HomeMy WebLinkAbout0485.093September If. 1993
HONC'RABLE CITY COUNCIL
Palo Alto, California
' ..
i
"
Gat.ewav/lO.l ~rridQr Redevelopment Plan
Members of the Council:
Report in Brief
This report transmits comments on the City of East Palo Alto's
proposed Gateway/lOl Corrid?r Redevelopment Plan Draft
Environmental Impa~t Report. The deadline for subnussion of
comments, according to City of East Palo Alto Rede·.relopment
Agency staff member David Miller, is September 23, rather than
the September 20 date cited in the Draft. EIR.
The City of Bast Palo Alto has circulated I:he Draft EIR, along
with a proposed Specific Plan, for the Gateway/lOl Redevelopment
Project to be located on land east of Highway 101 (see attached
map). The Draft. ErR a.nd related documents were previously
distributed to Council Members.
The proposed project is divided into two phases. Phase I
includes 488,000 square feet of retail space propos eo to be
occupied by Rome Depot: and Super Kmart stores and associated
smaller retail stores. Phase I would also include realignment of
East Bayshore Fro~tage Road to connect directly to Donohoe Street
and then to University Avenue. The second Buildout Phase of the
project includes about 80,000 square feet of neighborhood
commercial ~ses, a six-screen movie theater ~omplex, and about
4,0 residential units {about 200 existing residences would be
removed during Phase !)" Completion of Phase I is expected to
occur in 1995.
Analysjs and RecQrnmended Camments __ ~praft EIR
As noted in the attached August 20 staff report to the Planning
Commission, the primary impacts of the project on the City of
Palo Alto will be in the area of traffic. Staff did not identify
significant comrnents on other areas of the Dra.ft EIR. -
eN!
'.'
/
Staff's analysis of the DEIR's traffic and circulation section is
attached t.o the August 20 staff report. The only substantive
commen~ on the DEIR is the reco~mended pedestrian/bicycle
mitigation measure cited on page S of the attachment to the
August 20 ~eport.
It is staff's understanding that East palo Alto has applied for,
aZld will receive $4.5 million in federal funding for some
improvements to the Route lOljUniversity Avenue i~terchange. The
proposed changes have not yet be~n fully defin~d, but are
intended to include modifications to the northbound Route 101
off-ratrop along existing Capitol Avenue, widening Donohoe south of
University, signal ilT'.provetr.ents at the Donohoe/University
intersection, a minor straightening of the existing hook ramp
from Donohoe to northbound 101, and possibly a new signalized
intersection on University Avenue between WOOdland and Route lDl
for a new on-ramp to southbound 1D1. These impro .... ements are
consistent 'With long-range plans for improv"ements to thi5
interchange; and neither include, nor preclude tbe improvements
tbat were intended co be made on the west side of ROlJte lO~, as
part of the now-defunct University Circle proposal.
At t.he August 25 Planning Cornrnission meeting. staff distributed
the August 25 staff report that addresses the issue of whp.ther
the City should oppose or seek a size reduction of the -proposed
project, because of the traffic impacts the project will have on
a number of Pale Alto streets. For a vari.ety of reasons cited in
the August 25 report, staff recommends that the City of Palo :z\.lto
net oppose o"'C seek a siz-e reduction of the Gate..:ay/~lJl project..
Planning Comnissicn Rev"~
The Planning Conmission reviewed the Dr.."aft EIR an.d related
materials on August 25. 'I'he Commission did not identify a;ly
issues or comments to be sent to East Palo Alto beyond the staff
reCOIm1lended pedestL"ian!bicycle mit.isation.
R"ecQlffilenda -= i on
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a motion
transmitting to the City of Bast Palo Alto comments on the
Gateway!lOl Draft Environmental Impact Report, including the
recorrmended mitigation on page B of the attachment to the
August 20 staff report and any other con®ents found approp~iate
by the Council.
Respectfully submitted,
fi;Z-l~d ;( dd;~;'S.
KENNETH R, SCHREIBER
Director of Planning and
Community Bnvironrnen~
A~~
City Manager
9/16/93
Page 2
..
Attachments:
9/25/93 Staff Report to Planning Commission
8/20/93 Staff Report to Planning Commissiou
Draft Specific Plan a:1d BIR ~Libraries only}
CC: City of East Palo Alto (Ronert Beyer)
University-Crescent Park ,~ssociation (Margaret Feueri
Friends of Embarcadero (Yoriko Kishimoto)
9/16/93
Page 3
'.
