The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About0431.091, , " I I ! I I .. -------"". __ ... -....... ..--.. ..... --~ ---- ~' '." . . ', , , • • ,~,~ '-",:: < Sept~mber 19, 1991 HONORABLE CITI C~JNCIl Pa'o Alt" Callforni. PRoposm SANTA CLARA COUNTY CONGESl!QN I'IANAGEMENT PROGR&~ Members of th! Council: REPORT IN BRIEF ~is is an informational report on the proposed Santa Clara County (ongesticr. Management Program (eM?). No City Council actio~ ;s required or recommended. Responses to the June 19, 1991, comments s~bm1tted by the City Council on tne draft eMP are reviewed with the conclusion tnat City concerns have been appropriately addressed. BACKGROUND Ttle Sint~ Clara CQur,ty Congestion Management Ager.cy has cl1mpleted i final draft eMF. This do(ument~ the first of a 5~ries of annual CMPs, has been prepared consistent with the prOVisions of AB4?1 and AB1791 (Katz) and SB300 (Kopp) approved by California voters is Proposition 111 in June 1~90. An ear1ier draft CMP was reviewed b~ the City Countil on June 17, 1991. The Counci1's comments are conta1ne~ in the attached June 19 letter from thf City Man3ger to Dianne McKenna, Chairperson of the Count~ Congestion Management Agellcy. The final draft CMP has be!n submitted for public review and ~omm€nt. The Agency will ~onsider adoption of the eMP at their October 16. 1991. meeting. RESPONSE TO CITV CONCERNS City concerns identified in the attached June 19 letter have been responded to .ith amend~~nts of t~e CMP's text. Specific responses include the fallowing: • The City asked that description of Sa~ Mateo County and Dumbarton Bridge transit ser ... ice be added to the CMP. A rlew "Other" Transit Services section has been added en page 3·4. CMR:431:91 • .lolllS£ The City asked that i ne~ fi~d\n91 -Improye bicycle safety," be added to the CMP's Capital Improvem~nt Plan requirements. The pedestria~ and tdc,yc'e saf~ty issue is addreH.e~ in the (ol1olltin.g ne.iIl text fou'1d on pages 1-4 and 1-5 of t~. proposed eMP: An important part of ensur1ng tnat projects inc1uded in the CI? help ~ch;e¥e the cveral1 qoals of the C~P (lnd air quality requirements) 1S ca~pleting a comprehens;~e analysis of potential C1P projects. This analysis should consider w~at impact I particu1ar project has on other elements of the eMP. For example, the impact of I road improvem€nt on adjoining pedestrian or b1cycle fac11ities sho~'d be evaiuated (Especially witn respect to tile CMP's TOM gnaTs). This type of comprehensive evaluation is required for transportation i~pact analyses perfo~ed for land development projects using Santa Clara County (~IS Transportation Impact Analysis Methodology_ 1he c~oice of projects to inc1ude in tne CIP wi11 depend on many factors. The three procEss Issues outlined above a~e one part of the Dve,i'l selection process. In addlticn, there are sevEral specific criteria that will be used to evaluate projerts for the tIP. These include: Bicyc1~ ind pedestrian safety; Network issues (i.e., Will the project result in a gap closure/or gap creat,an in any tra~sportat;Qn ~et~~rk; HOV, road, transit, bikeway; Cost and financing options; Environmental documentation; and Construction re~diness, It must be emphasized that while tnese specific criteria wi~1 continue to be used in the p.roject eyaluation process, theY""ill be integrated into a comprehensive eVlluation based on the entire eMP and not as i simple cheCKlist . • The City asked thlt 1inguage be added addnssir:g tile concerl'i that traffic conditions at 1evel of ser~ice (lOS, F intersections ~ill be allowed to furtner deteriorate because the intersection is already below the lOS E standard. ihe following hnguage has been added to the traffic level-0f·Service Element (page 2-5) and the CMP Annua1 Monitorin9 And Conformance Element (~age 6-3): As an interim policy for the initial (MP, if traffic LOS on any CKP System factlity operate~ it lOS F, then ~ny project that impacts the facility at or 9reater than 1 percent of facility capac,ty (as defined i~ the CMA's Transpartation Impact A~a1ys;s Methodolo9Y -Section 2,6) must imp1ement mitigation measures to eHminate impacts. In ttle future, after the CMA develops Deficiency Plan Cuidelines. any project that impacts a eM? System facility aperating below the CMP Standard must address the CMP CMR:431:91 p:\CMR\C~Pprgm 9/19/91 Page 2 . \ , standard ~iolaticn by implementing Defici€ncy Plan act fans or !'Jfficient mitigation measures corm;ensurite with the project I s impacts. • Thl correct1ons that the City asked be ~ade in Exhibit A, Table 1-2 a~d Table 1-3, have been incorporated into the Proposed CMP (the tabl~s have become part or Ch."pter I, eMF Roadway System Definition £lementJ. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The County Congestion Management Agency is circulating for public re ... ie ... · and comment an Initial Study recommending that t~e Proposed CMP ·will not have a sign1ficant effect on the environment, and therefore, an Environmental rmpact Report (EIR) is not requ;red.