Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 125-06of Palo TO:HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT JANUARY 23, 2006 CMR: 125:06 RECOMMENDATION TO AUTHORIZE MAYOR TO TRANSMIT TO CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW COMMENTS ON TRAFFIC MITIGATION MEASURES FOR 100 ,, MAYFIELD PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (DEIR) RECOMMENDATION Staff reconmaends that the City Council authorize the Mayor to transmit the attached letter to the City of Mountain View summarizing concerns regm’ding retention of the existing underpass underneath San Antonio Road as a condition of the 100 Mayfield project. BACKGROUND The City of Mountain View is processing an application by the Toll Brothers for a General Plan revision and Precise Plan change to allow redevelopment of the Mayfield Mall!Hewlett Packard site with housing and possibly limited conmaercial development. The entire project site is 24 acres and located at the corner of Central Expressway and San Antonio Road. 4.2 acres of the project site is located within Palo Alto and will undergo development review- in Palo Alto. The Toll Brothers have submitted aa application for preliminary Architectural Review Board review for 48 units of housing on the Palo Alto portion of the site. The City of Mountain View, acting as the lead agency on the project, circulated a Draft Enviromnental hnpact Report (DEIR) on December 15, 2005 that addresses the enviromnental impacts from the entire project. During the preparation of the EIR, Palo Alto staff was allowed to review and comment on two administrative drafts of the EIR. The circulation period for the DEIR ends on Janum-y 31, 2006; a public hearing on the DEIR was held in Mountain View on January 18, 2006. A second public hearing on the DEIR is scheduled for January 25. The EIR will be providing environmental review for the Palo Alto portion of the project; however, no public hearings on the EIR will be held in Palo Alto since Palo Alto is not the lead agency. DISCUSSION Redevelopment of the Mayfield site is a significant project with potential impact to south Palo Alto. Given its size and location, residents adjacent to the project have expressed concerns CMR: 125:06 Page 1 of 2 particularly regarding potential impacts from project circulation and additional congestion in the area, including along the Charleston Arastradero Corridor. Attached to this report are the cormnents on the DEIR prepared by staff that are recommended to be transmitted to the City of Mountain View prior to the January 31 st deadline (see Attachment B). Of particular concern to Palo Alto area residents, specifically in the Greenmeadow neighborhood, is the potential for cut-ttv’ough traffic from one of the mitigation measures identified in the EIR. The EIR traffic analysis assumed that the existing underpass providing access to and from the southbound lanes of Sm~ Antonio Road wouid remain open; however, it also identified alternative mitigation in the evem that the underpass could not be incorporated in the project since its ownership is not under control of the applicant and its structural integrity has not been assessed. The alternative mitigation measure would provide an outbound left turn access to San Antonio Road from Nita Avenue. Since this alternative proposal has the potential to generate cut-tb_rough traffic on local Palo Alto streets such as Briarwood Way and Nelson Drive, the residents in the project vicinity strongly believe the underpass must be retained. Staff also recommends retention of the underpass. Staff has concerns regarding the feasibility of the left turn access from Nita Avenue since it may adversely impact traffic operations on San Antonio Road as well as generate cut-ttv’ough traffic on local City streets. Even if the EIR is adequate in its analysis that this alternative is a feasible mitigation measure, staff believes the City should take a position that the underpass should be included as a condition of the project. The attached letter to the City of Mountain View emphasizes the need for retention of the underpass. The City Council will also have the opportunity to comment on the Mayfield Mall development and reiterate its position regarding the u):l@rpa.s.s prior to the project hearing by the Mountain View City Council later this ?~ar~~ ;er DEPARTMENT HEAD: . STEVE EMSLIE ~f Pl~in~ a~ CommunN, Enviromnent CITY MANAGER APPROVAL~ ~ ~ { EM A NON - Assistmtt City Manager ATTACHMENTS Attact~_rnent A: Draft letter to Mountain View Attactnnent B: Staff comments on 100 May field Project DEIR COURTESY COPIES Lynnie Melena, Senior Project Planner, City of Mountain View Penny Ellson, Greenmeadows Civic Affairs Committee Sally Hamilton, Gree~m~eadows Civic Affairs Cormnittee CMR: 125:06 Page 2 of 2 Attachment A January 30, 2006 Mayor Nick Galiotto City of Mountain View 500 Castro Street Mountain View, CA 94039-7540 SUBJECT: 100 Mayfield Project Traffic Mitigation Dear Mayor Galiotto, The City of Palo Alto received the Draft Environmental Ilnpact Report (DEIR) for the 100 Mayfield Project in mid-December. The purpose of this letter is to focus on a specific traffic mitigation identified in the DIEIR that is of