. : '
Q
PLANNING COMJ,fISSION
August 25, 1993
PLANNING COMMISSION
Palo Alto, California
Gateway/! Q I Corridor Redevel'Wllent Plan
Members of !he Commission:
STAFF REPORT
The PIanniog Commission has received the Draft Specific Plan alld Draft Environmental
Impact Report for the City of East Palo Alto's GatewayllOl Corridor Redevelopment
Plan. The Commission also received an August 20 City of Palo Alto staff report on !he
Specific Plan and DEIR. The puIJ>O>e of this repon is to provide a broader policy
3SSellsment of the proposed project's impacls on the City of Palo Alto.
As noted in the August 20 staff report, the proposed project's prima.ry impacts on Palo
Alto will be in the area of traffic and circulation. In summary. !he project would r:sult
in notable weekday and weekend traffic increases on UniveTsity Avenue, and somewhat
smaller increases on Middlefield Road, Embarcadero Road, Oregon Expressway, as wen
as possible increases on residential streels adjacent to or intersecting with University,
Embarcadero and Oregon. The es sence of the traffic flow i. that the retail services
proposed for the GatewayiJOI Corridor Project (i.e" primarily Home Depol, Super
Kmart and, in the buildoot phase, a multi-screen movie theater complex) are services that
will be attractive to Palo A1UU1S. As is also evident in !he Aug""t 20 report, there
appears to be little that can be done to mitigate lIle traffic impacts of 'his project on Palo
Alto's streets.
A legitimate question is the extent to which the City should seek to reduce the traffic
impacts of the project. Staff has not identified additional ntitigation measures beyond the
ped .. trianlbicycIe overcrossing identified in page B of the attachment to the August 20
staff report. Staff has not recommended aIaI the retail and service conunercial
.. -----~
B-25-93
Page I
. .; .
!
I
""":",""'-7·" -... -'
o
components orth. proje<:t be reduced in size. We have not r )mmended a reduced-size
alternative because:
• The Home Depot -Super Kman retail complex is a logical combination of uses
and thus any scaling back. would occur among the community-serving retail uses
andiJr the movie theater complex.
• The Home Depot -Super Kmart complex is what will generate most of the traffic
impacts in Palo Alto. Reducing other components of the project will have a
minimal positive impact on the project's traffic impact.
• It is (0 the City'S long-term advantage to bave an economically healthy East Palo
Alto. The City of F.ast Palo Alto's rever",e needs are most likely to be met
through increased sales tax, and the Gateway/WI Corridor project site is a logic.l
site for a retail complex. Any major increase in East Palo Alto's sales tax
revenues will likely bave significant tra..ffic impacts on Palo AHa because the need
for/ability to regionally attract customers, including Palo Altaru, will be very
important for a successful retail development.
In summary, staff recommends Uta! the City of Palo Alto not oppose or seek. • size
reduction of the Gateway / lO 1 Corridor Redevelopment Plan as proposed by the City of
East Palo Alto.
Respectfully submitted,
f~yJit;Ut ' tf' ...!;£~;;.,
KENNFfH R. SCHREIBER
Director of Planning and
Community Enviromnent
ce: City of East Palo Alto (Robert Beyer)
p:\~a.l' ~25-93
Page 2
•
I • I t I ~
• ~ · I
o
PLANNING COMMISSION
August 20. 1993
PLANNING COMMISSION
Palo Alto. California
MEMORANDUM
GATEWAy/IQI CORRIDOR REDEVELOPMENT PLA1I! FOR EAST PALO ALTO
Members of the Commission.
Copies of the Draft Redevelopment Plan. the Draft Environmental Impact Report and
Draft Specific Plan for the City of East Palo A1to's proposed Gateway/IOI Corridor
Redevelopmenl Project, were hand delivered to the Commission on August 18. 1993.
Attacbed is a memo from Carl Stoffel of the Transpor'-lttion Division with the staff
comments on the traffic and circulation section of the Draft Environmental Impact
Report. The primary impacts of the project on the City of Palo Alto will be in the
area of traffic and circulation. COrIlI'!leRL .... of significa.w.:e are not anticipated In other
areas.
Recommendation
The Planning Commission should comment on the Draft documents. The comments
will be forwarded to the City Council for their review and comments. Cory Council
review is tentatively scheduled for September 20. 1993.
Respectfully submi~: • " ,
C'hlj~ C. ~c")~
JAMEs E. GILLILAND
Manager. Planning Projects
Attachments: August 18, 1993 Memo from Carl Stoffel to Ken Schreiber
P:'oPf'-SR\EPAOA "TE2
,
·l
J
o
Auqust lB~ .1993
'ro: Ken Schreiber
CITY OF PALO .U~'O
KEHORANDUH
PROII: Carl Stoffe~sportation Division
.SDBJBCT: Gateway 101 EIR--Tr-affic and Ci.!:.9ulation
• • • • • • • • * * • • • • * • • * * * • * • * • • • * • • • • *
The following discussion pertains to the "Traffic and Circulation~
section ot the August 2, 1993 Draft ErR for the Gateway 101
Redevelopment Plan, Specific Plan and General Plan Amendment.
