agenda (the Bulb Out).pdf
Exhibits to Ltr to City Council re Item No. 20 on 8.10.26 Agenda (Bulb Out).pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Council Members,
Please see attached letter regarding Item No. 20 on the Council’s 8.10.26 Agenda (the Bulb Out).
Also attached are exhibits to the letter.
Thank you for your consideration.
Lisa Lawson
One Sansome Street, 14th Floor
San Francisco, California 94104
Direct: 415-484-4342
www.lawson2.com
This message is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If you received this
transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message. Any review, dissemination,
distribution, or duplication of this communication by anyone other than the intended recipient is strictly prohibited.
IRS Circular 230 Disclosure: As required by U.S. Treasury Regulations governing tax practice, you are hereby advised that
any written tax advice contained herein was not written or intended to be used (and cannot be used) by any taxpayer for the
purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed under the U.S. Internal Revenue Code.
This message needs your attention
This is their first mail to some recipients.
Mark Safe Report
From:Laurie Girand
To:Council, City
Cc:Clerk, City
Subject:August 10 Council Agenda Item #20 Re Report # 2511-5563, Page 342 of Packet
Date:Thursday, August 6, 2026 10:53:40 AM
Attachments:Background on East CrescentSouthwood.8.6.25.docx
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
I respectfully request that this email and the accompanying history document be included in
materials provided before the coming weekend to Council Members.
To: Palo Alto City Council
Re: August 10 Item #20, Report # 2511-5563, “Approval to Proceed with Final Design for the
Permanent Installation of the Crescent Park Traffic Calming Project including a Bulb-out on
Southwood Drive and East Crescent Drive, etc.”
My name is Laurie Girand, and I’m a co-owner of 590 East Crescent Dr. where my father has
resided for 46 years. Since the Office of Transportation installed a supposedly one-year pilot
more than five years ago, our family and my father have had to correct the record presented by
OT and to plea for sanity with respect to what the city has done to this neighborhood: the local
neighborhood that encompasses East Crescent, Southwood and people who use this
intersection from Edgewood. On August 10, I will once again attend the city council meeting.
I am attaching a history of what has transpired that was previously sent to council in October of
2025, following the last PTC meeting in September 2025, at which OT informed the
commission it did not need the commission’s approval for the intersection because council
had already approved the project. If OT had followed the original direction of PTC and seriously
considered other alternatives for the intersection or even if it had separated this intersection
from the rest of the project for approval, we would not still be discussing it almost three years
after the project was first brought before Council.
Unfortunately, I must once again correct errors and misstatements in the recommendations
proposed by OT in the packet for the August 10 meeting.
Page 342: “Staff evaluated three options in response
to recent discussions with the Planning and Transportation
Commission in order to address concerns raised by adjacent property
owners.”
No public discussions are “recent.” They last took place in September of 2025, almost a year
ago. Concerns were raised not only by “adjacent” property owners; independently,
commissioners disparaged the pilot as well. In addition, staff has never acknowledged a
petition of neighbors local to the intersection who oppose the pilot, a petition which was
submitted to staff and can be found through PRA requests and in the attached history; it has
been updated to include a fifth page.
Page 342: “Based on the effectiveness of each of the options in
addressing access and safety concerns and the level of
neighborhood support indicated in the project survey…”
In the past and now in the packet, staff repeatedly refers to the “project survey,” showing
suspiciously high satisfaction rates. No option was presented to respondents other than
“yes/no”. This survey was sent to many residing in the considerably larger Crescent Park
neighborhood who never use this intersection. Neighbors local to the intersection oppose the
bulbout, as indicated by the petition of local neighborhood residents.
Page 342: “Staff is returning to Council to… in response to a request
from Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) members who
expressed concerns about a mismatch between their prior
communications and PTC motion communicated to Council on
November 6, 2023.
“Mismatch” is a euphemism. With respect to the intersection, OT staff misled council as to
1) the status of the Southwood/East Crescent pilot,
2) the commission’s lack of satisfaction with it, and
3) OT’s subsequent refusal or inability to consider other alternatives to the “bulb-
out” in a timely fashion.
Page 343: “Although Options 2 and 3 do not fully align with the
original intent and objectives of the traffic calming project, staff has
included and analyzed them for Council consideration.”
