1. REPORT 20-0065 NORTH SCHOOL NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLAN
DRAFT PLAN INTRODUCTION
(School District Superintendent Pat Escalante and
Environmental Analyst Leeanne Singleton)
As a Kiwanis Board member, I would like more detail about what "reconfiguration of the Kiwanis/Rotary parking lot to create a drop/off pickup lot"
means. Can we have a drawing to look at?
The proposed one way street on 26th eastbound will throw the parking situation on Morningside into disarray and people will only use that parking as a last resort.
Why?
Well if you park on Morningside between 27th and 26th you will either encounter a dead end with no easy turnaround. This dead end will be made worse by the 26th eastbound one way traffic.
The city acknowledges this problem when it says it’s going to put up signage telling folks dropping students off there because turning around at the intersection of 26 at Morningside will be virtually impossible.
Parking is already very tight on Morningside.
The one-way will make 6 parking spots very hard to use.
Making a right into the often blocked alley is often not a reliable option. It’s commonly blocked. Besides that doesn’t work for the parking south of 27th ct on Morningside.
Couple this with the 6 spaces you want to take on Gould for the student drop-off and I believe you rise to the level where the city must either issue a CEQA negative declaration or go through the CEQA EIR Process before approving this one-way change to 26th.
Add to this all the traffic calming measures and their potential effect on other roads and streets and I believe the city must now enter the CEQA process for the NNTP or at at a minimum issue negative declarations for the three points above.
I would hope the city lawyer would make a public determination on this in tonight’s meeting.
Add to this.
I do not believe you can legally bypass the CEQA process and ignore the cumulative effects of these changes.
The agenda below has two public participation sections in the agenda.
The first is before the presentation of the NNTP to the public.
The Public is not fully informed of the plan at this point since it has not been presented.
Then the NNTP presentation follows.
This is followed by a discussion period where the School Board and Council Members will be able to ask questions about the presentation.
Only then do the council & board members hear about the concerns of a public that has been informed by the presentation.
Then the meeting is adjourned according to the agenda.
So what’s the problem?
First the public should be given the opportunity to ask questions of if the presentation managers.
The process makes it far too easy to just bury legitimate concerns if the public’s questions about particular impacts can simply be ignored in the plan and never answered by the city, the stakeholders or the school district.
Questions like “when heavy trucks comprise approximately 1 out of 8 vehicles proceeding westbound on Gould in the morning drop off period and the same in the afternoon period can you explain why you feel Gould is the best drop-off location when the percentage of heavy trucks on Valley Drive is at least 5 times less”.
Questions like “why was an analysis of the heavy truck traffic specifically EXCLUDED in the traffic analysis of each road segment? The equipment used to capture vehicle counts and speeds had the capability to capture data on trucks by size. A automobile operating at 30mph presents far different safety hazards than a heavy truck”
Questions like”the backups on Gould during the drop off period often already extend from valley drive 2/3 to 3/4 of the way back to Morningside. How will vehicles using the dropoff on Gould backup into this oncoming traffic safely and without causing even more honking and noise?
I sent several questions like this to the stakeholder team that via the environmental analyst and superintendent and the stake holder team. These questions have not been answered in the plan nor to me individually.
Shouldn’t the public be given the opportunity to ask these questions of the environmental analyst and superintendent directly and followup on those questions in full view of the public and school board members.
Without this it’s far to easy to continue whitewashing these concerns.
And wouldn’t it be better for the council and board to discuss the NNTP and ask their questions AFTER they have heard from a public that has been INFORMED by the presentation?
As a Kiwanis Board member, I would like more detail about what "reconfiguration of the Kiwanis/Rotary parking lot to create a drop/off pickup lot"
means. Can we have a drawing to look at?
The proposed one way street on 26th eastbound will throw the parking situation on Morningside into disarray and people will only use that parking as a last resort.
Why?
Well if you park on Morningside between 27th and 26th you will either encounter a dead end with no easy turnaround. This dead end will be made worse by the 26th eastbound one way traffic.
The city acknowledges this problem when it says it’s going to put up signage telling folks dropping students off there because turning around at the intersection of 26 at Morningside will be virtually impossible.
Parking is already very tight on Morningside.
The one-way will make 6 parking spots very hard to use.
Making a right into the often blocked alley is often not a reliable option. It’s commonly blocked. Besides that doesn’t work for the parking south of 27th ct on Morningside.
Couple this with the 6 spaces you want to take on Gould for the student drop-off and I believe you rise to the level where the city must either issue a CEQA negative declaration or go through the CEQA EIR Process before approving this one-way change to 26th.
Add to this all the traffic calming measures and their potential effect on other roads and streets and I believe the city must now enter the CEQA process for the NNTP or at at a minimum issue negative declarations for the three points above.
I would hope the city lawyer would make a public determination on this in tonight’s meeting.
Add to this.
I do not believe you can legally bypass the CEQA process and ignore the cumulative effects of these changes.
Thank You
Anthony Higgins
The agenda below has two public participation sections in the agenda.
The first is before the presentation of the NNTP to the public.
The Public is not fully informed of the plan at this point since it has not been presented.
Then the NNTP presentation follows.
This is followed by a discussion period where the School Board and Council Members will be able to ask questions about the presentation.
Only then do the council & board members hear about the concerns of a public that has been informed by the presentation.
Then the meeting is adjourned according to the agenda.
So what’s the problem?
First the public should be given the opportunity to ask questions of if the presentation managers.
The process makes it far too easy to just bury legitimate concerns if the public’s questions about particular impacts can simply be ignored in the plan and never answered by the city, the stakeholders or the school district.
Questions like “when heavy trucks comprise approximately 1 out of 8 vehicles proceeding westbound on Gould in the morning drop off period and the same in the afternoon period can you explain why you feel Gould is the best drop-off location when the percentage of heavy trucks on Valley Drive is at least 5 times less”.
Questions like “why was an analysis of the heavy truck traffic specifically EXCLUDED in the traffic analysis of each road segment? The equipment used to capture vehicle counts and speeds had the capability to capture data on trucks by size. A automobile operating at 30mph presents far different safety hazards than a heavy truck”
Questions like”the backups on Gould during the drop off period often already extend from valley drive 2/3 to 3/4 of the way back to Morningside. How will vehicles using the dropoff on Gould backup into this oncoming traffic safely and without causing even more honking and noise?
I sent several questions like this to the stakeholder team that via the environmental analyst and superintendent and the stake holder team. These questions have not been answered in the plan nor to me individually.
Shouldn’t the public be given the opportunity to ask these questions of the environmental analyst and superintendent directly and followup on those questions in full view of the public and school board members.
Without this it’s far to easy to continue whitewashing these concerns.
And wouldn’t it be better for the council and board to discuss the NNTP and ask their questions AFTER they have heard from a public that has been INFORMED by the presentation?
Thank You for considering this?
Anthony Higgins