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 cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Erica Pelavin <[email protected]>
Date: Mon, Aug 3, 2026 at 4:53 PM
Subject: East crescent and Southwood drive
To: <[email protected]>
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
Powered by Mimecast
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 cautious of 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
Powered by Mimecast
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 cautious of 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
Powered by Mimecast
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 cautious of 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
Powered by Mimecast
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 cautious of 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 Crescent Drive. I am writing to request that the intersection at East Crescent and Southwood be returned to its original state.
Please see my attached letter addressing the Office of Transportation's request for approval to proceed with the final design for the permanent installation of the bulbout in front 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
Powered by Mimecast
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 ([email protected]); 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 cautious of 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
Powered by Mimecast
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 cautious of 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.”
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:
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:
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
Powered by Mimecast
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