Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Staff Report 100-08
TO: FROM: C ty of Palo City Manager’s ep rt HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL O CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT DATE: SUBJECT: JANUARY 22, 2008 CMR: 100:08 APPROVAL OF A TENTATIVE MAP AND A RECORD OF LAND USE ACTION TO SUBDIVIDE THE ELKS LODGE SITE INTO TWO LOTS, FOR A NEW LODGE AND A MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PROJECT LOCATED AT 4249 AND 4251 EL CAMINO REAL. RECOMMENDATION Staff and the Planning and Transportation Commission (Commission) recommend that the City Council approve the proposed Tentative Map which proposes to subdivide the Elks Lodge site into two lots, based upon findings and conditions contained within the draft Record of Land Use Action (Attachment A). DISCUSSION The Tentative Map proposed by SummerHitl Homes on behalf of the property owner, Benevolent and Protective Order of Elks (BPOE), involves a two-lot subdivision of the approximately 7-acre Elks Lodge site to enable the construction of a new Elks Lodge on Lot 1 and the development of a 45 unit, multi-family residential community by SummerHill Homes on Lot 2. Although the applicant’s request is for only a two-!ot subdivision, PAMC 21.04.030 requires a Tentative Map for certain minor subdivisions involving tess than five lots or units where the total acreage involved exceeds five acres or for any subdivision where an individual lot created exceeds two acres. The proposed two lot subdivision would create one 2.82 acre parcel to be retained by BPOE for the future Elks Lodge and a second 3.97 acre parcel to be purchased by SummerHill Homes for its proposed multi-family development. Approximately .34 acres of the Elks Lodge site, which is currently a public access easement for a portion of Deodar Street, would be permanently dedicted. A preliminary architectural review application for the new Elks Lodge was reviewed by the Architectural Review Board on August 2, 2007. A formal application for architectural review of the new Elks Lodge has not yet been submitted. The proposed 45 unit, multi-family SummerHill Homes development on Lot 2 was granted architectural review approval on October 30, 2007. A Tentative Map for the separate SummerHill Homes development on Lot 2 will be presented for Commission recommendation and City Council approval after the approval of this subject two-lot subdivision. CMR: 100:08 Page 1 of 4 Because of the terms of the purchase agreement between BPOE and SummerHill Homes, the existing Elks Lodge will not be demolished until after the final map for the two-lot subdivision is recorded. In effect, the proposed lot line subdividing the Elks Lodge site into two lots would slice through the existing Elks Lodge structure. City staff has discussed the logistics of the demolition with the applicant and an agreement was reached that a bond or letter of credit would be provided by the applicant to the City to guarantee the demolition of the Elks Lodge upon final map recordation. The actual demolition of the Elks Lodge and accessory structures would occur immediately after final map recordation. Conditions pertaining to the demolition of the Elks Lodge are included in the attached draft Record of Land Use action. With the incorporation of conditions relating to the demolition of the Elks Lodge, staff has determined that the two-lot Tentative Map request is in general conformance with the requirements set forth in Chapter 18 (Zoning) and Chapter 21 (Subdivisions) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC). Background information related to the project’s details and history has been included in the attached draft Record of Land Use Action. BOARD/COMMISSION REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS On November 28, 2007, the Commission conducted a public hearing and recommended (6-0-0- 1) that the City Council approve the Tentative Map to subdivide the Elks Lodge site into two lots, as submitted, based upon the findings and conditions contained within the draft Record of Land Use Action. At the hearing, the Commission had questions regarding drainage impacts of the proposed development which were addressed by the applicant’s civil engineer. Three members of the public spoke regarding access to Wilkie Way frorn the proposed development at the Elks Lodge site, and traffic concerns on Deodar Street and E1 Camino Real. The Commission also posed questions regarding pedestrian and bicycle connectivity to Wilkie Way, and street design and circulation within the proposed development by SummerHill Homes. Staff explained to the Commission that these issues will be considered with the Tentative Map for the 45-unit SummerHill Homes condominium development (the site planning for which was granted architectural review approval on October 30, 2007) to be presented to the Commission for review and recommendation to the City Council within the next three months. Draft minutes from the Commission hearing are included in Attachment C. RESOURCE IMPACTS The proposed map, a lot split, will not result in any cost or revenue impacts to the City. After acting on the final map for the lot split, Council will review the tentative map allowing for the 45-home condominium project. The CMR for the second tentative map will contain information about resource impacts of the condominium development, with its associated deve!opinent impact fees and provision of public parkland. The Elks Lodge site plans are not yet developed, but in general the new lodge will replace the old with little change in size and use. The Elks Lodge project will be reviewed by the Architectural Review Board for recommendation to the Planning Director. All development review costs for both projects will be recovered through permit fees. POLICY IMPLICATIONS The proposed map is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan in that the site is zoned for multi- family residential use and the continued use and renovation of the Lodge was expressly permitted by prior action of the Council. Design and compatibility policies are addressed by the Architectural Review Board during design review of each project. CMR: 100:08 Page 2 of 4 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) lists a land division of property in an urbanized area into four or fewer parcels as exempt from CEQA if the subdivision is in conformance with all zoning regulations. As such, the proposed two lot subdivision would generally be exempt from the requirements of CEQA. However, CEQA requires that a Lead Agency examine the potential environmental impacts of the ’whole of an action’ which has the potential to physically change the environment, directly or ultimately, and not just the act of merely subdividing a parcel into two lots. In this case, the two lot subdivision would ultimately facilitate the construction of two developments - a new fraternal lodge and a 45 unit multi- family development - which are not exempt from CEQA requirements. Prior to Architectural Review approval of the proposed SummerHill Homes multi-family development, Staff prepared an Initial Study and Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration which discussed the potential impacts of the two tot subdivision, the SummerHill Homes development and the new Elks Lodge development. The documents were made available for a 20 day public review period between August 31, 2007 and September 19, 2007. No public comments were received during this review period. The Environmental Assessment found that the impacts produced by the project, including the development of the multi-family homes and the new Elks Lodge, would have less than sig-nificant impacts on the environment with the incorporation of mitigation measures, and less than significant impact on public services. These impacts are described in the assessment contained in Attachment D. Since State law requires the adoption of an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration prior to taking action on a discretionary project, these environmental documents were adopted on October 25, 2007 by the Director of Planning and Community Environment, prior to Architectural Review of the proposed SummerHill Homes project. PREPARED BY: DEPARTMENT HEAD: CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: ELENA LEE Senior Planner STEVE EMSLIE Director of Planning and Community Environment EMILY H~RRISON Assistant City Manager CMR: 100:08 Page 3 of 4 ATTACHMENTS A.Draft Record of Land Use Action B.Planning & Transportation Commission Staff Report, November 28, 2007 C.Excerpt of the Draft Planning & Transportation Commission Minutes, November 28, 2007 D.Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration, adopted October 25, 2007 E.Tentative Map (Councilmembers only) COURTESY COPIES James E. Baer, Premier Properties Elaine Breeze, SummerHill Homes Carlin Otto Penny Ellson Jean Olmsted Denis Lose CMR: 100:08 Page 4 of 4 ATTACHMENT A APPROVAL NO. 2007- RECORD OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO LAND USE ACTION FOR 4249 AND 4251 EL CAMINO REAL: TENTATIVE MAP 07PLN-00140 (SUM~ERHILL HOMES, APPLICANT) At its meeting on December i0, 2007, the City Council of the City of Pa!o Alto approved the Tentative Map to subdivide a parcel (approx. 6.79 acres) into two lots, which would be developed into residential multi-family homes on one lot and a new fraternal lodge on the other !ot, making the following findings, determination and declarations: SECTION i.Background. The City Council of the City of Palo Alto ("City Council") finds, determines, and declares as follows: A. Proposed by SummerHill Homes on behalf of the Benevolent and Protective Order of Elks (BPOE), this project involves the subdivision of the Elk’s Lodge site (approx. 6.79 acres total) into two lots. Lot i, to be retained by BPOE, would be 122,872 square feet and would be deve!oped with a new Elks Lodge and Lot 2, to be sold to SummerHill Homes, would be 172,891 square feet and developed with 45 multi-family dwelling units. In addition, .34 acres of the Elks Lodge site would be dedicated to the City as a public right of way to create Deodar Street. B. The Tentative Map plan set includes information on the existing parcels, onsite conditions, and the layout of the proposed new lots. These drawings are in compliance with the applicable provisions of the City’s Subdivision Ordinance. These plans contain all information and notations required to be shown on a Tentative Map (per PAMC Sections 21.12), as well as the design requirements concerning the creation of !ots, streets, walkways, and similar features (PAMC 21.20). C.Because of financial reasons and the purchase agreement between BPOE and SummerHill Homes, the buyer and developer of Lot 2, the existing Elks Lodge wil! not be demolished until after the final map for the two lot subdivision is recorded. In effect, the proposed lot line subdividing the Elks Lodge site into two lots would slice through the existing Elks Lodge structure. City Staff has discussed the logistics of the demolition with the applicant and an agreement was reached that a bond or letter of credit would be provided by the applicant to the City to guarantee the demolition of the Elks Lodge prior to fina! map recordation. The actual demolition of the Elks Lodge and accessory structures would occur immediately after fina! map recordation. Conditions pertaining to the demolition of the Elks Lodge are included in the attached draft Record of Land Use action. With the incorporation of conditions relating to the demolition of the Elks Lodge, Staff and City departments have determined that the two-lot Tentative Map application is in compliance with zoning, subdivision, and other codes and ordinances. SECTION 2. Environmental Review.The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) lists a land division of property in an urbanized area into four or fewer parcels as exempt from CEQA if the subdivision is in conformance with all zoning regulations. As such, the proposed two lot subdivision would generally be exempt from the requirements of CEQA. However, CEQA requires that a Lead Agency examine the potential environmental impacts of the ’whole of an action’ which has the potentia! to physically change the environment, directly or ultimately, and not just the act of merely subdividing a parce! into two lots. In this case, the two lot subdivision would ultimately facilitate the construction of two developments - a new fraternal !odge and a 45 unit multi-family deve!opment - which are not exempt from CEQA requirements. Prior to Architectural Review approval of the proposed SummerHill Homes multi-family deve!opment, Staff prepared an Initial Study and Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration which discussed the potential impacts of the two !ot subdivision, the SummerHill Homes development and the new Elks Lodge deve!opment. The documents were made available for a 20 day public review period between August 31, 2007 and September 19, 2007. No public comments were received during this review period. The Environmental Assessment found that the impacts produced by the project, including the development of the single-family homes and the new Elks Lodge, would have less than significant impacts on the environment with the incorporation of mitigation measures. Since state law requires the adoption of an Initia! Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration prior taking action on a discretionary project, these environmental documents were adopted on October 25, 2007 by the Director of Planning and Community Environment, prior to Architectural Review of the proposed SummerHill Homes development. SECTION 3.Tentative Map Findings. A legislative body of a city shall deny approval of a Preliminary Parcel Map, if it makes any of the fol!owing findings (California Government Code Section 66474): I. That the proposed map is not consistent with applicable general and specific plans as specified in Section 65451: This finding can not be made in the affirmative. The site does not lie within a specific plan area and is consistent 2 with the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan. The land use designation in the area of the subdivision is Multiple Family Residential and the zoning designations are RM-15 and RM-30. The proposed development of multi-family dwelling units on Lot 2 is consistent with the land use and zoning designations of the site. The reconstruction of a new Elks Lodge on Lot 1 is allowed as a grandfathered use on the site pursuant to City of Pa!o Alto Ordinance No. 3892. 2. That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is not consistent with applicable general and specific plans: This finding can not be made in the affirmative. The map is consistent with the following Comprehensive Plan policies: (i) Policy L-I - Limiting future urban development to currently developed lands within the urban service area; (2)Policy L-6: Where possible, avoid abrupt changes in scale and density between residential and non-residentia! areas and between residential areas of different densities; (3) Policy L-12 - Preserve the character of residential neighborhoods by encouraging new or remodeled structures to be compatible with the neighborhood and adjacent structures; (4)Policy L-35 - Establish the South E1 Camino Real area as a well-designed, compact, vital, Multi-neighborhood Center with diverse uses, a mix of one-, two-, and three-story buildings, and a network of pedestrian-oriented streets and ways. The new Elks Lodge would be situated at the E1 Camino Real frontage such that there is desirable definition of the streetscape compared to the existing site where a large parking lot exists. The new Elks Lodge would act as a buffer to the proposed multi-family homes by SummerHill Homes. 3. That the site is not physically suitable for the type of development: This finding can not be made in the affirmative. The site can accommodate the proposed subdivision. The !ots conform to the width, depth, and area requirements of the RM-30 and B94-15 districts. The design of the multi-family units by SummerHill Homes and the new Elks Lodge require Architectural Review approval. The proposed multi-family development by SummerHill Homes was granted Architectural Review approval on October 30, 2007 after a recommendation of approval from the Architectura! Review Board on October 18, 2007. The Preliminary Architectural Review of the new Elks Lodge was reviewed by the Architectural Review Board on August 2, 2007. A formal application for the Elks Lodge has not yet been submitted. 4. That the site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of development: The subdivision would be consistent with the site development regulations of the RM-30 and RM-15 districts and would not affect the !ocation of the existing property lines at he perimeter of the site. 5. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements is likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habi tat : The subdivision would not cause environmental damage or injure fish, wildlife, or their habitat, as the site is currently developed with accessory uses and facilities of the permitted fraternal organization on the site. However, the applicant is required to implement mitigation measures to reduce impacts to tree-nesting raptors and trees during demolition and construction on Lots 1 and 2 as specified in the Mitigated Negative Declaration and as reflected in the conditions of Section 6 of this Record. 6. That the design of the subdivision or type of improvements is likely to cause serious public health problems: This finding can not be made in the affirmative. The subdivision of the existing parcel into two lots wil! not cause serious public health problems. 7. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision. In this connection, the governing body may approve a map if it finds that alternate easements, for access or for use, will be provided, and that these will be substantially equivalent to ones previously acquired by the public. This subsection shall apply only to easements of record or to easements established by judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction and no authority is hereby granted to a legislative body to determine that the public at large has acquired easements for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. The subdivision of the existing parcel will not conflict with easements of any type, in that the subdivision is compatible with the emergency vehicle access easement along the northern property line and any utility easements that would be required to serve the proposed developments on Lots 1 and 2. SECTION 4.Approval of Tentative Map. Tentative Hap approval is granted by the City Counci! under Palo Alto Municipal Code ("PAMC") Sections 21.13 and 21.20 and the California Government Code Section 66474, subject to the conditions of approval in Section 6 of this Record. 4 SECTION 5.Final Map Approval. The Final Map submitted for review and approval by the City Council of the City of Palo Alto shall be in substantial conformance with the Tentative Map prepared by Brian Kangas Foulk titled ~Tentative Map Elks Subdivision", consisting of five pages, date stamped December 3, 2007, except as modified to incorporate the conditions of approval in Section 6. A copy of this Tentative Map is on file in the Department of Planning and Community Environment, Current Planning Division. Within two years of the approval date of the Tentative Map, the subdivider shall cause the subdivision or any part thereof to be surveyed, and a Final Map, as specified in Chapter 21.08, to be prepared in conformance with the Tentative Map as conditionally approved, and in compliance with the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act and PAMC Section 21.16 and submitted to the City Engineer (PAMC Section 21.16.0!0[a]) . SECTION 6.Conditions of Approval. Department of Planning and Community Environment Planning Division A Final Map, in conformance with the approved Tentative Map, all requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance (PAMC Section 21.16), and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, shall be filed with the Planning Division and the Public Works Engineering Division within two years of the Tentative Map approval date (PAMC 21.13.020[c]). o To the extent practical, construction activities should be performed or vegetation removed from September through February to avoid the general nesting period of birds. If demolition, construction or vegetation removal can not be performed during this period, pre-demolition and construction surveys should be performed by a qualified biologist no sooner than 14 days prior to demolition and construction activities to locate any active nests prior to the start of demolition/construction and prior to remova! of any tree. If active nests are observed, buffer zones will be established around active nesting trees, with a size acceptable~ to the California Department of Fish and Game. Construction activities shall avoid buffered zones and no tree will be removed until the young have fledged or the nest is otherwise abandoned. o To the maximum extent possible, the project shall comply with all Design Guidelines 6.1 and 6.2 Protection Measures of ’A Tree Protection Plan for the Elks Residential Development’ by David L. Babby, RCA, June 20, 2007 and all guidelines stated in Section 4.2 and Section 7.0 Tree Protection Guidelines of ’A Tree Protection Plan for the New Elks Lodge,’ by David L. Babby, August 24, 2007. o Applicant shall file a tree removal permit for the trees planned for removal. Public Works Department Prior to Final Map Recordation: ° o ° i0. The Elks Lodge shall be abandoned. All utilities servicing the Elks Lodge must be disconnected in accordance with the City of Palo Alto Utilities Department guidelines. The Elks Lodge shal! be "red-tagged" by the Building Division. The Elks organization shall provide Public Works Engineering (PWE) a copy of an executed contract with a licensed demolition contractor providing for the demolition of the existing Elks Lodge. The Elks organization shall provide the City of Pa!o Alto with a bond or letter of credit to guarantee the demolition of the Elks Lodge. The amount of the bond or letter of credit shall be determined by PWE and based upon the review of the estimate of demolition as provided by the contractor. A Construction and Demolition (C&D) plan and permit for the demolition of the existing structure shall be submitted and approved and shall accompany the contract and bond for that demolition. SECTION 7.Term of Approval. Tentative Map. All conditions of approval of the Tentative Map shall be fulfilled prior to approval of a Final Map (PAMC Section 21.16.0!0[c]) . Unless a Final Map is filed, and all conditions of approval are fulfilled within a two-year period from the date of Tentative Map approval, or such extension as may be granted, the Tentative Map shall expire and all proceedings shall terminate. Thereafter, no Final Map shall be filed without first processing a Tentative Map (PAMC Section 2!°16.010[d]). PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED: Director of Planning and Community Environment Senior Asst. City Attorney PLANS AND DRAWINGS REFERENCED: Those plans prepared by Brian Kangas Foulk titled, "Tentative Map Elks Subdivision", consisting of five pages, date stamped December 3, 2007. 7 ATTACHMENT B PLANNING AND TRANSP OR TA TION DIVISION STAFF REPORT TO:PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION FROM:Lata Vasudevan, AICP Planner DEPARTMENT: Planning & Community Environment AGENDA DATE: November 28, 2007 SUBJECT:4249 and 4251 E1 Camino Real [07PLN-00140]: Application by SummerHill Homes for a Tentative Map to subdivide the Elks Lodge site into two lots. The proposed 2.82-acre lot would be the site of a new Elks Lodge and the other 3.97-acre lot would be developed as a multi-family residential project by SumrnerHill Homes. Zone District: Multiple-Family Residential (RM-15 and RM-30). Environmental Assessment: a Mitigated Negative Declaration has been adopted for the development of the Elks Lodge site. RECOMMENDATION: Staff requests that the Planning and Transportation Commission (Commission) provide a recommendation of approval to the City Council regarding the proposed Tentative Map to subdivide the Elks Lodge site into two lots, based upon the findings and conditions contained within the Record of Land Use Action (Attachment A). SUMMARY OF LAND USE ACTION: Background information related to the project’s details and history has been included in the attached draft Record of Land Use Action. The Tentative Map drawings are in general conformance with the requirements set forth in Chapter 18 (Zoning) and Chapter 21 (Subdivisions) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC). Various code requirements and special conditions pertaining to the demolition of the existing Elks Lodge have also been incorporated into the draft conditions of approval for this application. The only action required of the Planning and Transportation Commission is a recommendation to the City Council regarding the Tentative Map. Scope of Commission Review The scope of the Commission’s review for the purposes of this Tentative Map application is limited to the "design" and "improvement" of the proposed subdivision. In this context, the terms "design" and "improvement" are defined in the Subdivision Map Act as follows: City of Palo Alto Page 1 "Design" means: (1) street alignments, grades and widths; (2) drainage and sanitary facilities and utilities, including alignments and grades thereof; (3) location and size of all required easements and rights-of-way; (4) fire roads and firebreaks; (5) !or size and configuration; (6) traffic access; (7) grading; (8) land to be dedicated for park or recreational purposes; and (9) other specific physical requirements in the plan and configuration of the entire subdivision that are necessary to ensure consistency with, or implementation of, the general plan or any applicable specific plan as required pursuant to Section 66473.5. (Oovemrnent Code, section 66418) (a) "Improvement" refers to any street work and utilities to be installed, or agreed to be installed, by the subdivider on the land to be used for public or private streets, highways, ways, and easements, as are necessary for the general use of the lot owners in the subdivision and local neighborhood traffic and drainage needs as a condition precedent to the approval and acceptance of the final map thereof. (b) "Improvement" also refers to any other specific improvements or types of improvements, the installation of which, either by the subdivider, by public agencies, by private utilities, by any other entity approved by the local agency, or by a combination thereof, is necessary to ensure consistency with, or implementation of, the genera! plan or any applicable specific plan. (Government Code, section 66419) The design and improvement of the subdivision should be distinguished from the design of the proposed structures to be located within the subdivision, which will be reviewed pursuant to the City’s Architectural Review process (or in the case of the SummerHill Homes development, the Architectural Review Board has already made a formal recommendation of approval as described be!ow). The Tentative Map plan set includes information on the existing parcels and onsite conditions. These plans contain all information and notations required to be shown on a Tentative Map (per PAMC Sections 21.12), and conform to the design requirements concerning the creation of lots, streets, and similar features (PAMC 21.20). SUMMARY OF KEY ISSUES: The application requested by SummerHilt Homes on behalf of property owner, Benevolent and Protective Order of Elks (BPOE), is a two-lot subdivision of the approximately 7-acre Elks Lodge site to enable the construction of a new Elks Lodge on Lot 1 and the development of a 45 unit, multi- family residential community by SummerHill Homes on Lot 2. Although the applicant’s request is for only a two-lot subdivision, PAMC 21.04.030 requires a Tentative Map for certain minor subdivisions involving less than five lots or units where the total acreage involved exceeds five acres or for any subdivision where an individual lot created exceeds two acres. City of Palo Alto Page 2 The proposed two lot subdivision would create one 2.82 acre parcel to be retained by BPOE for the future Elks Lodge and a second 3.97 acre parcel to be purchased by SummerHi!l Homes for its proposed multi-family development. Approximately .34 acres of the Elks Lodge site would be dedicated to the City as a public right of way to establish Deodar Street. A preliminary Architectural Review application for the new Elks Lodge was reviewed by the Architectural Review Board on August 2, 2007. A formal application for Architectural Review of the new Elks Lodge has not yet been submitted. The proposed 45 unit, multi-family SummerHill Homes development on Lot 2 was granted Architectural Review approval on October 30, 2007. A Tentative Map for the SummerHill Homes development will be presented for Commission recommendation and City Council approval after the approval of the subject two-lot subdivision. During the Architectural Review process of the proposed SummerHill Homes development, there was considerable discussion among the public and the Architectural Review Board regarding pedestrian and bicycle access to Wilkie Way and E1 Camino Real from the proposed SummerHill Homes Development. The proposed five-lot development by Juniper Homes is situated along Wilkie Way, adjacent to the subject two-lot subdivision. The applicant for the Juniper Homes development was receptive to providing a pedestrian and bicycle access along the existing emergency vehicle access route to allow access to Wilkie Way. However, residents of the nearby neighborhood were opposed to such access and, accordingly, the Juniper Homes Final Map approval was granted by the City Council without this type of easement. This decision eliminated the most viable option for connectivity to Wilkie Way from the adjacent, proposed SummerHill Homes development. Nevertheless, the SummerHitl Homes development will include a public access easement within its development that would facilitate pedestrian and bicycle connectivity to E1 Camino Real and/or Wilkie Way should easement opportunities arise in the future on the adjacent Dinah’s property. The proposed public access easement within the SummerHill Homes development will be discussed further in the review of the Tentative Map for the SummerHill Homes development and is not within the purview of the subject two-lot subdivision. Because of the terms of the purchase agreement between BPOE and SummerHill Homes, the existing Elks Lodge will not be demolished until after the final map for the two-lot subdivision is recorded. In effect, the proposed lot line subdividing the Elks Lodge site into two lots would slice through the existing Elks Lodge structure. City Staff has discussed the logistics of the demolition with the applicant and an agreement was reached that a bond or letter of credit would be provided by the applicant to the City to guarantee the demolition of the Elks Lodge prior to final map recordation. The actual demolition of the Elks Lodge and accessory structures would occur immediately after final map recordation. Conditions pertaining to the demolition of the Elks Lodge are included in the attached draft Record of Land Use action. With the incorporation of conditions relating to the demolition of the Elks Lodge, Staff and City departments have determined that the two-lot Tentative Map application is in compliance with zoning, subdivision, and other codes and ordinances. TIMELINE: Action Application Received: Mitigated Negative Declaration Adopted: Date May 3, 2007 October 25, 2007 City of Palo Alto Page 3 Tentative Map Application Deemed Complete: P&TC Meeting on Tentative Map: Scheduled Action by Council on Tentative Map: November 8, 2007 November 28, 2007 December t0, 2007 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) lists a land division of property in an urbanized area into four or fewer parcels as exempt from CEQA if the subdivision is in conformance with all zoning regulations. As such, the proposed two lot subdivision would generally be exempt from the requirements of CEQA. However, CEQA requires that a Lead Agency examine the potential environmental impacts of the ’whole of an action’ which has the potential to physically change the environment, directly or ultimately, and not just the act of merely subdividing a parcel into two lots. In this case, the two lot subdivision would ultimately facilitate the construction of two developments - a new fraterna! lodge and a 45 unit multi-family development- which are not exempt from CEQA requirements. Prior to Architectural Review approval of the proposed SummerHill Homes multi-family development, Staff prepared an Initial Study and Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration which discussed the potential impacts of the two lot subdivision, the SummerHil! Homes development and the new Elks Lodge development. The documents were made available for a 20 day public review period between August 31,2007 and September 19, 2007. No public comments were received during this review period. The Environmental Assessment found that the impacts produced by the project, including the development of the single-family homes and the new Elks Lodge, would have less than significant impacts on the environment with the incorporation of mitigation measures. These impacts are described in the assessment contained in Attachment B. Since State law requires the adoption of an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration prior to taking action on a discretionary project, these environmental documents were adopted on October 25, 2007 by the Director of Plarming and Community Environment, prior to Architectural Review of the proposed SummerHill Homes project. ATTACHMENTS: A.Draft Record of Land Use Action B.Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration C.Tentative Map Plan Set (Commission Members Only) COURTESY COPIES: Elaine Breeze, SummerHill Homes Jim Baer Denis Los4, Palo Alto Elks Lodge Penny Ellson Carlin Otto Becky Epstein Jean Olmsted Prepared by: Reviewed by: Lata Vasudevan, AICP, Planner Amy French, AICP, Manager of Current Planning City of Palo Alto Page 4 Department/Division Head Approval: Curtis Williams, AICP Assistant Director City of Palo Alto Page 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 Planning and Transportation Commission Verbatim Minutes November 28, 2007 DRAFT EXCERPT Attachment C 4249 and 4251 El Camino Real [07PLN-00140]~: Application by SummerHill Homes for a Tentative Map to subdivide the Elks Lodge site into two lots. The proposed 2.82-acre lot would be the site of a new Elks Lodge and the other 3.97-acre lot would be developed as a multi-family residential project by SummerHill Homes. Zone District: Multiple-Family Residential (RM-15 and RM-30). Environmental Assessment: a Mitigated Negative Declaration has been adopted for the development of the Elks Lodge site. Lata Vasudevan, Planner: Good evening, Commissioners. The two lot subdivision application requested by SummerHill Homes was filed on behalf of the current property o~vner of the site, the Palo Alto Elks Lodge. One parcel will be retained by the Elks for the future new Elks Lodge and the other parcel would be purchased by SummerHill Homes for its proposed 45-unit multi- family development. Approximately .3 acres, a small portion of the Elks Lodge site, would be dedicated to the City as a public right-of-way to establish Deodar Street, which would connect to E1 Camino Real. A preliminary Architectural Review application for the new Elks Lodge was reviewed by the Architectural Review Board on August 2 of this year. A formal application for Architectural Review of the new Elks Lodge has not yet been submitted. The proposed 45-unit multi-family SummerHill Homes development on lot two on the other hand was granted Architectural Review approval on October 30 of this year. A Tentative Map for the SummerHill Homes development will be presented for Commission recommendation and City Counci! approval after the approval of the subject two lot subdivision that you are reviewing tonight. As explained in the Staff Report the scope of the Commission’s review for the purposes of this Tentative Map application is limited to the design and improvement of the proposed two-lot subdivision. The design and improvement of the subdivision again is distinguished from the design proposed structures to be located within the subdivision, which will be reviewed pursuant to the City’s Architectural Review process. Again, as mentioned earlier, the SummerHill Homes development was already approved by the Director of Planning and Community Environment after a favorable recommendation from the ARB. In terms of environmental review CEQA requires that a lead agency examine the potential environmental impacts of the whole of an action. In this case the whole of the action is the two lot subdivision, which would ultimately enable the construction of two developments, a new fraternal lodge and a 45-unit multi-family development, which individually are not exempt from CEQA requirements. Accordingly prior to Architectural Review approval of the SummerHitl Homes multi-family development Staff prepared an initial study and draft Mitigated Negative Declaration, which discussed the potential impacts of the two lot subdivision, the SummerHill Homes development, and the new Elks Lodge development. Since state law requires the adoption of an initial study and Mitigated Negative Declaration prior to taking action on a Page 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3o 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4o 41 42 43 44 45 46 discretionary project these environmental documents were adopted on October 25 by the Director of Planning and Community Environment prior to Architectural Review approval of the SummerHill Homes development project. The approved environmental documents are of course attached to the Staff Report. The attached Record of Land Use Action includes conditions related to the mitigation measures regarding tree protection and protection of the tree nesting raptors during demolition of the Elks Lodge. In terms of public comments two letters from citizens were received. One from Ms. Carlin Otto and another one from Ms. Jean Olmsted which are placed in front of you and which were also previously forwarded to you. Both of these letters discuss access to Wilkie Way from the proposed SummerHill Homes development. The proposed public access easement within the SummerHill Homes development will be discussed further in the review of the Tentative Map for this SummerHill Homes development itself and is not within the purview of the subject two lot subdivision. In conclusion, Staff requests that the Planning and Transportation Commission provide a recommendation of approval to the City Council regarding the proposed Tentative Map to subdivide the Elks Lodge site into two lots based upon the findings and conditions contained within the Record of Land Use Action, which is attached to the Staff Report. I will be happy to answer any questions you have. The applicant is also available to answer questions. Thank you. Chair Holman: Could you just restate one thing right at the end, you said something was not within the purview of the Commission, could you please restate that? Ms. Vasudevan: Certainly. The proposed public access easement within the SummerHill Homes development will be discussed further in the review of the proposed Tentative Map for the SummerHill Homes development itself. So it is not within the purview of this t~vo lot subdivision. Chair Holman: Thank you. Commissioner Keller. Commissioner Keller: You alluded to future reviews of parts or other future reviews of various stages of this project. It might be helpful at least for the Commission and I assume for the public as well, if you could identify what other reviews there will be. For example will there be a Site and Desig-n Review or a Tentative Map or what reviews will there be of each of these projects that come from this subdivision? Ms. Vasudevan: Immediately following the proposed or assumed approval of this two lot subdivision what would be presented before the Commission would be the actual condominium subdivision for the Sun~nerHill Homes development. Also, what might occur concurrently is the formal Architectural Review of the Elks Lodge development. Commissioner Keller: So will there be any Planning Commission review of the Elks development beyond this? Page 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4o 41 42 43 44 45 46 Ms. Vasudevan: No. Commissioner Keller: Okay. Of the review of the SummerHill Homes will that be a Tentative Map review or will that be a Site and Design Review or what? Ms. Vasudevan: The review of the SummerHill Homes will be a condominium Tentative Map that will be reviewed by the Planning and Transportation Commission, which will make a recommendation to the City Council. Commissioner Keller: So that Tentative Map is different from Site and Design Review, which is what we did on Alma Plaza because this is not a PC. Is that right? Ms. Vasudevan: That is correct. Commissioner Keller: Thank you. Mr. Williams: I also want to clarify that you also do Site and Design Review on mixed use deve!opments in commercial zones. This is not a commercial zone this is a multi-family zone, which is why that since it is zoned RM-30 is why there is not a Site and Design process with this. If this were a CS zone for instance then there would be a Site and Design Review that the Commission and Council would also see. Commissioner Keller: Thank you that is very helpful. Chair Holman: Commissioner Tuma, clarifying question? Commissioner Tuma: I am assuming that this just an oversight or typographical error because we are all talking about multi-family residence here but on the last page of the Staff Report it refers to the development of the single family homes in this project. Is that just an oversight? Mr. Williams: Yes, they are in some respects single family in character like others that we have seen in other projects but they are in a multi-family zone. Because they are not on R-1 size lots they are considered multi-family not single family. The reference at the end probably is due to the character of the home. Commissioner Tuma: We are not looking at a subsequent subdivision into a bunch of fee lots within this? Okay. I just want to clarify that because sometimes when you talk about single family home, okay. Chair Holman: Other clarifying questions? Commissioner Lippert. Commissioner Lippert: With regard to, and you will have to excuse me is it Deodar Street? Okay. Chair Holman: Deodar is a conifer tree. Page 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4o 41 42 43 44 45 46 Commissioner Lippert: Okay, excuse me. Is that a street easement or a dedicated street? Mr. Larkin: It is a dedicated street easement. Commissioner Lippert: Street easement? Mr. Larkin: It is dedicated public right-of-way. Commissioner Lippert: Okay. Chair Holman: Commissioner Keller, you have another clarifying question? Commissioner Keller: Yes. I am not sure if this is a clarifying question or when the right time for this is, but what is the narrowest point of Deodar Street along this and has somebody checked to make sure that it satisfies all the rules for? Chair Holman: I am not sure that would be a clarifying question. I think that is a question for later. Commissioner Keller: Okay, thank you. Mr. Larkin: Just to answer it, Public Works will review this to ensure that it meets the standards for public streets. Commissioner Keller: I understand that Deodar Street is partially donated by the development in the former Hyatt property, Arbor Real, and partially donated by the subject development. Mr. Larkin: Dedicated rather than donated but that is essentially correct. It was actually entirely dedicated by Arbor Real because Arbor Real obtained an easement for the Elks Lodge portion of the street in order to allow public access during the time