Phase I
project impacts have been evaluated in two phases. Phase I of the
project is defined as completion of the retail core of the
development, in approximately 1995~ Phase I includes 488~ 000
square teet of retail space: Home Depot, Super Kmar-t, and an
associated shoppinq center. Approximately 200 existing residences
would be removed from the redevelopment area during Phase I. Phase
I includes a realignment of East Bayshore Frontage Road to conne~t
directly to Donohoe Street, thence to University Avenue, providing
a better connection to the Dulllharton Bridge for East Bayshore
traffic. Phase I would qenerate 15,300 net new .... eekday daily
vehicle trips (ADT), of which 1400 trips would occur during the PM
peak hour. Phase I represents the bulk of the traffic impacts of
the project.
The EIR also provided an analysis of Saturday peak hour trips.
saturday project traffic is higher than weekday traffic. However I
because existing traffic levels are lower on Saturday than on a
weekday, the overall project impact is greater during the ~eekday
PM peak hour than during the Saturday peak hour. phase I of the
project "Would gene-rate 18 • .300 net ne'W' ADT on Saturday, '.~ith 2400
trips occurinq during the Saturdaj' pe>d.k hour.
Buildout
This phase of the project includes the remainder of the proposed
developmant--about 80,000 square feet of neighborhood commercial,
a six-screen movie theatre complex, and about 470 residences.
Eighty-six existinq residences would be removed during this phase.
Tbis increment of the project would generate an additional 5200 net
nev weekday AnT, with 570 trips during the PM peak hour. On
Saturday, these numbers increase to 8000 net new ADT, ~ith 1100
durinq the pe~~ hour.
Therefore, total weekday project trip generation~ including Phase
I and buildout, would be 20,500 ne~ new ADT, ~ith 2000 during the
PM peak hour. Total Saturday project trip generation including
· ,
, ,:
Gateway 101 ErR -~-August 18, 1993
Phase I and buildout would be 26,300 net new ACT, with 3500 during
the Saturday pea~ hour.
SUMMARY OF GATEWAY lOl TRlP GENERATION
(Net New Trips)
Project Component Wecil:day ADT Weekd.) PM Sat>..Jrday ADT
Ped H(1UT
Phase I 15,300 1400 18,300
Buildoot Increment 5200 570 8000
TOTAL BUILOOUT 20,500 2000 :'6.300
(lndun.s 1'1\ ... I)
Comparison with University CircJ.e Project
Saturday hal<
Huur
2400
1100
3500
To Pl.Jt the size of the Gateway 10:!. project into perspective, "
comparison with the University Circle project may be helpful. The
Settlement Aqreement for this project dictated that the maximwa
Zlpproved project ele"lIlimts .... ere 4GO,OGO square feet of office,
15,000 square feet of retail, and 190,000 square feet of hotel, for
a total of 665,000 square feet. This development would generate
7000 weekday ADT, ~ith 980 PM peak hour trips. After subtracting
existing cOll'i1'O.ercial and residential uses in that area, which
generate approximately 5400 ADT and 600 PM peak hour trips, the net
new uee}tday trip generation from the University Circle project
would be 1600 net new ADT. ~ith )BO net new PM peak hour trips~
The comparison is summarized in the following table.
COMPARISON OF WEEKDAY TRIP GENERAT10N
Net New Trips (project Less Existing Uses)
Project PM Peak Hour
Gateway 101 20,500 2000
University Circle 1600 380
There are three major factors that distinguish the transportation
aspects of these two projects~ First, trip generation per square
foot of the predominately rE "ail Gateway 101 project is substan
tially hiqher than that of the predominately office-oriented
university Circle project. Second, existing trip generation on the
University Circle site, which is mostly retail, is much larger than
on the Gateway 101 site. Existing trip generation is SUbtracted
from project t~ip generation to determine net new trips.
,
i ,
'-
~ " ~ I -, ~
~ ~ ,
. "~,.
o
Gateway 101 EIR -3-August 1B, 1993
Third, the retail-oriented Gateway project attracts trips predomi
nately from the local area. According to the EIR, the routes that
retail trips .. ould use to approach and depart the site were
estimated ba5ed on the number of households in the vicinity of the
site and the existing travel patterns in the area. Attached Figure
3.3-3 from the ErR sho~s this distribution~ Nearly sixty percent
of the retail trips originate west of u.s. 1011 and would use Menlo
Park and Palo Alto streets to access the project. In the Universi
ty Circle project, a large component of trips would originate
?utside of the local area, and would thus use the freeway to access
the project.