Council might reasonably ask what the original intent and objectives were and in what order of
priority. Later, staff indicates they are “cut through traffic, congestion during peak periods,
and vehicle speeds during off peak hours.”
Page 343-344: “In 2022, staff collected post-
installation data including a neighborhood survey to evaluate the
performance of the pilot measures. The results showed reductions in
traffic volumes, cut through traffic, and vehicle speeds, which
suggested that the pilot was likely effective (with the caveat that
ambient travel patterns had also changed during the pandemic.).
Please do not read this sentence too quickly. Here are the facts. The “neighborhood
survey,” which staff repeatedly uses as evidence of support, surveyed residents of all of
Crescent Park, most of whom do not use the intersection. Via PRA requests, there is
no evidence of a city survey showing neighborhood support local to the
intersection because there isn’t any. The city’s own post-installation speed data
shows NO IMPROVEMENT on East Crescent, where the city took its only
measurements. The “caveat” is because staff’s own consultants do not support the
argument that cut throughs or traffic have been reduced at the intersection, owing
to overall declines in traffic due to the pandemic. By conflating the survey and other
data for the entire Crescent Park project with that of the intersection when addressing the
intersection, staff uses sleight of hand to imply its pilot at Southwood/E. Crescent improves
traffic, when it does not.
I could continue with an analysis of staff’s interpretations of its work in this area, but I feel
enough evidence has been compiled to suggest that the summary paragraph of PTC requests
as of September 24, 2025, stands as concluded:
Page 345: “PTC members did not support staff recommendation to
proceed with the engineering design of the refined bulbout concept. PTC
members also expressed concern that their recommendations from July
14, 2023 had not been accurately communicated to Council on November
6, 2023 (Attachment A).”
However, please note a subsequent reference to “This [public]engagement has helped
staff to incrementally refine draft concepts for potential permanent installation.” It
remains true that staff has “incrementally” refined drafts of the bulbout, modifying it from an
original T, promoted by NACTO standards, to an S curve, likely because people hit the original
installment when making a right turn. After more than five years of consideration, only in the
August 10 packet, has staff considered any alternative to the pilot at Southwood/E. Crescent,
despite requests from PTC to do so years ago.
I am grateful that staff reviewed the video of the prior meeting to understand how far its earlier
summaries were from actuality. However, unfortunately, after this section of the packet, it
continues to promote unsupported statements.
Staff indicates in Table 1 under “Effect on traffic calming goals” that the “modified” bulbout
would produce “lower speed and less cut through traffic than pre-pilot,” which it does not
do. Despite the following statement, specifically referring to improvements on East Crescent:
Page 349, “This realignment has been shown to reduce cut-through
traffic and lower unsafe vehicle speeds for right and left turn movements
to and from E. Crescent Drive.”
staff has no evidence supporting speed or traffic improvements, and staff’s own
consultants would not support such a statement. In fact, vehicles routinely slalom
through the intersection. It is probable that, instead of how this line is phrased, staff meant to
say, “This realignment has been shown to reduce cut-through traffic and lower unsafe vehicle
speeds at similar intersections, according to…” (Note the missing citation, again).
However, once again, staff’s summary states as solid fact evidence it does not have -- a bad
habit. It could just be a mistake, but the construed statements always support staff’s
position. Unlike the handwaving in which staff engages, the data the city does have is
described and cited in the attached history.
Let me say that this endless fact checking is exhausting, and it should not be required of
homeowners. City representatives should require staff produce clear and irrefutable facts
and apply them accurately.
On August 10, you will be asked to consider:
- ongoing modifications at the unsupervised whim of OT to the Southwood/E. Crescent
bulbout opposed by the majority of PTC and the local neighborhood, with no
evidence of improvements associated with the three goals;
- a new alternative, with no evidence of improvements associated with the three goals;
or
- largely returning the intersection to its original state.
I would note that in coming up with Option 2, once again, local neighbors and those
“adjacent” to the pilot were neither notified nor consulted until 10 days before the Council
meeting. It’s unknown whether PTC members or council members have been privately
consulted. That OT staff would propose any alternative to Council without prior PTC approval
despite years available for potential PTC consideration is indicative of how little energy staff
have put into alternatives or this intersection. The conclusion is that it is too late for public
input on Option 2, which should also be a piloted and proven to produce statistically reliable
results.
