Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1/27/2021 Item 2, Bell / Corey Staff Agenda Correspondence MEMORANDUM DATE: January 27, 2021 TO: Planning Commission BY: Kyle Bell, Associate Planner FROM: Tyler Corey, Principal Planner SUBJECT: Item #2 – PARK-0320-2020, GENP-0612-2019, & EID-0321-2020 (533 Broad Street) – Agenda Correspondence Staff Response Memo DISCUSSION Staff received the following questions from a member of the Planning Commission and determined it would be helpful to provide these questions and responses to all Commissioners and the public, as the responses offer clarification regarding the proposed neighborhood park. • Safety of park users – Although the site is already a community garden, the presumed increased foot, bike, and vehicular traffic are a concern on a site so close to the freeway on- and off-ramp. The high-visibility pedestrian improvements seem like a start, is there any speed bumps or other speed mitigation measures included in the scope? Staff Response: Potential for Traffic Calming – The park design includes several measures to address safety concerns along this block of Broad Street with the specific intent of minimizing conflicts with pedestrian crossings (particularly children), vehicle parking, and u-turn maneuvers. Those measures include: • A continuous pedestrian railing along the park frontage, which restricts pedestrian access along the park frontage, minimizing potential for pedestrians crossing Broad Street mid- block. • Parking restrictions along the west side of Broad Street and NO U-TURN signs to limit conflicts with parking maneuvers and u-turns; • Marked crosswalks installed at the Broad/Lincoln intersection to convey to pedestrians that this is the appropriate location to cross Broad Street. Speed humps were considered along this block early in the design process, but are not included in the final designs for a few reasons: • This is a very short block with stop control at Lincoln Street. Staff is not aware of any crash history in the vicinity or requests for increased speed enforcement or traffic calming from the neighborhood. Generally, City-led traffic calming installations are driven by Item #2 – PARK-0320-2020, GENP-0612-2019, & EID-0321-2020 (533 Broad Street) Memorandum: North Broad Neighborhood Park Page 2 community requests and/or data that indicates there are collision trends or frequent illegal speeding. • Caltrans Coordination – While Broad Street is in the City’s jurisdiction, we do need to work closely with Caltrans on any street modifications at the entry/exit from the US 101 ramps. The existing hook ramps at Broad Street were built many years ago and the southbound on-ramp does not provide the acceleration length that current Caltrans design standards would require; thus, there would be legitimate concerns about slowing vehicles below 25 mph approaching the on-ramps (particularly large trucks), as they would have increased challenges with entering the on-ramp at an appropriate speed to merge into high- speed traffic on the southbound US 101 mainline. Ultimately, the City and Caltrans are supportive of closing the Broad Street on/off -ramps and constructing a pedestrian and bicycle bridge over US 101. This is in our long-term plans and we are slowly collecting development impact fees to help fund this project in the future. However, closure of these ramps requires major upgrades to the US 101/Highway 1 (Santa Rosa) interchange, including significant right-of-way acquisition from existing adjacent properties. The total cost is upwards of $30M and is not likely to be funded in the near future. If there is a consensus amongst the Planning Commission to further explore some form of traffic calming along Broad Street, the City’s Transportation Division would be supportive of the following potential condition of approval to the Draft Resolution: New Condition No. 7 “City staff shall investigate the feasibility of installing traffic calming measures, such as speed humps, along Broad Street between the US 101 ramps and Lincoln Street. This assessment shall consider current traffic speed and collision data, concurrence from Caltrans, adjacent property owners, and the City Transporta tion Manager. If supported by these stakeholders, staff shall endeavor to incorporate traffic calming measures along the park frontage as part of the final park designs to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.” If such a condition is considered for some form of traffic calming, the most logical solution would be addition of one speed hump mid-block between the ramps and Lincoln Street. Based on recently completed projects, that would add about $5k to the total project cost. • Freeway emissions – Has APCD weighed in or has any consideration been given regarding the health impacts of VOCs from freeway emissions causing harmful air quality for park users? If so, does the science indicate that emissions are below what would be considered harmful for children and parents using the park for 1-2 hours? Staff Response: Yes, APCD has weighed in on the MND, but did not provide any comments regarding the health impacts of VOCs. The project analysis included an Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Impact Assessment, prepared by Ambient, for the project. The assessment provides recommendations regarding compliance with air quality thresholds and greenhouse gas emission, which have been incorporated into the Mitigated Negative Declaration as provided with the staff report. Item #2 – PARK-0320-2020, GENP-0612-2019, & EID-0321-2020 (533 Broad Street) Memorandum: North Broad Neighborhood Park Page 3 Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Impact Assessment https://www.slocity.org/Home/ShowDocument?id=28879 Staff did reach out to the SLO ACPD to see if they could provide guidance on the concern for vehicle pollutant emissions and the associated potential health risk for park users. SLOAPCD stated that because the park use would be sporadic and used for only a few hours at a time by any given park user, potential health risks would be negligible and there was no need to prepare a health risk assessment.