Significance Criter~
The EIR set.s forth three criteria for determining which traffic
impacts would be considered significant under the california
Environmental Quality Act ,CEQA) and, 'thus, .. ·ould require mitiga
tion or a finding or overriding project b~nefit.
(a) For all intersections, a significant project impact is defined
as a change in level of service (LOS) from .LOS D or better to
LOS E or F, or an increase in vIc ratio by 0.05 or more if the
intersection is already operating at LOS E or F. This defini
tion is consistent with East Palo Alto's past ErRs, including
University Circle and the Ravenswood Industrial area. (Typi
cally, for LOS E and F conditions, Palo Alto defines a change
in vIc ratio of 0.01 to be a significant impact.)
(b) For U. S. 101 ramps and the mainline treeway. a significant
project impact is defined as a change ir. LOS from D or ~etter
to LOS F, or an increase in trips exceeding more than one
percent of the facility's capacity if it is aiready operating
at LOS F. This definition conforms ~ith the Santa Clara County
Congestion Management Program (CMP) policy.
This section of U.S. 101 is loc~ted in San Mateo County~ That
county's CMP has established a standard of LOS F for this
portion of the freeway, baSed on the existing LOS F in the
northbound direction. A project would have a significant
impact if it worsened the LOS beyond the established standard~
It is not clear whether worsening the degree of LOS F consti
tutes a violation of the standar6. state legislation precludes
a project from violating a eMP standard unless a Deficiency
Plan is implemented.
ec) On local residential streets~ a significant project impact is
defined by the EIR as an increase in the TIRE (Traffic InfUsion
on Residential Environments) index of 0.1 or greater. The TIRE
index is used in the EIR as a way of describing and measuring
residents' perceptions of the effect of traffic on residential
activities. It is a substitute for the typical traffic
enqineerinq methods of level of service and percentage utiliza
tion of street capacity~ Palo Alto has never defined a level
•
o
Gateway 101 EIR -4-August 18, 1993
of significance for use with the TIRE me'thcdologyr The
researchers who developed the TIRE index considered that a 0.1
change in the index ~as the mini~um increase in volUme discern
able to the average r~sident. ~~ increase of 0.2 or 9re~ter
would definitely be noticeable to the average resident~ 3taff
believes that use of the 0.1 TIRE index ch3nge as the threshold
for a significant impact overstates these impacts, Impacts on
residential streets in Palo Alto are discussed further below~
Pt'oject Impacts on Major Intersections and Roa::h.;ays
Phase I traffic impacts have been evaluated on the basis of 1995
background traffic conditions. These conditions include traffic
from. approved but not yet constr-ucted projects in East Palo Alto
and surroonding communities. Buildout traffic impacts have been
evaluated on the basis of "far-term background-conditions. These
co-nditions include J in addition to background traffic from 1995
projects, traffic fro:m university Circle, Ravenswood Industrial
Area, Stanford West housing, and other smaller>projects. project
buildout was assumed to be complete sometime after 2000.
Of the many project impacts on roadways and intersections identi
fied in the EIR, staff has selected the following that would be of
most concern to Palo ~lto. In many cases, these impacts are
identified as unavoidable significant (i.e., unmitigaDleJ impacts.
The EIR defines buildout impacts as impacts of the full project~
including Phase I. In order to clarify the impact of the full
built-out project, Phase I project traffic is not included in the
far-term background conditions. &ummary tables for level of
service conditions at each of the following intersections are
attached to this memorandum.
University/Donohoe lEast pa.1..2 ___ Altol. All Palo Alto Unive.rsity
Avenue traffic utilizing the Dumbarton Bridge must pass through
this intersection. In addition, in two of the four alternatives
that Caltrans is considering for the redesign of the University
Avenue/10l interchange, northbound 101 to 'Westbound University
Avenue traffic (to~aTds Palo ~lto) would have tD pass through this
intersection. The addition of Phase I project traffic vould cause
1.995 LOS to degrade from C (weekday) and B t saturday) to F.
Mitigation in the form of intersection improvements would reduce
the impa.ct to LOS E~ still a significant impact. Far-term
background weekday LOS F (v/c-=1.04) (i.e., .... ithout the project)
would degrade to LOS F {V/C=1.&4} at project builaout. Saturday
LOS would degrade from B to F. EVEn with the above mitigation,
far-term LOS with project buildout would remain at F.