that this project is being developed. Once that dedication occurs then the entire thing will become one public right-of-way. Commissioner Keller: And the improvements would all occur to the street prior to its transference to the City of Palo Alto? Mr. Larkin: The improvements, and this is getting into a little more detail than we normally get into, but prior to the issuance of the Final Map there will be a Subdivision Improvement Agreement executed between the City and the developer that will define exactly what public improvements are to be made, the standards for those public improvements, and then provide for rather than holding up the map until those improvements are made. They provide for financial security so that in the event they are not made the City can go out and do the improvements themselves. Commissioner Keller: Thank you. Page 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 t6 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Chair Holman: Seeing no other clarifying questions we can go to members of the public and actually the applicant. I believe that would be Elaine Breeze and you will have 15 minutes. Ms. Elaine Breeze, SummerHi11 Homes: Good evening. We are headquartered here in Palo Alto and we are excited to have an opportunity to be back here working in your city. We appreciated the feedback that we did receive through the ARB process and the approval that we received. The Staff Report is clear and thorough for us, the process that we are going through in requesting your recommendation of the Tentative Map before you. We agree with all the conditions of approval as presented, and we welcome any questions that you have. I have our BKF civil engineer here, Scott Schork, to answer any questions as well as the Elks representatives are here as well. Thank you. Chair Holman: You have 14 minutes and 16 seconds left. Are there questions for the applicant at this moment? Perhaps they will come. We have two other cards from members of the public Jean Olmsted to be followed by Bob Moss. You will have five minutes. Ms. Jean Olmsted, Palo Alto: I am here in support of bicycle and pedestrian access. You have nay letter about this so I am going to be brief too. I would like to thank you for your thoughts on this issue. I hope your committee will develop further recommendations about bicycle and pedestrian access to send onto the City Council. There should be a general citywide policy in support of access so the issue does not have to be dealt with on a site-by-site basis. The City ordinance requiring connectivity should help, that is 18.23.080(B)(ii). I also wish something could be done now to provide access from Wilkie to E1 Camino through the Elks property. We don’t know when or if Dinah’s land will be available we lost the opportunity for the access easement, which Juniper Homes was willing to provide because a few people opposed access. I believe they did not represent the majority of Charleston Meadows residents. I think it is time for more concern for the public good and perhaps less concern for parking. I thank you. Chair Holman: Thank you. The next speaker is Bob Moss and if anyone else wishes to speak they should turn a card in at this time. Mr. Bob Moss, Palo Alto: Thank you Chairman Holman and Commissioners. I have a couple of concerns looking at the Staff Report and what they are saying you can do. One of the things that I thought was rather strange is that supposedly tonight one of the things you are addressing the design which means street alignments, grades, widths, drains, sanitary sewage, and so on. But none of that information is presented. You look at that map and you can’t tell if those streets are ten feet wide or 50 feet wide, whether they are so narrow that they only can be private streets or if they are intended to be public streets. That has a huge impact on the project and the viability of the circulation there. So I think it is inappropriate to say you are reviewing the design when the design details, especially something as critical as the street patterns and layout, are really not specified in any of the public documents. Maybe you got something that was given only to the Page 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 Commission that the public doesn’t have but looking at what is on the wall there are no dimensions on that either. So I think that has to be resolved before you can approve the project and approve the lot setup. The second thing is there is a discussion about mitigation where they are going to take a look at the traffic at the new intersection at E1 Camino and if the traffic is bad they are going to make some adjustments. E1 Camino is a state highway and I don’t believe the City is capable of making any adjustments to E1 Camino. You might make some adjustments to the access roads but if there is a problem, which is created from this project or this project plus the old Hyatt Rickey’s combined on E1 Camino, what could the developer or the City do on E1 Camino that would mitigate the traffic? I think that has to be addressed. The other thing that concerns me is not nearly as significant is the assumption that we axe going to have less traffic from this project and we are not going to have a significant impact on the highway system. If you look at the report where they give traffic counts all of these intersections, every one that they look at except for Charleston and Wilkie is going to go from a Level D to a Level E or F, which is a significant negative impact. Now it is not caused only by this project it is caused by the combination of this project plus Hyatt Rickey’s plus Campus for Jewish Life plus several others that are being built in this area. In order to have a proper Environmental Impact you must look at incremental changes and at the overall impact of all the projects. You can’t piecemeal and look at just this project and that project and the other project and assume that they aren’t going to interact, they do. So I really think the traffic impacts should be addressed and addressed more carefully. I think the way to approach this really is to look at what the street layout is, what the widths are, if the widths are appropriate, and I know the City Council has made statements previously in other projects that this is the last project we ever want to approve that has private streets. And then another project comes in and well, this is going to be the last project that has private streets. At some point you have to put a nail in the ground and say no more private streets. We are going to require that the streets meet the requirements that the City imposes for public streets and make them public because otherwise over time we are keep on building developments where in 20 or 30 years the streets are going to wear out and the property owners are going to have to pay to fix them, and they aren’t going to be able to afford it. This has happened before in Palo Alto. What happens in the end is the City goes in and shares the cost. It essentially becomes a public street because the private property owners can’t afford to maintain them. It gets the developer off the hook but in the long run it creates a significant cost impact for both the property owners who live there and for the City and the overall community. So I would like to see all the streets be public streets from the very beginning if possible. Thank you. Chair Holman: Thank you. We do have one additional card submitted by Carlin Otto. Ms. Carlin Otto, Pato Alto: Good evening. I am President of the Charleston Meadows Neighborhood Association. I come tonight to speak to you for the position of more than 90 percent of the people who live in the Charleston Meadows Neighborhood and all but one of the residents who live on Wilkie Way. I am speaking to you about the access. It is really Page 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2! 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3o 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 unfortunate that we have to take this position, it really is, it is tragic in fact for the City of Palo Alto. Let me just point out two of the decisions that the City has made in the past that causes my neighborhood to feel compelled to take this position. One of them is let’s just look at the exit/entry for Deodar onto E1 Camino which is projected to be about 16 minutes, 200 seconds, per car with a line of about five to six cars. That is 16 minutes to get out of your neighborhood. What are you going to do? The most obvious thing is to go park next door on the public streets. You can’t park inside because then you are trapped so you park on the public streets, that is Wilkie, and then you make the quick little walk across the pedestrian walk which is just a short distance and you jump in your car and you get out A rates, LOS A, at Wilkie and Charleston rather than LOS F at Deodar and E1 Camino and Charleston and E1 Camino. Another issue, 17 percent of the households of Palo Alto in the year Census of 2000 had three or more cars. There are only two parking spaces per car in both DR Horton and SummerHill. If 17 percent of those houses have a third car where are they going to put it? They can’t put it in the street. They are going to try to put it in a local neighborhood on a public street. There is no parking on the private streets inside DR Horton or SummerHill. Those cars will be parked in our neighborhood. That is 17 percent of the City of Palo Alto that is the Census from 2000. As we all know, it is more than that because so many people in Palo Alto use their garage for other things. I have covered these issues in the letter that I wrote you representing the position of my neighborhood. There are many others those are just two of the sort of most egregious of the reasons we really feel at risk of having significant parking in our neighborhood if a pedestrian path is put between these high-density housings and Wilkie. Thank you for your time. I am terribly sorry to have to take this position it is so un-Palo Altoan I understand but really we don’t have any choice. We don’t feel good about the position but we do feel we must protect our quality of life. I am really sorry. Chair Holman: Ms. Otto, I think we have a question for you from Commissioner Keller. Commissioner Keller: I have a question about what I refer to as dueling statistics. It says you had an annual meeting at which there were 35 people who voted against access and four people who for access, which you say is 90 percent of the 39 people. Then the statistic offered by the proponents through form letters are 55 for which the denominator is somehow 325. So I am wondering if you can explain what the silent majority of your neighborhood feels because I think that somehow we only have less than 100 out of the 325 homes actually weighing in. Also, it is not clear which homes the 55 or 39 actually represent. Sometimes multiple people from a single household show up at a meeting or sign the document. Ms. Otto: Very, very true. The way we figured that is we figured there were the 325 houses in the neighborhood and we figured there were two adults that could vote from that neighborhood, it could be different but we figured two, and then we took that as the possible silent majority. The 55 are when they canvassed the neighborhood trying to get signatures in favor of the bike Page 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 path. We figured the people who didn’t sign would either have showed up at the meeting or they would have signed if they had the opportunity, they didn’t. So we just assumed that 90-plus percent is against it. I have good reason to believe that is a good accurate figure even though the 90 percent is the silent majority. I have good faith that we do have a large percentage of people against it. I walked person-to-person, household-to-household on Wilkie. There was only one house in that neighborhood that was for access the rest of them were terrified they were going to have parking all over their street from DR Horton and SummerHill if there was pedestrian access. Then we had our meeting, our neighborhood meeting, and people knew what the issues were there and those who showed up were the ones who were interested and the vote was 35 to four. Commissioner Keller: Thank you. My understanding is that tonight we are actually not making that decision. Just for you benefit in order to facilitate this decision the next time I would suggest that you try to have an apples-to-apples comparison and you might want to canvass the neighborhood in the same manner thereby you can actually have dueling petitions and it will be a lot easier for the numbers to be compared much more effectively. In terms of the larger issue I guess we will have to address that at some point. Ms. Otto: Yes, thank you very much for the suggestion. You can be very well assured we will do that if we need to. Thank you. Chair Holman: Thank you very much. I have no other cards from members of the public. Commissioner Lippert you have a question for? Commissioner Lippert: With regard to public versus private roads what is within our purview on the housing site? Mr. Larkin: The only road that is proposed in this is a public road, Deodar. Commissioner Lippert: So streets A, B, C that are on there? Mr. Larkin: Not part of this map. Mr. Williams: You will see that map subsequently. Ms. Vasudevan: The Commission will see that as part of the Tentative Map approval for the condo subdivision for the SummerHill Homes development. Commissioner Lippert: Is it within our purview at that point to make them street easements or is it within our purview to make them dedicated streets or keep them private? Mr. Williams: It is certainly within your purview to make a recommendation on which of those you think it should be. Commissioner Lippert: Okay, thank you. Page 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 Chair Holman: Commissioner Keller. Commissioner Keller: I would like to understand is the nature of Deodar Street and its interconnection to E1 Camino Real within the purview of what we are studying tonight? Mr. Larkin: That was part of the prior map with Arbor Real. If it was a new public street then yes, but this isn’t a new public street. It has already been dedicated as part of the Arbor Real Tentative Map and Final Map. Commissioner Keller: Okay. I am looking at this map and I am trying to figure out are people only turning right from Deodar onto E1 Camino or are they turning left. It looks like there is a median with trees in the middle so I am confused. Ms. Vasudevan: The developer of the SummerHill Homes project is proposing a left turn lane into Deodar Street from E1 Camino Real. So the median on E1 Camino Real is going to be modified. Commissioner Keller: So the median that used to go into the Hyatt is basically being moved further south, the entrance in, so one could enter southbound onto E1 Camino into the property but one cannot exit turning left out of the property. Is that the idea? Mr. Larkin: I am not entirely sure. I know this was also part of the Arbor Real Tentative Map and Final Map approval. Chair Hotman: Commissioner Lippert, did you have a question? Commissioner Lippert: If Deodar has already been dedicated then hasn’t the through to Wilkie Way already been determined? Mr. Larkin: Yes. Chair Holman: Commissioner Garber. Vice-Chair Garber: And there is no access through Wilkie way, right? Mr. Williams: Right, Deodar has no access. Chair Holman: Commissioner Keller. Commissioner Keller: My understanding is that there is no access at Deodar onto Wilkie Way for cars. Mr. Williams: That is correct. Page 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4o 41 42 43 44 45 Commissioner Keller: However, there is an easement that connects for emergency vehicles to Wilkie Way along what looks like the part of the Juniper homes at the logical north end of this. realize north is pointing in a slightly different direction but the logical north side of this. So if that were an emergency access how would you not allow pedestrians through it and somehow allow emergency vehicles through it? Chair Holman: Commissioner Garber. Vice-Chair Garber: So following up on Commissioner Keller’s question, this emergency vehicle easement is that within our purview this evening to discuss? It already exists on the Wilkie Way pieces so I assume that that’s approved. Mr. Williams: That is approved. The Final Map has been approved. Those are separate lots than this property. A portion of it is on this property but the part where it connects to Wilkie Way is on the Juniper Homes properties, which have already been Final Mapped. Vice-Chair Garber: Just for clarification that easement is owned by whom? Mr. Williams: The Juniper Homes owner and subsequently by the o~vner of that particular lot. Vice-Chair Garber: So ifI were a member of the public I would have to get permission from that homeowner in order to go across their property. Mr. Williams: That’s right and that has been designed basically for that emergency vehicle access to be using the driveway essentially of that particular property. So that it is very much not open for residents or anyone else to go through and it will be gated beyond that so that fire vehicles have access to get through there with emergency vehicles but not pedestrians. Vice-Chair Garber: Thank you. Chair Holman: Commissioner Keller. Commissioner Keller: So when you say gated does that mean the fire truck pulls up to it, somebody gets out, unlocks a key, and opens it up, and then drives through it? Or does a fire truck simply drive over whatever is there and figure fence be damned or what? Mr. Williams: I don’t know. That is not specific and it is not part of this review. Chair Holman: I have a question. It is one I had raised previously. The maps that we had in our packet, and this helps somewhat, but part of our purview is to look at dedicated open space, parks, that sort of thing. What I was hoping we would have would be something we could have on an overhead that would have some description. These help but they are literally, physically disjointed. They are even backwards for how they fit together. So I am having a hard time knowing what we can look at and then having something to look at. Page 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4o 41 42 43 44 45 46 Mr. Larkin: With regard to the housing project that map isn’t in front of you yet. That will come. Chair Holman: I understand that but it what is in front of us as I understand it and as is in our Staff Report is how much open space there is on the project as a whole. It is going to be divided into two parcels and I have no problem dividing it into the two parcels but I don’t have real good information. Mr. Larkin: The proposal for the Elks Club hasn’t been submitted yet so there is nothing to provide with regard to the Elks side. With regard to the SummerHil! side you will be getting that, it is not in front of you yet. Chair Holman: So this is literally just looking at whether this two lot subdivision is appropriate. Basically the only thing then is whether there is reasonable access to the second lot from E1 Camino. Mr. Larkin: For the most part and easements to the extent that the Commission wants to comment on things like drainage. Chair Holman: Okay. So it is my misunderstanding. So I am reading the Staff Report and it tells what is in our purview. It is broader than actually is our purview given the stage that we are currently addressing. Mr. Larkin: It is your purview but only with regard to the two lot subdivision not with regard to the total project, which will mostly come before you in pieces. Just to respond to a comment that was made by the public, even though we are talking about your purview with regard to this map the CEQA analysis was done as to the project as a whole including the SummerHill site as well as what we know about the Elks Club site. Then if what we anticipate about the Elks Club site changes then we could be required to revisit our analysis. Under CEQA we are required to analyze what we know is coming in total regardless of how the project itself comes forward or whether that comes forward in pieces. So the CEQA is complete and it is complete for the entire project. Chair Holman: Okay, thank you that is helpful. Commissioner Keller. Commissioner Keller: I remember with respect to the Juniper Homes incremental subdivision to this property that there was some sort of discussion about some sort of drainage pipe that somehow exited onto Wilkie Way. I am wondering if that drainage condition is being corrected as a result of the sub-development that is happening. Mr. Williams: We might want to ask the applicant about that. I believe that since this is not adjacent to Wilkie Way I don’t think it is part of this project. The Wilkie Way immediately adjacent to the Juniper Homes property I think is where that drainage problem was along Wilkie Way. So I don’t recall whether we required that applicant to do some upgrade. I know we required them to put some sidewalk in there but I don’t recall specifically what the drainage Page 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 situation was but that is not immediately adjacent to this particular subdivision since the Juniper Homes are adjacent to Wilkie Way and would encumber that fix if that was to be required. Commissioner Keller: Do you want to respond to that? Ms. French: I was just going to mention that the civil engineer is here to talk about where the drainage from this parcel goes which is E1 Camino. Commissioner Keller: Okay. What I understood is that there was some drainage that was coming from somewhere in the E1 Camino side and it was going through some properties to Wilkie Way. So I am wondering what that drain was, where it was coming from, and if it is going to still do that? Chair Holman: If you could state your name. Mr. Scott Schork, BKF Engineers: I have been on this project for years even back when it was working with Elks. I didn’t do the actual Rickey’s and Wilkie Way subdivision but historically the whole site sheet flowed from E1 Camino to Wilkie Way. There wasn’t a storm system at all. Currently, with the five lots on Wilkie Way I am not sure if they are proposing some sort of drainage system in their backyards. I don’t think they are. I know they are adding a pipe in that 20-foot stretch, the northern stretch, which is the EVA. It is just an under-drain pipe that is treating the runoff from the pavement areas. I am not sure what you concern was with an existing storm drainpipe unless you are referring to sanitary sewer. Chair Holman: Vice-Chair Garber. Vice-Chair Garber: Perhaps the question could be asked slightly differently. Although it is outside of our purview this evening presumably you are the design civil engineer for the project that is being considered to be put on the property. Mr. Schork: Correct. Vice-Chair Garber: Wil! you be controlling water in that design such that it does not go offsite except as through your sewer system that you are designing? Mr. Schork: There will be a storm drain line that we do run that picks up all of the SummerHill residential development that goes through the EVA, which is also a public utility easement and ultimately connects to the Wilkie Way storm drain system. So that is how the storm water from the SummerHill subdivision will be drained. Then going the other direction with the Elks Lodge they will not be coming to Witkie Way. They will be going out to Deodar and out towards E1 Camino. Vice-Chair Garber: Therefore there will not be sheet flow that goes from either of these properties over to the Wilkie Way properties. Page 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1! 12 13 14 !5 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 Mr. Schork: The only sheet flow potentially will be from the park. The proposed park, which is roughly half an acre I think, we are not allowed to touch grade to respect all the trees. So a portion of that park will mostly sheet flow down that 20 foot public utility easement but there won’t be any sheet flowing across properties into the new lots that are being proposed with the exception of that 20 foot easement that is within lot one I believe it is, the northerly lot, of the Wilkie Way subdivision. Vice-Chair Garber: Does that help? Chair Holman: Actually, ifI could clarify, I believe the drainage and grade is under our purview this evening. So with that one clarification, Commissioner Keller. Commissioner Keller: Yes, if I remember correctly it was the Wilkie Way resident, Roger Kohler, who brought this up when we were considering the Juniper subdivision. I believe it was some sort of pipe that was draining I believe from the Elks property and it ended up at the curb. So it didn’t actually tie to some storm drain it tied to the curb, and therefore there was runoff along the edge of Wilkie Way and it ponded there. So what I want to ensure is that there is no drainage pipe that winds up at a curb that it all runoff from these subdivided parcels will go to storm drains directly and not to curbs. I am wondering in terms of this what my esteemed Vice- Chair Garber refers to as the sheet flow, which is a new word that I just learned. The extent to which the volume of that in terms of running along the easement and how you ensure that the park sheet flow does not enter any of the other portions of the homes along Juniper. Mr. Schork: There are really two issues with the sheet flow. Contrary to what I said about zero grading in the park there will be some minor grading that will ensure that general drainage won’t enter those homes. The issue of sheet flow is in a large storm event whether it is a ten-year or 100 year the water will travel over the surface and make its way to the 20 foot EVA section. Even in a larger event it is not going to go through the yards. Mr. Larkin: IfI could just clarify one thing. The reason that the Commission was unable to address this runoff issue when the Juniper Homes maps came forward was that the runoff was not coming from the Elks site it was coming from the other side of the property line and impacting the Elks site. That was why it wasn’t addressed in that map it is actually on the Dinah’s hotel side of the property line. Chair Holman: Curtis. Mr. Williams: The other thing I wanted to add was is standard Public Works review of this project will require number one that sheet flow be directed as much as possible to natural drainage and the storm system and away from impacting any private properties, and number two that the volume of water leaving the site is less than or certainly not any more than the existing volume of water in rate of runoff from the site. So there will be probably some retention on the site in some locations and such but that is all part of the standard Public Works review process that will assure that there are not any blockages of pipes dumping out right next to a curb and not getting passed into the storm drain system or natural drainage system. Page 13 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 Chair Hotman: Any other questions? Mr. Schork: Could I make one clarification since I am up here? Chair Holman: Of course. Mr. Schork: The Deodar Street is completely constructed so it is not a proposed street. It is a public street that was completely constructed. The half street on the Arbor Real side, the north side, was dedicated with their map. On the south side the Elks Lodge offered up dedicated essentially for street purposes an easement, they didn’t dedicate the land yet, and with this map we will be dedicating the land and making that a full right-of-way as suggested. The physical road itself is built in it entirety with the exception of just the sidewalk on the south side, on the Elks side, it has not been installed but on the Arbor Real side it has. This map also provides for an easement to put that public sidewalk in. Chair Holman: Commissioner Keller. Commissioner Keller: I would like to ask a question of Staff. In terms of this development and its density could you tell me what the density is in terms of units per acre and what the minimum density is for this zone? I realize it is split. Chair Holman: I think that is not in our purview tonight. That would be in a future meeting. Mr. Williams: That is correct. We have the numbers. I think we can quickly tell you that but that is not at issue here. Ms. Vasudevan: The proposed SummerHill Homes development is about 11.3 or 11.4 dwelling units per acre. Commissioner Keller: I guess it is mostly RM-30 with a small amount of RM-15, is that right? And, what is the minimum density required for an RM-30? Mr. Williams: There is not a minimum density required. There is only a maximum. Commissioner Keller: Thank you. Chair Holman: Any other questions? Seeing none I will close public testimony and thank all the speakers for coming and presenting their views. We will go to comments from Commissioners. Commissioner Garber. MOTION Vice-Chair Garber: I would like to make a motion that the Planning and Transportation Commission recommend the Staff Report and we recommend approval to the City Council regarding the proposed Tentative Map to subdivide the Elks Lodge site into two lots based on the findings and conditions contained with the Record of Land Use Action seen in Attachment A. Page 14 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 SECOND Commissioner Lippert: I will second that. Chair Holman: Vice-Chair Garber, would you care to speak to your motion? Vice-Chair Garber: Yes. Having reviewed the Tentative Map findings that have been articulated in Attachment A, I find no exception to them and propose that we move forward with this as previously stated. Thanks. Chair Holman: Commissioner Lippert, would you care to speak to your second? Commissioner Lippert: I completely concur with everything that my colleague has said. Chair Holman: Commissioners, any other comments? I have just one that is a clarifier for Staff. Given that Deodar Street is already in place, given that there is the emergency access across the Juniper home at the back, the future possibilities for access from E1 Camino to Wilkie could you please identify those? Mr. Williams: Well, the primary and maybe the only but certainly the primary potential access point is immediately past the boundary line of the Dinah’s hotel site property. That runs all the way from Wilkie to E1 Camino so we think there is potential that we would like to explore of looking at that. There is essentially a kind of narrow strip of land along there now that is not really being used for any particular purpose. It has some drainage difficulties and such. So that is potentially a connection. We know we wilt have to do work with the neighbors and see if that is a viable thing to took at on a trial basis or something like that but it is down the road a ways. We don’t know what the schedule for redevelopment of Dinah’s might be so it might be that we need to wait for that or it might be that we can sort ofproactively, if there seems to be support for it, work with those property owners to see if there is a potential to do something there. If that would materialize and we could make that connection along there what you will see when you see the SummerHill project Tentative Map is internally it will have a connection that would allow someone, if that other easement existed, to be able to access internal to their subdivision which could then actually tie over to the Arbor Real subdivision, also to the park internal to the SummerHill property that is proposed. So that option is preserved but it may be quite some time before we actually could, if desired, affect that connection between E1 Camino and Wilkie Way through the Dinah’s property. Chair Holman: Sorry I flipped back into a question. On the south side of the Elks property is there no additional dedication of land that would help facilitate that kind of access than is currently being proposed? Mr. Williams: You mean within this project site? Chair Holman: Yes. Page 15 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 Mr. Williams: I don’t know that it would facilitate it because until we get the portion adjacent to the Juniper Homes site there is no connection to Wilkie. So it would mean that you would sort of leave that area blank and then if that happened at some point in time where you could make that connection you would have to jog into this property and come down it. That could be done. I don’t know if that facilitates it. Either way we are going to have to get a chunk of area along that property line from the Dinah’s site one way or the other it is just theoretically we could get less of it and run something along this property. That strip is not really a usable area so our thought is that it probably makes more sense to just have one straight shot along the Dinah’s property all the way from one street to the other. Chair Hotman: It has adequate width? Mr. Williams: Yes. I think it is at least ten feet wide. Chair Holman: Okay. Commissioner Keller. Commissioner Keller: I would just like to make two comments before we vote. One comment is that I have concern about the general trend of building multi-family housing that is simply detached individual homes on tiny lots. Chair Holman: Commissioner Keller, that is not part of our purview this evening. You could make that comment in the future or send that comment to Staff. It is not part of this two lot subdivision. Commissioner Keller: Okay. Chair Holman: Sorry. Commissioner Keller: Thank you. I think that we will have to figure out the issue of the general differences in terms of the easement issues and access issues. I think we will have to address that at some point because of the concerns of immediate neighbors versus the concerns of people who are further a~vay. I think that that is something that will be worth exploring in a more general topic because it came up with Alma Plaza, it is coming up here several times, and I expect it will come up in the future. So that is worthwhile exploring. MOTION PASSED (6-0-0-1, with Commissioner Burt absent) Chair Hotman: It may come up when we get the next maps in front of us. So you will have opportunity I think. Seeing no other comments, are we ready to vote on the motion? All those in favor of the motion to support Staff recommendation say aye. (ayes) That passes on a six to zero vote with Commissioner Burt not present. Thank you all very much. Page 16 ATTACHMENT D City of Palo Aho Departtnent of Planning and Community Environment California Environmental Quality Act MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT Date: Application Nos.: Address of Project: Assessor’s Parcel Number: Applicant/Owner: October 25, 2007 07PLN-00000-00168 and 07PLN-00000-00140 4249 and 4251 E1 Camino Real 148-01-004 and 008 SummerHill Homes Elaine Breeze 777 California Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94304 Benevolent and Protective Order of Elks (BPOE) Jim Baer 171 University Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Project Description and Location: The 7.13 acre (gross) project site is located in the southern section of the City of Palo Alto, in the northern part of Santa Clara County, west of U.S. Highway 101 and east of State Route 82 (El Camino Real). The site is located southwest of Wilkie Way and southeast of the intersection of West Charleston Road and El Camino Real as shown on Figure 1, Vicinity Map. The topography of the site is relatively flat, with a site elevation that ranges between 50 and 56 feet above mean sea level sloping to the northeast. The proposed project includes the demolition of the existing Elks Lodge and accessory facilities, the subdivision of the 7.13 acre property into two parcels, the development of one of the parcels with a proposed multi family development called Palo Alto Elks Residential by SummerHill homes on 3.97 acres, the development of the other 2.82 acre parcel with the new Elks Lodge facility. A portion of the existing Elks Lodge site that is .34 acres in size would be dedicated to the City for public street purposes to create Deodar Street. S:LPLANkPLADIV\Current PlanningkEIAkM1GDEC.ML\4249 Elcamino.doc II.DETERMINATION In accordance with the City of Palo Alto’s procedures for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City has conducted an Initial Study to determine whether the proposed project located at 4249 and 4251 El Camino Real could have a significant effect on the environment. On the basis of that study, the City makes the following determination: The proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION is hereby adopted. X Although the project, as proposed, could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect on the environment in this case because mitigation measures for traffic impacts have been added to the project and, therefore, a MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION is hereby adopted. The attached initial study incorporates all relevant information regarding the potential environmental effects of the project and confirms the determination that an EIR is not required for the project. In addition, the following mitigation measures have been incorporated into the project: Mitigation Measure BIO-I: The project will be required to implement the following mitigation measure to reduce impacts to tree-nesting raptors. To the extent practicable, construction activities should be performed or vegetation removed from September through February to avoid the general nesting period of birds. If demolition, construction or vegetation removal can not be performed during this period, pre-demolition and construction surveys should be performed by a qualified biologist no sooner than 14 days prior to demolition and construction activities to locate any active nests prior to the start of demolition/construction and prior to removal of any tree. If active nests are observed, buffer zones will be established around active nesting trees, with a size acceptable to the California Department of Fish and Game. Construction activities shall avoid buffered zones and no tree will be removed until the young have fledged or the nest is otherwise abandoned. This measure will be included in the conditions for project approval. Mitigation Measure BIO-2: The project will be required to implement the following mitigation measure to reduce impacts to trees on the property and on neighboring sites. For the Palo Alto Elks Residential portion of the project: To the extent possible, the project shall comply with all Design Guidelines 6.1 and 6.2 Protection Measures of ’A Tree Protection Plan for the Elks Residential Development,’ by David L. Babby, RCA, June 20, 2007. Compliance with the tree protection measures would result in the project having a less than significant impact on the retained protected trees. S:WLANkPLADIV\Current PlanningkEIALMIGDEC.ML\4249 Elcamino.doc For the Elks Lodge Development: The project shall comply with all guidelines stated in Section 4.2 and Section 7.0 Tree Protection Guidelines of ’A Tree Protection Plan for the New Elks Lodge,’ by David L. Babby, August 24, 2007. Mitigation Measure TRAN-I: The El Camino Real ! Deodar Street intersection shall be monitored to ensure that adequate gaps are provided. The intersection could be modified to prohibit left-turns out and/or traffic signal installation could be considered if the available gaps do not accommodate the turning movement volumes. Mitigation Measure TRAN-2: To bring on-site circulation to acceptable standards, the following items shall be implemented in the project: a.Stop signs along the north-south circulation aisle at the underground garage ramp for the Elks Club parking lot. b.Crosswalk at the throat of the garage access, near the Elks Club drop-off area. c."Exit Only" or "Do Not Enter" signs at the intersection of the drop-off area and garage driveway. -~roj~ct Plan~er /Director ~f Piing and Community Environment Or Designee Date Date S:kPLANkPLAD1V\Curmnt Planning2E1A~IIGDEC.MLX4249 Elcamino.doc ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE: As the Lead Agency under CEQA, the City of Palo Alto has prepared this Initial Study to evaluate the environmental impacts that might reasonably be anticipated to result from the redevelopment of the Elks Lodge site that currently consists of 7.13 acres (gross). The project proposes to demolish the existing Elks Lodge and accessory structures, subdivide the property into two parcels, construct 45 multi-family residential units on one parcel, and construct a new Elks Lodge facility on the other parcel. Impacts of the demolition and the cumulative traffic impacts of the Palo Alto Elks Residential project and the future new Elks Lodge are discussed in this report. A formal application for Architectural Review has been submitted for the Palo Alto Elks Residential portion of the project. However, only a preliminary application has been submitted for the Elks Lodge. General potential environmental impacts of the new Elks Lodge are included in this report based on information provided in the preliminary application. A project specific environmental assessment may be prepared after a formal application for the Elks Lodge is submitted. This Initial Study of environmental impacts conforms to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations 15000 et. Seq.), and regulations and policies of the City of Palo Alto. o PROJECT TITLE Palo Alto Elks Residential and Elks Lodge Development 4249 and 4251 E1 Camino Real Palo Alto, California LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS City of Pa!o Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment 250 Hamilton Ave. Palo Alto, CA 94303 CONTACT PERSON AND PHONE NUMBER Lata Vasudevan, AICP, Planner City of Palo Alto 650-329-2165 o PROJECT SPONSOR’S NAME AND ADDRESS SummerHill Homes Palo Alto Elks Residential and Elks Lodge Page 1 Initial Study Elaine Breeze 777 California Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94304 Benevolent and Protective Order of Elks (BPOE) Jim Baer 171 University Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 APPLICATION NUMBER(S) 07PLN-00000-00168 and 07PLN-00000-00140 o o PROJECT LOCATION 4249 and 4251 E1 Camino Real, Palo Alto Parcel Numbers: 148-01-004 and 008 The 7.13 acre (gross) project site is located in the southern section of the City of Palo Alto, in the northern part of Santa Clara County, west of U.S. Highway 101 and east of State Route 82 (El Camino Real). The site is located southwest of Wilkie Way and southeast of the intersection of West Charleston Road and E! Camino Real as shown on Figure 1, Vicinity Map. The topography of the site is relatively flat, with a site elevation that ranges between 50 and 56 feet above mean sea level sloping to the northeast. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: The project site is in an area that has a Multiple Family Residential land use designation as stated in the Palo Alto 1998 - 2010 Comprehensive Plan. This land use designation allows multi-family dwelling units with net densities that range from 8 to 40 units. The targeted minimum number of homes for the project site, as noted in the Housing Site Inventory of the Housing Element, is 97 dwelling units. This target also includes the area that was originally part of the Elks Lodge site, but has since been purchased by Juniper Homes for its development of five single family homes. ZONING The project site has a split zoning designation of RM-30 and RM-15 zoning designations. The new Elks Lodge would be located entirely within the RM-30 zoning designation. However, the split zoning would be applicable to the location of the Palo Alto Elks Residential project in that 92,445 square feet of the site area would be in the RM-30 zone and 80,168 square feet of the site area would be in the RM-15 zone. The RM-15 zoning district allows a maximum density of 15 dwelling units per acre, and the RM-30 zone allows a maximum density of 30 dwelling units per acre. The project is a permitted use in both the RM-15 and RM-30 zoning districts, with a proposed density of 11.4 dwelling units per acre. Because of the unusual split zoning of this site, a blended zoning approach is used for the Elks Residential development. Palo Alto Elks Residential and Elks Lodge Page 2 Initial Study Basemap Source: USGC Quadrangles, Palo ,Mto (] 997) and Mountain View (~ 997} 0 ],000’ 2,000’4,000’ Approximate Scale in Fee~ Palo Alto Elks Residential and Elks Lodge Site Location Site Vicinity Map 4249 El Camino Real, Palo Alto, California Page 3 Initial Study Figure The RM-30 portion of the project site was the subject of a rezoning that occurred in 1989. The RM-15 portion of the project site was not amended in 1989. However, the portion of the project site that is now in the RM-30 zone was originally zoned CS (Service Commercia!) and was rezoned to the current designation in 1989. The ordinance rezoning this portion of the project site essentially specifies that the Elks Lodge is a grandfathered use. Therefore, the new Elks Lodge, which is a continuation of the existing grandfathered use, would not be subject to a Conditional Use Permit. