March 19, 2004

Back to the table of Contents Page

Classifieds

Palo Alto Online

Traffic barrier maelstrom approaches council

by Bill D'Agostino

With looming threats of a lawsuit or ballot revolt, the Palo Alto City Council will discuss the controversial Downtown North traffic barriers Monday night, in what officials say could be the most heated and fractious city debate in many years.

More than 100 people are expected to crowd the chambers, making it first significant test for the newly reformed elected body, council members admit.

Both sides of the roadblock debate are examining their options if they don't get their way at Monday's meeting. The most likely scenario is the losing side will gather enough signatures to place the issue on a citywide ballot.

"That would be the obvious next step," said Joe Durand, the leader of Unblock, which opposes the seven traffic barriers.

A local attorney, Kathleen Rotow, also suggested she could file a lawsuit if the barriers were kept in place.

The seven trial roadblocks have been controversial since the moment they were installed in June.

The goal was to reduce traffic cutting through the neighborhood, which is bounded by Alma Street, Middlefield Road, Lytton Avenue and the San Francisquito Creek.

The program achieved that goal, according to the city's traffic counts, leading to calmer and safer streets.

At the same time, traffic increased measurably on neighboring streets; the barriers were believed to delay fire trucks, police cars and ambulances; and some who lived in the neighborhood disproved of the hassle.

At least three groups have formed to oppose the barriers: "Unblock," Rotow's "Palo Alto Arterial Traffic Association," and the "Middlefield North Traffic Advisory Association."

Rotow said the city is "ripe" for a lawsuit because the barriers violate the city's Comprehensive Plan, which she believes calls for such measures only as a last resort.

The policy reads that the city aims to "Keep all neighborhood streets open unless there is a demonstrated safety or overwhelming through-traffic problem and there are no acceptable alternatives, or unless a closure would increase the use of alternative transportation modes."

The city's transportation officials counter that there was "overwhelming through-traffic," since more than 60 percent of cars in the neighborhood were using the neighborhood streets as shortcuts to other destinations.

Mail carriers also have little use for the barriers. In an e-mail to city transportation engineer Carl Stoffel, local Postmaster John Kelly said the traffic-calming method costs postal carriers time "to deviate around blocks."

Despite being initially billed as a six-month trial, the barriers have been in place for approximately 10 months. A once-planned survey to take the neighborhood's pulse had to be scuttled after a dispute arose over how to conduct the poll.

Last month, a split Planning and Transportation Commission (voting 3 to 2) recommended a modified plan that would leave five barriers intact. More than 90 people expressed their views at the meeting.

The Council is widely expected to carry-over its decision until the following Monday night.

The meeting is also seen as the first significant "trial" for the newly converted City Council. After years of rancor among the elected officials, things have calmed down thus far.

"When issues like this come up, it helps to reveal what the dynamics are," Vice Mayor Jim Burch said. "This will be a good test for how the council works together."

The last issue this rancorous, Assistant City Manager Emily Harrison said, was in 1997 when Stanford University applied to build new housing and expand the shopping center along Sand Hill Road.

The city held extra meetings, and hired a court reporter to take the minutes, Harrison recalled.

The end result? After the council gave its approval, the elected body itself immediately placed the issue on the ballot. It won voter-approval.

Bill D'Agostino can be e-mailed at bdagostino@paweekly.com

E-mail a friend a link to this story.