concern to Palo Alto. Palo Alto staff will submit comments on the overall DEIR under separate cover. Since circulation of the DEIR, Palo Alto residents in the vicinity of the project have expressed concern to the City Council regarding impacts fi’om the traffic circulation and added congestion resulting from the project. Of particular concern to Palo Alto area residents is the potential for cut-through traffic from one of the mitigation measures identified in the EIR. The EIR traffic analysis assumed that the existing underpass providing access to and from the southbound lanes of San Antonio Road would remain open; however it also identified alternative mitigation in the event that the underpass could not be incorporated in the project since its ownership is not under control of the applicant and its structural integTity has not been assessed. The alternative mitigation measure would p~:ovide an outbound left turn access to San Antonio Road fi’om Nita Avenue. Since this alternative proposal has the potential to generate cut-through traffic on local Palo Alto streets, such as Briarwood Way and Nelson Drive, the residents in the project vicinity strongly believe the underpass must be retained. Palo Alto staff also recon:unends retention of the underpass citing concerns regarding the feasibility of the left turn access fi-om Nita Avenue since it may adversely impact traffic operations on San Antonio Road as well as generate cut-thiough traffic on local City streets. Although Palo Alto will have the ability to condition the Palo Alto portion of the project to require the underpass, the City would like it to be l~own at this time early in process that this condition should be required of the project. As a responsible agency for this project, the City is obligated to identify concerns regarding the portion of the project, which will be the responsibility of Palo Alto; both the undel-pass and the San Antonio Road/Nita Avenue intersection are located within Palo Alto. In closing, the City would also like to commend Mountain View for working closely with Palo Alto in the preparation of the DEIR and appreciates Mountain View’s efforts to incorporate staff’s comments in the DE]Y,. The City Council further appreciates Mountain View’s consideration of this concern regarding the project’s traffic mitigation. Sincerely, Judy Kleinberg Mayor, City of Palo Alto ATTACHMENT B Staff Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report For 100 Mavfield Proiect It is the City’s understanding that the intersection of Alma Street/San Antonio Road was not analyzed (the study intersections are listed on Page 4.12-1) because the assigned project trips are mostly tbaough movements that would not affect the intersection’s Level of Service (LOS) however, due to the close proximity of this intersection to the project site, we are still requesting that the intersection of Alma Street!San Antonio Road be included in the document. Pages 4.12-2 mad 4.12-4 describe the roadway network. Each of the roadways classification (i.e., local, collector, arterial, etc.) needs to be added to this description. For example, San Antonio Road is classified in the City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan as an arterial road, Middlefield Road is an arterial south of San Antonio Road and a residential arterial between San Antonio and Willow Roads, Ahna Street is an expressway south of San Antonio Road and an arteria! between San Antonio and Sand Hill Roads, etc. 3.The project site abuts San Ad~tonio Road and Alma Street which are major truck routes within the City of Palo Alto. Having a sig-nificant number of trucks as part of the traffic mix affects the overall traffic operations. Thus, the draft EIR report needs to describe the truck movements in the area m~d their overa11 effects on the operational conditions. It is preferable to also include a figure illustrating the truck routes. Attached is the City of Palo Alto Truck Routes map for the consuitant’s reference. During a joint site check with staff of the City of Mountain View and its traffic consultant, deficiencies were noted in the existing pedestrian sidewalks and crossing facilities including curb ramps that are not compliant with the ADA requirements. For example, the project should construct compliant curb ramps at the asphalt path and medians for a better pedestrian com~ection betaveen the underpass and the intersection of San Antonio Road/Briarwood Way. Pages 4.12-7 and 4.12-8 provide a general description of the pedestrian facilities without listing all identified deficiencies. The EIR should include a detailed description of the deficiencies and how they will be addressed as part of the project. The Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities section on Pages 4.12-7 and 4.12-8 also need to include a description of the identified issues associated with pedestrian and cyclist crossing of Alma Street. FYI: Figure 4.12-4 does not show future bike routes within the City of Palo Alto. For example, the bike boulevard along Wilkie Way is expected to be established in 2006 (i.e. near ten11). 