Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-08-1999 City Council agenda -Special MeetingCk Ina- 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 • (408) 868 -1200 Incorporated October 22, 1956 February 4, 1999 NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC COUNCIL MEMBERS: Evan Baker Stan Bogoslan John Mehaffey Jim Shaw Nick Streit The Mayor of the City of Saratoga hereby calls a special joint meeting of the Saratoga City Council with the Planning Commission, Heritage Preservation Commission and the Public Safety Commission for the purpose of gathering information regarding the Saratoga Unified School District - Saratoga Elementary School renovation and expansion project. NO ACTION WILL BE TAKEN BY THE CITY COUNCIL AT THIS TIME. The special joint meeting will be held on Monday, February 8. 1999 at 8:30 a.m. in the Saratoga Elementary School at 14592 Oak Street. For the Mayor, Posted: February 4, 1999 Susan A. Ramos City Clerk cc: Printed on recycled paper. Saratoga News .I 7? n4 n A TT/� N /►�t E/JT. ,'� OQ 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 • (408) 868 -1200 Incorporated October 22, 1956 February 17, 1999 Dr. Mary Gardner, Superintendent Saratoga Union School District 20460 Forrest Hills Drive Saratoga, California 95070 RE: Response to Saratoga Elementary School Initial Study Dear Dr. Gardner: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Evan Baker Stan Bogosian John Mehaffey Jim Shaw Nick Streit This letter is in response to the environmental Initial Study prepared for the Saratoga Union School District by environmental consultants LSA Associates Inc. After careful review, it is my opinion that the Initial Study is not adequate to support an environmental Negative Declaration. The City Council, Public Safety Commission, Planning Commission and Heritage Preservation Commission and City staff have all reviewed the document and their comments are incorporated in this letter. While it is not the City's desire to delay the School District's plans to proceed with its project at the Saratoga Elementary School, I do believe that the School District needs to address the following issues before any legitimate environmental determination can be made: Cultural and Historic Resources Saratoga Elementary School is on the City's Heritage Resources Inventory and is therefore subject to environmental consideration in the Initial Study. Section 21084.1 of the California Environmental Quality Act requires that the demolition or alteration of any Federal, State or locally designated historic structure, and its grounds, be analyzed in the environmental assessment to determine if the proposal results in a significant environmental impact - in this case, a potential cultural impact. As a result, the plans for the Saratoga Elementary School expansion were presented to the Heritage Preservation Commission for consideration at its February 9 meeting. The HPC's position is that the removal of the eucalyptus trees, particularly the two largest trees at the edge of the playground, would result in a significant cultural impact that cannot be mitigated by simply planting new replacement trees in their place. The size, age and historic significance of these trees in the community are all contributing factors that are not adequately addressed in the Initial Study. Further, it is not sufficiently established in the Initial Study that these trees could not simply be pruned back and retained in an alternative project design. Printed on recycled paper. V Saratoga Union School District Page Two The HPC did find the proposed architecture to be appropriate, allowing the School to retain its local historic inventory status, with the following modifications: • The more contemporary architecture of the multiple- purpose building should be revised to better match the existing and proposed classroom buildings. • The tower element should either be repaired, or rebuilt if necessary, in its current location and not relocated to the multiple- purpose building. General Plan and Zoning Consistency The Initial Study states that the project complies with Saratoga's General Plan and Zoning designation standards. The General Plan does allow for schools in residential designated land use areas. However, the General Plan limits the amount of impervious coverage to 60% of the total site area. The amount of site coverage proposed is not indicated so it cannot be determined whether the proposed project meets this standard. (The attached Measure G citizens initiative also limits site coverage to 60% - the applicability of this Measure to the School District should be addressed by the District.) The Zoning Ordinance limits structures in the R -1 -10,00 zoning district to a maximum height of 26 ft. The proposed 37 ft. -plus tall structures are clearly not consistent with this standard. Grading and Site Development The Initial