~ The review and comment ~eriod on t~is Negative Declaration ends on October 7, ]991. The Initial Study conclude. that: T~e CMP is programmatic in nature and will not result directly in any environmental chang!. This Initial Stud}' fc'clJses on the prograr.rnatic aspects of the C~P. FurthermDre, it should be noted that an a~sessment of the environmental impacts associated with the tIP projects is provi~ed in the progr.m EIR prepared for the 12010 Pl.n. The preparation of this Initial St~dy incorporat~s the concept of -tiering I. permitted by Section 15152 of the State CEQA Guidelin,s. In accordance with the State C£QA. GuideHnes, this Initial Study is tiered fro~ the T20iO Plan EIR. A copy of the tiered EIR is available for review at the Santa Clara County Congestion Agency, 101 Metro Ori~e~ Suite 248, San Jose, (aliforn?l, 95110. furthen=ore, it should be noted that the CMP identifies projects that would ac~ieve the objective~ of the program. Subsequent environmental documents will be required for essentially all of the individual projects which collectively comprise the CMP. Impacts of specific improvement projects will be studied tnrough the environmental review of those spfcific projects. Given tnat future environrn~ntil doc~mentation will be required for all of the ind;~idual projects that a~e in the CMP9 staff do~s not believe that additional City review of the CMP's Negative Declaration is warranted. CONCLUSION Thoe concerns identified in the City's review of an earlier draft CMP ~ave been adequately addressed. Staff concludes that further City Councrl review is not nEJcessary. At the same time, it 15 important to ~mphasi.le the importance of the Proposed CMP and the likelihood that the CHP will have distinct impacts on Pa10 Alto. Special attention is called to: • Cnapter 2, Traffic Level-Of-Serv~ce (lement and the related Appendix materi.l on fntersect10n Le~el of Service Tec~nique (valuation, ~hich CMR:431:91 p:\CMR\CMPprgm 9/19/91 P,g' l • ' . . ----~-....:;...- -........... '- • 1Tl reQuire more complex and extensi~e evaiuation of traffic i~pa~t5 far _any pri~ate sector and public sector prcjects; • Chapter 6, land-Use Impact Analysis Element, which ~ill require staff effort for compiling information necessary for the Stage One land-Use Im¥acts Progr~~ and has the potential for consuming even more time in tne tQ-be-develop~d Stage Two Program; and • Chapter 9, Deficiency Plan £lement , which has the pot~ntial, once deficiency plan guideiines ire prepared, for consumi~g substantial aMOunt.s of staff time and possibly consultant resources for preparation of defic1ency plans for locations such as Focthill [xpre$sway and Page Mlli Road and f1 {amino Real and Page Hill Road. Staff will continue to infol~ the Council of Congestion Management Agency issues and actions. Key ite~s in tne next t~ree to five montns include adoption of the CMf, preparation of deficiency plan guidelines, and development of spec1fic concepts for the Stage Two land ~se Program. Respectfully submitted, '-/imd If ~Atak~ KENNETH R. SCHRE!BER Director of Planning ind C~~nlty cnvironaent i) ;; )I,{~~ JU~ FLEMING ..!/ Assistant City Manager ,./ Attachments: June 19~ J991, letter from City Manager to Dianne McKenna Proposed Congestion Management Program N~9at1ve Declaration and I~itial Study (Council Members and Main Library only) Proposed Congestion Management Program (Council Members and H,in Library only) cc: Planning Commission Congestion Management Agency {Mike Eva~hoe) C'IR:.31:!! p: \C'IR\CMPpr~m 9/19/!! Page 4 • ~ :1 • , , ., :.:..----... -.... ,,; ....... -... "'.~-- City of Palo IHto 250 Hamilton Avenue p, C el':. 'c. .. ~::, ~ ..... ::-..... ..-;,:'.;;:.0. ."'3' Oianne ~cKenna. Chairperson Santa Clara County Congestion Manageme~t Agency 101 Metr~ Driye~ Suite Z48 San Jose, CA 95110 Dear Chairperson McKenna: Subject: Palo Alto City (nuncil Comments on Draft 1991 Congestion Management Progr?m Jun. 19, 1991 On June 17, 1991, the Palo Alto City Council reviewed thE Dnft 1991 Congestion Management Program for Santa (Tara County. The (o~ncil unanimous1y poe, Mayor S.Jtorii.ls and Council Member Mc:own absc-nt) adopted the fcl1cwin.; comments on the Draft CMP. 1. Our compliments to the Congestion Management Agency and its staff for proGucing a we11 ~ritten and ~e'l orga~iz~d document. 2. In Chapter 3, Transit Standards Element, the Existing Transit Operators section should be explnded to include a d~script;on of San Mat€o County {SamtransJ and Dumbarton Bridge (DB Line) service to northern Santa Clara County. 3. Ir, Chapter 7, Capital Ilr.proy.e~?nt Program Element. 2dd t~ the list of findings in the CMP Capita1 Improyement Plan Require~lents section a fifth finding. -(5) Improye ticyc1e safety.- 4. In Cnapter 9, Deficiency Plan Element, add langu~ge that addre~ses the expectations for increased traffic and preparaticn of Deficiency Plans for intersections that have a 1991 Baseline lOS F condition. The specific concern raised by Council MembErs is that traffj, conaitions at LOS F inters€ctions will bE al10wed to further deteriorate because the intersection is already below the LOS E stancard. 5, In Exhibit A. Table 1·2, delete the Page Mill/Oregon Expressway and Hanover Street intersection, and in Table }·3, add the El Camino Real (RDute 82) and Alma Stre2t (P3lo AHo Ayenue) intersection. • < --'~------ ... :J '1 ~ I I , I ':."' .. -' .~ .... iir; .. "."~". ,'~ , -.-' .. ~---:.- Oian~e ~cKenna, Ch~irperson Santa Clara Cnunt,\I Congestion Man~gement Agenc,Y June 19, 1931 Page (: The ctty of Pil0 Alto appreciates the work of the a~d the opportunity to rev~ew the Draft 1991 (My. continuing work with the Agency and reviewing the environmental review documents. Very truly you:--s. Yr~~"-t.t WI LllAM ZAN.I;;\· City Manager cc: City Council Mi ke f\lanhce Marvin Overway Kenneth R. Schreiber Cor,gestion Management Ager.cy We look forward to final Draft CMP a~d related