HomeMy WebLinkAbout0266.093-
I ~ ~I)C)IL ___ ~
May 6. 1993
HO;-.fOR.Jt..BLE CITY C(.1l'NCIL
Palo Alto l California
Members of the counci 1 ~
This is an inforroationa 1 report. .No CO':lncil acti on is required or
reco:rnrnended~
Ea:d ie_r this year. the City of Menlo Park issued a formal net ice
that the Menlo Park City cou:i\cil ,",ould "hold a Public Hearing on a
Negati ve Declarat ion for the Willo,,",s Neighborhood Traffic
Improvement Plan. Palo Alto staff revie~ed the Negative
Declaration for the proposed plan and identified several concerns,
which ~ere communicated to Menlo Park in a letter dated March 10,
1993 (Attacrunent 1). The Palo Alto City counci 1 disc.\J.ssed this
matter at its meeting on March 15 (CMR:204:93j 3/11/93), and staff
verbally reiterated Palo Alto's conce~n5 at the March 16 Menlo Park
City Council public hearing on this subj~~t.
Subsequently, at its meeting on March JD, the Menlo Park City
council t\pproved, for d or-,e year trial period, the Willows
Neighborhood Traffic PIa)"'" as described and illustrdted in the
April 2. 1993 letter fron; City Manager Ja:1et Dolan (AttachmEnt 2).
'I'he approved plan .incl·.ldes sJ1all intersectl0rt circl€:s, stop signs,
and ;::hokers, and does not include street closures ot" diverters.
It was the street closures and diverters included in the earlier
plan (upon which tn~ Negative Declaration ~as based), tnat caused
staff to have serious concern about the possible diversion of a
significant amount of traffic onto Palo Alto streets. Since these
measures are not cur!'"ently part of the approved plan, T_he
probability of significant di~ ... ersion of traffic to Palo Alto
streets is much reduccd~
From vario'.ls communications with Menlo Park staff, it is our
understanding that a seve!'"t member committee of Menlo park residents
will ~ork with Menlo Park staff to proceed with a phased
implementation and evalu~tion of the approved plan, ever a one-year
=:266:93
······L'·-.·· .
.. -
-
-
trial period. Menlo P!!I:rk has agreed to include traffic counts -at
appropriate loca'tions on Palo A.lto streets, as part of the data
collection and evaluation procl?ss. They will als,", 1<.eep us advL~.ed
of the status of t:his project as it evolves during the tr~al
period.
Palo Alto staff .... ill mO.l"lit~r the iliLplementatic'n of the neighborhood
traffic manitgelT1.ent plan, as .. 'ell as the eval"...latioI1 of the related
iropa.:::ts, and repor:( back to Council as appropriate.
Respectfully submitted,
//~#ftt1J--
MARVlN L. OVERWAY
Chief Transportation Officjal " (\
J/, ... / j' / i,:Lt,/tf /U/_ ./ ,.{_£/t /{ _ -<l f..,:/.. . ~
KENNETH R. SCHREIBER /
Director of Planning and
Community Environment ~'~~JL
,IE FLEMI~G G') ~'t.y Manager
~taChments: L .a h 10, 1993 letter to Menlo Parl.e.
2. April 2, 1993 letter from Menlo Park
to the City Council
CC: Janet Dolan l city Manager, City of Menlo Park
Ruben Nino, City of Moenlo Park P'J.blic Works Department
Russell Averhart. Interim City Manager~ City of East Palo Alto
Glenna Violette, President, Crescent Park Neighborhood Assoc.
Darrell Benatar
Margaret F~uer
CMR:266:93
II Ft F1 '\ .
5/6/93
Page 2
.: ..
•
JI
-
Ma!""ch 10 , 19503
Ms. Jan Dolan
city Manag~!"
City of Menlo Park
701 Laurel Street
M-anlc, Park, CA 94025
Cear Ms. Dolan:
ATTACH~IE:\l 1
We have recently received l'Iotice o! a March ~6, 1993 p'...:.blic
hearing or. the Negative Declaration fOt" the wi 110· ... '5
Neigh.borhood Traffic ImprovEr.-:ent. Plat' .. The notice indicates
that written C01'!'.ments are to be submitted by March 10, 1993.
We have reviewed the Negati \Ie Declaration and Initial St-UGY
and have concluded that , apart froI;1 serious concerns that .... e
have about the willo· .... s F12!i., .... e believe that the Negative
Declaration and Initial Study are clea:-ly deficier,t and i,:
need o! substantial revision~ arid should be amended and
recirculated.