Study provides no details on the amount of grading necessary to level the playfield area. A Negative Declaration cannot be supported for this project without detailed grading and drainage plans. The California Department of Fish and Game and the Regional Water Quality Control Board also need to be consulted relative to potential biotic or wetlands impacts which could result from filling -in the natural drainage area. Traffic and Circulation Probably the most significant concern of the City, and most troubling deficiency of the Initial Study, is the absence of any solutions to traffic and circulation problems at the school. Clearly, the traffic measures offered in the Initial Study fail to adequately mitigate even the current traffic and circulation problems, let alone the impacts which will result from the additional traffic generated by the project. As a result, the Initial Study does not yet support a Negative Declaration. If a comprehensive traffic mitigation plan is prepared by the School District which demonstrates that the site can accommodate additional traffic safely, then a Mitigated Negative Declaration could be considered. `T Saratoga Union School District Page Three It needs to be stressed that as the lead agency, the responsibility for identifying and implementing project mitigation measures rests entirely with the School District. It is not appropriate for the Initial Study to defer mitigation to another agency (e.g. page 9, no. 5 "Develop a Suggested Route to School plan for the school. The City would develop the plan in conjunction with the District..." - this has apparently not even been discussed with City staff. Further, at the joint City Council meeting with the Public Safety Commission held on February 9, the City Council directed the PSC to formulate a written response to the Initial Study. At the PSC meeting held on February 11, the following response was drafted: "General Observations 1. There is a clear and convincing traffic safety issue with regard to the health and well- being of the school children. This was not addressed in the study conducted by LSA Associates Inc. 2. The stakeholders must recognize the potential liability exposures which currently exist and will likely increase with projected school enrollment increases. 3. The study is inadequate and does not address the current status of traffic issues nor does it address the future impact of same; no specific or global traffic mitigation plans have been offered. 4. A comprehensive, joint study needs to be addressed involving all stakeholders in this issue including, but not limited to, the Community, the City and the School District. This study needs to fully address traffic circulation problems affecting the immediate and ancillary neighborhoods, as well as the immediate condition present at the school. Specific Suggestions 1. Traffic related to the drop -off and pick -up of students should be removed from public streets. 2. There should be provision for adequate off -street parking for staff and visitors. 3. With projected increases in enrollment, consideration should be given to the issue of busing so that an adequate pick -up and drop -off area can be identified. 4. Provision should be made for traffic mitigation at the Forest Hills Drive gate. 5. There needs to be immediate clarification 'of any State of California setback (or other) requirements that would impinge upon the creation of a loading/unloading area on Oak Street." Technical Corrections Page 2 - The property is bounded by residential designated, and developed, land - not planned development. (Residential- Single Family to the north, south and east. Residential - Multiple Family to the west.) Page 14, No. 7 - Current Zoning: Residential - Single Family (R -1 -10, 000) Saratoga Union School District Page Four Page 14, No. 10 - The School District has indicated to the City that they intend to adopt a formal Resolution exempting the project from the City's Use Permit, Design Review and environmental land use review process. The City of Saratoga should therefore not be listed as an agency whose approval is required. Page 21 - Recreation impact b) is identified as less than significant on page 53, but is shown as having no significance on the checklist. Page 52 - The Initial Study was prepared under the State's old CEQA Guidelines, but will be considered under the State's new Guidelines. References such as Appendix K of the old Guidelines should be updated to reflect the new Guidelines section on archeological preservation. In summary, the City does not believe the School District can adopt a Negative Declaration based on the distributed Initial Study. At a minimum, the plans should be revised to retain the two largest eucalyptus trees, a detailed grading and drainage plan needs to be developed, and a comprehensive traffic and circulation mitigation plan needs to