6. Table 4.12-5 on Page 4.12-17 lists the traffic count ?,ears at the study intersections which vary between 2002, 2004 and 2005. However, the count description provided on Page 4.12-11 does not refer to the different count ?,ears and whether any factors were applied to the traffic volumes to address such variations. Page 1 7,Lane configurations at the Palo Alto intersections shown on Figure 4.12-6 need to be double checked. For example the westbound approach on San Antonio Road (southbound in the report) at Charleston Road contains one left-turn lane, two through lanes, one shared througl~’right-tum lane, and one right-turn lane; there are no two exclusive right-turn lanes on this approach. It is realized that data entry in the Traffix softa~are would be somewhat different to reflect the volume entering the fi’ontage road. 8.Table 4.12-6 needs to have a notation that the provided volume and density are for the mixed flow lanes (i.e. the HOV lanes are excluded). Field Observations on Page 4.12-18 and 4.12-19 do not have any reference to the parking associated with the Mid-Peninsula Jewish Co~rnnunity Day School that presently takes place on San Antonio Road as well as on the project site. 10.The lists of Approved and Pending projects provided in Tables 4.12-7 and 4.12-14, respectively, are incomplete based on the data base in mid 2005 as previously provided to the City of Mountain View. If the traffic consultant selected only a few of the projects in light of their net trip increase and project locations, then this needs to be clarified in the report write- up. Also both complete project lists should be added to the appendices. 11.The traffic consultant was informed of the City practice to estimate trip generation of a land use based on the higher of either the ITE average trip rate, or the ITE fitted curve. This practice should have been followed in estimating the trip generation associated with the approved projects, pending projects, office use that exists on site, and the proposed residential uses. 12.It is realized that the total number of trips to be generated by the proposed residential uses would be fewer than the existing office trips as stated on Page 4.12-31. However, the proposed residential uses would generate more outbound trips during the a.m. peak hour, and more inbound trips during the p.m. peak hour. The performed analysis applied a reduction factor of 3% (i.e. less than 50% of the surveyed 7%) to the existing office use, yet it applied a reduction factor of 9% (i.e. more than 50% of the 17% surveyed in the City of Mountain View) to the proposed residential uses. The relatively large difference (between 3% and 9%) could result in an underestimation of the net change in trip generation. The project site is relatively large and not all dwelling m~its would be located within a walking distance of 2000 feet from the Caltrain station. There are also operational and safety concerns that still need to be addressed with regard to the pedestrian and bike connection to the train station. Residents in the different cities within the County have different travel patterns. It is therefore preferable to apply reduction factors that would reflect traveling behaviors in both cities. 13.The description of trip distributions of the existing and proposed uses (provided on Page 4.12-30 and 4.12-35) has no reference to the percentage of traffic that uses/will use the underpass. The trip assign_merits shown on Figures 4.12-9 and 4.12-12 are less than the estimated trip generation of the current and proposed uses, respectively. If it is assumed that Page 2 the trip difference uses the underpass and other local streets the percentages of traffic that use/will use the underpass should be provided. It should also be noted that there is no indication to the underpass usage by the general traffic from the nearby areas. 14.Volumes shown on Figures 4.12-10 and 4.12-13 need to be double checked. For example, the northbound left-turn movement on Middlefield Road (westbound in the report) at San Antonio Road st~ould be 360(414) (i.e., not 330(400)) under Current conditions, and 301(415) (i.e., not 301(401)) under Project conditions. There are also some minor imbalances between the intersection volumes even where there are no intermediate driveways to absorb the difference. 15.A complete list of the Palo Alto significant impact criteria was previously provided to the traffic consultant. The criteria listed on Pages 4.12-44 and 4.12-45 have no reference to potential parking impacts. The IEIR should identify where the guest parking will be provided. 