DonohoelCapitol (East Palo Al~~. In t~o of the four alternatives
tor th~ redesign of the University Avenue/lOl interchange,
northbound 101 to westbound University Avenue traffic {towards Palo
Alto) would have to pass through this intersection. The addition
of Phase I traffic ~Quld cause 1995 LOS to de9~ade fro~ C {weekday)
and A (Saturday) to F and D, respectively. Intersection improve-
•
,/
o
'-
Gateway lill EIR -5-August IS, 1993
ments woul~ red~ce the weekday impact to LOS D. Far-term back
ground LOS 0 {weekday)' and A (Saturday) would deg~~de to LOS F with
project buildout. With the above mitigation, the weekday LOS at
b'.Jildout would improve to D, i:;.ut the sat1lrday LOS at buildout would
improve only to E, which is still a significant impact.
University/Woodland (East ,Palo Alto). This intersection is a
primary gateway to palo Alto. P~ase I would cause the 1995 LOS to
degrade from C to OJ which is not a significant impact. Far-term
backqround LOS E ' .... eekday} 'Would deqrade to LOS F with project
cuildout. The improvements iden~ified as pdrt of the Unive~sity
Circle and University/10l int~rchange reconstruction projects 'Were
assumed to be in place. The EIR identified a mitigation measure of
signal coordination, but LOS F would still remain at buildout, a
significant impact. Saturday far-term LOS 'Would probably remain at
C at buildout:.
bbarcadero/E?st Bayshoce. Phasp.; I would cause 1995 LOS F
(v/c=1.29J to degrade to LOS F (vjc=1.31), not considered a
significant impact by East Palo Alto. Far-term background LOS F
(v/c=1.43) would degrade to LOS F (v/c;.:;;1.47) at buildout, which is
not considered a significant impact by East P~lo Alto.
YniYersity/Southbound 101 On-Ramp (C~lt~fi§l. This is a proposed
new siqnalized intersection that would be created by Caltrans at a
new southbound on-ramp to U.S. 101, once the University Circle area
was redeveloped. This intersection would not exist in the 1995
Phae.e I scenariQ.. Far-term background LOS F (v/c=1.02.) would
degrade to LOS F (vjc=1.20) at project buildout. The only
recommended mitigation measure. signal coordination, would not
change this significant impact.
~~O1. South of_JLI1.iversity. Phase I would cause 1995 LOS F
(vjc=1.08) of the northbound traffic direction to degrade to LOS F
(v/C=l.lO), which is defined as a significant impact on a CMP
facility. The mitigation measure, which is to design the project
to accommodate transit users, pedestrians, and bicyclists, would
not change this significant impact. Far-term background LOS F vIc
ratios in both northbo~nd and southbound directions would inc~ease
by 0.02-0.03 at cuildout, with no further mitigation measures
identified, re~ultinq in significant i~pacts on the freeway in both
directions.
IJnivers_ity AVenue in Pal.Q. __ "-lto. Th~ ErR identified W'cekday e;nd
Saturday peak hour project traffic volumes that 'Would appear on
University Avenue~ The following tables list the existing ar.d
background volumes, and the additional volumes generated by the
project.
o
Gateway 101 E1R -6-August lB f 1993
-
UNIVERSITY AVENUE, WEST OF WOODLAND
Weekday PM Peak Hour Veh~des
E:ltisting ]995 Bac.k-Project Ph'L~C I Far-Term Bad.:-Pro j 0C1 Bu II dout
gro""" ground
J520 1S75 +360 12,0 +160 +60= +420
-
UNIVERSITY A VENUE, WEST OF WOODLAND
Saturday Peak: Hnul Vehicles
Existing 1995 Back-ProJe>.."1 Pha.~e J Far-Term Bad:-, Pro j t!4..1 Su ildout
gro,mel gruund ,
1190 1200 +575 1440 i +575+ Ig5~ +760
While the EIR did not inchlde LOS analyses of Uni versi ty Avenue
intersections in Pale Alto, it did calculate LOS at the Universi
ty/Woodland intersection. This intersection j which was discussen
above, is indicative of the project's impact on University Avenue
in Palo Alto,. as mcst. of the project traffic that 'Would pass
thro'..l9b that intersection woul<:l tr"lvel on University Avenue in Palo
Alto. It would be helpful to hav€! the Uf'liversity/Middlefie.ld
intersection included in the EIR analysis~
Embarcadero Road. The EIR did not analyze intersections on
Embarcadero Road en the west side of U.S~ lOlr but did identifY
~eekday and saturday peak hour project traffic volumes that would
appear on Emharcadero Road. Neither-1995 nor far-term background
conditions were identified in this case.