Our-primary cor.cern is that the Negative Declaration and
Initial Study do not :mention, much less quantify, the
potential for substantial traffic diVersion to Palo Alto
streets. The Negative Declaration, in its discussio~ of the
I'!Effect on Traffic Vnl~m~", concludes that the proposed
cHverters would reduce the volunle of through traffic in the
neigr.borhood. HOWe\rer. CE:~A require5 that an aS5C5S1'[ler-.t
also be aone of ,,"'here the tra!fic would go if it is
eliminato:ad fro1C'. a neighborhood. Based upon our rev ie .... of
the proposed 'ti'illo .... 's plan, it appears that ~oodlar.d/chau.::er
-and Gilbert(Ce:ntral/Pope/CJ:-.aucer \rolould be the 0;;11'
remaining, mostly unobstructed routes for through traffic to
pass through the Willows neighborhood.
From this, -we have concluded that there is po':.ential for
substantial traffic volume increases on several streets in
Palo Alto--rnc'st notably C'ha'..Jcer Street a;1d University
Aver.'J€. Traffic increases are also possible on several
other of Palo Alto I s :J.ocal streets between Middlefield Road
and University .h~vcnue ....,.hich provide t1"Pass options to the
Middlefield/Univer5ity interser..:-r.ior.. S1..:~h traffic increase5
are certairl to exar::erbate existing problems about .... hich
residents living in those areas have and cont.in11e to eX")reS5
serious concern, and for which Palo Alto 5taff is presently
conducting an evaluation.
2.,'.:--ia~'J=A';e:".ue
r 0 5..,"'). lc:.,l
.Pd1JAjt:J. CA.~,
-L
--;i,~?~'1; ---
~" ,.' ";-'
i
~ -!
-
Ms. Jan Dc::'ar:
Harch le, lS9J
Page .2
"-'hile the cu~rer::t propcs~= · ... ·illo\l.·s p:'ar:. differs f":-O:11 the ."!~y
1992 TJlO'! study; it is our cpirdoil t.~~at the proposed tr~ffic
diverters included in the current willo~s plan ~ill be just
as effective in eli:r;:inating through traffic as the full
street closures proposed il"'. t.~e earlier TJKM: plan. Thus, i:r.
the absence of more specific information to the cc'ntrary, .... " .. to
be.lieve it is like.ly that thE traffic vchtme increases
pre~ented in the May 1992 TJKM report (figure ~-7) would b~
sim!.lar to those presented in the Initial study. The 'IJKM
report predicts traffic volume increases (due to tr.afflc
diVersion and gro ..... "th) of 2140 vehicles per day o.~
Middlefield, :-749 vehicles per day on Chaucer, 55-CO vehicles
01'l University; a!"',d other undocumented potential increases on
connecting side streets~ This is clearly u,nacceptable to
Palo ).~l to.
We, ~heref~re, request that the follo~ing revisio~s be made
to the Willol,i;s ~eighborhocd Traf! ic I"'rr'.pt"-a' .... e~ent. Plan and the
Initial Study:
1. The proposed plan should be r.,odifieo to reduce the
usage of the Pope/Ch-3ucer bridge as the only re.mair.i..""J9
open access for through traffi~ in the Willo' .... s
neighborhood.
:2. Potential traf.fic volur::e changes on Menlo Pa=-).: and Palo
Alto streets should be determined 3nd disc~sse~ in the
Init.ial Stl..:dy. As a minimum, the follo ... ·ir,g Palo Alto
streets should be ir.cluded in tce stlldy: "(.:]"",1 1..'e:"5 i ty
Avenue, Cha~cer Street, Middlefield Road, Palo Altc
Avenue bet ..... een Y.id-31e:field ar,d Chaucer, and LV~"C.OLJ
Avenue and Guinda Street bet~een Middlefield" and
t:niversity.
3. J.+nticipated tratf ic volume cha!'.ges should consider
existing tra!!ic voh.lm<;.~, as "",'ell as traffic fre:"":
future !""lew developr.-,ent, so that predicted and act.ual
test results can be meaningfully cc·mp.ared curi:"j(; the
trial period.
4. Traffic " .. 'clume .I:teasu.rements shol.11d be !:la.de on all
streets at the 6-:1::Ocnth and l-year periods, includir,g
the Palo Alto streets listed above.
5. The plan should inccrporate a procedu!"e for changing
traffic control device designs or locaticns duri~a the
trial period, ~ncludlng tte potential installati~~ of
additional devices, in response to problerr,s that nic:--.t
arise during the trail. -
....• J .. ; ...J ..
o
~.s. Ja.n Vela"
Ma:-ch 1:J, 19:;3
Page 3
Please do :Iot t.:.nde::-esti!':",ate the Se-:::-iollsness c'! C'J!" cC~t:'e=-r.s
regarding the Willo'ftI"s plan. The traffic ir.~pa,::t cor,seqw.E!r1ces
of the proposed 1<I'il1oiool$ plan 0:". Fal-o Al to streets rndy 1 Ead
to such considerations as the partial O~ full closure of
access to the Pope/Cha.ucer bridge, ",:hich is tr;e type of
option ",'e 'Would like to avoid.
