Appendix - Cityofpaloalto

2y ago
1.26 MB
20 Pages
Last View : 1m ago
Last Download : 3m ago
Upload by : Xander Jaffe

AppendixTransportation Analysis

MemorandumDate:January 28, 2019To:Ms. Karly Kaufman, Rincon ConsultantsFrom:Gary Black, AICPLance Knox, AICPSubject:Transportation Analysis for 4256 El Camino Real Hotel in Palo Alto, CaliforniaHexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. has completed a transportation study for the proposedCaterina Hotel development at 4256 El Camino Real in Palo Alto, California. The project site islocated on the west side of El Camino Real, just north of the El Camino Real/Dinahs Courtintersection (see Figure 1). As proposed, the project would consist of a hotel comprising 100 hotelrooms, a fitness room, business center, valet parking service, and a restaurant and bar. Currently,the project site is occupied by the Su Hong Eatery restaurant. The proposed project would replacethe existing structure on the project site. Access to the site would be provided via two driveways onEl Camino Real.This study was conducted for the purpose of identifying the potential transportation impacts relatedto the proposed development. The potential impacts of the project were evaluated in accordancewith the standards set forth by the City of Palo Alto and the Santa Clara Valley TransportationAuthority (VTA) Congestion Management Program (CMP). Since it is estimated that the projectwould generate fewer than 100 peak hour vehicle trips, an analysis in accordance with the VTA’sCMP guidelines was not required. The traffic study includes an analysis of AM and PM peak hourtraffic conditions at the El Camino Real/Dinahs Court intersection near the project site. The projectwould generate U-turns at the intersection of El Camino Real and Charleston Road/ArastraderoRoad. However, the intersection was not analyzed given the low volume of traffic the project isestimated to generate compared to the existing volume at the intersection. The study also includesan analysis of site access and on-site circulation, vehicle queuing, and impacts to transit, bicycle,and pedestrian access.Intersection Operations AnalysisHexagon conducted AM and PM peak period traffic counts on January 24, 2019 at the El CaminoReal/Dinahs Court intersection. This is the closest intersection to the site and would experience thegreatest increase in traffic due to the project. Figure 2 shows the existing traffic volumes at thestudy intersection.Traffic conditions were observed in the field during the typical weekday morning (7:00 - 9:00 AM)and evening (4:00 - 6:00 PM) peak hours in order to identify existing operational deficiencies and toconfirm 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) toidentify any locations where the level of service analysis does not accurately reflect existing trafficconditions.

Palo Alto Caterina LosAltosAveSanAntoniaRdCMOUNTAINVIEWLoucks AveLEGEND Site LocationX Study IntersectionFigure 1Site Location and Study Intersection

Palo Alto Caterina SanAntoniaRdCLoMOUNTAINVIEWLoucks AveLEGEND Site LocationX Study IntersectionXX(XX) AM(PM) Peak-Hour Traffic VolumesFigure 2Existing Traffic Volumes

