Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2585EBayMustardSeed-ID-2575pdfCity of Palo Alto (ID # 2575) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Action ItemsMeeting Date: 4/9/2012 April 09, 2012 Page 1 of 4 (ID # 2575) Summary Title: 2585 East Bayshore (Mustard Seed) Title: Public Hearing: Approval of a Site and Design Review Application and a Record of Land Use Action for a Change in Use from Office to Day Care Center at 2585 East Bayshore Road. *Quasi Judicial From: City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment Recommendation Staff, the Planning and Transportation Commission (Commission), and the Architectural Review Board (ARB) recommend that the City Council approve the Record of Land Use Action (Attachment A) approving a Site and Design Review to allow a change in use from office to day care center as well as other associated site improvements at 2585 East Bayshore Road. Executive Summary The Palo Alto Municipal Code requires that the establishment of any use within the Site and Design Review Combining District (D), as is the case east of Bayshore Freeway, adjacent to the Baylands, is subject to the Site and Design Review process. The proposal involves a change in use from office to day care center, which is a “permitted” use in the zone. There are few exterior modifications to the site as a result of the proposed change in use. Concerns have been voiced, however, by adjacent property owners related to traffic and parking. The Planning and Transportation Commission and the Architectural Review Board have voted unanimously to recommend approval of the project. Background The project involves the use of an existing office building for a day care center for 117 students on a 1 acre site. The day care use is “permitted” according to zoning for the Research, Office and Limited Manufacturing (ROLM) district. Few changes to the exterior of the site would be required to accommodate the change in use from office to day care center. The proposed changes to the site include the April 09, 2012 Page 2 of 4 (ID # 2575) addition of a new children’s play area, new chain link fencing, a new covered trash enclosure, a new handicap ramp, a new painted cross walk, and new accessible parking stalls in the front parking lot. Site and Design Process and Findings The zoning for the site includes a (D) overlay, which means the site is subject to the Site and Design Review requirements of the City’s Zoning Code (Section 18.30(G)). While these criteria are primarily focused on the physical/visual compatibility of the site with its surroundings, such review is also required for a “change of use.” Site and Design review entails review by the Architectural Review Board (ARB), Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC), and City Council. Findings that must be made to approve a Site and Design Review include: a) construction and operation in an orderly, harmonious manner and compatible with existing or potential uses of adjacent sites, b) ensuring desirability of investment or conduct of business, research, or educational activities, c) ensuring sound principles of environmental design and ecological balance; and d) ensuring use in accord with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. Commission Review The Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) reviewed the application on February 8, 2012. At the hearing, four speakers spoke against the proposal, primarily neighboring property owners expressing concerns over potential queuing of vehicles on the site as well as on East Bayshore Road. One person spoke in favor of the proposal, noting the significant demand for day care centers within the community. At one point, the Commission considered a motion to reverse the flow of traffic circulation on site but decided against this when the City’s Transportation Official explained the negative ramifications this would cause for the adjacent property to the north and to the roadway itself. The Commission voted unanimously to approve the project as recommended by staff. The Commission’s Site and Design findings are included in the Record of Land Use Action (Attachment A). Architectural Review Board (ARB) Review On (February 16, 2012), the ARB unanimously approved the project on its Consent Calendar and no members of the public spoke on this item. The project involves little in the way of exterior improvements. No ARB minutes are attached due to the minimal discussion. April 09, 2012 Page 3 of 4 (ID # 2575) Discussion The Record of Land Use Action (Attachment A) outlines the necessary approvals and findings to support approval of the project. The key issues of concern to the property owners on either side of the site were the traffic, circulation and parking implications. Traffic and Parking Concerns Three adjacent property owners have raised issues related to traffic, circulation and parking. One of these owners hired his own traffic consultant to review the proposal to determine if there would be a traffic issue with the proposed use. The consultant found that the applicant’s analysis of the traffic and parking was sound and agreed with the findings that the proposal would not create an impact to intersections and local roadways. That consultant, however, suggested that there would be a problem with the queuing of vehicles at the entry point to the property. He stated that would result in an onsite problem for the adjacent neighbor to the south, since the proposed day care center and the office to the south share a common driveway that provides an exit and entry for both properties. The City’s Transportation staff and the applicant’s traffic consultant believe that queuing of vehicles will not be an issue for the adjacent properties or onto the roadway, given the proposed parking and circulation pattern. Transportation staff has determined that the on-site parking provisions are adequate for the anticipated demand. Policy Implications The proposed project is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, given that the land use is permitted, no impacts to the Baylands would occur, and traffic and parking issues are addressed. Staff believes there are no other substantive policy implications. Resource Impacts Property taxes are the primary source of revenue from the site. The Day Care Center is a for-profit business and would not qualify for a non-profit tax exemption, so property taxes would still be collected. Due to the tenant improvements that would be necessary for the proposed Day Care Center tenant, the property taxes paid to the county would increase by an estimated $3,500 per April 09, 2012 Page 4 of 4 (ID # 2575) year. Costs of staff review are recovered through Site and Design review permit fees. Environmental Review Pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), this project is Categorically Exempt under CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (Existing Facilities). Attachments: Attachment A: Record of Land Use Action (PDF) Attachment B: Site Location Map(PDF) Attachment C: Project Overview (PDF) Attachment D: Traffic Impact Analysis, Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc, November 8, 2011 (PDF) Attachment E: Public Correspondence (PDF) Attachment F: February 16, 2012 Architectural Review Board Staff Report (PDF) Attachment G: February 8, 2012 Planning and Transportation Minutes(PDF) Attachment H: February 8, 2012 Planning and Transportation Commission Staff Report (PDF) Attachment I: Plans (Council Only) (PDF) Prepared By:Russ Reich, Senior Planner Department Head:Curtis Williams, Director City Manager Approval: ____________________________________ James Keene, City Manager 1 ACTION NO. 2012-04 RECORD OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO LAND USE APPROVAL FOR 2585 EAST BAYSHORE ROAD ROAD: SITE AND DESIGN REVIEW (11PLN-00415) On April 9, 2012, the Council of the City of Palo Alto approved the Site and Design Review application for a change in use from R&D office to Day Care Center in the Research Office Limited Manufacturing (ROLM) zone district with Environmental Sensitivity (E), Site and Design (D), and Auto Dealership (AD) Combining Districts, making the following findings, determination and declarations: SECTION 1. Background.The City Council of the City of Palo Alto (“City Council”) finds, determines, and declares as follows: A. 2585 Bayshore, LLC has requested the City’s approval for the change in use from R&D office to Day Care Center to accommodate approximately 117 children for afterschool and preschool care as well as site improvements including the removal of 18 existing parking spaces, the addition of a new play area, a new chain link fence, a new trash enclosure, a new painted cross walk, and new handicap parking stalls and ramp. B. The site is currently occupied by a vacant office building, designated on the Comprehensive Plan land use map as Research/Office Park, and located within the Research Office Limited Manufacturing (ROLM) zone district with Environmental Sensitivity (E), Site and Design (D), and Auto Dealership (AD) Combining Districts. C. Following staff review, the Planning and Transportation Commission (Commission) reviewed the Project on February 8, 2012, and recommended approval. The Commission’s recommendations are contained in CMR: 2575 and the attachments to it. D. Following Commission review, the Architectural Review Board (ARB) reviewed the Project on consent on February 16, 2012, and recommended approval. The ARB’s recommendations are contained in CMR: 2575 and the attachments to it. SECTION 2.Environmental Review. The City, as the lead agency for the Project, has determined that the project is Categorically Exempt under CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (existing facilities) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). 2 SECTION 3.Site and Design Review Findings 1. The use will be constructed and operated in a manner that will be orderly, harmonious, and compatible with existing or potential uses of adjoining or nearby sites. The proposed day care center would be conducted such that it would not result in an impact on adjacent properties. The traffic and parking for the project have been reviewed and it has been determined that the use would be adequately parked and that the traffic volumes would not result in an impact to local intersections or roadways. The exterior improvements associated with the change in use are minor and would not be visible from the baylands or have an impact on adjacent properties. 2. The project is consistent with the goal of ensuring the desirability of investment, or the conduct of business, research, or educational activities, or other authorized occupations, in the same or adjacent areas. The approval of the change in use would allow a new use to occupy this previously vacant office space. Occupancy of the building would help to ensure that the property is properly maintained. Construction of all improvements will be governed by the regulations of the current Zoning Ordinance, the Uniform Building Code, and other applicable codes to assure safety and a high quality of development. 3. Sound principles of environmental design and ecological balance are observed in the project. The reuse of the existing building for the new use reduces the need for the removal and disposal of large amounts of demolition and construction debris and reduces the need for large amounts of new construction materials. 4. The use will be in accord with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. The project, as conditioned, complies with the policies of the Community Services and Facilities section of the Comprehensive Plan. Child Care is a service that is underrepresented in the community and this application is an opportunity to increase the child care capacity in Palo Alto. Policy C-11 states that child care services in Palo Alto should be supported and promoted. The proposed change in use to a child care facility supports this policy. 3 SECTION 4.Site and Design Review Approval Granted. Site and Design Review Approval is granted by the City Council under Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.30(G).070 for application 11PLN-00415, subject to the conditions of approval in Section six of the Record. SECTION 5.Plan Approval. The plans submitted for Building Permit shall be in substantial conformance with those plans prepared by Kenneth Rodriguez and Partners Incorporated entitled “2585 East Bayshore Road”, consisting of 9 pages, dated November 10, 2011, and received January 27, 2012, except as modified to incorporate the conditions of approval in Section Six. A copy of these plans is on file in the Department of Planning and Community Environment. The conditions of approval in Section 6 shall be printed on the cover sheet of the plan set submitted with the Building Permit application. SECTION 6.Conditions of Approval. Department of Planning and Community Environment 1. The plans submitted for Building Permit shall be in substantial conformance with plans received on January 27, 2012, except as modified to incorporate the following conditions of approval and any additional conditions placed on the project by the Planning Commission or City Council. The following conditions of approval shall be printed on the cover sheet of the plan set submitted with the Building Permit application. 2. All noise producing equipment shall not exceed the allowances specified in Section 9.10 Noise of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. 3. Any existing city street trees shall be maintained and protected during construction per City of Palo Alto standard requirements. 4. All landscape material shall be well maintained and replaced if it fails. 5. Any exterior modifications to the building or property shall require Architectural Review. This includes any new signs. 6. Prior to the commencement of operations on site the facility shall acquire a Day Care Center license from the Department of Social Services and provide a copy to the City of Palo Alto. 4 7. The facility shall be limited to a total maximum number of 117 children on site at any given time. At such time as the applicant proposes to increase the capacity beyond the proposed 117 children, the applicant shall submit a written request or application as may be required based upon the increase requested, to modify this permit and provide a new traffic analysis for review and approval by the City of Palo Alto. Public Works Engineering 8. Sidewalk, Curb & Gutter: As part of this project, the applicant must replace those portions of the existing sidewalks, curbs, gutters or driveway approaches in the public right-of-way along the frontage of the property that are broken, badly cracked, displaced, or non-standard, and must remove any unpermitted pavement in the planter strip. Contact Public Works’ inspector at 650-496-6929 to arrange a site visit so the inspector can determine the extent of replacement work. The site plan submitted with the building permit plan set must show the extent of the replacement work or include a note that Public Works’ inspector has determined no work is required. The plan must note that any work in the right-of-way must be done per Public Works’ standards by a licensed contractor who must first obtain a Permit for Construction in the Public Street from Public Works at the Development Center. The following comments are provided to assist the applicant at the building permit phase. Plan set details or forms may be received from Public Works at the City's Development Center (285 Hamilton Avenue) or on the Public Works’ website: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/depts/pwd/forms_permits.asp Include in submittal for building permit: 9. Substantial Improvement: The proposed improvements are located within a Special Flood Hazard Area. If the construction cost of the improvements to the structure is greater than 50% of the depreciated value of the structure, then the improvements will be classified as a “substantial improvement” and the existing structure and all new construction will be required to meet the City’s Flood Hazard Regulations, including the finished first floor must be above the base flood elevation (BFE), which for this site is 10.5 feet above sea level. You can view information regarding the flood hazard regulations on our website. You can view the actual Regulations, which are in Chapter 16.52 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, at 5 http://www.cityofpaloalto.org./depts/clk/municipal_code.asp 10. Storm Water Pollution Prevention: The City's full-sized "Pollution Prevention - It's Part of the Plan" sheet must be included in the plan set. Copies are available from Public Works at the Development Center or on our website. 11. Work In The Right-Of-Way: The plans must clearly indicate any work that is proposed in the public right-of-way, such as sidewalk replacement, driveway approach, utility laterals, or street tree work. The plans must include notes that the work must be done per City standards and that the contractor(s) performing this work must first obtain a Street Work Permit from Public Works at the Development Center. Water Gas Wastewater 12. The applicant shall submit a completed water-gas- wastewater service connection application - load sheet for City of Palo Alto Utilities. The applicant must provide all the information requested for utility service demands (water in fixture units/g.p.m., gas in b.t.u.p.h, and sewer in fixture units/g.p.d.). 13. The applicant shall submit improvement plans for any utility construction. The plans must show the size and location of all underground utilities within the development and the public right of way including meters, backflow preventers, fire service requirements, sewer mains, sewer cleanouts, sewer lift stations and any other required utilities. 14. Utility vaults, transformers, utility cabinets, concrete bases, or other structures can not be placed over existing water, gas or wastewater mains/services. Maintain 1’ horizontal clear separation from the vault/cabinet/concrete base to existing utilities as found in the field. If there is a conflict with existing utilities, Cabinets/vaults/bases shall be relocated from the plan location as needed to meet field conditions. 15. The applicant must show on the site plan the existence of any auxiliary water supply, (i.e. water well, gray water, recycled water, rain catchment, water storage tank, etc). 16. The applicant shall be responsible for installing and upgrading the existing utility mains and/or services as necessary to handle anticipated peak loads. This responsibility includes all costs associated with the design and construction for the installation/upgrade of the utility mains and/or services. 6 17. Sewer drainage piping serving fixtures located less than one foot above the next upstream sewer main manhole cover shall be protected by an approved backwater valve per California Plumbing Code 710.0. The upstream sewer main manhole rim elevation shall be shown on the plans. 18. Flushing of the fire system to sanitary sewer shall not exceed 30 GPM. Higher flushing rates shall be diverted to a detention tank to achieve the 30 GPM flow to sewer. 19. Sewage ejector pumps shall meet the following conditions: 1. The pump(s) be limited to a total 100 GPM capacity or less. 2.The sewage line changes to a 4” gravity flow line at least 20’ from the City clean out. 3. The tank and float is set up such that the pump run time not exceed 20 seconds each cycle. 20. The applicant shall pay the capacity fees and connection fees associated with the installation of the new utility service/s to be installed by the City of Palo Alto Utilities. The approved relocation of services, meters, hydrants, or other facilities will be performed at the cost of the person/entity requesting the relocation. 21. Each unit or place of business shall have its own water and gas meter shown on the plans. 22. Each parcel shall have its own water service, gas service and sewer lateral connection shown on the plans. 23. An approved reduce pressure principle assembly (RPPA backflow preventer device) is required for all existing and new water connections from Palo Alto Utilities to comply with requirements of California administrative code, title 17, sections 7583 through 7605 inclusive. The RPPA shall be installed on the owner's property and directly behind the water meter, within 5’ of the property line. Show the location of the RPPA on the plans. Inspection by the utilities cross connection inspector is required for the supply pipe between the meter and the assembly. The applicant shall provide the City with current test certificates for all backflows. 24. An approved reduced pressure detector assembly is required for the existing or new water connection for the fire system to comply with requirements of California administrative code, title 17, sections 7583 through 7605 inclusive. reduced 7 pressure detector assemblies shall be installed on the owner's property adjacent to the property line, within 5’ of the property line. Show the location of the reduced pressure detector assembly on the plans. Inspection by the utilities cross connection inspector is required for the supply pipe between the City connection and the assembly. 25. Any utility installations shall be in accordance with the City of Palo Alto utility standards for water, gas & wastewater. Electric Utilities 26. The applicant shall comply with all the Electric Utility Engineering Department service requirements noted during plan review. 27. The applicant shall be responsible for identification and location of all utilities, both public and private, within the work area. Prior to any excavation work at the site, the applicant shall contact Underground Service Alert (USA) at 1-800-227-2600, at least 48 hours prior to beginning work. 28. The applicant shall submit a request to disconnect all existing utility services and/or meters including a signed affidavit of vacancy, on the form provided by the Building Inspection Division. Utilities will be disconnected or removed within 10 working days after receipt of request. The demolition permit will be issued after all utility services and/or meters have been disconnected and removed. 29. A completed Electric Application and a full set of plans must be included with all applications involving electrical work. The application must be included with the preliminary submittal. 30. Industrial and large commercial customers must allow sufficient lead-time for Electric Utility Engineering and Operations (typically 8-12 weeks after advance engineering fees have been paid) to design and construct the electric service requested. 31. Only one electric service lateral is permitted per parcel. Utilities Rule & Regulation #18. 32. If this project requires padmount transformers, the location of the transformers shall be shown on the site plan and approved by the Utilities Department and the Architectural 8 Review Board. Utilities Rule & Regulations #3 & #16 (see detail comments below). 33. The developer/owner shall provide space for installing padmount equipment (i.e. transformers, switches, and interrupters) and associated substructure as required by the City. 34. The customer shall install all electrical substructures (conduits, boxes and pads) required from the service point to the customer’s switchgear. The design and installation shall be according to the City standards and shown on plans. Utilities Rule & Regulations #16 & #18. 35. Location of the electric panel/switchboard shall be shown on the site plan and approved by the Architectural Review Board and Utilities Department. 36. All utility meters, lines, transformers, backflow preventers, and any other required equipment shall be shown on the landscape and irrigation plans and shall show that no conflict will occur between the utilities and landscape materials. In addition, all aboveground equipment shall be screened in a manner that is consistent with the building design and setback requirements. 37. For services larger than 1600 amps, the customer will be required to provide a transition cabinet as the interconnection point between the utility’s padmount transformer and the customer’s main switchgear. The cabinet design drawings must be submitted to the Electric Utility Engineering Department for review and approval. 38. For underground services, no more than four (4) 750 MCM conductors per phase can be connected to the transformer secondary terminals; otherwise, bus duct must be used for connections to padmount transformers. If customer installs a bus duct directly between the transformer secondary terminals and the main switchgear, the installation of a transition cabinet will not be required. 39. The customer is responsible for sizing the service conductors and other required equipment according to the National Electric Code requirements and the City standards. Utilities Rule & Regulation #18. 40. If the customer’s total load exceeds 2500 kVA, service shall be provided at the primary voltage of 12,470 volts 9 and the customer shall provide the high voltage switchgear and transformers. 41. For primary services, the standard service protection is a padmount fault interrupter owned an maintained by the City, installed at the customer’s expense. The customer must provide and install the pad and associated substructure required for the fault interrupter. 42. Any additional facilities and services requested by the Applicant that are beyond what the utility deems standard facilities will be subject to Special Facilities charges. The Special Facilities charges include the cost of installing the additional facilities as well as the cost of ownership. Utilities Rule & Regulation #20. 43. Projects that require the extension of high voltage primary distribution lines or reinforcement of offsite electric facilities will be at the customer’s expense and must be coordinated with the Electric Utility. 44. Submittal must include a single-line diagram of the proposed electrical design, provide panel schedules with estimated/existing load, and provide the estimate available short circuit current and rating of the panel. 45. Contractors and developers shall obtain permit from the Department of Public Works before digging in the street right-of-way. This includes sidewalks, driveways and planter strips. 46. At least 48 hours prior to starting any excavation, the customer must call Underground Service Alert (USA) at 1-800-227-2600 to have existing underground utilities located and marked. The areas to be check by USA shall be delineated with white paint. All USA markings shall be removed by the customer or contractor when construction is complete. 47. The customer is responsible for installing all on-site substructures (conduits, boxes and pads) required for the electric service. No more than 270 degrees of bends are allowed in a secondary conduit run. All conduits must be sized according to National Electric Code requirements and no 1/2 – inch size conduits are permitted. All off-site substructure work will be constructed by the City at the customer’s expense. Where mutually agreed upon by the City and the Applicant, all or part of the off-site substructure work may be constructed by the Applicant. 10 48. All primary electric conduits shall be concrete encased with the top of the encasement at the depth of 30 inches. No more than 180 degrees of bends are allowed in a primary conduit run. Conduit runs over 500 feet in length require additional pull boxes. 49. All new underground conduits and substructures shall be installed per City standards and shall be inspected by the Electrical Underground Inspector before backfilling. 50. The customer is responsible for installing all underground electric service conductors, bus duct, transition cabinets, and other required equipment. The installation shall meet the National Electric Code and the City Standards. 51. Meter and switchboard requirements shall be in accordance with Electric Utility Service Equipment Requirements Committee (EUSERC) drawings accepted by Utility and CPA standards for meter installations. 52. Shop/factory drawings for switchboards (400A and greater) and associated hardware must be submitted for review and approval prior to installing the switchgear to: Gopal Jagannath, P.E. Supervising Electric Project Engineer Utilities Engineering (Electrical) 1007 Elwell Court Palo Alto, CA 94303 53. Catalog cut sheets may not be substituted for factory drawing submittal. 54. All new underground electric services shall be inspected and approved by both the Building Inspection Division and the Electrical Underground Inspector before energizing. 55. Any relocation of existing utilities or substructure shall be done, if feasible, at applicant’s expense. 56. The customer shall provide as-built drawings showing the location of all switchboards, conduits (number and size), conductors (number and size), splice boxes, vaults and switch/transformer pads. 11 57. The applicant shall secure a Public Utilities Easement for facilities installed on private property for City use. 58. All required inspections have been completed and approved by both the Building Inspection Division and the Electrical Underground Inspector. 59. All fees must be paid. 60. All Special Facilities contracts or other agreements need to be signed by the City and applicant. Fire Department 61. Fire Sprinkler system required. Provide documentation of testing, maintenance and certification. 62. Automatic and manual fire alarm system required. Separate submittal required for installation of fire alarm system. 63. Contact Utilities Department for acceptable backflow prevention requirements. Building Division 64. When a building is subject to a change of occupancy and where such change results in a higher seismic occupancy factor based on Table 1604.5 of the California Building Code, the building shall conform to the seismic requirements of the current codes for the new seismic use group. SECTION 7.Term of Approval. Site and Design Approval. In the event actual construction of the project is not commenced within two years of the date of council approval, the approval shall expire and be of no further force or effect, pursuant to Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.30(G).080. SECTION 8. Indemnity Clause. To the extent permitted by law, the Applicant shall indemnify and hold harmless the City, its City Council, its officers, employees and agents (the “indemnified parties”)from and against any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a third party against the indemnified parties and the applicant to attack, set aside or void, any permit or approval authorized 12 hereby for the Project, including (without limitation) reimbursing the City its actual attorneys fees and costs incurred in defense of the litigation. The City may, in its sole discretion, elect to defend any such action with attorneys of its own choice. PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST:APPROVED: _____________________________________________________ City Clerk Director of Planning and Community Environment APPROVED AS TO FORM: ___________________________ Senior Asst. City Attorney PLANS AND DRAWINGS REFERENCED: 1. Those plans prepared by Kenneth Rodriguez and Partners Incorporated entitled “2585 East Bayshore Road”, consisting of 9 pages, dated November 10, 2011, and received January 27, 2012. c:::J Zone Districts abc Zone District Labels ~::::.~J 2585 E 8ayshore Rd. (Project Site) The City of Palo Alto mvera,2011-04-1311:12:40 (\loo-mapslgls$lglsladmlnIPersonallntvera.mdb) '" . -.'. 2585 E. Bayshore Rd with Zoning Districts Area Map ATTACHMENT B !. This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS -. 0' 300' this document Is a graphic rspresentation only of best available sources. The City or Palo Alto assumes no responsibility fOf any ermrs ©1989 to 2010 City of Palo Alto ATTACHMENT C Mustard Seed Learning Center ("Mustard Seed") is the prospective tenant at the project location, 2585 East Bayshore Road, Palo Arto. Mustard Seed intends to operate a licensed child care centerat the project location, necessitating thts application for a change in use. Child care is a permitted use at the project location, so no variance or conditional use permit is required. Mustard Seed's Current Operation Mustard Seed is a family-owned business that has been providing after-school care in Palo Alto for the past 20 years. At their current location (leased space at Emerson School,) Mustard Seed has an enrollment of ninety (90) children. As a matter of school policy, all of their enrolled children are currently enrolled in a Palo Alto school. Mustard Seed is currently operating as, and is registered with the California Department ot Education as, a Heritage School. (See Education Code §33195 et seq.) As a Heritage School, Mustard Seed serves children who are at least 4 years and 9 months of age, and not older than 12 Like all Heritage Schools, Mustard Seed is not a "school" in the sense that attendance is not compulsory and attending Mustard Seed does not fulfill any compulsory educational school requirement. Mustard Seed provides a well-rounded program that offers children the opportunity to use after-school time to finish their homework, play chess, study a foreign language, improve their math and writing skills or simply find a quiet place to read or listen to music. Outdoor activities are also a part of the program and made available to the children. Mustard Seed's Proposed Operation At the project location, Mustard Seed intends to provide the same services as at its current location, with two substantive differences: (1) they will be licensed at the project location by the California Department of Social Services (DSS) as a Child Care FaCility; and (2) their enrollment will be large~ than at their current Emerson School location, and potentially they may include preschool siblings of school-aged students at some point in the future. We are not applying for a preschool license at this time. Licensure Mustard Seed Learning Center will apply for a child care license from the Department of Social Services. If granted a child care license, Mustard Seed Learning Center will be regulated by the Department of Social Services. Licenses are specific to the physical facility, and so DSS will, as part of Mustard Seed's application, review the building plans, site plan and other documentation for compliance with the law and DSS regulations. MS.Proj.Desc.GregKling 1 ATTACHMENT 0 P H ;,_ ~~~~~~~'i mti~-WN£WU&~~~t~~~ . ........ iI,.'e ..... ~~~~fafflClmpa()t Anal~is P:"::. Hexagon Office: 111 W. St. John Street, Surte;850 San Jose, CA 95113 Hexagon Job Number 10RSG6 b;I • • • I , , November 08 2011 ···················· .. ······· ............ f ................ . Table of Contents Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................... iii 1. Introduction .................. : .................................................................................................................. 6 2. Existing Conditions ....................................................................................................................... 12 3. Existing Plus Project Conditions ................................................................................................... 18 4. Other Transportation Issues ......................................................................................................... 25 5. Cumulative Conditions .................................................................................................................. 31 6. Conclusions ................................ ; ................................................................................................. 36 Appendices Appendix A: Traffic Counts Appendix B: Level of Service Calculations List of Tables Table ES 1 Intersection Level of Service Summary .................................................................................. v Table ES 2 Freeway Level of Service Summary · .. ··· .......... · .............. ·· .. · .......... ·· .. ··· .... ··· .... · .... · ................. v Table 1 Signalized Intersection Level of Service Definitions Based on Control Dela ............. . Table 2 Table 3 Table 4 Table 5 Table 6 Table 7 Table 8 Table 9 Freeway Segment Level of Service Based on Density ......................................................... 11 Existing Intersection Levels of Service .................................................................................. 13 Existing Freeway Ramp Capacity Analysis ..................... , ..................................................... 16 Existing Freeway Levels of Service ....................................................................................... 17 Project Trip Generation Estimates ......................................................................................... 20 Project Intersection Levels of Service ................................................................................... 23 Existing Plus Project Freeway Ramp Capacity Analysis ............... , ....................................... 24 Existing Plus Project Freeway Levels of Service ................................................................... 24 Table 10 Driveway Queuing Analysis ... ; ............................................................................................... 