We are ... i Iling to _ark .... i th Hel"1.1o P3!'"k staff in order to
develop an improved plan fo!'" the ",'illo· .. 's area that wO'.lld
mir.imiz,e impacts in Palo Alto, and even pOE"sitly i::::prove
traffic conditions on both sides of San Francjsqt.!ito Cree~:.
Thank you fer the opportuniT.::Y t':I provicte these CC!T'..!l'.o;.:Jts.
since~y, ~tI __ -n-.-lm---
Marvin L~ Over'way
Chief Transportatio~ Official
cc: Palo Alto city Council
June Fleming, Palo Alto Cit} Hanager
Ruben Nino, Menlo Park Public Wo::-ks Departner.t
Mike 8ed~ell, Acting City Manager East Palo Alto
Clenna Violette t President, Cre~cel1t Park Neighborhood
Association
Darrell Benatar
Margaret Feuer
-
~Cl&8ITo;_"""
'MYol'1 "~:J 'C~
..... 0< 10< 1o'OI'tF'~S
::r"'NO.:..M~
~ II t'XE ~cu.!:S
=-WC:J,A~
i!JI
' I
,
CmOF I
MENLO'.
,,-PARJ(/
April 2. 1993
Mayer and City CounciT
CIty of ?a~o Al~o
P. o. B" 10250
P,lo Alto, CA 9~303
Wi110ws Neighborhood Traffic Plar.
ATTACHMENT 2
At their regular City ~olJnctl meeting of March 30, the Menlo Park Citj
Council approved. fer a ane-yeal'" trial period, the Wi110ws Neighborhood
Traffic Plan as depicted on the attached sketch. The plan, as approved. does
not include any diverters Q'I" barriers. Impiementation of meaS;Jres approved
in the plan win be for il limited trial period t" dete-rmir,a the eff€ct4v.e!ness
~f the dev4ces end to detErmine wha:t~ if any~ impacts result from the Llse of
the devices. If ouring the trial per~C'd. the staff, in consuTtation with the
Neighborhood Traffic Commlttee (Committee) appoi:"lted by the City Council,
determines that any tr-affic control del/ices are causing significant adverse
impacts on any streets within tile cities of Menlo ?ark, East Palo Alt,J or
Palo Alto, !;taff in consultation with th~ Committee, s-hall be responsible for
modifyi1'lg the traffic cantroT devise oesigns and/or :ocatioT1S, "inr:.!'iJding
r€moval -OT da'o';ces cr the potE:1tiaT installat.ion of adGjtiorLal devices to
reduce or €l~minate any significant adverse impacts.
The C~ty Councll ap~cinted Sf;Vcfl O"r€mber Committee wi T1 9l.J~c'e t~e
implementation of tt:e plan during the tria1 pe!'"iod. The City Council
directed the COrrrl1ittee <:.nd staff to 'Jro'crk with the caies of Eas.t Palo ~lto
and Palo Alto and the representatives of their neighborhoods in the
tmplemeniation of the plan and analysis: of tJ,e impac~s. ihe CHy Council
made it very clear that meetlngs of the Committee will ~e pub1ic rne€:~ings and
they are to be pllb'lTCly n'Otic€d according to the Brc ... 'ir Act. Ft~rther~ you
will be noti7'ied before ani devices: iire ~r.~talTed.
The City CotJnciT has directi:!d that an decis~ans of the Committee are to be
~mmediate-1y transmitted to thE City Council so that they may take act~on if
tI1ey dQ not concur with the Con1miUe-e's decisions. If the (ommittee
aetermines that th.e .approved p'ian ,jces not have the positive ir.:pacts
int~nded, they may r~cotrrnend to the (ity (ouncil tr,,,t ,jjverters be tried.
,
Wiliows Neighborhood Trlffic P1an
Page Two
April 2, !993
Tne decision iiI.S to whether diverters should be install€'d, even an a trial
basis, is \Jested lI,'ith the City Counci"l.
The City greatly
·citizens during
cooperation among
appredates the input and cooperation of your staff and
this process to d~te. we 100k forward to continued
tne three entities.