Transportation Analysis for Caterina Hotel Project in Palo Alto, CaliforniaJanuary 28, 2019El Camino Real carries heavy traffic volume during peak hours. During the AM and PM peak hours,congestion along El Camino Real results in some long vehicular queues, and considerable delaysfor the minor streets (i.e. Dinahs Court). However, the field observations did not reveal anysignificant traffic-related issues, and the study intersection operated adequately during both the AMand PM peak hours of traffic. Thus, the reported level of service analysis appears to accuratelyreflect actual existing traffic conditions.Project Trip EstimatesThe magnitude of traffic produced by a new development and the locations where that traffic wouldappear were 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 traveling to and fromthe proposed hotel project was estimated for the AM and PM peak hours. As part of the project tripdistribution, the directions to and from which the project trips would travel were estimated. In theproject trip assignment, the project trips were assigned to specific streets and intersections. Theseprocedures are described below.Trip GenerationThrough empirical research, data have been collected that quantify the amount of traffic expected tobe produced by common land uses. Thus, for the most common land uses there are standard tripgeneration rates that can be applied to help predict the future traffic increases that would result froma new development. The standard trip generation rates are published in the Institute ofTransportation Engineers’ (ITE) Trip Generation Manual.Project trip generation was estimated by applying the appropriate trip generation rates obtainedfrom the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition (2017). The Hotel category in the ITE manualtypically include sleeping accommodations as well as supporting facilities such as restaurants,cocktail lounges, meeting and banquet rooms or convention facilities, limited recreational facilities(i.e., pool, fitness room), and some retail and service shops. Therefore, the average trip generationrates for Hotel (Land Use 310) were applied to the project. Based on the project description and ITEtrip generation rates, the proposed development would generate a total of 817 gross daily vehicletrips, with 53 gross trips (31 inbound and 22 outbound) occurring during the AM peak hour and 60gross trips (32 inbound and 28 outbound) occurring during the PM peak hour (see Table 1).Trip Reductions and AdjustmentsThe proposed project includes a parking reduction. Therefore, according to the 2030 Palo AltoComprehensive Plan, the proposed project would be required to develop a comprehensiveTransportation Demand Management (TDM) plan to reduce vehicle trips by at least 30 percent,given that the project site is located within the El Camino Real Corridor. Therefore, a 30 percent tripreduction was assumed. As part of its TDM Plan, the project proposes to offer a dedicated shuttlefor hotel employees and guests. The shuttle destinations would be determined based on hotelemployee and guest preferences. It is initially thought that shuttles would serve both the SanFrancisco International Airport and Mineta International Airport, downtown Mountain View and PaloAlto, Caltrain, and other major employment centers and destinations in the area.The existing occupied building’s trip generation can be credited against the proposed hoteldevelopment. The current trips generated by the existing occupied restaurant (Su Hong EateryRestaurant) on the site can be subtracted from the trip generation estimates for the hotel. Theexisting restaurant’s trip generation was estimated based on published ITE rates for QualityRestaurant (Land Use 931). Based on the ITE trip generation rates, it is estimated that thePage 4

Transportation Analysis for Caterina Hotel Project in Palo Alto, CaliforniaJanuary 28, 2019restaurant is generating 297 daily trips, with 25 trips occurring in the PM peak hour. Given that therestaurant is closed in the morning on weekdays, no trips were estimated for the AM peak hour.Net Project TripsAfter applying the ITE trip rates, appropriate trip reductions, and existing site trip credits, the projectwould generate 275 new daily vehicle trips, with 37 new trips occurring during the AM peak hourand 17 new trips occurring during the PM peak hour (See Table 1).Table 1Project Trip Generation EstimatesDailyLand UseSizeAM Peak HourPM Peak HourRate TripsRate InOut TotalRate InOut Total8.170.53 3122530.60 3228Proposed UseBoutique Hotel1100 roomsTDM Program (30%)###Subtotal81760(245)(9)(7)(16)(10) (8)(18)5722215372242---7.49 (17) (8)(25)22153751720Existing UseSu Hong Eatery Restaurant23.30 ksf89.95 (297)Total New Project Trips27512Notes:KSF 1,000 square feet1Hotel (Land Use 310) average rates published in ITE's Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition, 2012.23Quality Restaurant (Land Use 931) average rates published in ITE's Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition, 2012.In accordance with the 2030 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan , the project site is located within the El Camino RealCorridor, thus a comprehensive Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plan is required to reduce vehicle tripsby at least 30 percent.Project Trip Distribution and AssignmentThe trip distribution pattern for the project was estimated based on existing travel patterns on thesurrounding roadway system and the locations of complementary land uses. The peak hour vehicletrips generated by the project were assigned to the roadway network in accordance with the tripdistribution pattern. The project driveways would provide limited-access, only allowing right inboundand outbound turns to and from El Camino Real. Given that a raised median along El Camino Realexists between Charleston Road and Dinahs Court, outbound vehicles seeking to travel north of theproject site must make a U-turn at Dinahs Court, while inbound vehicles coming from south of thesite must make a U-turn at Charleston Road to access the project driveway. Based on the projecttrip distribution, an estimated total (existing new trips) of 6 vehicles during the AM and 5 vehiclesduring the PM would be making a U-turn at Dinah’s Court, while 13 vehicles and 3 vehicles wouldbe making a U-turn at Charleston Road during the AM and PM peak hours, respectively. Figure 3shows the trip distribution pattern and net trip assignment of project traffic on the local network.Project trips, as represented in the above project trip assignment, were added to existing trafficvolumes to obtain existing plus project traffic volumes. The existing plus project traffic volumes areshown on Figure 4.Page 5