EMBARCADERO ROAD WEST OF BAYSHORE FREEWAY
Wee'kda), liM Pea\!;. Hnur Vehi.cles
EAisting. east 1995 Back.ground Project Phase I Far-T~m Bad-Proje(..t Buildoll't
of Sl Fraocls ,groll.nd
1m -+ 155 --+ 155+10= +16.5
v:
•
I
·"
o
Gateway 101 ElR -7-August 18, 1993
EMBARCADERO ROAD WEST OF BAYSHORE FREEWAY
Sardrday Pw Hour Vehjcl~
Existing, east
of Sl frands
1995 Back.ground Pro j e.t..1 Phase j
+250
Far-Term Back
gwund
Pruject BUlldout
+ 250+ 15= +265
At least during the "'eekday PM peak hour, when existing traffic
volumes are available, the increase due to t.he project would not be
expected to be noticeable.
Project Impacts cn Local Resid~:mtial Streets
All but one of the local streets analyzed in the EIR are in Palo
Al to. They are;
Newell Road, east of Woodland Avenue
Lincoln Avenue: south of University Avenue
Hamilton Avenue, west of Lincoln Avenue
Chaucer Street, north af University Avenue
Project impacts on these streets are listed in EIR Table 343-13,
&t.tl1ched to this report. The. EIR has purposely provided a 'Worst
case analysis of project impacts on t~ese streets, by identifying
the "~aximum~ volumes that could be expected to appear. Maximum
vol WIles 'Would appear only in th-:lsc: instances when the primary
arterials {university ~ Middle! ield, Embarcadero} were reachin9
capacity. Newell, Lincoln~ and Hamilton are considered to cover a
single broad corridor of east-... est tra:vel l so that the maximum
volumes listed in Table 3.3-13 would not all occur at once on all
three streets. Staff believes that; rather than one street-
Lincoln, for example--realizing the full volume increase of 2820
daily tr1.ps under cDnditions of at-capacity arterials, it .... ould be
more likely that this 2820-vehicle increase would be distributed
among L incc In , Hamilton, ana Ne.ell. Despite the e~planation at
the bottom of paqe .3.3-19 of the EIR, staff believes that this
presentation is con"fusing, and tends to imply that Lincoln,
Han:ilton,. and NeWell lro'"ill all :9oimult,meously experience a substan
tial increase in vol'Wl"te due to tt-..is project.
Project impacts on these residential streets are discussed
beginning at the bottom of page 3.3-3.3 of the ErR. On these pages,
the EIR stresses that these are potentj..s.JJ:..'t. significant impacts~
These impacts are described as potentially significant due to the
EIR's definition of a TIRE index change of O~l as beinq signifi
cant. While staff believes that the description of these impacts
as significant is an overstatement, the project, nevertheless,
~ould appear to cause potentially suhstantial increases in voluroes
on one or more of the above re:-sidentia 1 streets, depending on
congestion levels on the nearby arterials.
•
,
~-. -"
./'":" .
,'';.,. ,
Gate'Wi!!Y 101 EIR -8-August 18, 1993
Mitigtion Measures
The EIR de5cribes few mitigation measures for traffic impacts, and
generally none for impacts on Palo Alto intercections and streets.
In East Palo Alto, several intersections will be widened. Signal
coordination is recommended in most cases. Some attention is paid
to addressing the transit, bicycle, and pedestrian mOdes as
mitigation measures for traffic impacts~
Staff proposes that another mitigation measure be studied and
required for the project. This is a new pedestrian/bicycle
overcrossing of U. S. 101 to the s.outh of the University Avenue
overcrossing. staff has proposed this project twice before--once
in connection with the University Circle project, and second as
part of Caltrans' reconstruction of the UniversitY/10I interct.anqe.
The reason for selecting this measure again in connection with the
Gateway project is threefold. First~ the EIR identiTies unusually
high bicycle and pedestrian accident rates a~ t~o East Palo Alto
intersections near the University Avenue/10l area--Universi
tY/Donohoe and Donohoe/Capitol. Both intersections ~re predicted
to have significant degredations in LOS due to the project, even
with intersection improvements. Second, the future traffic
increases on the university Avenue overcrossing. including at least
one new LOS F intersection and double right-turn lanes. will add to
the usual difficulty for cyclists and pedestrians in crossing
freeway on-and of.f-ramps. Third, almost 60 percent of retail
trips generated by the project are expected to originate west of
tbe freeway in a narrow band encompassing Menlo Park, Palo Alto,
Stanford, and perhaps Los Altos and Fortola Valley. No mitigation
measures were identi:fied for any impacts in Palo Alto. The
ccmbination of the poor traffic conditions described above, and the
proclivity of Palo Alto and Stanford residents and students to use
bicycles, could lead to potenti~lly substantial bicycle usage to
the new ret~il cent~rs.