At the meeting, I will request that you return the intersection as close as legally possible to its
original state and bring this unnecessary, unsupported – by either homeowners or data - and
miserable experience to an end.
Laurie Girand
August 6, 2026
From:Anthony Klein
To:Council, City; Sheryl Klein
Subject:Letter in Support of Option 1 for Agenda Item 20 for August 10 City Council Meeting: Approval to Proceed with Final Design for the Permanent Installation of the Crescent Park Traffic Calming Project
Date:Friday, August 7, 2026 6:35:35 AM
Attachments:image.png
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
RE: Agenda Item 20, August 10, 2026 – Approval to Proceed with Final Design for the Permanent Installation of the Crescent Park Traffic Calming Project.
We live at 576 East Crescent Drive. While we do not like to disagree with our next-door neighbor, we think that public safety along our street should absolutely take priority
and the Council should ratify the Staff recommendation of Option 1.
When we first moved to East Crescent Drive in 2004, our neighbors warned us regarding traffic on the street moving too fast. A child had been struck prior to our moving in
and we were concerned that our two children could be at risk. As the years went by, we certainly witnessed many incidents of speeding along the narrow street, particularly
for cars making the turn from Southwood onto East Crescent. Several times we have had cars strike the trees on our property.
Consequently, we were thrilled when Palo Alto built the temporary traffic-calming measures on Southwood and East Crescent. While cars often do not stop at the stop sign
or make rolling stops and continue quickly on, the bulb-out forces the cars at least to the right-hand side of a very narrow street. As a consequence we feel much safer now
with the cars traveling towards University Avenue. Similarly, for cars travelling towards Southwood from University, the bulb-out has quite effectively reduced speeds as they
turn onto Southwood. Again, the stop signs are marginally effective, as Staff have observed; not everyone stops, but the bulb-out definitely slows the rate of travel. Given how
many people cross at that point walking their dogs or just strolling through the neighborhood, the bulb-out has dramatically increased the safety of the intersection.
Of the three options being brought before Council tonight, we therefore strongly endorse the Staff recommendation to adopt Option 1. We would not object to modifications
that would make it more attractive, naturally. We also encourage the City to incorporate new ramps to ease pedestrian access through the modified bulb-out. That seems
like a good idea and a fair compromise. As noted above, based on years of observation and daily dog-walks through that intersection, Option 2 would be ineffective absent
constant policing to enforce that people actually stop at the stop signs. Option 3, a return to the original, would be a disaster. As the years have gone by, we have much more
traffic on East Crescent, as it has become a commute corridor. So a return to status quo ante, particularly after the City has acknowledged our safety concerns, would be
the worst result.
As you can see from a typical view from our lot, slowing traffic at that intersection is vital.
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first mail to some recipients.
Mark Safe Report
We really appreciate how much effort the City and Staff have put into this. We think the modified Option 1 is the best possible outcome and we support this motion and their
efforts. Too bad this wasn’t done 20 years ago.
Thank you for your thoughtful attention to this matter.
Best regards,
Anthony and Sheryl Klein
Crescent Park Neighborhood
Traffic Calming Project
City Council Meeting
August 10, 2026
AGENDA
Purpose
Final Concept Design Layouts
Discussion
Project Overview & Background
Next Steps
2
Purpose
▪Review of Final Concept Plans for the Crescent Park Traffic Calming Project
▪Council Approved moving forward with design of permanent improvements on
Nov 6, 2023
▪Staff engaged with adjacent property owners and community for feedback for
revised concepts
▪PTC expressed concerns on Sept 24, 2025, about the proposed measures and
previous recommendation.