28 Table 11 Daycare Parking Survey Results ............................................................................................ 30 Table 12 Cumulative Intersection Levels of Service ............................................................................. 35 I P age • ofo • }\ November 2011 List of Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Figure 5 Figure 6 Figure 7 Figure 8 Site Location and Study Intersections .............................................................. , ...................... 7 Existing Lane Configurations ................................................................................................. 14 Existing Traffic Volumes ........................................................................................................ 15 Project Trip Distribution and Trip Assignment ....................................................................... 21 Existing Plus Project Traffic Volumes .................................................................................... 22 Site Plan ...................................................................................... · .. · ..... ···· .... ··· .. ······ ................ 26 Near Term Cumulative Project Traffic Vol~mes .................................................................... 32 Far Term Cumulative With Project Traffic Volumes .............................................................. 33 iii P age otc • I . November 08 2011 ............ ,--, " ......................................................................... ~ .............. . Executive Summary This report presents the results of the traffic impact analysis conducted for Mustard Seed Learning Center, the proposed lessee for the building at 2585 East Bayshore Road, Palo Alto, CA. The project, as proposed, will relocate an existing learning center into a vacant office building located east of US 101. The proposed tenant, Mustard Seed Learning Center, is currently located at 2800 West Bayshore Road in Palo Alto and serves 85 school age children. Mustard Seed Learning Center is proposing to grow their business to 117 children. The number of children will be governed by and limited by State of California licensing regulations, which are based on the , Under current regulations, the project location can be licensed for a maximum of 117 school-age children. Access to the proposed project is provided directly off of East Bayshore Road. This study was conducted for the purpose of identifying potential traffic impacts related to the proposed development. The potential impacts of the project were evaluated in accordance with the standards set forth by the City of Palo Alto and the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) Congestion Management Program (CMP). The traffic analysis is based on the AM and PM peak hour levels of service for two signalized intersections and two freeway segments. The traffic analysis also includes an evaluation of capacity analysis for eight freeway ramps. Project Trip Generation The existing Mustard Seed Learning center is currently not open in the mornings. However project impacts during the AM peak hour were analyzed as the proposed learning center is anticipated to be open in the morning. Trip generation for the AM peak hour for the proposed project was based on ITE Trip Generation Manual, 8th edition for a day care center. A day care center with 117 children is expected to generate a total of 94 AM peak hour trips with 50 trips entering the site and 44 trips leaving the site. PM peak hour trip generation for the proposed project was based on trip generation survey that was conducted on November 18, 2010 during the PM peak hour from 4:30 PM to 6:30 PM at the existing facility at 2800 West Bayshore Road that currently has an enrollment of 85 children. The survey results show that the existing school's trip generation peaked at 115 trips from 5: 15 PM to 6: 15 PM with 56 trips in and 59 trips out. The observed trip generation rate was 1.35 trips per child in the PM peak hour, for an enrollment of 85 children. For an enrollment of 117 children, the project is expected to generate a total of 158 trips in the PM peak hour with 77 trips coming into the site and 81 trips leaving the site. As the project proposes to occupy the existing vacant office building, the project can receive credit for trips formerly generated by the office use. Based on the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 8th edition, an office building with 15,927 square feet is expected to generate a total of 25 AM peak hour trips with 22 trips coming into the site and 3 trips leaving the site and a total of 24 PM peak hour trips, with 4 trips coming into the site and 20 trips leaving the site. After credit for the existing l1"'""'li iii I P age ...... UeXdgOn T (ijnSppr13lioD (ollSll1l4uts.lne. • I , November 08 2011 ................................................................... ~ ........... . office use, the after-schoortotonng center IS expected to generate a total of69 net new AM peak hour trips, with 28 trips coming into the site and 41 trips leaving the site and 134 net new PM peak hour trips, with 73 trips coming into the site and 61 trips leaving the site. Existing Plus Project Intersection Levels of Service The results show that, measured against the City of Palo Alto level of service standards, all of the intersections would continue to operate adequately. The level of service results for the study intersections under existing plus project conditions are summarized in Table ES 1. Existing Plus Project Freeway Ramp Capacity Analysis The freeway ramp volumes under project conditions were obtained by adding to the eXisting ramp volumes the traffic estimated to be generated by the project. The ramp analysis under project conditions showed that the selected ramps would continue to have sufficient capacity to serve the projected traffic volumes under project conditions. The study ramp is expected to have a volume­ to-capacity (VIC) ratio well below 1.0. Existing Plus Project Freeway Segment Analysis Cumulative Intersection Levels of Service The results show that, measured against the City of Palo Alto level of service standards, the intersection of East Bayshore Road and Embarcadero Road would continue to operate at an unacceptable level of service during the PM peak hour. However, no significant impact is caused by the project based upon City of Palo Alto's definition for significant impact criteria. The intersection of Embarcadero Road and St. Francis Drive would continue to operate at acceptable levels of service under both near and far term cumulative conditions. The level of service results for the study intersections under near term and far term cumulative conditions are summarized in . Table ES 1 . iv I Page ~ L!f r·, a:a • • ..0-Il ofo • I~ bd ~ ~ ~,~~5 East Bayshore Road -Final Traffic Ana ort November 08.2011 Table ES 1 Intersection Level of Service Summary 1. Average control delay (seconds per vehicle) including all movements for intersections controlled bya signal. Level of service (based on average delay). Table ES 2 Freeway Level of Service Summary 1. Source: Santa Clara Valley Trans portation Authority Congestion Management Program Monitoring Study. 20 JII"""!!III{ ...... Mexaoon Trdnsllorfatlon (~ultdOK roo. v Page • , 1. Introduction This report presents the results of the traffic impact analysis conductedfor Mustard Seed Learning Center, the proposed lessee for the building at 2585 East Bayshore Road, Palo Alto,CA. The project, as proposed, will relocate an existing learning center into a vacant office building located east of US 101. The proposed tenant, Mustard Seed Learning Center, is currently located at 2800 West 8ayshore Road in Palo Alto and serves 85 school age children. Mustard Seed Learning Center is proposing to grow their business to 117 children. The number of children will be governed .. . " I,icl, a, e based 011 tile pllysical site location including facilities and available outdoor play area, among other things. Under current regulations, the project location can be licensed for a maximum of 117 school-age children. Access to the proposed project is provided directly off of East Bayshore Road. The project site and the surrounding study area are shown on Figure 1. Scope of Study This study was conducted for the purpose of identifying the potential traffic impacts related to the . proposed development. The potential impacts of the project were evaluated in accordance with the .standards set forth by the City of Palo Alto and the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) Congestion Management Program (CMP). The traffic analysiS is based on the AM and PM peak hour levels of service for two signalized intersections and two freeway segments. The traffic analysis also includes a capacity analysis for eight freeway ramps. The study roadway facilities are identified below. Study Intersections 1. Embarcadero Road and East Bayshore Road 2. Embarcadero Road and St. Francis Drive Study Freeway Ramps 1. US 101 southbound to Embarcadero Road westbound 2. US 101 southbound to Embarcadero Road eastbound 3. Embarcadero Road westbouhd to US 101 southbound 4. Embarcadero Road eastbound to US 101 southbound 5. US 101 northbound to Embarcadero Road eastbound 6. US 101 northbound to Embarcadero Road westbound 7. Embarcadero Road eastbound to US 101 northbound 8. Embarcadero Road westbound to US 101 northbound 6 I Page LEGEND ~ = Project Site o = Study Intersection "---, ..... __ .. _ .... ,_._---- Figure 1 Site Location and Study Intersections _ .... _--_ .... _._--_ .. _ ... _--_ .. -;----_._------------_._---------.---_ ... _----_._._-_ .... _-_._-----... ------------_. --_._- ~ ...... ~m~OH hAK)~O_nmOH (OIlSUUAHTS, 11K " NORTH NottoSca~ • of-a r US 101, between Embarcadero Road and Oregon Expressway 2. US 101, between Oregon Expressway and San Antonio Road Traffic conditions at the study intersections were analyzed for the weekday AM and PM peak hours of adjacent street traffic. The AM peak hour is expected to occur between 7:00 AM and 9:00 AM on a regular weekday and the PM peak hour is expected to occur between 4:00 PM and 6:00 PM on a regular weekday. A regular weekday is represented by any day, Monday through Friday. Traffic conditions were evaluated for the following scenarios: Scenario 1: Existing Conditions. Existing traffic volumes are based on traffic counts from the year 2008. Based on 2011 counts in other areas of the city, the 2008 counts are considered to represent current conditions. Scenario 2: Existing plus Project Conditions. Existing traffic volumes with the project (hereafter called project traffic volumes) were estimated by adding to existing traffic volumes the additional traffic generated by the project. Project conditions were evaluated relative to existing conditions in order to determine potential project impacts. Scenario 3: Near Term Cumulative Conditions. Near Term Cumulative No Project traffic volumes for the intersection of Embarcadero Road and East Bayshore Road were Term Cumulative No Project traffic volumes for the intersection of Embarcadero ') Road/Saint Francis Drive were represented by applying a 2% growth factor to existing (2011) traffic volumes for two years. Trips from the proposed Edgewood Shopping Center were also added to the affected intersection. Near Term Cumulative traffic volumes with the project were estimated by adding to near term cumulative no project traffic volumes the additional traffic generated by the project. Scenario 4: Far Term Cumulative Conditions. Far Term Cumulative No Project traffic volumes for the intersection of Embarcadero Road and East Bayshore Road were based on the City's traffic model volumes. The far term cumulative no project traffic volumes for the intersection of Embarcadero Embarcadero Road/Saint Francis Drive were represented by applying a 2% growth factor to existing (2011) traffic volumes for seven years. Trips from the proposed Edgewood Shopping Center were also added to the affected intersection. Far Term Cumulative traffic volumes with the project were estimated by adding to far term cumulative no project traffic volumes the additional traffic generated by the project. Methodology This section presents the methods used to determine the traffic conditions for each scenario described above. It includes descriptions of the data requirements, the analysis methodologies, and the applicable level of service standards. Data Requirements The data required for the analysis were obtained from new traffic counts, the City of Palo Alto, and field observations. The following data were collected from these sources: • existing traffic volumes • existing lane configurations • signal timing and phasing, and 8 I Page • I • the Cit's traffic model volumes. Level of Service Standards and Analysis Methodologies Traffic conditions at the study intersections were evaluated using level of service (LOS). Level of Service is a qualitative description of operating conditions ranging from LOS A, or free-floW conditions with little or no delay, to LOS F, or jammed conditions with excessive delays. The various analysis methods are described below. Sig na lized Intersections Both signalized study intersections are located in the City of Palo Alto and are therefore subject to the City of Palo Alto level of service standards. The City of Palo Alto evaluates level of service at signalized intersections based on the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) level of service methodology using TRAFFIX software. This method evaluates signalized intersection operations on the basis of average control delay time for all vehicles at the intersection. Since TRAFFIX also is the CMP-designated intersection level of service methodology, the City employs the CMP default values for the analysis parameters. The City of Palo Alto level of service standard for signalized intersections is LOS D or better. Table 1 shows the level of service definitions for signalized intersections. Freeway Ramps A freeway ramp analysis was performed in order to verify that the freeway ramps would have sufficient capacity to serve the expected traffic volumes with and without the project. This analysis . ... interchanges. The ramp capacities were obtained from the Highway Capacity Manual 2000, and consider both the free-flow speed and the number of lanes on the ramp. Freeway Segments As prescribed in the CMP technical guidelines, the level of service for freeway segments is estimated based on vehicle density. Density is calculated by the following formula: where: D = V I (N*S) D= density, in vehicles per mile per lane (vpmpl) V= peak hour volume, in vehicles per hour (vph) N= number of travel lanes S= average travel speed, in miles per hour (mph) The vehicle density on a segment is correlated to level of service as shown in Table 2. The CMP requires that mixed-flow lanes and auxiliary lanes be analyzed separately from HOV (carpool) lanes. The CMP specifies that a capacity of 2,300 vehicles per hour per lane (vphpl) be used for segments three lanes or wider in one direction and a capacity of 2,200 vphpl be used for segments two lanes wide in one direction. HOV lanes are specified as having a capacity of 1,800 vphpl. Report Organization The remainder of this report is divided into six chapters. Chapter 2 describes existing conditions in terms of the eXisting roadway network, transit service, and existing bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Chapter 3 describes the method used to estimate project traffic and its impact on the transportation system and describes any recommended mitigation measures. Chapter 4 contains an evaluation of other transportation-related issues, such as site access, circulation, and parking. Chapter 5 presents the traffic conditions in the study area under cumulative conditions. Chapter 6 includes a summary of any proposed mitigation measures and recommended improvements. 9 I Page • , " Cd • • November 2011 Table 1 Signalized Intersection Level of Service Definitions Based on Control Delay L I f Average Control eve 0 D .. DIP S . escnptlon e ay er Vehicle ervlce ( sec.) A Signal progression is extremely favorable. Most vehicles arrive during the green phase and do not stop at all. Short cycle lengths may also contribute to the very low vehicle delay. 10.0 or less rce: Transportation Research Board, 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (Washington, D.C., 2000) p10-16 . 10 I Page Freeway Segment Level of Service Based on Density bd· , '\ F Vehicular flow breakdowns occurs. Large queues form behind breakdown points. <58 ource: Santa Clara County 2004 CMP (Based on the Highway Capacity Manual (2000). Washington D.C.) • o~o , , ~ ............ ~eX~qOD Tr~DsllOrtation (omultiln~.lnc. 11 I Page " aD , • ofo , November 08 2011 ....................................................................... ..! ........... . 2. Existing Conditions This chapter describes the existing conditions for all of the major transportation facilities near the site, including the roadway network, transit service, and bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Existing Roadway Network Regional access to the project site is provided via US 101. US 101 is a north/south freeway that extends from San Fr~ncisco through San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties. In Palo Alto, US 101 is eight lanes wide, including two HOV lanes (one in each direction). Embarcadero Road and Oregon Expressway provide access to and/or from US 101. Local access to the site is provided by East Bayshore Road and Embarcadero Road. These roadways are described below. East Bayshore Road is a two-lane frontage roadway that runs parallel to and immediately east of US 101. East Bayshore Road provides direct access to the project site. Embarcadero Road extends in an east-west direction starting at EI Camino Real and terminates by the Palo Alto Municipal Airport. In the vicinity of the project site it is a four-lane roadway. Existing Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Sidewalks are found along most of East Bayshore Road and Embarcadero Road. Sidewalks are found on both sides of East Bayshore Road along the project frontage. The main streets in the study area include bike lanes (Class II Bikeways). Bike lanes exist along East Bayshore Road (south of Embarcadero Road) and Embarcadero Road (eastof US 101). In addition, bicyclists and pedestrians are able to cross US 101 via a dedicated pedestrian/bike bridge located within a few blocks of the site. . Existing Transit Service Existing transit service to the study area is provided by the City of Palo Alto. This is described below. City of Palo Alto Embarcadero Shuttle Service The Embarcadero Shuttle runs every 15 to 30 minutes during commute hours and is coordinated with the Caltrain schedule. It serves employers in the Embarcadero/Baylands area, residents in the 12 I Page • • ot-o .~ November the Embarcadero shuttle operates on Embarcadero Road with stops east of Geng Road, approximately one quarter mile from the project site. Existing Intersection Lane Configurations The existing lane configurations at the study intersections were obtained by observations in the field. the eXisting intersection lane configurations are shown on Figure 2 .. Existing Traffic Volumes Existing traffic volumes were obtained from traffic counts conducted on April 1 0 and July 31 in 2008. The existing peak hour intersection volume is shown on Figure 3. The traffic count data are included in Appendix A. Existing Intersection Levels of Service The results of the intersection level of service analysis under existing conditions are summarized in Table 3. The results show that, measured against City of Palo Alto standards, the signalized study intersections currently operate at acceptable levels of service during both the AM and PM peak hours. The level of service calculation sheets are included in Appendix B. Traffic conditions in the field were observed in order to identify existing operational deficiencies and to confirm the accuracy of calculated intersection levels of service. The purpose of this effort was (1) to identify any existing traffic problems that may not be directly related to level of service, and (2) to identify any locations where the level of service analysis does not accurately reflect existing traffic conditions. Overall, the study intersections operated well during the AM and PM peak hour of traffic, and the level of service analysis appears to reflect actual existing traffic conditions accurately. Table 3 Existing Intersection Levels of Service PM 07/31/08 1. Average control delay (seconds per vehicle) including all movements for intersections controlled by a signal. 2. Level of service (based on average delay). :: ~tX~~OI) T fdDSWltatton(oDsuUants.lnc. 10.1 B 13 I Page 2011 LEGEND ~ = Project Site o = Study Intersection ..... , Embarcadero Rd ........ ijm~oH hAIi~POHAH0H (OHWlTAHH: IHC Figure 2 Existing Lane Configurations ~ NORTH Nol10 SeaJe I om I ("")~--.r~1'-(O~~ "L 12(57) :g ~ ~ I f-100(441) Embarcadero .J 1 L. .r 19(63) Embarcadero Rd LEGEND ~ = Project Site o = Study Intersection Rd XX(XX) = AM(PM) Peak-Hour Traffic Volumes 325i631~J II~ T ~ 413164 ~ __ _ 304125+~.~ Ql <ONI'­'-0<0 2~ \ _Ul :g «l -0 WID 0::: ._-----_.-...• _---- Figure 3 Existing Traffic Volumes ... -... -.--... ---... ----.--.. --.-.----.------.. ---.---.-... --.. --.---... --.-----.-----------------... --.--------------s. ~ ,~~ ........ Um~OH h,Mi)POHAH0H (OHSnLU.HT).lrtc NORTH NoitoScaIe • ate , .. November ,--xi-til1g Freeway Ramp Capacity=Analysis This analysis consisted of a volume-to-capacity ratio evaluation of the freeway ramps at the Embarcadero Road interchange with US 101 . The ramp capacity was obtained from the Highway Capacity Manual 2000 (see Chapter 25), which considers both the free-flow speed and the number of lanes on the study ramp. Peak hour freeway ramp volumes were derived from ADT (Average Daily Traffic) obtained from Caltrans. Peak hour volume was assumed to be 10 percent of the average daily traffic. The ramp analysis showed that the freeway ramps currently have sufficient capacity to serve the existing traffic volumes. The study ramps have a volume-to-capacity (VIC) ratio of less than 1.0, which means that the existing traffic demand does not exceed the existing ramp capacity (see Table 4). Existing Freeway Levels of Service Existing weekday AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes on the study freeway segments were obtained from the 2008 CMP Annual Monitoring Report. The existing freeway levels of service during the weekday AM and PM peak hours of traffic are summarized in Table 5. The following directional study freeway segments currently operate at LOS F: US 101 , northbound between San Antonio Road and Oregon Expressway -PM peak hour US 101, southbound between Oregon Expressway and San Antonio Road -PM peak hour Table 4 Existing Freeway Ramp Capacity Analysis 1. Existing ramp volumes are based on 10 % of the Average Daily Trafffic provided by Caltrans. .......... . . .. ~ ~ex~~OIl TIllDs~rt(ltlon (oflSulldnts.lnc. 16 I Page 2011 2585 East Bavshore Road -Final Traffic Ana November 08. 201 Table 5 Existing Freeway Levels of Service 1. Source: Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Congestion Management ram Monitoring Study, 2008. :,:u exaqOIl 1 ran$1IO rt,atioo (onsulfilntd Ilt 17 I Page ,. , • , " ............... ~gy~'!.I.~~.~9.?,?9.~ 1 3. Existing Plus Project Conditions This chapter describes traffic conditions with the project. It begins with a description of the significance criteria used to establish what constitutes a project impact. A description of the transportation system under existing plus project conditions and the method by which project traffic is estimated is then described. Included in this chapter is a summary of existing plus project traffic conditions, as well as any impacts caused by the project. Existing plus project conditions are . . ... .. . Significant 1m pact Criteria Significance criteria are used to establish what constitutes an impact. For this analysis, the criteria used to determine impacts on intersections and freeways are based on the City of Palo Alto level of • service standards and the Congestion Management Program (CMP) level of service standards. City otPalo Alto Definition of Significant Intersection Impacts The project is said to create a significant adverse impact on traffic conditions at a signalized intersection in the City of Palo Alto if for either peak hour: 1. The level of servic~ at the intersection degrades from an acceptable LOS D or better under . existing conditions to an unacceptable LOS E or F under project conditions, or 2. The level of service at the intersection is an unacceptable LOS E or F under existing conditions and the addition of project trips causes both the critical-movement delay at the intersection to increase by four or more seconds and the demand-to-capacity ratio (VIC) to increase by .01 or more . An exception to this rule applies when the addition of project traffic reduces the amount of average delay for critical movements (Le. the change in average delay for critical movements is negative). In . this case, the threshold of Significance is an increase in the critical VIC value by .01 or more. Definition of Significant Freeway Ramp ·Impacts For the purpose of this study: the project is said to create a significant adverse impact on a freeway ramp if its implementation: 1. Causes the volume-to-capacity (VIC) ratio of the freeway ramp to exceed 1.0; or 2. Increases the amount of traffic on a freeway ramp that is already exceeding its capacity by more than one percent (1 %) of the ramp's capacity. 18 I Page • of-o I bd It • ~-:--·Mp=f)efmttiu1rots-ig·nifiea~nt=¥reeway=S--egmtmrlmpact'Ci:"s~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ The CMP defines an acceptable level of service for freeway segments as LOS E or better. A project is said to create a significant adverse impact on traffic conditions on a CM P freeway segment if for either peak hour: 1. The level of service on the freeway segment degrades from an acceptable LOS E or better under existing conditions to an unacceptable LOS F under project conditions, or 2. The level of service on the freeway segment is an unacceptable LOS F under project conditions and the number of project trips on that segment constitutes at least one percent of capacity on that segment. A significant impact by CMP standards is said to be satisfactorily mitigated when measures are implemented that would restore freeway conditions to better than background conditions. Transportation Network under Project Conditions It is assumed in this analysis that the transportation network under project conditions, including roadways and intersection lane configurations, would be the same as that described under existing conditions. Project Trip Estimates The magnitude of traffic produced by a new development and the locations where that traffic would appear are estimated using a three-step process: (1) trip generation, (2) trip distribution, and (3) trip assignment. In determining project trip generation, the magnitude of traffic entering and exiting the site is estimated for the AM and PM peak hours. As part of the project trip distribution, an estimate · is made of the directions to and from which the project trips would travel. In the project trip assignment, the project trips are assigned to specific streets and intersections. These procedures are described below. . Trip Generation The proposed project will serve 117 school age children. Most of the kindergarteners will be picked up from their school and dropped off at Mustard Seed by van. Peak hour trip generation of the project is expected to occur in the evening between 4:30 PM and 6:30 PM, when the children at the center are picked up by their parents. The existing Mustard Seed Learning center is currently not open in the mornings. However project impacts during the AM peak hour were analyzed as the proposed learning center is anticipated to be open in the morning. Trip generation for the AM peak hour for the proposed project was based on ITE Trip Generation Manual, 8th edition for a day care center. A day care center with 117 children is expected to generate a total of 94 AM peak hour trips with 50 trips entering the site and 44 trips leaving the site. PM peak hour trip generation for the proposed project was based on trip generation survey that was conducted on November 18, 2010 during the PM peak hour from 4:30 PM to 6:30 PM at the existing facility at 2800 West Bayshore Road that currently has an enrollment of 85 children. The survey results show that the existing school's trip generation peaked at 115 trips from 5:15 PM to 6:15 PM with 56 trips in and 59 trips out. The observed trip generation rate was 1.35 trips per child in the PM peak hour, for an enrollment of 85 children. For an enrollment of 117 children, the project is expected to generate a total of 158 trips in the PM peak hour with 77 trips coming into the site and 81 trips leaving the site. As the project proposes to occupy the existing vacant office building, the project can receive credit for trips formerly generated by the office use. Based on the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 8th edition, an office building with 15,927 square feet is expected to generate a total of 25 AM peak hour trips with 22 trips coming into the site and 3 trips leaving the site and a total of 24 PM peak hour trips, with 4 trips coming into the site and 20 trips leaving the site. After credit for the existing office use, 19 I Page ~~ Ii ~---=-=F~~tm-Re--after...-seReeI4llieFiA~ eeAter=ia=&Xf§)eete~t€F§eAefate=a=teta~~e~ew=AM-JS>eak-R@wr~tr~i":""', ~~~~~~~~~=-· D with 28 trips coming into the site and 41 trips leaving the site and 134 net new PM peak hour trips, ~ with 73 trips coming into the site and 61 trips leaving the site (see Table 6). ~ em • • • ofO • Cd • Table 6 Project Trip Generation Estimates 1. Rates expressed in trips per student and per 1,000 square feet for office. AM peak hour generation based on Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation, 8th Edition for Day care (565) and PM peak r generation based on trip generation survey conducted at Mustard Seed Learning Center located at 2800 West Bayshore Road, Palo CA on 11/18/10. stitute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation, 8th Edition. Trip Distribution and Assignment The trip distribution pattern for the proposed project was estimated based on existing travel patterns on the surrounding roadway system and the locations of complementary land uses. Access to the site would be provided by one entrance-only driveway and one exit-only driveway, both on East Bayshore Road. Figure 4 shows the project trip distribution and assignment. Existing Plus Project Traffic Volumes Project trips, as represented in the above project trip assignment, were added to existing traffic volumes to obtain existing plus project traffic volumes; this is contrasted with the term project trips, which is used to signify the traffic that is produced specifically by the project. The project traffic volumes are shown on Figure 5 . 20 I Page Rd 2585 East Road f--12(18) 8(22) ---+ LEGEND ~ = Project Site o = Study Intersection Embarcadero Rd XX(XX) = AM(PIVI) Peak-Hour Traffic Volumes 1 24(62)+ ~ T ~ o ..r::. _CI) ~(\)"O W co 0:: NM LO­_N LO C") Figure 4 Project Trip Distribution and Assignment -.--... -.-.--.-.. -.-.. -.----------.. -.------... -------.. ----.-.. --.----.-.-------------------.-----.-.-.--.---------------.------------.-.-.. ---fa-- :: Ym~oH T 1A6\~OHAIIO. (OHIUL1AHTl, I H( N~~ Nol to Scale 2585 East Bayshore Road ----------,........------_._------------_ ... Embarcadero Rd Embarcadero + 10(20) Rd 6(25) J I~ T r+ 913(1250) ---4 I I 2(9) -. 00000 ONS __ 00 LEGEND ~ = Project Site o = Study Intersection XX(XX) = AM(PM) Peak-Hour Traffic Volumes --------------_ .. _-------------------- OM M"I_ ~--r-(O'Lt)~ ~~~ 'L 12(57) I 1 +-100(441) +-' + 19(63) Figure 5 Existing Plus Project Traffic Volumes _ .. ___ ~ __ • ______ N. _________ ••• __ ._·~ ___ • ___ • __ • __ •• __ ·_·_-.... ---.-----.-.-••• ----.---.-------.------------------.----•• ----.--- ~. ~yt.XA6(lH hJ.H~PDHAHOH (OHSUlH"lS~ IHe to NORTH Nol 10 Scale ~ , , ofO • • . ..... ... ........ . .... .... ..... ..... ............ ... ~ .()Y~~~~Tq?t ?9.11 Existing Plus Project Intersection Levels of Service The results of the intersection level of service analysis under existing plus project conditions are summarized in Table 7. The results show that, measured against the City of Palo Alto level of service standards, all of the intersections would continue to operate adequately. The intersection level of service calculation sheets are included in Appendix B. Table 7 Project Intersection Levels of Service controlled by a signal. 2. Level of service (based on average delay). Existing Plus Project Freeway Ramp Capacity Analysis The freeway ramp volumes under existing plus project conditions were obtained by adding to the existing ramp volumes the traffic estimated to be generated by the project. The ramp analysis under existing plus project conditions shows that the selected ramps would continue to have sufficient capacity to serve the projected traffic volumes under existing plus project conditions. The study ramps are expected to have a volume-to-capacity (VIC) ratio well below 1.0 (see Table 8). Existing Plus Project Freeway Segment Analysis The results of the CMP freeway level of service analysis are summarized in Table 9. Traffic volumes on the study freeway segments under existing plus project conditions was estimated by adding project trips to the existing volumes obtained from the 2008 CMP Annual Monitoring Report. The results of the CMP freeway analysis show that the project would not cause significant increases in traffic volumes (more than one percent of freeway capacity) on any of the study freeway segments. III""""III~ ~ ~eXdgOO T r~nfllOndtion (onsultaots.inc. 23 I Page · 2585 East Ba November 08. 201 1. Source: Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Congestion Management Program Monitoring Study. 2 ::~ex~oOll Tran~lIO(tdlii>n Gmsultitllf~ III&~ '24 I Page • Ot-O • I r;J • 4. Other Transportation Issues This chapter presents other transportation issues associated with the project. These include an analysis of: • Potential impacts to transit, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, • Site access and circulation, and • ar Ing Unlike the level of service impact methodology, which is adopted by the City Council, the analyses in this chapter are based on professional judgment in accordance with the standards and methods employed by the traffic engineering community. Transit, Pedestrians and Bicycles Sidewalks are found along most of East Bayshore Road and Embarcadero Road. Sidewalks are found on both sides of East Bayshore Road along the project frontage. The main streets in the study area include bike lanes (Class II Bikeways). Bike lanes exist along East Bayshore Road (south of Embarcadero Road) and Embarcadero Road (east of US 101). In addition, bicyclists and pedestrians are able to cross US 101 via a dedicated pedestrian/bike bridge located within a few blocks of the project site. The proposed 'project would not have an adverse effect on the existing transit or bicycle facilities in the study area . Site Access and Circulation This section describes the site access and circulation of the proposed project. This review is based on a project site plan prepared by Kenneth Rodrigues & Partners, Inc (see Figure 6). Site Access Site access was evaluated to determine the adequacy of the site's driveways with regard to the following: corner sight distance, traffic volume, average delays, vehicle queuing, and truck access. The existing site has two driveways on East Bayshore Road. The northern driveway is an exit-only driveway and the southern driveway is an enter-only driveway. ....... ~ ~ex~gflll TransPOrtcrtio.n (olnull~nts.11lC. 25 I Page .\ I ............................................................... I.~ ...... o ...... v ..... e ...... m ......... b ...... e ..... r .... :.~.!2011 ==~ . .....::: c~ ..... ===+-=========e-=='~======="'=====================~---~~"~.O~~~.~c_~C" ... ~.c~ .•. ~_"~-".