Attachments:
cs
EIR Figure 3.3-3
Summary Tables of Intersection Impacts
EIR Table J.3-13
--------.-.-------
-'~~':~
-.-~;
.. z. c-o ... a. .... z
ZC ~." CIa. ...,
lao 0-~ ... .. ; .. "'. C~ e: ..
UNIVERSITY/DONOHOE
W ..... d.y PM Peak Hour Lev.1 orSeNi •• (LOS) and Volume/Capacity (VIC) Ral;os
Existing 1995 1995 l>ackground Fat-Term Fat~Term Background LOS After
Background With Project Background (not With Full Project Mitigation
Phase f including Phase I) Buildout (including M~ures I Phase I)
0,73 I
C 0,75 C 1.25 F 1.04 F 1.64 f Phase I: E
! Uuildout: F o
, ... ' -, ,\ UNIVERSITY/oONOHOE
Saturday Peak HOUf Level of Service (LOS) and Volume/Capacity (V Ie) Ratios
Existing 1995 19CJ~ B<lckground Far-Term Far:rerm Background LOS Aft" . , \ Background With Project Background {not With Fiul! Project Mitigatiun
1 Pha:-!: I including Pha~e n Bulldout (including Measuft!S , Phase I)
~\", " ~. • I.,
0,59 A 0.60 B 1.4:1 F 0,66 8 1,84 F , Pha~e I: f I
'---------L ____ ------~~!~~------'
, -,
o
I ',i
•
DONOHOE/CAPITOt.
Weekday PM Peak Hour Lovol of Servi<. il..OS) and VolumolC_ity (VIC) Ratio.
Exlsting 1995 1995 Background Far-Term Far-Term Background LOS Mer
Background Wtth Pro_ieo.'"t Hackground (not With Full Project Mitigation
Phase r including Phli'ic I) Buildout (including Measures
Pb ... n
0,75 C 0.76 C 1.00 r 0.86 0 \.14 F Fha.lie 1: D
Buildour: 0 ()
t, } --
-, .,.
DONOHOE/CAPITOL
Saturday Ptak Hour Level of SeNlce (LOS) and Volume/Capacity (VIC) RatiOS
Exi~ting 1995 1995 fiackground Fat-Term Far-Term BII,kground LOS After Mitiga.tion
Background With Proje't Bac!(gn/und (not With Full PI'(ljecl Measures
pnll.!'.e I lnduding Pbll"it: 1) Buildout (including
Phase I)
0.45 A 0.46 A 0.88 D 054 A 1.09 F Phase I; L.GS 001 Mated
Buildout; E
i ')
,J
'J
I
I
....... ~*r<'k.f'-'~,. ,.;aLU......... _~
UN1VERSlTYIWOODLANO'
W .. kd.y PM Peak Hout level ofS<l<Vice (LOS) and Volurne/Cap"it)' (VIC) 11",.,.
E~bling 1995 1995 BackgrolJnd FAt-,'erm Far-Term LOS After Mitlgatian
Bad:gmurld Wi& Project 8ackgro\lnd {not Background With Mwurts
Pbase I including Pb.ll5e 1) fuJl f'rojea 8u;Mout
(indtuiiug PhiUe I)
0.77 C Q.78 C 0.114 0 0.94 E 1.02 F Pbl.\e I: no mitigatiol\
8ull&Iut: F
I Far-term C(JOuilions i",lude illtersec(icm imptMemcni il1Sfalleti as pm 01 VniwtSity Circle prf,ject.
UNIVEII.SITYIWOQDLAND'
SaWrday Pea.k H\IU{' Level of'Servkt {LOS) and VollJmtJCilp.acily {VIC) Ratios
txiM,ng
0.64 B
1995
Bad.gwurn:l
0.64 B
J 995 B3...:kground
With Pni~t
Phase I
0.74 C
Par-term
BackgHmnd {Ml
including PM.'1e I}
0.60 8
Far-T~rm Background
Wijh FliU Project
Baildoo( (induding
Ph, ... !)
0.74 C
) FaNerm {,;(Inditiom includt'l intclStlctinn imrm't'l!mMt inslalled as part (If University Circle ('Imjed.
LOS After Mitigation
Measur~
Phase l' no mitigatiop
BuUdout: \..OS nol staled
o
o
" l" ._ . ','
. <:
.' ....