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Background Various improvements and building additions have occurred throughout the years at the project site which is presently owned by the Benevolent and Protective Order of Elks (BPOE). The existing main Elks Lodge building is approximately 65,000 square feet with a basement fitness center/pool level. Outside facilitie~ include, but are not limited to, an enclosed picnic area and outdoor Olympic-sized pool area. In 1996, the Elks Lodge leased a portion of the parking lot to a cell tower company for construction of a monopole, which has received Architectural Review approval from the City. In 1997, the Elks leased the northeast portion of the site to a private schoo!/child development center. The school address is 4251 E1 Camino Real and modular buildings were used to create the school buildings. The school vacated the site in April of 2007. SummerHill Homes is acquiring 3.97 acres of land from BPOE. The proposed Palo Alto Elks Residential project is part of a larger plan for the entire Elks Lodge site that has been under study by BPOE for over ten years. The entire Elks Lodge site is proposed to be redeveloped into three projects: ~ Fronting Wilkie Way will be a development consisting of five parcels by Juniper Homes, each with a single-family detached home. Environmental review and City approval of the five-lot subdivision has already occurred, and three of the five homes have received Architectural Review approval. ~ Fronting E1 Camino Real will be an approximately 2.82 acre site that would be retained by BPOE and developed as a new fraternal lodge. An application for Preliminary Architectural Review was submitted and was reviewed by the ARB on August 2, 2007. Based on review of the preliminary plans, the new Elks Lodge will be a two-story building with a maximum height of 40 feet, over a one-level underground parking garage. The central parcel, between the Juniper Homes development and the future Elks Lodge site, consists of 3.97 acres. SummerHill Homes proposes to develop this site with 45 detached multi-family townhouse units and a park, called the Palo Alto Elks Residential development. The existing Elks Lodge Building, a cellular antenna pole, a pool, two snack bar structures, several modular buildings, restroom and maintenance structures and an RV dump station are presently situated on this central portion of the Elks Lodge site. The proposed SummerHill Homes project includes the demolition of these structures as well as a cell tower structure in the front parking lot area. It is anticipated that the existing wireless facility (by Cingular) would be relocated on the Elks Lodge portion of the project site. However, plans for its relocation have not yet been finalized Palo Alto Elks Residential and Elks Lodge Page 4 Initial Study The proposed project includes the demolition of the existing Elks Lodge and accessory facilities, the subdivision of the 7.13 acre property into two parcels, the development of one of the parcels with a proposed multi family development called Palo Alto Elks Residential by SummerHill homes on 3.97 acres, the development of the other 2.82 acre parcel with the new Elks Lodge facility. A portion of the existing Elks Lodge site that is .34 acres in size would be dedicated to the City for public street purposes to create Deodar Street. Proposed Multi-family Development by SummerHill Homes (Palo Alto Elks Residential) The project consists of 45 multi-family units, two and three-story detached townhomes with private streets and a publicly accessible park, as well as pedestrian-oriented landscaped common and private open space areas. The detached townhomes would range from approximately 1768 to 2365 square feet (excluding garage square footage), with three or four bedrooms and two-car attached garages. The project density would be approximately 11.4 units per acre. Primary, ingress and egress is provided from Deodar Street at two locations. An emergency vehicle access is also situated along the northeastern portion of the project with access to Wilkie Way across Lot 1 of the Juniper Homes Project. Seven different floor plans are proposed for the project with 21 different facade designs. Exterior materials will include stucco, lap siding, board and batten, high profile composition shingle roofing, wood-clad windows. Other elements include metal canopies, metal and wood railings, and metal accent roofing. All proposed units will include a 2-car, attached, side-by-side garage with extra storage space for a bicycle, trash and recycling areas. Fifteen guest parking spaces are provided in four locations on the project site. Seven of these spaces are proposed near the park. The park would be located adjacent to the Juniper Homes site and would be accessible from Deodar Street and from a path that would be located on an internal street within the project that is adjacent to the guest parking spaces. In terms of pedestrian/bicycle circulation to improve street and neighborhood connectivity other than via Deodar Street, the applicant is considering an easement access near the proposed carwash area to the Dinah’s property should this property be redeveloped. 15% BMR Contribution The project is required to comply with the City’s Below Market Rate (BMR) Program H-36 of the Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan. The project has a 15% BMR requirement, which for the 45-units proposed equals seven BM_R units (45 times 15% equals 6.75 units, which must be rounded up to 7 full units). The standard policy is that BMR units reflect the range of unit types, sizes and models of the market units being constructed. BMR units must also be located throughout the project. There would be 4 three-bedroom units and 3 four bedroom units of various floor plans. Five of the BMR units must be sold at lower moderate income prices and the remaining two BMRs will be sold at the higher moderate income prices. Parkland Dedication The project is the first development subject to Palo Alto’s Parkland Dedication Ordinance effective in August 2006 and specified in PAMC Chapter 21.50. PAMC 21.50 requires .0050 Palo A}to Elks Residential and Elks Lodge Page 5 Initial Study acres of land for each multiple family dwelling unit. For the proposed 45 detached townhomes, .23 acres or 9,968 square feet of park area would be required. SummerHill Homes proposes to dedicate approximately .48 acres of parkland. This exceeds the parkland dedication requirement and brings the proposed park closer to a ’mini-park’ (.5-acre) category, which is the smallest of the city park categories. The park is anticipated to be used by the residents of the adjacent DR Horton residential project as well as this project. It is proposed that the park would be dedicated as parkland, improved with landscaping and play equipment at the expense of the project applicant, and maintained by the project’s homeowners association. Sustainable Planning and Green Building Sustainable community planning and green building features have been incorporated into the proposed project. A New Home Greenpoints Checklist is included in the project file. Site Utilities and Stormwater q)ualit,/ Storm water and water will be served from Wilkie Way via a public utility easement. Water and fire prevention service will be connected to the main in Deodar Street and loop through the project. A new sanitary sewer main to be constructed in Deodar Street will connect the project to the existing main in E1 Camino Real. The project will comply with all C-3 requirements. It is anticipated that the proposed project will reduce the amount of impervious surface on the site by more than 50%. Stormwater will be treated using a combination of both biological and mechanical means. Additional Proiect Components Design Enhancement Exceptions are requested for the following aspects of the project: a.A DEE is proposed for a four-foot setback encroachment of Unit 1 along Deodar Street. The required front setback is 20 feet. b. A second DEE is proposed for the side setback of Units 18 and 19 where the proposed setback is 16 feet only at a small extent of the facades. The required side setback is 20 feet because the side lot line for these two units is adjacent to R-1 zoned properties. c. A third DEE is proposed for the minor daylight plane encroachment for Units 15-19, perimeter units within the RM-15 zone. The current zoning requirement for daylight planes in the RM-15 zone is five feet up at the property line and angled over the parcel at 45 degrees. Proposed new Elks Lodge As indicated above, only a preliminary application for Architectural Review has been submitted so far and was reviewed by the Architectural Review Board on August 2, 2007. The new Elks Lodge would be situated on a proposed 2.8 acre comer lot abutting E1 Camino Real and Deodar Street, which is proposed for dedication to the City as a public right-of-way. Pursuant to PAMC 18.04.030(91)(A), the front lot line for the new Elks Lodge parcel would be along Deodar Street since it is shorter in length than the property line along E1 Camino Real. This orientation is also Palo Alto Elks Residential and Elks Lodge Page 6 Initial Study consistent with the Pa!o Alto Elks Residential portion of the project site in that the front lot line for that development would also be along Deodar Street. , The approximate total floor area of the proposed two-story lodge would be 63,250 square feet. The basement parking level does not count towards the allowable floor area limit, and would be 77,400 square feet in size with 221 parking spaces. The proposed on-site landscape features include several outdoor eating/gathering areas, three pools and a smal! tot lot. There would be 10 grade-level parking spaces near the front entrance to the Elks Lodge complex adjacent to Deodar Street. The new Elks Lodge would provide a more up-to-date community recreational facility for members compared to its existing facility that was originally built in 1941, and was significantly remodeled and expanded in the mid-fifties and again in 1967. Trees The new Elks Lodge site would be situated in an area that is currently a paved parking area for the existing Lodge. Therefore, most of the trees that would be impacted as a result of construction of the new Elks Lodge are trees at the periphery of the project site. An Arborist Report prepared for the Elks Lodge development identifies 15 street trees in the project vicinity and four protected trees that are either on the property or are overhanging onto the project site. In all, there would be 14 trees that would be removed to accommodate the proposed new Elks Lodge. Of these trees, only two trees are City-regulated street trees along E1 Camino Real. According to the Arborist Report, these street trees are small and can easily be replaced. Based on review of the preliminary plans for the Elks Lodge development, the applicant proposes to plant additional street trees. The Arborist has identified mitigations to minimize impacts to the preserved trees. Parking According to the traffic report submitted for this project, a detailed parking analysis for the Elks Lodge development is forthcoming once the details of the design have been finalized in a formal application for Architectural Review. The Elks Lodge development will be required to comply with all parking requirements of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. 10. SURROUNDING LAND USES AND SETTING The project site is bordered to the north and northeast by existing and newly-constructed, unoccupied residential structures; to the south and southeast by an apartment complex, Dinah’s Garden Hotel, Dinah’s Pool Side Grill and Trader Vic’s Restaurant; to the southwest by E1 Camino Real, and to the west and northwest by vacant land under construction with new residential tracts. In general, the vicinity of the project site consists of residential and commercial properties. 11.OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES County of Santa Clara, Office of the County Clerk-Recorder Palo Alto Elks Residential and Elks Lodge Page 7 Initial Study 12.PROJECT APPROVALS The proposed project would require the following planning approvals from the City of Palo Alto: ® Architectural Review with Design Enhancement Exceptions for the Palo Alto Elks Residential development and the new Elks Lodge. ~ Tentative and Final Map approvals for a two lot subdivision: one parcel would be for the new Elks Lodge site and the other parcel would be for the Palo Alto Elks Residential project. ~ Tentative Map and Final Map approvals for the 45-unit townhouse subdivision. DATE PREPARED: August 28, 2007 PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD: August 31, 2007 through September 19, 2007 DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS The following Environmental Checklist was used to identify environmental impacts, which could occur if the proposed project is implemented. The left-hand column in the checklist lists the source(s) for the answer to each question. The sources cited are identified at the end of the checklist. Discussions of the basis for each answer and a discussion of mitigation measures that are proposed to reduce potential significant impacts are included. A. AESTHETICS Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: a)Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? Have a substantiaiadvers~ effect on a public view or view corridor? c)Substantially damage scenic ’ resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? ...... d) Violate existing Comprehensive Plan policies regarding visual resources ? Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would 1,2,6,13 1,2- Map IA 1, Z- Map IA 2 Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Palo Alto Elks Residential and Elks Lodge Page 8 Initial Study Less Than Significant Impact X No Impact X X Issues and Supporting Information f) Resources Would the project: adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Substantially shadow public open space (other than public streets and adjacent sidewalks) between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. from September 21 to March 21 ? Sources 1,2,6 6 Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact X X No Impact DISCUSSION: a) The proposed homes would be consistent with the character of the surrounding areas that is developed with multi-family and single-family housing. The project would actually be more consistent with the surrounding uses than the current uses (which includes a fraternal lodge and school/childcare facilities) as configured on the site. The new Elks Lodge has been designed to be situated closer to E1 Camino Real. The siting of the proposed Lodge is consistent with the City’s South El Carnino Real Design Guidelines. This document mentions that if the Elks Lodge site is redeveloped, new buildings shall be placed along E1 Camino Real to create a more continuous building frontage, and that parking shall be placed behind buildings or underground. Therefore, the project would actually improve the visual character of the area. b-d) The City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan identifies six throughfares that have particularly high scenic value: Sand Hill Road, University Avenue, Embarcadero Rd., Page Mill Rd./Oregon Expressway, Arastradero Rd. and Foothill Expressway-Juniperro Serra Blvd. The project site can not be seen from any of these six identified thoroughfares. Due to the flat topography of the project site and surrounding area, views of the project site are limited to the existing vicinity. No other scenic resources or vistas are identified in the city. The California Department of Transportation administers the state’s Scenic Highways Program. Interstate 280 (I-280) is the only Designated California Scenic Highway that is closest to the project site. 1-280 is approximately two miles from the project site and can not be viewed from the project site. Therefore the project would have no impact on scenic resources. e) A lighting study was provided by the applicant for the Palo Alto Elks Residential project and is included in the project plans. Pursuant to PAMC 18.23.030, where a light source is measured from outside the property boundaries, such lighting shall not exceed .5 foot-candle as measured at the abutting residential property line. The project is consistent with this requirement in all places except near unit #18 adjacent to the Wilkie Way Homes. The project will be conditioned such that a bollard is placed in this area such that the foot-candle reading is consistent with the Municipal Code. This is not considered a mitigation measure as this is a specific Municipal Code requirement. A lighting analysis has not been submitted for the Elks Lodge, but this analysis will be required for the formal application submittal. Compliance with PAMC 18.23.030 (which specifies lighting requirements Palo Alto Elks Residential and Elks Lodge Page 9 Initial Study to minimize impacts on abutting or nearby residential sites and from adjacent roadways) would be required for this project. For the reasons described above, the proposed project would not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista or views from a designated scenic highway, would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or the quality of the project site and its surroundings, and would not create a new source of substantial light and glare because the project would be required to comply with City Code requirements. g) There are no public open spaces in the vicinity of the project site other than the future proposed park. The shading impacts will be less than significant based on review of the shading study included in the project plans for the Palo Alto Elks Residential portion of the project. Mitigation Measures: None Significance after Mitigation: N/A B.AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: a)Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? c)Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non- agricultural use? SOUFCes 1,2 19- MapL9, 9 Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact X X X Palo Alto Elks Residential and Elks Lodge Page 10 Initial Study DISCUSSION: a-c) The site is not located in a "Prime Farmland", "Unique Farmland", or "Farmland of Statewide Importance" area, as shown on the maps prepared for the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency. The site is not zoned for agricultural use, and is not regulated by the Williamson Act. Mitigation Measures: None Significance after Mitigation: None Sources AIR QUALITY Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: a)Conflict with or obstruct with implementation of the applicable air quality plan (1982 Bay Area Air Quality Plan & 2000 Clean Air Plan)? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation indicated by the following: c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial levels of toxic air contaminants? 1,2,8 1,2,8 1,5,8 1,2,5,8 Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact X X X e) Create objectionable odors affecting X a substantial number of people?1, 5 No Impact X DISCUSSION: a-c) The project site is within the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) is the regional governmental agency that monitors and regulates air pollution within the air basin. Air quality and the amount of a given pollutant in the atmosphere are Palo Alto Elks Residential and Elks Lodge Page 1 1 Initial Study determined by the amount of pollutant released and the atmosphere’s ability to transport and dilute the pollutant. The major determination of transport and dilution are wind, atmospheric stability, terrain and for photochemical pollutants, sun light. Three pollutants are known to exceed the state and federal standards in the project area: ozone, particulates (PM10), and carbon monoxide. Both ozone and PM10 are considered regional pollutants because their concentrations are not determined by the proximity to individual sources, but show a relative uniformity over a region. Carbon monoxide is considered a local pollutant because elevated concentrations are usually only found near the source (e.g. congested intersections. Long-Term Air 0uality Impacts BAAQMD has established thresholds for what could be considered a significant impact on existing air quality. A project that generates more than 80 pounds per day of reactive organic gases (ROG) would have a significant impact on regional air quality, according to BAAQMD CEQA guidelines. BAAQMD generally does not consider that a project generating less than 2,000 vehicle trips per day is likely to exceed their adopted thresholds of significance, and does not recommend preparation of a detailed air quality analysis. The Transportation Impact analysis completed for the proposed project includes data related to traffic generated by the new Elks Lodge and the Palo Alto Elks Residential project. This analysis has determined that no new net trips would be generated as a result of the two projects. For this reason, the proposed project would not result in significant long term air quality impacts and a detailed air quality analysis was not prepared for this project. Short-term Air Quality Impacts Project construction has the potential to result in short-term air quality impacts resulting from dust generating activities, the use of solvents, paints and other construction materials that tend to volatize into the atmosphere. Construction-related air quality impacts result from dust generating activities and exhaust emissions from construction equipment. Due to the negligible amount and the short duration of these impacts, all are considered to be less than significant, except for the dust generating construction activities. Construction activities, such as excavation and grading operations and wind blowing over exposed earth, generate fugitive particulate matter that will affect local and regional air quality. The effects of these dust generating activities will be increased dustfall and locally elevated levels of PM10 downwind of construction activity. Construction dust has the potential for creating a nuisance at nearby properties. Standard Measures: The project proposes to implement the following standard measures during all phases of construction to prevent visible dust emissions from leaving the site: Water all active construction areas at least twice daily and more often during windy periods to prevent visible dust from leaving the site; active areas adjacent to windy periods, active areas Palo Alto Elks Residential and Elks Lodge Page 12 Initial Study adjacent to existing land uses shall be kept damp at all times, or shall be treated with non-toxic stabilizers or dust palliatives. Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand and other loose materials or require all trucks to maintain at least two (2) feet of freeboard. Pave, apply water at least three times daily, or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads, parking areas and staging areas at construction sites. Sweep daily (or more often if necessary) to prevent visible dust from leaving the site (preferably with water sweepers) all paved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas at construction. sites. Water-sweepers shall vacuum excess water to avoid runoff-related impacts to water quality. Sweep streets daily, or more often if necessary (preferably with water sweepers) if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent public streets. Install wheel washers for all existing trucks, or wash off the tires or tracks of all trucks and equipment leaving the site. Install wind breaks or plant tree/vegetative wind breaks at windward side of construction areas. Suspend excavation and grading activities when wind gusts exceed 25 mph. Therefore, with implementation of the standard measures listed above, the project would not result in a significant air quality impact. d) Construction activities could expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. However, with implementation of a dust abatement program described above, this impact would be reduced to less than significant level. e) As a general matter, the types of land use development that pose potential odor problems include wastewater treatment plants, refineries, landfills, composting facilities and transfer stations. Therefore, the project would not create objectionable odors that would affect a substantial number of people. Also, there are no existing odor sources in the vicinity, of the project site that the occupants of the proposed residences would be subjected to. a-e) Mitigation Measures: None, with the implementation of Standard Measures. a-e) Significance after Mitigation: N/A Sources a) BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications; on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or X,2- Map N-1 Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact X Palo Alto Elks Residential and Elks Lodge Page 13 Initial Study Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: regulationsl or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, including federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? c)Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nuysery sites? d) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or as defined by the City of Palo Alto’s Tree Preservation Ordinance (Municipal Code Section 8.!,0)? e) Conflict With any applicable Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 1,2- Map N- 1 l~2- Map N-1 1,6,7,1 1 1,2 X X X X DISCUSSION: a-c) The project site is located in an urban area that is developed with a fraternal lodge, a school and other accessory structures. The existing site is highly disturbed and has minimal capacity to support sensitive biological resources, with the exception of a chance for raptors to nest in the wooded area of Palo Alto Elks Residential and Elks Lodge Page 14 Initial Study the project site where the public park is proposed. The project site is not near any natural resource areas as identified in the Natural Environment Element of the City Comprehensive Plan. An EIR written for the DR Horton Development has identified these ten types of birds in the area: American Crow, Scrub Jay, lesser goldfinch, yetlow-rumped warbler, Anna’s hummingbird, bushtit, chestnut-backed chickadee, northern mockingbird, mourning dove and Cooper’s hawk. None of the species observed in the project area are listed as special status species and there are no sensitive species in the area. However, as the EIR noted, a Coopers hawk was seen flying over the project site and heading north to a tall tree to the north of the site. The Coopers Hawk is categorized as a state sensitive status species. Breeding birds are protected under the California Fish and Game Code 3503 and raptors are protected under Section 3503.5. Potential impacts to breeding or nesting birds occurring as a result of demolition and project construction would be minimized to less than significant level with the implementation of the mitigation measure specified below. MitiNation Measure BIO-I: The project will be required to implement the following mitigation measure to reduce impacts to tree-nesting raptors. To the extent practicable, construction activities should be performed or vegetation removed from September through February to avoid the general nesting period of birds. K demolition, construction or vegetation removal can not be performed during this period, pre-demolition and construction surveys should be performed by a qualified biologist no sooner than 14 days prior to demolition and construction activities to locate any active nests prior to the start of demolition/construction and prior to removal of any tree. If active nests are observed, buffer zones will be established around active nesting trees, with a size acceptable to the California Department of Fish and Game. Construction activities shall avoid buffered zones and no tree will be removed until the young have fledged or the nest is otherwise abandoned. This measure will be included in the conditions for project approval. d) The PAMC section City of Palo Alto has established Tree Preservation and Management Regulations, included as Chapter 18.10, to provide ~standards for removal, maintenance, and planting of trees." PAMC 8.10.020@ defines a protected tree as: a.Any tree of the species Quercz¢s agrifolia (Coast Live Oak) or Quercus lobata (Valley Oak) which is eleven and one-half inches in diameter (thirty-six inches in circumference) or more when measured four and one-half feet (fifty-four inches) above natural grade; b. Any Redwood tree (species Sequoia sempervirens) that is eighteen inches in diameter (fifty- seven inches in circumference) or more when measured four and one-half feet (fifty-four inches) above natural grade. c. A heritage tree designated by the city council in accordance with the provisions of this chapter. A tree survey identified 68 trees of fifteen various species on the Palo Alto Elks Residential portion of the project site; 28 trees are defined as protected according to the City of Palo Alto. Of these 28 trees, 4 trees are protected redwood trees that are proposed for removal. These 4 trees are generally near the second entrance to the project from Deodar Street. A Tree Removal Permit must be obtained from the Palo Alto Elks Residential and Elks Lodge Page !5 Initial Study City prior to removal of the protected trees. The granting of this Tree Removal Permit is supportable given the design constraints of the project and the number of remaining protected trees. The applicant also proposes to plant many trees throughout the project site which the City Arborist has determined to be sufficient in mitigating the loss of the trees to be removed. The proposed project has the potential to cause decline to 13 trees as identified in Section 4.2 of the Tree Protection Plan prepared by David L. Babby RCA. The tree survey identifies mitigation measui-es that shall be incorporated in the plans to reduce the potential impact on retained protected trees to a less than significant level. Most all of the protected trees are in the proposed park area where new homes, utility and other park improvements are proposed. These mitigation measures specified below will be incorporated as conditions of project approval and will mitigate impacts to existing trees on the property to less than significant impacts. The new Elks Lodge site would be situated in an area that is currently a paved parking area for the existing Lodge. Therefore, most of the trees that would be impacted as a result of construction of the new Elks Lodge are ones on the periphery of the project site. An Arborist Report prepared for the Elks Lodge development identifies 15 street trees in the project vicinity and four protected trees that are either on the property or are overhanging onto the project site. In all, there would be 14 trees that would be removed to accommodate the proposed new Elks Lodge. Of these trees, only two trees are City- regulated street trees along E1 Camino Real. According to the Arborist Report, these street trees are small and can easily be replaced. Four trees that are on the neighboring property to the south would most potentially be significantly impacted. Two of these trees are Coast Redwoods that are considered ’protected trees’ in the City of Palo Alto. The Arborist Report prepared for the Elks Lodge development identifies several measures to mitigate impacts and achieve reasonable tree survival and stability of these trees. These measures as well as the design guidelines contained in the Arborist Report are included below as mitigation measures. ,,3,litigation Measure BIO-2: For the Palo Alto Elks Residential portion of the project: To the extent possible, the project shall comply with all Design Guidelines 6.1 and 6.2 Protection Measures of ’A Tree Protection Plan for the Elks Residential Development,’ by David Babby, June 20, 2007. Compliance with the tree protection measures would result in the project having a less than significant impact on the retained protected trees. For the Elks Lodge Development: The project shal! comply with all guidelines stated in Section 4.2 and Section 7.0 Tree Protection Guidelines of ’A Tree Protection Plan for the New Elks Lodge,’ by David Babby, August 24, 2007. Significance after Mitigation: With implementation of the above mitigation with respect to trees and nesting birds, the impacts of the proposed project would be less than significant. Palo Alto Elks Residential and Elks Lodge Page !6 Initial Study Eo Sources CULTURAL RESOURCES Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: a) Directly or indirectly destroy a local cultural resource that is recognized by City Council resolution? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to 15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? e)Adversely affect a historic resource listed or eligible for listing on the National and/or California Register, or listed on the City’s Historic Inventory? ~ Eliminate important examples of major periods of California history or prehistory? 1,2- MapL8 1,2-Map L-8 Potentially Significant Unless Potentially Significant Issues Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact X X X X DISCUSSION: a) There are no City Council recognized cultural resources or in the project site. b - d) and f) The project site is located in an area designated by the Comprehensive Plan as a moderately sensitive area for archaeological resources. The following standard measures will be applied to the project to reduce impacts to archaeological resources. Standard Measures: Should evidence of prehistoric cultural resources be discovered during demolition and construction, work within 50 feet of the find shall be stopped to allow adequate time for evaluation and mitigation by a qualified professional archaeologist. The material shall be evaluated and if significant, a mitigation program including collection and analysis of the materials at a recognized storage facility shall be developed and implemented under the direction of the City’s Director of Planning and Community Environment. Palo Alto Elks Residential and Elks Lodge Page 17 Initial Study As required by County Ordinance, in the event of the discovery of human remains during demolition/construction, there shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains. The Santa Clara County Coroner shall be notified and shall make a determination as to whether the remains are Native American. If the coroner determines that the remains are not subject to his authority, he shall notify the Native American Heritage Commission who shall attempt to identify descendents of the deceased Native American. If no satisfactory agreement can be reached as to the disposition of the remains pursuant to state law, then the land owner shall re-inter the human remains and items associated with Native American burials on the property in a location not subject to further subsurface disturbance. e) The existing structures on the project site are not listed in any City, State or National Historic lists. Mitigation Measures: None required if standard measures are followed. Significance after Mitigation: N/A Fo GEOLOGY, SelLS AND SEISMICITY Sources~ssues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: a)Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? See below 5,9,12 Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact X X 2-Map N-I0 X iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?2-Map X N-5 iv) Landslides?2-X Pale Alto Elks Residential and Elks Lodge Page 18 Initial Study No Impact b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? ~ Expose people or property to major geologic hazards that cannot be mitigated through the use of standard engineering design and seismic safety techniques? MapN5 1,12 5,12 5,12 X X X DISCUSSION: Topography. Soil and Groundwater The topography of the site is relatively flat. Site elevations range from 50 to 56 feet above mean sea level sloping to the northeast. Subsurface soils at the project site include layers of silty sand and sandy silt in the uppermost 14.5 to 20 feet bgs (below ground surface), with layers of clayey and sandy silt, clayey, silty and gravelly sand, silty clay and sand to depths of 23 to 28 feet bgs. Native soils in the vicinity typically consist of clay loam with a soil component name of Botella. The project site lies in the Santa Clara Valley Groundwater Basin within the Santa Clara Sub-basin (California Department of Water Resources website). Groundwater bearing formations in the vicinity of the project site consist of Quarternary alluvium. Groundwater was encountered during a subsurface investigation at the depth of 20 to 27 feet bgs. The estimated direction of shallow groundwater flow in the site vicinity is northeast. The project site is located in an area with a historic ground subsidence of 2 feet. Palo Alto Elks Residential and Elks Lodge Page I9 Initial Study Seismicity Palo Alto is located in a very geologically active part of the world. The San Andreas Fault passes through the community. The fault is capable of producing a quake with a magnitude 8.4 earthquake. The project site is situated in an area characterized by strong ground shaking. However, the site is not located in an Atquist-Priolo Special Study zone. Liquefaction Liquefaction is a seismic hazard in which soils are temporary transformed into a liquid state during the stress of an earthquake. Soils most susceptible to liquefaction are clean, loose, saturated and uniformly graded, fine grained sands. The main constituent of on-site soil is clay. The project site is not located within a liquefaction hazard zone. Lateral Spreading Lateral spreading is the horizontal displacement of soil during a seismic event towards an open face such as a body of water, channel or excavation. There are no open faces near the project site. For this reason, the probability of lateral spreading occurringon the project site during a seismic event is considered to be low. Due to its location within a seismically active region, the proposed would likely be subject to at least one moderate to major earthquake. The project would be designed and constructed in conformance with the Uniform Building Code Guidelines for Seismic Zone 4 to avoid minimize potential damage from seismic shaking on the site. Conformance with standard Uniform Building Code Guidelines would minimize potential impacts seismic shaking on the site. a-f) Mitigation Measures: None Significance after Mitigation: None Palo Alto Elks Residential and Elks Lodge Page 20 Initial Study G.HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: a)Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routing transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c)Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Construct a school on a property that is subject to hazards from hazardous materials contamination, emissions or accidental release? d)Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e)For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f)For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people Sources 2,5 5 Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact X No Impact X X X X X Palo Alto Elks Residential and Elks Lodge Page 21 Initial Study residing or working the project area? h) J) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment from existing hazardous materials contamination by exposing future occupants or users of the site to contamination in excess of soil and ground water cleanup goals developed for the site? 1,2- MapN7 MapN7 X X X DISCUSSION: a - d) Based upon historical research conducted by LFR in its Phase 1 Environmental Analysis of the project site, the site was used as farmland prior to being developed with the current structures. Various improvements and building additions have occurred throughout the years at the Site. In 1996, the Elks Lodge leased a portion of the parking lot to a cell tower company for construction of a monopole. In 1997, the Elks leased the northeast portion of the site to a private school. The school address is 4251 E1 Camino Real and modular buildings were used to create the school buildings. The main Elks Lodge facility includes an indoor swin~ning pool, a pistol range, a ballroom, a lodge, a large gym, bar and lounge, a billiard room and miscellaneous offices and restrooms. LFR observed small quantities of chemicals used in the pools and maintenance of the building. No evidence of staining ~or discoloration was observed during LFR’s visit. An RV dump station is connected to the sanitary sewer line, which is located at the entrance to the existing picnic area. The site is not listed on any regulatory agency databases and there are no environmental liens against the property. There are no public schools and no known private schools within a quarter mile of the project site. Potential ACM were observed throughout the interior of the main building. Based on the age of the structures, lead-based paint was likely used on the interior and exterior painted surfaces. LFR recommends preparation of a complete demolition survey to assess for ACM’s and LBP prior to demolition and disposal. Palo Alto Elks Residential and Elks Lodge Page 22 Initial Study Off-site findin ~s: The property located northwest of the site was formerly Hyatt Ricky’s. This facility was listed as a LUST facility, however, the facility received closure from the lead agency in 2004. Based upon the current regulatory status and presumed downgradient position with respect to groundwater flow, this facility is unlikely to present an environmental concern for the site. As standard procedure, LFR recommends complete removal of the residual material from the former pistol range area, including any spent bullets. LFR also recommends that all small quantities of chemicals be removed and disposed of in accordance with applicable laws prior to demolition of facility. The project will be required to follow the standard measures listed below to reduce impacts related to ACMs and lead based paint: Standard Measures: 1.In conformance with State and Local laws, visual inspection/pre-demolition survey, and possible sampling will be constructed prior to the demolition of the building to determine the presence of asbestos-containing materials and/or lead-based paint. 2.All Potentially friable asbestos-containing materials shall be removed in accordance with National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air pollutants (NESHAP) guidelines prior to building demolition or renovation that may disturb materials. 3. All demolition activities will be undertaken in accordance with Cal/OSHA standards contained in Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR), Section 1529, to protect workers from exposure to asbestos. Materials containing more than one percent asbestos are also subject to BAAQMD regulations. 