Logo


Menlo Park City Council Email Log

[ Home ] [ City Council ] [ Search ] [ 05/06 Archive ] [ 07/08 Archive ] [ 09/10 Archive ] [ 2011 Archive ] [ 12/13 Archive ] [ Watch City Council Meetings ]


Agenda Item D-1

From: domainremoved <George>
Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2014 12:53:17 -0700

DEMAND TO STOP SECRECY AND NON TRANPARENCY AND CONTINUE CONSIDERATION OF
GREENHEART EIR SPECIFICATIONS UNTIL CONCLUSION OF STANFORD CUT-THROUGH
TRAFFIC REPORT PUBLIC RELEASE ( DRAFT NOW BEING REVIEWED BY CITY FOR SOME
TIME BUT NOT TO BE RELEASED UNTIL OCTOBER.)



Agenda Item # D-1 on the consent calendar tonight proposes authorization of
$206,698 for a Infill EIR with respect to the Greenheart proposal. The
Greenheart Proposal at this point is vague and indefinite. No plans have
been submitted, and no commitment has been made with regard to retail
space. Outside limits for Office and Residential assuming no retail are
stated. Since the city’s TIA and CSA have different standards for retail
as opposed to office or residential, proceeding on such vague proposals
seems imprudent.



More importantly, the proposal includes a transportation analysis to be
done by W-Trans. W-Trans is currently working with the City on at least,
the overdue Stanford Cut-through traffic analysis, and the El Camino
Corridor Study. On the Cut-through analysis a report has been submitted to
the city some time ago, but not released by the City because of staff
shortages. Staff has presumably been working on the Greenheart proposed
EIR with W trans instead. However the Stanford Cut-through report is
critical to the public, not only because it requires Trip distribution and
trip assignment based upon the city’s CSA which state that approximately 3
out of every 4 office space generated trips cut through the city to reach I
280, US 101, SR 84 and the alameda and Junipero Serra to reach non Menlo
park locales. Those trips, and routes, are to:



“Include the use of the city’s Circulation System Assessment (CSA) document
in terms of its underlying assumptions, the purpose and basis of its use,
and how it was applied to this analysis. The intent of the written and
graphical presentation will be to make the analysis assumptions,
methodology, trip distribution gateways, trip assignment routes, and
potential peak hour and daily effects of the proposed project ss well as
overall congestion on El Camino Real clear to residents, city staff, and
decision makers” (W-Trans city contract of August 20, 2013 page 3).



No new traffic study on a vague Greenheart proposal should be defined or
started until this vital required information is made public from W-Trans’s
Stanford Cut through Traffic Proposal. Agenda item # D-1 in fact only
proposes studying limited intersections and streets west of El Camino Real,
and does not even include studying traffic volumes on El Camino Real. An
office project garage entry for Greenheart appears on El Camino Real.
Office commuters may well be traveling through the city from 280, Junipero
Serra and the Alameda using the same routes and the Stanford Project, and
in fact when those routes become congested, will cut through other local
streets. Moreover both the Specific Plan EIR and the Stanford Traffic
impact the entire area East of El Camino Real and probably more cut through
traffic, not even proposed to be studied there.



There is no justifiable reason not to conclude the Stanford Cut Through
analysis before undertaking another study. Just mentioning casually in the
proposal that trip generation and CSA trip distributions assumptions that
were used to the initial study will be applied to the Greenheart EIR
analysis is insufficient in itself, without clear disclosure of those
assumptions. Moreover those assumptions need to be compared to the
Stanford assumptions, and then trip assignments need to be made and
compared. I don’t even think the Greenheart EIR include a traffic
cut-through study.



The City should quit piecemeal, potentially inconsistent traffic studies.
It should make clear disclosure of information affecting each one, and
concluding those in process for over a year, held by the city in camera but
not publically released. Pending Projects not include the Stanford
Project, the El Camino Real Corridor Study, the General Plan study
purporting to look at existing traffic standards, and now the Greenheart
EIR proposal.

-- 
George C. Fisher
​1121 Cotton Street
​Menlo Park, CA​
(650) 799 5480
Fax (650) 475 1849
georgecfisher_at_(domainremoved)http://www.gfisherlaw.com
Received on Tue Sep 09 2014 - 12:49:34 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)