-... ~ .. _.o~= G Corner Sight Distance • • of(,· , , Based on the site plan and field observations, adequate sight distance is available at the exit-only driveway on East Bayshore Road to insure that exiting vehicles can see pedestrians on the sidewalk, as well as vehicles on East Bayshore Road. Traffic Volume Under existing plus project conditions: • The exit-only driveway would have 41 outbound trips during the AM peak hour and 61 outbound trips during the PM peak hour. • The enter-only driveway would have 28 inbound trips during the AM peak hour and 73 inbound trips during the PM peak hour. Average Delays Driveway delays would be short, and motorists could exit the project site easily during the AM and PM peak hour. Under project conditions, the exit-only driveway would experience an average outbound delay of 10.4 seconds (LOS 8) during the AM peak hour and 12.8 seconds (LOS B) during the PM peak hour. Vehicle Queuing block parking stalls and (2) prevent entering vehicles from making sudden stops (due to vehicles . backing out or entering stalls) and spilling back into the public street. Vehicles are not expected to queue to pick up children. Vehicles are expected to park, walk children to the car, and then leave the site. Vehicle queues were estimated using a Poisson probability distribution based on the PM peak hour volumes, as the traffic volumes are greater in the PM peak hour compared to the AM peak hour. The basis of the analysis is as follows: (1) the Poisson probability distribution is used to estimate the 95th percentile maximum number of queued vehicles for a particular movement; (2) the estimated maximum number of vehicles in the queue is translated into a queue length, assuming 25 feet per vehicle; and (3) the estimated maximum queue length is compared to the existing or planned available storage capacity for the movement. • The northern driveway, which is an exit-only driveway provides approximately 50 feet of storage for the outbound lane. Under project conditions, this driveway is expected to operate at LOS B with 12.8 seconds of delay. Under near term cumulative conditions, the delay at this driveway is expected to increase to 23.1 seconds operating at LOS C and in the far term cumulative conditions, the delay at this intersection is expected to increase to 33 seconds operating at LOS D. Based on the vehicle queuing analysis, it is estimated that the exit-only driveway would require up to 50 feet (two vehicles) of storage with one outbound lane (see Table 10). Therefore, the proposed project design would provide adequate storage for vehicle queues • The southern driveway is an entrance-only driveway. Most of the project-related trips are expected to consist of left turns into the project site with minimal delays. Under project conditions, the southbound left-turn movement into the project's enter-only driveway would experience a delay of 8.6 seconds (LOS A) during the PM peak hour. The southbound left-turn movement into the project driveway is expected to experience a delay of 10.7 seconds (LOS 8) under near term cumulative conditions and a delay of 11 .8 seconds (LOS B) under far term .cumulative conditions. No improvements are required on East Bayshore Road at the project entrance-only driveway. It is noted that although the southbound left turn movement into the project driveway is operating at LOS B, if a vehicle is observed to be waiting too long to turn left into the project, the vehicles going through can go around the left-turning vehicle by using the adjacent bike lane. No queues or delay are expected for the southbound through vehicles. 27 Page f'l DiD • • of-o • I Table 10 Driveway Queuing Analysis Cycle/Delay (sec) Volume ("Phpl ) 61 A\g. Queue (\ehlln.) 0.2 A\g. Queue2 (ft.lln) 5 95th %. Queue (\eh/ln.) 95th %. Queue (ft.lln) 25 Storage (ft.lln.) 50 Adequate cY /N) Y Volume ("Phpl ) 61 A\g. Queue (\eh/ln.) 0.4 A\g. Queue2 (ft.lln) 10 95th %. Queue (\ehlln.) 2 95th %. Queue (ft.lln) 50 Storage (ft.lln.) 50 Adequate cY /N) Y Cycle/Delay 1 (sec) 33.0 Vol ume ("Phpl ) 61 A\g. Queue (\eh/ln.) 0.6 A\g. Queue2 (ft.lln) 14 95th %. Queue (\eh/ln.) 2 95th %. Queue (ft.lln) 50 Storage (ft.lln.) 50 Adequate cY /N) Y 1 Vehicle queue calculations based on movement delayfor unsignalized intersections. 2 Assumes 25 Feet Per Vehicle Queued Truck Access An analysis was conducted to determine the adequacy of driveway access for the truck category SU 30, which includes small buses, 'fire trucks, garbage truCks, and other single unit trucks. According to this analysis, trucks would be able to negotiate the driveways, but would require the use of the entire drive aisle width. Given the infrequency of truck trips, the existing design would be adequate to handle the anticipated level of truck traffic. :: ~ex~gOl} T r~nspOrtatlon {oilsultants.lnc. 28 I Page • ofO • I r .. ............................................................................................................ November ()~J 2011 On-Site Circulation The onsite circulation was reviewed in accordance with generally accepted traffic engineering standards. The existing office building has 45-degree angled parking along the front and gO-degree parking along the side of the building. The parking available Qehind the building is proposed to be converted to a play yard. The existing drive aisle is approximately 20 feet in width. Parking Per the City of Palo Alto, Hexagon conducted surveys at similar facilities in order to determine the adequacy of parking for the proposed project. Most children's programs offer either daycare or afterschool care. Programs that offer both are more unusual. The City does not have a parking code category that applies to this type of use. Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc., completed a parking study of three similar programs. No similar programs were found in Palo Alto. The following three programs were found in Sunnyvale, Menlo Park, and San Jose. All offer daycare and afterschool programs: • Appleseed Montessori -Located at 1095 Dunford Way in Sunnyvale. The program has a total enrollment of 300 children. Hours of operation are 7:00 AM to 6:00 PM. • Foxworthy Kindercare -Located at 1081 Foxworthy Avenue in San Jose. The program has a total enrollment of 80 children. The hours of operation are 6:30 AM to 6:00 PM. • Menlo Park Childcare -Located at 801 Laurel Street in Menlo Park. The program has a Each of these schools was counted during the AM and PM peak hours to determine the maximum number of parked cars. All of the schools have parking lots, but on-street vehicles also were included in the counts. Hexagon did not observe any vehicles queuing to drop off or pick up their children. In every case, cars parked, and parents walked their children into and out of the building. The results show a fairly wide variation in the observed parking ratio (see Table 11). At the high end of the scale, the Appleseed Montessori had 0.30 cars parked per child. The parking counts include staff vehicles as well as parents picking up children. In each of the three surveys, the peak parking was observed to occur for pick-up in the afternoon. The lowest parking demand was observed at the Menlo Park Child Center with 0.08 cars per child. The average was 0.18 vehicles per child. Table 11 also shows the results of earlier parking surveys that Hexagon completed for two afterschool programs., These programs do not include daycare. One was the Sunflower Learning Center in Cupertino, and the other was the Mustard Seed Learning Center in Palo Alto, which is proposing to move to the 2585 E. Bayshore site. In both cases the maximum parking demand was found to be 0.15 vehicles per child. Given all the data that have been generated, Hexagon is comfortable recommending a parking ratio of 0.18 parking spaces per child. For the proposed project at 2585 E. Bayshore Road with an enrollment of 117 children, this ratio calculates to a parking need of 22 spaces. Based on observations, a drop off or pick-up area is not needed. Parents will park to drop-off and pick up their children. The project proposes to provide a total of 31 parking spaces on site, which is more than the estimated 22 spaces needed. Therefore, the project's p'rovided parking supply is adequate. 29 I Page November 08 2011 ............................................................................ ..'. ............... . Table 11 Daycare Parking Survey Results ~ Location # of ChIldren Max. Parking per ChIld Appleseed Montessori 300 89 0.30 Foxworthy Kindercare 80 13 0.16 Menlo Children Center 250 21 0.08 Sunflower Learning Center 130 20 0.15 Mustard Seed· Learning Center 85 13 0.15 • Ot-O .. " ~ . " 30 I Page • ot-a .~ I , , November 5. Cumulative Conditions This chapter presents a summary of the traffic conditions that would occur under near term and far term cumulative conditions both with and without the proposed. project. The intersection lane configurations under near term and far term cumulative conditions were assumed to be the same as described under existing conditions. Near term cumulative no project traffic volumes for the intersection of Embarcadero Road and East Bayshore Road were based on the City's traffic model volumes. The near term cumulative no project traffic volumes for the intersection of Embarcadero Road/Saint Francis Drive were represented by applying a 2% growth factor to existing (2011) traffic volumes for two years. Trips from the proposed Edgewood Shopping Center were also added to the affected intersection. Far term cumulative no project traffic volumes were developed in a similar manner, with growth extended out seven years . The project trip estimates were then added to the both cumulative no project traffic volumes to derive near term and farterm cumulative with project traffic volumes. Figures 7 and 8 show the intersection turning-movement volumes under cumulative conditions both near term and far term, respectively. Intersection Levels of Service Under Cumulative Conditions The level of service results for the study intersections under all cumulative conditions are summarized in Table 11. The results show that, measured against the City of Palo Alto level of service standards, the intersection of East Bayshore Road and Embarcadero Road would operate at an acceptable level of service during the AM peak hour. This intersection would operate at an unacceptable level of service during the PM peak hour under both the near term and far term cumulative no project conditions and would continue to operate at unacceptable LOS E or worse with the project under both cumulative conditions. However, the project is not expected to create a significant impact at this intersection, based upon City of Palo Alto's definition of Significant intersection impacts. The intersection of Embarcadero and St. Francis Drive is expected to operate at acceptable levels of service with and without project under both the near term and far term cumulative AM and PM peak hour conditions. 31 I Page 2011 2585 East Bayshore Road ------------_._---- Embarcadero Rd 38(131) 949(1299) 2(9) + 10(20) ='I~!~ "+ 100L.()00 o::;:r~ ..-00 I ..-I .. ;0 £ I.~ III c: CI) (1) Lt LEGEND ~ = Project Site NM ~~O) ~~~ 'L 5(65) +-246(621) Embarcadero .J 1 "L.l + 56(69) Rd 385(470) J I~ T r+ 596(341) -+ I I 267(165) ----~'C:OC:O-;::-... L.() L.() cry ~~~~\ .... ~ ..... VI 1Il(1)" Will cr: o = Study Intersection XX(XX) = AM(PM) Peak-Hour Traffic Volumes Figure 7 Near Term Cumulative Project Traffic Volumes ... __ ._-_ .. _--_ .... _---_ ..• __ .. _---_._-_._-_ ..... _-- "...,.... ...... ~UA6QH hJ.It)POotAH0N (OliWlWm; IH<. @ NORTH Nol 10 $cale 2585 East Bayshore Road --,...,-,,--------------._--_ ... Embarcadero r 10(20) Rd 38(131) .J +-. T .-. 1040(1422) -t 'Ii I 2(9) ~ §:§:~ O"<f'_ 1"-~ 10 £ l.~ ~ lij U: LEGEND ~ = Project Site = Study Intersection _ .. _ .. _-------_. __ ._._---------,-----"'--_.---------_ .. _-., .. N;::--..-tt)_ "<f'tt) 0> O)':;=£:!. .:;; M ~ "L 7(70) Embarcadero '1 f-255(665) +' 56(115) Rd 417(470) 601(436) 267(165) ~~~g~ O~~"<f'\ -~ ..-l\l1'O'C woo 0::: XX(XX) = AM(PM) Peak-Hour Traffic Volumes Figure 8 Far Term Cumulative Project Traffic Volumes '---;::;-----"'----'---'-_._-'----------"--'_._------_. __ .. _ ... _-------------_._._._--'----------@ ...... UUMOH hAtt~POnAnOH (OflSULHtllS; I tiC ~o~!,J.~ . p " • ot-a • ~ ~ • • _ Cumulative Freeway Segment Analysis Since project trips added to the study freeway segments under project conditions were significantly less than the 1 % threshold for significant impact, a freeway segment analysis was not completed under cumulative conditions . 34 I Page 2585 East Bavshore Road -Final Traffic Analvsis Reoort Table 12 Cumulative Intersection Levels of Service 1. Average control delay (seconds per vehicle) including all movements for intersections controlled bya signal. 2. Level of service (based on average delay). ~ ....... ;~exdqolllran~lIOnatjOll(ODSultiJnts; Int 35 I Page ~ , "' at-o I 6. Conclusions November 08 2011 ................. J ............. . This study was conducted for the purpose of identifying the potential traffic impacts related to the proposed learning center. The impacts of the project were evaluated following the standards and methodologies set forth by the City of Palo Alto and the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA). The VTA administers the county Congestion Management Program (CMP). Project impacts on other transportation cate ories, such as site access and circulation, were determined on the basis of engineering judgment. Signalized Intersections The intersection of East Bayshore Road and Embarcadero Road would operate at an unacceptable LOS E under near term and LOS F under far term cumulative no project conditions during the PM peak hour. However, project-related traffic would not cause the critical movement delay or the demand-to-capacity ratio to increase beyond City of Palo Alto standards under both near term and far term cumulative conditions. The intersection of Embarcadero RoadlSt. Francis Street is expected to operate at acceptable LOS under both the near term and far term AM and PM peak hour conditions. Freeway Ramps The freeway ramp volumes under project conditions were obtained by adding to the existing ramp volumes the traffic estimated to be generated by the project. The ramp analysis under project conditions showed that the selected ramps would continue to have sufficient capacity to serve the projected traffic volumes under project conditions. The study ramps are expected to have volume­ to-capacity (VIC) ratios well below 1.0. Freeway Segments Traffic volume on the study freeway segments under project conditions was estimated by adding project trips to the existing volumes obtained from the 2008 CMP Annual Monitoring Report. The results of the CMP freeway analysis show that the project would not cause significant increases in traffic volume (more than one percent of freeway capacity) on any of the study freeway segments. ~ .. ' ...... ~eXdgon TrdDsPOrt4tlon (OOsult6J1~.lnc. 36 I Page • o~o • I , , 2858 East 8ayshore Road Technical Appendices November 08, 2011 (»»»»This Page Intentionally Left Blank««««) • at-o .@i I Appendix A Traffic Counts (»»»»This Page Intentionally Left Blank««««) AM Peak-Hour Volume Count Worksheet AIJTO-CENSIJS Traffic Monitoring and Analysis Date: 7/31/08 870 Castlewood Dr, #1 Counter: Patti and Janea Los Gatos, CA 95032 Intersection Name: Embarcadero and St. Francis Palo Alto Phone 408-826-9673 Fax 408-877-1625 Weather: Clear 08GB15 St. Francis Embarcadero St. Francis Embarcadero ( .. :r-.. ':~L~~ ",},! C '" ::. t' ~'. eaii-Aiil19"ith':'='"';' , ... ~'''~:' _ .... $ ' . 'h; . ...... '. W"-' -., Start Time Right Thru Left . Total R!.9.ht Thru Left Total Right hru Left Total Right Thru Left Total 7:00 0, 0 "Q . 0, 0 0 0 0 <0: 1<; y ,; I·'· ( .. :.:. ">0" 0 0 0 0 7:15 1 0 . ~e ... 2~r: 8 185 0 193 '7 .. • :> ..... :. ; : ,": '7 0 110 1 111 7:30 5 0 6:1. 66 13 410 3 426 11" ;) . '.~ . j) 0 242 1 243 7:45 11 0 t03' 1:14 23 660 4 687 .:14 ' ). : ' .. .... 1:4 · 0 388 2 390 8:00 14 0 148 Hi2 36 922 6 964 20 , ( 2 22 0 549 5 554 8:15 18 0 2():¢··.· 420 40 1,175 8 1,223 ~3 0 '3 Zq 0 747 5 752 8:30 20 0 258 . ,-,~'713 56 1,384 11 1,451 29 1 6 36 1 928 6 935 8:45 21 -0 309 3~Q . 61 1,605 13 1,679 35 1 8 44 1 1,208 6 1,215 9:00 24 0 366 390 69 1,862 16 1,947 38 2 .12 52 2 1,454 11 1.467 .. -• ,PHi(Houf RJaht ' TImI... . J.m -ImaJ. ' .BI5lht .Ib.ru -~~-'Total Right rhru 1Aft' TOt.t .~ RIght· .. ..n!ru· • J,;.~ '. ::Ioll..l 1 PK Hour 7:00 -8:00 14 0 148 162 36 922 6 964 20 0 2 22 0 549 5 554 1,702 7:15 -8:15 17 0 174 191 32 990 8 1,030 16 0 3 19 0 637 4 641 1,881 7:30 -8:30 15 0 197 212 43 974 8 1,025 18 1 6 25, 1 686 5 692 1.954 7:45 - 8:45 10 0 206 216 38 945 9 992 21 1 8 30 1 820 4 825 2.063 8:00 -9:00 10 0 21-8 228 33 940 10 983 18 2 10 30 2 905 6 913 2,154 Peak Volumes: 10 0 218 228 33 940 10 983 18 2 · 10 .30 2 905 6 913 2,154 II Cut and Paste "·Nel ~~ ,"NBJ';'l . .NeR QL'J S8!...J 'SBR :E81 EBT . EBR ·' IVBL " WaT ·1":W8R .! I 10 2 18 J 218 j 0 J 10 6 1 905 1 2 10 940 I 33 St. Francis Out ill Total 41 228 269 Right Thru Left 10 0 218 '~I M jl to,) .~ ~ Ii .... CD <& ~ to,) N m E ~ 3 a> "C I[ a- ni C") ~I It) CD CD 1:;-AI ~ .=1 .... 0 ~ C» ~ nI a"I a"I to,) AI .D C. E (I) w ~I 0 I -I~ -I~ (3 CD N 0 ~ a"I 10 2 18 Left Thru Right 12 30 42 Out In Total St. Francis PM Peak-Hour Volume Count Worksheet AUro-CENSUS Traffic Monitoring and Analysis Date: 7/31/08 870 Castlewood Dr, #1 Counter: Patti and Janea Los Gatos, CA 95032 Intersection Name: Embarcadero and St. Francis Palo Alto Phone 408-826-9673 Fax 408-877-1625 Weather: Clear 08GB15 St. Francis Embarcadero St. Francis Embarcadero .' NOioI,~liP.rtMCh'-.. ~ .. ~ .... ··~MtAm!~ch ' -'\'. : ~'AI~ch ' ., , : westA~PnSllch ,,~, - Start Time Right Thru left Total Right Thru left Total Right Thru left Total Right Thru left Total 4:00 0, . 0 '. ,0 : L '0 0 0 0 0 () , b ·· ... · .iQ· 0 0 0 0 0 4:15 4 : Q ~313 . '42 14 176 4 194 5 L .••. 1 "'1 1 334 5 340 4:30 7 1 ",-' E;S ,''6~, ._ 36 365 7 408 7 2.' 4. 13 4 597 10 611 4:45 7' .1' . ;91" I 9.9 .. 52 528 11 591 8 2 " .6 tEl 6 914 15 935 5:00 10 f I ,·. 1;21,'" ".J~.2' 67 732 16 815 16 2., 6: .' '.24;:,· 8 1,214 18 1,240 5:15 17 i . 1 ... · :'J5S ' 173 . 89 899 19 1,007 '29 ..... 2 8 :;0 12 1,569 24 1,605 5:,30 20 '. ··1 Uj~ ... ·. i.20(3 , 109 1,102 24 1,235 .24' 2 .: ".10 ' 36 14 1,892 34 1,940 5:45 28 1 2J5 244 136 1,313 31 1,480 26. .:g .... 14" 42. 15 2,142 40 2,197 6:00 39 2 ~33 ' '274 159 1,506 39 1,704 28 .2 16 46 ..•.. 17 2,371 45 2,433 ~.~,,~"K "QUr.~ .HHHl1 D IU. ...Uft .~LJ~~t . .IruII. . _ ..... 11 TOtal . RIGht Tbru .. Le" Total' , -Rlaht ~ LtI[ '. .XMI! J PK Hour I 4:00 -5:00 10 1 121 132 67 732 16 815 16 2 6 24 8 1,214 18 1,240 2,211 4:15 - 5:15 13 1 117 .131 75 723 15 813 15 1 7 23 11 1,235 19 1,265 2,232 I 4:30 -5:30 13 0 124 . 137 73 737 17 827 17 0 6 23 . 10 1,295 24 1,329 2,316 ! 4:45-5:45 21 0 124 145 84 785 20 889 18 0 8 26 9 1,228 25 1,262 2,322 5:00 -6:00 29 1 112 142' 92 774 23 889 12 0 to 22 9 1,157 27 1,193 2,246 Peak Volumes: 21 0 124 145 84 785 20 889 18 ; 0 8 26 9 1,228 25 1,262 2,322 Cut and Paste NBl.. I ".T· j ' .HM 'j ' S.L'~, ·seT . salt 1 EBL 'r EST, Eaa·.J WBL "-'WBT J watt-It 1 8 1 0 18 124 0 21 25 1 228 9 1 20 785 84 St. Francis Out In Total 109 145 254 Right Thru Left 21 0 124 ~I CD ~I I N I~ ,... ." 4> co N E 0 N .c. U'I m N CD 3 CII 'C N co ~ I:T "' CD ~I N ...., co 1:;-~ e '=1 "!. . N~ co co n "' U'I CD II) J:I ..... ..... a. E (\) I I~ .... I~ 0 w 81 ~ N (.) en 0 ...., co 0 8 0 18 left Thru Right 29 26 55 Out In ' Total Sl Francis ( -.... AM Peak-Hour Volume Count Worksheet AFl'O-CEJ.'VSUS Traffic Monitoring and Ana/ysis Date: 4/10/08 870 Castlewood Dr. #1 Counter: Janea & Byron Los Gatos, CA 95032 Intersection Name: Ba~shore & embarcadero Phone 408-826-9673 Fax 408-877-1625 Weather: Clear City: Palo Alto Bayshore Embarcadero Bay_shore Embarcadero " . ,NortJJ:' iJlriKh~ . ' ~ -•. Eat.Am m"Ch :' '$Cl ~'A' aproadl" 'M'lA ~roaCIi"R.· .. ' -, " '. Start Time Right Thru Left Total Right Thru Left Total Right hru Left Total Right Thru Left Total 7:00 0 '0 :P '~(l; 0 0 0 0 I· ·ty· .... . 0' .: ;.,,'0 ..... . c'O . ". 0 0 0 0 7:15 104 . L to> .: ...... $ .... .1'22 .. 2 6 1 9 . .. 5: .3 ." j} 19 17 80 75 172 7:30 266 .'27 2.0 , 3Y3 4 14 1 19 1.~k 14 .; .: .. ~.~ .. 52; 45 136 167 348 7:45 480 · 43 27. SSO .' 5 32 3 40 ·.4~ 1'8 : .:&6 1·75 79 225 243 547 8:00 6:74 .. ·.65.··· 44 ... 783 ." 7 48 5 60 43 '3'~: 67 142 130 304 322 756 8:15 849 ,1q~ M ···tOJO · 9 66 10 85 '.50 44' t03 197 190 403 401 994 8:30 988 .133 ·. [·f · t.J9S: 10 94 14 118 .64 6$. ': .·124 . 251 266 503 489 1,258 8:45 1;112 170 :.'93 1::f75. 16 121 20 157 19 82 143 '. 304 325 608 540 1,473 I 9:00 1;240 209 106 ··J,555 19 148 24 191 115 M14 175 404 434 717 647 1,798 .peak.HoU". ..HCOnl ''::.J!,~':''''-''LtIl-. IO.lIl ..KIOru. .IMl ..l.tn TotIl RIGht rnru . L~~ ....... , .. ".i otal Right . .mtu", _~e~' ..IQ..tal PK Hour I 7:00·8:00 67465 '4'4 783 7 48 5 60 43 .32 67 142 130 304 322 756 1,741 7:15 -8:15 745 92 51 888 7 60 9 76 45 41 92 178 173 323 326 822 1,964 7:30 -8:30 722 106 54 882 6 80 13 99 50 49 1'00 199 221 367 322 910 2,090 7:45-8:45 632 127 66 s'25 11 89 17 117 5.8 .64 167 229 246 383 297 926 2,097 8:00 -9:00 566 144 62 772 12 100 19 131 72 82 1'08 262 304 413 325 1,042 2,207 -Peak Volumes: 566 1.44 ··62 ' 772 12 100 19 131 72 . ':' '82 103 262 304 413 325 1,042 2,207 II _ Cut and Paste r !NBl.:':'J : NBT ' J. Ji8R.l~ Sl{I:_ "sax I -:8BR '1 ' E8L I . EST I E8Jf rvs~ wsr. .k.weR 108 82 -' 72 62 144 566 325 I 413 304 19 I 100 12 Bayshore Out ill Total 419 772 1,191 Right Thru Left 566 144 62 ~I ~ ~I U') ~ ~ C7) I~ N 4> ..., e 00 M IV 00 m Q) -3 't:I I~ C' «I N ~I M ~ ~ DI ~ '=1 v 0 ~ 1:;-~ 0 :; 0 DI «I ....= .Q Q. E ~ CD LU ~I v v ~ I~ (J'I ~ 0 ..... 0 fD ~ ..... M ..., 108 82 72 Left I!l!Y. Right 467 262 729 Out ill Total - PM Peak-Hour Volume Count Worksheet Date: 4/10/08 Counter: uene& Byron Intersection Name: 8ayshore & embarcadero Weather: -:C,,",I.::oea=.:r~ _________________ _ City: Palo Alto B~shore Embarcadero -NorthA~ch . '., '.E.~ roach ~shore ,·r--~DiOt .' Start Time Right Thru Left Total Right Thru Left Total Right II Thru I Left 4:00 ci 0 I 'b " .. ,"0' 0 0 0 0 o 110 I 0 4:15 135 27 I' .8 , 170 12 99 7 118 7 45 74 4:30 23} 46 .16 . .293; 27 193 15 235 13 '.89 J21 4:45 335 ('5 2f·.··· ',43:3 37 306 23 366 ... 28 J5~ ... I ·· .1:~$" 5:00 433 t09 ·····<32 . 574<" 54 405 45 504 31 . 225 : .1".2$7 . ' 5:15 565 146,' 3'5. ". ·'146 69 540 70 679 ..~a · ~$Q . :.1'3:13 5:30 664· . 172 ' . ':·3:7.,' "~7a < 81 655 85 821 h.4~ :34'0::::1 37~.·· 5:45 770 20t . 39.··· .1,'010 .. 96 727 100 923 .' ·A~. tl "41S:.,·1 ·443····· 6:00 842 .. 232 .. 43 ·····)l,Jft 104 804 114 1,022 ,5;4< ·IIMt:J 4'1~' Peak Volumes: 430 '119 27 .576 57 441 63 561 31 245' 239 Cut and Paste I..- Ba~shore Out !n Total 933 576 1,509 Right Thru Left 430 119 27 ~I 0 ~I .... 0'1 li M e 0 M <& ..... N (j) Q) 't:J III 0 ~I ~ ~ I~ ~ '=1 N (j) III 0) .... ,g E ILl 81 ~ ~ It) 0) I~ ~ .... W .... 239 245 31 Left Thru . Right 307 515 822 Out !n Total Bayshore AI.i'TO-CENSUS Traffic Monitoring and Analysis 870 Castlewood Dr. #1 Los Gatos, CA 95032 Phone 408-826-9673 Fax 408-877-162~ Embarcadero .' ':··.1~,!'o: _, -:W"I~IIi)OlC1I: .. '· .~.' Total Right Thru Left Total 0 0 0 0 0 126 29 46 156 231 223 60 93 337 490 I' 3n 84 137 498 719 493 . 106 169 637 912 '$4.1 ', 154 210 787 1,151 .. Z$7 185 234 902 1,321 '90S .•. 229 265 1,017 1,511 $74 . 261 292 1,117 1,670 -tmt --Ld -Tojr~ PK Hour 169 637 912 2,483 164 631 920 2,572 141 565 831 2,531 128 519 792 2,459 123 480 758 2,300 515 125 164 631 920 2,572 ..... I~ 00 m w 3 C" 0'1 III ~ IS" n III c.. m N I~ a N N ~ -cr · • o~o • I Cd • • .~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~=----"--~-~~----------.-----------------.-.. --~------- Appendix B Intersection Level of Service Calculations (»»»»This Page Intentionally Left Blank««««) Signal=ProtecURights=lnclude Final Vol: 10 0 218"" Lanes: 0 0 11 0 0 ~ 4 t ~ '-. Signal=Protect Signal=Protect Final Vol· Lanes: Rights=lnclude Vol ent Date: 713112008 Rights=lnclude Lanes: Final Vol: j Cycle Time (sec): 100 -t. 6 0 33 ~ Loss Time (sec): 0 J-0 905""" -.. Critical VIC: 0.398 ...-940 =r Avg Crit Del (seclveh): 14.6 r 0 0 Avg Delay (seclveh): 12.6 10'" LOS: B ~ ~ t ~ ~ Lanes: 0 0 1! Final Vol: 10 2'" 18 Signal=ProtectlRights=lnciude Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R ------------\---------------\ 1---------------\ \---------------\ \---------------1 Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a a 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 ------------\---------------1 1---------------1 \---------------1 \---------------1 Volume Module: » Count Date: 31 Jul 2008 « Base Vol: 10 2 18 218 0 10 6 905 2 10 940 33 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1. 00 1. 00 1.00 1. 00 1.00 1.00 1. 00 Initial Bse: 10 2 18 218 0 10 6 905 2 10 940 33 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 10 2 18 218 0 10 6 905 2 10 940 33 User Adj: 1. 00 1.00 1.00 1. 00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00' PHF Adj: 1. 00 1. 00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1. 00 PHF Volume: 10 2 18 218 0 10 6 905 2 10 940 . 33 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 10 2 18 218 0 10 6 905 2 10 940 33 PCE Adj: 1. 00 1. 00 1.00 1. 00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1. 00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1. 00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1. 00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 10 2 18 218 0 10 6 905 2 10 940 33 ------------\---------------\ 1---------------\ 1---------------1 \---------------\ Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.97 0.95 0.92 0.97 0.95 Lanes: 0.33 0.07 0.60 0.96 0.00 0.04 1.00 1.99 0.01 1.00 1.93 0.07 Final Sat.: 583 117 1050 1673 0 77 1750 3692 8 1750 3574 125 ------------1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------\ 1---------------\ Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.13 0.00 0.13 0.00 0.25 0.25 0.01 0.26 0.26 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green Time: 4.3 4.3 4.3 32.7 0.0 32.7 0.8 61. 5 61. 5 1.4 62.2 62.2 Volume/Cap: 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.00 0.40 0.42 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.42 0.42 Delay/Veh: 50.0 50.0 50.0 26.5 0.0 26.5 68.4 9.9 9.9 58.9 9.8 9.8 User DelAdj: 1. 00 1.00 1. 00 1. 00 1.00 1. 00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1. 00 AdjDel/Veh: 50.0 50.0 50.0 26.5 0.0 26.5 68.4 9.9 9.9 58.9 9.8 9.8 LOS by Move: D D D A C E A A E A A DesignQueue: 2 2 2 0 10 0 11 11 1 11 11 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose Signal=ProtectlRights==lnclude Final Vol: 10 0 218··· Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0 ~4t}'~ Final Vol: Signal=Protect Lanes:, Rights==lnclude Vol Cnt Date: 7/3112008 .J-6··' Cycle Time (sec): 100 o~ Loss Time (sec): 0 913 ----.... Critical VIC: 0.417 or Avg Grit Del (seclveh): 13.7 Avg Delay (seclveh): 12.0 LOS: B ~ ~ t ~ r+ Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0 Final Vol: 10 2*-18 Signal=ProtectlRights=lnclude Approach: North Bound South Bound Movement: L T R L T R Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 Signal==Protect Rights=lnclude Lanes: Final Vol: ~ 0 33 $-...-952'·· r 0 10 East Bound L T R 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 West Bound L T R 0 0 0 4.0 4.0 4.0 ------------1---------------\ 1---------------11---------------11---------------\ Volume Module: » Count Date: 31 Jul 2008 « Base Vol: 10 2 18 218 0 10 6 905 2 10 940 33 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1. 00 1.00 1. 00 Initial Bse: 10 2 18 218 0 10 6 905 2 10 940 33 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 12 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 10 2 18 218 0 10 6 913 2 10 952 33 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1. 00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 LOO 1. 00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1. 00 1.00 1.00 LOO 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1. 00 PHF Volume: 10 2 18 218 0 10 6 913 2 10 952 33 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O' 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 10 2 18 218 0 10 6 913 2 10 952 33 PCE Adj: '1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1. 00 MLF Adj: 1. 00 1.00 1. 00 1.00 1.00 1. 00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1. 00 FinalVolume,: 10 2 18 218 0 10 6 913 2 10 952 33 ------------\---------------\ 1---------------1 \---------------\ \---------------\ Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 0,92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.97 0.95 0.92 0.97 0.95 Lanes: 0.33 0.07 0.60 0.96 0.00 0.04 1.00 1.99 0.01 1.00 1.93 0.07 Final Sat.: 583 117 1050 1673 0 77 1750 3692 8 1750 3576 124 ------------1---------------1 \---------------1 \---------------1 \---------------\ Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.02 0.02 0.02 Crit Moves: **** Green Time: 4.1 4.1 Volume/Cap: 0.42 0.42 Delay/Veh: 50.7 50.7 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 AdjDe1/Veh: 50.7 50.7 LOS by Move: D DesignQueue: 2 D 2 4.1 0.42 50.7 1. 00 50.7 D 2 0.13 **** 31.2 0.42 27.7 1.00 27.7 C 10 0.00 0.13 0.0 31.2 0.00 0.42 0.0 27.7 1. 00 1.00 0.0 27.7 A C 0 10 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per 0.00 0.25 **** 0.8 63.2 0.42 0.39 67.8 9.1 1.00 1. 00 67.8 9.1 E A 0 10 lane. Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. 0.25 0.01 0.27 0.27 **** 63.2 1.5 63.8 63.8 0.39 0.39 0.42 0.42 9.1 58.5 9.0 9.0 1.00 1. 00 1.00 1.00 9.1 58.5 9.0 9.0 A E A A 10 1 11 11 Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose Signal=ProtecIlRights=lnclude Final Vol: 34 1 235'" Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0 ~ 4 t ~ ~ Signal= Protect Signal=Protect Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=lnciude Vol Cnt Date: nla Rights=lnclude Lanes: Final Vol: J Cycle Time (sec): 100 ~ 38'" o 56 o ~ Loss Time (sec): 0 J-- 941 ~ Critical VIC: 0.474 +--978'" r Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 16.9 r Avg Delay (seclveh): 14.2 o o 10 LOS: B ~ ~ t ~ ~ Lanes: o 0 o 0 Final Vol: 10 18 Signal=ProlecIlRights=lnclude Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 ------------1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 Volume Module: Base Vol: 10 4 18 235 1 34 38 941 2 10 978 56 Growth Adj: 1. 00 1.00 1. 00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 Initial Bse: 10 4 18 235 1 34 38 941 2 10 978 56 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 'Ini tial Fut: 10 4 18 235 1 34 38 941 2 10 978 56 User Adj: 1. 00 1.00 1.00 1. 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1.00 1. 00 1. 00 1.00 1. 00 PHF Adj: 1. 00 1.00 1. 00 1.00 1. 00 1. 00 1.00 1.00 1. 00 1. 00 1.00 1. 00 PHF Volume: 10 4 18 235 1 34 38 941 2 10 978 56 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 10 4 18 235 1 34 38 941 2 10 978 56 PCE Adj: 1. 00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1. 00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1. 00 1.00 1. 00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1. 00 1.00 1. 00 1.00 1.00 1. 00 1.00 1.00 1. 00 1.00 1. 00 FinalVolume: 10 4 18 235 1 34 38 941 2 10 978 56 ------------1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.97 0.95 0.92 0.98 0.95 Lanes: 0.31 0.12 0.57 0.87 0.01 0.12 1.00 1. 99 0.01 1. 00 1. 89 0.11 Final Sat. : 547 219 984 1523 6 220 1750 3692 8 1750 3499 200 ------------1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.02 0.25 0.25 0.01 0.28 0.28 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green Time: 3.9 3.9 3.9 32.6 32.6 32.6 4.6 62.2 62.2 1.4 59.0 5.9.0 Volume/Cap: 0.47 0.47 0.47 0.47 0.47 0.47 0.47 0.41 0.41 0.41 0.47 0.47 Delay/Veh: 52.2 52.2 52.2 27.5 27.5 27.5 50.9 9.7 9.7 59.7 11.8 11.8 User DelAdj: 1. 00 1. 00 1.00 1. 00 1. 00 1.00 1. 00 1. 00 1.00 1. 00 1.00 1. 00 AdjDel/Veh: 52.2 52.2 52.2 27.5 27.5 27.5 50.9 9.7 9.7 59.7 11.8 11.8 LOS by Move: 0 0 0 C C C 0 A A E B B DesignQueue: 2 2 2 11 11 11 2 11 11 1 13 13 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose COMPARE Fri Sep 16 10:59:44 2011 Signal=ProtectlRlghts=lnclude Final Vol: 34 1 235'" Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0 -.J 4 t ~ ~ Signal=Protect Signal=Protect Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=lnclude Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=lnclude Lanes: Final Vol: .J. Cycle Time (sec): 100 ~ 38'" 56 ~ Loss Time (sec): ~ 0 949 -+-Critical VIC: 0.477 .-990'" r Avg Crit Del (seciveh): 16.9 1= 0 0 Avg Delay (sedveh): 14.1 10 LOS: B Lanes: o 11 o Final Vol: 10 4'" 18 Signal=ProtectlRighls=lnclude Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R II II II I Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 ------------1---------------1 1---------------11---------------11---------------1 Volume Module: Base Vol: 10 4 18 235 1 34 38 941 2 10 978 56 Growth Adj: 1.00 1. 00 1.00 1. 00 1. 00 1.00 1. 00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1. 00 Initial Bse: 10 4 18 235 1 34 38 941 2 10 978 56 Added Vol: 0 a 0 0 a 0 0 8 0 0 12 0 PasserByVol: a 0 a a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 10 4 18 235 1 34 38 949 2 10 990 56 User Adj: 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1. 00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1. 00 1.00 1.00 1. 00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1. 00 1. 00 PHF Volume: 10 4 18 235 1 34 38 949 2 10 990 56 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 a 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 10 4 18 235 1 34 38 949 2 10 990 56 PCE Adj: 1.00 1. 00 1.00 1.00 1. 00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1. 00 MLF Adj: 1. 00 1. 00 1.00 1.00 ·1. 00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1. 00 1.00 1. 00 FinalVolume: 10 4 18 235 1 34 38 949 2 10 990 56 ------------1---------------1 1 ---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.97 0.95 0.92 0.98 0.95 Lanes: 0.31 0.12 0.57 0.87 0.01 0.12 1.00 1.99 0.01 1.00 1.89 0.11 Final Sat.: 547 219 984 1523 6 220 1750 3692 8 1750 3502 198 ------------1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.02 0.02 0.02 Crit Moves: **** Green Time: 3.8 3.8 Volume/Cap: 0.48 0.48 Delay/Veh: 52.4 52.4 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 52.4 52.4 LOS by Move: 0 DesignQueue: 2 o 2 3.8 0.48 52.4 1. 00 52.4 o 2 0.15 **** 32.3 0.48 27.7 1.00 27.7 C 11 0.15 0.15 32.3 32.3 0.48 0.48 27.7 27.7 1.00 1. 00 27.7 27.7 C C 11 11 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per 0.02 **** 4.6 0.48 51.0 1.00 51.0 0 2 lane. 0.26 0.26 0.01 0.28 0.28 **** 62.4 62.4 1.4 59.3 59.3 0.41 0.41 0.41 0.48 0.48 9.6 9.6 59.9 11.7 11.7 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1. 00 9.6 9.6 59.9 11.7 11.7 A A E B B 11 11 1 13 13 Page 3-4 Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose Final Vol: 566'" Lanes: 1 ...v Signal=Split Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Overiap 325*** J ~ 413 -... 0 =r 304 ~ Lanes: Final Vol: 108 Signal=SpliVRights=Overlap 144 62 0 0 1 0 4 t ~ ~ Vol Cnt Date: 4/1012008 Cycle Time (sec): Loss Time (sec): Crilical VIC: Avg Crit Del (secfveh): Avg Delay (secfveh): LOS: ~ t ~ o o 82*** Signal=SplitfRights=lnclude 115 0 0.439 25.1 24.7 C r+ o 72 Signal=Split Ri'ghts=lnclude Lanes: Final Vol: ~ 0 12 ~ +-100*** r 0 19 Street Name: Bayshore Embarcardero Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Hovement: L T R L T R L T R L T R ------------\---------------\ 1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 ------------1 1 \---------------1 \---------------1 1---------------1 Volume Module: » Count Date: 10 Apr 2008 « 8:00-9:00 Base Vol: 108 82 72 62 144 566 325 413 304 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1. 00 1.00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 108 82 72 62 144 566 325 413 304 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 108 82 72 62 144 566 325 413 304 User Adj: 1. 00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1. 00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 108 82 72 62 144 566 325 413 304 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 108 82 72 62 144 566 325 413 304 PCE Adj: 1. 00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1. 00 1.00 1. 00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 108 82 72 62 144 566 325 413 304 ------------1---------------1 1---------------\ \---------------\ 1 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.92 0.93 0.98 0.92 Lanes: 1. 00 0.53 0.47 0.30 0.70 1. 60 1. 36 1. 64 1.00 Final Sat. : 1750 958 842 542 1258 1750 2398 3048 1750 ------------1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.06 0.09 0.09 0.11 0.11 0.32 Crit Moves: **** Green Time: 22.4 22.4 Volume/Cap: 0.32 0.44 Delay/Veh: 40.3 41.7 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 40.3 41.7 LOS by Move: D DesignQueue: 6 D 9 22.4 0.44 41.7 1.00 41.7 D 9 49.2 0.27 21.4 1.00 21.4 C 8 49.2 0.27 21.4 1.00 21.4 C 8 **** 84.7 0.44 6.1 1.00 6.1 A 11 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per 0.14 0.14 0.17 **** 35.5 35.5 57.9 0.44 0.44 0.35 32.0 32.0 17.4 1.00 1.00 1.00 32.0 32.0 17.4 C C B 12 12 11 lane. 19 100 12 1.00 1.00 1.00 19 100 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 19 100 12 1.00 1.00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1.00 19 100 12 0 0 0 19 100 12 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 19 100 12 1900 1900 1900 0.92 0.98 0.95 1. 00 1. 78 0.22 1750 3303 396 0.01 0.03 0.03 **** 7.9 7.9 7.9 0.16 0.44 0.44 51.0 52.6 52.6 1.00 1.00 1.00 51.0 52.6 52.6 D D D 1 3 3 \ 1 Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose COMPARE Fli Sep 16 10:59:44 2011 Page 3-6 Final Vol: Lanes: Signal=Split Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Overtap 325'" J ~ 413 ---JIlt- 328 =t Lanes: Final Vol: Signal=SpIiVRights=Overtap 566'" 145 62 1 0 0 1 0 ~ 4 t ~ ~ Vol Cnt Date: 4/1012008 Cycle Time (sec): Loss Time (sec): Critical VIC: Avg Crit Del (seclveh): Avg Delay (seclveh): LOS: ~ ~ t ~ 1 0 o 84 143 Signal=SpliVRights=lnclude 115 0 0.440 25.2 25.0 C ~ o 72··' Signal=Split Rights=lnciude Lanes: Final Vol: ~ o 12 ~ ..