4. During demolition activities, all building materials containing lead-based paint shall be removed in accordance with Cal/OSHA Lead in Construction Standard, Title 8, California Code of Regulations 1532.1, including employees training, employee air monitoring and dust control. Any debris or soil containing lead-based paint or coatings will be disposed at landfills that meet acceptance criteria for the waste being disposed. g) The project is not in the vicinity of a private air strip. h) The project is approximately 200 feet from E1 Camino Real which is an evacuation route identified in the City’s Comprehensive Plan. The proposed project would not interfere with this evacuation route. Mitigation Measures: None required if standard measures are followed. Significance after Mitigation: N/A Palo Alto Elks Residential and Elks Lodge Page 23 Initial Study HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Issues and Supporting Information Sources Resources Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which perrnits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing ..... drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? d)Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? e)Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? ..... g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or 1,2,12 MapN2 1,12 1,12 1,12 1,12 Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact X X X X X X No Impact X Palo Alto Elks Residenlial and Elks Lodge Page 24 Initial Study 1Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures, which would impede or redirect flood flows ? i)Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involve flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam or being located within a 100-year flood hazard area? j)Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? k) Result in stream bank instability? MapN6 MapN6 N8 MapN6 N8 X X X X DISCUSSION: a - f) The applicants have submitted a conceptual site grading and drainage plan for both the Palo Alto Elks Residential Project in its formal application and the new Elks Lodge in its preliminary application. In order to address potential storm water quality impacts, the plans identify, the Best Management Practices (BMP’s) to be incorporated into the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that will be required for the project. The SWPPP is required to include permanent BMP’s to be incorporated into the project to protect storm water quality. The elements of the PWE-approved conceptual grading and drainage plan shall be incorporated into the building permit plans. Prior to submittal for a building permit, the following items will be required of the applicants. These are standard conditions to be incorporated in the conditions of approval for both the Palo Alto Elks Residential Project and the new Elks Lodge. Standard Measures: 1.A Grading and Excavation Permit issued by the City of Palo Alto (CPA) Building Inspection Division is required for the proposed project. 2.The applicant may be required to provide storm water detention on-site to lessen the project’s impact on city storm drains. The applicant’s engineer shall provide storm drain flow and detention calculations, including pre-project and post-project conditions. The calculations must be signed and stamped by a registered civil engineer 3. The applicant shall submit a final grading and drainage plan to Public Works Engineering. This plan shall show spot elevations or contours of the site and demonstrate the proper conveyance of storm water to the nearest adequate municipal storm drainage system. Existing drainage patterns, including accommodation of runoff from adjacent properties, shall be maintained. 4. The proposed development will result in a change in the impervious area of the property. The applicant shall provide calculations showing the adjusted impervious area with the building permit application. A Storm Drainage Fee adjustment on the applicant’s monthly City utility bill will take place in the month following the final approval of the construction by the Building Inspection Division. The impervious area calculation sheets and instructions are available from Pato Alto Elks Residential and Elks Lodge Page 25 Initial Study Public Works Engineering. 5.A construction logistics plan shall be provided, addressing at minimum parking, truck routes and staging, materials storage, and the provision of pedestrian and vehicular traffic adjacent to the construction site. Al! truck routes shall conform with the City of Palo Alto’s Trucks and Truck Route Ordinance, Chapter 10.48, and the route map which outlines truck routes available throughout the City of Palo Alto. A handout describing these and other requirements for a construction logistics plan is available from Public Works Engineering. 6. A detailed site-specific soil report prepared by a licensed soils or geo-technical engineer must be submitted which includes information on water table and basement construction issues. This report shall identify the current groundwater level, if encountered, and by using this and other available information, as wel! as professional experience, the engineer shall estimate the highest projected ground-water level likely to be encountered in the future. If the proposed basement is reasonably above the projected highest water level, then the basement can be constructed in a conventional manner with a subsurface perimeter drainage system to relieve hydrostatic pressure. If not, measures must be undertaken to render the basement waterproof and able to withstand all projected hydrostatic and soil pressures. No pumping of ground water is allowed. In general, however, Public Works Engineering recommends that structures be constructed in such a way that they do not penetrate existing or projected ground water levels. 7.This proposed development will disturb more than one acre of land. The applicant must apply for coverage under the State Water Resources Control Board’s (SWRCB) NPDES general permit for storm water discharge associated with construction activity. A Notice of Intent (NOI) must be filed for this project with the SWRCB in order to obtain coverage under the permit. The General Permit requires the applicant to prepare and implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SXVPPP). The applicant is required to submit two copies of the NOI and the draft SWPPP to the Public Works Department for review and approval prior to issuance of the building permit. The SWPPP should include both permanent, post-development project design features and temporary measures employed during construction to control storm water pollution. Specific Best Management Practices (BMP’s) which apply to the work should be incorporated into the design. 8. The applicant is required to paint the ’°No Dumping/Flows to Ban:on Creek" logo in blue color on a white background, adjacent to all storm drain inlets. Stencils of the logo are available from the Public Works Environmental Compliance Division, which may be contacted at (650) 329- 2598. A deposit may be required to secure the return of the stencil. Include the instruction to paint the logos on the construction grading and drainage plan. Include maintenance of these logos in the Hazardous Materials Management Plan, if such a plan is part of this project. DURING CONSTRUCTION the applicant will be required to comply with the followin~ measures: 9.The contractor must contact the CPA Public Works Inspector at (650) 496-6929 prior to any work performed in the public right-of-way. 10.No storage of construction materials is permitted in the street or on the sidewalk without prior approval of Public Works Engineering. 11. The developer shall require its contractor to incorporate best management practices (BMP’s) for stormwater pollution prevention in all construction operations, in conformance with the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan prepared for the project. It is unlawful to discharge any Pa!o Alto Elks Residential and Elks Lodge Page 26 Initial Study construction debris (soil, asphalt, sawcut slurry, paint, chemicals, etc.) or other waste materials into gutters or storm drains. (PAMC Chapter 16.09). g-k) Based on the FEMA flood insurance maps for the City of Palo Alto, the project site is not located within a 100-year flood plain. For this reason, the project would have no impact on 100 year flows and would not expose people to flood hazards associated with the 100-year flood. The site is not subject to seiche or tsunami or flooding as the result of dam or levee failure. a-k) Mitigation Measures: None required with implementation of standard measures. Significance after Mitigation: N/A Sources LAND USE AND PLANNING Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? b) Conflict with an3’ applicable iand use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c)Conflict with any applicable habitat ..... conservation plan or natural community .conservation plan? ’ d) Substantially adversely change the type or intensity of existing or planned land use in the area? e) Be incompatible with ~djacen{land uses or with the general character of the surrounding area, including density and...bui!ding height? f) Conflict with established residential, recreational, educational, religious, or scientific uses of an area? gi Convert prime farmland, unique ...... farmland, or farmland of statewide importance (farmland) to non- agricultural use? 1,2 1,2 1,2 1.2 1,2 Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact X X No Impact 2 X X Paid Alto Elks Residential and Elks Lodge Page 27 Initial Study DISCUSSION: a-g) The project site is located in an urban area developed with commercial and residential uses. Existing development on the 3.9 acre project site includes an approximately 65,000 square foot Elks Lodge Building with a basement fitness center/pool level, an approximately 15,000 square foot school/childcare center in separate modular buildings and an enclosed picnic area and outdoor Olympic sized pool area. The project site is bordered to the north and northeast by existing and newly-constructed unoccupied residential structures; to the south and southeast by an apartment complex, Dinah’s Garden Hotel, Dinah’s Pool Side Grill and Trader Vic’s Restaurant; to the southwest by E1 Camino Real and followed by Sky Ranch Motel and to the west and northwest by vacant land under construction with new residential tract. In general, the vicinity of the project site consists of residential and commercial properties. The proposed multi-family development is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan land use designation of Multiple Family Residential. The project complies with all zoning regulations with the exception of requested Design Enhancement Exceptions (DEE) with respect to: A DEE is proposed for a four-foot setback encroachment of Unit 1 along Deodar Street. The required front setback is 20 feet. A second DEE is proposed for the side setback of Units 18 and 19 where the proposed setback is 16 feet only at a small extent of the facades. The required side setback is 20 feet because the side lot line for these two units is adjacent to R-1 zoned properties. A third DEE is proposed for the minor daylight plane encroachment for Units 15-19, perimeter units within the RM-15 zone. The current zoning requirement for daylight planes in the RM-15 zone is five feet up at the property line and angled over the parcel at 45 degrees. The requested DEEs are minor in scope and would not have any significant impacts on privacy or access to light on adjacent properties. With respect to the new Elks Lodge, the RM-30 portion of the project site was the subject of a rezoning that occurred in 1989. The RM-15 portion of the project site was not amended in 1989. However, the portion of the project site that is now in the RM-30 zone was originally zoned CS (Service Commercial) and was rezoned to the current designation in 1989. The ordinance rezoning this portion of the project site essentially specifies that the Elks Lodge is a grandfathered use. Therefore, the new Elks Lodge, which is a continuation of the existing grandfathered use, would not be subject to a Conditional Use Permit. This project site (8.08 acres including the Juniper Homes Development) is listed in the Housing Sites Inventory of the Comprehensive Plan as one of 16 potential housing sites most suitable for residential purposes. The targeted number of homes for this project site, as noted in the Housing Site Inventory of the Housing Element, is a minimum of 97 dwelling units. A total of 50 residential units are proposed in the Palo Alto Elks Residential development and the Juniper Homes development. This means that there would be a loss of 47 potential housing units. However, this loss has been balanced by other housing development projects that have been approved on sites listed in the Inventory and at other locations not on this list. A Design Enhancement Exception has also been requested as reviewed in the preliminary application for the new Elks Lodge. The maximum height allowed for structures in the RM-30 zone is 35 feet. The proposed Elks Lodge has a maximum height of 40 feet. However, this maximum height is only at certain Palo Alto Elks Residential and Elks Lodge Page 28 Initial Study portions of the building elevation and is therefore very minor in scope. Additional DEEs may or may not be requested during the formal review stage. Such additional DEEs, if requested for the new Elks Lodge, would be evaluated in a separate environmental assessment during the formal application review stage for the Elks Lodge. The project site is not located in an area that is protected by an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state conservation plan. The proposed project does not include any features that would physically divide an established community. Examples of projects that have the potential to physically divide an established community include new major roadways or railroad lines. Mitigation Measures: None Significance after Mitigation: None Sources MINERAL RESOURCES Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: a)Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b)Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? 1,2 1,2 Potentially Significant Unless Potentially Significant Issues Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact X X DISCUSSION: The project will not impact known mineral or locally important mineral resources. Mitigation Measures: None Significance after Mitigation: None Palo Alto Elks Residential and Elks Lodge Page 29 Initial Study K. NOISE Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: a)Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground borne vibrations or ground borne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f)For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Sources 1,2,10 1,2 1,2,10 1,2,10 Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact X X X X No Impact X X DISCUSSION: a-f) The Natural Environment Element of the City’s Comprehensive Plan identifies noise and land use compatibility standards for various land uses. The City’s goal is to: (1) Locate new land uses and development projects in areas with compatible noise levels, (2) Minimize the noise created by new development and its impact on existing land uses, and (3) minimize disturbances within the City due to excessive noise. Furthermore, new multi-family housing in California is subject to the environmental noise limits in Appendix Chapter 1208A.8.4 of the California Building Code. The noise limit is a maximum interior noise level of 45 dBA DNL (which stands for Day.Night Level and is a 24-hour average of noise levels, with a 10dB penalty applied to noise occurring between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.). Where exterior noise levels exceed 60 dBA DNL, a report must be submitted describing the noise Palo Alto Elks Residential and Elks Lodge Page 30 Initial Study control measures that have been incorporated into the design of the project to met the 45 dBA DNL limit. The local noise environment results primarily from vehicular traffic on E1 Camino Real and West Charleston Road. Local traffic on Wilkie Way also contributes to measured noise levels away from West Charleston Road. In addition, the sound of train horns from the CalTrain corridor which is approximately one-half mile away are intermittently audible. Based on the Hyatt Ricky’s Hotel and Residentia! Project Draft EIR, the estimated noise exposure at the E1 Camino Real street frontage (60 feet from the centerline of the road) is 67 to 69 dBA DNL. Based on this EIR, the noise levels along Wilkie Way (measured at 25 feet from the centerline of Wilkie Way was 61 dBA DNL. Given that the proposed SummerHill Homes development would be located approximately 300 feet from E1 Camino Real and approximately 200 feet from Witkie Way, it is anticipated the average noise levels would be below the 60 dBA DNL range. The proposed project includes a public outdoor park area. The shielding provided by the proposed residential homes on Wilkie Way would reduce outdoor noise levels in the common outdoor use area. The future development of the Elks Lodge and its noise impacts on this project development will be evaluated in a separate environmental assessment. Nonetheless, compliance with the City’s Noise Ordinance would be required for the new Elks Lodge development. As described in the Transportation section of this report, the project would not result in any net new trips on the roadways. Typically, traffic volumes on a roadway must double to result in a substantial noise increase. Roadway volumes in the project area would not double as a result of the proposed project. Therefore, traffic generated by the proposed project would not result in a significant noise impact. Typically, small residential project do not generate significant noise impacts when standard construction noise control measures are enforced at the project site and when the duration of the noise generating demolition and construction period. The demolition of the existing Elks Lodge and accessory structures is estimated to last approximately one and one-half months. It has not been specified at this time when the construction of the new Elks Lodge would commence. The construction of the proposed townhomes is anticipated to last a total of 18 months. Construction noises associated with projects of this type are disturbances necessary for the construction or repair of buildings and structures in urban areas. Reasonable regulation of the hours of construction, as well as regulation of the arrival and operation of heavy equipment and the delivery of construction materials is necessary to avoid significant noise impacts. City development standards would reduce potential negative impacts of the project to less than significant. The project site is not in the vicinity of a private air strip. Standard Measure: As a standard measure, prior to issuance of building permits, the project developer for the Palo Alto Elks Residential development shall retain a qualified acoustical consultant to check the building plans for all units to ensure that interior noise levels can be sufficiently attenuated to 45 DNL to the satisfaction of the City Building Official. All aspects of the project are required to be in compliance with the City’s Noise Ordinance. Palo Alto Elks Residential and Elks Lodge Page 31 Initial Study Mitigation Measures: None required with implementation of standard measures. Significance after Mitigation: N/A go Sources POPULATION AND HOUSING Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: a)Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c)Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? 1,2,8 Potentially Significant Unless Potentially Significant Issues Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact X No Impact X X DISCUSSION: According to the Comprehensive Plan, in 1996, the population in Palo Alto’s sphere of influence was 58,000 people. The population is projected to increase to 62,880 by 2010. The proposed residential portion of the project would add 45 units to the housing stock and would cumulatively contribute to increased population in the area. The average household size in Palo Alto is 2.24 persons, which would mean the project, with 45 dwelling units, could generate an average of- 101 more people. The project’s cumulative impacts for the purposes of CEQA are also considered tess than significant, as the population impact from the project a!one is not considerable. City development standards, development fees and standard conditions of project approval reduce potential negative impacts of the project to less than significant. Mitigation Measures: None Significance after Mitigation: N/A Palo Alto Elks Residential and Elks Lodge Page 32 Initial Study M. PUBLIC SERVICES Issues and Supporting Information Sources a) Resources Would the project: Would the project result in substantiaI adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated public services: Fire protection? Police protection? Schools? P arks ? Other public facilities? 12 12 1 1,2 1,2 Less Than Significant Impact X X X X X No Impact DISCUSSION: Fire: The project would not increase the urban area protected by the City’s Fire Department or require new facilities. Development allowed in the proposed project would be constructed in conformance with current fire and building codes. The project design would also be reviewed by the City’s Fire Department. Police Service: The project would not increase the urban area protected by the City’s Police forces or require new police facilities. The project design would be reviewed by the City of Palo Alto Police department to ensure that it incorporates appropriate safety measures to minimize criminal activity. The City’s police department has reviewed and approved the proposed public park design and lighting. Palo Alto Elks Residential and Elks Lodge Page 33 Initial Study Schools: The project site is located within the boundary of the Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD). Students from the project development would attend Juana Briones Elementary School, Terman Middle School and Gunn High School. Using the PAUSD student generation rates: 5 students would be generated from the proposed 7 below market rate units (7 units at a ratio of .70 children per unit), and approximately 35 students from the remaining 38 detached townhouse residences (at a rate of .90 students per unit), for a project total of approximately 40 additional students. Current enrollment in PAUSD is already beyond capacity. PAUSD has already been informed by City Staff of the proposed Palo Alto Elks Residential development and the adjacent Juniper Homes development of five single family homes, and will include the new student figures in its district-wide enrollment forecasts. The California appellate court has determined that overcrowding is not considered a significant effect under CEQA [Goleta Union School District v. The Regents of the Universi~. of California, 35 Cal. App. 4th 1121 (1995)]. Rather, the increase in students from a project is only significant if such a school would create any environmental impacts. School impact fees are applicable to the Palo Alto Elks Residential portion of the project. Parks and Public Facilities: The City of Palo Alto’s Parkland Dedication Ordinance (PAMC Chapter 21.50) requires residential developers to dedicate public park land or pay in-lieu fees, or both, to offset the demand for neighborhood parkland created by their housing developments. The acreage of parkland/ fee required is based on a formula specified in PAMC Chapter 21.50. The project developer has chosen to dedicate parkland for public use. According to the formula contained in PAMC, chapter 21.50, the applicant is required to dedicate approximately .23 acres. The proposed project more than satisfies this requirement by providing approximately .48 acres. Standard Measure: The project will be required to comply with PAMC Chapter 21.50 Libraries: The incremental increase in demand upon library services that would result from the proposed project will not trigger the need to construct a new library and would not result in a significant impact to library facilities. Mitigation Measures: Implementation of the standard measure would result in less than significant impacts. Significance after Mitigation: N/A Palo Alto Elks Residential and Elks Lodge Page 34 Initial Study N. RECREATION issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources a)Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b)Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? 1,3,6,12 1,3,6,12 Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporat ed Less Than Significa nt Impact X X No Impact DISCUSSION: There would not be a significant change in the demand of existing recreational services as a result of the proposed project. The Elks Residential portion of the project proposes a new park that would be dedicated for public use to serve the nearby residents. Its proposed size at .48 acres is similar to a mini-park as defined in the City Code, which is .5 acres in size. The new Elks Lodge would have primarily recreational uses. However, the existing Elks Lodge and the new Elks Lodge have similar square footages and types of recreational uses such that it is expected that there would not be adverse impacts on the environment. Mitigation Measures: None Significance after Mitigation: None O. TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Issues and Supporting information Resources a) Would the project: Cause an increase in traffic, which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street syst.~m (i:e., result in a sub.stantial Sotlrces Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Palo Alto Elks Residential and Elks Lodge Page 35 Initial Study Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: SOUFCeS increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? Result in inadequate emergency access? Result in inadequate parking capacity? Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative eotransportation ( .~., pedestrian, transit & ~icycle facilities)? h) Cause a local (City of Palo Alto) intersection to deteriorate below Level of Service (LOS) D and cause an increase in the average stopped delay for the critical movements by four seconds or more and the critical volume/capacity ratio (V/C) value to increase by 0.01 or more? i) Cause a local intersection already operating at LOS E or F to deteriorate in the average stopped delay for the critical movements by four seconds or more? j) Cause a regional intersection to Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation incorporated Less Than Significant Impact X X X X No Impact e)8 X f) x g) X X X 8 Palo Alto Elks Residential and Elks Lodge Page 36 Initial Study Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: deteriorate from an LOS E or better to LOS F or cause critical movement delay at such an intersection already operating at LOS F to increase by four seconds or more and the critical V/C value to increase by 0.01 or more? k)Cause a freeway segment to operate at LOS F or contribute traffic in excess of 1% of segment capacity to a freeway segment already operating at LOS F? 1)Cause any change in traffic that would increase the Traffic Infusion on Residential Environment (TIRE) index by 0.1 or more? m) Cause queuing impacts based on a comparative analysis between the design queue length and the available queue storage capacity? Queuing impacts include, but are not limited to, spillback queues at project access locations; queues at turn lanes at intersections that block through traffic; queues at lane drops; queues at one intersection that extend back to impact other intersections, and spillback queues on ramps. n)Impede the development or function of planned pedestrian or bicycle facilities? .... o) Impede the operation Of a transit system as a result of cdngestion? .p) Create an operational safety hazard? Sources 8 8 8 8 8 Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated X Less Than Significant Impact X X No Impact DISCUSSION: a-p) The existing Elks Lodge facility, including the fitness and recreation center and the 230 student school facility (which is no longer at the site as of April 2007) was estimated to generate 2,323 daily trips, 220 AM peak-hour trips, and 310 PM peak hour trips. Traffic impacts of both the future Elks Lodge and the Palo Alto Elks Residential project were evaluated in the Fehr and Peers traffic analysis. Palo Alto Elks Residential and Elks Lodge Page 37 Initial Study The proposed project, including the reconstructed Elks Lodge with recreation and fitness facilities for Elks members, and the construction of 45 primarily detached residential units, is estimated to generate 349 fewer daily trips, 126 fewer AM peak-hour trips, and 85 fewer PM peak hour trips. The trip reduction is due to the removal of the 230 student school/child development facility that will not be part of the project. The project proposes a southbound left turn pocket on E1 Camino Rea! to access Deodar Street. The applicant for the Palo Alto Elks Residential portion of the project will be seeking the necessary permits from the California Department of Transportation for the proposed modification to E1 Camino Real. Intersection Level of Service Analysis Intersection operations were evaluated at. eight study intersections with level of service calculations during the weekday morning (AM) and evening (PM) peak periods for Existing, Background, Project, Cumulative (2015) No Project conditions and Cumulative (2015) Plus Project conditions. All intersections are projected to operate at improved levels of service under the project scenarios compared with the Existing, Background, or Cumulative Conditions for both the AM and PM peak-hours. Thus, no significant impacts were identified. Proiect Roadway Analysis Based on the proposed trip assignment on the project driveways, a southbound left turn pocket of 175 feet is recommended to accommodate inbound vehicles. No significant queues are projected on Deodar Street. However, the Fehr and Peers traffic analysis recommends that this intersection be monitored as described below in Mitigation Measure TRAN-1. The on-site circulation is considered acceptable with the addition of three items at the future Elks Lodge site, as noted in the Fehr and Peers traffic analysis. These requirements have been included as mitigation measures under Mitigation Measure TRAN-2. Mitigation Measure TRAN-I: The E1 Camino Deodar Street intersection shall be monitored to ensure that adequate gaps are provided. The intersection could be modified to prohibit left-turns out and!or traffic signal installation could be considered if the available gaps do not accommodate the turning movement volumes. Mitigation Measure TRAN-2: To bring on-site circulation to acceptable standards, the following items shall be implemented in the project: a.Stop signs along the north-south circulation aisle at the underground garage ramp for the Elks Lodge parking lot. b. Crosswalk at the throat of the garage access, near the Elks Club drop-off area. c. "Exit Only" or "Do Not Enter" signs at the intersection of the drop-off area and garage driveway. Bicycle and Pedestrian Analysis The project is expected to have a less than significant impact to the pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities since adequate pedestrian facilities are provided. The proposed project does not conflict with existing or planned bicycle and pedestrian facilities, and existing transit service is provided within one- Palo Alto Elks Residential and Elks Lodge Page 38 Initial Study quarter mile of the project site. The Elks Lodge facility will be required to provide the necessary bicycle parking facilities specified in the City Code. Parking Analysis On site parking for the Elks Residential portion of the project meets the parking requirements specified in PAMC Chapter 18.83. Parking estimates for the Elks Lodge are on-going and will be evaluated in a more specific environmental assessment for the new Elks Lodge. However, the Elks Lodge facility will be required to provide all required parking spaces on-site based on the uses of the lodge. Mitigation: None required, Significance after Mitigation: N/A Issues and Supporting Information Resources a) b) UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Sources Would the project: Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c)Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d)Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e)Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has inadequate 1,2,12 1,2,12 1,2,12 1,2,12 Potentially Significant Unless Potentially Significant Issues Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact X X X X X Palo Alto Elks Residential and Elks Lodge Page 39 Initial Study No Impact Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? f)Be served by a landfi!l with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? h)Result in a substantial physical deterioration of a public facility due to increased use as a result of the project? Sources 12 12 Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact X X X No Impact DISCUSSION: a-h) The proposed project would not significantly increase the demand on existing utilities and service systems, or use resources in a wasteful manner. As standard conditions of approval, the applicants for both developments in the project will be required to submit calculations by a registered civil engineer to show that on-site and off-site water, sewer and fire systems are capable of serving the needs of the development and adjacent properties during peak flow demands. Trash and recycling facilities are proposed in the project to accommodate the expected waste and recycling streams that would be generated by the expected uses within the building. Mitigation Measures: None Significance after Mitigation: N/A Palo Alto Elks Residential and Elks Lodge Page 40 Initial Study Q. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Resources Would the project: a)Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? 1,2,7 1,2,10 1,4 Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated X Less Than Significant Impact X X No Impact DISCUSSION: a) Based on the analysis conducted in this Initial Study, the project does not have the potential to substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, or reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal. However, the project does have the potential to impact nesting birds and trees on the site as a result of demolition and construction activities. With the implementation of the mitigation measures included in Palo Alto Elks Residential and Elks Lodge Page 41 Initial Study the project and described in the specific sections of this report, the proposed project would result in less than significant environmental impacts. b) With the implementation of mitigation and standard measures identified in this environmental document, the proposed project would have no cumulatively considerable impacts. The project has been analyzed with respect to demolition and traffic impacts of the proposed project which includes the Palo Alto Elks Residential development and has taken into consideration potential impacts of the new Elks Lodge for which a formal application has not yet been submitted. Any specific potential impacts with respect to parking, lighting and noise impacts created by the new Elks Lodge would be analyzed further based on review of the formal application for the Lodge, which has not yet been submitted. c) The potential effects of the proposed project on human beings have been analyzed in this document. The proposed project will not cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly, upon implementation of standard measures identified in this report and as will be incorporated in the project conditions of approval. SOURCE REFERENCES 2. 3. 4. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. Project Planner’s knowledge of the site and the proposed project. Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, 1998-2010. Palo Alto Municipal Code, Title 18 - Zoning Ordinance. Required compliance with the Uniform Building Code (UBC) Standards for Seismic Safety and Windload. LFR Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report and Limited Phase H Investigation, Palo Alto Elks Lodge, December 21, 2006. Project Plans for Palo Alto Elks Residential (Architectural Review Application 07PLN-00168 - plans submitted August 7, 2007), 2-lot Tentative Map (Application 07PLN-00140 - plans submitted July 26, 2007) and for the Elks Lodge (Preliminary Architectural Review Application 07PLN-00176 -plans submitted July 24, 2007). A Tree Protection Plan for the Elks Residential Development, David L. Babby, RCA, June 20, 2007 and A Tree Protection Plan for the New Elks Lodge, David L. Babby, RCA, August 24, 2007. Final Transportation. Impact Analysis, Fehr & Peers, August 2007. Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map. Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Hyatt Rickey’s Hotel and Residential Project, prepared by the City of Palo Alto and Wagstaff and Associates, March 2002. Palo Alto Tree Technical Manual, Municipal Code Chapter 8.10.030, June 2001. Departmental communication/memos from Fire, Utilities, PuNic Works, Police, Planning Arborist, Real Estate, Community Services that address environmental issues. South El Camino Real Design Guidelines, June 2002, prepared by Van Meter Williams Pollack and Kendall Planning Design. Palo Alto Elks Residential and Elks Lodge Page 42 Initial Study ATTACHMENTS 1.A Tree Protection Plan for the Elks Residential Development, David 1. Babby, RCA, June 20, 2007 and A Tree Protection Plan for the New Elks Lodge, David L. Babby, RCA, August 24, 2007. 2. Final Transportation Impact Analysis, Fehr & Peers, August 2007. PREPARED BY Lata Vasudevan, AICP, Planner MANAGER REVIEW Amy French, AICP, Current Planning Manager Paid Alto Elks Residential and Elks Lodge Page 43 Initial Study DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there wil! not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect: 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects - (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Directd o~f ]51~nnt~ng and Community Environment Date Date X Palo Alto Elks Residential and Elks Lodge Page 44 Initial Study Aa oa R souaces Professional Arboricultural Consulting & Tree Care A TREE PROTECTION PLAN FOR THE ELKS RES~ENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA Prepared for: SummerHill Homes 777 California Street Palo Alto, CA 94303 650-857-0122 Prepared by: David L. Babby, RCA Registered Consulting Arborist #399 Certi/~ed Arborist #WE-4OO1A June 20, 2007 P.O. Box 25295 San b,’lateo, California 94402 * Email: arborresources@comcast.net Phone: 650.654.3351 ~ Fax: 650.240.0777 o Licensed Contractor #796763 David L, Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist June 20, 2007 SECTION 1.0 2.(~ 3.0 4.~) 7.0 TABLE OF CONTENTS TITLE PAGE INTRODUCTION ...........................................................1 1.1 Project Overview .........................................................1 1.2 Scope of Work .............................................................1 1.3 Purpose and Use of Report ..............................................2 TREE COUNT AND COMPOSITION ..................................2 SIBTABILITY FOR TREE PRESERVATION .......................4 PROJECT REVIEW ........................................................5 4.1 Tree Removals .............................................................5 4.2 Trees Potentially at Significant Risk ....................................7 TREE APPRAISAL VALUES ............................................9 TREE PROTECTION GUIDELINES ...................................9 6.1 Design Guidelines ........................................................10 6.2 Protection Measures before and during Development ................ ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITING CONDITIONS ..................17 EXHIBIT A B C D EXH][B~TS TITLE TREE INVENTORY TABLE SITE MAP PHOTOGRAPHS (includes photo index) FENCING SIGN TEMPLATE Title Page: Photograph shows the tree landscape along the southwest section of the property. It was taken facing north from the existing Elks Lodge parking lot at the front entrance of the existing picnic area. David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist June 20, 2007 !.(} ~NTRODUCT~ON 1o! Project Overview SummerHill Homes is planning to construct 45 multiple family residences on 3.963 acres at the Elks Lodge site in Palo Alto, California. The project site is situated between a five- lot subdivision to the east and the future site for a new Elks Lodge t6 the west. Site development involves demolishing the existing Elks building, a swimming pool, picnic area, accessory buildings, and hardscape. 1.2 Scope of Work I have been retained by SummerHii1 Homes to prepare a "tree protection plan," and in doing so, have executed the following tasks for conformance with the City ofPalo Alto’s Municipal Code:~ Identify all trees that have trunk diameters larger than four inches in diameter (measured at 12 inches above grade) and are located either on-site, on neighboring properties (provided their canopies overhang the site), or along the new public right-of-way of Deodar Street (i.e. "street trees") within 30 feet of the project site. Measure their trunk diameter at approximately 54 inches above grade or as appropriate to obtain the most representative sample of trunk size. ~Assign monetary values to each tree (i.e. appraise the trees’ values). o Estimate tree height and canopy spread. ~Ascertain the trees’ health and structural integrity. ~Determine the trees’ suitability for preservation (e.g. high, moderate or low). ~Identify trees defined by the City of Palo Alto as "protected trees" and "street trees" (information regarding these classifications can be viewed on pages xiii and xiv of the City’s Tree Technical Manual2). ~Obtain photographs of the trees (these can be viewed in Exhibit C). ~Distinguish between trees to be retained and removed. ! Note that most information regarding the trees’ sizes and conditions are either extracted or modified from the previous report I prepared for Elks Lodge; the report is dated 9/14/05 and titled "An Inventory and Evaluation of Trees at the Elks Lodge Property." "~ The Tree Technical Manual can be viewed at h~tp://www.city.palo-alto.ca.us/trees/technical-manual.htm]. Elks Residential, Palo Alto, CA SummerHill Homes, Property Owner Page ] of] 7 David L, Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist June 20, 2007 Review the following plans: Sheets C4.0 thru C8.0 (dated 5/31/07) by BKF Engineers, and Sheets L1.0 thru L5.3 (dated 5/30/07) by Van Dorn ABED Landscape Architects, Inc. Prepare a written report containing the aforementioned information, as well as provide recommendations to help avoid or mitigate anticipated impacts to trees that will be retained, to include site inspections required by the City of Palo Alto. For identification purposes, metal tags with engraved numbers corresponding to the trees’ numbers were attached to the trees’ trunks. !.3 Purpose and Use of Repor~ This report has been prepared to comply with the City of Palo Alto Municipal Code, Chapter 8.10.030. Its purpose is to [1] inform SummerHill Homes, the project design team, the City of Palo Alto, and other decision-makers of the type, size and condition of trees within and immediately adjacent to the area proposed for development, and [2] present recommendations for minimizing damage to trees being retained. To my understanding, this report will be used in the planning process of project development, including for and incorporation into architecture, civil and landscape drawings, as well as integration into applicable environmental assessment documents. TREE COUNT AND COMPOSITION There are 77 trees of fifteen various species inventoried for this report. They are sequentially numbered as 23, 28-42, 44-47, 49-56, 96-107, 109, 110, ll0a, 111-138, 176, 179, 180, 186, !87 and 189, and the following table identifies their name, numbers and percentage: American Sweetgum Camphor Tree 103, 104 39,100 2 3% Page 2of27Elks Residential, -palo Alto, CA SummerHill Homes, .Property Owner David L Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist June 20, 2007 Chinese Elm Coast Live Oak Coast Redwood Deodar Cedar Evergreen Pear Fern Pine Hollywood Juniper Italian Stone Pine Maidenhair T tee Red Oak Siberian Elm Tree-of-Heaven Trident Maple 40-42, 44-46 96, 98, 102, 179, 180, 187, 189 111-118, 122-138 121 47 49-56 28-38, 119, 120 106, 107 109, 110 99, 101 110a 23, 105, 176, 186 97 6 7 25 1 1 8 13 2 2 2 1 1 8% 32% 1% 1% 10% 17% 3% 3% 3% 1% 5% 1% Total 77 100% Specific information regarding each tree is presented within the Tree Inventory Table in Exhibit A. The tree and locations can be viewed on an attached copy of Sheet C4.0 in Exhibit B (Tree Disposition Plan). Three small trees (#43, 48 and 108) have been removed from the site since I performed my initial inventory in September 2005; as a result, they are not included in this report. They include [1] #43, a 5.5-inch diameter Chinese elm; [2] #48, a four-inch diameter evergreen pear; and [3] #!t)8, a 9-inch diameter sweetgum in extremely poor condition. Elks _Residential, Palo Alto, CA Sumrnerfarill Homes, Property Owner Page 3 of] 7 David L Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist June 20, 2007 Trees #23, 56 and 96 overhang the site from neighboring properties. Tree #56 is a small five-inch diameter fern pine situated on the Juniper Homes development site; I am unsure of its future disposition but presume it is being removed. Trees #23 and 96 are anticipated to be adequately protected, provided recommendations presented in this report, are followed. Twenty-eight of the inventoried trees are defined as "protected trees" pursuant to Section 8.10 of the City’s Municipal Code; they include trees #96, 98, 102, 1!!