be prepared, and all of these should be recirculated as an addendum to the Initial Study. With this additional information, a Mitigated Negative Declaration could eventually be considered. Thank you for the opportunity to review the environmental Initial Study. If you have any questions regarding the concerns raised in this letter, please contact Community Development Director James Walgren at (408) 868 -1232 to discuss this matter further. Sincerely, Jim Shaw, Mayor City of Saratoga c: City Council Public Safety Commission Planning Commission Heritage Preservation Commission City Manager City Attorney APR 07 '99 03 :35PM WSA SAN FRANCISCO 415 436 9337 P.2i20 SARATOGA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL TRANSPORTATION STUDY DRAFT REPORT Prepared for Saratoga Union School District by //I 01 AMMERS slamuffm WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES April 7, 1999 APR 07 '99 03 :35PM WSA SAN FRANCISCO 415 436 9337 TABLE OF CONTENTS P. 320 1 Project Description .......................................................................... ............................... 1 2 Setting ......................................................................................... ............................... 2 2.1 Study Area Roadways ....................................................... ............................... 2 3 Fidsting Conditions .......................................................................... ............................... 2 3.1 Queuing Conditions .......................................................... ............................... 2 3. 1.1 AM Peak Period ................... ............................... 3 .. ............................... 3.1.2 PM Peak Period ..................................................... ............................... 3 3.2 Traffic Circulation Conditions ......................................... ............................... 4 3.3 Pedestrian and Bicycle Conditions ................................... ............................... 6 3.4 Parking ......................................................... ............................... •................. 6 4 Future Conditions ............................................................................ ............................... 6 4.1 Queuing Conditions .......................................................... ............................... 6 4.1,1 AM Peak Period .................................................... ............................... 7 4.1.2 PM Peak Period. ................................................................................... 8 4.1.3 Enrollment Cap of 450 Students ........................... ............................... 9 4.2 Pedestrian and Bicycle Conditions ................................... ............................... 12 4.3 Parking .............................................................................. ............................... 12 5 Recommended Improvement Measures ........................................ ............................... 14 Figures 1 Existing Arrivals & Departures: On -site Loading Zone —Afternoon Period ................ 5 2 Projected Arrivals & Departures: Oak Street — Afternoon Period .. ............................... 10 3 Projected Arrivals & Departures: On -site Loading Zone — Afternoon Period ............... 11 4 Recommended Improvement Measures ........................................... ............................... 17 Tables 1 Current Morning Passenger Unloading Zone Utilization ................ ............................... 3 2 Current Afternoon Passenger Loading Zone Utilization ................. ............................... 4 3 Future Increase in Morning Passenger Unloading Zone Demand .................................. 8 4 Future Afternoon Passenger Loading Zone Demand ....................... ............................... 9 340760 SARATOGoA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL TRANSPORTATION SNDY WILBUR SMRN ASSOCIATES APR 07 '99 03 :36PM WSA SAN FRANCISCO 415 436 9337 P.420 SARATOGA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL TRANSPORTATION STUDY This report evaluates the proposed circulation plan and site plan of Saratoga Elementary School that is planned as part of the expansion of the school. Specifically, this evaluation addresses the extent to which the plan meets the following objectives: • Provide safe passenger loading/unloading areas; • Prevent queues from spilling over into travel lanes; • Improve traffic flow without compromising safety conditions in the area; and • Remove school - related parldng from the adjacent streets. 