Palo Alto Caterina SanAntoniaRdCLoMOUNTAINVIEWLEGEND Site LocationXXX%Loucks Ave Study Intersection Trip DistributionXX(XX) AM(PM) Peak-Hour TripsFigure 3Project Trip Distribution and Net Assignment

Palo Alto Caterina SanAntoniaRdCLoMOUNTAINVIEWLoucks AveLEGEND Site LocationX Study IntersectionXX(XX) AM(PM) Peak-Hour Traffic VolumesFigure 4Existing Plus Project Traffic Volumes

Transportation Analysis for Caterina Hotel Project in Palo Alto, CaliforniaJanuary 28, 2019Palo Alto LOS Standard for Signalized IntersectionsTraffic conditions at the study intersection were evaluated using level of service (LOS). Level ofService is a qualitative description of operating conditions ranging from LOS A, or free-flowconditions with little or no delay, to LOS F, or jammed conditions with excessive delays. Theanalysis method is described below.The signalized study intersections in the City of Palo Alto are subject to the City of Palo Alto level ofservice standards. The City of Palo Alto evaluates level of service at signalized intersections basedon the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) level of service methodology using TRAFFIXsoftware. This method evaluates signalized intersection operations on the basis of average controldelay time for all vehicles at the intersection. The City of Palo Alto level of service standard forsignalized intersections is LOS D or better. Table 2 shows the level of service definitions forsignalized intersections.Table 2Signalized Intersection Level of Service Definitions Based on Control DelayLevel ofServiceDescriptionAverage Control DelayPer Vehicle (sec.)AOperations with very low delay occurring with favorable progressionand/or short cycle lengths.Up to 10.0BOperations with low delay occurring with good progression and/orshort cycle lengths.10.1 to 20.0COperations with average delays resulting from fair progressionand/or longer cycle lengths. Individual cycle failures begin toappear.20.1 to 35.0DOperations with longer delays due to a combination of unfavorableprogression, long cycle lenghts, or high V/C ratios. Many vehiclesstop and individual cycle failures are noticeable.35.1 to 55.0EOperations with high delay values indicating poor progression, longcycle lengths, and high V/C ratios. Individual cycle failures arefrequent occurences. This is considered to be the limit ofacceptable delay.55.1 to 80.0FOperation with delays unacceptable to most drivers occurring dueto oversaturation, poor progression, or very long cycle lengths.Greater than 80.0Source: Transportation Research Board, 2000 Highway Capacity Manual , (Washington, D.C., 2000).Level of Service Analysis ResultsIntersection levels of service were evaluated against City of Palo Alto standards. Intersection levelsof service were calculated for existing and existing plus project conditions and are summarized inTable 3. The results of the analysis show that under both scenarios with and without the project, thesignalized study intersection would operate at LOS B or better during the AM and PM peak hours.Page 8