-118, 122-136, !87 and !89. Six of the trees are located within the median islands along Deodar Street and are regarded as "street trees" per Section 8.04.020 of the Municipal Code; they include #176, 179, !80, 186, !87 and 189. Note that trees #186, 187 and 189 are not shown on the plans, but their locations can be viewed on page C-7 of Exhibit C. Also, note that all trees along Deodar Street that are between tree #189 and the northeast property corner have already been removed. Tree #99, a 28-inch diameter red oak, is recognized by the Ci~’ as a unique specimen due to its size and good condition. The tree is approximately 50 feet tall and has a canopy that spreads approximately 65 feet across. 3.(~SUITABILITY FOR TREE PRESERVATION Each tree has been assigned a "high," "moderate" or "low" suitability for preservation rating as a method for cumulatively measuring and considering their physiological health, structural integrity, location, size and species. A description of these ratings with the assigned tree numbers are presented below; note that the "high" category comprises 30 trees (or 39-percent), the "moderate" category also 28 trees (or 36-percent), and the "low" category 19 trees (or 25-percent). Elks Residential, Palo Alto, CA SummerHill Homes, Property Owner Page 4 of l 7 David L Babbyo Registered Consulting Arborist June 20, 2007 Hi_~[g_h_: Applies to trees #39, 40, 42, 44, 46, 47, 96, 98-100, 102, 106, 114-118, 122-124, 126, 127, 129-132, 134, 135, 187 and 189. These trees appear in overall good health, have seemingly stable structures, and show a high potential of providing long-term contribution to the site. They are considered the most suitable for retention. Moderate: Applies to trees #23, 28, 31-38, 50, 54-56, 97,109-112, 11%121,125, 133, !36~ 137, 176 and 186. These trees contribute to the site but not at seemingly significant levels. They are usually worthy of protection, however, not at the expense of major design revisions. Typically, their longevity and contribution is less than those of high suitability and more frequent care is needed during their remaining life span. Low: Applies to trees #29, 30, 4!, 45, 49, 51-53, 101, 103-105, 107, ll0a, 113,128, 138 (dead), 179 and 180. These trees are predisposed to irreparable health problems and/or structural defects that are expected to worsen regardless of measures employed. In many instances, they are in decline and/or have poor structural integrity. 4.t9 PROJECT REVIEW 4.1 Tree Removals Of the 68 trees located on the subiect site. 38 are indicated on the Tree Disposition Plan (Sheet C4.0) to be removed to accommodate future development. The following table identifies their assigned number, species, trunk diameter, suitability for preservation rating, and "protected tree" status: TREE NO. 28 29 TREE NAME (Common) Hollywood Juniper Hollywood Juniper 6.5 Moderate 4.5 Moderate El’ks Residential, Palo Alto, CA SumrnerHill Homes, Proper& Owner Page 5 of 17 David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist June 20, 2007 TREEN0..:’I: 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 45 47 49 5O 51 52 53 54 55 101 103 TREE NAME ................ ,, Hollywood Juniper Hollywood Juniper Hollywood Juniper Hollywood Juniper Hollywood Juniper Hollywood Juniper Hollywood Juniper Hollywood Juniper Hollywood Juniper Camphor Tree Chinese Elm Chinese Elm Chinese Elm Evergreen Pear Fern Pine Fern Pine Fern Pine Fern Pine Fern Pine Fern Pine Fern Pine Red Oak American Sweetgum Elks Residential, Palo Alto, CA SummerHill Homes, Property Owner Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate High High Low Low High Low Moderate Low Low Low Moderate Moderate Low Low Page 6 of 17 David L Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist June 20 2007 104 American Sweetgum 11.5 Low 105 Tree of Heaven 8, 7 Low 106 Italian Stone Pine 8 High 107 Italian Stone Pine 18 Low 109 Maidenhair Tree 17 Moderate i !0 Maidenhair Tree 10 Moderate 110a Siberian Elm 28.5 Low 118 Coast Redwood 19.5 High !19 Hollywood Juniper 5.5 Moderate 11,10,8, 120 Hollywood Juniper 8, 7, 7 Moderate 123 Coast Redwood 28 High 124 Coast Redwood 27.5 High 125 Coast Redwood 21 Moderate vA X X X In addition to these trees, I recommend trees #11)1 and 138 are also removed. Tree #1~)1 is a 15-inch diameter red oak in extremely poor condition, and tree #138 is a dead, 17-inch diameter redwood. Photographs of these trees can be viewed on page C-4 of Exhibit C. 4.2 Trees Potentially at Significant Risk The following trees are indicated (on Sheet C4.0) for retention, though are potentially at the greatest risk of being subjected to instability and premature decline: #99, 100, 112-117, 121, 122, 126, !34 and 135. However, provided recommendations presented within this report can be implemented, the impacts can likely be reduced to less-than-significant. Elks Residential, Palo Alto, CA SummerHill Homes, Property Owner Page 7 of ] 7 David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist dune 20, 2007 Trees #99 and 100 would be affected during construction of the backyard patios. I recommend this be mitigated by the patios being comprised of decks constructed with discontinuous footings, in which no soil cuts or fill occur except vertically for the posts. Trees #117, a coast redwood with a trunk diameter of 18 inches, will sustain root loss of more than 50-percent of root zone, including large roots that help serve as anchorage. A sidewalk is proposed within inches of the trunk, and the curb/gutter for the new street will require soil cuts within only a few feet from the trunk’s base. To lessen this impact, I recommend the sidewalk is established to the opposite side of the street (near building 21), and the street!curb/gutter is shifted as far away from the trunk as possible, which to my understanding is one-foot. Tree #126, a 30-inch diameter coast redwood, will also be impacted during construction of the street, a situation that would result in soil cuts within only a few feet from the trunk’s base. I am advised that the street can shifted three feet further away from the tree’s trunk, an action I recommend be employed to achieve a more tolerable level of impacts. Trees #12i and 122 would sustain significant root loss during excavation required for the foundation of building 42. To mitigate this potential damage, I recommend utilizing a pier and above-grade beam foundation in which the beams are placed entirely on top of existing soil grade and no excavation occurs between the piers. I am also advised that that building 42 can be shifted three feet further from these trees’ trunks, an action I recommend occurs. Trees #112 thru 1!5 would sustain significant root loss for constructing the foundations and back-yard patios of buildings 19 and 20. As mitigation, I recommend pier and above-grade beam foundations are also employed, and the patios be comprised of decks with discontinuous footings (as previously discussed for trees #99 and 100). Elks _Residential, Palo Alto, CA SummerHill Homes, Property Owner Page 8 of )7 David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist June 20, 2007 Trees #134 and 135 would be affected by installation of the proposed storm drain beneath their Canopies. To mitigate the potential damage, the section of line within 15 feet from their trunks should be directionally bored by at least 3.5 feet below grade. Note that most of the ground beneath the canopies of "protected trees" to be retained is covered by relatively thick slabs of concrete pavement. The project design should consider this as it may assist with the opportunity to construct features, as specified within this report, to be built on top of existing soil grade (i.e. the grade directly beneath the existing concrete slabs). 5°0 TREE APPRAI[SAL VALUES The appraised value for each tree is presented within the last column of the table in Exhibit A. They are calculated using the Trunk Formula Method and in accordance with the Guide for Plant Appraisal, 9~h Edition, publisl~ed by the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA), 2000, and used in conjunction with the Species Classifcation and Group Assignment, published by the Western Chapter of the ISA, 2004. The combined appraised value of trees located on the subject site and planned for retention (per Sheet C4.0) is $208~480. 6.0 TREE PROTECTION GU](DELINES Recommendations presented within this section are intended to serve-as guidelines for achieving viable mitigation and the protection of trees planned for retention. They should be carefully followed and incorporated into the project plans. Please note that any or all recommendations are subject to revision upon reviewing additional or revised plans. Additionally, I should be consulted in the event any of the recommendations cannot be followed or implemented in their entirety. Elks Residential, Palo Alto, CA SummerHill Homes, Property Owner Page 9 o~I 7 David L Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist June 20, 2007 6.! Design Guidelines 1. For design purposes, the Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) shall be regarded as the minimal area within a radial distance from a trunk of seven times its diameter (e.g. a 14-foot TPZ for 24-inch diameter tree). The TPZ is where all grading (soil cuts, fill and finish- grading), trenching3 and soil scraping should be avoided. In areas where this is not feasible, alternative measures are specified to mitigate the damage. In the event the recommended measures cannot be implemented, the impacts should be reviewed by the project arborist4 to determine whether an alternative TPZ can potentially support a tree’s longevity and stability. 2.The illustration of tree protection fencing on the plans, which will reflect the construction phase, should be no further than five feet from the proposed buildings (excluding the walkways and rear patios), two feet from the proposed streets, and enclose the TPZ (or beyond) in all other directions. On lots # 19, 20 and 42, the sections of homes within a TPZ should be built using a pier and above-grade beam foundations with the beams established entirely on top of existing soil grade with no excavation except vertically for the piers. Additionally, trenching for drainage and utilities within the TPZ must be avoided; if necessary, the utilities should be attached to the home’s structure. All walkways, concrete step pads, natural stone pavers in park, and backyard decks (in lieu of the proposed patios) within a TPZ must be established entirely on top of existing soil grade (including base materials, edging and forms); for the backyard decks, discontinuous footings with no excavation between the posts should be used. Vertical cuts should be avoided; if essential, they should not exceed four inches below existing soil grade. Additionally, direct compaction of the existing soil surface (i.e. subgrade) must be avoided; the subbase materials can be compacted but should not ~ This includes, but is not limited to, irrigation, lighting, drainage, and underground utilities and services. ~ The "project arborist" refers to me or another individual that is certified by the ISA and!or is a member of the American Society of Consulting Arborists (ASCA). Elks Residential, Palo Alto, CA SummerHill Homes, Property Owner Page 10 of J7 David L Babbyo Registered Consulting Arborist June 20, 2007 exceed an 85-percent density. Soil fill can be used to sharply bevel the top of a walk to existing grade. 5.The future staging area and route(s) of access should be shown on the Site Plan and avoided on unpaved areas beneath the trees’ canopies. 6. The landscape details should be updated to consider items specified in this report. 7.The walkway proposed along trees #128 and 131 should be revised so they are established between the trunks of trees #127 and 128, and #130 and 131, respectively. 8.The landscape drawings should reflect the retention of trees #97 and 100 (as shown on Sheet C4.0). Pursuant to City Ordinance, a copy of this report shall be incorporated into the final set of project plans; titled Sheets T-I, T-2, etc. (Tree Protection Instructions); and referenced on all site-related plans (e.g. site, grading and drainage, and landscaping). 10.As a rule of thumb, the permanent and temporary drainage design, including downspouts, should not require water being discharged beneath the trees’ canopies. Additionally, the drainage design should not require trenching within a TPZ. 11.The section of storm drain within the TPZ of trees #134 and 135 must be directionally- bored by at least 3.5 feet below existing soil grade. In doing so, the ground above the tunnel(s) must remain undisturbed and the access pits established as far from the trunks as possible. Additionally, the pit locations (if within the TPZ or designated-fenced areas) shall be reviewed with the project arborist prior to being dug. 12.All utilities and services should be routed outside from a TPZ. In the event this is not feasible, directional boring must be considered and conform to the above recommendation. Elks _Residential, Palo Alto, CA SummerHill Homes, Property Owner )~age ]J of J7 David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist June 20, 2007 13. The proposed landscape design should conform to the following additional guidelines: a.Turf should be avoided within a TPZ. As an alternative, I suggest a four-inch layer of coarse wood chips (decorative or from a tree company) is used. b.Plant material installed within TPZ must be drought-tolerant, limited in amount, and planted at least five from the trees’ trunks. c.Irrigation can, overtime, adversely impact the subject oaks and should be avoided. Irrigation for new plant material should be low-volume, applied irregularly (such as only once or twice per week) and temporary (such as no more than three years). d.In the event trenches for irrigation and/or lighting are required beneath a canopy, they shall be installed in a radial direction to the trees’ trunks. If irrigation trenches cannot be routed as such, the work may need to be performed using a pneumatic air device, such as an Air-Spade(g), to avoid unnecessary root damage. e.Stones and new fencing should not be placed against the trunks of existing or new trees (I suggest a minimum two-foot setback). Additionally, mulch should not be placed against the trunks, and plastic ground cover should also be avoided beneath canopies. f. Tilling beneath canopies should be avoided, including for weed control. g. Bender board or other edging material proposed beneath the canopies should be established on top of existing soil grade (such as by using vertical stakes). 14.Per City standards, an engineered structural soil mix~ should be considered as an alternative to base course material where sidewalks or concrete walkways are constructed in proximity to where new trees, such as street trees, will be installed. By doing so, a more compatible, long-term growing environment can be established for trees while minimizing risk of future damage to adjacent hardscape. 6.2 Protection Measures before and during ])evelopmen~ 15. Prior to site demolition and clearing, an on-site, pre-construction meeting should be held between the project arborist and contractor. The intent is to review trees being removed, procedures for digging beneath or near TPZs, protection fencing locations, s Additional information can be viewed at www. arnereq, corn/pagesi] 4/index. htm. Elks Residential, Palo Alto, CA SurnrnerHill Homes, Property Owner Page 12 ofl 7 David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist June 20, 2007 limits of grading, staging areas, routes of access, cleanout pits, mulching, supplemental watering, demolition work, and any other required protection measures. All approved tree removals should be marked with paint (such as by an "X") prior to the meeting. I6.Tree protective fencing shall be installed where described in Section 6.1 of this report and established prior to any demolition, grading or surface scraping; the intent is to restrict access into TPZ of unpaved areas. It shall be comprised of six-foot high chain link mounted on eight-foot tall, two-inch diameter steel posts that are driven 24 inches into the ground and spaced no more than 10 feet apart. The fencing must be maintained throughout development and at no time shall it be opened or relocated without direct authorization from the arborist. 17.Fencing must be established in two phases, one for demolition and the other construction. For demolition, I recommend chain link fence panels supported by concrete blocks or metal stands are erected around the trunks of trees where ground beneath their canopies is currently covered by pavement, and/or trunk wrap protections is established around the trunks. 18.Unless otherwise approved, all construction activities must be conducted outside the designated-fenced areas (even after fencing is removed), and beyond the unpaved sections of trees inventoried and not inventoried for this report, to include, but not limited to, the following: demolition, grading, stripping of topsoil, trenching, equipment cleaning, stockpiling/dumping of materials, and equipment!vehicle operation and parking. 19.Signs of 8-1/2 by 11 inches (minimum) must be prominently displayed on each fence side facing construction activities. Per the Tree Technical Manual, the signs must read as follows: "WARNING - TREE PROTECTION ZONE - This fence shall not be removed, moved or relocated. Violators are subject to a penalty according to PAMC s Trunk wrap protection consists of two inches (or about 10 layers) of orange plastic fencing wrapped around the trunks to the first branch, bound by two-inch thick wooden boards wrapped around the outside and tied together. El’ks Residential, -palo Alto, CA SummerHill Homes, Property Owner _Page 13 of 17 David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist June 20, 2007 Section 8.10.110.9." The signs should be established concurrently with the installation of fencing; see Exhibit D for a template. 20.Narrow scaffolding, such as no greater than four or five feet wide, should be used to retain the minimum fenced areas. 21.Prior to the City issuing a demolition permit, the project arborist is required to prepare a letter verifying that tree fencing is appropriately established. 22.The project arborist must regularly inspect the project site as outlined on page 2-14 of the Tree Technical Manual (Section 2.30 Inspection Schedule). Inspections shall occur once per month (minimum) and continue through final inspection. A written summary of pertinent observations and recommendations shall coincide with each inspection and a copy emailed to the City’s Planning Arborist. Pertinent measures to promote the longevity and vigor of retained trees beyond the development period should also be provided at the end of the project. 23.The removal of hardscape must be carefully performed to avoid excavating soil and damaging roots during the process. The project arborist should monitor this work and must not involve the use of heavy equipment or tractors operating or traveling on unpaved soil beneath canopies. To prevent root desiccation, I recommend a four-inch layer of coarse wood chips (see next recommendation) is spread on the newly exposed soil and remain continually moistened for a two-week period. 24.Prior to construction, a four-inch layer of coarse wood chips (1¼_ to ~¼-inch in size) must be spread on unpaved soil beneath the trees’ entire canopies, including inside and outside the designated-fenced areas (but not piled against the trunks); this is not necessary within 24 inches from the footings of new buildings. The depth shall be maintained throughout development and the wood chips can be obtained from tree service companies and/or by contacting www.reuserinc.com. Elks Residential, Palo Alto, CA SummerHill Homes, Property Owner Page 14 of 17 David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist June 20, 2007 25.The project arborist shall monitor development activities authorized within a TPZ. Unless otherwise approved by the arborist, all work within a TPZ shall be manually performed (e.g. shovels and wheelbarrows) without using heavy equipment or tractors. For trenching, roots exposed with diameters of two inches and greater should remain intact and not be damaged (if necessary, tunneled beneath). 26.Excavation for foundations orother approved amenities beneath a tree’s canopy shall be manually performed (i.e. through hand-digging). Roots with diameters of two inches and greater should be treated according to the project arborist. 27.Where digging for sections of foundations, street, curb/gutter within a TPZ, the work shall not require any overcut beyond 18 (preferred) to 24 inches, to include any trenching, soil cuts, fill or scraping. 28.All existing, unused lines or pipes beneath the canopies of retained trees should be abandoned and cut off at existing soil grade. 29.The locations of any posts or piers (e.g. wood fences, porches and foundations) within a TPZ shall be first reviewed by the project arborist prior to digging. A post-hole digger should be used for digging the first 2.5 to 3 feet below grade; a manually- operated, mechanical auger (or one attached to heavy equipment if approved by the arborist) can be used to drill the remaining depth. In the event a root of two inches and greater in diameter is encountered during the process, the hole may need to be resituated. 30.Recommendations that are presented within Section 6.1 of this report and pertain to site development should also be followed. 31. Throughout construction during the months of May thru October (or as deemed by the project arborist), suppiemental water shall be supplied to the retained trees.The methodology, frequency and amounts shall be prescribed by the project arborist. Elks Residential, Palo Alto, CA SummerHill Homes, Property Owner Page )5 of17 David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist June 20, 2007 32.The pruning and removal of trees shall be performed per ISA standards and by a licensed tree service company that has an ISA Certified Arborist in a supervisory role. All pruning work shall be performed under direction of the project arborist. 33.I recommend the retained trees are pruned prior to construction as a means to minimize risk and achieve necessary clearance from large equipment and buildings. I recommend the work is limited to removing deadwood one-inch and greater, clearing encroachments, and reducing heavy limb weight (thinning the trees should be avoided). 34.Any stump being removed within a TPZ shall occur using a stump grinder rather than being pulled up with an excavator or backhoe. This work can be performed by the tree service company performing the removals. 35.Great care must be taken by equipment operators to position their equipment to avoid the trunks and branches of trees. Where a conflict exists, the project arborist should be advised to provide a feasible solution. 36.The disposal of harmful products (such as chemicals, oil and gasoline) is prohibited beneath canopies or anywhere on site that allows drainage beneath or near canopies. Herbicides should not be used beneath the trees’ canopies; where used on site, they should be labeled for safe use near trees. Elks Residential, t~alo Alto, CA Summerffil] Homes, Property Owner Page 16 of 17 David L Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist June 20, 2007 7o(~ASSUMlzTIONS AND LIMITING CONDIT][ONS All information presented herein covers only those items that ~vere examined and reflects the condition of those items at the time of my observations during January and February 2007. My observations were performed visually without probing, coring, dissecting or excavating. I cannot, in any way, assume responsibility for any defects that could only have been discovered by performing the mentioned services in the specific area(s) where a defect was located. The assignment pertains solely to trees listed in Exhibit A. I hold no opinion towards other trees on or surrounding the project area. i cannot provide a guarantee or warranty, expressed or implied, that deficiencies or problems of any trees or property in question may not arise in the future. No assurance can be offered that if all my recommendations and precautionary measures (verbal or in writing) are accepted and followed, that the desired results may be achieved. AII information presented on the plans reviewed is assumed to be correct. I cannot guarantee or be responsible for the accuracy of information provided by others. I assume no responsibility for the means and methods used by any person or company implementing the recommendations provided in this report. The information provided herein represents my opinion. Accordingly, my fee is in no way contingent upon the reporting of a specified finding, conclusion, or value. This report is proprietary to me and may not be copied or reproduced in whole or part without prior written consent. It has been prepared for the sole and exclusive use of the parties to who submitted for the purpose of contracting services provided by David L. Babby. The map presented in this report (Exhibit B) is solely intended to show approximate tree locations and numbers and shall not be interpreted as an engineered or architectural drawing. If any part of this report or copy thereof be lost or altered, the entire evaluation shall be invalid. Prepared By: ~ ’i~ Date: David Babby, RCA ~ June 20.2007 Elks Residential, Palo Alto, CA SummerHill Homes, .Property Chvner Page 17 of J7 David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist June 20, 2007 26.Prior to construction, a four-inch layer of coarse wood chips (~¼- to 3¼-inch in size) .must be spread on unpaved soil beneath the trees’ entire canopies, including inside and outside the designated-fenced areas (but not piled against the trunks); this is not necessary within 24 inches from the footings of new buildings. The depth shall be maintained throughout development and the wood chips can be obtained from tree service companies and/or by contacting www. reuserinc, corn. 27.The project arborist shall monitor development activities authorized within a TPZ. Unless otherwise approved by the arborist, all work within a TPZ shall be manually performed (e.g. shovels and wheelbarrows) without using heavy equipment or tractors. For trenching, roots exposed with diameters of two inches and greater should remain intact and not be damaged (if necessary, tunneled beneath). 28.Excavation for foundations or other approved amenities beneath a tree’s canopy shall be manually performed. Roots with diameters of two inches and greater should be treated according to the project arborist. 29.Where digging for sections of foundations within a TPZ, the work shall not require any overcut beyond 24 inches (to include any trenching, soil cuts, fill or scraping). 30.All existing, unused lines or pipes beneath the canopies of retained trees should be abandoned and cut off at existing soil grade. 31.The locations of any posts or piers (e.g. wood fences, porches and foundations) within a TPZ shall be first reviewed by the project arborist prior to digging. A post-hole digger should be used for digging the first 2.5 to 3 feet below grade; a manually- operated, mechanical auger (or one attached to heavy equipment if approved by the arborist) can be used to drill the remaining depth. In the event a root of two inches and greater in diameter is encountered during the process, the hole may need to be resituated. Elks Residential, Palo Alto, CA SummerHill Homes, Property Owner Page 15 of 17 David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist June 20, 2007 32.Recommendations that are presented within Section 6.1 of this report and pertain to site development should also be followed. 33. Throughout construction during the months of May thru October (or as deemed by the project arborist), supplemental water shall be supplied to the retained trees.The methodology, frequency and amounts shall be prescribed by the project arborist. 34.The pruning and removal of trees shall be performed per ISA standards-: and by ~ licensed tree service company that has an ISA Certified Arborist in a supervisor?, role. All pruning work shall be performed under direction of the project arborist. 35.I recommend the retained trees are pruned prior to construction as a means to minimize risk and achieve necessary clearance from large equipment and buildings. I recommend the work is limited to removing deadwood one-inch and greater, clearing encroachments, and reducing heavy limb weight (thinning the trees should be avoided). 36.Any stump being removed within a TPZ shall occur using a stump grinder rather than being pulled up with an excavator or backhoe. This work can be performed by the tree service company performing the removals. 37.Great care must be taken by equipment operators to position their equipment to avoid the trunks and branches of trees. Where a conflict exists, the project arborist should be advised to provide a feasible solution. 38.The disposal of harmful products (such as chemicals, oil and gasoline) is prohibited beneath canopies or anywhere on site that allows drainage beneath or near canopies. Herbicides should not be used beneath the trees’ canopies; where used on site, they should be labeled for safe use near trees. Elks _Residential, Palo Alto, CA SummerHill Homes, Property Owner Page 16 of 17 David L. Babby, .Registered Consulting Arborist June 20, 2007 7o( ASSUM! T ONS AND LIMITING COND][T ONS All information presented herein covers only those items that were examined and reflects the condition of those items at the time of my observations during January and February 2007. My observations were performed visually without probing, coring, dissecting or excavating. I carmot, in any way, assume responsibility for any defects that could only have been discovered by performing the mentioned services in the specific area(s) where a defect was located. The assignment pertains solely to trees listed in Exhibit A. I hold no opinion towards other trees on or surrounding the project area. I cannot provide a guarantee or warranty, expressed or implied, that deficiencies or problems of any trees or property in question may not arise in the future. No assurance can be offered that if all my recommendations and precautionary, measures (verbal or in writing) are accepted and followed, that the desired results may be achieved. All information presented on the plans reviewed is assumed to be correct. I cannot guarantee or be responsible for the accuracy of information provided by others. I assume no responsibility’ for the means and methods used by any person or company implementing the recommendations provided in this report. The information provided herein represents my opinion. Accordingly, my fee is in no way contingent upon the reporting of a specified finding, conclusion, or value. This report is proprietary to me and may not be copied or reproduced in whole or part without prior written consent. It has been prepared for the sole and exclusive use of the parties to who submitted for the purpose of contracting services provided by David L. Babby. The map presented in this report (Exhibit B) is solely intended to show approximate tree locations and numbers and shall not be interpreted as an engineered or architectural drawing. If any part of this report or copy thereof be lost or altered, the entire evaluation shall be invalid. Prepared By: ~¢k~~ ~_’ ~ Date: David Babby, RCA k~ June 20,2007 Elks Residential, _Palo Alto, CASummerf’Cfill f-fornes, ~roperty Owner Page 17 of 17 David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist June 20~ 2007 EXHibIT A: Elks Residential, Palo Alto, CA Summer’Hill Homes, Property Owner l 38 TREE ~NVENTORY TABLE Tree-of-Heaven (A flanthus altissima )50 I 75% 75% Good Moderate Hollywood Juniper (Juniperus c. ’Torulosa’) Hollywood Juniper (Juniperus c. ’Torulosa’) Hollywood Juniper (Juniperus c. ’Torulosa’) 4.5 10 10 [ 25% 75% Poor 5 20 10 I 25% 75% Poor Low I I$100 Low { $120 Hollywood Juniper (Juniperus c ’Torulosa’) Hollywood Juniper (gumperus c. ’Torulosa’) I 4.5 !5 15 ] 50%75%Fair 6 30 15 1100°/{’50%Good Moderate Moderate Hollywood Juniper (3"uniperus c. ’Torulosa’) Hollywood Juniper (Juniperus c, ’Torulosa’) Hollywood Juniper (Juniperus c. ’Torulosa’) 10.5 35 15 I lOO% 75% Good { 9 30 10 { 100% 50% Good Moderate Moderate Hollywood Juniper (Jumperus c ’Torulosa’)9 30 20 I 100% 75% Good Moderate{I [$650 Hollywood Juniper (3uniperus c ’Torulosa’) Hollywood Juniper (Juniperus c. ’Torulosa’) Camphor Tree ( Cinnamomum camphora ) Chinese Elm ( Ulmus parvifolia ) Chinese Elm (Ulmus parvifolia )I 4,5 20 20 I 100% 25%Fair Lo,,, I [1*280 Chinese Elm (Ulmus parvifolia ) Project Name: Elks Residential, Palo Alto, CA Prepared for: Sum merHill Hom es Prepared by: David L. Babby, RCA "I of 5 June 20, 2007 TREE INVENTORY TABLE Chinese Elm (Ulmus parvifolia )High Chinese Elm (Ulmus parvifolia ) 1461 Chinese Elm (Ulmus parvifolio ) Ever~een Pear (Pyrus kawakarnii ) Fern Pine (Podocarpus ffracilior ) Fern Pine (Podocarpus gracilior ).....Moderate ]..1 ............ Fern Pine (Podocarpus gracilior ) 4:5,4, ’ Fern Pi~e (Podocarpus gracilior ) 4.5, 4.5, I o lS 15 I 1oo% 25% I Fair Fern Pine (Podocarpus gracilior ) F~m Pine (Podocarpus gracilior ) F~rn Pine (Podocarpus gracilior ) ~ Pine (Podocarpus gracilior ) Coast LiVe Oak (Quercus agrifolia ) Trident Maple (A cer buergerianum ) Coast Liv’~ Oak (Quercus agrifolia ) Red O~ (Ouercus rubra ) Project Name: Elks Residential, Palo Alto, .CA Prepared for: SummerHill Homes Prepared by: David L. Babby, RCA 2 of 5 June 20, 2007 TREE ~NVENTORY TABLE 2:No, :. I 100[ CamphorTree (Cinnarnomum camphora )40 45 1,,,,,,75Vo 75O/o Oood ] 10 (Quercus rubra ) 102 I Coast Live’Oak (Quercus agrifolia )I 26.5 50 { 65 I 100% ’75% ] Good High ] X [[’,$13,800I American’Sweetgum (Liquidambar s~raciflua ) 104 [ .... American Sweg{gum ( L~quidambar sryraciflua ) (Ailanthus altissima ) (Pinus pinea ) ! 18 25 30 [ 100% ’25% Fair LowI I 1 I (Girds’go biloba) 110 ] Maidenhair Tree .......... 111 I Cbast’Redwood (Sequ,oia sempervirens ){ 27.5 ’35 "] 40 ] 75% 25% Fair Moderate] X ’] ....I 54,190 I ! 1121 C6astKedwood ’" (Sequoia sempervirens ) C6ast Redw0~ ~ (Sequoia sempe(yiren? ) Coast Kedwd6d .... (Sequoia semPervirens ) Project Name: Elks Residential, Palo Alto, CA Prepared for: Sum m erHill Ha rues Prepared by: David L. Babby, RCA 3 of 5 June 20, 2007 TREE iNVENTORY TABLE 117 Coast Redwood (Sequoia semperv~rens )High Coast Redwood (Sequoia sempervirens ) (Sequoiasempervirens)8 100 30 100%75%Good High X ,55 118 [ Coast Redwood (Sequoia sempervirens ) Hollywood Juniper (Junipgrus c. ’Torulosa’) Hollywood Juniper (~un~perus c. ’Torulosa’) Deodar Cedar (Cedrus deodara ) Coasf Redwood (Sequoia sempervirens ) Coast Redwood (Sequoia sempervirens ) Coast Redwood (Sequoia sempervirens ) Coast Redwood (Sequoia sempervirens ) Coast Kedwood (Sequoia sempervirens ) Coast Redwood (Sequoia sempervirens ) Coast Kedwood (Sequoia sempervirens ) Coast Redwood ’ (Sequoia sempervirens ) Coast Kedwood (Sequoia sempervirens ) 11. ~, 8, .... I 26 165 60 175%150%t Fair IModeratel ! I I , 001 Project Name: Elks Residential, Palo Alto, CA Prepared for: S um merHill Homes Prepared by: David L. Babby, RCA 4of5 June 20, 2007 TREE HNVENITORY TABLE 2~ 2o2 C0astRedwood [31 " 85 [35 [75% [ 75%Good High [ ’"~ !"l .....(Sequoia sempervirens ) ....CoastKedwood I 25 ’ 75 .......50’ I °/o I ’"’N(Sequoia sempervirens )75 75%Good High $5,20 Coast Redwood (Sequoia sempervirens )120 ....45 35 [ 100% 50% Good Moderate X (Sequoia sempervirens ) (Sequoia sempervirens ) .......... Coast Kedwood (Sequoia sempervirens ) Coast Redwood (Sequoia sempervirens ) Tree-of-Heaven (Ailanthus aRissima ) [5 25 l0 [50%50%{Fair Moderate {17 .....30 30 [0%0%Dead Low 18, ]8,~o[ _,1~ 19 .......55 !65 {75Vo 25~Fair Moderate Coast Live Oak (Quercus agrifolia ){ 12.5 5 l 30 [ 25%5,0%Poor Low [~ 1, X I 5880 Coast Live Oak (Quercus agrifolia )I 21 35 40 I 25%50%Poor ,1 Low {X { X [ $2,420_] Tree-of-Heaven (Ailanthus altissima ) Coast Live Oak (Quercus agrifolia ) Moderate High Coast Live Oak (Quercus agrifolia )[ 17.5,45 ] 60 ] 75% 50% Fair ] High ! X X I x { $10,0001 Project Name: Elks Residential, Palo Alto, CA Prepared for: SummerHill Homes Prepared by: David L. Babby, RCA 5 of 5 June 20, 2007 David L ~abby, Registered Consulting ArSorist June 20, 2007 SiTE MAP Elks Residential, Palo Alto, CA SummerHill Homes, Property Owner David L Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist du~w 20, 2007 Page C-!: Trees ~_,-, _~ ~, 28-39 Page C-2: Trees #96, 107, 111-119 Page C-D: Trees #98, 10, 102-!06, 121-137 Page C-g: Trees #97, 101,110a, 121-123,137, 138 Page C-5: Trees #40-42, 44-47 Page C-g: Trees #109, 110, 176, 179, 180 Page C-?: Photos #98, 186, 187, 189 ]?age C-8: Trees #109, 110, 120 Page C-9: Photos #49-56, 99 Elb Residential, Palo Alto, CA SummerHill Homes, Property David L ]3abby, )~egistered Consulting Arborist June 20, 2007 Elks _Residential~ Palo Alto, CASummerHill Homes, Property Owner Page C-4 David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist June 20, 2007 Elks Residential, Palo Alto, CA SummerHill Homes, .Proper& Owner .Page C-6 David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist June 20, 2007 Elks Residential~ Palo Alto, CA SummerHill Homes, Property Owner Page C- 7 David L. ~abb)4 Registered Co~sul~mg ~qrbori~dune 20, 2007 Elks Residential, Palo Alto, CA SummerHill Homes, Property Owner Page C-8 Dca,id L. J3abb)’, J~egistered Consultmg Arborisl June 20. 2007 Elks Residential, Palo Alto, CA SummerHill Homes, Property Owner Page C-9 David L. ~abby, _Registered Consulting Arborist June 20, 2007 SIGN TEMPLATE Elks _Residential, _Pa!o Alto, CA SummerHill Homes, _Property O~,ner ~ProfessionaZ Arboricultura£ Consulting & Tree Care A T]~E PROTECTION PLAN FOR THE NEW ELKS LODGE 4249 EL CA}~NO I~. AL PALO ALTO~ CALIFORNIA Prepared for: Premier Properties Management 172 University. Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Prepared by: David L. Babby, RCA Registered Consulting Arborist #399 Certified Arborist #WE-4OOJA August 24, 2007 P.O. Box 25295, San Mateo, California 94402 o Email" arborresources@comcast.net Phone: 650.654.3351 o Fax: 650.240.0777 ~ Licensed Contractor #796763 JOavid L. Babby, Registered Consu#mg Arborisl August 24, 2007 SECTION 8.0 TABLE OF CONTENTS TITLE PAGE INTRODUCTION ...........................................................! 1.1 Project Overview. ........................................................1 1.2 Scope of Work .............................................................1 1.3 Purpose and Use of Report ..............................................2 COUNT ,a_.ND C©MPOS!T][ON ..................................3 REGD%ATED TREES ......................................................4 SU!TA]BILITY FOR TREE PP,dESERVATI©N .......................5 PRO,~ECT REVIEW ........................................................6 4.1 Tree Removals .............................................................6 4.2 Trees at Potential Significant Risk .......................................7 TREE .4_-PPRA][SAL VALUES ............................................8 TREE PROTECTION GUiDELLNES ...................................8 7.1 Design Guidelines ........................................................9 7.2 Protection Measures before and during Development ..............11 ASS~.~?TiONS AND LiMITLNG CO_NDIT][©NS ..................15 EXH]~B]~T A B C D EXHIBITS TITLE TREE INVENTORY TABLE SITE MAP PHOTOGRAPHS (includes photo index) FENCIN-G SIGN TEMPLATE Titte Page: This northwest-facing photo~aph identifies trees #I 86, 187 and 189. They are regarded as "street trees" and situated within a median along the new Deodar Street. David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborisr Au~¢s~ 24, 2007 iNTRODUCTION i.t Project Overview The Benevolent and Protective Order of the Elks (BPOE) is planning to construct a new Elks Lodge faciliD" and recreational amenities at 4249 E1 Camino Real, Palo Att~), California. The project site comprises the entire existing parking lot between E1 Camino Real and the existing building. A new public street exists along the north side of the property..’, E1 Camino Real to the west, private property., to the south, and the furore SummerHill Homes multiple-family homes development to the east. 1.2 Scope of Work On behalf of the BPOE, I have been retained by Premier Properties Management to prepare a "tree protection plan" forthe proposed development and to achieve conformance with the City’s Municipal Code.1 In doing so, I have executed the following tasks: Identi~ all trees that have trunk diameters larger than four inches in diameter (measured at 12 inches above grade) and are located either on-site, on neighboring properties (provided their canopies overhang the site), or along the public right-of- way (i.e. "street trees" along Deodar Street or E1 Camino Real) within 30 feet of the project site. Measure their trunk diameter at approximately 54 inches above grade or as appropriate to obtain the most representative sample of trunk size. =Assign monetary values to each tree (i.e. appraise the trees’ values). ~Estimate tree height and canopy spread. ~Ascertain the trees’ health and structural integrity... =DeternSine the trees’ suitabiliD, for preservation (e.g. high, moderate or ~:ow). =Identify trees defined by the City of Palo Alto as "protected trees" and "street trees" (information regarding these classifications can be viewed on pages xiii and xiv of the City’s Tree Technical Manual~-). ~ Note that most information regarding the trees’ sizes and conditions are either extracted or modified from a 9/14/05 report I prepared for Elks Lodge; the report is tiffed "An Inventory and Evaluation of Trees at the Etks Lodge Property."a The Tree Technical Manual can be viewed at the following website address:www. ci t3, ,@aloalto. org/civica!f!leban "l’l’l’l~ lo bdload, asp ? B [ob fD= 6436. Elks Lodge, 4249 El Carnino Real, Pa!o Alto, CA ~rernier ProI)erties _~Ianagemento Palo Alto, CA Page loll5 David L, Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist Augus~ 24, 2007 Obtain photographs of the trees (these can be viewed in Exhibit C). Distinguish between trees to be retained and removed. Review the following plans and evaluate the tree-related impacts: [1] a Prelimina~ Landscape Plan, dated 8/2/07, by Van Dorn ABED; [2] a Topographic Survey by BKF, dated 10/11/05; and [3] an untitled plan showing the site survey overlaid by the landscape plan. Assign numbers to each inventoried tree and plot these numbers on the map presented in Exhibit B (a copy of the site survey overlaid by the landscape plan). Attach metal tags with corresponding numbers to the trunks of trees located on the site (this was performed for all trees but #27a and 27b). Tags used are round aluminum with engraved numbers. Prepare a written report containing the aforementioned information, as well as pro~,’ide recommendations to help avoid or mitigate anticipated impacts to trees that will be retained, to include site inspections required by the Ci~ of Palo Alto. 1.3 Purpose a~d Use of Report This report has been prepared to comply with the Cib, of Pa!o Alto Municipal Code, Chapter 8.10.030. Its purpose is to [1] inform Elks Lodge, Premier Properties Management, the project design teana, the City of Palo Alto, and other decision-makers of the b’pe, size and condition of trees within and immediately adjacent to the area proposed for development, and [2] present recommendations for minimizing damage to trees being retained. To my understanding, this report will be used in the planning process of project development, including for and incorporation into architecture, civil and landscape drawings, as well as integration into applicable environmental assessment documents. Elks Lodge, 4249 El Camino Real, Palo Alto, CA Premier Properties Managernent, Paio Alto, CA Page 2 of J5 David L, Babby, Registered Consulting A rborist August 24, 2007 There are 34 trees of nine various species inventoried for this report. They are sequentially numbered as 1, 2, 4-27, 27a, 27b, 186, 187, 189, 194, !96 and 197, and the following table identifies their name, numbers and percentage: Chinese Hackberry 18% Coast Live Oak 6% Coast Redwood 6% Hollywood Juniper 12% London Plane 24% Pecan 3% Spruce 3% Swamp Myrtle 3% Tree-of-Heaven I 26% 1,5,7,9,11,13 187, 189 17, 21 24-27 2, 4, 6, 8, 12, 14-16 196 197 10 18-20, 22, 23, 27a, 27b, 186, 194 Total 6 2 2 4 8 1 1 1 9 34 100% Specific information regarding each tree is presented within the Tree Inventor5; Table in E.xhibit A. The trees and their locations can be viewed on the map in Exhibit B. All other trees not identified in this report but shown on the Topographic Survey (and in my 2005 report) have been removed, to include those on-site, on the neighboring properties (if their canopies overhung the site), and along the public right-of-way within 30 feet from the site. E!