Logo


Menlo Park City Council Email Log

[ Home ] [ City Council ] [ Search ] [ 05/06 Archive ] [ 07/08 Archive ] [ 09/10 Archive ] [ 2011 Archive ] [ Watch City Council Meetings ]


Re: FINAL - 500 El Camino Real Project, El Camino Real/Downtown Specific Plan Vehicular Traffic Consistency

From: domainremoved <George>
Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2014 11:23:40 -0700

Thanks Jesse, I would like to review the downtown specific plan traffix
file, as your suggest, on one of your computers any time on Wednesday April
16, 2014 or the afternoon of April Thursday April 17th. Thanks, George


On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 4:58 PM, Quirion, Jesse T <jtquirion_at_(domainremoved)

> George,
>
>
>
> The June 2013 counts included daily volume counts on Middle Avenue at two
> locations; 1) between Kenwood Drive and Alto Lane 2) between University
> Drive and Blake Street. Additionally, full intersection turning movement
> counts where conducted at the intersection of El Camino Real and Middle
> Avenue. Volumes were not taken between El Camino Real and Middle Avenue as
> it would be difficult to get accurate counts at this location with tubes
> due to the Safeway driveway, Alto Lane and two gas station driveways all
> within close proximity to each other. As for the number 8,967, I assume
> that you got that number from the June 2013 traffic counts and that volume
> does reflect traffic to and from El Camino Real on Middle Avenue at a
> location between Kenwood Drive and Alto Lane. That volume would reflect
> traffic leaving Safeway as well as all other traffic traveling on Middle
> Avenue between Kenwood Drive and Alto Lane.
>
>
>
> Attached please find driveway counts take by City Staff on February 5th,
> 2014 at the driveway of El Camino Real and Cambridge (old Tesla site). This
> work was completed in response to comments received by the neighborhood
> representatives.
>
>
>
> The Downtown Specific Plan Traffix file can only be opened with the
> Traffix software as it is a traffic model. However, I would be happy to
> setup a time for you to view the file in the office on one of our computers
> if you are interested. Further consideration of the Traffix file was also
> included in response to comments received by the neighborhood
> representatives.
>
>
>
> We are looking into the existing Tesla site distribution as it relates to
> the CSA and I will discuss it further with W-Trans.
>
>
>
> *Jesse T. Quirion*
>
> Transportation Manager
>
> City of Menlo Park
>
> E: jtquirion_at_(domainremoved)
>
> P: 650-330-6744
>
>
>
> *From:* George Fisher [mailto:georgecfisher_at_(domainremoved)
>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, March 18, 2014 11:30 AM
> *To:* Quirion, Jesse T
> *Cc:* Stefan Petry; kevin_at_(domainremoved)
> W; McClure, William; Heineck, Arlinda A; Rogers, Thomas H; _CCIN
> *Subject:* Re: FINAL - 500 El Camino Real Project, El Camino
> Real/Downtown Specific Plan Vehicular Traffic Consistency
>
>
>
> Jessie, I would like to confirm that the June 2013, traffic counts do not
> include any measurements of average daily traffic on Middle between the
> Safeway drive way and El Camino Real in either direction. No traffic cords
> across the road were observed between the driveway and El Camino Real at
> the time. The only record I see in the June 2013 survey is between Alto
> lane and Kenwood, but this cord was west of the Safeway driveway. If I am
> correct, I would appreciate your confirmation that the count of 8,967 on
> middle does not include traffic in and out of Safeway driveway to and from
> El Camino Real.
>
>
>
> I would also appreciate your furnishing me any records or documents
> related to the "additional collection of Data in February 2014" , and "the
> traffic volume traffic count conducted in February 2014 at the El Camino
> Real Cambridge driveway" mentioned on page 3 in the first phase traffic
> report, This work was done after our opportunity to comment.
>
>
>
> I request information and records related to the Traffix (traffic impact
> model) analysis used for the specific plan analysis that was reviewed
> (provided by the City of Menlo Park Transportation division, February
> 2014). This is cited in the report as *El Camino Real/Downtown Specific:
> Transportation Impact Analysis, Traffix network, Fehr and Peers
> Transportation consultants, April 2010, provided by the City of Menlo Park
> Transportation Division. * I understand the Traffix network did not
> include information on assumed land use, "but only traffic generation
> projections for the site." in February 201 We would like to see the same
> information provided to W-Trans. I would like to see and all printouts
> reviewed for the first phase. If information is only accessible by
> computer and use of Traffix software, please advise me what equipment and
> skills may be needed to review the same information reviewed, or how the
> information can be retrieved, possibly in hard copy. Again, this work was
> done after our opportunity to comment.
>
>
>
> I would also like to confirm that any Tesla trip deductions should be
> distributed according to CYA commercial percentages, which are different
> than the office percentages. If so, the total Tesla Trips should not be
> subtracted in total, before distributing the generated trips pursuant to
> the CSA percentages.
>
>
>
> Thank you, George
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 4:06 PM, Quirion, Jesse T <jtquirion_at_(domainremoved)
> wrote:
>
> Stefan,
>
> As you are aware, we have completed one round of comments and revisions
> with input from the Neighborhood Representatives (yourself, George & Kevin)
> and Stanford on this first component of the three components of the study.
> In an effort to move this process forward we are not requesting additional
> comments on this component of the analysis. However, this is only the first
> of the three steps in the process and there is a potential for changes to
> the traffic numbers on specific routes within this study as the next two
> components may suggest changes to access and/or circulation routes
> associated with this project.
>
> Below please find response to your two questions:
>
> 1. The Specific Plan made assumptions for development on a number of sites
> along the corridor and at that time this site was analyzed with 200,000 sf