Transportation Analysis for Caterina Hotel Project in Palo Alto, CaliforniaJanuary 28, 2019Table 3Intersection Level of Service SummaryNo Project#Intersection1El Camino Real and Dinahs CourtPeakHourAvg. Delay(sec)LOSExisting Conditionswith ProjectIncr. inIncr. inAvg. DelayCritical Delay .7A0.00.001Per the intersection level of service analysis, the southbound left-turn movement at the DinahsCourt intersection currently operates at LOS E, due to a short green-time and priority given to thenorth and south through-movements (El Camino Real). However, field observations showed avehicle queue of no greater than 6 vehicles compared to a vehicle storage capacity of 9 vehicles.With the addition of project traffic, the southbound left-turn movement at the study intersectionwould continue to operate at LOS E. This indicates that U-turning project vehicles at thisintersection would experience significant delays; however, the addition of project-generated traffic isexpected to have a minimal effect on intersection operations (see Vehicle Queuing Analysis below).Site Access and On-Site CirculationThe evaluation of the project’s site access and circulation is based on the site plan prepared byStudio T Square Architecture, dated October 17, 2018 (see Figure 5). Site access was evaluated todetermine the adequacy of the site’s driveways with regard to the following: traffic volume, delays,vehicle queues, geometric design, and corner sight distance. Figures 6 and 7 show the layouts ofthe two-level (B1 and B2) subterranean parking garage. On-site vehicular circulation was reviewedin accordance with generally accepted traffic engineering standards and transportation planningprinciples.Project Driveway DesignVehicular access to the project site would be provided via two driveways on El Camino Real. Thesouthern driveway would be located at approximately the same location as the existing restaurantexit only driveway. The northern driveway would be located approximately 40 feet south of theexisting restaurant enter only driveway. The driveways are shown to be 22 feet wide (northerndriveway) and 20 feet wide (southern driveway). The northern driveway would be for inbound trafficonly and is intended to accommodate drop-offs and deliveries under the Porte Cochere. Thesouthern driveway would accommodate inbound and outbound traffic and would connect to thesubterranean parking garage. Both driveways would meet the City’s minimum width requirement of20 feet. Parking for hotel registration is intended to occur in the subterranean parking garage.Nearby DrivewaysThe location of the project driveways was reviewed with respect to other driveways in the vicinity ofthe project. Nearby driveways are located approximately 125 feet north and 75 feet south of theproject driveways. While the project driveways would be close in proximity to the Crowne Plazadriveway south of the project, vehicles are still expected to be able to make turns in and out of theproject driveways without affecting similar operations at the adjacent driveway, given that drivewaysalong El Camino Real generally allow only right turns and because of the small number of trips thatthe project would generate. Therefore, the proposed driveway locations were found to be adequate.Page 9

Palo Alto Caterina Hotel &21) 50 (17(5 21/ %.,1* .,1*)(1&( .,1* %.,1*' '' '.,1* 286(.((3,1*% 2 .,1*75 )),& ',5(&7,21 6,*1 5(&(37,21*8(67(/(9 '523 2)) 21/ %/'* 287/,1( %29( %,.(3 5.,1*)52172)),&(6(59,&((/(9 *8(67 & (&. ,1 /2%% 83 .,1* .,1*.,1* '2:1 72* 5 *( *8(6712& (&. ,1 5,* 7 7851 6/23( .,1*:,1'2: : )5267(' */ 6675 )),& ',5(&7,21 6,*1 83 6/23( '1 &6KHHW 7LWOH)ORRU 3ODQ 6LWH 3ODQ/(' )/ 6 ,1* : 51,1* 6,*1(&1)( * 5 *( %(/2: & (O &DPLQR 5HDO 3DOR OWR & 5(675220 : 7 ,6 '2&80(17 &217 ,16 ,1)250 7,2135235,(7 5 72 678',2 7 64 ,1& 1' ,6 )851,6 (',1 &21),'(1&( )25 7 ( /,0,7(' 385326( 2)(9 /8 7,21 25 5(9,(: 7 ,6 '2&80(17 25 ,76&217(176 0 127 %( 86(' )25 1 27 (5385326( 1' 0 127 %( 5(352'8&(' 25',6&/26(' 72 27 (56 :,7 287 7 ( 35,25 :5,77(1&216(17 2) 678',2 7 64 ,1& // 5,* 76 5(6(59(' &23 5,* 7 7KH &DWHULQD RWHO % 5&21) 50 WK 6WUHHW 6XLWH 2DNODQG &DOLIRUQLD & 5&20,1** 5 *( %(/2:-RE 1R 'DWH6FDOH'UDZQ %\)(1&( 6,'(: /. 7 3 %D\VKRUH 5RDG 6XLWH 3DOR OWR & 75 16)5053 ' UFKLWHFWXUH 3ODQQLQJ 8UEDQ 'HVLJQ (;,67,1* 75((72 5(0 ,1 ; 3URSHUW\ //& (/ & 0,12 5( /83(/(& 6) 5(675220 0&21) 50 * 60(7(5.,7& (1 6)75 6 FX \G 6)1 &85%&87 )2575 6 &&(66 'Q FX \G 52// 83'225 *DO)(1&(75(( '5,3 /,1( 6,'(: /. 67 &.(' /21*7(50 6(&85((03/2 (( %,.( 3.1* 23(167 ,5 6KHHW 1R 1Figure 5Project Site Plan