~ . ...:,',:, '
!. ,
.~ \,
£MIIAl!CAOEkOIEAl>T BAYSHORl>
Wftkdoy PM Peok fklur Level of S ... i~. (LOS) and Volume/Capacity (VIC) Rat'"
E .. i&tmg 1995 1995 9.IlIYffillld Far"Term Far~Term Background LOS After Miliption
fiack8:round With Project B.ckgwuud (Il<Jl With Full Project ~w.ures
Phzse J including Ph"e I) Buifdout (including
Ph"e I)
1.Z6 F 1.29 F J.3f F 1,43 F L47 F l'has:e. J: no mi(iagtlo(l I
Buildm.n: M mitigation
----------"------------------..•. -~ -------_. -----------.----..
EMBARCI.llEROIE,,"S"f BM'SHORE I
Saturday Peak Hour L~( of Service (LOS) .and VQ!ume/Capadty (VIC) Ratios
E)lis1ing 199~ 1995 Aacicgmund Far-Term Far ~T Mm Background LOS After MitigaliMt I
Background Wj~" Project 8ackgN\lM (nut W\Ut Fun I'r0jc.:t MeiL~ttre!
Ph""l mdudiog Pba« l) B<.s~kkw.t (i.f',{:hmtllg
Ph.,. £)
•
0.41 A 0,44 A 0,47 A 0.48 A O.3~ A Vha. .. e 1: n.-.) m"lf'gaikm
-_. -------------~. ----"-----_. L...._. ____ . _____ . -----------.~--
L~ui!dou~~ __ ~1 mitigltli~m
-;' . ',"
o
)
, , "\.' , ,
"
I'
" ~'f'-"\
, \ \
-'~1 -~,.
"
/ ., . ,
__ .'C. """".--:.. __ -'-..... ~~·'·T1V'"f\I!i!i!!-1I
UNfVERSlTYlSOUTlIIlOUND tof ON-RAMP'
Weekday PM Peal< Hour Level of Service (LOS) and Volume/Capacity (VIC) Ratio.
Existing 1995 1995 Background FM-Term Far-Term Background LOS Aftet Mitigll!ion
Background With Project Background (not With Full Project MeltSures
~ha!le I including Phase l) Buildout (including
Phase I)
J not exi~ting not existing not eJlisting 1.02 F 1.20 F Phase I: net e~i!itihg
I Buildout: F ---
1 This intersedion dOes nllt ex.ist until the far term, after the University Circle and University Avenue overcrossing projeds are cornr1e1ed. ll!ere
is no Saturday data 8\1ailahle f'-If this inlenectiOl'L
(;)
()
!", \.
-""-,;'
\ ..
. -"
" \' ,\
: I,
,
.'J', "
U.S, 101 SOUTH OF UNIVERSITY
W..w., PM P .. ~ Hoot r....1 of SONic. (LOS) and Volume/Capacily (VIC) Ratio,
Existing 1995 1995 Dackgrouf1d far-Tetm Far-Term Background LOS A.fter Mitigation
8ac.kgfound Wilh Project BackgrolJod (not With FuJI Pro]"'1 Mea.8ures
Phase I induding Ph". I) Buitdout (including
Phase I) ,
NB: 1.07 F NO: 1.08 F NB: 1.10 F NB:I.IO F NB: I. \2 F Phas,1: NB: P; SU: 0 I
SB: 0.S4 D SU: 0.86 0 58: 0,89 D ss: 1.00 F SB; 1.03 F Buildout; f
" ~"' t •
''''-. ""~ NB :::: northbound SH 1'.2 M)uthbmmd
U.S. 101 SOUTH OF UNIVERSITY
Saturday Peale Hour Level of Service (LOS) and Voh,ttnelCap;\(;U,y (VIC) Ralh,)s
Eltisting 1995 1995 Backg,rot.m~ Fir-Term Far-Term Hackground LOS Aftl'f Miligation
BackGround Wittl Project Background (oot Wi1h Full Project Meafiures
Pha.l.e I including Phase I) Buildout (im!luding
Phit5e I)
NB: 0.11 C NB: 0,1'2 C NBc 0.16 C LOS not sraled l.OS fll)t stated Phase I: C
58 0.10 B i 58: 0.70 B SB: 0.15 (' Buildllut: LOS not Slated -
1
"~.' V
'j
./
"\.
,.'
\
"{~ :~, J
\
r"'. I;' (" .\
, .'
.. : ~,\, . \;
I
1
Ie
I.
I
~! ~
I
I
I
.... ----
":",---,-~-.
,