~ Lodge, 4249 E! Camino Real, Palo Alto, CA Premier Properties _~(anagement, Palo Alto, CA Page 3 oil5 David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist August 24, 2007 Two trees, #27a and 27b, have grown since my invento~, in 2005 and are now large enough (i.e. trunk diameters greater than four inches in diameter) to qualify them as needing to be inventoried per City requirements. Their approximate locations are shown on the map in E.-daibit B but should not be construed as being surveyed. Note that tree #27a grows against the base of tree #27’s trunk and vertically through its canopy (essentially exists as one tree with #27). Seve~ of the inventoried trees, #I7 thru 23, overhang the site from the neighboring southern prope~,. They have been included per the City’s requirements, as well as for the reason that their canopies and roots are exposed to potential impacts during development. The CiD~ of Palo Aho regulates specific types of trees on public and private property for the purpose of avoiding their removal or disfigurement without first being reviewed and penxfitted by the CiD;’s Planning or Public Works Departments. For this project, these regulated trees are classified as "protected trees" (PAMC 8.10) and "street trees" (PAMC 8.04.020). The following i5 trees are "street trees" located within the public right-of-way: #2, 4, 6, 8, 10~ !2, t4-!6 I8~ !87, i89, 19’4, !9(~ and 197. The nine trees assigned single or double digit numbers are located along E1 Camino Real, whereas the trees assigned triple digit numbers are located within the median islands along Deodar Street. The following four trees are defined as "protected trees" pursuant to Section 8.10 of the City’s Municipal Code: #17.. 21, 187 and 189. Trees #17 and 21 are coast redwoods, whereas #187 and 189 are coast live oaks. t~lb Lodge, 4249 El Camino Reai, Paio Alto, CA Premier J)roperties Management, Palo Alto, CA Page 4 of 15 David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist August 24, 2007 4.0 SU]TAB L ,%Y FOR TREE PRESERVATION Each tree has been assigned a "high," "moderate" or "low" suitabiliU, for preservation rating as a method for cumulatively measuring and considering their physiological health, structural integrib,, location, size and species. A description of these ratings with the assigned tree numbers are presented below; note that the "high" category comprises 14 Crees (or 47-percent), the "moderate" catego~, 12 ~rees (or 35-percent), and the "tow" category 4 ~rees (or 18-percent). ~: These trees have the potential to provide long-term contribution to the site, appear in good health, contain seemingly stable structures, and]or are classified as a "regulated tree." This rating applies to the following trees: #2, 4,, 4, 8, i0-12, 14-t7, 2!, 22~ 187, 189 & !96. Nioderate: These trees contribute to the site but not at seemingly significant levels. Typically, their longevity and contribution is less ~han those of high suitabiliD; and more £requent care is needed during their remaining life span. ¯., -’~ 27aoThis rating applies to the following trees: #7o i3, i8, _, ,7, .27b, 18~ & 194. Lo’,~___2: These trees are predisposed to irreparable health problems and!or structural defects that are expected to worsen regardless of measures employed.In many instances, the?, are in a poor, declining or dead condition. This rating applies to the following trees: #!, 5, 9, 19, 20 & 197. EI~ Lodge, 4249 El Camino Real, Palo Alto, CA Premier Properties _Mranagement, Palo Alto, CA Page 5 of 15 David L. J3abby, Registered Consulting Arborist August 24, 2007 5°0 PROJECT P~,VtE, W 4.i Tree RemovaIs The following !4 trees will be removed to accommodate the proposed design: #!, 5, 7, 9- ii, 13, t5, 24-27, 27a and 27b. Of these, #i~1 and i5 are located within the public right- of-way, whereas all others are located on the project site. The following table identifies their assigned number, species, trunk diameter, and suitabiliD’ for preservation rating: Tree No. Tree Name (Common) t 5 7 9 !0 li 13 15 24 25 2¢ 27 Hollywood Juniper 27a Tree-of-Heaven 27b Tree-of-Heaven Chinese Hackberry 5 Chinese Hackberry 3 Chinese Hackberry 3.5 Chinese Hackberry 4.5 Swamp Myrtle 5 Chinese Hackberry 7 Chinese Hackberry 6 London Plane 7 Hollywood Juniper 9, 5.5, 4.5 Hollywood Juniper 8.5 Hollywood Juniper 9 8,7,5,4,3, 3 5,2.5 4.5 Low Low Moderate Low High High Moderate High Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate EI~ Lodge, 4249 E! Camino Real, Paio Alto, CA Premier Properties Management, Palo Alto, CA Page 6 of l_5 David L. t~abby, _Registered Consutting Arborist August 24, 2007 As illustrated in the previous table, none of the trees are seemingly of significant size or status. The only two trees considered "regulated" by the City, namely #10 and 15, are small and can be easily replaced. 4.2 Trees at. PotentiaI Significant _Risk Trees #!7 thru 22 are situated on the neighboring southern property and overhang the subject site. Through implementation of the proposed design, these trees would sustain root loss at varying degrees, the most potentially sig-nificantly impacted would be trees #17, 18, 19 and 22. As a means to mitigate the impacts and achieve a reasonable of tree survival and stabilit),~, the following guidelines should be incorporated into the project design (note that soil surface is intended to be interpreted as the area directly beneath the existing parking lot): 1.All trenching, soil cuts, and compaction of the existing soil surface must be setback from the trunks at rninirnurn distances equal to five times their trunk diameters (for multiple trunks, the measurement shall be obtained from the largest trunk). Note that trenching is meant to include irrigation, storm drains, drainage swales, utilities/services, and plumbing lines for the pools. 2.Any overcut or trenching required for construction of the underground garage and swimming pools shall not exceed 24 inches beyond their walls. To achieve this, vertical shoring will be necessary for the underground parking garage and proposed swimming pools (e.g. soil nailing and shotcrete construction). 3.Soil fill must not be placed beyond the existing parking lot. 4.Any walkways or decks proposed within the setback shall be placed on top of existing soil ~ade (including base materials, edging and forms). Additionally, compaction of the soil subgrade must be avoided; the subbase materials can be compacted but should not exceed an 85-percent densib’. Filt can be placed to bevel the top of the walkway to existing soil gads, but should be restricted to 24 inches from the trees’ trunks. Tensar® BX Geogrid (www. tensarcorp, corn) could be used to help achieve the no-dig and restricted subgrade compaction requirements. 5.The planting and irrigation design should consider the trees’ existing canopies and trunk locations. Elks Lodge, 4249 El Camino Real, Palo Alto, CA Premier Properties )~’Ianagernent, Pa!o Alto, CA Page 7 of]5 David L, Bab~, Registered Consulting Arborist August 24, 2007 6.Any wails proposed within the setbacks shall have not footing or, if one is necessary,, be built with a pier and above-grade beam design, in which the beams between the piers literally span above grade with no trenching, soil cuts, or compaction (i.e. a no-dig design except vertically for the piers). 7. As several of the trees’ trunks span across or abut the proper%, line, the location of the future site fence should be considered. I recommend the fence is established at least two to three feet from the trunks, including their base, to allow for an existing tree to grow and avoid damage in the foreseeable near future. VALUES The appraised value for each tree is presented within the last column of the table in Exhibit A. They are calculated using the TrunkYormuIa Met]~od and in accordance with the Guide for _Plant Appraisal, 9~ Editio~z, published by,’ the ISA (International Societ).* of Arboriculture), 2000, and used in conjunction with the Species C]assificatio~ a~d Group Assignment, published by the Western Chapter of the ISA, 2004. The combined appraised value of inventoried trees planned for retention is $46,98{?. The combined appraised value of inventoried trees anticipated for removal is 7°0 TREE PROTECT!ON GUfDEL~NES Recommendations presented within this section are intended to serve as guidelines for achieving viable mitigation and the protection of trees planned for retention. They should be carefully followed and incorporated into the project plans. Please note that any or all recommendations are subject to revision upon reviewing additional or revised plans. Additionaily, I should be consulted in the event any of the recommendations cannot be followed or implemented in their entire~< Nlks Lodge, 424.0 El Camino Real, Palo Alto, CA Premier Properties Management, Palo Alto, CA Page 8 of 15 David L, Babby, Registered Consulting A rborist August 24, 2007 7.i Design Guidefines 1. The Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) should be regarded as a minimum distance from a tree’s trunk of five times its trunk diameter (for multiple trunks, the measurement shall be obtained from the largest trunk). This is where all grading (soil cuts, fill and finish-grading), trenching3 and soil scraping should be avoided. In areas where arbonst forthis is not feasible, the impacts should be reviewed by the project ¯4 determining whether an alternative TPZ can potentially support a tree’s longevi~* and stabiliD,. 2.Recommendations specified in Section 6.0 of this report shall be carefully followed and incorporated into the project design. All site-related plans (e.g. site, grading and drainage, and landscape) should show the following information regarding each tree inventoried for this report: trunk locations, diameters (depicted by a to-scale circle), as well as assigned tree numbers and accurate canopy dimensions (the canopy dimensions for clusters of trees can be grouped together). I also recommend the civil drawings show the ~ound elevation of the trunks. For trees anticipated to be removed, an "X" should be shown through their trunks. 4.The future staging area and route(s) of access should be shown on the final site plan and avoided on unpaved areas beneath the trees’ canopies. Pursuant to City Ordinance, a copy of this report shall be incorporated into the fmat set of project plans; titled Sheets T-l, T-2, etc. (Tree Protection Instructions); and referenced on all site-related plans (e.g. site, grading and drainage, and landscaping). Also, refer to the following website for additional forms required by; the City: www. city.palo-alto, ca. us/depts/pln/planning_~Corms, asp. ? This includes, but is not limited to, irrigation, lighting, drainage, and underground utilities and services, ~ The "project arborist" refers to me or another individual that is certified by the ISA and/or is a member of the American Society of Consulting Arborists (ASCA). El~ Lodge, 4249 El Carnino Real, Palo Alto, CA Premier Properties M-anagement, Pa!o Al~o, CA Page 9 of J5 David L. 23abby, Registered Consulting Arborist August 24.. 2007 The permanent and temporary drainage design, including downspouts, shall not require water being discharged towards a tree’s trunk. Additionally,, the drainage design shall not require trenching within a TPZ, except where within 24 inches from the underground parking garage and swimming pool walls. 7.All existing, unused lines or pipes beneath the canopies of retained trees shall be abandoned and cut off at existing soil grade (rather than being dug up and causing subsequent root damage). All utilities and services should be routed outside from a TPZ. In the event this is not feasible, directional boring and/or the use of a pneumatic air device (such as an Air-Spade®) must be considered. For boring, the ground above the runnel(s) must remain undisturbed and the access pits established as far from the thinks as possible. Additionally, the pit locations (if within the TPZ or designated-fenced areas) shall be reviewed with the project arborist prior to being dug. Upon availability-, the following plans must be reviewed for tree-related impacts: site, elevations, grading and drainage, underground utilities, and landscaping (layout, planting and irrigation). 10.The proposed landscape design should conform to the following additional guidelines: a. Plant material installed within a TPZ should be limited in amount and planted at least three to five feet from a tree’s trunk. b. Irrigation spray should not strike within three of a tree’s trunk. c. In the event trenches for irrigation and/or lighting are required beneath a canopy, they, should be installed in a radial direction to the trees’ trunks. If irrigation trenches cannot be routed as such, the work may need to be performed using a pneumatic air device (such as an Air-Spade®) to avoid unnecessary root damage. El~ Lodge, 4249 El Camino Real, Palo Alto, CA ~remier_Properties Management, Palo Alto, CA David L. Bab~.. Registered Consu#ing Arborist August ~,," ~ 2007 d.Stones and new fencing should not be established against the trees’ trunks (I suggest a minimum two-foot setback). Additionally, mulch should not be placed against the trunks. e. Tilling beneath canopies should be avoided, including for weed control. f.Bender board or other edging material proposed beneath the canopies should be established on top of existing soil grade (such as by using vertical stakes). 11.Per City, standards, an engineered structural soil mix~" should be considered as an alternative to base course material where sidewalks or concrete walkways are constructed in proximity to where new trees, such as street trees, will be installed. By doing so. a more compatible, long-tern~ growing environment can be established for trees while minimizing the risk of future damage to adjacent hardscape. 7°2 Protection ?vleasures before and during Development t2. Prior to site demolition and clearing, an on-site, pre-construction meeting shall be held between the project arborist and contractor. The intent is to review trees being removed, procedures for digging beneath or near TPZs, trunk wrap protection, tree protection fencing locations, limits of grading, staging areas, routes of access, cleanout pits, mulching, supplemental watering, demolition work, and an?, other required protection measures. 13.Prior to demolition, orange plastic fencing shal! be wrapped around the lower trunks to the first branch of the retained street trees, and bound by two-inch thick wooden boards tied together on the outside. Prior to the City issuing a demolition permit, the project arborist must prepare a letter verifTing this item has been implemented. 14.Upon the existing asphalt being removed beneath the canopies of trees #17 thru 22 (after demolition and before construction or underground utility/service installation), tree protection fencing shall be installed at or within 36 inches from the trees’ TPZ. ~ Additional information can be viewed at www. amereq, com/pages/] 4/index. htm. Elks Lodge, 4249 El Carnino Real, Palo Alto, CA _Premier-properties Management, Palo Alto, CA -page ii of 15 David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist August 24, 2007 The fencing should consist of six-foot high chain link mounted on eight-foot tall, two-inch diameter steel posts that are driven 24 inches into the ground and spaced no more than 10 feet apart. The fencing must be maintained throughout development and at no time shall it be opened or relocated without direct authorization from the arborist. 15.Tree protection warning si~s must be prominently displayed on each fence side facing construction activities, and be of a minimum 8-V,_ by 11 inches in size. See Exhibit D for a template (dated 7/21/07) derived from the Ci~’s following website address: www.city.palo-alto.ca.usicivica(~leban]c#olobdload.asp?t~lobfD=277 6. 16.Unless otherwise approved, all construction activities must be conducted beyond unpaved areas within the TPZ, including for trees inventoried and not inventoried for this report. 17.The project arborist must regularly inspect the project site as outlined on page 2-14 of the T~-ee Technical Manual (Section 2.30 Inspection Schedule). Inspections shall occur once per month (minimum) and continue through final inspection. A written summary of pertinem observations and recommendations shall coincide with each inspection, and a copy emailed to the Ci~,"s Planning Arborist. Pertinent measures to promote the longeviD, and vigor of retained trees beyond the development period shall also be provided near project completion. 18.The removal of hardscape must be carefully performed to avoid excavating soil and damaging roots during the process. The project arborist should monitor this work, which must not involve the use of hea~3~ equipment or tractors operating or traveling on unpaved soil within a TPZ. To prevent root desiccation, I recommend a five-inch layer of coarse wood chips (see following recommendation) is spread on the newly exposed soil and remain continually moistened for a two-week period (or until any new hardscape is instaIIed). Note that base material found beneath the existing E!~ Lodge, 4249 El Camino Real.. Palo Alto, CA Premier Properties Management, Pa!o Alto, C:d Page ~2 of]5 David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist .August 24, 2007 asphalt surface should remain intact and only removed at the discretion of the arborist (in some instances, significant roots may be exploiting the base material). 19.Prior to construction, a five-inch layer of coarse wood chips (V,- to ~,!~-inch in size) must be spread on unpaved soil within a TPZ (but not piled against the trunks). These wood chips can be obtained from tree service companies and/or by contacting The project arborist shall monitor development activities authorized within a TPZ. Any digging or trenching within a TPZ shall be manually performed (i.e. through hand-digging) without the use of hea~U equipment or tractors. For trenching, roots exposed with diameters of two inches and greater should remain intact and not be damaged (if necessary, tunneled beneath). 21.Prior to excavation for the underground parking garage and swimming pools, I recommend a one-foot wide, three-foot deep trench is manually dug within 12 to 18 inches from where the walls of these features will be constructed. Any roots encountered during the process should be cleanly severed against the soil cut and in a manner that provides a clean, straight cut; the purpose for doing so it to mininaize the urmecessary ripping, splitting and tearing of roots towards the nearest tree trunk. 22.The locations of an), posts or piers (e.g. wood fences and/or porches) within a TPZ shall be first reviewed by the project arborist prior to digging. A post-hole digger should be used for digging the first 2.5 to 3 feet below grade; a manually-operated, mechanical auger can be used to drill the remaining depth. In the event a root of two inches and ~eater in diameter is encountered during the process, the hole may need to be resituated. Recommendations that are presented within Section 7.1 of this report and pertain to site development should also be followed. Elks Lodge, 4249 E~ Camino Real, Palo Alto, CA Premier Properties Management, Palo Alto, CA Page 13 off5 David L. )Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist August 24~ 2007 24.Throughout construction during the months of May thru October (or as deemed necessary), supplemental water shall be supplied to the retained trees. The methodology, frequency and amounts shall be prescribed by the project arborist. 25.The pruning of trees shall be performed per ISA standards and by a California state- licensed tree service company that has an ISA Certified Arboris~ in a superviso~, role. All pruning work shall be performed under direction of the project arborist. 26.I recommend the retained trees are pruned prior to demolition as a means to minimize risk and achieve necessao, clearance from large equipment and buildings. recommend the work is limited to removing deadwood one-inch and greater, clearing encroachments, and reducing hea-v)~ limb weight (thinning the trees should be avoided). 27.Great care must be taken by equipment operators to position their equipment to avoid the trunks and branches of trees. ~,~ere a conflict exists, the project arborist should be advised to provide a feasible solution. 28.The disposal of harmful products (such as chemicals, oil and gasoline) is prohibited beneath canopies or anywhere on site that allows drainage beneath or near canopies. Herbicides should not be used beneath the trees’ canopies; where used on site, they should be labeled for safe use near trees. EI~ Lodge, 4249 El Camino Real, Palo Alto, CA Premier Properties Management, Pa!o Alto, CA Page I4 of 15 David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist Augus~ 24, 2007 ASSUMPTIONS AND LiMiTiNG CONDiTiONS All infon:aation presented herein covers only those items that were examined and reflects the condition of those items at the time of my observations during January and February 2007. My observations were performed visually withom probing, coring, dissecting or excavating. I cannot, in any, way, assume responsibili~’ for any defects that could only have been discovered by performing the mentioned services in the specific area(s) where a defect was located. The assignment pertains solely to trees listed in Exhibit A. I hold no opinion towards other trees on or surrounding the project area. I cannot provide a guarantee or warranty;, expressed or implied, that deficiencies or problems of any trees or property in question may not arise in the future. No assurance can be offered that if all my recormnendations and precautionary measures (verbal or in writing) are accepted and followed, that the desired results may be achieved. All information presented on the plans reviewed is assumed to be con-ect. I cannot guarantee or be responsible for the accuracy of information provided by others. I assume no responsibiliD.’ for the means and methods used by any person or company, implementing the recommendations provided in this report. The information provided herein represents my opinion. Accordingly,, my fee is in no way contingent upon the reporting of a specified finding, conclusion, or value. This report is proprietary., to me and may, not be copied or reproduced in whole or part without prior written consent. It has been prepared for the sole and exclusive use of the parties to who submitted for the purpose of contracting services provided by David L. Babby. The map presented in this report (Exhibit B) is solely intended to show approximate tree locations and numbers and shall not be interpreted as an engineered or architectural drawing. If any part of this report or copy thereof be lost or altered, the emire evaluation shall be invalid. Prepared By,: Date: August 24.2007 David Babby, RCA Elks Lodge, 4249 E! Camino Real, Palo Alto, CA Premier t~roperties ]gfanagemento Palo Alto, CA Page ]5 off5 David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist August 24, 2007 ElM Lodge, 42#9 E! Camino Real, Palo Alto, CA Premier _Properties Management, Palo Alto, CA 6 8 9 TREE NVENTORY TABLE Chinese Hackberry (Celr~ sinensi~ )50% ~ Poor Commems: Tree is severely drought-stressed, as evidenced by its significantly sparse and seemingly dying canopy. London Piano Tree I t [(PlamnusaerijStm )3 15 15 75%50% Comments: Has atypical form. Fair London Plane Tree (Platan~s ae,iflia )7 30 20t 50%75% Comments: Fair High X $320--] (Cekis sinensis)3 20 i0 50% { 50%Fair Low Comments: Has an asymmetrical canopy. Trunk is covered in a dense layer ofix5,. London Plane Tree I (Platanus aerifiia )[6.5 Corrkrnents: 25 I ’I2050°./; , 75% ! Fair High $70 -] Chinese Hackberr3i I(Celtis sinens~s )3.5 Comments: 15 75% i Good Moderate $150-~ London Plane Tree (Pla~anus aerif~ia ) Comments 25 20 75%50%, Fair I High (Celtis sinensis ) 4.5 20 ! ] 5 25% 50% Poor Low ~ $90 Comments:Trunk is also covered in dense layer ofi~9’. Tree has a abnormally sparse canopy due ~o being drought-stressed. Swamp Myrtle ]0 10 J t I(9?stania ]aurina )5 100% 75%Good High X $770 Comments: Ch.inese Hackberry I 30 20(Cekis sinensis )?75%75% Comments: Good Fair London Plane Tree I (Platanus aeriflfa )I 7 ,25 20 50%75% Comments: High X 1 $320 Project: Elks Lodge, 4249 El Camino Real, Palo Alto Prepared for: Premier Properties Management Prepared by: David L. Babby, RCA I of 3 August24, 2007 TREE NVENTORY TABLE Comments: 6 20 25 50%75%Fair ModerateI .[ $240 (PMmnus aeri~lia )6.5 25 20 50%75% Comm en ts: Fair High (2latanus aeri6lia )7 ~0 95 50°,/o 7~%Fair High Comments: London Plane Tree ]!i i I(Platanus aeriflia )4 20 i0 !00%50%. Fair High X $150 Comments: The lower 10 of trunk has a lean, the remaining !0 feet grows upright. Coast Redwood [ ....2 (~oia sempen4rens ~I 46 90 451’7 Comments: 75% 100% Good 2O (Afianths ~ltissim, a )22 55 45 50°/; Good i ....X $580 Comments: Canopy is asymmetrical as it grows outward, towards parking lot, from beneath tree #17’s canopy’. aMssima )24 55 45 100% 25% I Fair Low X $45 Comments: Has a two-foot tall, one-foot wide cavity on parking lot (northwest) side. Tree-o~Heaven I I 25 75%(Ailanths altissima )9 55 25%Fair Comments: It is tall and narrow, and has poor trunk taper. LOW 50%Fair High x ] $60 Coast Redwood (Sqoia sempem,irens ) Comments: Its canopy is sparse, likely due to a lack of sufficient water. (Ailanths altissima )I5 100% Comments: Tree-of-Heaven ] (Ailanths altissima )21 45 50 75%75% Comments: Good ModerateI X-I $490 Project: Elks Lodge, 4249 El Camino Real, Palo Alto Prepared for: Premier Properties Management Prepared by: David L. Babby, RCA 2 of 3 August 24, 2007 TREE INVENTORY ABLE 25 !(dniT)erusH°llyw°°dc ’T°rat°sa’)Juniper Comments: 8.51115115 100% I 75% 100%75%Good Moderate Comments: $650 Hollywood Juniper (,Inipe~,s c ’Torulosa’) Comments: 15 100% 50%Good Moderate (Ailand~sTree-°f-Heavenaltissin~a) 5,2.5 [ 25 15 I 100% I 50% Good Moderate Comments: Grows at base of tree #27 and through its trunks. $730 Tree-of-Heaven (.4i!anths altissima ) Commenu: Tree-of-Heaven (Ailan&s Mrissima ) 2O 15 1oo%1 50% 20 I 50 6O Comments: Has a sparse canopy. 50%175%Fair Moderate Comments: Has a sparse canopy. 50% I 5O%Fair Comments: Its canopy is somewhat sparse. Fair Comments: Deadwood is at top. Spruce Comments: Has tip dieback and a misshapen canopy that is suppressed by the more valuable tree #!96. Project: Elks Lodge, 4249 El Camino Real, Palo Alto Prepared for: Premier Properties Management Prepared by: David L. Babby, RCA 3 of 3 August 24, 2007 David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborfs~A~gus~ 24, 2007 EXHIBIT B: S~.TE MAP EZ~ £odge, 4249 El Camino Real, PaZo Alto, CA Premier Properties .~anagement, 4249 EL. CAMI~TO REAL, PALO ALTO David L. Bab~,, Registered Consulting Arborisr August 24, 2007 EXHIBIT C: PHOTOGRAPHS Photo Page C-i° Trees #!, 2 and 4 thru 8 Page C-2: Trees #9 thru 11 Page C-3: Trees #11 thru 16 Page C-4: Trees #17 thru 22 Page C-5: Trees #23 thru 27, 27a and 27b Page C-g: Trees #186, 187, 189, 194, 196 and 197 Elks Lodge, 4249 El Camino Real, Palo Alto, CA Premier Properties Management, Palo Alto, CA !~avid L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist August 24, 2007 E!~_~ Lodge, 4249 El Camino Real, Pa!o Alto, CA Premier Properties ~,~anagement, Palo Alto~ CA Page David L. Yabby, Registered Consulting Arborist August 24, 2007 El~ Lodge, 4249 Et Camino Real, Palo Alto, CA Premier Properties .~anagement, Palo Alto, CA Page C-2 David L, Babby, Registered Consulting Arboris~August 24, 2007 Elks Lodge, 4249 El Camino Real, Palo Alto, CA Premier Properties Management, _Palo Alto, CA Page David L. Babby, Regisze~°ed Consulting Arborist Aug’ust 24, 2007 Elks Lodge, 4249 El Camino Real, Palo Alto, CA Premier Properties Management, Palo Alto, CA Page C-5 David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist August 24, 2007 Elks Lodge, 4249 El Camino Real, Palo Alto, CA Page C-6 Premier Properties Management, Palo Alto, CA David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist August 24, 2007 TEMPLATE EI~ Lodge, 4249 El Camino Real, Palo Alto, CA Premier Properties 3(fanagement, Palo Alto, CA 0 0 > 0 > Prepared For: Summerhi~ Homes AUGUST 2007 TABLE OF CONTENTS intFoduction ............................................................................................................................i ...........................! Existing Conditions ...........................................................................................................................................7 Roadway Network ................................................................................................................................................7 Existing Intersection Volumes and Lane Configurations ...................................................................................12 Level of Service Methods ..................................................................................................................................12 Existing Levels of Service ..................................................................................................................................14 Field Observations .............................................................................................................................................1 5 Backgi’ound Conditions ..................................................................................................................................17 Background Traffic Estimates ............................................................................................................................! 7 Background Levels of Service ...........................................................................................................................17 Project Conditions ...........................................................................................................................................20 Existing Site Trip Generation .............................................................................................................................20 Project Traffic Volumes .....................................................................................................................................21 Project Intersection Levels of Service ...............................................................................................................24 Thresholds of Significance ................................................................................................................................29 Project Impacts ..................................................................................................................................................29 Site Access and On-Site Circulation ..................................................................................................................29 Parking Impacts .................................................................................................................................................31 Pedestrian, Bicycle, and Transit Impacts ..........................................................................................................34 Cumulative (Year 2015) Conditions ...............................................................................................................36 Year 20t 5 Traffic Estimates ..............................................................................................................................36 Year 2015 Cumulative Levels of Service ..........................................................................................................36 Year 2015 Cumulative Impacts .........................................................................................................................36 Site Access and On-Site Circulation ..................................................................................................................37 6.Conclusions .....................................................................................................................................................4! APPENDICES Appendix A: Traffic Counts Appendix B: Intersection LOS Worksheets Appendix C: Background and Cumulative Volumes Appendix D: Site Access and Queuing Calculations Appendix E: Unsignalized intersection LOS Methods L~S’T OF F!GURES Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure 1 Project Site and Study Intersection Location .......................................................................................3 2a Residential Site Plan ............................................................................................................................4 2b Elks Lodge Site Plan ............................................................................................................................5 2c Elks Lodge Garage-Level Plan .............................................................................................................6 3 Existing Transit Service ......................................................................................................................10 4 Existing Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities ..........................................................................................11 5 Existing Intersection Volumes, Lane Configurations, and Controls ...................................................13 6 Background (Year 2010) Peak-Hour Traffic Volumes ........................................................................19 7 Project Trip Distribution (Elks Lodge, Residential, and Child Care) ...................................................23 8 Project Trip Assignment .....................................................................................................................26 9 Net Project Trip Assignment (Project Less Existing Site) ..................................................................27 10 Project Conditions (Year 2010) Peak-Hour Traffic Volumes ..............................................................28 11 a Site Plan Improvements - Elks Lodge ...........................................................................................32 1 lb Site Plan Improvements - Elks Lodge Garage-Level ........................................................................33 12 Future Bicycle Network ......................................................................................................................35 13 Cumulative (Year 2015) No Project Volumes ....................................................................................39 14 Cumulative (Year 2015) Plus Project Volumes ..................................................................................40 UST OF "£A~LES Table 1 .....................................................................................................................................................................14 Signalized Intersection Level of Service Definitions ................................................................................................14 Table 2 .....................................................................................................................................................................15 Existing Intersection Levels of Service ....................................................................................................................15 Table 3 .....................................................................................................................................................................18 Background Intersection Levels of Service ..............................................................................................................t8 Table 4 .....................................................................................................................................................................20 Trip Generation For Existing Site .............................................................................................................................20 Table 5 .....................................................................................................................................................................22 Project Trip Generation Rates and Estimates ..........................................................................................................22 Table 6 .....................................................................................................................................................................25 Background and Project Intersection Levels of Service ..........................................................................................25 Table 7 .....................................................................................................................................................................31 Parking Analysis .......................................................................................................................................................31 Table 8 ......................................................................................................................................................................37 Cumulative No Project and Plus Project Levels of Service .....................................................................................37 This report presents the results of the transportation impact analysis (TIA) conducted for the proposed redevelopment of Elks Club Lodge just south of El Camino Real and Charleston Road in Palo Alto, California. This proposed project includes a complete renovation of the Elks Lodge, new recreation and fitness facilities for Elks members, and construction of 45 single:family detached residential units. As part of the lodge renovation, the Elks are proposing to increase their membership from the current 1,050 members to a cap of ! ,500 members. The project site currently houses the 55,000-square foot Elks Lodge and a 15,000-s.f. child care center, which will be removed as part of the project. The purpose of this analysis is to identify the potential impacts of the proposed redevelopment on the surrounding transportation system in the project vicinity. Project impacts were evaluated following the guidelines of the City of Palo Alto and the Valley Transportation Authority (VTA), the congestion management agency for Santa Clara County. The following intersections were chosen for analysis: 1.San Antonio Road/Charleston Road 2.Charleston Road/Middlefield Road 3.Alma Street/Charleston Road 4.Charleston Road/Wilkie Way 5.El Camino Real!Charleston Road-Arastradero Road 6.El Camino Real/San Antonio Road 7.Foothill Expressway/Arastradero Road 8.El Camino Real!Deodar Street (future intersection/project driveway) Figure 1 shows the location of the project site, the surrounding transportation network, and the study intersections. Figure 2a shows a detailed site plan of the residential portion of the proposed project and Figure 2b presents the proposed site plan for the Elks Lodge portion of the site. The six study intersections were evaluated during the morning, AM, (7:00 am to 9:00 am) peak hour and evening, PM, (4:00 pm to 6:00 pro) peak hour for the following scenarios: Scenario 1: Exisling Conditions - Existing volumes obtained from traffic counts. Scenario 2: Background (2010) Conditions - Traffic volumes from the City of Palo Alto’s travel demand forecast model for 201 0 plus traffic from the 901 San Antonio Road (Center for Jewish Life) project. Scenario 3: Project (20!0) Conditions - Traffic volumes from Scenario 2 plus net new traffic generated by the proposed project. Scenario 4: Cumulative (2015) Conditions - Traffic volumes from the City of Palo Aito’s travel demand forecast model for 2015 plus the project traffic from the Center for Jewish Life. Scenario 5: Cumulative (2015) Plus Project Conditions - Traffic volumes from Scenario 4 plus net new traffic generated by the proposed project. The remainder of this report is divided into five chapters. Chapter 2 presents Existing Conditions in terms of the existing roadway configurations, circulation patterns, and operating conditions of the study intersections. Chapter 3 presents Background (2010) Conditions. Chapter 4 describes the methods used to estimate the amount of traffic added to the surrounding roadways by the proposed project and its impacts on the surrounding transportation system. Chapter 4 also includes discussion of site access, on-site circulation, and parking. Chapter 5 presents Cumulative (2015) Conditions both with and without the proposed project. Chapter 6 presents the study conclusions and recommendations including any proposed mitigation measures. 