-100··' r 19 Street Name: Bayshore Embarcardero Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Mo l1ernellt . L 'l' R L 'l' R L 'l' R----:Lb-~----'T±'-~--jRK--------------- ------------1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 ------------1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 Volume Module: » Count Date: 10 Apr 2008 « 8:00-9:00 Base Vol: 108 82 72 62 144 566 325 413 304 19 100 12 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial BSB: 108 82 72 62 144 566 325 413 304 19 100 12 Added Vol: 35 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 24 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 143 84 72 62 145 566 325 413 328 19 100 12 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 ·1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 143 84 72 62 145 566 325 413 328 19 100 12 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 143 84 72 62 145 566 325 413 328 19 100 12 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1;00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 143 84 72 62 145 566 325 413 328 19 100 12 ------------1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.92 0.93 0.98 0.92 0.92 0.98 0.95 Lanes: 1.00 0.54 0.46 0.30 0.70 1.00 1.36 1.64 1.00 1.00 1.78 0.22 Final Sat.: 1750 969 831 539 1261 1750 2398 3048 1750 1750 3303 396 ------------1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.08 0.09 0.09 0.12 0.12 0.32 Crit Moves: Green Time: 22.6 22.6 Volume/Cap: 0.42 0.44 Delay/Veh: 41.2 41.5 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 41.2 41.5 LOS by Move: D DesignQueue: 8 D 9 **** 22.6 0.44 41.5 1.00 41.5 D 9 49.1 0.27 21.5 1. 00 21.5 C 8 49.1 0.27 21. 5 1. 00 21.5 C 8 **** 84.5 0.44 6.2 1.00 6.2 A 11 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per 0.14 0.14 **** 35.4 35.4 0.44 0.44 32.1 32.1 1.00 1.00 32.1 32.1 C C 12 12 lane. Traffi>< 8.0.0715 Copyright {c} 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. 0.19 0.01 0.03 0.03 **** 58.0 7.9 7.9 7.9 0.37 0.16 0.44 0.44 17.6 51.0 52.6 52.6 1. 00 1. 00 1.00 1.00 17.6 51.0 52.6 52.6 B D D D 12 1 3 3 Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose COMPARE Fri Sep 1610:59:442011 Signal=;SpIiIlRights=Overtap Final Vol: 401 273·" 92 Lanes: 1 0 0 1 0 ~ 4 t ~ ~ Signal=Split Signal=Split Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Overtap Vol Cnl Date: n/a Rights=1 nclude Lanes: Final Vol: J Cycle Time (sec): 115 -+-385 0 ~ Loss Time (sec): 0 J-596*·· ---... CriticalVfC: 0.544 ..-246*** 0 r Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 34.9 1= 0 243 Avg Delay (sec/veh): 28.8 56 LOS: C ~ ~ t ~ ~ Lanes: 0 0 0 Final Vol: 124'" 43 Signal=SpliVRights=lnclude Street Name: Bayshore Embarcardero Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Ho liement . L T R L T R L T R LTg ------------1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.9 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 ------------1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------11---------------1 Volume Module: Base Vol: 5 124 43 92 273 401 385 596 243 56 246 5 Growth Adj: 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1. 00 1.00 1. 00 Initial Bse: 5 124 43 92 273 401 385 596 243 56 246 5 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 5 124 43 92 273 401 385 596 243 56 246 5 User Adj: 1.00 1. 00 1. 00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1. 00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1. 00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1. 00 1. 00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 5 124 43 92 273 401 385 596 243 56 246 5 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 5 124 43 92 273 401 385 596 243 56 246 5 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1. 00 1.00 1. 00 1.00 1. 00 1.00 1.00 1. 00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.0.0 1.00 1.00 1. 00 1.00 1.00 1. 00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 5 124 43 92 273 401 385 596 243 56 246 5 ------------1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.92 0.93 0.98 0.92 0.92 0.97 0.95 Lanes: 1.00 0.74 0.26 0.25 0.75 1.00 1.22 1.78 1.00 1.00 1.96 0.04 Final Sat.: 1750 1337 463 454 1346 1750 2137 3309 1750 1750 3626 74 ------------1---------------1 1---------------11---------------11---------------1 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat·: 0.00 0.09 0.09 0.20 0.20 0.23 0.18 0.18 0.14 0.03 0.07 0.07 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green Time: 19.6 19.6 19.6 42.9 42.9 81.0 38.1 38.1 57.7 14.4 14.4 14.4 Volume/Cap: 0.02 0.54 0.54 0.54 0.54 0.33 0.54 0.54 0.28 0.26 0.54 0.54 Delay/Veh: 39.7 45.6 45.6 29.3 29.3 6.7 31.7 31.7 16.7 46.1 48.6 48.6 User DelAdj: 1. 00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1. 00 1.00 1. 00 1.00 1.00 LOO 1.00 1. 00 AdjDel/Veh: 39.7 45.6 45.6 29.3 29.3 6.7 31.7 31. 7 16.7 46.1 48.6 48.6 LOS by Move: D D D C C A C C B D D D DesignQueue: 0 10 10 16 16 9 15 15 9 3 7 7 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Page 3-7 Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose COMPARE Fri Sep 1610:59:442011 Signal=SpIiURights=Ovet1ap Final Vol: 401 274'" 92 Lanes: 1 0 0 1 0 ~ ~ + ~ '. Signal=Split Signal=Split Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Ovet1ap Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=lnclude Lanes: Final Vol: J Cycle Time (sec): 115 ~ 385 0 -4 Loss Time (sec): 0 J-596'" ---.. Critical VIC: 0.545 ....-246'" 0 r Avg Crit Del (seclveh): 35.0 r 267 Avg Delay (seclveh): 28.9 56 LOS: C Lanes: o o Final Vol: 40 126 43'" Signal=SpliURights=lnclude Street Name: Bayshore Embarcardero Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound ------------1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 ------------1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 Volume Module: Base Vol: 5 124 43 92 273 401 385 596 243 56 246 5 Growth Adj: 1. 00 1.00 1. 00 1. 00 1.00 1. 00 1.00 1. 00 1.00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 Initial Bse: 5 124 43 92 273 401 385 596 243 56 246 5 Added Vol: 35 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 24 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 40 126 43 92 274 401 385 596 267 56 246 5 User Adj: 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1.00 1.00 1. 00 1.00 1.00 1. 00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1. 00 1.00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1. 00 1.00 1. 00 PHF Volume: 40 126 43 92 274 401 385 596 267 56 246 5 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 40 126 43 92 274 401 385 596 267 56 246 5 PCE Adj: 1.00 1. 00 1. 00 1.00 1. 00 1.00 1.00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1. 00 1. 00 1.00 1. 00 1. 00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1. 00 1.00 1.00 FinalVo1ume: 40 126 43 92 274 401 385 596 267 56 246 5 ------------1---------------1 1---------------11---------------11---------------1 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.92 0.93 0.98 0.92 0.92 0.97 0.95 Lanes: 1.00 0.75 0.25 0.25 0.75 1;00 1.22 1.78 1.00 1.00 1.96 0.04 Final Sat.: 1750 1342 458 452 1348 1750 2137 3309 1750 1750 3626 74 ------------1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.02 0.09 0.09 0.20 0.20 0.23 0.18 0.18 0.15 0.03 0.07 0.07 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green Time: 19.8 19.8 19.8 42.9 42.9 80.9 38.0 38.0 57.8 14.3 14.3 14.3 Volume/Cap: 0.13 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.33 0.55 0.55 0.30 0.26 0.55 0.55 De1ay/Veh: 40.5 45.5 45.5 29.3 29.3 6.7 31. 8 31. 8 17 .0 46.2 48.6 48.6 User DelAdj: 1. 00 1. 00 1.00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1. 00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 40.5 45.5 45.5 29.3 29.3 6.7 31.8 31.8 17 .0 46.2 48.6 48.6 LOS by Move: 0 0 0 C C A C C B 0 0 0 DesignQueue: 2 10 10 16 16 9 15 15 10 3 7 7 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Page 3-8 Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose COMPARE Final Vol: Lanes: 38"- 1032 0 Approach: Movement: Final Vol: Lanes: Signal=Protect Rights=lnc!ude .-f ~ ---... r Lanes: Final Vol: Fri Sep 1611:02:15 2011 2585 East Bayshore Road Palo Alto, CA Signal=ProtectiRights=lnclude 34 1 235'" 0 0 1! 0 0 .-J 4 t ~ ~ Signal=Protect Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=lnclude Cycle Time (sec): 100 ~ Loss Time (sec): J-Critical VIC: 0.499 .- Avg Crit Del (seclveh): 16.3 r Avg Delay (secJveh): 13.5 LOS: B o 1! o 10 4'" 18 Signal= Protect/Rights=lnciude Lanes: Final Vol: 56 1072-" 10 North Bound South Bound East Bound L T R L T R L T R Min. Green: 0 0 0 West Bound L T R Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 ------------1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 Volume Module: Base Vol: 10 4 18 235 1 34 38 1032 2 10 1072 56 Growth Adj: 1. 00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1. 00 1. 00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 10 4 18 235 1 34 38 1032 2 10 1072 56 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVo1: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 10 4 18 235 1 34 38 1032 2 10 1072 56 User Adj: 1. 00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1. 00 1.00 1. 00 1.00 1.00 1. 00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1. 00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1. 00 1.00 1.00 1. 00 1.00 1. 00 1. 00 1.00 PHF Volume: 10 4 18 235 1 34 38 1032 2 10 1072 56 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 10 4 18 235 1 34 38 1032 2 10 1072 56 PCE Adj: 1. 00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1. 00 1.00 1. 00 1. 00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1. 00 1.00 1.00 1. 00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1. 00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 10 4 18 235 1 34 38 1032 2 10 1072 56 ------------1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.97 0.95 0.92 0.98 0.95 Lanes: 0.31 0.12 0.57 0.87 0.01 0.12 1.00 1.99 0.01 1.00 1.90 0.10 Final Sat.: 547 219 984 1523 6 220 1750 3693 7 1750 3516 184 ------------1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.02 0.02 0.02 Crit Moves: **** Green Time: 3.7 3.7 Volume/Cap: 0.50 0.50 Delay/Veh: 53.3 53.3 User De1Adj: 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 53.3 53.3 LOS by Move: D DesignQueue: 2 2 3.7 0.50 53.3 1.00 53.3 D 2 0.15 **** 30.9 0.50 28.9 1.00 28.9 C 12 0.15 0.15 30,9 30.9 0.50 0.50 28.9 28.9 1. 00 1. 00 28.9 28.9 C C 12 12 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per 0.02 **** 4.4 0.50 51.8 1.00 51. 8 D 2 lane. 0.28 0.28 0.01 0.30 0.30 **** 64.1 64.1 1.3 61.1 61.1 0.44 0.44 0.44 0.50 0.50 9.1 9.1 61.7 11.1 11.1 1. 00 1.00 1.00 1. 00 1.00 9.1 9.1 61. 7 11.1 11.1 A A E B B 11 11 1 14 14 Page 3-1 Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Ucensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose COMPARE FJi Sep 16 11:02:152011 Signal=ProtecVRights=lnclude Final Vol: 34 1 235--- Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0 .-J 4 + ~ ~ Signal=Protect Signal=Protect Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=lnclude Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=lnclude Lanes: Final Vol: J Cycle Time (sec): 100 ~ 38---0 56 -4 Loss Time (sec): 0 ~ 0 1040 -.. Critical VIC: 0.502 +-1084'--r Avg Crit Del (seclveh): 16.3 r 0 0 Avg Delay (secJveh): 13.4 10 LOS: B Lanes: o 11 Final Vol: 10 4---18 Signal=ProtecVRights=lndude Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 ------...:.-----1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 Volume Module: Base Vol: 10 4 18 235 1 34 38 1032 2 10 1072 56 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1.00 1. 00 1. 00 1.00 1. 00 1.00 1. 00 Initial Bse: 10 4 18 235 1 34 38 1032 2 10 1072 56 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 12 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 10 4 18 235 1 34 38 1040 2 10 1084 56 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1. 00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1. 00 1.00 1. 00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1. 00 1. 00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 10 4 18 235 1 34 38 1040 2 10 1084 56 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 10 4 18 235 1 34 38 1040 2 10 1084 56 PCE Adj: 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1. 00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1. 00 FinalVolume: 10 4 18 235 1 34 38 1040 2 10 1084 56 1---------------1 1---------------1 1 11---------------1 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92.0.97 0.95 0.92 0.98 0.95 Lanes: 0.31 0.12 0.57 0.87 0.01 0.12 1.00 1.99 0.01 1.00 1.90 0.10 Final Sat.: 547 219 984 1523 6 220 1750 3693 7 1750 3518 182 ------·---1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------\ 1---------------\ Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.02 0.02 0.02 Crit Moves: **** Green Time: 3.6 3.6 3.6 Volume/Cap: 0.50 0.50 0.50 Delay/Veh: 53.5 53.5 53.5 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 53.5 53.5 53.5 LOS by Move: D D D DesignQueue: 2 2 2 0.15 **** 30.7 0.50 29.1 1. 00 29.1 C 12 0.15 0.15 30.7 30.7 0.50 0.50 29.1 29.1 1. 00 1.00 29.1 29.1 C C 12 12 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per 0.02 **** 4.3 0.50 52.0 1. 00 52.0 D 2 lane. 0.28 0.28 0.01 0.31 0.31 **** 64.3 64.3 1.3 61.3 61. 3 0.44 0.44 0.44 0.50 0.50 9.0 9.0 61.8 11.0 11. 0 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 9.0 9.0 61. 8 11. 0 11. 0 A A E B B 11 11 1 14 14 Page 3-2 Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Ucensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose Final Vol: 419 Lanes: 1 -.J Signal=Split Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Overlap 417"-.J- ~ 601 --+ 0 r 243 Lanes: Final Vol: 6 Signal=SpIiVRights=Overlap 310'-- 0 0 1 4 t ~ Vol Cilt Date: Cycle Time (sec); Loss Time (sec): Critical VIC: Avg Crit Del (seclveh): Avg Delay (seclveh): o 152 LOS: Signal=SpIiVRights= Include 92 0 ~ Signal=Split nla Rights=lnclude Lanes: Final Vol: 115 ~ 0 r-- 0 J-0.569 -till-255 36.3 r 30.0 56 C 43--- Street Name: Bayshore Embarcardero Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement. L 'f R L 'f R L 'f R L '3? R ------------1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 ------------1---------------1.1---------------1 I----~----------I 1---------------1 Volume Module: Base Vol: 6 152 43 92 310 419 417 601 243 56 255 7 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 6 152 43 92 310 419 417 601 243 56 255 7 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 6 152 43 92 310 419 417 601 243 56 255 7 User Adj: 1. 00 1.00 1. 00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1. 00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1. 00 1.00 1. 00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1. 00 1.00 PHF Volume: 6 152 43 92 310 419 417 601 243 56 255 7 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 6 152 43 92 310 419 417 601 243 56 255 7 PCE Adj: 1. 00 1.00 1. 00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1. 00 1. 00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1. 00 1.00 1. 00 1. 00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1. 00 FinalVolume: 6 152 43 92 310 419 417 601 243 56 255 7 ------------1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.92 0.93 0.98 0.92 0.92 0.97 0.95 Lanes: 1.00 0.78 0.22 0.23 0.77 1.00 1.27 1.73 1.00 1.00 1.95 0.05 Final Sat.: 1750 1403 397 412 1388 1750 2231 3215 1750 1750 3601 99 ------------1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.11 0.11 0.22 0.22 0.24 0.19 0.19 0.14 0.03 0.07 0.07 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green Time: 21.1 21.1 21.1 43.6 43.6 80.0 36.5 36.5 57.6 13.8 13.8 13.8 Volume/Cap: 0.02 0.59 0.59 0.59 0.59 0.34 0.59 0.59 0.28 0.27 0.59 0.59 Delay/Veh: 38.5 45.8 45.8 29.9 29.9 7.2 33.5 33.5 16.8 46.7 50.0 50.0 User De1Adj: 1. 00 1.00 1.00 1. 00 1. 00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1. 00 1.00 1. 00 AdjDel/Veh: 38.5 45.8 45.8 29.9 29.9 7.2 33.5 33.5 16.8 46.7 50.0 50.0 LOS by Move: D D D C C A C C B D D D DesignQueue: 0 11 11 18 18 9 16 16 9 3 8 8 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix 6.00715 Copyright (cl 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose Intersection #2002: Bayshore and Embarcadero Final Vol: Lanes: 417'" 601 0 267 Signal=SpliURights=Over1ap Final Vol: 419 311 92*** Lanes: 1 0 0 1 0 Signal=Split Rights=Over1ap ..J ~ -.... r Lanes: Final Vol: ~4~~~ Vol Cnt Date: Cycle Time (sec): Loss Time (sec): Critical VIC: Avg Crit Del (seclveh): Avg Delay (secJveh): LOS: ~ ~ t ~ 1 0 o 154*" 41 Signal=SpIiURights= Include n/a 115 0 0.591 36.4 30.1 C ~ 43 Signal=Split Rights=lnclude Lanes: Final Vol: ~ 7*.' J-....-255 r 0 56 Street Name: Bayshore Embarcardero Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound ------------1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0' 4.0 4.0 ------------1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 Volume Module: Base Vol: 6 152 43 92 310 419 417 601 243 56 255 7 Growth Adj: 1. 00 1.00 1. 00 1.00 1.00 1. 00 1.00 1. 00 1.00 1. 00 1. 00 1.00 Initial Bse: 6 152 43 92 310 419 417 601 243 56 255 7 Added Vol: 35 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 24 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 41 154 43 92 311 419 417 601 267 56 255 7 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1. 00 1. 00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1. 00 1.00 1. 00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1. 00 1.00 1. 00 1.00 PHF Volume: 41 154 43 92 311 419 417 601 267 56 255 7 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 41 154 43 92 311 419 417 601 267 56 255 7 PCE Adj: 1. 00 1.00 1. 00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1. 00 1.00 1. 00 MLF Adj: 1. 00 1.00 1. 00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1. 00 l.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 41 154 43 92 311 419 417 601 267 56 255 7 ------------1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.92 0.93 0.98 0.92 0.92 0.97 0.95 Lanes: 1.00 0.78 0.22 0.23 0.77 1.00 1.27 1.73 1.00 1.00 1.95 0.05 Final Sat.: 1750 1407 393 411 1389 1750 2231 3215 1750 1750 3601 99 ------------1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.02 0.11 0.11 0.22 Crit Moves: **** Green Time: 21.3 21.3 Volume/Cap: 0.13 0.59 De1ay/Veh: 39.3 45.7 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 39.3 45.7 LOS by Move: D D DesignQueue: 2 11 Note: Queue reported is **** 21.3 43.6 0.59 0.59 45.7 30.0 1. 00 1.00 45.7 30.0 D C 11 18 the number 0.22 0.24 43.6 79.9 0.59 0.34 30.0 7.2 1. 00 1.00 30.0 7.2 C A 18 9 of cars per 0.19 0.19 **** 36.4 36.4 0.59 0.59 33.6 33.6 1.00 1. 00 33.6 33.6 C C 16 16 lane. Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. 0.15 0.03 0.07 0.07 **** 57.7 13.8 13.8 13.8 0.30 0.27 0.59 0.59 17 .1 46.7 50.1 50.1 1.00 1.00 1. 00 1.00 17.1 46.7 50.1 50.1 B D D D 10 3 8 8 Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose COMPARE Fri Sep 16 11 :01:06 2011 2585 East Bayshore Road Palo Alto, CA 117 Students Level Of Service Computation Report Page 3-1 =======~2~QQ~Q±H~C:ooM~OQllli!tions_(E!JturaVDtu~llemative)_~______ =,,-===~~=====, Existing PM Intersection #2001: 8t Francis and Embarcadero Final Vol: Lanes: 25 o 1228'" 9 0 Approach: Movement: Y+R: Signal=ProtecVRights=lnclude Final Vol: 21 0 124"- Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0 ~~t~~ Signal=Protect Rights=lnclude ..f -4 ~ r ~ Lanes: Final Vol: Vol ent Date: 7/3112008 Cycle Time (sec): 125 Loss Time (sec): 0 Critical VIC: 0.443 Avg Crit Del (secJveh): 11.8 Avg Delay (secJveh): 10.1 LOS: B ~ t ~ ~ o 0 1 ! o o Signal=ProtecURights=lnclude 18'" North Bound South Bound L T R L T R Signal=Protect Rights=lnclude Lanes: Final Vol: ~ 0 84 J-..-785 r 0 20'" East Bound L T R 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 West Bound L T R 4.0 4.0 4.0 ------------1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 Volume Module: » Count Date: 31 Jul 2008 « Base Vol: 8 0 18 124 0 21 25 1228 9 20 785 84 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1. 00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 8 0 18 124 0 21 25 1228 9 20 785 84 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVo1: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 8 0 18 124 0 21 25 1228 9 20 785 84 User Adj: 1. 00 1. 00 1.00 1. 00 1. 00 1.00 1. 00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1. 00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1. 00 1. 00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 8 0 18 124 0 21 25 1228 9 20 785 84 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 8 0 18 124 0 21 25 1228 9 20 785 84 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1. 00 1. 00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1. 00 1. 00 1.00 1. 00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1. 00 1.00 1. 00 FinalVolume: 8 0 18 124 0 21 25 1228 9 20 785 84. ------------1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.97 0.95 0.92 0.98 0.95 Lanes: 0.31 0.00 0.69 0.86 0.00 0.14 1. 00 1.99 0.01 1.00 1.80 0.20 Final Sat. : 538 0 1212 1497 0 253 1750 3673 27 1750 3342 358 ------------1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 I-------~-------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.01 0.00 0.01 Crit ·Moves: Green Time: 4.2 0.0 Volume/Cap: 0.44 0.00 De1ay/Veh: 64.5 0.0 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 64.5 0.0 LOS by Move: E A DesignQueue: 2 0 **** 4.2 0.44 64.5 1. 00 64.5 E 2 0.08 **** 23.4 0.44 46.0 1.00 46.0 D 9 0.00 0.08 0.0 23.4 0.00 0.44 0.0 46.0 1. 00 1.00 0.0 46.0 A D 0 9 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per 0.01 0.33 **** 5.6 94.2 0.32 0.44 60.2 5.8 1.00 1.00 60.2 5.8 E A 2 12 lane .. Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 DoWling Associates, Inc. 0.33 0.01 0.23 0.23 **** 94.2 3.2 91. 9 91. 9 0.44 0.44 0.32 0.32 5.8 66.8 5.8 5.8 1. 00 1. 00 1.00 1. 00 5.8 66.8 5.8 5.8 A E A A 12 1 9 9 Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose Final Vol: 21 Lanes: 0 ~ Signal=Protect Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=lnclude 25 ~ o ~ 1250··· ----. 9 0 =r ~ Lanes: Final Vol: Signal=ProtecVRights=lnclude 0 124··' 0 1! 0 0 4 t· ~ ~ Vol Cnt Date: 713112008 Cycle Time (sec): 125 Loss Time (sec): 0 Critical VIC: 0.449 Avg Clit Del (secJveh): 11.7 Avg Delay (secJveh): 9.9 LOS: A ~ t ~ ~ o 1! o o 0 18··· Signal=ProtecVRights=lnclude Signal=Protect Rights=lnclude Lanes: Final Vol: ~ 0 84 J- +-803 1= 0 20··· Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R -1--11-II II-I Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 ------------1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 Volume Module: » Count Date: 31 Jul 2008 « Base Vol: 8 0 18 124 0 21 25 1228 9 20 785 84 Growth Adj: 1. 00 1.00 1. 00 1. 00 1.00 1. 00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1. 00 1. 00 Initial Bse: 8 0 18 124 0 21 25 1228 9 20 785 84 Added Vol: "0 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 0 0 18 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 8 0 18 124 0 21 25 1250 9 20 803 84 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1. 00 1.00 1. 00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1. 00 PHF Adj: 1. 00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 PHF Volume: 8 0 18 124 0 21 25 1250 9 20 803 84 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 8 0 18 124 0 21 25 1250 9 20 803 84 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1. 00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1. 00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1. 00 1.00 1. 00 Fina1Volume: 8 0 18 124 0 21 25 1250 9 20 803 84 ------------1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.97 0.95 0.92 0.98 0.95 Lanes: 0.31 0.00 0.69 0.86 0.00 0.14 1.00 1.99 0.01 1.00 1.81 0.19 Final Sat.: 538 0 1212 1497 0 253 1750 3674 26 1750 3349 350 ------------1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------11---------------1 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.08 Crit Moves: Green Time: 4.1 0.0 Volume/Cap: 0.45 0.00 Delay/Veh: 64.8 0.0 User De1Adj: 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 64.8 0.0 LOS by Move: E A DesignQueue: 2 0 Note: Queue reported is **** **** 4.1 23.0 0.45 0.45 64.8 46.3 1.00 1.00 64.8 46.3 E D 2 9 the number 0.00 0.08 0.0 23.0 0.00 0.45 0.0 46.3 1. 00 1.00 0.0 46.3 A D 0 9 of cars per 0.01 0.34 **** 5.5 94.6 0.32 0.45 60.4 5.7 1.00 1.00 60.4 5.7 E A 2 12 lane. Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. 0.34 0.01 0.24 0.24 **** 94.6 3.2 92.3" 92.3 0.45 0.45 0.32 0.32 5.7 67.1 5.7 5.7 1.00 1.00 1. 00 1. 00 5.7 67.1 5.7 5.7 A E A A 12 1 9 9 Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose Signal=ProtecVRights=lnclude Final Vol: 125 5 197*" Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0 .-J ~ t ~ ~ Signal=Protect Signal=Protect Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=lnciude Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=lnclude Lanes: Final Vol: ..f Cycle Time (sec): 125 ~ 0 158 131 o -4 Loss Time (sec): 0 J-1277'" -. Critical VIC: 0.564 .-816 r Avg Crit Del (seclveh): 20.4 1= 0 Avg Delay (seclveh): 22.4 20"· 9 0 LOS: C ~ ~ t ~ ~ Lanes: o 0 1! o Final Vol: 8 5"· 18 Signal=ProtecVRights=lnc!ude Approach: North Bound $outh Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 ------------1---------------1 1 ---------------1 1---------------1 1 ---------------1 Volume Module: Base Vol: 8 5 18 197 5 125 131 1277 9 20 816 158 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1. 00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1. 00 1. 00 1.00 1. 00 Initial Bse: 8 5 18 197 5 125 131 1277 9 20 816 158 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 8 5 18 197 5 125 131 1277 9 20 816 158 User Adj: 1. 00 1.00 1. 00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1. 00 1.00 1. 00 PHF Adj: 1. 00 1.00 1. 00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1. 00 1.00 1.00 1. 00 PHF Volume: 8 5 18 197 5 125 131 1277 9 20 816 158 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 8 5 18 197 5 125 131 1277 9 20 816 158 PCE Adj: 1.00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1. 00 1.00 1.00 1. 00 1.00 1.00 1. 00 1.00 1. 00 FinalVolume: 8 5 18 197 5 125 131 1277 9 20 816 158 ------------1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 . 0.92 0.97 0.95 0.92 0.98 0.95 Lanes: 0.26 0.16 0.58 0.60 0.02 0.38 1.00 1. 99 0.01 1. 00 1. 67 0.33 Final Sat. : 452 282 1016 1054 27 669 1750 3674 26 1750 3099 600 ------------1---------------I 1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.07 0.35 0.35 0.01 0.26 0.26 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green Time: 3.9 3.9 3.9 41.4 41. 4 41.4 17.6 77.1 77.1 2.5 62.0 62.0 Volume/Cap: 0.56 0.56 0.56 0.56 0.56 0.56 0.53 0.56 0.56 0.56 0.53 0.53 Delay/Veh: 72 .5 72.5 72.5 35.6 35.6 35.6 52.0 14 .4 14.4 79.9 21.8 21.8 User DelAdj: 1. 00 1. 00 1.00 1. 00 1. 00 1.00 1. 00 1.00 1.00 i. 00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 72.5 72.5 72.5 35.6 35.6 35.6 52.0 14.4 14.4 79.9 21.8 21.8 LOS by Move: E E E D D D D B B E C C DesignQueue: 2 2 2 17 17 17 9 19 19 1 19 19 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose erna Iva) NT Cumulative PM Intersection #2001: St Francis and Embarcadero S ignal=ProtecIlRights=lncfude Final Vol: 125 5 191'·' Lanes' 0 0 1! 0 0 ~4t~~ Signal=Protect Signal=Protect Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=lnclude Vol Cnt Date: nla Rights=lnclude Lanes: Final Vol: -' Cycle Time (sec): 125 ~ 131 158 ~ Loss Time (sec): 0 J.-0 1299··' ---... Critical VIC: 0.570 ....-834 =r Avg Crit Del (seclveh): 20.4 1= 0 9 Avg Delay (secJveh): 22,3 20'" LOS: C ~ ~ t ~ ~ Lanes: 0 1! 0 Final Vol: 8 5'" 18 Signal=ProtecVRights=lndude Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound Movement: L --1- T R L T R L T R 1 1 -I 1-----I 1 Min. Green: o 0 000 0 000 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 1 Volume Module: Base Vol: 8 5 18 197 5 125 131 1277 9 Growth Adj: 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 8 5 18 197 5 125 131 1277 9 Added Vol: 0 a a a a a a 22 a PasserByVol: 0 a a a a a a a a Initial Fut: 8 5 18 197 5 125 131 1299 9 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1. 00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 8 5 18 197 5 125 131 1299 9 Reduct Vol: 0 a 0 a a 0 a a 0 Reduced Vol: 8 5 18 197 5 125 131 1299 9 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1. 00 1.00 1. 00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1. 00 1.00 1. 00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1. 00 FinalVolume: 8 5 18 197 5 125 131 1299 9 West Bound L T R --I o 0 0 4.0 4.0 4.0 -_·_-------1 20 816 158 1.00 1. 00 1.00 20 816 158 a 18 a a a a 20 834 158 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1. 00 20 834 158 0 a 0 20 834 158 1.00 1.00 1.00 1. 00 1. 00 1.00 20 834 158 ------------1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900.1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.97 0.95 0.92 0.98 0.95 Lanes: 0.26 0.16 0.58 0.60 0.02 0.38 1.00 1.99 0.01 1.00 1.67 0.33 Final Sat.: 452 282 1016 1054 27 669 1750 3675 25 1750 3110 589 1---------------11---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.02 0.02 0_02 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.07 0.35 0.35 0.01 0.27 0.27 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green Time: 3.9 3.9 3.9 41.0 41.0 41.0 17.5 77.6 77.6 2.5 62.6 62.6 Volume/Cap: 0.57 0.57 0.57 0.57 0.57 0.57 0.54 0.57 0.57 0.57 0.54 0.54 Delay/Veh: 73.3 73.3 73.3 36.1 36.1 36.1 52.3 14.2 14.2 81. a 21.6 21. 6 User DelAdj: 1. 00 1.00 1. 00 1. 00 1.00 1.00 1. 00 1.00 1.00 1. 00 1.00 1. 00 AdjDel/Veh: 73.3 73.3 73.3 36.1 36.1 36.1 52.3 14.2 14.2 81. a 21.6 21. 6 LOS by Move: E E E D D D D B B F C C DesignQueue: 2 2 2 17 17 17 9 20 20 1 19 19 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling ASSOCiates. Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose Signal=SplitJRights=Ovei1ap Final Vol: 430 119 27'" Lanes: 1 0 0 1 0 ~ 4 ~ .~ ~ Signal=Spiit Signal=Split Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Overiap Vol Cnt Date: 4/1012008 Rights=lnclude Lanes: Final Vol: J Cycle Time (sec): 100 ~ 631'" 0 57 -4 Loss Time (sec): J-- 164 -.. Critical VIC: 0.569 .-441'" 0 r Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 31.5 1= 0 J 125 Avg Delay (sec/veh): 27.7 63 LOS: C ~ ~ t ~ r+ Lanes: 1 0 0 Final Vol: 239 245 31'" Signal=SplitJRights=lnclude Street Name: Bayshore Embarcardero Approach: North Bouqd South Bound East Bound West Bound l'1oveltlent. L l' R L 'I' R L 'I' RL '1' R ------------1---------------1 1---------------11---------------11---------------1 Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 ------------1---------------1 1---------------11---------------11---------------1 Volume Module: » Count Date: 10 Apr 2008 « 4:15-5:15 Base Vol: 239 245 31 27 119 430 631 164 125 63 441 57 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 239 245 31 27 119 430 631 164 125 63 441 57 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 239 245 31 27 119 430 631 164 125 63 441 57 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 239 245 31 27 119 430 631 164 125 63 441 57 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 239 245 31 27 119 430 631 164 125 63 441 57 PCE Adj: 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVo1ume: 239 245 31 27 119 430 631 164 125 63 441 57 ------------1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.92 0.92 0.98 0.95 Lanes: 1.00 0.89 0.11 0.18 0.82 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.76 0.24 Final Sat.: 1750 1598 202 333 1467 1750 3150 19001750 1750 3276 423 ------------1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.14 0.15 0.15 Crit Moves: **** 26.9 0.57 33.1 1.00 33.1 C 12 0.08 **** 14.2 0.57 43.0 1. 00 43.0 D 8 0.08 0.25 14.2 49.4 0.57 0.50 43.0 17.4 1. 00 1.00 43.0 17.4 D B 8 14 Green Time: 26.9 26.9 Volume/Cap: 0.51 0.57 De1ay/Veh: 31.8 33.1 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 AdjDe1/Veh: 31.8 33.1 LOS by Move: C C DesignQueue: 11 12 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per 0.20 0.09 **** 35.2 35.2 0.57 0.25 26.8 23.0 1.00 1.00 26.8 23.0 C C 14 6 lane. Traffix 80.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. 0.07 0.04 0.13 0.13 **** 62.1 23.6 23.6 23.6 0.11 0.15 0.57 0.57 7.8 30.4 34.6 34.6 1.00 1. 00 1.00 1. 00 7.8 30.4 34.6 34.6 A C C C 3 3 11 11 Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose Signal=SplitlRights=Overlap Final Vol: 430 123"· 27 Lanes: 1 0 0 1 0 -.J 4 t ~ ~ Signal=Split Signal=Split Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Overtap Vol Cnt Date: 411012008 Rights=lnciude Lanes: Final Vol: j Cycle Time (sec): 100 ~ 631··· 57 ~ Loss Time (sec): 0 -t-164 --. Critical VIC: 0.585 .-441'" 0 r Avg Grit Del (seclveh): 32.0 1= 0 187 Avg Delay (seclveh): 27.8 63 LOS: C ~ ~ t ~ ~ Lanes: o . 0 0 Final Vol: 291'·· 248 31 Signal=SplitlRights=lnciude Street Name: Bayshore Embarcardero Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L '1' R L R L T R L 'J:' R ------------1---------------1 1---------------11---------------11---------------1 Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 ------------1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 Volume Module: » Count Date: 10 Apr 2008 « 4:15-5:15 Base Vol: 239 245 31 27 119 430 631 164 125 63 441 57 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 239 245 31 27 119 430 631 164 125 63 441 57 Added Vol: 52 3 0 0 4 0 0 0 62 0 0 0 PasserByVo1: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 291 248 31 27 123 430 631 164 187 63 441 57 User Adj: 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 291 248 31 27 123 430 631 164 187 63 441 57 Reduct Vol: a 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a a Reduced Vol: 291 248 31 27 123 430 631 164 187 63 441 57 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Fina1Vo1ume: 291 248 31 27 123 430 631 164 187 63 441 57 ------------1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.92 0.92 0.98 0.95 Lanes: 1.00 0.89 0.11 0.18 0.82 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.76 0.24 Final Sat.: 1750 1600 200 324 1476 1750 3150 1900 1750 1750 3276 423 ------------1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.17 0.16 0.16 Crit Moves: **** 28.4 0.54 31. 5 1. 00 31.5 C 12 0.08 14.3 0.58 43.5 1.00 43.5 D 8 0.08 0.25 **** 14.3 48.5 0.58 0.51 43.5 18.1 1.00 1. 00 43.5 18.1 D B 8 14 Green Time: 28.4 28.4 Volume/Cap: 0.58 0.54 De1ay/Veh: 32.5 31.5 User De1Adj: 1.00 1.00 AdjDe1/Veh: 32.5 31.5 LOS by Move: C C DesignQueue: 13 12 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per 0.20 0.09 **** 34.3 34.3 0.58 0.25 27.7 23.7 1.00 1.00 27.7 23.7 C C 15 6 lane. Traffix 8.00715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. 0.11 0.04 0.13 0.13 **** 62.7 23.0 23.0 23.0 0.17 0.16 0.58 0.58 7.9 30.9 35.3 35.3 1. 00 1.00 1.00 1. 00 7.9 30.9 35.3 35.3 A C D D 4 3 11 11 licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose Signal=SpliVRights=Overtap Final Vol: 412 409'" 29 lanes: 1 0 0 1 0 ' ~4t~~ Signal:Split Signal=Split Final Vol: Lanes; Righls=Overtap Vol Cnl Date: nla Rights=lnclude Lanes; Final Vol: J Cycle Time (sec)' 100 ~ 470 0 65'" ~ Loss Time (sec): ~ 341'" ~ Critical VIC: 1.013 1-621 0 =r Avg Crit Del (seclveh): 75.2 1= ° 103 Avg Delay (sectveh): 63.4 69 LOS: ~ ~ t ~ ~ Lanes: ° 0 ° Final Vol: 204 753'" 31 Signal=SpliVRights=lnclude Street Name: ------------1---------------11 11---------------11---------------1 Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 7-----------1-~-------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 1 I Volume Module: Base Vol: 204 753 31 29 409 412 470 341 103 69 621 65 Growth Adj: 1. 00 1.00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1. 00 1. 00 Initial Bse: 204 753 31 29 409 412 470 341 103 69 621 65 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVo1: ' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 204 753 31 29 409 412 470 341 103 69 621 65 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1. 00 1. 00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1. 00 1.00 1. 00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1. 00 1. 00 PHF Volume: 204 753, 31 29 409 412 470 341 103 69 621 65 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 204 753 31 29 409 412 470 341 103 69 621 65 PCE Adj: 1. 00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1. 00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1. 00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1. 00 FinalVolume: 204 753 31 29 409 412 470 341 103 69 621 65 -------~----I---------------I 1 1 I------------~--I 1 1 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.92 0.93 0.99 0.92 0.92 0.98 0.95 Lanes: 1.00 0.96 0.04 0.07 0.93 1.00 1. 78 1.22 1.00 1.00 1. 81 0.19 Final Sat. : 1750 1729 71 119 1681 1750 3156 2290 1750 1750 3349 351 ------------1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 I 1 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.12 0.44 0.44 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.15 0.15 0.06 0.04 0.19 0.19 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green Time: 43.0 43.0 43.0 24.0 24.0 38.7 14.7 14.7 57.7 18.3 18.3 18.3 Volume/Cap: 0.27 1. 01 1. 01 1. 01 1. 01 0.61 1.01 1. 01 0.10 0.22 1.01 1.01 De1ay/Veh: 18.6 64.2 64.2 84.6 84.6 26.2 77.8 77.8 9.6 35.1 78.8 78.8 User DelAdj: 1. 00 1.00 1. 00 1.00 1. 00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1. 