~..J-----(
'Jane'i:,. M. Do1an
City M.nager
JMD/pc
,~ttachmeT'1t: WilTows Neighborhood Traff1c !r!1p1'"ov-e!'!'!l2!nt Plan .~ap
c: June Fleming, Palo Alto City Manige~
Ken Schreiber~ PaTo Alto Planning Director
Ruben Nino, Menlo Park Engineering Director
William McClure, Men10 Park City ,A.ttorne:t
W'ilIDl .. ,s Neighborhood Traff:c Citizen C:omittee
401 !M/!-2
r
L
,
-+)
L ,
" ;'.'/ -.
-.,.., , i ~--=;:::'l""'W"i~""W'~
-fL--.--:---~ (5! .... v c,,:!\ \J1-'~i ,,'II \\-~..,~.--.. ,,\:\ ~ J\~L--=---------~'A\\~r\~.>c, --~I'""J'¥l',j t.f) -~'
\ "
~\~'I<--.-::.-~-1\\ -. t ~ -;' 1" -,-'. h,ll _ I, j _ 0~-1 .-•• ---~ I. ~~O ,'; r . \
.J ._.. ...: 'J-:;::.:;:::::::;t-\ ~ '1 ~ \ 0 ~ OIlOKf:ft~ _~{> '-1 I :
--\t \ oJ. ~-;oJI~ . . ).~ CIROl.I" "I, ~. /"t ~/ . II I,
, .I: _~/\\~_../~\ r r ~../»~. ..----III) ,/ ~. 2 CIIOKERS :-'>' ~ ~() AI .. ---, .. )..,..-.1 ~ /;::;~::J;'v 't~'#V'~l'" c "'"/1. I.' \ ;((J I./lliel /.' .'!\ __ , u' j-"~~(. \ /_ ~ I 'Ol~//
'/ '~ ,l!., ~\v<fo'· ·f\L ~~~sr~t~\}\V!ir::')\ /~~./ l' /}: <6 V ~i (i-_
L •• J 1"7-;~ .... \.Yf., ('('~/:-/ . T:~A\ {~D<:~j:{~!ft" J*:~;~(:M~\' ~ II ' .. ~.~
I I ' ' t .Af ~.~ ---.».!,. l::/)\-:;/ /'~~lJf] . ),' , II .
, ,I • , \ (~\~ 1/ I' )!fA----\ C,~:::..~t./vl,;;;·:rrl ~ [CI!WL~] ~ 1 <: :
I : I \. t11 m • 'i !to / ,-<>-" />'!~ " _ \ ,.. I Ci
__ .L:,'._.I_" ;\,L-il----I[f!KcTI] :Gf!'))G!~~('\U:<.!~t-IIO!<!1I1 .;. \r j!'~ 1'" I~( I',; ~'r, ~'", ). ,-~" ~~Ii' " ~~~ ';'~ ,,\\.,..,...~ -< .'
\
,.. . -\ 'J .q\'" r ~ _. " \ 'I ---' -t,l.--~ "I) • .. • i. 1 I .-\ ' __ , __ ._ ,'I \' , 'I--' " , •
...... I , ,_~ ,ll '--. 9.....W!KING t,K!, l~ \-r-v,g',-\\
J ! I; I! i 1-!J~'(~irRSfff~:' ~D \\ \ ~ \.\\ \ X.\,~ "'1-~\. ~;;1 W \.
... 1_;[".1: _ -JI _____ Ji )"1 ' '!l-'\ \. '\\'''\. !_I.:'·-'
._, --------\' ~ " • _\ ~ o~
iEut'Nl'. , " .' \ ,'\ "~. '; ~'~\\.i u y ~ «., 711 ) ... \~' \\ .. i\,." \' _'v' ~lof' Slu(.j ;. • .-_~-\.\ ", _ { .\.~" _' i,~(~~;',~ CI~,",~ c () (-;;,):1--\~;'> .... ~) ''f.'t. ~ .tt~i.r ... ,.~~ .... (.~t.~c.'.'."]. CI:.O .. ~.,~." ."",,,,,,,,, -~ '\ J))~r~>~G;;!.(i~~~l" r\
WILLOWS NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC \,,' "Z~"~;S./ .. <~;~~~~~~!=~~"
IMPROVEMENT PLAN.....f'M'Eo,AN 1,~L~.o!"\ //)::~-I ~IH~~fJ ,
(API'ROVm BY c(n COUNCIL MEETING OF 3-30-53) ..... ~IIS~ANO III \~ \/(,./;."'1 .. : ',;>
"1 " •• J) ~~\,a~//, '~'Il (
. '. --~"
',ii'''' ,~..w.-. " ,i'-'!i4"r, .~ ":"~,,:~:::~t~'>
, ,
.'"
l"l
~, '
~'
I
) ,
•
\
'';.-
"'>-,',' "~:!\''':' '" ", i;'\l~lti~~fkk'tf.~i.~' . .' . ~ ."'" ::
-, '.
-~