2 PROJECT S~TE FEHR & PEERS TRANSPO~TAT~ON ~ONSULTA~TS Augus[ 2007 SJ07-932 NNot to Scale LEGEND: O =IntersectionStudy Palo Alto Elks Club PROJECT LOCATION AND STUD~"NTERSECT~ONS FIGURE 1 2o EXiSTiNG CONDiTiONS This chapter describes the existing roadway network and operations of the study intersections, and includes a discussion of the bicycle and pedestrian facilities located in the project study area. This chapter also includes a discussion of the methodology used to calculate intersection levels of service and interpret the corresponding results. ROADWAY NE’TWORK Existing Street System Figure 1 shows the project location and the surrounding, roadway system. Regional access to the site is provided via US 101, Oregon Expressway, Middlefield Road, Central Expressway/Alma Street, and Charleston Road. Local access to the site is provided via Et Camino Real. Descriptions of the existing roadways are provided as follows: US 101 is primarily north-south freeway providing four travel lanes in each direction and is located east of the project site. One travel lane in each direction is designated as a high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane. HOV lanes, also known as diamond or carpool lanes, are restricted to use by vehicles occupied by two or more persons between 5:00 am and 9:00 am and between 3:00 pm and 7:00 pm. US 101 extends north through San Francisco and south through San Jose and Gilroy. Access to and from US 101 is provided via interchanges with Embarcadero Road-Oregon Expressway and San Antonio Road. Oregon Expressway is a four-lane, east-west roadway between US 101 and Alma Street. This roadway is designated Page Mill Expressway west of Alma Street and continues west to Interstate 280. Oregon Expressway is a designated local truck route. El Camino Real is a six-lane, north-south arterial (also SR-82) that extends south to Mountain View and Santa Clara and north to Redwood City, Millbrae, and San Bruno. El Camino provides access to local and regional commercial areas. The posted speed limit along El Camino in the project vicinity is 35 miles per hour (mph). Middlefield Road is a four-lane, north-south roadway that extends northerly from Mountain View through Pato Alto to Redwood City. It provides access to residential areas and neighborhood commercial areas. The posted speed limit in the project study area is 25 mph, although south of Charleston Road the speed limit increases to 35 mph. Charleston Road extends from El Camino Real in Palo Alto to US 101 in Mountain View. West of El Camino Real, Charleston Road is known as Arastradero Road. Between El Camino Real and Alma Street, Charleston Road is a four-lane arterial. The segment of Charleston Road between Alma Street and Fabian Way was recently narrowed to a two-lane facility with a two-way left-turn lane. The City may extend the narrowing to other portions of the roadway. Charleston Road provides access to residential areas and neighborhood commercial areas. It is considered a school commute corridor in Palo Alto. Charleston Road, between Fabian Way and San Antonio Road, is a designated truck through route. Alma Street is a four-lane north-south roadway which runs parallel to the Caltrain passenger rail line. The roadway extends from downtown Palo Alto to the south. Alma Street becomes Central Expressway south of San Antonio Road in Mountain View. The posted speed limit on Alma Street in the project vicinity is 35 mph. Note that since US 101 and El Camino Real run primarily in the north-south direction this analysis considers parallel facilities to be north-south. Exisdng Transit Service Bus service near the project site is operated by the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA). The Peninsula Joint Powers Board provides commuter rail service (Caltrain) from San Francisco to Gilroy, through San Jose, The existing transit facilities in the vicinity of the site are shown on Figure 3. Detailed descriptions of the transit service are presented below: Route 22 provides local bus service from the Eastridge Transit Center in San Jose to Palo Alto and Menlo Park. In the project site area, Route 22 operates along El Cam!no Real. The line operates 24 hours a day, with 10- to 20- minute headways between 7:00 am to 6:00 pm. From 12:00 am and 4:00 am, Route 22 operates with one- hour headways. This route operates on 20- to 30-minute headways during other times of the day. The bus stops closest to the project site are located just north of the El Camino Real/Dinah’s Court and just south of the El Cam!no Real/Charleston Road-Arastradero Road intersections. Sidewalks connect the project site to both bus stops; however, due to construction at the Hyatt Rickey’s, the sidewalk on the northeastern side along El Cam!no Real is currently closed. Route 88 provides local bus service between the California Avenue Caltrain Station and the Palo Alto Transit Center, the location of the Palo Alto Caltrain Station. In the project site area, Route 88 operates along Charleston Road. The line operates with one-hour headways, with some additional PM peak hour buses running between the Palo Alto Hospital and the California Street Transit Center. The route runs from 6:00 am to 7:00 pm during the week. The bus stops located closest to the project site are located just east and west along Charleston Road and Arastradero Road, respectively. Sidewalks connect the project site to the bus stops; however, as mentioned above, the sidewalk on the northeastern side of El Cam!no Real currently is closed. Route 522 provides rapid limited-stop bus service from the Eastridge Transit Center in San Jose to the Palo Alto Transit Center. In the project site area, Route 522 operates along El Cam!no Real. The line operates from 5:00 am to 7:00 pm, with 15- to 30-minute headways. The bus stops closest to the project site are located along El Cam!no Real just south of the Charleston Road-Arastradero Road intersection. Sidewalks connect the project site to the bus stops; however, as mentioned above, the sidewalk on the northeastern side of El Cam!no Real currently is closed. Caltrain provides frequent passenger train service between San Jose and San Francisco seven days a week. During commute hours, Caltrain provides extended service to Morgan Hill and Gilroy. Two local- and express- service Caltrain stations are located near the site: (1) California Avenue Station located north of Oregon Expressway, and (2) San Antonio Station located just south of San Antonio Road. The Palo Alto Caltrain Station, located at University Avenue and Alma Street, offers "Baby Bullet" service, with express train service to both San Francisco and San Jose. The Baby Bullet express service stops at only four stations between San Jose and San Francisco, which significantly reduces the travel time for long distance trips. Existing Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities Pedestrian facilities comprise sidewalks, crosswalks, and pedestrian signals. Crosswalks, curb ramps, and pedestrian signals are provided at the study signalized intersections. Sidewalks are provided along the frontage of the project site and along the study roadways in the project area. However, the sidewalk along the northeastern side of El Cam!no Real presently is closed due to Hyatt Rickey’s construction. Bicycle facilities comprise bike paths, bike lanes, and bike routes. Bike paths (Class I) are paved pathways separated from roadways. Bike lanes (Class il) are lanes for bicyclists adjacent to the outside vehicle travel lanes. These lanes have special lane markings, pavement legends, and signage. Bike routes are generally located on low volume streets that provide alternative routes for recreational, and in some cases, commuter and school children cyclists. These facilities are designated Class III and are signed for bike use, but have no separated bike right-of-way or lane striping. Palo Alto also designates bike boulevards on certain streets with low traffic volumes and speeds with preferential treatment for cyclists. A map of the City of Palo Alto bicycle system is shown on Figure 4. A Class I bicycle path is provided north of US 101 in the Baylands Nature Preserve. Two bike bridges/underpasses, located at Oregon Expressway and Fabian Way, provide non-motorized access to this path. Additionally, a park path, which provides an off-road cut-through path for cyclists, is provided in Mitchell Park. Class ! bicycle paths are also located along Arastradero Road, connecting 1-280 and Foothill Expressway, on the north side of Veterans Hospital along Foothill Expressway, and connecting Arastradero Road and Los Altos Avenue across Adobe Creek. Class II bike lanes are provided on Charleston Road, Arastradero Road, and Middlefield Road near the project site. 9 PROJECT S~TE FEHR & TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS May 2007 SJ07-932 N Not to Scale LEGEND: ~= Local Bus Routes ~= Express Bus Routes ~= Rapid 522 -+-++-+- = Caltrain PaloAIto Elks Club P E E RS TRANSIT FACIL~TIES FIGURE 3 PROJECT SiTE F EHR & TRANSPORTATION [Ot~SULTAt~TS May 200"7 SJ07-932 LEGEND: ~ = Bike Lane P E E RS B~CYCLE FACiLITiES FIGURE 4 Palo Alto Elks Club N Not to Scale EXiSTiNG ~NTERSECT~ON VOLUMES AND LANE CONFiGURATiONS The operations of the seven existing intersections (and one future intersection) were evaluated during the weekday morning (7:00 am to 9:00 am) and evening (4:00 pm to 6:00 pm) peak-hour conditions. Six of the study intersections are Congestion Management Program (CMP) intersections. Turning movement counts were obtained at all the study locations from the City of Palo Alto, Figure 5 presents the existing AM and PM peak-hour turning movement volumes and the corresponding lane configurations and traffic control devices at the study intersections. New traffic counts are contained in Appendix A. LEVEL OF SERVICE METHODS The operations of the intersections were evaluated using Level of Service (LOS) calculations. Level of Service is a qualitative description of intersection operations, ranging from LOS A, or free-flow conditions, to LOS F, or over- saturated conditions. All of the existing study intersections are signalized. The level of service method approved by Santa Clara County Valley Transportation Authority (VTA), and adopted by the City of Palo Alto, is the method described in Chapter 16 of the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) (Special Report 209, Transportation Research Board) with adjusted saturation flow rates to reflect conditions in Santa Clara County. This method evaluates signalized intersection operations on the average control vehicular delay. Control delay includes initial deceleration delay, queue move-up time, stopped delay, and acceleration delay. The average control delay for signalized intersections is calculated using TRAFFIX analysis software and is correlated to a LOS designation as shown in Table 1. The LOS standard (i.e., minimum acceptable operations) for signalized local intersections in the City Pato Alto is LOS D. The LOS standard for regional intersections within the City of Palo Alto is LOS E. The existing intersections of Charleston RoadiWilkie Way, Charleston Road/Middlefield Road, and Charleston Road/Alma Street, plus the future intersection of El Camino Real/Deodar Street are local intersections and therefore have a LOS D standard. The other four intersections are CMP (and therefore regional) intersections and a LOS E standard. FEI-iR & PEERS 12 PROJECT SITE Future Intersection LEGEND: = Study Intersection ~= Traffic Signal XX (YY) = AM (PM) Peak Hour Traffic Volumes FEHR & PEERS TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS August 2007 SJ07-932 Palo Alto Elks Club EXiSTiNG PEAK=HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES, LANE CONFiGURATiONS AND TRAFFIC CONTROLS FIGURE 5 TABLE SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE DEFINITIONS Average Control Delay Per Vehicle Level of Service Description (Seconds) Operations with very low delay occurring with favorable progression < t0.0A B+ B B- C+ C C- D+ D D- E+ E E- and!or short cycle lengths. Operations with low delay occurring with good progression and/or short cycle lengths. Operations with average delays resulting from fair progression and!or longer cycle lengths. Individual cycle failures begin to appear. Operations with longer delays due to a combination of unfavorable progression, long cycle lengths, and high VtC ratios. Many vehicles stop and individual cycle failures are noticeable. Operations with high delay values indicating poor progression, tong cycle lengths, and high V/C ratios. Individual cycle failures are frequent occurrences. F Operations with delays unacceptable to most drivers occurring due to over-saturation, poor progression, or very long cycle lengths.> 80.0 Source: 2000 H~hway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board. 10.1 to 12.0 12.1 tO 18.0 18.1 to 20.0 20.1 to 23.0 23.1 to 32.0 32.1 tO 35.0 35.1 tO 39.0 39.1 to 51.0 51.1 to 55.0 55.1 to 60.0 60.1 to 75.0 75.1 to 80.0 EXiSTiNG LEVELS OF SERVICE Existing peak-hour volumes, signal phasing/timings, and lane configurations were used to calculate levels of service for each of the study intersections. The results of the existing LOS analysis are presented in Table 2 and the corresponding LOS calculation sheets are included in Appendix B. Six of the seven existing intersections operate at LOS A or LOS D, acceptable levels for both local and regional intersections. The intersection of Foothill Expressway and Arastradero Road operates at LOS F, an unacceptable level of service, during both the AM and PM peak hours under Existing Conditions: FEI-!R & PEE]~5 14 TABLE 2 EXISTING INTERSECTION LEVELSOF SERVICE Traffic Peak Delay Intersection Control Hour (sec/veh)l !LOS2 1. San Antonio Road/Charleston Road Signal !AM 37.6 D+ I PM 37.0 D+ 2. Charleston Road/Middlefield Road Signal I AM 40.7 D PM 41.1 D 3. Charleston Road/Alma Street Signal AM 38.9 D+ I PM 40.3 D 4. Charleston RoadNVilkie Way Signal I AM 5.9 A i PM 4.3 A 5. El Camino Real/Charleston Road-Arastradero Road Signal AM 46.1 D PM .471 D 6. El Camino Real/San Antonio Road Signal AM 45.6 D PM 48.0 D 7. Foothill Expressway/Arastradero Road Signal AM 146.1 F I PM 80.9 F 8. El Camio Real/Deodar Street Future Intersection Notes: Bold type indicates an unacceptable level of service. Whole intersection weighted average stopped delay expressed in seconds per vehicle for signalized intersections. LOS calculations pedormed using the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodology. F~ELD OE~SERVAT!ONS Field observations were conducted at the study intersections during the AM and PM peak periods in November 2006 and March 2007. The intersections were generally observed to operate at the calculated levels of service for each peak-hour period. Heavy vehicle flows were observed at the intersection of San Antonio Road!Charleston Road during both the AM and PM peak hours. During the AM peak hour, the eastbound left-turn was observed to overflow the turn pocket and the northbound and eastbound were the heavy directions. During the PM peak hour, the eastbound left-turn was either observed to overflow the pocket or, in several instances, the through-movement queues blocked access to the pocket. Heavy directions were observed to be the eastbound and southbound directions. Additionally, during the PM peak hour, the southbound right-turn from San Antonio Road to Charleston Road backed up due to westbound left-turn queuing at the gas station entrance on Charleston Road. At Charleston Road/Middlefield Road, the northbound left-turn pocket was ful! during the AM peak hour and, during the PM peak hour, the southbound and eastbound left-turn pockets were full. At the intersection of Alma Street/Charleston Road, Caltrain operations contribute to delays along Charleston Road since the presence of the train stops traffic in the east!west directions. However, the traffic signal allots additional green time to through movements along Alma Street, which reduces the delays for the northbound and southbound movements along Alma Street. PEERS 15 Significant queues causing severe vehicle delays were observed at the following intersections: o Along Charleston Road during the AM (eastbound) and PM (westbound) peak-hours (through El Camino Rea!, Alma Street, and Middlefield Road) Southbound along Alma Street in the PM peak-hour (through Charleston Road and Meadow Drive) No significant queuing was observed at Charleston Road/Wilkie Way or the El Camino Real/San Antonio Road during either the AM or PM peak-hour. During the PM peak-hour at El Camino Real/Charleston Road-Arastradero Road, the northbound left-turn pocket on El Camino Real and the eastbound left-turn pocket on Arastradero Road were observed to overflow. Heavy queuing was also observed at the Foothill Expressway/Arastradero Road intersection, as the standing queue for eastbound Arastradero Road approach stretched over 2,000 feet through the Old Adobe Road intersection. Vehicles would wait through three to four cycles to clear the intersection in the eastbound direction. The other approaches to this intersection also experienced substantial queuing, but the queues would typically clear during each cycle. 16 3o BACKGROUND CONDiTiONS This chapter discusses the operations of the study intersections under Background Conditions, defined as conditions prior to completion of the proposed development in the Year 2010. Traffic volumes for Background Conditions were obtained from the City of Palo Alto Traffic model. This chapter describes the method used to determine Year 2010 traffic volumes and summarizes the level of service analysis results. BACKGROUND "TRAFFIC EST~[~ATES Base Volumes The City of Palo Alto provided roadway segment volumes from their Citywide Traffic Model for Year 2010. It was assumed that trips from the .existing Elks Lodge were included. For the El Camino Real/Charleston Road- Arastradero Road intersection, where traffic counts conducted in October and November 2006 exceeded the 2010 model output, the Furness process was used to project base volumes for the year 2010. (See Appendix C for Furness calculation sheets.) Approved Project Trips There is one approved project not accounted for in the model, the Center for Jewish Life (CJL) located at 901 San Antonio Road. The trip assignment for the CJL project was obtained from the Transportation Impact Analysis for the Draft Environmental Impact Report as provided by the City of Palo Alto.1 Total Background Volumes The CJL trip assignment was added to the base volumes to represent Background (Year 2010) peak-hour traffic volumes as shown on Figure 6. BACKGROUND LEVELS OF SERVICE Levels of service were calculated for the study intersections using the background traffic volumes. The intersection of El Camino Real/Deodar Street is controlled by stop signs on the side street approaches and was evaluated using the method from Chapter 17 of the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual The calculation method and the corresponding LOS criteria table are contained in Appendix E. Table 3 presents the LOS results and the corresponding LOS calculation sheets are included in Appendix B. Under Background Conditions, The intersection of Charleston Road and Wilkie Way is projected to continue to operate at LOS A. The CMP intersection of El Camino Real and San Antonio Road is projected to operate at LOS E, an acceptable level of service for regional CMP facilities, during both peak hours. The Deodar Street approach of the E! Camino Real/Deodar Street intersection is projected to operate at LOS F, an unacceptable level. The signalized intersections of Charleston Road!Middtefield Road and Charleston Prepared by Korve Engineering, February 2006. 17 Road/Alma Street will operate at LOS F, an unacceptable level, during both peak hours. Three CMP regional intersections will operate at unacceptable levels of service during one or both peak hours: San Antonio Road/Charleston Road (LOS F, AM peak hour) El Camino Real/Charleston Road-Arastradero Road(LOS F, AM and PM peak hours) Foothill ExpresswayiArastradero Road (LOS F, AM and PM peak hours) TABLE 3 BACKGROUND INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE Traffic Peak Delay Intersection !Control Hour (sec/veh)1 LOS= ¯ San Antonio Road/Charleston Road Signal AM 105.6 PM 66.9 E 2. Charleston Road/Middlefield Road Signal AM 99,4 F PM 64.3 E 3. Charleston Road/Alma Street Signal AM 98.5 F PM !04.3 F ~.. Charleston Road/Wilkie Way Signal AM 5.9 A PM 4.4 A .5. El Camino Real/Charleston Road-Arastradero Road Signal AM 98.2 F PM 177.1 F 5, El Camino Real/San Antonio Road Signal AM 66.1 E PM 78.2 E- !7. Foothill Expressway/Arastradero Road Signal Air1 158.5 F PM 88.2 F 8. El Camino Real/Deodar Street Side-Street AM >200 F Stop Controlled PM >200 F iNotes: Bold type indicates an unacceptable level of service. Whole intersection weighted average stopped delay expressed in seconds per vehicle for signalized intersections, ~LOS calculations performed using the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodology¯ 18 PROJECT S~TE FEHR & PEERS TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS August 2007 8J07-932 NNol tO Scale LEGEND: O =IntersectionStudy XX (YY) = AM (PM) Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Palo Alto Elks Club BACKGROUND CONDITIONS (YEAR 2010) PEAKoHOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES FIGURE 6 4o PBOJECT CONDiTiONS This chapter presents the impacts of the proposed Elks Lodge renovation (including the new fitness center) and residential development on the surrounding roadway system. First, the method used to estimate the amount of traffic generated by the project is described. Then, the results of the level of service calculations for Project Conditions are presented. A comparison of the intersection operating levels under Background and Project Conditions is made, and the resulting impacts of the project on the study intersections are discussed. Site access, on-site circulation, parking, and pedestrian, bicycle, and transit impacts are also addressed in.this chapter. Traffic generated by the existing and proposed uses was estimated separately. The existing trips were subtracted from the background 2010 traffic volumes and the proposed project trips were then added to determine "with project" volumes. This process was conducted due to the varying trip distribution patterns of the different uses. EXiSTiNG S~TE TRAFFIC Traffic volumes from the existing Elks Lodge (with 1,050 members and a 30,014-s.f. fitness and recreation.center) and 15,000 s.f. of child care facilities (with 230 students) were subtracted from the 2010 model volumes, since these buildings will be removed. The existing site traffic was estimated using a three-step process: (1) trip generation, (2) trip distribution, and (3) trip assignment. The first step estimates the amount of traffic added to the roadway network. The second step estimates the direction of travel to and from the site. The trips are assigned to specific street segments and intersection turning movements during the third step. Trip Generation The amount of traffic added to the surrounding roadway system by the existing facilities was estimated by applying Lodge/Fraternal ©rganization, Fitness Center, and Child Care Facilities trip generation rates from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Trip Generation to the various facilities located on the site. Table 4 summarizes the estimated trip generation of the existing site. The existing site is estimated to generate 2,323 daily trips, 220 AM peak-hour trips (11 2 inbound/108 outbound), and 310 PM peak-hour trips (t54 inbound!1 56 outbound). TABLE 4 TRIP GENERATION FOR EXISTING SITE Land Use Elks Lodge Fitness Center Child Care Facilities Total Existing Trips ~ Rate per unit. 2 Members 3 KSF (1,000s square feet) 4 Students Size 1’0502 30~ 230~ Daily Rate1 I Trips 0.29 305 32.93 988 4.48 1,030 Rate 0.01 1.21 0.75 AM In I Out 15 21 92 81 112 108 Source: Trip Generation, 7~" Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers, Total Rate 11 0.03 36 4.05 173 0.68 220 In 19 62 73 154 Out Total 13 I 32 60 122 83 156 156 i 310 2O Trip Distribution The trip distribution patterns for the Elks Lodge (including fitness and recreation center) and child care facility were developed based on existing travel patterns near the site, previous studies, and locations of complementary land uses in the area. A larger portion of the Elks Lodge traffic was assigned to local streets, as the majority of members come from Palo Alto and surrounding communities. A more regional trip distribution pattern was used for the child care facilities, as directed by the City of Palo Alto staff. The major travel directions for the trips to approach and depart the project site are shown on Figure 7. Trip Assignment The Elk’s Lodge and child care facilities trips were assigned to the roadway system based on the directions of approach and departure discussed above. PROJECT TRAFFIC VOLUMES Trip Generation The proposed project consists of 45 single-family housing units and renovation (reconstruction) of the Elks Lodge facilities including a 31,580-square foot recreation and fitness facility for Elks members only. With the renovation, the Elks are also proposing to increase the membership to a maximum of 1,500 members. The exisitng18,000 s.f. outdoor pool area on the Lodge site will be reconstructed as part of the renovated Lodge; thus no new trips were included for this use. Trip generation estimates for the proposed project were estimated using the same methodology as used for the existing facilities and the results are shown in Table 5. The existing trip estimates were subtracted from the proposed project trip estimates. As shown in Table 5, the proposed residential development/renovation of the Elks Lodge are estimated to generate approximately 349 fewer daily trips, 126 fewer AM peak-hour trips, and 85 fewer PM peak-hour trips than the existing uses. 21 TABLE 5 PROJECT TRIP GENERATION RATES AND ESTI[VIATES ITE Daily Ahl Peak Hour PI~, Peak Hour Land Use !Existing Site Elks Lodge (1,050 members) Fitness Center Child Care (230 students) Total Existing Trips Proposed Project Single-Family (45 units) Elks Lodge (1,500 members) Code Rate 591 0.29 492 32,93 565 4.48 305 0.01 5 6 11 0.03 988 1.21 15 21 36 4.05 1,030 0.75 92 81 173 0.68 2,323 112 108 220 Out I Total 19 1 13 32 621 60 122 73 ! 83 156 154 156 310 210 11.08 499 0.91 10 31 41 1.16 33 19 52 59t 0.29 435 0.01 7 8 15 0.03 27 18 45 Fitness Center (32 ksf) 492 32.93 1,040 1.21 16 22 38 4.05 65 63 128 Proposed Project Trips ~1,974 33 61 94 ~25 _-I 100 225 ~ Rate per unit (ksf, members, or dwelling unit).Source: Trip Generation, 7~’ Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers (2003). Trip Distribution The trip distribution pattern for the residential land use was estimated based on existing travel patterns near the site, Census Transportation Planning Package (CTPP) 2000 journey-to-work data, previous studies, and the relative locations of complementary land uses in the area. The same distribution for the existing Elks Lodge was used for the proposed Lodge. Figure 7 presents the estimated directions of approach and departure for the proposed residential development. Trip Assignment The project trips were assigned to the roadway system based on the directions of approach and departure discussed above. Figure 8 presents the project trip assignment at the study intersections. The net (project less trips from existing site) trip assignment is presented on Figure 9. Individual movements with negative numbers indicate that the existing site generates a higher number of trips than the proposed project. The net trip assignment was added to the Background Volumes to represent Project Conditions as shown on Figure 10. 22 5% (lO%) 15% (0%) [20%] (5%) PROJECT SITE 10% (5%) 20% (10%)[30%] 0% (25%) [1 FEHR & PEERS TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS August 2007 SJ07-932 N Not to Scale LEGEND: XX (YY) = Residential (Lodge) [ZZ] [Child Care] Trip Distribution Palo Alto Elks Club PROJECT TR~P DISTRIBUT~ON FIGURE 7 ~=ROJECT ~NTERSEC’F~ON LEVELS OF SERVICE Table 6 presents the LOS results under Background and Project Conditions. As indicated in the previous section, the proposed project would generate fewer trips than the existing uses on the site. Therefore, the intersection delay at the study intersections improved slightly under Project Conditions. Under Project Conditions, the following intersections operate at unacceptable levels of service: o San Antonio Road/Charleston Road ,~Charleston Road/Middlefield Road o Charleston Road/Alma Street ~El Camino Real/Charleston Road-Arastradero Road o Foothill Expressway/Arastradero Road ,~El Camino Real/Deodar Street These are the same six intersections that operated at unacceptable levels of service under Background Conditions. 24 TABLE 6 BACKGROUND AND PROJECT INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE Background Conditions Project Conditions Intersection ¯ San Antonio Road/Charleston Road 2.Charleston Road/Middlefield Road 3.Charleston Road/Alma Street 4.Charleston Road/VVilkie Way 5. El Camino Real/Charleston Road- &rastradero Road 5. El Oamino ReallSan Antonio Road 7. Foothill Expressway/Arastradero Road B. El Camino Real/Deodar Street Peak Hour AM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM Delay (sec/veh)~ 105.6 66.9 99.4 64.3 96.5 104.3 5.9 4.4 98.2 177.1 66.1 78.2 158.5 88.2 >200 >200 LOS2 F E F E F F A A F F E E- F F F F Delay (sec/veh) 105.0 66.9 99.7 64.3 106.0 102.5 6.2 4.5 149.7 172.5 65.1 78.0 155.9 84.8 >200 >200 LOS F E F E F F A A F F E E- F F F F IA in Crit. VIC3 -0.007 -0.005 -0.008 -0.002 -0.013 -0.007 -0.009 -0.009 -0.006 -0.026 -0.003 -0.001 -0.021 -0.007 N/A N/A in Crit. Delay4 -0.8 -0.1 +0.3 +0.1 -8.4 -2.8 +0.1 0.0 -3.4 -7.5 -0.6 -0.5 -17.6 -3.1 N/A Notes: Significant impacts are highlighted in bold. ~ Whole intersection weighted average stopped delay expressed in seconds per vehicle for signalized intersections. ~- LOS calculations performed using the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCtvl) methodology. ’ Change in average critical movement delay between Background and Project Conditions. " Change in critical volume to capacity ratio between Background and Project Conditions. 25 B 12) ---> Fabian SL Old MJddle#eld Wy PF~OJE.CT = Study Intersection ;J07-932 ~P~ p PROJEct C~° 4~o ~ks C~ub FIGURE 8 PROJECT SITE FEHR & PEERS TRANSPORTAT]Oi~CONSULTAI~TS August 2007 SJ07-932 ]LEGE~ND: = Study Intersection XX (YY) = AM (PM) Peak Hour Traffic VolumesNoI Io Scale Palo Alto Elks Club PROJECT CONDITIONS NET NEW PROJECT TR~P ASSIGNMENT FIGURE 9 PROJECT S~TE FEHR & PEERS TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS August 2007 SJ07-932 NScale LEGEND: O Study Intersection XX (YY) = AM (PM) Peak Hour Traffic Volumes PaloAIto Elks Club PROJECT CONDFFION$ (YEAR 2010) PEAK:HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES FIGURE 10 THRESHOLDS OF S~GN~F~CANCE A significant project impact would occur if the project results in one of the following: Causes a City of Palo Alto (local) intersection to deteriorate from acceptable LOS D conditions or better to unacceptable LOS E or F conditions, or o Causes a City of Palo Alto (local) intersection currently operating at LOS E or F conditions to increase in critical movement delay of four (4) seconds or more, and increase in the critical volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratio by 0.01 or more, or Cause a regional intersection to deteriorate from acceptable LOS E conditions or better to unacceptable LOS F conditions, or Cause a regional intersection currently operating at LOS F conditions to increase in critical movement delay of four (4) seconds or more, and increase in the volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratio by 0.01 or more, or Cause queuing impacts based on a comparative analysis between the design queue length and the available queue storage capacity. Queuing impacts include, but are not limited to, spitlback queues at project access locations; queues at turn lanes at intersections that block through traffic, queues at lane drops, queues at one intersection that extend back to impact other intersections, and spillback queues on ramps, or ~Impede the development or function of planned pedestrian or bicycle facilities, or ~Impede the operation of a transit system as a result of congestion, or ~Create an operational safety hazard, or Causes any change in traffic that would increase the Traffic Infusion on Residential Environment (TIRE) index by 0.1 or more on a local or collector residential street, or o Result in an adequate on-site parking capacity, or o Results in inadequate emergency access. PROJECT ~NTERSECT~ON ~MPACTS The results of the level of service calculations for Background Conditions were compared to the results for Project Conditions to identify significant project intersection impacts. Four of the signalized intersections operate at unacceptable levels of service, but they are projected to operate with slightly lower levels of delay under Project Conditions than Background Conditions. The increase in delay at the fifth signalized intersection projected to operate at LOS F is below the threshold. Therefore, the proposed project wilt have a less-than-significant impact at all of the signalized study intersections. The unsignalized intersection of El Camino Real/Deodar Street is addressed in the next section. S~TE ACCESS AND ONoS~TE C~RCULAT~ON As shown on Figure 2b, access to the site will be provided at El Camino Real via a proposed unsignalized full- access driveway, Deodar Street. The project plans to provide a break in the existing median along El Camino Real, with a left-turn pocket to access the project site. The Elks Lodge and the 45 proposed single-family dwelling 29 units will access the site via this driveway. The proposed site plan also shows a right-in/right-out only driveway on the southeastern side of the site to access the service yard and maintenance and storage buildings. The renovated Elks Lodge is proposed to front Et Camino Real and the residential subdivision will be on the east side of the Lodge. A passenger drop-off area with 10 parking spaces is proposed at the entrance to the Elks Lodge off of Deodar Street. It is recommended that signage such as "Exit Only" or "Do Not Enter" be provided at the intersection of the drop-off area and the garage driveway. A crosswalk is also recommended at the throat of the garage access. This location minimizes the crossing distance and provides visibility to pedestrians at the garage driveway. Pedestrian sight distance is adequate at this location. The crosswalk will provide access from the residential areas (Elks Residential and D.R. Horton subdivisions) to the Elks Lodge and El Camino Real. Figure 11a presents the proposed signage and crosswalk locations. A review was conducted for the on-site circulation in the underground parking garage proposed for the Elks Lodge. Stop signs are recommended at the intersection formed by at the bottom of the garage driveway ramp to assign right-of-way to incoming vehicles, as the incoming traffic would not be visible to vehicles circulating or exiting the garage. Figure 11 b presents the recommended stop sign locations. A small grid pattern is proposed for the interior roadways of the residential plan. All internal roadways accommodate two-way travel. Perpendicular guest parking is proposed along portions of Street A and Street B. Enhanced pavement is proposed at the intersections of the internal roadways. It is recommended that the landscaping used at the corners of the internal intersection either be no taller than two feet or if trees are used, the branches should be no lower than 6 feet to provide adequate sight distance. On-site circulation is enhanced by the connections to the surrounding developments, including the D.R. Horton residential site. The on-site circulation for the sites is considered acceptable with the improvements discussed above. El Camino Real!Deodar Sb~ee~ Opersdons The projected volumes at El Camino Real/Deodar Street were evaluated to assess the traffic operations and to determine the required storage length for the inbound left-turn pocket. All project peak hour traffic was assigned to the El Camino Real/Deodar Street driveway to present a conservative analysis. The traffic assignment for the D.R. Horton residential project from the September 13, 2005 Focused Traffic Analysis for Hyatt Rickey’s (prepared by W-Trans) was also included at El Camino Real/Deodar Street intersection. There is an existing concrete raised median at the location of the intersection of El Camino Real/Deodar Street,. A break is proposed to accommodate vehicles turning left in and out of the project site. The number of trips turning left into or out of the project site is 33 and 43 during the AM peak hour, respectively, and 120 and 44 during the PM peak hour, respectively. Level of service calculations and queuing analyses were performed to determine the storage length required for the left-turn pocket within the median. The driveway operates unacceptably at LOS F for both peak hours; however, the peak-hour signal warrant is not met due to the low volume of vehicles exiting at Deodar Street. Platooning from the nearby signals at Dinah’s Court and Charleston Road-Arastradero Road will likely provide adequate gaps for left-turns movements. Gap lengths at the future median break location were measured by Fehr & Peers in August 2007 and compared to HCM critical gap times for a six-lane major street. Gaps measured indicate that the traffic at Et Camino Real!Deodar Street currently has sufficient gaps to accommodate the projected traffic volumes to enter or exit the site at this location. A summary of the gap times is presented in Appendix D. It is recommended that the City continue to monitor this intersection to ensure that adequate gaps are provided as traffic along El Camino Real increases. The intersection could be modified to 3O prohibit left-turns out and/or traffic signal installation could be considered should the available gaps not accommodate the turnin~ movement volumes. The maximum queues were calculated as 3 vehicles in the AM peak hour and 6 vehicles in the PM peak hour for the southbound left-turn into the project site from El Camino. Based on these estimated queues, a southbound left-turn storage pocket with a minimum length of 150 feet is recommended. The maximum queue for the. westbound left-turn vehicles exiting this driveway were calculated as 5 vehicles in the AM peak hour and 5 vehicles in the PM peak hour. These queues would not impact on-site circulation, as they would not extend through the proposed break in the Deodar Street median at the Elks Club driveway. See Appendix D for unsignalized LOS calculation sheets and queuing analysis. PARKING iMPACTS Parking impacts for only the residential portion of the project are evaluated in this report. Parking estimates for the Elks Lodge (including fitness and recreation center) are on-going and will be evaluated in a separate document: A significant project impact would occur if the project results in inadequate on-site parking supply. As shown in Table 7, the proposed residential site plan includes 105 total parking stalls, 90 in two-car garages for the residential units and 15 guest parking spaces,. The City of Palo Alto Zoning Ordinance requires that the proposed project supply 105 on-site parking spaces, two per dwelling unit plus guest parking. Thus, the residential portion of the site provides sufficient parking based on the City of Palo Alto Zoning Ordinance, TABEE 7 PARKING ANALYSIS Land Use Single Family Detached Residential Number Units Required Supply~ of Units Spaces ! Per Unit 45 d.u.22 d.u. Required Supply 105 Provided Stalls 1053 Supply Adequate (Y/N)? 1 Required Supply from City of Palo Alto’s Zoning Ordinance. 2 One of which must be covered. Also, guest parking requirement of additional 1 space + 33% of the number of units. 3 Each of 45 units have 2-car garage attached, plus 15 surface parking stalls on site. The project provides an adequate number of parking stalls for the proposed residential development based on City Ordinance, thus the project’s impact is less-than-significant. FE]tR & PEERS 31 r~ ~Jr~ Z~J 0 PEDESTRIAN, BICYCLE, AND TRANSIT IMPACTS Pedestrian and Bicycle Circulation An impact to pedestrians and/or bicyclists occurs if the proposed project impedes the development or function of planned pedestrian or bicycle facilities. This would occur if the project conflicts with the existing or planned bicycle facilities or creates pedestrian and bicycle demand without providing adequate and appropriate facilities for safe non-motorized mobility. Existing sidewalks are provided along the project frontage on El Camino Real and along the internal roadway, Deodar Street. Sidewalks are also provided along Street A and the south side of Street D. The proposed site plan also shows sidewalks along an internal alley to provide pedestrian access to the residential units. The streets proposed in the site plan provide access to the units’ garages. An area of open space and pedestrian paths are also proposed on the east side of the project site. The local bus stops are all accessible via existing sidewalks, although the sidewalk along the northeastern side of El Camino Real is currently closed due to Hyatt- Rickey’s/D.R. Horton construction. Bike lanes are provided on Middlefield Road, Charleston Road, and Arastradero Road near the project site. A map of the future Palo Alto bicycle network is presented on Figure 12. According to this figure, bike lanes are proposed along Alma Street, along El Camino Real, and through the Charleston Road-Arastradero Road transition. A future bike boulevard is also proposed along Wilkie Way. The proposed project does not conflict with existing or preclude construction of proposed future bicycle and pedestrian facilities, therefore, the project would have a less-than-significant impact on pedestrian and bicycle circulation. Transit An impact to transit would occur if the project impedes the operation of a transit system as a result of congestion. Impacts to transit are considered significant if the proposed project impedes the development or operation of existing or planned transit facilities or generates potential transit trips without adequate transit capacity or adequate facilities for pedestrians and bicyclists to access transit stops. The project site will generate new transit trips for the residential component of the project. The Elks Lodge is expected to generate negligible transit trips. Using a 3% transit mode split, the transit demand from the residential units was calculated to be one AM peak-hour trip and two PM peak-hour trips. Due to the low demand, the existing transit facilities will be able to accommodate the increase in transit trips. Existing transit routes #22 and #522 stop along El Camino Real just north of Dinah’s Court and just south of Charleston-Arastradero, within one- quarter mile of the project site. Additional transit stops along route #88 are located within the one-quarter mile of the project site on Charleston Road and Arastradero Road. The project would not have a significant impact to transit facilities. 