> of office and 22,700 sf of retail per page 3 of the study. However, the
> Specific Plan established a net new maximum of 474,000 sf for all
> non-residential uses, including office. For further explanation of the
> Specific Plan I would request that you speak with our Planning Department
> who will be better equipped to answer questions regarding the plan.
>
>
> 2. You are correct that there are increases in the projected volumes on
> Middle Avenue from what was estimated in the Specific Plan. However, I
> would like to note that as a whole the proposed project is generating less
> traffic than what was projected in the Specific Plan for this site. There
> may be slightly more trips projected on Middle than what the Specific Plan
> analyzed but there are also an even greater reduction of trips on El Camino
> Real from this project versus what the Specific Plan analyzed therefore
> resulting in less overall trips. The change in allocation or route choice
> for the trips are directly related to the uses of the site. For example:
> the Specific Plan evaluated a hotel on this site which could result in
> longer trips to and from the site since visitors from the hotel would be
> more likely to utilize Sandhill to El Camino Real versus using Middle
> Avenue since they may not be familiar with the area and would likely choose
> to travel on larger corridors. In comparison, the current project is
> proposing residential, office and retail uses which would likely result in
> shorter trips as visitors to the site would likely travel from Menlo Park
> neighborhoods to the office and retail uses and the residents of the site
> may choose to shopping in downtown Menlo Park. Therefore, the proposed
> users of the site are likely to be more familiar with the local roads and
> choose to travel along Middle versus visitors to a hotel as analyzed under
> the Specific Plan.
>
> The 4th bullet on page 11 of the study clearly states "..that the proposed
> project would add more traffic to Middle Avenue than was projected in the
> Specific Plan EIR Analysis...". As a reminder, this study is the first of
> three components of this analysis. The purpose of this component is to
> evaluate the proposed project with the Specific Plan for conformance. The
> second component of the study will evaluate access and circulation to and
> from the site as it relates to El Camino Real and the third component of
> the study will look at the proposed project and how it interacts with the
> neighborhood bounded by; El Camino Real, Middle Avenue, University Drive
> and Creek Drive.
>
> Jesse T. Quirion
> Transportation Manager
> City of Menlo Park
> E: jtquirion_at_(domainremoved)
> P: 650-330-6744
>
>
>
> ________________________________________
> From: Stefan Petry [stefan.petry_at_(domainremoved)
> Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2014 10:16 AM
> To: Quirion, Jesse T
> Cc: georgecfisher_at_(domainremoved)
> Charles W; McClure, William; Heineck, Arlinda A; Rogers, Thomas H; _CCIN
> Subject: Fwd: FINAL - 500 El Camino Real Project, El Camino Real/Downtown
> Specific Plan Vehicular Traffic Consistency
>
> Jesse,
>
> thank you for sending over the final traffic consistency analysis. There
> are many issues in here that would require further comment and discussion
> but -- to me -- two in particular stand out:
>
> 1. Page 3 states that the Specific Plan tacitly assumed 200,000 sf of
> office space for the 500 ECR site all along. As far as I know this number
> had never been made public. It also strikes me as miraculous that the
> actual proposal is within 500 sf of that number. Is this really saying that
> out of the 240,820 sf of new office space in the entire Specific Plan 83%
> had been implicitly allocated to Stanford?
>
> 2. Page 10 Table 7 shows significantly higher trip rates on Middle Ave.
> and through Allied Arts caused by the project when compared to the Specific
> Plan. For example, "Westbound on Middle Ave" in the morning goes from 1
> trip in the SP to 18 under the project (1,700% increase?). Similarly,
> "Westbound through Allied Arts" in PM goes from 1 to 21 (2,000% increase?).
> I think the actual trip increases will frequently be even higher from
> non-project related trips that get diverted through neighborhood streets
> because of increased ECR congestion. Why does the conformance analysis
> summary on page 11 make no mention of the significant trip increases
> through Allied Arts?
>
> Thank you again and best regards,
> Stefan Petry
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 2:18 PM, Quirion, Jesse T <jtquirion_at_(domainremoved)
> <mailto:jtquirion_at_(domainremoved)
> George, Stefan & Kevin,
> Attached please find the FINAL - 500 El Camino Real Project, El Camino
> Real/Downtown Specific Plan Vehicular Traffic Consistency analysis. This
> analysis represents the first of three building block documents that will
> be prepared for the overall analysis. The following two analyses will be
> completed next as part of the overall review of the proposed Stanford 500
> El Camino Real project. Based on the findings and recommendations of the
> following analyses, it is possible that the findings of the attached
> vehicular traffic consistency will be reevaluated.
>
> Additionally, attached please find all of the comment letters received by
> Stanford and the neighborhood representatives along with responses to each
> of the comments.
>
> These document will be posted to the City's website this week and will be
> available to the public.
>
> Jesse T. Quirion
> Transportation Manager
> City of Menlo Park
> E: jtquirion_at_(domainremoved)
> jtquirion_at_(domainremoved)
> P: 650-330-6744<tel:650-330-6744>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> George C. Fisher
> 2600 El Camino Real, Suite 410
> Palo Alto, Ca 94306
> (650) 799 5480
> Fax (650) 475 1849
> georgecfisher_at_(domainremoved)
> http://www.gfisherlaw.com
>



-- 
George C. Fisher
2600 El Camino Real, Suite 410
Palo Alto, Ca 94306
(650) 799 5480
Fax (650) 475 1849
georgecfisher_at_(domainremoved)http://www.gfisherlaw.com
Received on Fri Apr 04 2014 - 11:22:47 PDT

[ Search ] [ By Date ] [ By Message ] [ By Subject ] [ By Author ]


Email communications sent to the City Council are public records. This site is an archive of emails received by the City Council at its city.council_at_(domainremoved)