00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 18.6 64.2 64.2 84.6 84.6 26.2 77.8 77.8 9.6 35.1 78.8 78.8 LOS by Move: B E E F F C E E A 0 E E DesignQueue: 7 30 30 21 2i 16 14 14 3 3 17 17 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix 8,0,0715 Copyright (cl 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc, Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose Intersection #2002: Bayshore and Embarcadero Signal=SpliVRights=Overlap Final Vol: 412 413*** 29 Lanes: 1 0 0 1 0 ~ 4 t ~ ~ Signal=Split Signal=Split Final Vol: Lanes: Rightl;!=Overlap Vol Cnt Date: nla Rights=lnclude Lanes: Final Vol: 470 J- ~ 341'·· -------0 r 165 Street Name: Cycle Time (sec): Loss Time (sec): Critical VIC: Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): Avg Delay (sec/veh): LOS: Lanes: 1 0 Final Vol: 256 756"· Signal=SpIiVRights=lnciude Bayshore 100 0 1.017 76.3 62.8 E o 31 North Bound South Bound f~ 0 65'" ~ ..-621 1= 69 Embarcardero East Bound West Bound ------------1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 ------------1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 Volume Module: Base Vol: 204 753 31 29 409 412 470 341 103 69 621 65 Growth Adj: 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1.00 1. 00 1. 00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 204 753 31 29 409 412 470 341 103 69 621 65 Added Vol: 52 3 0 0 4 0 0 0 62 0 0 0 PasserByVo1: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 256 756 31 29 413 412 470 341 165 69 621 65 User Adj: 1. 00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1. 00 1.00 .1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1. 00 1.·00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1. 00 1.00 PHF Volume: 256 756 31 29 413 412 470 341 165 69 621 65 Reduct Yol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 256 756 31 29 413 412 470 341 165 69 621 65 PCE Adj: 1. 00 1.00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 MLF Adj: 1. 00 1.00 1. 00 1. 00 1.00 1. 00 1.00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 Fina1Volume: 256 756 31 29 413 412 470 341 165 69 621 65 1---------------11---------------1 1---------------11---------------1 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.92 0.93 0.99 0.92 0.92 0.98 0.95 Lanes: 1.00 0.96 0.04 0.07 0.93 1.00 1.78 1.22 1.00 1.00 1.81 0.19 Final Sat.: 1750 1729 71 118 1682 1750 3156 2290 1750 1750 3349 351 ------------1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.15 0.44 0.44 0.25 0.25 0.24 0.15 0.15 0.09 0.04 0.19 0.19 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green Time: 43.0 43.0 43.0 24.1 24.1 38.8 14.6 14.6 57.6 18.2 18.2 18.2 Volume/Cap: 0.34 1.02 1. 02 1. 02 1.02 0.61 1. 02 1. 02 0.16 0.22 1. 02 1. 02 De1ay/Veh: 19.3 65.2 65.2 85.5 85.5 26.1 78.9 78.9 10.0 35.1 79.9 79.9 User DelAdj: 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1.00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 19.3 65.2 65.2 85.5 85.5 26.1 78.9 78.9 10.0 35.1 79.9 79.9 LOS by Move: B E E F F C E E A D E E DesignQueue: 9 30 30 21 21 16 14 14 4 3 17 17 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose COMPARE Fri Sep 1611:03:07 2011 2585 East Bayshore Road Palo Alto, CA 117 Students Page 3-1 Level Of Service Computation Report '~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~2000oHeM°€)perationS"(Future"\jolume"'A1temative)I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ FT Cumulative No Project PM Intersection #2001: St Francis and Embarcadero Signal=ProtecURights=lnclude Final Vol: 125 5 197*** Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0 ~4t~~ Signal=Protect Signal=Protect Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=lnclude Vol Cnt Date: nla Rights=lnciude Lanes: Final Vol: j Cycle Time (sec): 125 ~ 131 158 ~ Loss Time (sec): -t-1400*** -----...-Critical VIC: 0.597 ...-895 r Avg Crit Del (secJveh): 20.0 1= 0 Avg Delay (secJVeh): 21.6 20*** LOS: C Lanes: 1! Final Vol: 5*** 18 Signal=ProtecURights=lndude Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R II II II I Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O· 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 ------------1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------11---------------1 Volume Module: Base Vol: 8 5 18 197 5 125 131 1400 9 20 895 158 Growth Adj: 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1.00 1.00 1. 00 1. 00 1.00 1. 00 Initial Bse: 8 5 18 197 5 125 131 1400 9 20 895 158 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVo1: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 8 5 18 197 5 125 131 1400 9 20 895 158 User Adj: 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1.00 1.00 1. 00 1. 00 1.00 1. 00 PHF Adj: 1. 00 1.00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1. 00 1. 00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 8 5 18 197 5 125 131 1400 9 20 895 158 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 8 5 18 197 5 125 131 1400 9 20 895 158 PCE Adj: 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1. 00 1. 00 1.00 1. 00 MLF Adj: 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1.00 1. 00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1. 00 1. 00 1.00 1. 00 Fina1Volume: 8 5 18 197 5 125 131 1400 9 20 895 158 ------------1---------------1 1---------------11---------------11---------------1 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.97 0.95 0.92 0.98 0.95 Lanes: 0.26 0.16 0.58 0.60 0.02 0.38 1.00 1.99 0.01 1.00 1.69 0.31 Final Sat.: 452 282 1016 1054 27 669 1750 3676 24 1750 3144 555 ------------1---.------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.19 Crit Moves: Green Time: Volume/Cap: De1ay/Veh: User De1Adj: AdjDel/Veh: LOS by Move: DesignQueue: Note: Queue **** 3.7 3.7 0.60 0.60 77.4 77.4 1. 00 1. 00 77.4 77.4 E E 2 2 reported is 3.7 0.60 77.4 1. 00 77.4 E 2 **** 39.1 0.60 38.1 1.00 38.1 o 18 the number 0.19 0.19 0.07 0.38 **** 39.1 39.1 17.1 79.8 0.60 0.60 0.55 0.60 38.1 38.1 53.0 13.6 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 38.1 38.1 53.0 13.6 0 0 0 B 18 18 9 20 of cars per lane. Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. 0.38 0.01 0.28 0.28 **** 79.8 2.4 65.0 65.0 0.60 0.60 0.55 0.55 13.6 86.9 20.4 20.4 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 13.6 86.9 20.4 20.4 B F C C 20 1 19 19 Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose Signal=ProtecURights"lnclude Final Vol: 125 5 197*-- Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0 .,..J 4 t ~ ~ Signal=Protect Signal=Protecl Final Vol: Lanes: Rights:lnclude Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=lnclude Lanes: Final Vol: .-f Cycle Time (sec): 125 ~ 131 158 ~. Loss Time (sec): 0 ~ 0 1422-" -+ Critical VIC: 0.603 -+-1 913 r Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 20.0 r 0 9 0 Avg Delay (sec/veh): 21.5 20"· LOS: C ~ ~ t ~ ~ Lanes: 0 1! 0 Final Vol: 5"-18 Signal=ProtectlRights=lnclude Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R -1--1 1 --1 I -I I 1 Min. Green: 0 0 ·0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 ------------1---------------1 1---------------11---------------\ \---------------\ Volume Module: Base Vol: 8 5 18 197 5 125 131 1400 9 20 895 158 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1. 00 1.00 1. 00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 8 5 18 197 5 125 131 1400 9 20 895 158 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 0 0 18 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 8 5 18 197 5 125 131 1422 9 20 913 158 User Adj: 1. 00 1.00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1.00 1.00 1. 00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1. 00 PHF Adj: 1. 00 1.00 1.00 1. 00 1. 00 1.00 1. 00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 8 5 18 197 5 125 131 1422 9 20 913 158 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 8 5 18 197 5 125 131 1422 9 20 913 158 PCE Adj: 1.00 1. 00 1. 00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1. 00 1. 00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1. 00 1. 00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1. 00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 8 5 18 197 5 125 131 1422 9 20 913 158 ------------1---------------1 1---------------\ \---------------1 1---------------\ Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.97 0.95 0.92 0.98 0.95 Lanes: 0.26 0.16 0.58 0.60 0.02 0.38 1.00 1.99 0.01 1.00 1.70 0.30 Final Sat.: 452 282 1016 1054 27 669 1750 3677 23 1750 3154 546 ------------1---------------1 1---------------11---------------1 \---------------\ Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.07 0.39 0.39 0.01 0.29 0.29 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green Time: 3.7 3.7 3.7 38.8 38.8 38.8 17.0 80.2 80.2 2.4 65.6 65.6 Volume/Cap: 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.55 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.55 0.55 Delay/Veh: 78.4 78.4 78.4 38.5 38.5 38.5 53.2 13.5 13.5 88.3 20.2 20.2 User DelAdj: 1. 00 1.00 1.00 1. 00 1. 00 1.00 1.00 1. 00 1.00 1. 00 1.00 1. 00 AdjDel/Veh: 78.4 78.4 78.4 38.5 38.5 38.5 53.2 13.5 13.5 88.3 20.2 20.2 LOS by Move: E E E D D D D B B F C C DesignQueue: 2 2 2 18 18 18 9 20 20 1 20 20 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose , Signal=SplitlRighls=Overlap Final Vol: 412 547---29 Lanes: 1 0 0 1 0 ~ 4 t ~ ~ Signal=Splil Signal=Split Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Over1ap Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=lnclude Lanes: Final Vol: j-Cycle Time (sec): 100 ~ 470 0 70 '~ Loss Time (sec): 0 J- 436**' --JIlt-Critical VIC: 1,224 1-665-·· r Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 151.2 1= 0 103 Avg Delay (sec/veh): 124.7 115 LOS: ~ ~ t ~ ~ Lanes: Final Vol: 204 928*-' 42 Signal=SplitlRights=lnclude Street Name: ---------------------------1 1------'---------1 1--------'-------1 1---------------1 Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 ------------1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 Volume Module: Base Vol: 204 928 42 29 547 412 470 436 103 115 665 70 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1. 00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 204 928 42 29 547 412 470 436 103 115 665 70 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pas$erByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 204 928 42 29 547 412 470 436 103 115 665 70 User Adj: 1. 00 1.00 1.00 1. 00 1.00 1.00 1. 00 1.00 1. 00 1.00 1 .. 00 1. 00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1. 00 PHF Volume: 204 928 42 29 547 412 470 436 103 115 665 70 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 204 928 42 29 547 412 470 436 103 115 665 70 PCE Adj: 1. 00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1. 00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1. 00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1. 00 1.00 1. 00 1. 00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1. 00 FinalVo1ume: 204 928 42 29 547 412 470 436 103 115 665 70 ------------1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.920.95 0.95 0.95 0'.95 0.92 0.930.98 0.92 0.920.98 0.95 Lanes: 1.00 0.96 0.04 0.05 0.95 1.00 1.60 1.40 1~00 1.00 1.80 0.20 Final Sat.: 1750 1722 78 91 1709 1750 2825 2621 1750 1750 3347 352 -----------~I---------------I 1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.12 0.54 0.54 0.32 0.32 0.24 ·0.17 0.17 0.06 0.07 0.20 0.20 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green Time: 44.0 44.0 44.0 26.1 26.1 39.7 13.6 1;3.6 57.6 16.2 16.2 16.2 Volume/Cap: 0.26 1.22 1. 22 1.22 1. 22 0.59 1.22 1.22 0.10 0.40 1. 22 1. 22 Delay/Veh: 17.9 140 139.9 155.5 155 25.1 155.9 156 9.6 38.5 157 157.0 User DelAdj: 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1.00 1. 00 AdjDel/Veh: 17.9 140 139.9 155.5 155 25.1 155.9 156 9.6 38.5 157 157.0 LOS by Move: B F F F F C F F A D F F DesignQueue: 7 37 37 27 27 16 16 16 3 6 19 19 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix 8,0,0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc, Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose Intersection #2002: Bayshore and Embarcadero Signal=SpliURights=OVerlap Final Vol: 412 551 29'" Lanes: 1 0 0 1 0 ~4t~~ Signal=Split Signal=Split Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Overlap Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=lnclude Lanes: Final Vol: J Cycle Time (sec): 100 ~ 470 o 70 ~ Loss Time (sec): 0 ~ 436'" ---.. Critical VIC: 1.228 ....-665'" 0 r AYg erit Del (sec/Yeh): 152.8 1= 165 AYg Delay (sec/yeh): 123.0 115 LOS: ~ ~ t t+ ~ Lanes: 1 0 o FinalVoi: 256 931*** 42 Signal=SplitiRights=lnciude Street Name: Bayshore Embarcardero Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: ------------1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------11 1 Min. Green~: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 ------------1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 Volume Module: Base Vol: 204 928 42 29 547 412 470 436 103 115 665 70 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1. 00 1.00 1.00 1. 00 1. 00 1.00 1. 00 1. 00 Initial Bse: 204 928 42 29 547 412 470 436 103 115 665 70 Added Vol: 52 3 0 0 4 0 0 0 62 0 0 0 PasserByVo1: 0 0 .0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 256 931 42 29 551 412 470 436 165 115 665 70 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1. 00 1. 00 1.00 1. 00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1. 00 1.00 PHF Volume: 256 931 42 29 551 412 470 436 165 115 665 70 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 256 931 42 29 551 412 470 436 165 115 665 70 PCE Adj: 1. 00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1. 00 1.00 1. 00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Fina1Vo1ume: 256 931 42 29 551 412 470 436 165 115 665 70 ------------1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.92 0.93 0.98 0.92 0.92 0.98 0.95 Lanes: 1.00 0.96 0.04 0.05 0.95 1.00 1.60 1.40 1.00 1.00 1.80 0.20 Final Sat.: 1750 1722 78 90 1710 1750 -2825 2621 1750 1750 3347 352 ------------1---------------1 1---------------11---------------11---------------1 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.15 0.54 0.54 0.32 0.32 0.24 0.17 0.17 0.09 0.07 0.20 0.20 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green Time: 44.0 44.0 44.0 26.2 26.2 39.8 13.5 13.5 57.6 16.2 16.2 16.2 Volume/Cap: 0.33 1.23 1.23 1.23 1.23 0.59 1.23 1.23 0.16 0.41 1.23 1.23 18.6 142 141.6 156.9 157 25.1 157.5 158 10.0 38.6 159 158.7 User De1Adj: 1.00 1. 00 1.00 1.00 1. 00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1. 00 1.00 1. 00 1. 00 AdjDe1/Veh: 18.6 142 141.6 156.9 157 25.1 157.5 158 10.0 38.6 159 158.7 LOS by Move: B F F F F C F F B F F DesignQueue: 9 37 37 27 27 16 16 16 4 6 19 19 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose Reich,RllSS From: Sent: To: Co: VatesMcKenzie [yates@steUacap;CQm] Thufsday,Februery02l 201211:52AM Reichl RUS$ eCioffi@icQf;aUy.corruOavidConklin SubjtJet:FW: 2585 Ea8t Bayshore -Daycar8 Center Russ: Attachment E Per my voicernailJ below are $omeCOI1'1mEmts on the traffic studyfr6fuourtraff!cconsult~mt/Charlie Abrams.. Of'primary.importanC~tand Chartie.,t:Y6ints.ito:ut,.very.welt;below,the.$tu~yctlftlpleb:tyignorestneirnpactthe;proPC)$~~'.use wm'hav(;. (mo~(pr()pertv{2585.'enstBayshore)andofl~urshare~·dri~e\Vay¥ .' M"'f0uknow~ thesharec<irtvew<ty is the only pointof lngressto both properties (2585& 2595 land is our primaryp()intofegf:~ss. Asc~nditiof:tseXJstn0w:(with the2S85buiicling vacant)/cars b~comestad<edat p~aktlme$both etiterlh~theprbp~rtyoff E Bayshore andoothe~hared drlvew~ywaJtin~toexltthe :propertyontoE,Bavshor~. !h~pr{)poseddaycare center's peak trip times (:oindde:exact!yw.th ourproperty; speak trtp times and the cornbimition is bound to (;ause,problerns. Weare. highfyconcerned that the trips' {drop-off and Plck~~'p)· generatedbya117 -'chUd, day care center would tJramaUcaUy testrlctour tenants~ {and theiremp!oyees}accessto 't'ilid frcn'lourproperty vis .. a~vls the, shared driveway ~ Additionally, Inoticedth(lrthe applic;ant'scover fettei"{Qf1Page AO Qfthepackage)destkfibesapjck~upprocedorethat doesn'tmeshwith the assul11ptlonin the traffic study .. Also, the traffics!udyglves tdpcredit towardstheproposedljse a;ssumingtheexistinguseofthe 258S'buUdingis Ifofficel1, while In factjtis.R&Diwhidllbr;lievewQuld,t;arryfew~rtrips, Pleaseletmeknowthe'bestwaytoptoceed. Charlie·ahdlcan,beavallable·forac()nf~rencecaUfal1,in-personm~lng and/oftospeak at the PC heating next week. Yates Dtrt'X:l Cell Frowt; CbarHeAbrams rm~iltQ!~harlk;@.abramsas$ociates.comJ Sent; Wednesday/February 01,20124:39 PM To: JYates Mcl<enzie' $Llbjed:~ Palo Atto DaycareCenter Comments on the traffic study (llexagonCfJnsuJtants" Noveluber 18, 2(11) 258SEastBayshore Road (MustardSeedtearning ~ellter) • IhcreP()rttotally ignores the traffic bnRactsony()urn~ighbotitilrptQperty()nBaStBayshore RQad. There is no evaluation at all of thedrivewaycotrnectionswtfilin theofncehuil~iU8.par1cing lot. ' • Thetrafficteport 2/2/2012 Pa,ge2of2 drivewayatEas! BaysnoreRoad. only one~waywithin thepre"sQho:olpad<illg 1"t~lhe,pre~s~ho()1 entrance isonly4Q.feetfr()m EastBayshoteR,nrdrwhichls'barelyetloil.gllroom ·;fof, a qucueQf2 vehi~les. :Int~iJ{ing,·thepre~sch~QFtr~rficWith ·theofficebuUdingttaffiCl')lOVelnents'willl}QtQP.erate safely,a,nd will cause delay . • ll~~r¢ is, 119 .lOllSrt ~J~Q~lauepic:k~up(~p~o~f~~a,~t~1~fJ:O~t9ftl1~>s~hQ()1~ .(i.~'W~s$hown in the previQwrpJan· Wit11.tl1isnev{~lan~parent$willbexequiredtop:arkinfr~t, .. an~·.~n.w.r.thescho~ltoplQ~ up:theitchildren~ Th~~~llU'e()nly.17 spacesavailablo,fQr parellt~ ~d,vj[{it~rs~"whi1etbe$eAQOlp~Ql)~~e~tp ~1:t~ve· anenrQlhnYlit gfll? $tudeIlt~~ Th~rewi~~b~fr~qtl~p.t~Qlu.pfrQ.llltbis:a."aQutint.othe.neigl1b()ril1g pr()perly~ . This will block the main driveway (hotlrin".and out) ana cause a lot of delay and eOl1gestiQu. • Traffie.enteting theo.it1cebui1dingpar~ingarea willg~t st~pped~braqu¢tle 'Waitlli~ to tUtU l~ftinto the 8ch()olarea~ . The queuing ~aloulation$inthetrafficrell(}rt~re,no~correct.B:I,ourcaleulatioo$)tbere c(;l1l1d~e:a.,qu~t1e9f3<'t?J vebir.~~ w~itil'1gt(}tt1PtI~ftfh)lJ1£l4t~lJ3a¥$hore:prive. d\lringJh~;~fter11Q()n ·pick .. upperiod.'Il1ere isveryUtfieroomfortlu'Qughtl:afficouEasfBayshore Road t()~9at:oUtlda stoppedlineo{vehicies. • Theptop{)$~dct1t1n¢ctiontothe Jjte~$oho~lneed$to'bechanged .. The~e .. schoulneedstbhave}ts.bWll separate driveway on East Bayshore.Road)or they need to find a differentJoeationforthe,pick.;up/drop_ offar¢a, Thanl(S Abrarns ASs(j(:iates P~h.<!'u'\I'iiB A;brams PrincipaJ 1$15QlympjCBOulevard~ Suite2tO WalnutCreek.CA94596 PhOrlf3:'925·94:6~02Q1 Cell:(9 . . . .. email: ll]Jj;i$jl~EillH~m 2/2/2012 OAV[OM. VANATTA AI'ROI'IlSSIOIIAl.OOlI'<lRAnlf< MafCh 30, 2012 Russ Reich IlANNA & VAN ATTA ATTORNtYSAT LAW 525 UNTVEllSTTY AVENUE, SUTT'E 600 P A1.O ALTO, CAufOiU','!A 94301-1921 www.banv .... com City of Palo Alto Development Center 285 Ilamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (and via email: OISS.reich@cjwfpaloalto.org) Re: Proposed Day Ca~ Center at 2585 East 8aysbo~ Road Dear Mr. Reich: >~ (.W!nl-Jo6)\I EmaIl: jtmrm.@han ...... ""'" As you are '''''are,' proposal has been submitted by the 0 ... = of2585 East Ba)'llhore Road to allow for, change in use of the property from officeJR&D to a children's dayc:are center. The owner is proposing thai the Mustard Seed Learning Center be relocated from its existing facility at 2800 West Ba)"hore Road in Palo Alto to the 2585 East Baysbore Road property ("2585 Property,,). The: MustanI Seed Learning Center, a children's daycare, is also proposing to increase: the number of school age cbildren from 85 up to 117 at the new location. The Planning and Community En\ironment Department of tile City of Palo Alto has reviewed the request fot the establishment of the day care center and has recommended that the Planning and Transportation Commission recommend City Council approval. lbc Planning Commission and the ARB have also approved the proposal which is sc.hc:duled to come before the Cil)" Council on April 9. We represent the: property owner ("Office Building Owner") oftbe pruttl adjacc:nt to the proposed 25g5 p,operty location. That adjacent propeny, 2595 East Baysbore Road, includes a roughly 16,000 sq~ foot, 2-5toty muhitenant office bui lding (the "Office Building"). The common driveway shared between the two properties (2585 and 2595) provides the only possible point of ingress 10 both properties. Please see Exhibit "A" (Figure I Property Line & Easement Locations) alt.ached to this leller for a diagram of the two propenies, propeny lines, driveway locations and driveway easements. The shared driveway is by virtue ora 25 foot ingress/egress easement, which Hes 10 feet on the 2585 Property, and 15 feet on the Office Building ("Reciprocal Easement Area"). lhe easement was created by a covenant recorded in 1974 (~Reeiprocal Easement Agreemcnt"). TIle purpose: of lhe easemcnt was to provide for ingress and egress via a center driveway to service each parcel. At some point in time after the creatiOn of the easement. the owner of the 2585 Property ("2585 Owner") installed within the 10 foot easement area located within the 2585 Property and for the exclusive benefit oftht 2585 Property, parking spaces, sidev .. a1ks and landscaping. Those improvements encroach upon the casement area.. The parties recorded an Russ Reich March 30, 2012 Page 20f3 encroachment agreement in 2010 ("Encroachment Agreement~) whereby the Office Building Owner consented to the continuation of these specific encroachments subjcct to certain terms and condi tions. See Exhibit "B" attached hereto, which shows the location of the "Encroachment Area." Both the Reciprocal Easemcnt Agreement and the subsequent Encroachment Agreement were based upon the premise that the uses of the two contiguous propenies would continue as they had, historically, with a reasonable pattern and volume ofvchicular ingress and egress commensurate with the use at thaI time. Further, the driveway itself encroaches on the Office Building outside of the Reciprocal Easement Area (,'Consentual Encroachment"). The location of the Consentual Encroachment is within the area between the southerly edge of the Reciprocal Easement and the side of the building on the Office Building as seen on Exhibit "A~. That aspect to the encroachment is not addressed in the Encroachment Agreement. The Office Building Owner has consented to that aspect of the encroachment IllKI reserves the right to revoke that consent and to remove or restrict the 2585 Owner or tenants from the usc oftbat ponion of the shared driveway which lies outside the Encroachment Area Should the Office Building Owner be forced to take such an action, be it through the introduction of a landscape strip or otherwise, the 2585 Owner and tenants will be unable to !lC(:ess the parking which lies in the Encroachment Area along the side of the 2585 Building. In any case, the Office Building Owner is sensitive to any use changes at the 2585 Property which would result in heightened 1cvels of traffic to and around both properties. Upon thorough review of the daycare center proposal, consultations with traffic consultants and discussions with the 2585 Owner's representatives, the Office Building Owner has become extremely concerned that the proposed use will have a very detrimental impact to the Office Building propeny. The area of concern here is not so much the off-site effect of the operation of the school at that location, as it is the on-site effect. The daycare center proposal includes a traffic study issued by Hexagon Transportation Consultants on November 8, 20 11 ("Hexagon Report"). That study, while projecting a 400% to 600% increase in traffic to the shared driveway, concludes that the increased volume will not cause critical movement delay on the nearby surface streets or freev .. ay. Among a number of other deficiencies, the Hexagon Repon omitted any considerations to the impact of a very dramatic increase in traffic to the shared driveway and on the Office Building property. In order to get a second professional opinion, the Office Building Owner cngaged a second lnIffic consultant to review the Hexagon Repon and daycare cenler proposal. That consUltant, Abrams Associates Traffic Engineering, issued a briefletter describing their findings which is attached hereto as Exhibit "C". Abrams generally agrees with the majority of the findings in the Hexagon Report, but strongly disagrees with the conclusion and raises issue with a number of as~ts of the rep,,"_ Abrams took Hexagon's own statistics for projected trip counts and added to them the existing trip counts from the Office Building, which were omitted from the Hexagon Report. From this. Abrams calculates that circu1ation within the shared driveway will be severely impacted. Cars waiting to tum into the limited parking area at the front of the 2585 Property to pick up and drop off children T:\\1II'1\·I~60\LETTECNPll\Rci<Io. koso [OJ lOl1>:![.<Ioo RussRcich March 30, 2012 Pagd of) will be SlaCked oot onto East Bayshore Road. These concerns ate neither studied nor adequately addressed in the dayCM: center proposal. Exhibit "0" (Figure 2 Park.ing Let Circulation Mustan:! Seed Learning Center) attached hereto illustrates this. Should the Abrams conclusion become reality and the ingn:sslegrcss bceome impac1ed lU the Office Building on II regular basis, the Office Building OWllCr will be left with few options. The illCTCllSCd traffic due 10 the change in usc (which could not have been reasonabLy foreseen at the time of the Reciprocal Easement Agreement and/or the Encroachment Agreement) will clearly constitute an overburdening of the Reciprocal &iscment. Our client, the Office Building Owner, is not necessarily opposed to the change in use of the 2585 Property \0 a daYCate center under a reasonable set of circumslaIlcC::s. "That said however, the Office Building Owner is strongly opposed to the approval of a use lIS intensive lIS a 117-child daycarc opcT1ltion on such a constrained site with no clear way to mitigate problems should they arise. If the change in usc is approved as proposed and our conclusions prove COI;TeCI, the Office Building Owncr's remedy ..... ould be \0 pursue litigation against the 2585 Owner for overburdening the Reciprocal Easement. Meanwhile, the Office Building Owner will be forced to remove or restrict the 2585 Owner and tenants from the use of the shared drive ..... ay which lies outside of the Reciprocal Easement Area, and within the Consenrual EnCl"()llchment. In order to avoid such a situation, the Office Building OwntT insists that some controls be built into the conditions of approval for the change in usc to provide a remedy should the dayeare center traffic prove to be 100 intensive for the limited acccss and car stacking ateu. One way to avoid a confrontation over this issue would be to build inlO the approval of the project a mechanism for diffusing the controversy by providing for a reduction in the maximum number of students ..... hich the project can be licensed to serve. l1le projoct approval could include a condition that would require the owner/operator to reduce the maximum number of children in the event that Lhc operation of the school at the maximum capacity of 117 students results in unacceplably high levels of on-site traffic. John Paul Hanna JPH:smlmh Eoc""""" Mr. Yates McKenzie (via ~-mai/: Mr. Dan Cunningham, VILIlCC 8m;;;; 2233 Mr. Jack Hsu, Mustard Seed l..caming Center, 2800 W. Bayshore Road, Suite 100, Palo Alto, CA 94303 School Ale Play A",. 1S85 EAsT 6AYSHOIIf ROAD Muotlrd SHd L ... rni", Cenle< DRIVEWAY EASf:MEffl 2595 EAsT BAYSHOI![ ROAD 2-S1ory otftce Bulldl", EAsT BAYSHORE ROAD FIGURE 1 I PROPERTY liNG & EASEMENT t.oc.o.TlOtIS Mustard Seed Leamll1l Center City of Palo Alto Exhibit" A" --.- • . . . -_ .. -........ _-----_ .. _- \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ -- " ",oIJICtL c.c" 'UIClL 1 ,--•• 141 IW'S 'w. 15-H AI'II: 00' OO3-IIR 1~ EAST IIATSHCIR[ AOolO TL T U' IlUIlDINCl IIl..DO. FODTI'RINT AlI£..t. '~'Jl IO.H.J: Exhibit "'0" 2595 E.lt S.ysbore BulJding COmments OD the traffic study by HeUIOD COnsultants.. November 18. 2011 Re: 2585 East Baysbore Road (Mustard. seed J.earning Center) • The ~ totally ignores 1M IrIffic impacts on Yolll" neiihboring property on EM! Bay$hore Ro.!. TheA Iw been ..... """Iualion III all or!he drivowly ~ionI within 1MolflCe buUdlng p8Jt.i", 101. • The tnUflC rqlOI1 ~ilell I __ way en_ driveway 10 tbe pre-school. This is~. 11 is I two-way driveway. East Baysllore Road. h Is only_way within 1M ~I J>IIkin8 lot. The pre.-school entJBnce is only 40 feet from &51 e.ylhore Road., whidl il barely CIlOII&h room for aqueue or2 vehicles. In\emlWog!he pn-tehooI traffic with lhe office building traffic moverntnlS will not~ safely, and will uuse delly. • There is no Ionpr • two-lane pid-upldrop-off area. !he fron' ofllle xhool. as _ shown in Ihe previous plan. With this new plan, pamlts will be required 10 p8Jt. in fronI, and en!eT Ihe school 10 pick up their childm!. The", ~ only 17 spaces available for puentI and visilOrs, while !he ,.;hooI propo:scs to hI. ... an enrollmcnc: of 117 students. Then! will be fmI.-backup from this area out into the nci&bb0rin8 ptopeny. This will block the m.m drivewly ('hocII in-and out) and cause 1 lot of dellY and tqeSIioD. • Traffic entering \be office: buIldi/w parting area will get uopped by • q ... ue wailing to twn left Into tile xboollWl. Thc queuing caJ<;U]lIions in tbe Inffic n:pon are nOI correct. By our caleulMions, then: could be a queue of) 10 ~ velticles waiting to tum left Iiun East Bayshon: Drive durina the afternoon pick-up period. While this queue II prtxnt. then: is very little room for throu&h traffi~ on East a.y,ho", ROIId 10 go .-ound I stopped line of vehicles. ~ t\hr.lIlIS t\o;')(."I(·i.·1h:s ~ ' .... ', ' ....... ''''-'" Chllrlle Abrlm. Principal 1875 ~ BouIeYaid, Sufte 210 WalnIA Creek. C\ 94596 p~: ($25) 9-45-0201 CeI:(925)~ I!ITI8I: ctw1jeG>abram'r'rims cqn Exhibit "e" 2595 EAST BAY$HORE ROAO 2-S101\' Offlc! Building E:lbibit "D" FIGURE 2 1 PARXING LOT CIRCULATION Mustard Seed LearnIng Center City of Palo AHo 6 Abrams Associates ..,. 'Wilt f~ """- April 2, 2012 Russ Reich City of Palo Alto Development Center 285 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (and via email: russ.reich@cityof palo alto.org) Re: Proposed Day Care Center at 2585 East Bayshore Road Dear Mr. Reich and City Council, The property at 2585 East Bayshore Road is unsafe and is not suitable for a Heritage School, daycare or pre- or post- school center. Approval by the Palo Alto City Council would in fact be irresponsible. The California Department of Education Site Selection and Approval Guide listed in the order of importance are as follows: 1. Safety 2. Location 3. Environment 4. Soils 5. Topography 6. Size and Shape 7. Accessibility 8. Public Services 9. Utilities 10. Cost 11. Availability 12. Public Appearance Evaluating Safety Factors : 1. Proximity to Airports 2. Proximity to High-Voltage Power Transmission Lines 3. Presence of Toxic and Hazardous Substances 4. Hazardous Air Emissions within a quarter mile 5. Other Health Hazards 6. Proximity to Railroad 7. Proximity to High-Pressure Natural Gas Lines 8. Proximity to Propane Gas Tanks 9. Noise 10. Proximity to Major Highways 11. Results of Geological Studies and Soils Analysis 12. Condition of Traffic 13. Safe Routes to School 14. Safety Issues for Joint Use Projects 1. Proximity to Airports – When the property is located within 2 nautical miles of an airport runway, the property must be investigated and approved by the Dept of Education and the Department of Transportation Aeronautics Program, Office of Airports. Code Section 17215. Comment : The property is located within ¼ nautical mile of an existing airport runway. A helicopter crash took place weeks ago directly behind the property. This is the second such case in recent history. An article of the crash is attached. 2. Proximity to High-Voltage Power Transmission Lines – In consultation with the State Department of Health Services (DHS) and electric power companies, the Department has established the following limits for locating any part of a school property near the edge of easements for high-voltage power transmission lines :  100 feet from the edge of the easement for a 50-133kV line  150 feet from the edge of the easement for a 220-230kV line  350 feet from the edge of the easement for a 500-550kV line Comment : Per PG&E, the main power trunk to the entire city of Palo Alto is located on the property. The power trunk is made up of 10 transmission lines. The edge of the PG&E easement lies adjacent to the main entrance of the building. The first set of power transmission lines is located just steps away over the main entrance. This set of power transmission lines carry 115kV. Approximately 16 feet west of this first set of power transmission lines is a second set of power transmission lines. This set of power transmission lines carry 115kV. Both sets of lines are directly under the front pick-up, drop-off and parking area. Approximately 26 feet west of this second set of power transmission lines is a third set of power transmission lines. This set of transmission lines carry 115kV. This set is located in between the front sidewalk and the front parking area. In total, there are 3 sets of power transmission lines each carrying 115kV within approximately 42 feet of each other ! In addition to the close proximity to the building, all 3 sets of power transmission lines wires run directly across the only ingress, egress and emergency access to the property. Engineers from Palo Alto conducted an EMF electromagnetic field test on March 27, 2012 at approx 4 PM. The test was conducted with an Intertek magnetic field meter accurate to +/- 1%. The average milligausse home rating is 0.5mG. The average milligausse rating under the power transmission wires was a high of 13.0mG. EMFs increase according to voltage load. Therefore, EMF radiation under the power transmission lines would significantly increase to many times of that of the March 27th rating in the summer when voltage loads increase to peak capacity when home and office building air conditioners are in use. On behalf of the California Utilities Commission (CPUC), scientists from the California Department of Health Services (DHS) conducted an EMF investigation. The conclusion after reviewing all the evidence supported that EMFs do cause an increased of risk of childhood leukemia, adult brain cancer, Lou Gehrig’s Disease and miscarriage. A new study concluded that children whose addresses was within 200 meters of an overhead power transmission line had a 70% increased risk of childhood leukemia. Approximately 7 states have now set standards for the width of the right-of-way under high-voltage power transmission lines in case of broken, downed lines. A person standing under a high-voltage line at peak load may actually feel a mild shock when touching something that conducts electricity. In summary, these power transmission lines will expose 117 young children on this property to a large degree of EMF radiation. The numerous high voltage power transmission lines over the only entrances and exits to the property will cause another very serious safety concern due to the potential of multiple earthquake, soils liquefaction, flood and fire issues associated with this property. In a disaster, child evacuation and first response could prove hazardous, difficult or impossible. Should the city choose to approve this site, the power transmission lines should be buried underground to reduce EMF radiation exposure and allow emergency passage to and from the building. 3. Presence of Toxic and Hazardous Substances – Site evaluation should take into consideration the following hazards:  Landfill areas on or adjacent to the site.  Proximity of the site to current or former dump areas, chemical plants…  Naturally occurring hazardous materials, such as asbestos, oil, and gas Requirement: Phase 1 Environmental and Preliminary Endangerment Assessment by the Department of Toxic Services (DTSC) is required. Codes 17071.13, 17072.13, 17210, 17213.1-3 and 17268. Comments : The Palo Alto Landfill has been a landfill dump for almost a century. The fact that the landfill is closing after 100 years of commercial operation is irrelevant. The landfill is located a short distance of the property. 4. Hazardous Air Emissions and Facilities Within a Quarter Mile – Identify facilities within a quarter mile of the site that might reasonably emit hazardous air emissions or handle hazardous materials, substances, or wastes. Code 17213(b) and Public Resources Code 21151.8(a)(2). Requirement: Phase 1 Assessment and CEQA compliance required. Other factors to consider: whether the site is downwind from a stockyard, soil-processing operation, sewage plant, or other potentially hazardous facility. Comments : Bay winds blow escaping landfill gases into this direction. The gases give off an unpleasant smell in the heat of summer causing local employees to head for their cars in haste. Two playgrounds are located to the rear of the property where the issues are at their worst. In addition to a 100 yr old dump, a 25 acre wastewater treatment plant located at 2501 Embarcadero Way is within a quarter mile as well. It is my understanding, that plant management, has recently objected to another childcare facility similarly proposed within close proximity. Of final concern is the proximity of truck emissions from idling 10-wheeler delivery trucks making supply deliveries adjacent to the proposed northern playground. 