3
Project Overview & Background
Primary Goals
•Improve safety and quality of life
•Minimize cut-through traffic
during peak hours
•Minimize travel speed during off-
peak hours
4
Project Overview & Background
5
1
2
Project Locations
1.Hamilton, Center &
Southwood
•Oval-shaped traffic circle
2.Southwood & East
Crescent –
•Curb extension
•Roadway realignment and
three-way stop
Curb Extension/Roadway
Realignment: Southwood & Crescent
Traffic Circle
Hamilton, Center & Southwood
Project Overview & Background
6
Project Overview & Background
7
Traffic Calming Request
•Early 2018:
Residents’ concerns
noted regarding cut-
through traffic
•May 2018: First
community meeting
held to hear
comments and
identify next steps
•March 2019: Pre-
pilot data collected,
and concept layouts
developed
•November 2019:
Second community
meeting to identify
preferred
alternatives
1 Pilot Improvements
•September 2020: PTC
reviewed Temporary
Traffic Calming
measures
•November 2020:
Council approved Trial
of Temporary Traffic
Calming measures
•August 2021: Pilot
improvements
installed
2 Post Pilot Review and
Approvals
•Fall 2022: Post pilot
data collected and
analyzed.
•June 2023: PTC
recommends
development of
permanent
improvements –with
input from residents
•September 2023: City
Council approved for
the permanent
improvements
3 Refinement of
Concepts
•February 2024: Field
meeting with 590 E
Crescent Drive
residents
•October 2024:
Community meeting at
the City Hall Council
Chambers
•April 2025: PTC
reviewed final concept
design and asked staff
to review access for
property owner
•April 2025: Field
meeting with 590 E.
Crescent Drive
residents
•Sept 2025: Staff
revised the concept
plans for final review
by PTC
Resident Comments:
•Bulb-Out Aesthetics: Overly Large and unappealing concrete
•Parking Loss: In front of existing curb ramp
•Accessibility: Impact on ride-share pick-ups and drop-offs
•Landscaping: Request for plant species that complement neighborhood aesthetics
•Regulatory Concerns: Compliance with AB 413 restricting parking near the bulb-out
8
Curb Extension/Roadway Realignment: Southwood & East Crescent
Revisions based on feedback:
•Reduced Curb Extension: Reduced footprint in the revised concept by five feet for wider lanes
and improved maneuvering space
•Aesthetic Improvements: Aesthetically pleasing, drought-tolerant, low-height plants added
•Restored Access: Converted curb ramp to a concrete path, allowing parking behind it
•Increased Parking: Project increase on-street parking capacity (AB413 - 2023)
•Crosswalk Realignment: Increased distance from the bulb-out to improve visibility and allow
potential parking
Addressed concerns through design refinements which balance safety, accessibility,
and compliance
9
Curb Extension/Roadway Realignment: Southwood & East Crescent
Option 1 - (Modified Bulbout Design)
10
Southwood Drive/
East Crescent Drive
2
Option 2 - Remove Bulbout and Retain Stop Signs
11
Southwood Drive/ East Crescent Drive2
Comparing Options
12
Option 1
Modified Bulbout
(landscaped & reduced size)
Option 2
Bulbout removal with stop
signs
Option 3
Bulbout and Stop Sign
Removal
Accessibility Consideration New Ramps within bulbout at
crosswalk & concrete pad at
frontage where existing ramp
for access.
Curb Ramp in pre-pilot location
to be upgraded to current ADA
standards
Curb Ramp in pre-pilot location
to be upgraded to current ADA
standards
Effect on Traffic Calming Goals Lower Speeds and less cut
through traffic than pre-pilot,
High Visibility Stop Sign
Likely lower speed and cut
through traffic than pre-pilot
but non-self-enforcing i.e.
drivers may roll through or not
notice the stop sign
Similar to pre-pilot i.e. concerns
about speeding and cut
through traffic
Aesthetic considerations Landscaping with permanent
installation Large, concrete intersection Large, concrete intersection
On-street parking adjacent to
590 E Crescent
Permitted (>15’ from crosswalk
with curb extension)
Prohibited under AB 413 (<20’ of
crosswalk)
Prohibited under AB 413 (<20’
of crosswalk)
Recommendation & Next Steps
▪Recommendation
▪City Council approve the final concept design and proceed
with Option 1: Permanent Traffic Calming, which includes
the permanent installation of the bulb-out at Southwood
Drive and East Crescent Drive as part of the Crescent Park
Traffic Calming Project
▪Next Steps
▪Complete Final Design and Prepare Construction Documents
▪Procure Funding and Construct Improvements
13
Questions / Discussion
Email: Transportation@PaloAlto.gov