1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The school site is located in a residential area at 14592 Oak Street near Komina Avenue, less than five miles southwest of Highway 85 in the City of Saratoga. The school is for students in kindergarten through fifth grade and currently consists of a main building, three additional classroom buildings, seven modular classrooms, a play area, and a parking lot. For the purpose of this report, Oak Street is considered to be oriented in the north -south direction. The proposed project includes the expansion of the existing school facilities to accommodate the projected increase from 420 students to 500 students by the year 2007/2008. The expected 19 percent increase in student enrollment would also increase the school staff at Saratoga Elementary School from 34.75 full -time equivalent positions to 43.85 full time equivalent staff members. In addition to new buildings, modeniization of remaining buildings, additional parking, correction of drainage problems, and a larger play area, the following circulation improvements would be made to accommodate the anticipated increase in automobile traffic at the site: • Creation of a counter - clockwise on -site circulation patter; • Development of more on -site passenger loading/unloading capacity; • The relocation of the school driveways increases the total school frontage available for an Oak Street curbside passenger loading/unloading zone from its current length of 300 feet to 400 feet; • Better utilization of Oak Street as a passenger loadinglunloading zone, i.e. by designating specific loading areas with student safety patrol or volunteer at each one; • Development of a "Suggested Route to School" Plan for the school, and distribute the Plan to students and parents; and • ALTRANS would initiate a bussing program in the District. The program would begin with two buses, which would serve up to three routes each. 240760 SARATOGA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL TRANSPORTATION STUDY WILAUR SMITH ASSOCIATES Pap. 1 APR 07 '99 03:37PM WSA SAN FRANCISCO 415 436 9337 2. SETTING 2.1 Study Area Roadways P. 5/20 The school site is bounded by Oak Street to the west and Komina Avenue to the south Oak Street has one travel lane in each direction, and on -street parking on the west side of the street. There is a passenger loading /unloading zone with white rub and signs reading ` Tassenger Loading Zone 8AM — 3PNf' on the east side of-the street, i eK Oak Street has sidewalks immediately in front of the school and immediately across from the school, but no sidewalks are provided on Oak Street south of Komina Avenue and sidewalks are discontinuous north of the school. The only vehicular access onto the site is provided from Oak Street. Pedestrian access into the school site is provided from Oak Street and limited pedestrian access, primarily for kindergartners, is provided from Komina Avenue. Komina Avenue is a narrow street, approximately 25 feet in width, with a passenger loading/unloading zone approximately 150 feet in length on the north side and on- street parking on the south side of the street immediately in front of residences. Komina Avenue does not have sidewalks on either side ofthe street. 3. EXISTING CONDITIONS 3.1 Queuing Conditions In order to evaluate the impact of queues on traffic circulation on adjacent streets, two different kinds of capacity must be considered. First, there is the storage capacity, or the number of vehicles that can be stored out of the travel lanes .of adjacent streets. Secondly, the service capacity must also be considered. Service capacity is defined as the number of vehicles that can be served at one time, or the number of vehicles that can be loading/unloading passengers at one time. If the provision of storage capacity is determined as the priority, the result may be queues of vehicles that are sustained over a longer duration of time, with minimized spillover onto adjacent streets. However, if and when spillover did occur, it would also be sustained for a longer period of time. On the other hand, if the service capacity is prioritized, queues may be more likely to spillover onto adjacent streets, but the duration of these queues would be sustained for a shorter period of time. Service capacity is Iimited by the rate at which vehicles enter the service area. If an insufficient number of vehicles are available to enter the service area at the same time, the loadinglunloading zone will not operate at maximum efficiency. There are currently three passenger loading/unloading areas sowing the Saratoga Elementary School. The 300 -foot white curb space on Oak Street in front of the school could accommodate up to 15 vehicles simultaneously, but students and parent volunteers are only provided for approximately four vehicles within the zone. Some of the other vehicles entering this zone behind the first four vehicles drop -off and pick-up their children without assistance, which increases the actual service capacity to approximately five vehicles. The 150 -foot white curb space on Komina Avenue can accommodate