5. Other Health Hazards – Code 17213(b) and Public Resources Code 21151.8(a)(2). Requirement : Environmental Impact Report or Negative Declaration. Comments : 1. Fire, police and emergency vehicle access currently exists around the entire perimeter of the building that historically supported a small occupancy of adults. In the proposed childcare change of use, a large occupancy of 117 small children will exist. The northern and eastern walls and entrances will be vehicle inaccessible to emergency vehicles, as 2 playgrounds will replace the existing perimeter driveway. This is of special concern in the summer as dry grasses and brush occur in the baylands preserve adjacent to the eastern wall and playground. The western wall and main front entrance is located under the high-voltage transmission lines. This will limit the use of overhead ladders and fire fighting equipment and will create a very potentially hazardous situation. 2. Decomposing gases have caused spontaneous fires at Palo Alto landfill. See attached ABC News article. Per ABC News, “Firefighters are still looking for a cause, but say that it’s not unusual for a compost pile to catch fire…usually in most cases they self combust from the inside due to the decomposing material,” said Donald Dudak, Battalion Chief, Palo Alto fire department. This creates additional concern in combination with the dry summer baylands and the very limited access around the perimeter of the building. 3. See Section 4 other factors to consider regarding downwind of sewage plant and landfill. 6. Proximity of Railroads – N/A 7. Proximity to Pressurized Gas, Gasoline, or Sewer Pipeline – The site of one or more pipelines, situated underground or above ground, which carry hazardous substances, materials, or wastes, unless the pipelines are used only to supply natural gas to the site or neighborhood. Code 17213 and Public Resources Code 2115.8. Comments : A major trunk of underground Pressurized Gas Pipeline is located under the major trunk of High-Voltage Power Transmission Lines in the 60 foot PG&E easement that is located directly on the front of the property. An oil and gas easement is located directly on the front of the property as well. A major trunk of underground Sewer Pipeline is located in the 15 foot Palo Alto easement that is located directly on the front of the property adjacent to the 60 foot PG&E easement. These utility trunks service the city of Palo Alto. Due to the high potential of earthquake, soils liquefaction, and flooding, these major pipelines and transmission lines are at an increased risk of failure and potential rupture. It does not seem prudent to enclose 117 young children on a property containing these major utility trunks which are located over and under the only viable driveway access to the building ! 8. Proximity to High-Pressure Water Pipelines, Reservoirs, Water Storage Tanks – Large buried pipelines are commonly used for water delivery. A severe earthquake, damage by adjacent construction activity, or highly corrosive conditions in surrounding soils can contribute to leakage or even failure of the pipe. A sudden rupturing of high- pressure pipeline can result in the release of a large volume of water at the point of failure and fragments of concrete pipe being hurled throughout the area. Subsequent flooding of the immediate area and along the path of drainage to lower ground levels might occur. Requirements : Sites within 1,500 feet of the easement of an underground pipeline should obtain the following information : 1. Pipeline size, alignment, type, depth of cover. 2. Operating water pressures in pipelines near the site. 3. Estimated volume of water that may be released from the pipeline should a rupture occur. 4. Assessment of the structural condition of the pipeline with periodic reassessment as long as both the pipeline and site is operational. If a site must involve such pipelines, minimize student use of ground surfaces above or in close proximity to the buried pipeline. Provide safeguards to preclude flooding in the event of a pipeline failure and prepare and implement emergency response plans for the safety of students and faculty in the event of pipeline failure and flooding. Comments : A major rupture caused a severe flooding many years ago. Due to the congregation of major underground utility pipelines in the area, minor ruptures due to street and utility construction have periodically occurred. The water easement is directly on the front of the property. The property is uniquely at greater risk as the front floor of the building lies only 3.9 feet above sea level. 9. Proximity to Propane Tanks – N/A 10. Noise – Comments : Freeway and road noise is generally not an issue. Adjacent property owners have concerns regarding noise levels of children in the playgrounds located adjacent to their property lines that function in both business and industrial work environments. 11. Proximity to Major Roadways – Trucks traveling on public roads – including interstate freeways, state highways, and local roads – often contain the same hazardous materials that railcars on railroads contain. The quantities of materials carried on trucks are smaller for a double trailer or double tanker in comparison to a railcar. However, trucks have a greater incidence of accidents, spills, and explosions than do railcars. The protective enclosures of a truck are not as strong as those of a railcar. Requirements : Distances of 2,500 feet are advisable when explosives are carried and at least 1,500 feet when gasoline, diesel, propane, chlorine, oxygen, pesticides, and other combustibles or poisonous gases are transported. Each case is reviewed individually. California Code of Regulations Title 5, 14010(e). Comments : This site does not meet advised freeway hazardous material safety setbacks. Trucks containing hazardous materials heavily travel the 101 freeway. East Bayshore Road is a freeway service road. Trucks carrying like-materials travel this road as well. In addition, East Bayshore Road is a fast traveled access artery. The daycare center and the front parking area lies in close proximity of the road unlike daycare centers located on slower side streets. This is an unsafe situation for preschoolers and young children. 12. Results of Geological Studies and Soils Analysis – Earthquake Requirements : All sites must have Geological Studies and Soils testing completed. California Building Code and California Code of Regulations. Flooding and Inundation Requirements : A hydrologic study that the site will not be subject to flooding is required. Sites are not to be within an area of flood or dam inundation. Areas subject to flash flooding and surface runoff is case for concern. Potential damage maybe mitigated by raising the floor above flood levels. Comments : Earthquake - The Site is located within the San Francisco Bay region, one of the most seismically active areas in the world. The Site is located in Seismic Zone 4. Three major faults have a history of strong earth movement. These faults include:  The San Andreas Fault Zone, located approx 7.5 miles to the SW of the Site.  The Calaveras Fault Zone, located approx 16 miles to the NW of the Site.  The Hayward Fault Zone, located approx 13 miles to the NE of the Site. Soils Analysis - These soils consist of alluvial deposits comprised of a clay matrix with varying degrees of silts, sands, and gravels. Liquefaction is general caused when saturated relatively shallow soils are transformed from a semi-solid state to a liquidous state as a result of seismic shaking. E2C Seismic Investigative Report 2001 Flood - The property is located in the 100-year Special Flood Hazard Zone. FEMA does not consider these old salt pond levees to be adequate protection from the sort of high tide event that has a 100-year probability of occurring, and assumes when the levees fail the area will be flooded by salt water to the elevation of 8 feet above sea level. Much of the residential area west of the Bayshore Freeway is only about three feet above sea level, meaning the 100-year flood would reach a height of five feet above the ground. There is only one such zone in Palo Alto. City of Palo Alto Flood Zone Descriptions. The current property floor is only 3.9 feet above sea level. To comply with FEMA requirements, the property floor would need to be 10.5 feet above sea level. The property floor is 6.6 feet under FEMA floor height requirements. There is no second story for possible child safety. 13. Conditions of Traffic and School Bus Conditions – The facility should be situated so that children can enter and depart the building and grounds safely. The size and shape of the site will affect traffic flow. If school buses are utilized, special curb openings and isolation from regular traffic is required. Comments : A traffic flow does not exist. Vacancies in the side parking area are not discernable to a car entering from the street due to the 90 degree perpendicular angle of the parking stalls. This absent line of sight will be further compounded by the congestion of cars entering the site at key pick up and drop off times ! Cars will enter the side alley to hope and guess if there is an available space. If a space is not available, the cars will be forced to dead end into the rear fence as the rear exit driveway and parking lot will be converted to a playground. This u-turn congestion is unfair to the property to the South that shares the once properly flowing agreed easement and will significantly increase and change the previous utilization of the agreed easement. The only other option for stranded cars will be to infringe and trespass upon the neighboring 2595 property lot to turn around or park. In addition, fourteen side spaces and two front spaces sit erroneously on a shared ingress and egress easement. The repetitive parking and child drop off and pick up will significantly increase and change the previous utilization of these spaces. Keep in mind that 18 rear parking spaces that have always existed, will be removed and converted to a playground. Therefore, the increase of demand on these side spaces will be many times that of the historic use. The small front parking area is even more dangerous. Three cars will be forced to back out over the crosswalk to exit the 45 degree angled parking stalls next to the crosswalk. Four cars will be forced to back out into the shared driveway easement blocking and backing up incoming traffic in the shared easement and out into the street. The staff report incorrectly states that this driveway is one way. This error has been pointed out to staff many times to no avail. In fact, the shared driveway is the only reasonable exit and entrance for the neighboring 2595 property’s rear parking lot. Office workers at the neighboring 2595 property will not be able to cut across it’s own limited front parking area to exit because the entrance to the small front parking area will be solidly blocked by incoming cars lined up in the easement. The turning of cars into 2585’s front parking area will further congest 2595’s ability to pass to the street to exit. Futhermore, two of the front parking spaces are handicap and cannot be utilized in high turn use. The remaining 9 spaces will be a congestion of backing out and standing vehicles trying to exit or enter the small front parking area. The battle of vehicles over the shared easement and the limited and difficult parking coupled with the installation of a crosswalk in the middle of it all and the children will not enter and depart safely ! The ensueing backlog of cars will cause critical delays and dangerous unexpected stops on fast moving East Bayshore Road to drivers in both directions and northbound cyclists. It will cause a hardship for adjacent property owner’s driveways on either side and will block the entrance to the property owner’s driveway located directly across the street. The Hexagon traffic study is seriously flawed. Random studies at the existing school indicated an average time of 10-20 minutes for pick up. The Guide for City Planners indicates in most cases a pick up time of 10 minutes is required at large childcare facilities. Contrary to this, the Hexagon report understates the time required and the resulting impact to traffic back-up. Various statements to this effect were cited by an independent traffic study by Abrams Associates Traffic Engineering. 14. Safe Routes to Site – If there are unsatisfactory walking routes for the proposed site, another site should be considered. California Department of Transportation (DOT). Comments : Based on the proximity to residential areas and schools and the lack of safe intersections, there are no Safe Routes to this location. Conclusion : There is no emergency plan adequate to protect the children from all of the potential disasters at this location. This property is not a safe environment for pre- schoolers and young children whether a School, Heritage School, Daycare Facility, Pre- School, After-School Program or combination thereof. While the Architectural Review has required “an emergency plan”. The property is not required to present the plan to be reviewed. They are simply required to “have” a plan. Per Public Resources Code Section 21000, CEQA applies to any discretionary permit for a childcare center. The Planning Department has declared the property exempt of CEQA Environment Review. A CEQA Environmental Review is clearly required based on the fact that 12 out of 14 site conditions of safe occupancy by young children are unacceptable and unsafe ! In addition to CEQA Compliance the following studies should be obtained: Phase 1 and Phase 2 Environmental Impact Reports, Department of Transportation Aeronautics Study, EMF Radiation Study, Geotechnical Soils Testing Report, FEMA Assessment, Department of Transportation Study, Utilities Assessment, Hydrologic Study, Fire Re- assessment Review, Environmental and Preliminary Endangerment Assessment and any other applicable studies. Mustard Seed has been licensed as a Heritage School and is operating as such under the Department of Education. The Department of Social Services reported that the Heritage School license was questionably attained after Mustard Seed was cited by the Department of Social Services for complaints received from parents and for operating as an illegal day care. This is additionally disturbing. No matter the case of jurisdiction of operation, this property is not suitable for a change of use to allow the occupancy of 117 young children. Anything less, will be an irresponsible lack of due diligence and complete disregard toward the safety of the children. Very truly yours, Edwina M. Cioffi 2575 East Bayshore Road Palo Alto, CA 94303 Cc: Daniel J. Muller, Attorney-at-law Nixon Peabody LLC St>oO Be U>o first 0/ your _ ID ~tl,l$. sears Pi10t walks away from crash landing near Highway 101 in Palo Alto marshes ., Victor GOlu.las O.Uy N.w. St." Writc.. ... Wd""': 03116120120. 53:26 PM PDT Pilat walks..., fram ~rB" I .. dlnl nHl' HiiIh'RY 101 In P.la Alta ",..slla Ahelmpler lies onh side enr. a-..;, IlJdnglfl (I,".~ .. ~a" lhI!emlly~l!I'lZltIWII!I..-.m newEe$l BB'l'Shc.-eRood n P~o.Ala 01'1 Ttu~ o'emoon.~arctl 15,2012. Tl'e p!iot suS.l!lned mrn ~urle:s w.i """"treatedl!!lllhe ~ by "... ... 0<Ic:a, Polo ,ojto poIlte ... d (I(i..m. SangsehochartJ DaiV N ..... ) A pilol walked iNlay uninjured From her heltcopter after cnIsh-lnndIng it in the Palo Atto marshes late Thursday aftemooo The copter w:as approaching Palo Alto Airport when it experienced engine trouble. according to Fedef1ll Aviation Administration spokesman Ian Gregor. The two--seater Robinson R·22 landed on It!! side at about 4:45 p.m. in about 4 feet or waler, Gregor said. The pilot was the anty person on board. arian BuUer, who wor1<s in an office building on the 2500 blot*. of East BayShore Road near Embarcodero ROad. said net saw the helicopter go down Butler said he noticed the helicopter was flying mud"\ lower man aircraft typicalty do \Nhen arrtving at 0( departing from Palo Alto Airport. The helicopter kepi descen<ling uf'rtil he heard a "thud," Butler said. As othen called 911, he and a coup4e of people rushed toward the crash s.te. It wasn't easy Iit'K:Ilng the neffeOPhW'because it CTBShed behind . benn. he said. By the time the group found the crash the pilot had gotten out of the copter. -v.Jhen'NO turned the comer and saw her ltandiog on the berm, theN was a _ns8 of re4ief: Butler said "You ju.st don't hear that often -of people walking rNitI"J from these thingS." The piklt said her heUcopter'8 engme had staUed or quit, Butler satd. She was a Mtle shaken up but unscathed except fOf cuts on her fingers she got when dimbing out o( the helicopter, Butler safd. Palo Atto poliCe Ll Zac:h Perron Advcrtisement said &Ie pilat sustaIned nWK>r injurie.s.. was lreated by patemedlcs aM released at the scene. -She was very lucky, and the reel of us too," Butter sakt ''The pHot did an ou1standing job," Perron said, noting the aa,h could have been tragJC 'W'th several buildings: BIld busy Hig"-101 "" dose. The FAA and tho National T~tian Safety Board win ~nvestigilte the C'l"8sh. with tho NTSB ~lldfng the inve!lbgation, Gregor said. The two .gendes refused to Id<!ntify the pilot SAFEWAY Just for register today """ and get a FRE "do egg ~ Stevens Creek TOYOTA O='-..... 11~ PoIK:::e recount rirs1 miOl.ltes of gnsty ~C8nfi al unhtersuy where 2. Soap iJdor Jilek Wagner washS5 cut of 'DanClog 'lMth U1e Surrs· 3. Lottery's Mega MlIJlOns translal65 to rT1IN percenLilge f(lr California 4. oakland university shootmg. A<.ru""" DotUli Unl\rersJty &hooter one San Jose neighborhood oVKUlltud rO!" glD scare after woman dnves 6 Forget Farmville. wno'5 mora anergy ejfoent? Palo Aho roiling RemlT1.Jnl!l1dalions Il SamonIIta Wop", 'iUlnlord ""q orb" ~f. dteI " 19 -5<ln }me "I<rcury ttit.b: PAd Ml:CarlIlt=:'(, 10M Wdrlh to fonnbond .. ,th oIb ... OMll .. · Iock ·"-, lose Mercury New~ 'I' Top Classlfled1l --:::u • CDnfllGnmen ... w.". • UXUS 2010 ttybrtd s.dan • JEfP lOCI' CI.I.lOm s"'f1I • Q)".-gn~u: W."t.-;J • Cba"~l • fORD 2004 •.. • Con"'gnm." ltI W.n~" • HEctDH 2002 S 500 _______ _ http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_ 20 I 85248/pilot -walks-away -from-crash-Ianding-near -hi gh way 4/4/2012 Palo Alto fire sparks health warning A Palo Alto dump fire has prompted officials to issue a health waming. (ABC7) Tags: local news • Comment Now • Email • Print • Report a typo By Matt Keller PAL ALTO, CA (KGO) --You may notice huge smoke if you're driving along 101 near Palo Alto. A fire that started Wednesday night at a landfill is still burning -prompting health officials to issue a warning. The huge plumes of smoke coming from the Palo Alto dump can be seen from miles away. Firefighters say it's not toxic, but it can be dangerous to people with respiratory problems. It's expected to take firefighters two to three days to put the fire out. The caJl for the fife in the compost pile at the Palo Alto dump came in Wednesday evening at about 5: 15. The fire is burning a combination of vegetation, like yard clippings, and sawdust. Firefighters say putting out the fire is very tedious. They have to dig into the piles and water down the compost in layers. Firefighters are still looking for a cause, but say it's not unusual for a compost pile to catch fire. "My suspicion is, but I haven't been really able to investigate it further, but usually in rno t cases they selfcombust ITom the inside due to the decomposing material," said Donald Dudak, Batt. Chief, Palo Alto fire department. Community warnings about the smoke have been issued through phone calls and emails. The Palo Alto fire department warns people with respiratory problems to stay inside and avoid physical activity. (Copyright ©2012 KGO-TVIDT. All Rights Reserved.) Get more Local New» Tags: local ne\\s • Comment Now ---~--"---- Agenda Date: To: From: Subject: 1 February 16,2012 Architectural Review Board Russ Reich, Senior Planner Architectural Review Board Staff Repo rt Department: Planning and Community Environment 2585 East Bayshore Road [llPLN-00415]: Request by 2585 Bayshore, LLC for Architectural Review of exterior modifications including the construction of a new trash enclosure, the replacement of 18 existing parking stalls with a new fenced outdoor play area with new playground equipment, and new ADA parking spaces at the front of the building. Zone: ROLM (E)(D)(AD). Envirorunental Assessment: Exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per CEQA Guidelines Section 1530 I (Existing Facilities). RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) recommend approval of the proposed exterior modifications. Findings and conditions are set forth in the Draft Record of Land Use Action (Attachments A). BACKGROUND Prior Review A previous application for this project came before the ARB on April 21, 2012. The ARB recommended approval to the Director of Planning and Community Environment. The application was approved on April 22, 2011 but was later appealed by the adjacent neighbor to the north on May 6, 2011 due to concerns over traffic and parking. The applicant then withdrew that application to reassess the proposal to ensure that the prop'osed use would not adversely impact the adjacent properties. The applicant and their traffic consultant worked with the City's Transportation Division staff and conducted further traffic analysis and submitted a new application on November 10,2011. By analyzing other day care facilities, they found that the proposed site would have a more than adequate number of parking spaces available to avoid cueing backups on site and that a special pick up system would not be necessary at this location. Due to the concerns related to traffic and parking, staff determined that the Planning and Transportation Commission should review the proposal. 11 PLN-00415 Page 1 of 4 I - The current application was reviewed by the Planning and Transportation Commission (the Commission) on February 8, 2012. The discussion at the public hearing was primarily related to concerns about traffic and parking, most specifically about the possibility of cueing backups on the project site creating impacts to users of the adj acent office building due to the fact that they share an ingress / egress driveway. The Commission ultimately decided to unanimously recommend that the City Council approve the change in use from office to day care center. The physical changes on the site are now before the ARB as part of the Site and Design Review process. Site Information The project site is located on the east side of East Bayshore Road just south of Embarcadero Road. The site is approximately 43,560 square feet in area and is located within the Research Office and Limited Manufacturing (ROLM) zone district with Environmental Sensitivity (E), Site and Design CD), and Auto Dealership (AD) Combining Districts. There is currently one single story building on the site consisting of approximately 15,927 square feet of floor area. The building was formerly used as a general business office and currently has 49 parking stalls. There is a two story office building to the south of the subject property at 2595 East Bayshore Road and a two·story tall commercial business to the north at 2575 East Bayshore Road. The Palo Alto Baylands are located directly behind the subject property to the east. The ROLM zone district provides for a limited group of office, research and manufacturing uses. Day care centers are also specified as a permitted use within the district. The Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map designation for the project site is Research/Office Park which also cites child care centers as an 'appropriate use. Project Description The proposed project consists primarily of a change in use from office to day care center. The initial proposal is to provide after school day care for 117 children with 15 staff members with a possible future expansion to a maximum of 150 children with a total of 17 staff members. The facility is intended to provide after school care for children enrolled in public or private schools within Palo Alto. The age of the children would tange between five and 12 years old. The center would operate on weekdays only, typically between the hours of 12:30 pm and 6:00 pm. The applicant has provided a detailed plan to handle the pick up and drop off of the children including a staggered schedule and they would employ staff members, strategically stationed within the parking lot, to facilitate the on site circulation of vehicles to ensure child safety and to reduce any potential cueing of cars on East Bayshore Road. Changes to the site include the addition of a new covered trash enclosure to accommodate the building's trash and recycling needs, the removal of 18 parking stalls at the rear of the building for the addition of a child play area, and the use of an existing driveway on the north side of the building for a second child play area. The remaining number of parking stalls for staff, parents, and guests would be 31. The trash enclosure would have a standing seam metal roof painted bronze and a metal gate in the same bronze color. The enclosure's walls would be a split face concrete block in a brown color. A new chain link fence would be added to enclose the play areas 'around the rear and north side of the building. It would be four feet tall and would be green vinyl clad with vinyl slats. The existing dense vegetation on the sites perimeter would remain. This 11 PLN-00415 Page 2 of 4 vegetation would provide a visual screen of the property as seen from the Baylands. The new fence and play structure would be concealed behind this existing landscape screen. DISCUSSION: Traffic and Parking The change in use from General Business Office to Day Care Center would potentially result in an increase in the overall volume of trips to and from the site. According to the applicant's traffic consultant and the City's traffic engineer, the increased volume of traffic would not cause critical movement delay or the demand-to-capacity ratio to increase beyond the City of Palo Alto Standards under both the near and the far terms. The proposal includes the removal of 18 existing parking stalls to accommodate the new play area. Even with the removal of these spaces, the proposed use will be adequately parked per the code (see table below), The traffic consultant has studied the current Mustard Seed Day Care facility located at 2800 West Bayshore Road, as well as several other similar Day Care facilities, to observe how the current parking demand functions for this type of use. The consultant found that only 22 spaces would be needed, and that the 31 parking spaces provided would be more than adequate for the demand associated with the proposed use for the after school program as well as the potential preschool program based on a total of 117 children. Parking Requirement Parking Provided 1 parking space per each 1.5 employees = 8 required parking spaces 3 1 spaces are provided Palo Alto Baylands The only changes to the exterior of the property would be the new trash enclosure, the new four foot tall fence, the reorientation of the handicap parking and ramp, and the new play equipment. These features will be screened from off site views from the Baylands by existing vegetation. There will be no visual impact to the Baylands. Neighbor Comments An email wasreceived.prior to the Commission hearing, from the neighbor from the adjacent property to the south citing concerns over traffic and parking (Attachment E). Staff has also had a verbal conversation with the adjacent neighbor to the north regarding traffic and parking. These interested parties spoke to the Commission on February 8,2012 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), this project is Categorically Exempt under CEQ A Guidelines Section 15301 (Existing Facilities). ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Attachment B: Attachment C: Attachment D: Attachment E: Only) 11 PLN·00415 Draft Record of Land Use Action Site Location Map Applicants Project description letter Public Correspondence Development Plans Dated received February 10, 2012 (Board Members Page 3 of 4 COURTESY COPIES Dan Cunningham, 2585 Bayshore, LLC, Owner Edwina Cioffi, Neighbor Yates McKenzie, Neighbor James Foug, Neighbor Prepared By: Manager Review: 11 PLN-00415 Russ Reich, Senior Plann~ Amy French, Acting Assistant Director of the Department of Planning ~ Community Environment ~ Page 4 of 4 Page 1 of 25 Planning and Transportation Commission 1 Verbatim Minutes 2 February 8, 2012 3 4 DRAFT EXCERPT 5 6 2585 East Bayshore Road*: Request by 2585 Bayshore LLC on behalf of 2585 Bayshore LLC 7 for Site and Design Review of the proposed conversion of an existing Research & Development 8 building into an after school daycare center with an exterior play area. Zone District-9 ROLM(D)(AD)(E). Environmental Assessment: Exempt from the provisions of the California 10 environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per Section 15303. 11 12 And with that we will move to the first item which is a presentation by Staff on 2585 East 13 Bayshore Road Site and Design Review for a proposed daycare center. Staff. 14 15 Mr. Russ Reich, Sr. Planner: Thank you Chair Martinez and Commissioners. The application 16 before you this evening is for the approval of a change in use from office to daycare center under 17 the requirements of the Site and Design Combining District Regulations. The project site is 18 located on the east side of Highway 101 surrounded by office and commercial uses except to the 19 rear where the property abuts the Baylands. There are few exterior changes to the existing 20 building. These include new play equipment to be placed at the rear of the building, a new 4 foot 21 tall fence to enclose the play area, a new trash enclosure to house the trash and recycling bins 22 that currently sit out on the open pavement and new ADA parking stalls at the front of the 23 building. 24 25 The daycare center would provide afterschool care for a maximum of 117 children typically 26 between the hours of 12:30 p.m. and 6:15 p.m. with a possibility of preschool operations in the 27 future. The addition of any future preschool use would not change the limit of 117 children at 28 the site. Concerns over this proposal have primarily been related to traffic and parking. The 29 Applicant has provided a traffic analysis, Attachment D of your Staff Report, that finds that the 30 roadway and intersections would not be adversely impacted by the project and the parking 31 provided on the site would be adequate for the proposed use. Working with City Staff and the 32 Applicant’s Traffic Consultant was directed to study the existing Mustard Seed operations but 33 three other daycare operations to determine the adequate number of parking spaces that would be 34 needed to provide for daycare center use. That analysis determined that 22 spaces would be 35 needed to serve the use including parent pickup as well as employee parking. The proposal 36 provides a total of 31. 37 38 The City’s transportation staff has reviewed the Applicant’s findings and agreed the proposal 39 would not have adverse impacts. I wanted to point out one error in the Staff Report. On Page 4 40 there is a table that shows the parking calculation requirements and the City’s requirement for 41 daycare centers is one parking space for each 1.5 employee and it actually results in a total 42 required number of spaces of 8 and it says 18 so I just wanted to point that out for you. 43 44 The Commission is being asked to make the four findings as specified in Section 18.30G of the 45 Palo Alto Municipal Code provided in the Draft Record of Land Use Action. These can be 46 Page 2 of 25 found in Section 3 of Attachment A of the Staff Report. At places you should have 4 items 1 related to this project. There is a hard copy of the Applicant’s PowerPoint presentation, there is 2 a Proposed Condition of Approval that requires the daycare provider to prepare an emergency 3 preparedness plan to insure that there are plans in place such that people know what to do in the 4 event of a disaster such as a flood, fire, earthquake, etc. There are questions from Commissioner 5 Keller that with the responses from the Applicant’s Transportation Consultant Gary Black and 6 there are written comments from the neighbor to the south of the project, Mr. Gates McKinsey 7 related to traffic and parking concerns. City Staff including myself and Transportation Division 8 Staff Member Rafael Rios as well as the Applicant and his Traffic Consultant had a phone 9 conference meeting with Mr. McKinsey and his Traffic Consultant yesterday to discuss his 10 concerns. There appeared to be some mutual understanding between the two traffic consultants 11 but ultimately the meeting did not resolve the neighbor’s concerns as there was remaining 12 disagreement between the two traffic consultants. I believe Mr. McKinsey is here this evening to 13 speak to his concerns. 14 15 Staff recommends that the Planning and Transportation Commission forward a Recommendation 16 for Approval to the City Council for the change in use from office to daycare center. The 17 Applicant is here to make a brief presentation and both the Applicant and Staff are here to 18 answer any question you may have. 19 20 Chair Martinez: Great Russ. With that we’re going to open the Public Hearing. The Applicant 21 may have 15 minutes for your presentation. If you care to share that with your Traffic 22 Consultant that’s fine too. 23 24 Mr. Kevin Jones: Good evening. My name is Kevin Jones, I’m with Kenneth, Rodriguez and 25 Partners Architects. I’m pleased to be before you tonight. This is a project we’ve been involved 26 with for over a year and tonight I’d like to break up our presentation into two parts and be 27 succinct and brief. 28 29 The first part I would like to present to you is an overview of the project and then I’d like to have 30 Gary from Hexagon Transportation Consultants speak to you directly about specific 31 transportation and traffic components of our project and then afford any time for questions you 32 might have of myself and our team. 33 34 Just as an overview to address the site location, the large arrow pointing to site, that’s the 35 location of the proposed project. It is an existing one story, just under 16,000 square feet empty 36 office R&D building that’s been vacant over a year with two adjacent properties to the south or 37 to the right there is a two story office building and one to the left and then the third building from 38 there is an existing church which does have a form of daycare component as a part of that use. 39 The Bayshore off ramp is the frontage of our site. 40 41 A few images of the existing building and the adjacent buildings. Our proposal has very limited 42 modifications to the exterior. Russ had pointed to some of those in his description and it’s 43 indicated in your report. Those basically involve providing code compliant handicapped parking 44 stalls and trash enclosure at the rear. The picture at the bottom is a somewhat angled view of the 45 Page 3 of 25 rear which we’ll be fencing off and creating a children’s play area as well as providing for the 1 trash enclosure. 2 3 The existing site, showing it as it is today with parking that’s at the rear of the site abutting the 4 Baylands and parking on the side or plan wide of the building or parking in the front of the 5 building which you see in the image. Our proposed site plan, largely what is different from the 6 existing to the proposed, is at the top of the sheet. We’ve introduced these play areas at the top 7 of the plan as well as the side of the plan which would be play areas to allow for the state 8 requirement for each child having a specific outdoor play area requirements. 9 10 The parking to the right is along the shared easement of the property line and we share a 11 driveway with the property to the south. That property has two driveways, the shared driveway 12 and then there’s a secondary driveway that is on the south of that existing building. Then we 13 show our handicapped parking stalls on the front and then the proposed, I believe its 22 parking 14 spaces on the front of the property. 15 16 The project is an existing use as office. The proposed change in use is consistent with zoning, it 17 is a permitted use in this zoning. The proposal is for 117 children licensed daycare facility. The 18 reduction in parking, just to highlight it for you, the existing 44 parking stalls will be reduced 19 down to 31 to allow for the outdoor play area, basically a reduction or loss of about 18 parking 20 stalls. 21 22 Much of the work we’ve done over the past year with Staff and our Traffic Consultant was to 23 really look at the current Mustard Seed operation which is in Palo Alto. Mustard Seed has been 24 operating in Palo Alto for about 20 years serving only Palo Alto families and children so it’s had 25 a long run of being involved in the community and wants to continue the involvement with the 26 community at this location. The observations we’ve done over the past year in brief summary, is 27 we studied their current use and then with input from Public Works studied I think three other 28 daycare facilities to get a better handle on parking demand as well as patterns of pick up and 29 delivery of children as they arrive at the site. 30 31 With that I’d like to turn it over to Gary and let him speak to some specific items that were 32 identified in his traffic studies. 