34 FEHR & PEERS TRANSPDRTATION CONSULTANTS August2007 SJ07-932 Palo Alto Elks Club FUTURE BICYCLE NETWORK FIGURE 12 5o CUMULATIVE (YEAR 2015) CONDITIONS This chapter discusses the development of traffic projectic~ns for Cumulative Conditions. Cumulative Conditions are assumed to be Year 2015 which corresponds to the future year of the City’s travel demand forecasting model. YEAR 2015 TRAFFIC ESTIMATES Year 2015 No Project Volumes Year 2015 No Project traffic estimates were developed using traffic volumes from the City of Palo Alto’s model. Trips generated from the Campus for Jewish Life Project located at 901 San Antonio Road were added to the study intersections as well, as discussed under Background Conditions. Figure 13 shows the Cumulative (Year 2015) No Project traffic volumes. Year 2015 Plus Project Volumes The net trip assignment (project less the existing Elks Lodge), as shown on Figure 9, was added to Year 2015 No Project volumes to estimate Year 2015 Plus Project volumes (see Figure 14). YEAR 2015 CUMULATIVE LEVELS OF SERVICE Table 8 presents the levels of service under the Year 2015 Conditions. The local intersection of Charleston Road and Wilkie Way will operate at an acceptable level under Year 2015 No Project and Year 2015 Plus Project Conditions. The following intersections will operate at unacceptable levels of service for both 2015 No Project and 201 5 Plus Project Conditions during both peak hours: San Antonio Road/Charleston Road Charleston Road/Middlefield Road Charleston Road/Alma Street o El Camino Real/Charleston Road-Arastradero Road o El Camino Real/San Antonio Road e Foothill Expressway/Arastradero Road As with near-term conditions, the vehicular delays improve slightly from No Project to Plus Project Conditions for most of the intersections. The unsignalized project driveway intersection at El Camino Real and Deodar Street is projected to operate at LOS F. YEAR 2015 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Most of the study intersections are prpjected to operate at LOS F, an unacceptable level, during both the AM and PM peak hours under Cumulative (2015) conditions. The project will cause delay decreases at most of the intersections and only slight increase at two. The thresholds of significance defined by the City of Palo Alto are FEHR & PEERS 36 not met. Therefore, the proposed project is estimated to have a less-than-significant impact to the signalized study intersections. TABLE 8 CUMULATIVE NO PROJECT AND PLUS PROJECT LEVELS OF SERVICE Intersection 2015 Plus Project Conditions Delay ~, in Crit. A in Crit. 1. San Antonio Road/Charleston Road 21 Charleston Road/Middtefield Road 2015 No Project Conditions Peak DelayHour 3. Charleston Road/Alma Street 4. Charleston Road/Wilkie Way 5. El Camino Real/Charleston Road-Arastradero Road ~i El Camino Real/San Antonio Road 7. Foothill Expressway/Arastradero Road 8. El Camino Real/Deodar Street (sec/veh)~ AM 135.3 PM 112.4 AM 104.5 PM 101.4 AM 134.3 PM 187.5 AM 610 PM 4.3 AM 146.9 PM >200 AM 96.0 PM 107.5 AM 174.0 PM 98.6 AM >200 PM >200 LOS2 F F F F F F A A F F F F F F F F (sec/veh)LOS 134.7 F 112.0 F 104.8 F 101.4 F 126.8 F 184.8 F 6.3 A 4.5 A 139.9 F >200 F 95.5 F 107.1 F 164.0 F 94.8 F >200 F >200 F Notes: Significant impacts are highlighted in bold. V/C3 Delay4 -0.007 -0.8 -0.005 +0.1 -0.009 +0.8 -0.002 -0.1 -0.013 -9.9 -0.007 -4.1 -0.009 +0.1 -0.009 0.0 -0.029 -9.3 -0.026 -8,6 -0.003 -1.0 -0.003 -0.8 -0.021 -17.9 -0.007 -3.5 N/A N/A N/A N/A ’ Whole intersection.weighted average stopped delay expressed in seconds per vehicle for signalized intersections. LOS calculations performed using the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodology. Change in average critical movement delay between 2015 No Project and 2015 Plus Project Conditions. "Change in critical volume to capacity ratio between 2015 No Project and 2015 Plus Project Conditions. SITE ACCESS AND ON-SITE CIRCULATION Analysis of the full-access project driveway under Year 2015 Plus Project Conditions was performed to evaluate site access under Cumulative Conditions. Levels of service and queuing analyses were completed. The results of the level of service calculation show the full-access driveway operating at LOS F during the AM and PM peak hours due to the heavy through volumes along El Camino Real. Under Cumulative plus Project Conditions, AM and PM peak-hour queuing calculations were conducted. The queuing worksheets are included in Appendix D. The southbound left-turn queue into the project site from El Camino Real was estimated to be 3 vehicles in the AM peak hour and 7 vehicles in the PM peak hour. For the westbound left-turn out of the project site, the queue was estimated to be 5 vehicles in the AM peak hour and 6 vehicles in the PM peak hour. The westbound right-turn queue out of the project site was estimated to be 6 vehicles during both the AM and PM peak-hour. These queues would not impact on-site circulation, as they would 37 not extend through the proposed break in the Deodar Street median at the Elks Club driveway. Lengthening the southbound left-turn pocket to a minimum of 175 feet is recommended. Intersection operations should be monitored and left-turns out should be prohibited if insufficient gaps are provided on El Camino Real. 38 PROJECT SITE FEHR & PEERS TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS August 2007 SJ07-932 LEGEND: IntersectionStudy XX (YY) = AM (PM) Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Palo Alto Elks Club CUMULATIVE CONDITIONS (YEAR 2015) PEAK-HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES FIGURE 13 PROJECT SITE F EHR &_ PEERS TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS August2007 SJ07-932 NNot Io Scale LEGEND: O =IntersectionStudy XX (YY) = AM (PM) Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Palo Alto Elks Club CUMULATIVE PLUS PROJECT CONDITIONS~AR 2@5) PEAK-HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES FIGURE 14 6.CONCLUSIONS The existing Elks Lodge facility, including the fitness and recreation center, and 230-student child care facility, is estimated to generate 2,323 daily trips, 220 AM peak-hour trips, and 310 PM peak-hour trips. The proposed project, including the reconstructed Elks Lodge, recreation and fitness facilities for Elks members, and construction of 45 single-family detached residential units, is estimated to generate 349 fewer daily trips, 126 fewer AM peak-hour trips, and 85 fewer PM peak-hour trips compared to the existing uses. The trip reduction is due to the removal of the existing 230-student child care facility. Intersection operations were evaluated at eight study intersections with level of service calculations during the weekday morning (AM) and evening (PM) peak periods for Existing, Background, Project, Cumulative (2015) No Project Conditions, and Cumulative (2015) Plus Project Conditions. All signalized study intersections are projected to operate with lower delays (or with minimal delay increases) under the Project scenarios compared to the Background or Cumulative No Project Conditions for the both the AM and PM peak-hours. Thus, no significant signalized intersection impacts were identified. Gaps measured at El Camino Real/Deodar Street indicate that project traffic will have sufficient gaps to enter or exit at this location. Based on the proposed trip assignment, a southbound left-turn pocket of 175 feet is recommended to accommodate inbound vehicles. No significant queues are projected on Deodar Street. It is recommended that the intersection be monitored to ensure that adequate gaps are provided. The intersection could be modified to prohibit left-turns out and/or traffic signal installation could be considered should the available gaps not accommodate the turning movement volumes. The on-site circulation is considered acceptable with the addition of the following: Stop signs along the north-south circulation aisle at the underground garage ramp for the Elks Club parking lot Crosswalk at the throat of the garage access, near the Elks Club drop-off area "Exit Only" or "Do Not Enter" signs at the intersection of the drop-off area and garage driveway The project is estimated to have a less-than-significant impact to the pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities since adequate pedestrian facilities are provided, the proposed project does not conflict with existing or planned bicycle and pedestrian facilities, and existing transit service is provided within one-quarter mile of the project site. On-site parking provided for the residential portion of the project meets the requirements set by the City of Palo Alto Zoning Ordinance. Parking estimates for the Elks Lodge are on-going and will be evaluated in a separate document. FEHR & PEERS 41 APPENDIX A: TRAFFIC COUNTS Traffic Data Service Campbell, CA (408) 377-2988 tdsbay@~:s, corn File Name : 5AMFINAL Site Code : 00000005 Start Date : 11/8/2006 Page No : 1 Start Time Factor 07:00 AM 07:15 AM 07:30 AM 07:45 AM Total W. CHARLESTON RD Southbound RightlThru’ Left’PedsI ~P ....1.o 1.o! 1.o! 1.o 1 99 0 0 100 7 137 2 0 146 6 206 2 0 214 16 164 2 0 182 30 606 6 0 642 Westbound Righ~ ! Thru Left Peds I ,~=p’r~ 1.01 1.0 1.0 1.0 6 0 4 0 10 10 0 3 0 13 4 2 33 0 39 3 5 11 0 19 Northbound Ri,h{ThruI Lefl’PedsI ,,.~ 1.0 1.0 1.01 1.0 1 6t 1 0 63 0 77 1 0 78 6 136 1 0 143 11 182 6 0 199 23 Groups Printed- Vehicles WtLKIE WY W. CHARLESTON RD WILKIE WY Eastbound 1.0I 1.0.1.0 1.0 3 0 4 0 7 2 0 5 0 7 7 2 9 0 18 6 1 6 0 13 7 51 0 81 I 18 456 9 0 4831 18 3 24 0 45 180 244 414 413 1251 08:00 AM 9 170 08:15 AM 5 167 08:30 AM 5 159 08:45 AM 6 180 TotalI 25 676 2 2 3 1 8 0 181 0 174 0 167 0 187 0 709 1 2 14 5 6 8 5 0 5 4 2 5 15 10 32 0 0 0 0 0 17 11 162 7 19 8 122 3 10 4 175 4 11 0 151 9 57I 23 610 23 0 -180 0 133 0 183 0 160 0 656 6040 1100388 5 1 9 0 15 341 5 1 5 0 11 371 5 1 4 0 368 21 3 22 0 46 I 1468 GrandTotalI 55 1282 14 0 1351 38 17 83 0 138 41 1066 32 0 !139 39 6 46Apprch%I 4.1 94.9 1 0 27.5 12.3 60.1 0 3.6 93.6 2.8 0 42.9 6.6 50.5 Total%2 47.1 0.5 0 49.7 1.4 0.6 3.1 0 5.1 1.5 39.2 1.2 0 41.9 1.4 0.2 1.7 0 91 2719 0 0 3.3 W. CHARLESTON RDI WILKIE WY I W, CHARLESTON RD WILKIE WY Southbound Westbound Northbound Eastbound Start Time ! Right I Thru I Left ! Peds [ ...... i Right ! Thru t Left t Peds I ,’,~ -to= [ Right I Thru 1 Left I Peds ! .... I Right I Thru I Left I Peds Peak Hour Analysis From 07:00 AM to 08:45 AM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 07:30 AM 07:30 AM 6 206 2 0 214 4 2 33 07:45 AM 16 164 2 0 182 3 5 11 08:00 AM 9 170 2 0 181 1 2 14 08:15 AM 5 167 2 0 174 5 6 8 Total Volume 36 707 8 0 751 13 15 66 %App. Total 4.8 94.1 1.!0 13.8 16 70,2 PHFI.56~.858 ~.ooo .000 .877 0 39 0 19 0 17 0 19 0 94 0 6 136 1 133 11 182 6 11 162 7 8 122 3 36 602 17 655 5.5 91.9 2.6 .818 .827 .607 .000 .823! 0 143 7 2 9 0 18 0 199 6 1 6 0 13 0 180 6 0 4 0 10 0 5 1 9 0 15 0 24 4 28 0 56 0 42.9 7.1 50 0 .857 .500 .778 .000 .778 414 413 388 341 1556 !.650 .625 .500 ,000 .603 1 .940 Traffic Data Selwice Campbell, CA (408) 377-2988 tdsbay@cs.com File Name : 5PMFINAL Site Code : 00000005 Start Date : 11/8/2006 Page No : 1 W. CHARLESTON RD Southbound Start Time ~!gh{ I Thru Left j t ’Facor 1.0! 1.0 1.01 04:00PMI 6 102 9 0 117 04:15PMI 2 110 6 0 118 04:30 Ptvl 7 108 2 0 117 04:45PM 19 117 3 0 139 TotalI 34 437 20 0 491 Groups Printed- Vehicles WILKIE WY W. CHARLESTON RD Westbound RJghl t ThruI Left, Peds J 1.0 1:0 1.0i 1,01 3 0 1 0 4 4 0 3 0 7 1 0 4 0 5 0 0 5 0 5 8 0 13 0 21 Northbound Right Thru ! Left ! Peds .~p. ~row ,1.o 1.ol !.o1 1.o316580 176 8 134 0 0 142 7 155 4 0 166 11 179 4 0 194 29 633 16 0 678 WILKIE WY Eastbound Right [Thru.0 Left Peds t ~To~ 1.0 I 1 1.0 1.0 7 1 4 0 12 8 1 3 0 12 9 0 7 0 16 11 1 5 0 17 35 3 19 0 57 Ir~. Total 309 279 304 355 1247 05:00PMI 1 174 5 0 !80 05:15PMt 4 152 5 0 161 05:30PM 10 141 4 0 155 05:45PM 7 154 2 0 163 TotalI 22 621 16 0 659 Grand Total 56 1058 36 0 1150 Apprch %4.9 92 3.1 0 Total %2 37.6 1,3 0 40.9 4 1 7 7 5 11 3 8 9 2 1 7 16 15 34 24 15 47 27.9 17.4 54.7 0.9 0.5 1.7 0 0 0 o 0 i2 6 202 6 23 !0 166 3 20 10 164 9 10 13 173 16 65t 39 705 34 0 214 0 179 0 183 0 202 0 778 7 2 9 7 1 7 13 4 2 7 2 2 34 9 20 0 18 424 0 15 378 0 19 377 0 11 386 0 631 1565 0 86 I 68 1338 50 0 1456 69 12 39 0 120 2812 0 [ 4.7 91.9 3.4 0 57.5 10 32.5 0 0 3.1 2.4 47.6 1,8 0 51,8 2,5 0.4 1.4 0 4,3 W. CHARLESTON RD Southbound Right f Thru J L.eft WILKIE WY t W. CHARLESTON RD WILKIE WY Westbound Northbound Eastbound Thru I Left ! Peds ! ....! Right I Thru ! Left I Peds t -~,~ ....I Right ! Thru I Left ! PedsStart Time Peak Hour Analysis From 04:00 PM to 05:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 05:00 PM 05:00PM 1 174 5 0 180 4 1 7 0 12 05:15PM 4 152 5 0 161 7 5 11 0 23 05:30PM 10 141 4 0 155 3 8 g 0 20 05:45PM 7 154 2 0 163 2 1 7 0 10 Total Volume 22 621 16 0 659 16 15 34 0 65 %App. Tota!!3.3 94.2 2.4 0 24.6 23.1 52.3 0 PHFI.550 .892 .800 .000 .915!.571 .469 .773 ,000 .707 6 202 6 0 214 7 2 9 0 18 424 10 166 3 0 179 7 1 7 0 11 15 378 10 164 9 0 183 13 4 2 0 19 377 13 173 16 0 202 7 2 2 0 386 39 705 34 0 778 34 9 20 0 63 1565 5 90.6 4.4 0 54 14.3 31.7 0 .750 ,873 .531 ,000 .9091,654 .563 .556 ,000 .829f .923 APPENDIX B" ~NTERSECTION LOS WORKSHEETS I! ~o o APPENDIX C: BACKGROUND AND CUMULATIVE VOLUMES o :. Fehr Peers Associates Future Turning Movement Calculation Sheet (201,5, Conditions) N/S Street Charleston Time Period 2015 AM E/W Street ECR Date 12/21/2006 Project Elks Club 4---72%2863 3963[. --~-28%1100 1315 12391 Future 1071 100.0%1411 l 43°/° ......... ~~ 8015 2875. 1236 100,0% ~44%~56% 1523 100.1%1915 72%3793 28°/o 1499 Fehr Peers Associates Future Tur~"ing MOvement Calculation Sheet (20~OConditions) N/S Street Charleston Time Period 2010 PM EHV’ Street ECR Date 12/21/2006 Project Elks Club 2111 1912 Existing 52% ~ 48% ~ 609 50%2252 Future 2854 50%.,~ 2824 50% 100.1% 948 751 29% 100.0% 1421 1794 71% 50%312! 50%3158 99.9 Yo ~;~ 1027 100.0%2139 Fehr Peers Associates Future Turning Movement Calculation Sheet (2010 Conditions) N/S Street Charleston Time Period 2010 AM E/W Street ECR Date 12/21/2006 Project Elks Club 720 949 ~-~ Existing ~43%.57% 2525 70% ~,,=~ 72%286,3 1067 30% ~--~-28%110C 3266 1169 1239 Future 980 100.0%1098 !47°/o 53°/oI 48681 71%3478 29%1390 O0 0 Yo ~:;~ 1485 100.0%1612 Fehr Peers Associates Future Turning Movement Calculation Sheet (2015 Conditions) N/S Street Charleston -rime Period 2015 PM ENV Street ECR Date 12/21/2006 Project Elks Club 609 9 7 Existing ~ 40°/c 60%T 2111 52% ~~-~ 50% 2252 1912 48% ~~50%2218 1421 Future 817 99,9% 1831 69% 3182 50%.,~,----- 3224 50%-----~ 100.1% 5O% 3527 50%3601 1074 100,1%2084 APPENDIX D: SITE ACCESS AND QUEUING CALCULATIONS MITIG8 - Background AM Sun Aug 12, 2007 14:36:58 Page i-! Elks Lodge SJ07-932 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Future Volume Alternative) Intersection #108 E! Cam!no Rea!/Deodar Street Average Delay (sec/veh) :5.9 Worst Case Leve! Of Service: F[704.2] Street Name: Approach: Movement: Contro!: Rights: Lanes: Volume Module: E1 Cam!no Real Deodar Street North Sound South Bound East Bound West Bound L -T -R L -T -R L -T -R L -T -R Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign Include Include Include Include 0 0 2 i 0 ! 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ! 0 0 1 0 Base Vol:0 3478 Growth Adj:1,00 1.00 initial Bse:0 3478 Added Vol:0 2 ATI:0 0 Initial Fut:0 3480 User Adj:1.00 1.00 PHF Adj:!.00 !.00 PHF Volume:0 3480 Reduct Vol:0 0 Fina!Vo!ume:0 3480 Critical Gap Module: 0 0 1391 !.00 1.00 1.00 0 0 1391 7 13 6 0 0 0 7 13 1397 !.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 7 13 1397 0 0 0 7 13 1397 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.00 t.00 !.00 1.00 !.00 t.00 1.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 26 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 26 0 14 1.00 t.00 !.00 !.00 !.00 1.00 !.00 1.00 !.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0 0 0 0 26 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 26 0 14 Critical Gp:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 4.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 6.8 6.5 6.9 Fo!lowUpTim:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 2.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 3,5 4.0 3,3 Capacity Module: Cnf!ict Vo!: xxxx xxxx xxxxx 3487 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 3975 4907 1164 Potent Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx Move Cap.:xxxx xxxx xxxxx Tota! Cap:xxxx xxxx xxxxx Volume/Cap:xxxx xxxx xxxx Level Of Service Module: 2Way95thQ: xxxx xxxx xxxxx Control Del:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx LOS by Move:*** Movement:LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.:xxxx xxxx xxxxx II 75 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 2 ! 191 75 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 2 1 191 xxxx xxxx xxxxx !!0 4 xxxxx 13 17 xxxxx 0.!7 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 2.02 0.00 0.07 0.6 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 4.1 xxxx xxxxx 63.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 1070 xxxx xxxxx F *****F ** LT -LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xx×x 191 SharedQueue:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 0.2 Shrd ConDe!:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 25.4 Shared LOS:***********D ApproachDel:xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx 704.2 ApproachLOS:***F Note:Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix 7,8.0115 (c) 2007 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to FEHR & PEERS, SAN JOSE MITIG8 - Background PM Sun Aug 12, 2007 14:39:27 Page i-I Elks Lodge SJ07-932 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsigna!ized Method (Future Volume Alternative) Intersection #108 E1 Camino Real/Deodar Street Average Delay (sec/veh) :24.7 Worst Case Level Of Service: F[8106.7] Street Name:E1 Camino Real Deodar Street Approach:North Bound South Bound East Bound Movement:L -T -R L -T -R L -T -R Control:Uncontrolled Rights:Include Lanes:0 0 2 1 0 Volume Module: Base Vol:0 3116 0 Growth Adj:1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse:0 3116 0 Added Vo!:0 6 22 ATI:0 0 0 Initia! Fut:0 3122 22 User Adj:1.00 io00 !.00 PHF Adj:!.00 1.00 !.00 PHF Volume:0 3122 22 Reduct Vo!:0 0 0 Fina!Volume:0 3122 22 Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx FollowUpTim:××xxx xxxx xxxxx Capacity Module: Cnflict Vo!: xxxx xxxx xxxxx Potent Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx Move Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx Volume/Cap: xxxx xx×x xxxx Leve! Of Service Module: 2Way95thQ: xxxx x×xx xxxx× Control Del:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx LOS by Move:*** Movement:LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.:x×xx xxxx xxxxx Uncontrolled Stop Sign include Include 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I 0 3158 0 0 0 !.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0 3158 0 0 0 46 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 46 3161 0 0 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 !.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 ~6 3161 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 46 3161 0 0 0 West Bound L -T -R Stop Sign include 1 0 0 ! 0 0 0 0 0 1.00 !.00 1.00 1.00 0 0 0 0 0 12 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 12 0 7 !.00 !.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 !o00 0 12 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 12 0 7 6.8 6.5 6.9 3,5 4.0 3.3 314% xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx %279 6386 1052 103 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx !O 226 103 xxxx xxxxx xxxx ×xxx xxxxx !0 226 0.45 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 13.77 0.00 0.03 1.9 xxxx xxxxx x××x x×x× xxxx× 2.9 xxxx xxxxx 65.9 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 12823 xxxx xxxxx F *****F ~* LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 226 SharedQueue:×xx×x xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 0.I Shrd ConDel:xxx×x xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 21.4 Shared LOS:***********C ApproachDel:xxxxxx xxxxxx xx×xxx 8106.7 ApproachLOS:***F Note:Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix 7.8.0115 (c) 2007 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to FEHR & PEERS, SAN JOSE MITIG8 - Project AM Sun Aug 12, 2007 14:40:14 Page i-I Elks Lodge SJ07-932 Volume Module: Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Future Volume Alternative) Intersection #108 E1 Camino Real/Deodar Street Average Delay (sec/veh) :15.1 Worst Case Level Of Service: F[809.5] Street Name:E1 Camino Real Deodar Street Approach:North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement:L -T -R L -T -R L -T -R L -T -R Contro!:Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign Rights:Include include Include Include Lanes:0 0 2 1 0 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 !0 Base Vo!:0 3478 Growth Adj:!.00 1.00 Initial Bse:0 3478 Added Vo!:0 2 ATI:0 0 Initial Fut:0 3480 User Adj:1.00 1.00 PHF Adj:1.00 1.00 ?HF Volume:0 3480 Reduct Vo!:0 0 Fina!Volume:0 3480 Critical Gap Module: 0 0 1391 1.00 !.00 1.00 0 0 1391 16 33 6 0 0 0 16 33 1397 !.00 !.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 16 33 1397 0 0 0 16 33 1397 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 !.00 1.00 1.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 43 0 47 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 43 0 47 1.00 1.00 1.00 !.00 1.00 !.00 !.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0 0 0 0 43 0 47 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 43 0 47 critical Gp:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx FollowUpTim:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: xxxx xxxx xxxxx Potent Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx Move Cap.:xxxx xxxx xxxxx Total Cap:xxxx xxxx xxxxx Volume/Cap:xxxx xxxx xxxx 4.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 6.8 6.5 6.9 2.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 3.5 4.0 3.3 3496 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 4020 4951 1168 74 xxxx xxxxx xx~x xxxx xxxxx 2 1 189 74 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 1 0 189 xxxx xxxx xxxxx 71 0 xxxxx 13 17 xxx×x 0.45 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 3.37 0.00 0.25 Leve! Of Service Module: 2Way95thQ: xxxx xxxx xxxxx 1.8 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 6.3 xxxx xxxxx Control De!:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 88.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 1661 xxxx xxxxx LOS by Move:***F *****F ** Movement:LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.:xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 189 SharedQueue:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 0.9 Shrd ConDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 30.2 Shared LOS:*********~*D ApproachDel:xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx 809.5 ApproachLOS:***F Note:Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix 7.8.0115 (c) 2007 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to FEBR & PEERS, SAN JOSE MITIG8 - Project PM Sun Aug 12, 2007 14:40:43 Page I-i Elks Lodge March 2, 2007 SJ07-932 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Future Volume Alternative) Intersection #108 E! Camino Real/Deodar Street Average Delay (sec/veh) : OVERFLOW Worst Case Level Of Service: F[xxxxx] E1 Camino Real Deodar StreetStreet Name: Approach:North Bound Movement:L -T -R Control:Uncontrolled Rights:Include Lanes:0 0 2 1 0 Volume Module: Base Vol:0 3116 Growth Adj:1.00 1.00 initial Bse:0 3116 Added Vol:0 6 ATI:0 0 Initial Fut:0 3122 User Adj:1.00 1.00 PHF Adj:!.00 1.00 PHF Volume:0 3122 Reduct Vol:0 0 FinalVolume:0 3122 South Bound L T -R Uncontrolled Include ! 0 3 0 0 0 0 3158 1.00 1.00 1.00 0 0 3158 61 120 3 0 0 0 61 120 3161 !.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 61 120 3161 0 0 0 61 120 316! East Bound L -T -R Stop Sign Include 0 0 0 0 0 West Bound L -T -R Stop Sign Include 1 0 0 1 0 Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx FollowUpTim:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Capacity Module: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 !.00 1.00 !.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 44 0 68 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 44 0 68 i.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0 0 0 0 44 0 68 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 44 0 68 4.1 xxxx xxxxx xxx×x xxxx xxxxx 6.8 6.5 2.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 3.5 4.0 Cnflict Vol: xxxx xxxx xxxxx 3183 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 4446 6554 Potent Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx 99 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 1 0 Move Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx 99 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 0 0 Volume/Cap: xxxx xxxx xxxx 1.21 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx Leve! Of Service Module: 6.9 3.3 1071 220 220 0.31 2way95thQ: xxxx xxxx xxxxx 8.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Control me!:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 238.0 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx LOS by Move:***F ******** Movement:LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.:xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 220 SharedQueue:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 1.3 Shrd ConDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 28.5 Shared LOS:***********D ApproachDel:xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx ApproachLOS:***F ******************************************************************************** Note:Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix 7.8.0115 (c) 2007 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to FEHR & PEERS, SAN JOSE MITIG8 - Cumulative ~Sun Aug 12, 2007 14:41:25 Page i-! Elks Lodge March 2, 2007 SJ07-932 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Future Volume Alternative) Intersection #108 E1 Camino Rea!/Deodar Street Average Delay (sec/veh) :9.1 Worst Case Level Of Service: F[I185.4] Street Name:E! Camino Rea!Deodar Street Approach:North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement:L T -R L -T -R L -T R L -T -R Control:Uncontrolled Rights:Include Lanes:0 0 2 1 0 Volume Module: Base Vol:0 3789 0 Growth Adj:1.00 1.00 !.00 Initial Bse:0 3789 0 Added Vo!:0 2 7 PendingTI:0 0 0 Initial Fut:0 3791 7 User Adj:!.00 !.00 !.00 PHF Adj:i.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume:0 3791 7 Reduct Vol:0 0 0 Fina!Voiume:0 3791 7 Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Fol!owUpTim:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: xxxx xxxx xxxxx Potent Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx Move Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx Uncontrolled Include 1 0 3 0 0 Stop Sign Include 0 0 0 0 0 Stop Sign Include 0 0 i 0 0 1499 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.00 !.00 1.00 !.00 1.00 1.00 !.00 1.00 1.00 0 1499 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 6 0 0 0 0 26 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 1505 0 0 0 0 26 0 14 !.00 1.00 1.00 !.00 1.00 !.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 !.00 1.00 1.00 i.00 !.00 1.00 1.00 13 1505 0 0 0 0 26 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 1505 0 0 0 0 26 0 14 4.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 6.8 6.5 6.9 2.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 3.5 4.0 3.3 3798 xxxx xxxxx x×xx xxxx xxxxx 4322 5326 1267 56 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 1 0 163 56 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 1 0 163 Tota!Cap: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 88 0 xxxxx 8 i!xxxxx Volume/Cap: xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.23 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 3.09 0.00 0.09 Level Of Service Module: 2Way95thQ: xxxx xxxx xxxxx 0.8 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 4.4 xxxx xxxxx Contro! Del:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 88.3 xxxx xxxxx xxxx× xxxx xxxxx 1808 xxxx xxxxx LOS by Move:***F *****F ** Movement:LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.:xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 163 SharedQueue:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx× xxxx xxxxx xxx×x xxxx 0.3 Shrd ConDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xx×xx xxxx 29.2 Shared LOS:*********~*D ApproachDel:xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx 1185.4 ApproachLOS:***F Note:Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix 7.8.0115 (c) 2007 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to FEHR & PEERS, SAN JOSE MITIG8 - Cumulative PM Sun Aug 12, 2007 14:42:04 Page I-i Elks Lodge March 2, 2007 SJ07-932 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Future Volume Alternative) Intersection #108 E1 Camino Rea!/Deodar Street Average Delay (sec/veh) :77.0 Worst Case Leve! Of Service: F[28935.9] Street Name:E1 Camino Real Approach:North Bound South Bound Movement:L -T -R L -T -R Contro!:Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Rights:Include Include Lanes:0 0 2 1 0 1 0 3 0 0 Volume Module: Base Vo!:0 3527 0 Growth Adj:1.00 !.00 !.00 Initial Bse:0 3527 0 Added Vol:0 6 22 PendingTI:0 0 0 Initial Fut:0 3533 22 User Adj:1.00 !.00 1.00 PHF Adj:1.00 !.00 1.00 PHF Volume:0 3533 22 Reduct Vol:0 0 0 Fina!Volume:0 3533 22 Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Fo!iowUpTim:x×xxx xxxx xxxxx Capacity Module: Deodar Street East Bound L -T -R Stop Sign include 0 0 0 0 0 West Bound L -T -R Stop Sign Include 1 0 0 1 0 0 3594 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.00 !.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 !.00 1.00 !.00 0 3594 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 46 3 0 0 0 0 12 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 46 3597 0 0 0 0 !2 0 7 1.00 1.00 1.00 !.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 !.00 !.00 !.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 !.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 46 3597 0 0 0 0 12 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 46 3597 0 0 0 0 12 0 7 4.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 6.8 6.5 2.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 3.5 4.0 6.9 3.3 Cnflict Vo!: xxxx xxxx xxxxx 3555 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xx×xx 4835 7233 1189 Potent Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx 70 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 1 0 184 Move Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx 70 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 0 0 184 Volume/Cap: xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.66 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 48.27 0.00 0.04 Level Of Service Module: 2Way95thQ: xxxx xxxx xxxxx 2.9 xxxx xxxxx xxxx ×xxx xxxxx 3.0 xxxx xx×xx Control De!:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 124.8 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xx×xx 45800 xxxx xxxxx LOS by Move:***F *****F ** Movement:LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.:xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 184 SharedQueue:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 0.I Shrd Conme!:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 25.4 Shared LOS:**~********D hpproachmel:xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx ApproachLOS:***F Note:Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix 7.8.0115 (c) 2007 Dow!ing Assoc. Licensed to FEHR & PEERS, SAN JOSE MITIG8 - Cumulative ProjectSun Aug 12, 2007 14:42:44 Page !-i Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Future Volume Alternative) Intersection #108 E! Camino Rea!/Deodar Street Average Delay (sec/veh) :22.8 Worst Case Leve! Of Service: F[1325.7] Street Name:E1 Camino Real Deodar Street Approach:North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement:L -T R L -T -R L -T -R L -T -R Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign include Include Include Include Control: Rights: Lanes: Volume Module: 0 0 2 1 0 !0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 t 0 0 1 0 II !1 t!l Base Vo!:0 3789 0 0 1499 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Growth Adj:1.00 1.00 1.00 !.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 !.00 1.00 Initial Bse:0 3789 0 0 1499 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Added Vo!:0 2 16 33 6 0 0 0 0 43 0 47 PasserByVol:0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut:0 3791 16 33 1505 0 0 0 0 43 0 47 User Adj:!.00 !.00 1.00 1.00 !.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 !.00 !.00 PHF Adj:1.00 1.00 1.00 !.00 !.00 !.00 !.00 1.00 !.00 1.00 1.00 !.00 PHF Volume:0 3791 16 33 1505 0 0 0 0 43 0 47 Reduct Vo!:0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FinalVo!ume:0 3791 16 33 1505 0 0 0 0 43 0 47 Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Fo!!owUpTim:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 4.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 6.8 6.5 6.9 2.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 3.5 4.0 3.3 Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: xxxx xxxx xxxxx Potent Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx Move Cap.:xxxx xxxx xxxxx Total Cap:xxxx xxxx xxxxx Volume/Cap:xxxx xxxx xxxx Level Of Service Module: 2Way95thQ: xxxx xxxx xxxxx 2.4 xxxx xxxxx xxx× xxxx xxxxx Control Del:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 140.0 xxxx xxxxxxxxxx xxxx xxxxx LOS by Move:***F ***** Movement:LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT 3807 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 4367 5370 1272 55 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 1 0 161 55 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx !0 161 xxxx xxxx xxxxx 45 0 xxxxx 8 ii xx×xx 0.60 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xx×x 5.15 0.00 0.29 6.7 xxxx xxxxx 2735 xxxx xxxxx LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.:xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 161 SharedQueue:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxxxxxx× xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx i.! Shrd ConDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxxxxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 36.2 Shared LOS:***********E ApproachDel:xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx 1325.7 ApproachLOS:***F Note:Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix 7.8.0115 (c) 2007 Dow!ing Assoc. Licensed to FEHR & PEERS, SAN JOSE MITIG8 - Cumulative ProjectSun Aug 12, 2007 14:43:49 Page !-I Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Future Volume Alternative) Intersection #108 E! Camino Real/Deodar Street Average Delay (sec/veh) : OVERFLOW Worst Case Leve! Of Service: F[xxxxx] Street Name: Approach: Movement: Control: Rights: Lanes: Volume Module: E1 Camino Real North Bound South Bound L -T -R L -T -R Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Include Include 0 0 2 ! 0 1 0 3 0 0 Base Vo!:0 3527 Growth Adj:1.00 !.00 Initial Bse:0 3527 Added Vol:0 6 PasserByVol:0 0 Initial Fur:0 3533 User Adj:1.00 !.00 PHF Adj:1.00 1.00 PHF Volume:0 3533 Reduct Vol:0 0 FinalVolume:0 3533 Critical Gap Module: Deodar Street East Bound West Bound L -T -R L -T -R Stop Sign Stop Sign Include Include 0 0 0 0 0 ! 0 0 ! 0 0 0 3594 1.00 1.00 1.00 0 0 3594 61 120 3 0 0 0 61 120 3597 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 !.00 61 120 3597 0 0 0 61 120 3597 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 !.00 1.00 !,00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 44 0 68 o 0 o o o o O o 0 0 0 44 o 68 !.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 !.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 !.00 1.00 0 0 o o 44 o 68 0 0 o 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 44 0 68 Critical Gp:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 4.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 6.8 6.5 6.9 Fo!!owUpTim:xxxxx x×x× xxxxx 2.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 3.5 4.0 3.3 Capacity Module: Cnf!ict Vol: xxxx xxxx xxxxx 3594 xxxx xxxxx x×xx xxxx xxxx× 5003 7401 1208 Potent Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx 67 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 0 0 178 Move Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxx×x 67 xxxx xxxxx xxxx ×xxx xxxxx 0 0 178 Volume/Cap: xxxx xxxx xxxx 1.78 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.38 Leve! Of Service Module: 2Way95thQ: xxxx xxxx xxxxx 10.8 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Contro! De!:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 504.4 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxz ×xxx ×xxxx LOS by Move:***F ***~**** Movement:LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.:xxxx x×xx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 178 SharedQueue:x×x×x xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxx×x xxxx 1.7 Shrd ConDel:xxxxx xxx× xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 37.2 Shared LOS:***********E ApproachDel:xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx ApproachLOS:***F Note:Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix 7.8.0115 (c) 2007 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to FEHR & PEERS, sAN JOSE SJ07-932 Elks Club TIA 1 of 3 Proj AMxls 8/12/2007 Maximum Queue Estimation for: Major Street Left=Turn Input Data Subject Approach!’Traffic Volume (vph) =33 PHF=1 .......Major Street Conflicting Traffic Volume (vph) =!3478 PHF=1 Conflicting Number of Through Lanes 3 Posted Speed Limit (mph)=35 Is a Traffic Signal Located on Major Street Within 1/4 mi of intersection? (Enter 1 if yes; 0 if no) Output IEstimated Maximum Queue 3 vehicles SJ07-932 Elks Club TIA 2of3 Proj AM.xls 8/12/2007 Maximum Queue Estimation for: Minor Street Left=Turn Input Data Subject ApproachITraffic Volume (vph) =43 PHF=1 I Major Street Conflicting Traffic Volume (vph) =4888 PHF=1 Posted Speed Limit (mph)=t 35 Is a Traffic Signal Located on Major Street Within 1/4 mi of intersection? (Enter 1 if yes; 0 if no) Output IEstimated Maximum Queue 5 vehicles SJ07-932 Elks Club TIA 3 of 3 Proj AM.xls 8/12/2007 Maximum Queue Estimation for: Minor Street Right=Turn input Data Subiect ApproachITraffic Volume (vph) =1 47 I ,,PHF=I 1 I Major Street Conflicting Traffic Volume (vph) =3478 PHF=1 Conflicting Number of Through Lanes 3 Posted Speed Limit (mph)=35 Is a Traffic Signal Located on Major Street Within 1/4 mi of intersection? (Enter 1 if yes; 0 f no) Output IEstimated Maximum Queue vehicles SJ07-932 Elks Club TIA 1 of 3 Proj PM~xls 8/12/2007 Maximum Queue Estimation for: Major Street Left-Turn Input Data Subject Approach!Traffic Volume (vph) =120 IPHF=1 I ......Major Street Conflicting Traffic Volume (vph) =3116 PHF=1 Conflicting Number of Through Lanes 3Posted Speed Limit (mph)=’ 35 Is a Traffic Signal Located on Major I Street Within 1/4 mi of intersection? (Enter 1 f yes; 0 if no) ,,, Output I Estimated Maximum Queue ,l’,6 vehicles SJ07-932 Elks Club TIA 2 of 3 Proj PM.xls 8/12/2007 Maximum Queue Estimation for: Minor Street Left=Turn Input Data Subject ApproachTraffic Volume (vph) =1 44 PHF=I 1 Major Street ’Conflicting Traiiic Volume (vph) =6348 PHF=1 Posted SPeed Limit (rnph)=35 Its a Traffic Signal Located on Major Street Within 1/4 mi of intersection? (Enter 1 if yes; 0 if no) Output IEstimated Maximum Queue 5 vehicles SJ07-932 Elks Club TIA 3of3 Proj PM.xls 8/12/2007 Maximum Queue Estimation for: Minor Street Right=Turn Input Data Subject ApproachITraffic Volume (vph) =l 90 IPHF=/1 I Maior Street Conflicting Traffic Volume (vph) =3116 PHF=1 Conflicting Number of Through Lanes 3 Posted Speed Limit (mph)=35 lls a Traffic Signal Located on Major tStreet Within 1/4 mi of intersection?1 (Enter 1 if yes; 0 if no) Output IEstimated Maximum Queue vehicles SJ07-932 Elks Club TIA 1 of 3 CProj AM.xls 8/12/2007 Maximum Queue Estimation for: Major Street Left=Turn Input Data Subject Approach] Traffic Volume (vph) =1 33 1 PHF=I 1 , I Major Street conflicting Traffic Volume (vph) =3789 PHF=1 Conflicting Number of Through Lanes 3 Posted Speed Limit (mph)=35 Is a Traffic Signal Located on Major Street Within 1/4 mi of intersection? (Enter 1 if yes; 0 if no) IEstimated Maximum Queue Output 3 vehicles SJ07-932 Elks Club TIA 2of3 CProj AM.xls 8/12/2007 Maximum Queue Estimation for: Minor Street Left=Turn Input Data ....... ~ubject Approach,,] Traffic Volume (vph) =l PHF=/ , Maj,,pr,,StreetConflicting Traffic Volume (vph) = PHF= posted, S#eed Lim,i,t (,mph)= Is a Traffic Signal Located on Major tStreet Within 1/4 mi of intersection? I(Enter 1 if yes; 0 if no) 43 1 5307 1 35 Output I Estimated Maximum Queue vehicles SJ07-932 Elks Club TIA 3 of 3 CProj AM.xls 8/12/2007 Maximum Queue Estimation for: Minor Street Right=Turn Input Data Subject ApproachI Traffic Volume (vph) =~47 J PHF=|1 / ,,Major Street Conflicting Traffic Volume (vph) =3789 PHF=1 Conflicting Number of Through Lanes 3 ..... Posted Speed Limit (mph)=35 IIs a Traffic Signal Located on Major Street Within 1/4 mi of intersection? (Enter 1 if yes; 0 if no) Output IEstimated Maximum Queue vehicles SJ07-932 Elks Club TIA 1 of 3 CProj PM.xls 8/12/2007 Maximum Queue Estimation for: Major Street Left-Turn Input Data Subiect ApproachITraffic Volume (vph) =1 120 I ...... P,HF=I 1 I M~jor Street Conflicting Traffic Volume (vph) =3527 PHF=1 Conflicting Number of Through Lanes 3 Posted Speed Limit (mph)=35 IIsa Traffic Signal Located on Major Street Within 1/4 mi of intersection? (Enter 1 if yes; 0 if no) Output IIEstimated Maximum Queue 7 vehicles SJ07-932 Elks Club TIA 2of3 CProj PM.xls 8/! 2/2007 Maximum Queue Estimation for: Minor Street Left=Turn Input Data Subject ApproachITraffic volume (vph) =1 44 PHF=I 1 I Major Street ~onflicting Traffic Volume (vph) =7195 PHF=1 Posted Speed Limit (mph)=i 35 Is a Traffic Signal Located on Major Street Within 1/4 mi of intersection? (Enter 1 if yes; 0 if Output IEstimated Maximum Queue 6 vehicles SJ07-932 Elks Club TIA 3of3 CProj PM.xls 8/12/2007 Maximum Queue Estimation for: Minor Street Right=Turn Input Data ,,Subject Approach!Traffic Volume (vph) =90 IPHF=1 I Maior Street Conflicting Traffic Volume (vph) =3527 PHF=1 Conflicting Number of Through Lanes 3 Posted Speed Limit (mph)=35 Is a Traffic Signal Located on Major Street Within 1/4 mi of intersection? I(,,Enter 1 if yes; 0 if no) Output I Estimated Maximum Queue 6 vehicles 8/12/2007 Warrant 3B: Peak Hour Volume Signal Warrant Analysis ECR Deodar AM.xls The peak hour volume warrant is satisfied when the plotted point representing the vehicles per hour on the major street (total of both approaches) and the corresponding vehicles per hour of the higher volume minor street approach (one direction only) for one hour (any four consecutive 15-minute periods) of an average day falls above the curve in Figure 4-5 for the existing combination of approach lanes. Ana|ysis Major Street Minor Street No of lanes Time Peak Hour Vehicles Per Hour Major Street Minor street (Sum of both (High volume approaches)approach) FIGURE 4C-3. PEAK HOUR VOLUME WARRANT 700 z 100 ... ;2 OR ~ORE IJANES & 2 OR, MORE, LANES , .... ~----2- -2-®5~ MOR,E ................ ¯X’~ _~_~__~__SL, ~’ [ ~ I LANE & I ~ANE : ’ 400 800 1200 1600 2000 2400 2800 3200 3600 4000 4400 4800 MAJOR STREET - TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES (VPH) *Note: 150 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor street approach with two or more lanes and 100 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor street approach with one or lane.Peak Hour] "t50 "100 IWarrant WARRANT 3B (URBAN) 8/12/2007 Warrant 3B: Peak Hour Volume Signal Warrant Analysis ECR_Deodar_PM.xls The peak hour volume warrant is satisfied when the plotted point representing the vehicles per hour on the major street (total of both approaches) and the corresponding vehicles per hour of the higher volume minor street approach (one direction only) for one hour (any four consecutive 15-minute periods) of an average day falls above the curve in Figure 4-5 for the existing combination of approach lanes. Analysis No of lanes Major Street Minor Street Time Peak Hour Vehicles Per Hour Major’"~treet Minor ’Si’ie~t ....... (Sum of both (High volume approaches)approach) FIGURE 4C-3. PEAK HOUR VOLUME WARRANT 700 600 500 400 300 200 ~oo "150 1000 1600 2200 2800 3400 4000 4600 5200 5800 6400 MAJOR STREET -TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES (VPH) "Note: 150 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor street approach with two or more lanes and 100 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor street, approach with one or lane.Peak Hour} Warrant WARRANT 3B (URBAN) SJ07-932 Elks Club TIA 8/12/20072:55 PM gap_analysis.xls Summary Northbound AM PM Southbound AM PM 3-4 sec 4-6 sec ,6-10 sec 2 2 23 4 6 24 0 0 3 2 3 6 Gap Time (secon,ds) 10-20 sec 36 34 20+ sec 14’ 42 5 14 39 APPENDIX E: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION LOS METHODS LEVEL OF SERVICE METHODS FOR UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS The quality of roadway facility operations are described with the term level of service (LOS). LOS is a qualitative description of traffic flow based on such factors as speed, travel time, delay, and freedom to maneuver. Six levels are defined, from LOS A with the best operating conditions to LOS F with the worst operating conditions. LOS E represents "at-capacity" operations. The following describes the methods used to calculate LOS for unsignalized intersections. Operations of the unsignalized study intersections (e.g., stop-sign controlled) were evaluated using the methodology contained in Chapter 17 of the 2000 HCM and the TRAFFIX analysis software program. LOS ratings for stop-sign controlled intersections are based on the average control delay expressed in seconds per vehicle. At two-way or side street-controlled intersections, the control delay is calculated for each movement, not for the intersection as a whole. For approaches composed of a single lane, the control delay is computed as the average of all movements in that lane. For all-way stop-controlled locations, a weighted average delay for the entire intersection is presented. Table E-1 summarizes the relationship between delay and LOS for unsignalized intersections. TABLE E-1 UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE DEFINITIONS USING AVERAGE CONTROL DELAY Level of Average Control Delay Per Service Description Vehicle (Seconds) A Little or no delay.-< 10.0 B Short traffic delays.10.1 to 15.0 C Average traffic delays.15.1 to 25.0 D Long traffic delays.25.1 to 35.0 E Very long traffic delays.35.1 to 50.0 F Extreme traffic delays with intersection capacity exceeded.> 50.0 Source: Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board, 2000.