up to seven vehicles simultaneously. Although it is designated for use by kindergarten classes only, it is being used unofficially by drivers of children of other grades as well. Finally, the on -site passenger loadinglunloading lane that 310760 SARATOGA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL TRANSPORTATION STUDY Y*ILBIM SAM ASSOCIATES Page 2 APR 07 '99 03 :37PM WSA SAN FRANCISCO 415 436 9337 P.6/20 circumscribes the on -site parking lot can accommodate two vehicles loading/unloading simultaneously and ten vehicles in a queue behind these vehicles. In addition, drivers were observed to drop -off children on -site in the parking area (i.e., not at the officially designated unloading spaces). The combined use of the designated passenger loadinghmloading spaces and the parldng Iot provide an actual service capacity of four vehicles. Including the Oak Street passenger loadinglunloading zone, there is a defacto service capacity of nine vehicles. 3.1.1 AM Peak Period - The morning peak period was observed on Thursday, March 25th, between 7 :30AM and 9:OOAM. During the morning period, drivers drop off children relatively quickly and efficiently. The student and adult volunteer guides greatly improve the efficiency of the process by directing drivers to pull as far forward as possible before unloading children and by opening vehicle doors to help students exit vehicles. The maximum "processing rate," or rate at which vehicles unloaded children was observed on Oak Street to be approximately ten seconds per vehicle for four, unloading spaces. Queues beyond the capacity of the combined curb space and on -site queuing lane were observed for a short period of time during the morning; between 8:20AM and 8:30AM. Vehicles waiting to pull into the Oak Street drop -off zone queued on northbound Oak Street south of the intersection with Komina Avenue and around the corner on westbound Komina Avenue itself. Vehicles entering the on -site parking area (via left- turns) to unload students queued on southbound Oak Street. Table 1 indicates the number of vehicles observed using each drop -off area. TABLE 1 CURRENT MORNING PASSENGER UNLOADING ZONE UTILIZATION Drropwo tiArea On -site Drop- Teachers Oak Street Komina off Lane Parkinz Lot Curb Avenue Curb Total 8:00AM Start (kindergarten) 6 2 15 7 30 8:30AM Start 62 35 108 27 232 Total Number of Vehicles 68 37 123 34 262 Percentage of Total Vehicles 26% 14% 47% 1 13% 1000/6 3.1.2 PM Peak Period - The afternoon peak period was observed on Thursday, March 25th, between 2:OOPM and 4:00PM. During the afternoon, vehicles queued on Komina Avenue and in both directions on Oak Street to pick up children. Approaching the school from the south, vehicles queued on westbound Komina Avenue and northbound Oak Street alternating entrance into the queue at the Oak Street loading/unloading zone as space becomes available. Queues of vehicles waiting to enter the on -site passenger loadinglunloading lame were observed on southbound Oak Street. 3W60 SARATOGA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL TRANSPORYATION STUDY W4AUR SMMf ASSOC/MTES Pope 3 APR 07 '99 03 :38PM WSA SAN FRANCISCO 415 436 9337 P.7i20 Figure 1 indicates the cumulative arrivals and departures of vehicles using the on -site circulation area, both the official loadingAmloading lane and the parking area. The vertical distance between the arrival and departure curves indicate the number of vehicles queued on the site at five- minute increments. Note that the peak queue was observed immediately after dismissal at 3:05 PM, when 17 vehicles were on the school site waiting for children. One can determine the existing processing rate by the slope of the departure curve. At 3.05 PM, only 43 vehicles had left the passenger loading zone, but by 3:10 P1Vl[, 63 vehicles had left the site; this indicates that 20 vehicles left the site in five minutes. With two official loading spaces in the passenger loading lane and two defacto loading spaces operating in the. parking lot, this yields an maximum processing rate of 15 seconds per vehicle for four loading spaces. Queues were also observed on a Wednesday, which is essentially a worst -case scenario because grades 1 -5 are dismissed simultaneously at 2 :10PM. The peak queue lengths occurred at 2:10PM just prior to dismissal. All queues were observed to be completely dispersed by 2:20PU Table 2 indicates the number of vehicles currently using each passenger loading area in the afternoon. TABLE 2 CURRENT AFTERNOON PASSENGER LOADING ZONE UTILIZATION Pi Area On -site Komina Drop -off Teachers Oak Street Avenue Total Lane Parking Lot Curb Curb 2:20AM Dismissal 15 15 32 10 72 3 :OOPM Dismissal 30 29 55 11 125 Total Number of Vehicles 45 44 87 21 1 197 Percentage of Total Vehicles 1 24.0% 23.2% 1 44.0% 8.8% 100.0% 3.2 Traffic Circulation Conditions Vehicles traveling to and from the school