33 34 Mr. Gary Black: Thank you. Gary Black with Hexagon Transportation Consultants. We did the 35 Traffic and Parking Study for the project. As Russ mentioned we did have a phone conversation 36 with Mr. McKinsey yesterday to talk over his concerns. The primary issue we talked about at 37 that was concern about how the shared driveway would operate and whether there would be any 38 impact to his office employees or office users at that driveway that would also be used for the 39 daycare and so we prepared this slide as a way to sort of illustrate how the pickup operation 40 would work because that was the primary concern. That’s the busiest time for the daycare, when 41 children are picked up. 42 43 It’s important to note that children are picked up anywhere from 3:00 p.m. to 6:15 p.m. when the 44 facility closes so there’s not a particular ending time when everyone leaves so they’ll leave 45 during that time period. Nevertheless, based on the surveys we did on their existing facility in 46 Page 4 of 25 Palo Alto we estimated that this particular proposal with 117 children would generate 77 cars 1 coming in in what we call the peak hour which would be 5:15 to 6:15 for the parents to pick up 2 their children so out of the 117, 77 would be focused during that one hour period. We also 3 looked at the peaking within the hour which I could get into if you want to talk about that but 4 what this illustrates is that there are 17 parking stalls in front of the building. If we assume that it 5 takes an average of five minutes to pick up a child and that means that each parking space could 6 be used 12 times during an hour and there’s 17 so 12 times 17 equals 204 cars that could be 7 serviced in that parking lot in one hour and we estimate that there would be 77 that would 8 actually come. 9 10 We went one step further and then analyzed, they’re not spread out evenly throughout the hour, 11 that there’s peaking within the hour and what we typically see is that, because of the peaking, we 12 can make the assumption that the parking spaces would be used, I can explain in more detail, but 13 essentially, a capacity of 100 cars in the hour, really because of the peaking within the hour so 14 that’s one way to look at it but again when we make a comparison of 77 cars coming in and a 15 capacity of 100 we don’t see that there would be a problem in terms of any queuing at the 16 driveway or difficulty, congestion, any backups or anything like that. There’s a lot more 17 information in the Traffic Study but I wanted to focus in on the primary concern that the 18 neighbor had so our conclusion was that these uses are compatible and there wouldn’t be 19 congestion of the driveways. It’s also important to point out that the peak time for the daycare is 20 of course when it closes or just before it closes, there’s still a flurry of activity when the parents 21 come at that time which is after 6 p.m. and by that time most of the office occupants of the 22 building next door are gone by 6 p.m. so there’s kind of a time difference too between those two 23 uses. So that’s my presentation unless you had any questions. 24 25 Chair Martinez: Yes. We do have some questions. Commissioner Keller. 26 27 Commissioner Keller: The first question is based on this chart. I understand that there are 17 28 parking spaces and the two to the upper left hand side are actually handicapped spaces so you’re 29 including people parking in the handicapped spaces, 12 people per hour per space? 30 31 Mr. Black: Yes. 32 33 Commissioner Keller: I’m not sure the legality of that but I’m not a parking attendant. 34 35 Mr. Black: Let me just say we don’t know how many of the parents would actually be 36 handicapped but presumably because there are two handicapped spaces there would be a need for 37 their use. 38 39 Commissioner Keller: Yes and I’m not clear that their utilization would be turnover in 5 minutes 40 and that there would be 12 people using them per space per hour so that’s questionable. The 41 second question is I understand that according to the Staff Report there were 8 spaces needed for 42 Staff. How many Staff do you expect there to be? 43 44 Mr. Jones: There are 7 full time staff members and 5 part time staff members. 45 46 Page 5 of 25 Commissioner Keller: So I’m wondering how many Staff you’ll have concurrently in the 1 afternoon? 2 3 Mr. Jones: The number would vary depending on people’s schedule but at the most it would be 4 12. 5 6 Commissioner Keller: So if you have at maximum 12 staff members, where will those staff 7 members park when they are on site? 8 9 Mr. Jones: If you let me refer to one of the back slides, the plate that we’re currently showing 10 you is also the same plan that shows on the screen is equivalent to Sheet A2 in your packet and 11 along the shared driveway on your right you see a number of parking stalls 14. Those stalls are 12 available for employee parking throughout the day. 13 14 Commissioner Keller: So you would have the employees park on the right side of the building 15 and no employees would be parking in the front. 16 17 Mr. Jones: That is correct. 18 19 Commissioner Keller: That’s helpful. And am I to understand there will be no changes to the 20 shared easement between the two properties? 21 22 Mr. Jones: There are no planned revisions to the easement’s location or driveway access 23 configuration. That’s correct. No construction. 24 25 Commissioner Keller: Is the play yard in the rear? Is that part of the easement or is that beyond 26 the easement? 27 28 Mr. Jones: That is not part of the easement. It is behind the easement. The easement line on the 29 same drawing is the secondary dotted line which you see just north of the property line on A2. 30 31 Commissioner Keller: So that would be between the 14 and the S that goes on the bottom there 32 on the right hand side? 33 34 Mr. Jones: Correct. 35 36 Commissioner Keller: Thank you very much. 37 38 Chair Martinez: Commissioners, anything else? Commissioner Tuma. 39 40 Commissioner Tuma: The Applicant currently operates a similar facility in Palo Alto. Is that 41 right? 42 43 Mr. Jones: That is correct. It’s opposite the freeway. 44 45 Commissioner Tuma: How many children are served at that facility? 46 Page 6 of 25 1 Mr. Jones: Let me check with the user. I’m not exactly sure. 2 3 Mr. Reich: I believe it’s 80. 80 or 85. 4 5 Commissioner Tuma: Okay. In terms of the analysis and coming up with what you think the 6 parking demands are going to be, have you used that facility as a model? 7 8 Mr. Jones: That facility as well as three or four others as noted in the Staff Report were the basis 9 of trying to make the analysis for the Traffic Study. Last spring we met with Public Works 10 Transportation and tried to make sure that we weren’t underestimating the demand here so the 11 three important factors here were one, looking at how the existing operation was operating and 12 the second part was looking for analogous uses in the community to be able to establish some 13 parallels and then from that, that’s what drew a lot of the data that Gary has presented today and 14 is represented in the Staff Report under the Traffic Report section. 15 16 Commissioner Tuma: How many spaces do you have for pickup at the other facility where there 17 are 80 students? 18 19 Mr. Jones: Again, I’m not well versed in the other facility. 20 21 Mr. Black: The existing facility has parking spaces along the street so they don’t have any off 22 street spaces so you really have to measure the length of the street so you can kind of say there’s 23 any number of spaces along there depending on how far back you go along the street. When we 24 were out there we saw a maximum of 7 cars parked along the street to pick up the children. The 25 teachers don’t park on the street though. 26 27 Commissioner Tuma: Thank you. 28 29 Chair Martinez: Vice Chair Fineberg. 30 31 Vice Chair Fineberg: I’m a little confused from a couple of different descriptions of what 32 program will exist when you immediately begin operations in the new facility. Is the intention 33 that you’ll go through the approval process, do your construction, and open up just to begin with 34 as a after school care facility and then as licensing progresses later add daycare or do you 35 anticipate on your occupancy date starting with both preschool and after school daycare? 36 37 Mr. Jones: On the occupancy date it would open as an after school daycare program. The desire 38 would be in the future to have the capability of providing preschool services. 39 40 Vice Chair Fineberg: Okay thank you. I still have one more question for you but note to Staff 41 and we can deal with it later on our Conditions of Approval Page 3, Item 6 it talks about “prior to 42 the commencement of operations on site the facility shall acquire a daycare license”. That needs 43 to be amended to say something to accommodate the use as the Applicant just described because 44 if they start as just after school care we don’t want to require them to have a daycare license yet. 45 46 Page 7 of 25 Mr. Reich: Yes we do. The afterschool care is a daycare center. They will need to be licensed. 1 2 Mr. Jones: As a part of the operation they will need to be a licensed daycare facility complying 3 with the State of California requirements for that. 4 5 Vice Chair Fineberg: Don’t they already have that in place to operate the existing operation at 6 the Emerson School? 7 8 Mr. Jones: There’s a different arrangement at the Emerson School but that’s not in place 9 currently. 10 11 Vice Chair Fineberg: Okay. I saw the description of what they’re doing at the Emerson as 12 having a license for the Heritage facility but it was again maybe my confusion but not clear to 13 me whether the existing license for after school would transfer. 14 15 Mr. Jones: No it would not. This would be a brand new license for this facility for them to 16 operate as a fully licensed daycare center. 17 18 Vice Chair Fineberg: My next question to you is in our Conditions of Approval on Page 4 it 19 talks about Section 9 substantial improvements and states that the proposed improvements are 20 located in the special flood hazard and if the construction costs exceed half the value of the 21 improved structure then there are a number of other conditions. Is there a rough estimate of what 22 this project costs and what the estimate is on the technical definition of however they define the 23 depreciated value of the structure? 24 25 Mr. Jones: Unfortunately I don’t have those exact figures with the ownership has gone through 26 that calculation and I can’t quote them to you. We have done that analysis. Largely what’s 27 happening with this is there are tenant improvements on the interior. Much of the interior rooms 28 are remaining so if you look at this project in its totality its involved in basically maintaining as 29 much of the interior as we can, recreating a new gypsum board walls, metal set frame walls, 30 moving some lighting around so the actual improvements are limited relative to the overall value 31 but unfortunately I don’t have specific dollar values for you. 32 33 Vice Chair Fineberg: But is it your expectation that the Condition of Approval will be satisfied? 34 35 Mr. Jones: It will be satisfied and typically it comes out as a part of the Building Department 36 Permit process. 37 38 Vice Chair Fineberg: Okay thank you. 39 40 Chair Martinez: I have a couple questions. To the Traffic Consultant, did you look at the traffic 41 generated by the previous use so we can compare the impacts? 42 43 Mr. Black: When we came along the building was vacant. We made an estimate of what the 44 traffic generated would be based on our typical sources that we use for traffic estimates which is 45 the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual and if you give me just a 46 Page 8 of 25 second I can look that up. Yes, occupied as an office using those numbers we would get 24 peak 1 hour trips versus 158 for this use. 2 3 Chair Martinez: Yes Commissioner Garber. 4 5 Commissioner Garber: Is that for the existing square footage that is currently built on the site or 6 what could be built on the site? How much square footage could be built on the site and then 7 what would that generate? 8 9 Mr. Black: It’s what’s there and you’d have to ask somebody else because I don’t know what 10 would be allowable on the site. 11 12 Commissioner Garber: I only ask because it seems to me that would be the appropriate way to 13 consider this. No? 14 15 Vice Chair Fineberg: Staff can correct me if I’m wrong but I believe we have a longstanding 16 tradition of the baseline is defined as full occupancy of the existing use if it’s been within 5 years 17 I believe. I think there’s a time limit but it’s not full built out conditions of a hypothetical 18 project. 19 20 Ms. Amy French, Acting Assist. Director: Yes our longstanding policy is the office can be 21 reoccupied by office anytime. That has been a longstanding Council policy. There is discussion 22 about baseline, what we do with a vacant building but I don’t believe it’s been vacant for 5 years. 23 I think it’s been less than that. 24 25 Chair Martinez: So if I could get back to my question, it seems to me that the building is 15,000 26 square feet. Is that right? There would be an office occupant load of about 60. That generates 27 more peak hour trips than 24 if you’re looking at 9 to 5, 8:30 to 5:30 and it seems like the impact 28 on evening peak hours would be greater than the proposed use. Is that a faulty assumption? 29 30 Mr. Black: Let me just say that that assumption’s not borne out by the trip generation data that 31 we typically look at and that we typically see. The way that the trip generation estimates are 32 done is to find comparable facilities if it’s an office building and comparable office buildings and 33 simply count the number of cars that are going in and out and then relate that to the size of the 34 building and that’s how the estimates are typically done. In the case of office buildings, yes 35 you’re right that it seems kind of out of balance to say that you have 60 people there but there’s 36 only 24 in the peak hour of trips that are generated or cars leaving the site but when we actually 37 survey office buildings we find that the occupant load is maximum at about 2:00 in the afternoon 38 and then it continually goes down after that so for whatever reason, this doesn’t happen in my 39 office but people start leaving at 2:00 and then by the time you get to 5:00 the occupant load is 40 nowhere near what it was earlier in the afternoon. 41 42 What we look at is an average over basically 50 to 100 studies are actually in the trip generation 43 manual right now so that’s what we’re looking at. 44 45 Chair Martinez: Finally, are you proposing any kind of traffic mitigations? 46 Page 9 of 25 1 Mr. Black: No there were no impacts identified so there were no mitigations. 2 3 Chair Martinez: What about traffic signage? Children present? Daycare facility ahead? That 4 kind of stuff. Not required? 5 6 Mr. Black: That would be up to your City Public Works Department if they would want to put 7 that signage out there, if it’s typical on that road. But the children will not be walking around on 8 the sidewalk or walking to school or crossing the street or anything so they’ll stay inside the 9 building or out in the play yard so hopefully children won’t be present. They’ll be in the 10 building. 11 12 Chair Martinez: Okay thank you. We have a number of speakers from the public. Vice Chair. 13 14 Vice Chair Fineberg: First speaker will be Kevin Jones. I’m sorry you were the Applicant. 15 Yates McKenzie to be followed by Edwina Cioffi. 16 17 Mr. Yates McKenzie: Good evening. My name is Yates McKenzie. I live at 119 Oak Springs 18 Drive in San Anselmo, CA. I am representing the ownership at 2595 East Bayshore, the 19 property that is immediately next door and to the south of the proposed daycare center. I’m 20 going to be brief but we’ve got a consultant here to also speak, Charlie Abrams but overall we, 21 the ownership at 2585 are opposed to the project as it’s currently presented. We’ve got a shared 22 driveway and a shared easement and the proposal is going to significantly, significantly impact 23 the traffic we’re going to have on that shared easement and put an undue burden on our property 24 and our tenants. 25 26 I understand that the Hexagon Traffic Study concludes that the impact will be minimal at worst 27 however the numbers don’t seem to bear out and I’ll let Charlie Abrams speak to that but that’s 28 what I wanted to say. 29 30 Chair Martinez: Great thank you. 31 32 Vice Chair Fineberg: Edwina Cioffi to be followed by Charlie Abrams. 33 34 Ms. Edwina Cioffi: Good evening. Edwina Cioffi, I am the owner of the property next door 35 north of this property, 2575 East Bayshore Road. I am in agreement with the other local adjacent 36 property owners that this change of use as its proposed is not conducive to the property. I feel 37 that it would be dangerous to the children. It would also impact the adjacent property owners 38 and the traffic on East Bayshore. I believe that the Applicants in a sense are grossly minimizing 39 the impacts just as one case in point, the property that the school is at currently I had visited on 40 several occasions. There are about 40 to 50 parking spaces in a parking lot in addition to street 41 parking and we timed the parents picking up children, many of which had other toddlers with 42 them, strollers. They zip in at about 10 minutes to 6, the majority of the parents. They took 43 about 12 to 20 minutes to go inside and take the little children out, huge space circular parking 44 lot plus another offshoot at the parking lot where they are presently located. This is very 45 congested. Very few parking spaces. The spaces are going from 49 to 31. 46 Page 10 of 25 1 A couple of quick points. Two playgrounds. One to the rear and one adjacent to my property. 2 Adjacent to my property we have large trailers coming in with exhaust fumes and loading and 3 unloading with forklifts. This is an industrial usage property. The playground to the rear, 4 employees at our location in the summertime run to their cars because of the gasses that come off 5 of the dumps. I question without an environmental study how long term exposure to the gasses 6 coming off the dumps in the playgrounds are going to be good for these young children. That’s 7 kind of a whole separate point from all the other traffic issues. Our entrance to our parking lot 8 runs right next to the entrance on the left hand side up there which is going to impact our 9 employees’ ability to get in and out. I also question all of this minimizing of the queuing and 10 stockpiling of cars, the interchange of cars picking up and dropping off because its difficult 11 during peak hours to get in and out of East Bayshore as it is so those cars are going to have a 12 hard time getting out and its going to impact the other adjacent properties. I know at the front 13 property there somebody brought up the handicap which cannot be interchanged every five 14 minutes which is a push anyway. The cars next to the crosswalk would have to back up into the 15 crosswalk where proposedly little children would be crossing. The cars along the side are 16 already or those spaces already infringe on the easement drive. They are already incorrectly on 17 the easement driveway. Little children would be funneling up to get into those cars with a very 18 congested driveway that’s shared with the next building. I guess in closing I covered most of the 19 issues but the property is just not conducive to this use and it will be dangerous, it will impact 20 our property values and the neighboring properties are opposed to this. Thank you. 21 22 Vice Chair Fineberg: Charlie Abrams to be followed by Ron Cioffi. 23 24 Mr. Charlie Abrams: Good evening Chairman, Members of the Planning Commission. My 25 name is Charlie Abrams. I am Principal at Abrams Associates Traffic. We have been engaged 26 by the property owner immediately to the south, just to the right of the sketch to evaluate the 27 traffic impacts that are going to arise from this neighboring use. The one problem is, and I don’t 28 have any problem with the Traffic Study. I think they’ve done a good job. The parking is 29 adequate and the effects of the project traffic on offsite roadways is accurately described but 30 there is no discussion at all in the report of the impacts of this connection between this diagonal 31 row of parking in the front and the neighbor’s driveway. The neighbor has a two way driveway 32 immediately adjacent to the property line. It is the only driveway available to the neighboring 33 office building. It is also about 16,000 square feet and probably generates the type of traffic that 34 was discussed formally for the entire building, probably about 30 trips per hour is what we 35 would come up with. 36 37 The layout of this particular situation is going to be conducive to a queue of vehicles extending 38 out of a drop off and pickup area in the front of the school. It is then going to turn the corner 39 onto East Bayshore. The majority of the traffic, parents coming to pick up their children are 40 going to be going south and make an immediate left turn into the driveway that would be used at 41 the front of the school and that just does not work with the numbers that have been presented. 42 Again, by our calculations we would estimate a queue that would extend out into the street and 43 could be as many as 3 to 5 cars waiting in that left turn to turn into the driveway to serve the 44 number of students they’ve got during this peak hour. Again, the peak hour is probably 5 to 6 45 and within that peak hour there is probably an additional peak for the school works just like one 46 Page 11 of 25 that I’m very familiar with where the parents will pay a penalty fee if they don’t pick up their 1 children by 6:00 and the results of that is a significant group of people, the large number of the 2 77 per hour are occurring during that 15 minutes prior to the school ending. 3 4 I take issue with the calculations that have been done by my compatriot with Hexagon. The 5 assumptions that they’ve made are… Can I just finish this point? The assumptions they’ve 6 made assume almost a perfect operation. They assume that these parents who are going to pull 7 in, park, then go in and pick up their children, then out into the building, back up and proceed in 8 an average of five minutes and that each space has, one leaves and the next one immediately fills 9 in that space and it just doesn’t work that way. The random statistics where this would suggest 10 these numbers are really erroneous. Someone also brought up the point of there being 17 spaces 11 for use by these parents. Two of them are handicapped spaces and they aren’t going to be very 12 usable for parents having to drop off their children and undoubtedly having seen these events 13 two or three of the other spaces will be occupied by somebody. It may be another visitor but for 14 long term parking and two or three other spaces are not available as well so there are only about 15 12 spaces available and we have 77 cars turning into the driveway which when you look at a 16 peak hour factor really expands to the equivalent of 120 cars during that period trying to use 17 these 12 spaces and turn over in a 5 minute increment in a very uniform method, it just doesn’t 18 work that way. 19 20 One last point, I guess this thing really doesn’t work very well and I think the remedies to this 21 could be something like cutting back on the number of children to about half of what they’ve got, 22 about 60 the front area would work. Another alternative which we’ve often thought about too is 23 to reverse the direction of the front driveway and have the cars enter on the northern driveway 24 and proceed south and make a right turn as they come out and that would work much more 25 effectively. 26 27 Chair Martinez: There’s a question for you. Commissioner Tuma. 28 29 Commissioner Tuma: I was going to ask what proposed alternatives you have in terms of… Let 30 me ask one more follow up question. In the current configuration, did you do a calculation for 31 the current number of spaces they do need? 32 33 Mr. Abrams: It’s a very unusual situation with diagonal parking but we would estimate they 34 would need 20 spaces to accommodate the number of spaces they’ve got and they only have or 35 can expect to use about 12 during the peak hour. 36 37 Commissioner Tuma: So 8 more spaces. 38 39 Mr. Abrams: Yes. 40 41 Chair Martinez: One more question for you, Vice Chair Fineberg. 42 43 Vice Chair Fineberg: Would a curb cut or direct access to the property at 2595 be feasible or 44 help the situation so it wasn’t a shared access through the drive? 45 46 Page 12 of 25 Mr. Abrams: We did consider that. It would be better for our property owner if they had their 1 own separate driveway for cars entering into the front but it would narrow and limit the amount 2 of cars they would be able to park in front if they did use that driveway so that’s the negative 3 impact. 4 5 Vice Chair Fineberg: Ron Cioffi to be followed by Jim Foug. 6 7 Mr. Ron Cioffi: Good evening. Ron Cioffi. I’m actually Jim Foug could not be here this 8 evening, I’m actually representing him. I’m also a Principal at 2575 East Bayshore Road. Jim’s 9 property is directly… Oh Jim’s here. Jim do you want to speak? Jim’s here, sorry. 10 11 Mr. Jim Foug: Hi. My name is Jim Foug and I’m the property manager and part owner of 2600 12 East Bayshore which is directly across the street from the proposed center and my main concern 13 dovetails off of some of the earlier comments about the queuing. I did thumb through the 14 Transportation Report. I just want to make one comment and it was noted in the Transportation 15 Report that the Traffic Volume Data was from 2008 which I believe is before the large Stanford 16 Eye Clinic was completed and its now occupied so I’m not sure how accurate or applicable those 17 traffic volume numbers are currently. 18 19 My comment is real quick. It’s actually, I just thumbed through regarding Page 27, vehicle 20 queuing down in Paragraph 4 and I’ll paraphrase that paragraph, “if left turning southbound 21 vehicles are perceived to be taking too long, the vehicle going through can go around the left 22 turning vehicles by using the bike lane”. So this is in reference, if by chance there is some 23 congestion in the front of the building and the traffic starts backing up southbound on East 24 Bayshore 4 or 5 cars, it seems to me that the Transportation Report recommends that these cars 25 pass the stopped vehicles on the right hand side of the road through the bike lane. I’m sure 26 you’re aware that there is a pedestrian bicycle overpass that empties out right to the north of this 27 project so there is a lot of bike traffic on the road but to me it seemed like a potential hazard and 28 I just wanted to bring that to your attention in case that is something that was not brought up 29 earlier. That’s all my comments. Thank you very much. 30 31 Vice Chair Fineberg: Gregory Klingsporn. 32 33 Mr. Gregory Klingsporn: Thank you Commissioners. Greg Klingsporn, I’m an Attorney at 34 Mitchell, Hertzog and Klingsporn down the street on Hamilton Avenue in Palo Alto. I represent 35 the owners of the site and I just wanted to make one comment that hasn’t really been addressed 36 yet and that is as you’ll see in the findings in the Staff Report, this childcare and daycare is 37 underserved in the City of Palo Alto and I can tell you from my professional experience 38 representing this property owner and some others that one of the main reasons is its very difficult 39 to find a site that is workable within the licensing restrictions that the State of California has with 40 regard to interior space, exterior space, being on the ground floor, a whole host of limitations that 41 make it very difficult and every site of the few that are left faces, has an impact when you’re 42 bringing a group of children to a site where there wasn’t before and I think when you’re looking 43 at this project you have to also consider that despite the objections of some of the adjacent 44 property owners I think this is an appropriate site. It’s got demonstrated capacity for both the 45 licensing requirements and also for the traffic impact. I think the Staff has spent a lot of time, I 46 Page 13 of 25 know the Staff has spent a lot of time working with the Hexagon folks and the Applicant to make 1 sure of that and it comes through in the Site Report. 2 3 Chair Martinez: Thank you very much. Is that it? Would the Applicant care to speak? You 4 have five minutes. 5 6 Mr. Jones: I think one of the things I would like to bring to your attention because a lot of this 7 comes off as sort of a black and white kind of decision. One of them is the commitment of 8 Mustard Seed, has been in the community for 20 years and really wants to expand their business 9 and continue to serve the Palo Alto community. Dealing with that, I feel that there are things we 10 can do to help further safeguard the interests of our neighbors in terms of staggering the parents’ 11 arrival, making other types of commitments that are nonstructural items to improve any problem 12 that might arise down the line which our report doesn’t foresee but I don’t want to make this 13 come across as clearly a black and white distinction. There is a very strong commitment by them 14 as well as the ownership to make this a viable project and should any point in the process find 15 there is a concern there is a strong commitment to find ways to solve those things. With that, 16 Gary had a few comments he wanted to bring back to your attention in light of some of the 17 opposing views. Thank you. 18 19 Mr. Black: Thank you. Really only one point that I wanted to speak to which a couple of 20 statements were made about it being difficult to access the site from East Bayshore during peak 21 hours and I just wanted to say that the traffic counts on East Bayshore and also my observations 22 on the site do not support that statement that its difficult to get in and out of the site during peak 23 hours. The count on Bayshore northbound, which is the busiest direction in the afternoon is only 24 500 cars during the peak hour which is well below the capacity of that street which could be 25 roughly 900 or so in an hour and so that was the only point I heard that I wanted to speak to. 26 27 Chair Martinez: Okay Commissioner Keller had a question. 28 29 Commissioner Keller: One question. You just mentioned the northbound direction of East 30 Bayshore. Is there any point in time in the PM rush hour, which I suppose is the busiest on that 31 road, is that the traffic backs up so that it blocks access to that site at anytime during the PM rush 32 hour? 33 34 Mr. Black: No. 35 36 Commissioner Keller: The second thing is, and I don’t know if you’re the right person to ask 37 this question, but my belief is that it is actually against the California Vehicle Code to pass a car, 38 stop making a left turn and use the bike lane in order to pass a stopped vehicle attempting to 39 make a left turn. Are you aware of that illegality? 40 41 Mr. Black: That’s my understanding as well unless there is a broken line on the bike lane. 42 43 Commissioner Keller: So therefore the comment that you can use the bike lane to pass a vehicle 44 attempting to make a left turn is in fact erroneous. Is that correct? 45 46 Page 14 of 25 Mr. Black: You cannot legally use it. 1 2 Commissioner Keller: So you’re encouraging people to do something illegal by your statement? 3 4 Mr. Black: It’s only a statement of practicality, not a suggestion to plan for that activity. We did 5 not show that there would ever be any queue that any cars would need to go around so it 6 wouldn’t be a regular occurrence. If for some reason there’s an accident in the middle of the 7 road or whatever, the statement was made merely to convey that the street’s wide enough for two 8 cars to pass, that’s all. 9 10 Commissioner Keller: Thank you. A question of the Architect please. 11 12 Mr. Jaime Rodriguez, Chief Transportation Official: Actually if I may, Jaime Rodriguez with 13 the City of Palo Alto. The California Vehicle Code Section 2128 does actually allow for a 14 vehicle to traverse into the bike lane to avoid a hazard so if there was a hazardous situation 15 where someone was turning left and the vehicle making the left would not be able to make the 16 site, they can traverse into the bike lane legally to avoid the vehicle. It is allowed in the Vehicle 17 Code. 18 19 Commissioner Keller: Okay well I’ll show you the moving violation I got for actually doing that 20 in Palo Alto. 21 22 Commissioner Tuma: Pardon me but that stuns me Jaime because I actually received a moving 23 violation for the same thing and I routinely see in front of our school where this happens 24 routinely. There are police officers sitting there ticketing people for going in the bike lane all the 25 time. It’s a daily occurrence so I’m stunned by a statement that says it wouldn’t be illegal to do 26 that. 27 28 Mr. Rodriguez: I think I’ve offered it to all of you in the past. If you get a ticket call me and I’ll 29 try to help you fight it but in this particular case, the Vehicle Code does allow that. That would 30 be a definable hazard of a vehicle approaching a situation with a stopped vehicle. That would 31 allow movement within the vehicle code. 32 33 Commissioner Keller: Thank you for offering to fight my next ticket in that regard but I did go 34 to traffic school instead for the record. One question is to the Architect. You’re the Architect, 35 right? I’m not sure if you’re sufficient to represent the owner or the Applicant but there was a 36 comment about the capacity of the site and the potential for reducing the number of students. Is 37 there a potential for thinking about something like for example, staggering or graduating the 38 increase so initially you do it with a smaller number of students and then make sure that there are 39 no impacts then increase the number of students to insure that impacts don’t occur and then if 40 they do occur that the adjacent neighbors are fearful of then we ratchet back? Is there something 41 like that that could be considered? 42 43 Mr. Jones: The operator might speak to that perhaps a little bit better but let me give you a 44 framework. The number we came up with, 117 is based on the capacity of the building to meet 45 the requirements for state licensing so they’re making a license request for a maximum of 117 46 Page 15 of 25 enrollment and as any business owner would like to do, they would like to maximize their 1 occupancy to meet that but upon opening it may very well not be 117 available at that time, 2 that’s the maximum that would be on site. Is there a potential to stagger that growth? I’m not 3 sure that would be appropriate from the user standpoint because of the demand that’s out here in 4 the community to bring in students so unless they’re here tonight, they might want to speak to it 5 if I haven’t for our best benefit but to my understanding the licensing would be for 117 and 6 would grow to the number but is not intended to have a staggering start and see what happens. 7 8 Commissioner Keller: Thank you. 9 10 Commissioner Garber: I have questions of Staff if that’s okay. For the City Attorney and 11 possibly for the Planning Staff as well, two questions. The first is the use of this property as a 12 daycare center is allowable by right. There is nothing that keeps that, that’s not a discretionary 13 option for review here. 14 15 Ms. French: This is not a conditional use permit we’re talking about. It’s simply because it’s in 16 the D overlay that we’re looking at the change from one use to another however daycare is an 17 allowable use in this district as a permitted use. 18 19 Commissioner Garber: And relative to the D overlay it is primarily for design as opposed to a 20 use function, etc. 21 22 Ms. French: Yeah, it’s a little tricky. Minor changes to a site, we typically handle through 23 Architectural Review as we did in this case previously. We did share it with the ARB and they 24 did give us their input, kind of like a PC where we say, hey if you change the design and its 25 minor we can take it to ARB. If you change the use we go and visit with the Planning 26 Commission as kind of a rule of thumb. We’re bringing it to you in that regard partly as well 27 because we had the concern. 28 29 Commissioner Garber: I hesitate to bring up the word PC because we’re not talking about public 30 benefits here. Second question, relative to the easement which I was sort of unaware of or I 31 didn’t sense that as an issue in the Staff Report one way or another but the overall use of that 32 easement, I’m presuming that the Applicant has access to that easement and whatever the 33 agreement or the use that exists between the two owners or more owners, I don’t know how 34 many there are to use that, is between them. We have no say over that. 35 36 Ms. Melissa Tronquet, Deputy Asst. City Attorney: That’s correct to the extent whatever they’re 37 doing does or does not comply in terms of the easement would be a civil issue between the two 38 property owners. 