16.Traffic counts and analysis of the residential local and collector streets were only conducted for streets within the City of Mountain View. It~vas repeatedly requested that the TIRE index be applied to the nearby local and collector streets in Palo Alto. However, such analysis was not incorporated in the report. Page 4.12-51 of the report seems to imply that only 14 students would travel to and fiom Palo Alto schools. It should be noted that there are traffic generators other than schools (such as parks, restaurants, etc.) that would attract traffic to Palo Alto. There could be also the potential for cut-tl~rough traffic using residential Palo Alto streets such as Briarwood Way and Nelson Drive. This limited evaluation is also demonstrated on Figures 4.12-14 and 4.12-15 which illustrate cun’ent and future site trips on local Mountain View streets without any of the Palo Alto streets located north of San Antonio Road. 17.There is presently a stop control facing motorists exiting the site at Nita Avenue and making a right-turn onto San Antonio Road. The signal phasing shown on Figure 4.12-16 makes sense. Incorporating the northbound right-turn movement (i.e. right-turn out of the site) into the sign~al phasing could encourage/divert more traffic to use San Antonio Road. For example, would more trips heading to US 10t be made via San Antonio Road rather than via Central Expressway and Rengstorff Avenue. It should be noted that the stop comrolled intersection of Thompson Avenue/Central Expressway is expected to operate at LOS "E" and "F" under future traffic conditions. Also the outbound left-turn pocket on Mayfield Avenue at Central Expressway is expected to exceed its maximum queue capacity. 18.The DEIR recommends an alternative mitigation at a number of locations (e.g. first para~’aph on Page 4.12-60, and second paragraph on Page 4.12-61) to eliminate the underpass and provide instead an outbound left-turn access at San ~Amtonio Road!Nita Avenue. This mitigation could adversely impact traffic operations on San Antonio Road. Again San Antonio Road serves a considerable amount of truck traffic. Traffic queues often take place on San Antonio Road in the vicinity of Nita Avenue. These queues are worsened during the start and end times of the Mid-Peninsula Jewish Community Day School. This alternative mitigation measure also has the potential to generate cut-tl~u’ough traffic on local Palo Alto streets such as on Briarwood Way and Nelson Drive (e.g. by traffic trying to avoid Page 3 the intersection of San Antonio Road/Middle field Road). It is therefore reconmaended to retain the underpass. Internal site access to the underpass could be reali~.ed with the corner of Avenue A/Avenue B in order to address the visibility and operational concerns. 19.The City previously requested that the City of Palo Alto review and approve the logistics plan which more specifically evaluates traffic, noise, ~’ound water treatment, etc. associated with the project construction. Information described and shown on the traffic plan (the traffic part of the logistics plan) should contain the truck routes to and from the site, parking associated with the construction work, location of materials storage, any potential for temporary closure of a travel lane or sidewalk, any potential for temporary elimination of on- street parking, warning traffic control devices and flag persons, etc. The City also previously requested at least an analysis of potential pavement impacts (i.e. comparative pavement impact analysis of before and after construction). Demolition of the existing buildings and construction of the new buildings are expected to generate a considerable number of multiple axle trucks that could affect pavemem conditions. 20.The project EI~ accounted for the deployment of signal adaptive technology along the Charleston-Arastradero con-idor in order to mitigate impacts of the cumulative projects. It should be noted that all projects to benefit from the deployment of the signal adaptive system are required to contribute a pro-rata share towards this future improvement already identified on our work progam. The Palo Alto portion of the project’s financial responsibilities towards transportation improvements would be set as conditions of approval. It is also appropriate for the Transportation section of the EIR to list such requirements along with a fee estimate. 21.The DEIR indicates that Nita is designated as a future bicycle boulevard by the City of Mountain View; however, the proposed improvements to the Nita!San Antonio intersection do not address the need for two-way bicycle travel fi’om Nita across San Antonio Road to the bike routes within Palo Alto along the San Antonio frontage road and MacKay, which connect to designated bike routes northbound in Palo Alto. The EIR should address the need for intersection striping modifications and signal phasing improvements to provide adequate bicycle access across San Antonio Road for bicyclists heading into Palo Alto. 22.The summary section of the EIR on Pages 2 to 6 should indicate that with mitigation measure 4.1-2d regarding preservation of trees on the Palo Alto portion of the site that the impact is less than significant. The EtP,. should note on Page 4.1-29 that if preservation of these trees is determined infeasible by the City an adequate canopy replacement to provide a sufficient visual screen must be provided by the project. Page 4 NOTE: MIDDLEFIELD RD. IN MENLO PARK HAS A 3 TON WEIGHT LIMIT, CITY I~LO ALTO OF PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA TRUCK ROUTE MAP Chapter 10.48 P.A.M.C. Minimum fine for a truck route violation is $270 ~ LE GE N D"~-" ’ PALO ALTO CITY LIMITS THROUGH TRUCK ROUTE "--’"--’--’--’--’ LOCAL TRUCK ROUTE (7A.M.to 7P.M. Only} "-"",,=,,,=,,,= SPECIAL TRUCK ROUTE (24 Hrs./Day) Palo Alto Police Department ENTRY-EXIT POINT Traffic Division: (650)329-2687 N Revised August 22, 2002