site in the mornings and afternoons approach the school on various routes. Some vehicles turn onto Oak Street from Saratoga -Los Gatos Road, of which the majority queue to turn left into the on -site circulation area. Vehicles that wish to use the Oak Street passenger loadinglunloading zone either come from other parts of the neighborhood, turn onto Aloha Avenue from Saratoga -Los Gatos Road, then travel on Komina Avenue before turning right onto Oak Street, or turn left onto Oak Street from Sixth Street. The intersection of Aloha Avenue and Saratoga -Los Gatos Road is currently undesirable as a school access - egress route, primarily due to inadequate sight distance. Any additional school - related traffic at this intersection is not encouraged due to the substandard conditions_ $40760 SARATOGA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL TRANSPORTATION STUDY W BUR SMffM ASSOCU7iS Page 4 m d L .fl a t> a 7 E V 120 T00 so 60 40 20 Figure 1 Fidsting Cumulative Arrivals and Departures On -site Passenger Loading Lane & Parking Lot - Afternoon Period 1 1 1 1 ► I I 1 t 1 1 1 1 t I 1 1 1 [ 1 1 1 , I 1 1 1 1 l I 1 1 , 1 1 1 ► 1 1 1 1 1 r . 1 1 , 1 --- 1---+--- F--- 1---+--- �--- 1--- �--- F--- 1---;--- F--- t--- �--- F--- 1---- 1--- t�--- F--- f--- +--- F--�- - - +- -- I 1 I 1 1 1 I I 1 1 1 1 I t r 1 I 1 t t 1 1 1 1 1 92 1 1 1 1 t I [ 1 1 1 1 I 1 [ I I 1 t 1 , 190 I 90 1 91 I 1 87 t 86 5 8 [ 85 1 I , 1 i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i 61 1 1 1 78 891 89 J- __L___r- __J --- L__- 1___1__ -L -__L 1__- ITB_ -1 _J_ I 1 1 I 1 I l 1 1 1 I I 1 1 1 1 2:_ 1 1 1 1 1 72 91 I 1 1 1 t 1 I 1 1 l , 1 [ I 1 1 1 1 [ I 1 •I , t I I 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 I I 1 1 , t t 1 t t I 1 1 1 • 1 1 1 I I 1 1 1 1 t 1 1 1 t 1 [ 1 1 1 1 1 l 1 I t 1 I 1 - -1 - - -r - -- 1_ 1 l 1 1 1 1 1 9 1 1 1 l 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 --L -- `- - - -- -' - - -� - - - - -� - -I ---- -� - --� - -'� 1 1 I 1 j- - -; - -- 1 I 1 1 1 1 I I 1 I 1 f Y1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 I t I I 1 I 1 1 1 c 1 1 I 1 I I t I 1 1 �V 1 1 I I 1 1 1 I I t I 1 1 I I 1 I I 1 I i 1 1 1 1 I I I 1 1 I 1 1 1 t 1 ,40 1 �--- r--- 1--- -3--- r - -- - - - r--- r-- -i--- r--- r-- �- - -T - -- 1 1 1 1 7 I 1 I 133 1 1 I 1 , 1 :27 1 30 i i i i i i 1 1 31 3i i i i i i i i i —* -ArrivCls I 1 I [ 1 1 24 1 I 1 1 1 I 1 1 ! I , 1 I 1 —21—Departures e P Q r%ures --- ,__-i- --1'--_1---i 1'--- 1---' 1--- F--- 1--- i---•'--- I--- i--- h--- F-- 1-- -1'---1'--i--- +--- F.--- 1- __f - -_ 1 1 1 1 t 1 1 1 1 r 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 14 o — -- - d d 4 all- d R<. 4 a :4z 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 O r[! O tn O 111 O in O ut O " N O t� 1� O to O N n7 M `R `T � in O O r- � ` to In O tV cV c`I N cV (N N 6i 6i cal i-i 6i 6 cv 6 6 tti Time of Day APR 07 '99 03 :39PM WSA SAN FRANCISCO 415 436 9337 P.9i20 The block of Oak Street north of Komina Avenue immediately in front of the school is 34.5 feet wide. Oak Street narrows to only 30 feet wide essentially opposite the relocated entrance and exit driveways, for approximately 150 feet south of Third Street Oak Street has one travel lane in each direction and unrestricted parking is permitted on the west side of the street. The east side of the street, adjacent to the school, is used as a passenger loading/unloading zone. For most of the school frontage, there is no centerline; however there is a double yellow line extending north from the intersection with Komina Avenue for approximately 53 feet. The double yellow line is not located in the center; it is approximately 14.75 fed from the face of curb on the east side of the street. The location of the striping creates a 14.75 -foot wide northbound and a 19.75 foot -wide southbound lane width. It appears to have been striped to facilitate southbound traffic approaching the intersection of Komina rather than to facWtate traffic circulation for the school. The effects of the off - center stripe seem to be felt further north after the stripe has terminated. Existing traffic circulation in the vicinity of the school is constrained by the queues for passenger loading/unloading zones encroaching on the travel lanes. This is true for both northbound traffic affected by cars queuing at the curbside for student loading/unloading, and for southbound traffic delayed by cars queuing to turn left into the onsite circulation area. 3.3 Pedestrian and Bicycle Conditions Currently, the school has a sidewalk immediately in front of the school on the east side of Oak Street and immediately across from the school on the west side of Oak Street. However, south of Komina Avenues sidewalks are non - existent or discontinuous on both the east and west sides of the street. No sidewalks are provided on either the north or south side of Komina Avenue. The lack of sidewalks and bike paths/lanes make the site difficult to safely access from other areas of the neighborhood as a pedestrian or bicyclist. 