39 40 Commissioner Garber: For us it’s just an entry and an exit. 41 42 Ms. Tronquet: That’s correct. 43 44 Chair Martinez: Anyone else? Commissioner Tuma. 45 46 Page 16 of 25 Commissioner Tuma: I have a question for the second Traffic Consultant, sorry I’ve forgotten 1 your name. Thank you Mr. Abrams. The property just to the south of the subject property which 2 is the one you are representing, I’m looking and maybe this is an old picture but I’m looking at 3 Google Maps and it appears there is a second driveway on the southern end of that parking lot. 4 Is that correct? 5 6 Mr. Abrams: There is a second driveway there but its only usable, there is also a one way row of 7 parking in the front of the building and those are the only cars that can use that and it would be 8 exit only. 9 10 Commissioner Tuma: So the shared easement isn’t necessarily used for egress from the cars 11 from you client’s property so there is a second. 12 13 Mr. Abrams: I would guess 20% of the spaces could use that driveway effectively. 14 15 Commissioner Tuma: You had talked before about what the alternatives may be and someone 16 has raised the concept of another curb cut. There was a driveway there that already exists. 17 Currently the traffic flow is really only allowed practically for egress but there is a second curb 18 cut there that is used for some percentage. 19 20 Mr. Abrams: That’s true. 21 22 Commissioner Garber: May I follow up Mr. Abrams because I’m not quite following. If I’m 23 looking at the diagram up there, I would assume that the drive that is shared by both the property 24 that you’re representing and the Applicant is essentially in only and then you’re turning right into 25 your property or left into the Applicant’s property and then you’re going back out through the 26 other curb cut. Am I misunderstanding that? 27 28 Mr. Abrams: That is not the way it works. It is a two way driveway and the majority of the 29 traffic that leaves the office building that I’m representing does leave via that driveway. 30 31 Commissioner Tuma: But you do have the curb cut on the south side so what would keep you 32 from telling your employees just go in that way and out the other way. 33 34 Mr. Abrams: I suppose. It would be very inconvenient. They would be coming down and 35 having to go out of their way in the wrong direction but it certainly would be possible. 36 37 Commissioner Tuma: Let me just ask because I’m again having a hard time following. Is your 38 parking lot striped that way right now? In the direction that’s shown on that diagram? 39 40 Mr. Abrams: Yes it is. 41 42 Commissioner Tuma: So someone is pulling in there and taking a 45 degree or 60 degree turn to 43 get in and then they are coming out and turning whatever that is, 90 plus 135 degrees to go back 44 the way they came as opposed to just turning the 45 and going forward again? 45 46 Page 17 of 25 Mr. Abrams: No they are doing the latter, turning out and going in the proper one way direction 1 and exiting via the other driveway. 2 3 Commissioner Tuma: So everybody that comes in on the north side comes in on the south side 4 right? 5 6 Mr. Abrams: Maybe one way to clarify it is there are 54 spaces. The majority of the parking is 7 behind the building and I would say about 10 of the 54 are those diagonal spots in front. The 8 remainder is a parking field that is behind the building. 9 10 Commissioner Tuma: I see, so if you’re parking behind the building you’re coming between the 11 two and then going straight out as opposed to going between the two and then in front of your 12 property and then out. I understand. 13 14 Chair Martinez: Vice Chair Fineberg first. 15 16 Vice Chair Fineberg: This same topic but maybe better for the Applicant because I’m confused 17 by this driveway configuration also. So if they pull in at that shared entrance that we’re hearing 18 almost everyone uses, the people on the north are going to exit before they hit the property to the 19 south and so are those parking spaces slanted the wrong way to park if you’re pulling in? 20 21 Mr. Reich: I don’t follow your question. You’re talking about the daycare center? 22 23 Vice Chair Fineberg: Yes which is the blue parking lot sort of on the left so if the shared 24 driveway, maybe I’m confused, the shared driveway is the one in the center. 25 26 Mr. Reich: So they pull in and go left. 27 28 Vice Chair Fineberg: So there are two means of exit, so the sort of driveway is like a T that 29 people come in in the middle, go out to the left and exit to the left and then the people that go to 30 the property on the south drive to the right and then exit to the south except for the people that 31 are behind it so there’s one way in, I’m sorry I thought from the Staff Report, forgive me that 32 there was only one way out for the Applicant. I didn’t realize the Applicant had two ways out. 33 34 Mr. Reich: The Applicant has one way out for the spaces in front of the building. The spaces on 35 the side of the building they could either exit the shared driveway or they could exit the other 36 driveway. 37 38 Vice Chair Fineberg: Okay that you. 39 40 Commissioner Tuma: Do we have a laser pointer by any chance? 41 42 Ms. French: This system does not allow laser pointing at it. 43 44 Mr. Reich: You can use the pointer on the mouse. 45 46 Page 18 of 25 Commissioner Tuma: One of the things that’s not shown on any of the diagrams we have is 1 that there is a bunch of parking behind both of these buildings on the various different sides and 2 if we had something up there that would show us that, this would be great. So on the ground in 3 reality I believe cars come in here, there’s this parking here, this parking here, currently 4 additional parking in the back that’s going to be converted to a play area so the cars that park 5 here, they come back, they either could come out this way or come across here and go out this 6 way. Is that correct? 7 8 And the mirror is also true. You have cars coming in here. Some go in here to park. Others go 9 down here and there’s a fairly large parking area back here so when these cars come out they can 10 come out this way or if this is too congested they can come here and go here and exit out this 11 way, is that right? So there’s a shared entrance. Each of them has additional exits that can be 12 used for traffic flow. I believe on the south side of the neighboring building over here is 13 currently landscaped, there is no access over there. Could access be gained over here? 14 15 Mr. Jones: I don’t know that there’s the room to do that. 16 17 Commissioner Tuma: So Mr. Abrams can I ask you to come back up for a second. So is the 18 primary point of concern the congestion that would occur in this area right here? 19 20 Mr. Abrams: Yes, exactly. 21 22 Commissioner Tuma: What would keep during that peak, and its probably 30 minutes or so in 23 the evening right at that 5:45 to 6:15 timeframe, parents are rushing madly to pick their kids up, 24 that’s when it will be worst I think so during that half hour or so to the extent that people are 25 leaving the building, would them coming across here and going out here alleviate the congestion 26 that’s happening here? 27 28 Mr. Abrams: I don’t believe it would. Those spaces that are on the side of the building mostly 29 would be used by the teachers and the staff at the daycare center, they are going to back up into 30 the traffic and their most desirable way out is just to proceed straight down that driveway and 31 back out onto East Bayshore there. 32 33 Commissioner Tuma: That’s their staff but I’m talking about the folks that are parking back here 34 in this building. 35 36 Mr. Abrams: They certainly could do that but it would not be very convenient or effective. 37 38 Commissioner Tuma: This is all theoretical. If they get to a certain capacity they could have 39 that congestion so if a set of circumstances comes to pass a half an hour per day perhaps one of 40 the solutions may be that some people could go out this way if the delay here is intolerable. It’s 41 possible. 42 43 Chair Martinez: Commissioners, we’ve been an hour into this and I would like to close the 44 Public Hearing. If you have questions of any of the speakers, it’s your prerogative to call them 45 Page 19 of 25 back but I think we should get on with our comments, further questions of Staff and kind of get 1 to where we want to go with this. Commissioner Keller. 2 3 Commissioner Keller: Another question of the last speaker please, Mr. Abrams, thank you. I’m 4 very bad at names so I apologize. Thank you. So let me understand this question. Could we go 5 back to the last diagram that’s on the screen? Great. Thank you. So it seems to me that the 6 problem is that we have a single driveway that is used for all ingress and we have three 7 driveways that are used for egress. For exiting. So what I’m wondering is if the Applicant were 8 to switch around their parking so that the north side of their property was used for entering and 9 the south side of their property through the shared driveway was used for exiting, would that 10 eliminate the conflict that you’re thinking about? 11 12 Mr. Abrams: Yes that would eliminate much of the conflict because left turns are not crossing 13 each other. 14 15 Commissioner Keller: Exactly and one of the problems from this is because people are entering 16 on the right and then turning in, people might be blocking the road there so its kind of a big 17 conflict. What I’m wondering, so that would eliminate the problem there? 18 19 Mr. Abrams: I believe it would, yes. 20 21 Commissioner Keller: There was a comment said that it might be improper because the 22 Applicant had some of their parking spaces on the shared easement and that might be improper. 23 Who said that? Is the person who said that wanting to come back up? Well what I’m wondering 24 is and you can answer, is that an existing condition because I’m looking at the map and it 25 appears to me that all of that issue of parking in the easement and the driveway and parking and 26 all that seems to be an existing condition. 27 28 Mr. Foug: Yes it is an existing condition. There is an encroachment on the easement of those 29 parking spaces along the south side of the daycare building. Additionally, there was an 30 encroachment agreement put in place. It’s on our title and allows that condition to exist although 31 it may or may not be subject to a number of conditions changing use may be one of those. 32 33 Commissioner Keller: But that’s not something the city has any part of. 34 35 Mr. Foug: I’m not an attorney but I don’t think so. 36 37 Commissioner Keller: May I ask this question of the Traffic Engineer for the Applicant. How 38 would the Applicant feel about reversing the front driveway so you enter from the north side and 39 all the parking spaces were reversed in the other direction? 40 41 Mr. Black: I can’t speak for the Applicant on that but from my perspective if that’s a solution 42 that’s acceptable to the neighboring property owner from a traffic standpoint I don’t see that 43 creating problems. 44 45 Commissioner Keller: Great. Can I ask that of the Architect? 46 Page 20 of 25 1 Mr. Jones: Thank you. Very good question. The ownership would be accepting of that 2 alternative to reverse the parking flow. Perhaps that could be identified as a Condition of 3 Approval or Recommendation from Planning Commission. We would not like to have to come 4 back with a revised plan that represents that but nonetheless they are supportive of that direction. 5 6 Chair Martinez: Okay. Do we have a Motion? 7 8 Commissioner Keller: Let me ask one more question of Staff first and then I’ll give a Motion. 9 The question of Staff is if the daycare use discontinues does there necessarily have to be a Site 10 and Design Review of the change in daycare use that would necessitate turning the parking back 11 if it went to office use again? 12 13 Ms. French: Gosh, I believe change of use requires a matter of discretion and the Director might 14 be so inclined to refer it to the Planning and Transportation Commission or it might be 15 something that is simply not an issue. 16 17 Commissioner Keller: One thing I’m concerned about is the daycare goes away sometime in the 18 future and the building becomes office and the parking doesn’t return so in other words it’s a 19 shortage of parking and I just want to make sure it doesn’t happen and if there’s a Condition of 20 Approval needed to make sure that this comes back to, not necessarily us but somebody to make 21 sure the parking returns if the use changes, that’s what I would want. 22 23 Ms. French: I don’t believe a Condition is necessary. It sounds like the Applicant is agreeable to 24 reversing that direction and that’s the kind of thing the Architectural Review Board is quite 25 qualified to review the design of that. I know you’re talking about if it went back to office and 26 would we have to look at parking all over again. 27 28 Commissioner Keller: If it came back to office again is there a mechanism for insuring that the 29 parking returns so that the sufficient parking for the office use. 30 31 Mr. Reich: Since the change in use requires Site and Design Review or some level of discretion 32 yes, we would look at it and make sure the new use had adequate parking. 33 34 Commissioner Garber: And if I might add the Applicant might have to apply for a Use of 35 Occupancy Permit and that would notify Staff and the Staff would put it through the procedure 36 and depending on what the application is it could go through Staff or come to the Commission 37 again depending on what the requirement is so there are plenty of safeguards that are in place. 38 Correct me if I’m wrong. 39 40 Ms. French: But I think once it’s reversed, you’re going back to office and let’s put it back the 41 direction that it is. 42 43 Commissioner Garber: The point would be that if it’s office you’re going to need, you can no 44 longer have the play lot in the back. 45 46 Page 21 of 25 Ms. French: We would have to make sure they had the number of spaces, correct. 1 2 Commissioner Garber: At which point all of the issues will be raised again and have to go 3 through the review of one sort or another. 4 5 MOTION 6 7 Commissioner Keller: I move that we recommend, let me get the right language here, I move 8 that the Planning and Transportation Commission recommends the City Council approve the Site 9 and Design Review request for the establishment of an after school daycare center at 2585 East 10 Bayshore Road as set forth in the draft record of land use action with one change and that is that 11 the front, the driveway entrance to the property be on the north side, that the front driveway 12 parking be reversed to be accessible from the north side and that the exit and parking on that 13 continue through the shared easement and as a, this is not part of the Motion, but that the Staff 14 Report and/or the Traffic Report be modified to insure that there is no encouragement of 15 violation of the California Vehicle Code with respect to passing cars stopped making a left turn, 16 passing cars into a bike lane but that’s just a request to Staff and the Applicant, not a part of the 17 Motion. 18 19 Chair Martinez: Is there a Second? 20 21 SECOND 22 23 Commissioner Tuma: Sure. 24 25 Chair Martinez: Commissioner Keller, care to speak to your Motion? 26 27 Commissioner Keller: I think there’s a need for more daycare in Palo Alto so I’m happy to try to 28 support this need. It seems that a reconfiguration of the driveway will go a long way towards 29 avoiding a conflict with the adjacent neighbor. I’m not sure we can avoid all the conflicts that 30 exist but our review of this project is fairly limited because the daycare is at this site by right. 31 I’ve been personally interested in having daycare and schools have a Conditional Use Permit 32 precisely so we can deal with these traffic issues on the Conditional Use Permit and not have it 33 be by right but now it is by right so there is limited review here. So that’s it. Thank you. 34 35 Commissioner Tuma: I have a question of our Chief Transportation Official. You looked before 36 like you had something you wanted to say. 37 38 Mr. Rodriguez: I did want to recommend that a conversion of the driveway not be recommended 39 and really for the reason that it actually introduces two conflict points at which vehicles driving 40 southbound on East Bayshore could potentially have to weave a vehicle that is turning left in that 41 site. We did consider that during the initial design with the Applicant and internally Staff 42 decided not to move forward with that type of recommendation. If this driveway here were an 43 inbound driveway, this driveway is an inbound outbound driveway for the occupant next door so 44 if the vehicle is stopped here it blocks the driveway automatically as to where the situation where 45 there’s one driveway in the middle, all of the funneling of the site occurs at one location so 46 Page 22 of 25 introducing two locations could introduce a conflict with the site next door and then for the 1 southbound vehicles if they did need to weave it could happen twice in front of the site as 2 opposed to once. That was our reasoning as to why we didn’t make that recommendation. 3 4 Commissioner Tuma: Okay thank you for that. So in speaking to my Second of the Motion, I 5 will reiterate what Commissioner Keller said just now with respect to while in some ways when 6 you put a daycare center in an area that has proximity to a freeway and to the dump and all those 7 other things maybe its not ideal but I think this is somewhat of a balancing act here and I think 8 we do have a shortage of daycare. We just lost another facility in town. Its very difficult to do 9 and when there are opportunities to do that and weighing the pros and cons and looking at the 10 overall quality of life that things like a local daycare center have and have those positively 11 impact our residents, I am inclined to support that, not that the impacts of neighboring properties 12 are to be diminished but it’s a balancing act. I am however concerned now with the component 13 of the Motion that requires the ingress to be on the northbound portion of the driveway. That 14 sounds like it would run counter to Staff’s recommendation and I would see where if you have a 15 backup in the current configuration from a southbound vehicle if you have a backup it may well 16 not block anyone else, no other driveway, but if we moved it to the northern portion all it takes is 17 one car and then you’ve blocked that other driveway. 18 19 The other overarching comment that I would say is I have a good friend who works in an office 20 building fairly closely and for whatever reason I seem to be over there from time to time at the 21 end of the day. Compared to just about everywhere else in Palo Alto, there’s not a lot of traffic 22 there. It happens a little bit but its not really what I would consider backups, it just doesn’t seem 23 in the scheme of things that significant and yes, it may present some conflicts in terms of ingress 24 or egress but I don’t think it’s of the magnitude that in any way should hold back a project like 25 this. So I’m supportive of the project but I do now have a question about whether this 26 requirement for the entrance on the north makes sense or not. I’m not a Traffic Engineer but I 27 would defer to Staff for their thoughts on how to engineer this best. We shouldn’t try to second 28 guess that so my inclination would be to remove that condition based on the recommendation of 29 Staff. I’m open to hear other Commissioners’ thoughts but I’m in support of the project but 30 question this condition. 31 32 Chair Martinez: I’m going to ask Commissioner Keller whether he would like to revise his 33 Motion. 34 35 Commissioner Keller: I think the adjacent property owner wished to speak. Is that right? 36 37 Chair Martinez: The Public Hearing is closed. 38 39 Commissioner Keller: Since we are thinking about something that affects the adjacent property 40 owner, can I ask a question as to what the consideration of potential for changing the driveway 41 orientation, what affect would that be on the property? 42 43 Ms. Cioffi: That is the only entrance. We do have large trailers coming in throughout the day 44 and leaving. That is our only entrance and any blockage on East Bayshore would be a burden to 45 Page 23 of 25 us as well as directly across the street is an entrance to Jim Foug’s property which is also an 1 access to his parking lot as well. 2 3 Commissioner Keller: Thank you. I would like to amend the Condition and it is instead to direct 4 Staff to work with the neighbors to figure out the best harmonious way of dealing with the traffic 5 impacts. 6 7 Chair Martinez: Could you repeat that? 8 9 Commissioner Keller: Direct Staff that before it goes to Council, work with neighbors to figure 10 out the most harmonious way to deal with potential traffic impacts. 11 12 Commissioner Tuma: Fine. I don’t think we need to direct Staff to do that. They are perfectly 13 capable and they’ve been doing that all along. That’s what this is about is trying to come to 14 some sort of resolution. To make it a Condition of our Motion seems a bit overreaching but in 15 the interest of sort of moving this along, fine. 16 17 Chair Martinez: Yes, City Attorney. 18 19 Ms. Tronquet: Sorry Commissioner Keller, could you clarify whether that was a Condition of 20 Approval or just a recommendation. I’m concerned that it may not be specific enough for Staff 21 and what if they can’t work out a harmonious agreement. 22 23 Commissioner Keller: It’s not a Condition of Approval. It’s just a recommendation that Staff 24 spend time trying to figure out if there is a solution that works for everybody. 25 26 Commissioner Tuma: So through the Chair, just to clarify, your Motion is simply the 27 recommendation from Staff Report. 28 29 Commissioner Keller: Yes my Motion is the recommendation from Staff Report. There are two 30 comments not from the Staff Report… 31 32 Commissioner Tuma: I understand the comments but let’s just stick to the Motion. 33 34 Commissioner Keller: The Motion specifically is to move the Staff Report. That’s correct. 35 36 Commissioner Tuma: I’ll Second and I’ve said enough. 37 38 Chair Martinez: Okay any discussion? Commissioners? Yes, Vice Chair Fineberg. 39 40 Vice Chair Fineberg: I have a question for Staff and this might possibly lead to a friendly 41 amendment. At places this evening is an additional Condition of Approval and I’m sorry I didn’t 42 bring this up earlier during our Staff question period but basically the facility is located in a title 43 flood zone. If the levies are breached or overtopped the site could be under 4 feet of water and it 44 is between a highway, there’s a highway between the site and high ground. We’ve had 45 discussions about childcare and floodplains before with the Google project and the emergency 46 Page 24 of 25 response there was go up because they had a second floor on that facility. This facility does not 1 and what we’re considering tonight while I’m generally in favor of putting 117 kids in a 2 floodplain without an evacuation plan with a highway between them and high ground poses 3 significant potential risks to public health and safety so Staff, is this additional Condition of 4 Approval something that Staff has prepared to address that issue? And I don’t see it in the Staff 5 Report because I believe this additional Condition was developed after the Staff Report and does 6 Staff recommend that this Condition is written and be included or what’s our status on it? 7 8 Mr. Reich: Yes the additional Condition that was put at places this evening was specifically to 9 address that issue and it is our recommendation that that Condition be added to the approval so 10 your Motion to approve would include that Condition that was set at places this evening. 11 12 Vice Chair Fineberg: Do I need to make a formal amendment or is it in the language of the Staff 13 Report and I’m just not seeing it? 14 15 Mr. Reich: The Staff Report went out before the Condition was developed so it’s not in there but 16 it’s understood that that Condition that was provided to you at places would be added to the 17 Conditions of Approval that the Council will see. 18 19 Vice Chair Fineberg: So let me just read it in and does the Maker and the Seconder I guess 20 understand that this is in there even though it’s not in writing? So it basically says that the 21 daycare center provider shall ensure that an emergency preparedness plan is created to set forth 22 procedures and plans of action in the event of a fire, flood, earthquake, power outage, chemical 23 spill/gas release and let me now speak just generally to my support of the Motion. We don’t 24 have enough childcare, daycare, after school or preschool facilities in town. I wish that this 25 could be on the same side of the highway as the 60 some thousand people who live and the 26 12,000 some kids who go to school in Palo Alto but that land is rare and expensive and mostly 27 unattainable so it’s not necessarily ideal that it’s on the other side of the highway. That will 28 impact ease of access by biking and by children or families walking but it’s a compromise to get 29 much, much needed daycare. 30 31 I’m pleased to hear that Staff will continue to work with the adjoining properties to address real 32 world concerns and real problems should they arise and I would hope that the Applicant and the 33 neighbors continue to be good neighbors and remain in a dialogue for constructive outcomes. 34 Sometimes fears don’t pan out and sometimes reality is worse than our worst fears and we don’t 35 know exactly how that’s going to go. We model and do our best so I think good neighbors can 36 work together to solve problems and that goes a long way and I’ll be supporting the Motion. 37 38 Chair Martinez: I support the Motion as well. I could support it either way, reversing the 39 parking would be fine, leaving the entrances where they are now would be fine. I’m less 40 supportive of putting it back onto Staff to work with the Applicant and the neighbors again since 41 you all haven’t really been able to do that. I would be happier if we just had a solid Motion that 42 says this is what we’re recommending to Council. 43 44 Commissioner Tuma: We do. The Motion was pared down to simply moving the Staff 45 Recommendation. 46 Page 25 of 25 1 Chair Martinez: What about working with neighbors? 2 3 Commissioner Tuma: Those are Arthur’s comments. 4 5 Chair Martinez: Is that the way you see them? 6 7 Commissioner Keller: They were not part of the Motion, just encouragements to work things out 8 and that might involve monitoring in the future but its not formally part of the Motion. 9 10 VOTE 11 12 Chair Martinez: Fine. With that, let’s vote. Those in favor of the Motion say Aye. Ayes. 13 14 Chair Martinez: No opposed. So the Motion passes with Commissioner Garber, Michael, 15 Keller, Chair Martinez, Vice Chair Fineberg and Commissioner Tuma voting Aye and 16 Commissioner Tanaka absent. We’re going to take a 5 minute break. Thank you all very much. 17 18 MOTION PASSES (6 – 0) 19 20 City of Palo Alto Page 1 PLANNING &TRANSPORTATION DIVISION STAFF REPORT TO:PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION FROM:Russ Reich, Senior Planner DEPARTMENT:Planning and Community Environment AGENDA DATE:February 8, 2012 SUBJECT:2585 East Bayshore Road: Request by 2585 Bayshore LLC for Site and Design Review of a proposed after school Day Care Center on a one acre parcel. Zone District-ROLM(D)(AD)(E) RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning and Transportation Commission (P&TC) recommend City Council approval of the Site and Design Review request for the establishment of an after-school Day Care Center at 2585 East Bayshore Road as set forth in the draft Record of Land Use Action (Attachment A). BACKGROUND Process History In 2011, the applicant submitted an Architectural Review (AR) application for modification of the site to accommodate a Day Care Center. The Architectural Review Board (ARB) reviewed the exterior improvements and recommended approval of the design. The owner of an adjacent property (2575 East Bayshore) raised concerns over traffic and parking, and appealed the Director’s AR approval of the design and use. The applicant then withdrew the application to provide a more thorough analysis of potential traffic and parking impacts, to address the concerns. The applicant’s traffic consultant worked with the City’s Transportation staff to determine the best way to analyze potential impacts. The new traffic analysis is provided as Attachment D. Site Information The project site is located on the east side of East Bayshore Road just south of Embarcadero City of Palo Alto Page 2 Road. The site is approximately 43,560 square feet in area and is located within the Research Office and Limited Manufacturing (ROLM) zone district with Environmental Sensitivity (E), Site and Design (D), and Auto Dealership (AD) Combining Districts. There is currently one single story building on the site consisting of approximately 15,927 square feet of floor area. The building was formerly used as a general business office and currently has 49 parking stalls. There is a two story office building to the south of the subject property at 2595 East Bayshore Road and a two-story tall commercial business to the north at 2575 East Bayshore Road. The Palo Alto Baylands are located directly behind (east of) the subject property. The ROLM zone district provides for a limited group of office, research and manufacturing uses. Day Care Centers are also specified as a permitted use within the district. The Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map designation for the project site is Research/Office Park, the definition of which includes childcare center as an appropriate use. Project Description The proposed project is the establishment of a Day Care Center within an existing office building and related site improvements, to allow for the after-school care of approximately 117 children by seven full-time staff and five part-time staff. The facility is intended to provide after-school care for children enrolled in public or private schools within Palo Alto. The ages of the children would range between five and 12 years old. The anticipated hours of operation would range from 7:30am to 7:30pm on weekdays only, with children typically cared for between the hours of 12:30 pm and 6:15 pm. The applicant has also indicated that the facility may include preschool services on weekday mornings in the future. The 7:30am start time mentioned above would be the possible future preschool start time. The traffic analysis studied both am and pm peak hour trips based on the understanding that the preschool use, in addition to after school day care, could at some point in the future also be one of the uses on site. The applicant’s description is contained in Attachment C. To meet state licensing requirements, the 18-space parking lot at the rear of the building would be replaced with an outdoor playground, and the existing driveway on the north side of the building would be used as a second play area; chain link fencing would be installed for safety and security of these areas. The new chain link fence would be four feet tall and clad in green vinyl with vinyl slats to screen the play areas. The existing dense vegetation on the site’s perimeter would remain. This vegetation provides a significant visual screen of the property as seen from the Baylands. The new fence and play structures would be concealed behind this existing landscape screen. Changes to the site also include the addition of a new covered trash enclosure at the rear to accommodate the building’s trash and recycling needs, a new handicap ramp, a new painted cross walk, and new accessible parking stalls in the front parking lot. The trash enclosure would have a standing seam metal roof painted bronze and a metal gate in the same bronze color. The enclosure’s walls would be a split face concrete block in a brown color. The parking lot would provide 31 spaces for staff, parents, and visitors. SUMMARY OF LAND USE ACTION : Commission Purview City of Palo Alto Page 3 The subject property is zoned ROLM (E)(D)(AD). The Site and Design (D) Review Combining District Section 18.30(G).040 requires site and design approval for the establishment of any use. Site and Design Review is a process intended to ensure the development in environmentally and ecologically sensitive areas will be harmonious with other uses in the general vicinity, compatible with environmental and ecological objectives and in accord with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. The Planning and Transportation Commission’s purview on Site and Design applications is to recommend approval and/or such changes as it may deem necessary to accomplish the following objectives: 1. To ensure construction and operation of the use in a manner that will be orderly, harmonious, and compatible with existing or potential uses of adjoining or nearby sites. 2. To ensure the desirability of investment, or the conduct of business, research, or educational activities, or other authorized occupations, in the same or adjacent areas. 3. To ensure that sound principles of environmental design and ecological balance shall be observed. 4.To ensure that the use will be in accord with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. A Draft Record of Land Use Action (Attachment A) provides findings for Site and Design Review approval of the project for the P&TC to review and recommend to the City Council. SUMMARY OF KEY ISSUES: Traffic and Parking The change in use from General Business Office to Day Care Center would potentially result in an increase in the overall volume of trips to and from the site. According to the applicant’s traffic consultant and the City’s traffic engineer, the increased volume of traffic would not cause critical movement delay or the demand-to-capacity ratio to increase beyond the City of Palo Alto Standards under both the near and the far terms. The Traffic Analysis is provided as Attachment D. The proposal includes the removal of 18 existing parking stalls to accommodate the new play area. Even with the removal of these spaces, the proposed use will be adequately parked per the code (see table below). The traffic consultant has studied the current Mustard Seed Day Care facility located at 2800 West Bayshore Road, as well as several other similar Day Care facilities, to observe how the current parking demand functions for this type of use. The consultant found that only 22 spaces would be needed, and that the 31 parking spaces would be more than adequate for the demand associated with the proposed use for the after school program as well as the potential preschool program based on 117 children Parking Requirement Parking Provided City of Palo Alto Page 4 1 parking space per each 1.5 employees =18 required parking spaces 31 spaces provided Traffic congestion is also alleviated by the fact that the pick up and drop off of children would be staggered and take place over a period of time such that all the children would not be picked up and dropped off at the same time. Palo Alto Baylands The only changes to the exterior of the property would be the new trash enclosure, the new four foot tall fence, the reorientation of the handicap parking and ramp, and the new play equipment. These features will be screened from off site views from the Baylands by existing vegetation. There will be no visual impact to the Baylands. POLICY IMPLICATIONS: The proposed project is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and staff believes there are no other substantive policy implications. TIMELINE Application Submittal: November 10, 2011 Application Complete: January 10,2012 P&TC:February 8, 2012 ARB (Consent):February 16, 2012 City Council:March 12 or 19, 2012 If the Planning and Transportation Commission makes a favorable recommendation on the project, the application would go forward to the Architectural Review Board who would act on consent to reaffirm its previous recommendation on the design. City Council would make the final determination on the application. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: Pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), this project is Categorically Exempt under CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (Existing Facilities). ATTACHMENTS: A. Record of Land Use Action B.Site Location Map C.Project Overview* D.Traffic Impact Analysis, Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc, November 8, 2011* E. Plans (Commission only)* * Prepared by Applicant; all other attachments prepared by Staff COURTESY COPIES: Dan Cunningham, 2585 Bayshore, LLC Edwina Cioffi, Neighbor Yates McKenzie, Neighbor City of Palo Alto Page 5 James Foug, Neighbor PREPARED BY: Russ Reich, Senior Planner REVIEWED BY: Amy French, Acting Assistant Director DEPARTMENT/DIVISION HEAD APPROVAL: Curtis Williams, Director PLACEHOLDER