Project Trip Estimates The magnitude of traffic produced by a new development and the locations where that traffic would appear were estimated using a three-step process: (1) trip generation, (2) trip distribution, and (3) trip assignment. In determining project trip g

Related Documents:

Issue of orders 69 : Publication of misleading information 69 : Attending Committees, etc. 69 : Responsibility 69-71 : APPENDICES : Appendix I : 72-74 Appendix II : 75 Appendix III : 76 Appendix IV-A : 77-78 Appendix IV-B : 79 Appendix VI : 79-80 Appendix VII : 80 Appendix VIII-A : 80-81 Appendix VIII-B : 81-82 Appendix IX : 82-83 Appendix X .

Appendix G Children's Response Log 45 Appendix H Teacher's Journal 46 Appendix I Thought Tree 47 Appendix J Venn Diagram 48 Appendix K Mind Map 49. Appendix L WEB. 50. Appendix M Time Line. 51. Appendix N KWL. 52. Appendix 0 Life Cycle. 53. Appendix P Parent Social Studies Survey (Form B) 54

Appendix H Forklift Operator Daily Checklist Appendix I Office Safety Inspection Appendix J Refusal of Workers Compensation Appendix K Warehouse/Yard Inspection Checklist Appendix L Incident Investigation Report Appendix M Incident Investigation Tips Appendix N Employee Disciplinary Warning Notice Appendix O Hazardous Substance List

The Need for Adult High School Programs 1 G.E.D.: The High School Equivalency Alternative 9 An Emerging Alternative: The Adult High School Ciploma 12 Conclusion 23 Appendix A -- Virginia 25 Appendix B -- North Carolina 35 Appendix C -- Texas 42 Appendix 0 -- Kansas 45 Appendix E -- Wyoming 48 Appendix F -- Idaho 56 Appendix G -- New Hampshire .

Appendix 4 . Clarification of MRSA-Specific Antibiotic Therapy . 43 Appendix 5 . MRSA SSI . 44 Appendix 6 . VRE SSI . 62 Appendix 7 . SABSI related to SSI . 74 Appendix 8 . CLABSI – Definition of a Bloodstream Infection . 86 Appendix 9 . CLABSI – Definition of a MBI -related BSI . 89 Appendix 10 . Examples relating to definition of .

Appendix E: DD Form 577 for Appointing a Certifying Officer 57 Appendix F: Sample GPC Appointment Letters 58 Appendix G: Formal Reporting Requirements 66 Appendix H: Semi-Annual Surveillance Report Template 70 Appendix I: GPC Thresholds 73 Appendix J: Glossary – Sections I and II 75 Chapter 1: The Government Purchase Card Program 1-1. Purpose a.

Appendix D: Active Voice vs Passive Voice . Appendix E: Examples, Use of D0000 . Appendix F: Additional Examples for Principles 2-6 . Appendix G: Examples, Use of D8100 . Appendix H: Examples, Lack of Documentation . Appendix I: Examples, DPS Does Not Match Findings . Appendix J: Examples, Repeating Regulations in the DPS

Appendix D, Prescribed Form for Bidder's Profile 35 12. Appendix E, Letter of Authorized Person in Charge 36 13. Appendix F, Undertaking 37 14. Appendix G, Form of Technical Proposal 38 15. Appendix H, Form of Financial Proposal 39 16. Appendix I, Form of Performance Security 40 17. Appendix J, Bank Guarantee for Advance Payment 41