3.4 Parking There are 25 on -site parking spaces for both staff and teachers. There are currently 34.75 existing full -time equivalents (FTE). This is a ratio of 0.72 spaces per FIE, which is about half of the State Department of Education guidelines for the construction of new schools, which recommends 1.5 spaces per FTE. The existing site plan does not designate any of its 25 spaces as visitor parking. The visitor parking is currently accommodated on the street; if Oak Street fills with longer term staff parking, then visitors must park further away. 4. FUTURE CONDITIONS The following analysis assumes a Saratoga Elementary School enrollment of 500 students. The impact of capping the enrollment to 450 students is addressed in section 4.1.3. 4.1 Queuing Conditions The proposed site plan would provide two passenger loadinglunloading areas to serve the Saratoga Elementary School. The relocation of the school driveways increases the total school frontage available for the Oak Street curbside passenger loading /unloading zone over existing conditions by approximately 100 feet. The proposed plan indicates that the Oak Street loadinglunloading zone should have five designated loading spaces with volunteers or student 710760 SARATOGA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL TRANSPORTATION STUDY W718UR SMITH ASSOCIATES Pape 6 APR 07 '99 03 :40PM WSA SAN FRANCISCO 415 436 9337 P.10/20 safety patrol provided at each space. It is now recommended that the white cub space on Oak Street in front of the school be marked with up to eight designated loading spaces; the remaining 14 of these 20 spaces would be used for queuing. For this to work most efficiently ,these eight designated spaces would need to be utilized simultaneously, similar to the procedure for the existing conditions. Specifically, the student or adult volunteer aides direct a block of eight cars to pull into the eight spaces, they then discharge their passengers simultaneously. Then the volunteers direct the next eight cars, who have queued behind the loading area, to pull into the eight designated spaces. Ensuring that vehicles are queued before entering the passenger loadinglunloading zone allows all of the vehicles to be served simultaneously, which prevents randomly arriving vehicles from preventing the most efficient use of the 400 -foot passenger loading/unloading and queuing zone. This applies the first -in- first -out (FIFO) operation to a block of vehicles rather than single vehicles both in the afternoon period as well as the morning. The on -site passenger loading/unloading lane that would accommodate six vehicles loadinglunloading simultaneously should operate the same way; two vehicles can queue onsite, and the remainder would queue as vehicles waiting to turn left or in the red zone on Oak Street. Thus, with the recommended change to the Oak Street passenger loading/unloading zone, the proposed site plan would provide a combined storage capacity for 28 vehicles and a combined service capacity for 14 vehicles. Thus, although the storage capacity of the proposed site plan would be only one vehicle (four percent) greater than that currently provided on Oak Street and on -site, the total site service capacity would be increased by five vehicles (a 56 percent increase). 4.1.1 AM Peek Period - During the morning, parents can drop -off their children and then immediately leave, so vehicles have a relatively short duration in the drop -off zones. Vehicles entering the passenger unloading zones in the morning operate much more efficiently, generally following the FIFO operation. Also, it appears that parents are more likely to drop -off their kids at school than pick them up from school, since the school start time more closely coincides with the time that parents are traveling to their workplaces. Therefore, there are more cars in the morning than in the afternoon period, but the vehicles at the site in the morning can be processed at a faster rate. 4.1.1.1 AM Peak Period Demand - It was assumed that the 19 percent increase in students would create a 19 percent increase in the number of vehicles traveling to and from the site to drop off children. As shown in Table 3, the proposed 19 increase translates to an additional fifty vehicles traveling to and from the site on a typical morning. 710760 SARATOGA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL TRANSPORTATION STUDY WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES Pepe 7 APR 07 '99 03 :41PM WSA SAN FRANCISCO 415 436 9337 P.11 /20 TABLE 3 FUTURE INCREASE IN MORNING PASSENGER UNLOADING ZONE DEMAND Dro ofiAna On -site Drop -of Oak Street Zone Curb Total Future 8:OOAM Start 11 25 36 Future 8 :30AM Start 83 193 276 Future Total Number of Vehicles 94 218 312 Percentage of Total Vehicles 300/a 70% 1000/0 4.1.1.2 AM Peak Period Supply - The proposed site plan would provide a 56 percent increase in loading spaces at the Oak Street curb space and on -site passenger unloading zone. The proposed site plan would eliminate the use of the Komina Avenue curb space and on -site parking lot for passenger loading and unloading zones. This 56 percent increase in service capacity would be sufficient to accommodate the 19 percent increase in vehicles associated with the proposed expansion, the 13 percent of vehicles that are currently using the Komina Avenue drop -off area, and the 14 percent of vehicles using the teachers parking lot to drop -off children. Some on-street queuing would still occur because of the high demand that occurs for the short period of time (five minutes) immediately before school begins. However, because the processing rate is greater under the proposed plan, queues will disperse more quickly. 4.1.2 PM Peak Period - During the afternoon, parents wart for their children to enter their vehicle, meaning the rate at which a child can be picked up is dependent on a child being ready to be picked up. Consequently drivers spend more time in the passenger loading zones than during the morning peak period. however, the pick -up process at Saratoga Momentary School is fairly efficient. School st4 adult volunteers, and students help "match" students with the vehicles in the queue and help students enter vehicles so that the process is as quick as possible. This program is assumed to continue in the future and will be necessary to manage traffic. at the site as the student enrollment increases. 4.1.2.1 PM Peak Period Demand - It was assumed that the 19 percent increase in students would create a 19 percent increase in the number of vehicles traveling to and from the site to pick -up children in the afternoon. As shown in Table 4, the proposed 19 percent increase translates to an additional 37 vehicles traveling to and from the site on a typical afternoon for a total of 234 vehicle trips. 310760 SARATOGA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL TRANSPORTATION STUDY WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES Pose B APR 07 '99 03:41PM WSA SAN FRANCISCO 415 436 9337 P. 12/20 TABU4 FUTURE AFTERNOON PASSENGER LOADING ZONE DEMAND Dro -off Area Total On -site Pick -up Zone Oak Street Curb Future 2:20PMDismissal 26 60 86 Future 3:OOPM Dismissal 44 104 148 Future Total Number of Vehicles 70 164 234 Percentage of Total Vehicles 1 30% 70% 100% 4.1.2.2 PM Peak Period Supply - The proposed site plan would provide a 56 percent increase in loading spaces at the Oak Street curb space and on -site passenger loading zone. This 56 percent increase would be sufficient to accommodate the 19 percent increase in vehicles associated with the proposed expansion, the nine percent of vehicles that are currently using the Komina Avenue drop -off arcs, and the 23 percent of vehicles picking up children in the teachers parking lot. Figures 2 and 3 indicate the cumulative vehicle arrivals and departures at the Oak Street passenger loading zone and the on -site parking lot passenger loading zone, respectively. Figure 2 indicates a projected queue of 23 vehicles at the Oak Street passenger loading zone at 3:OOPM, indicating that approximately three vehicles would be queued on the street waiting to enter the zone_ However, by 3.05PK only nine vehicles would be in the Oak Street passenger loading zone with no vehicles queued on the street. Figure 3 shows a projected queue of ten vehicles at the on -site parking lot/passenger loading zone at 3:OOPK indicating that two vehicles would be queued on Oak Street at that tune. By 3:05PK only three vehicles would remain in the on -site passenger loading area and no vehicles would be queued on the street. 4.1.3 Enrollment Cap of 450 Students - If enrollment were capped at 450 students, this would be a seven percent increase in enrollment. Assuming traffic is proportional to enrollment, there would be a seven percent increase in traffic traveling to and from the site each morning or an additional 19 vehicle trips for a total of 281 morning vehicle trips. This would be 31 fewer vehicles traveling to and from the site each morning than an enrollment of 500 students. There would also be a severs percent increase in traffic traveling to and from the site each afternoon or 14 additional vehicles, for a total of 211 vehicle trips. This is 23 fewer vehicles than would beat the site each afternoon with an enrollment of 500 students. 340YU SARATOGA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL TRANSPORTATION STUDY WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES Page 9 ISO 160 T40 120 100 E Z 80 `o E 60 v 40 20 Figure 2 Projected Cumulative Arrivals and Departures Oak Street Passenger Loading Zone - Afternoon Peak Period , 1 166 16� 162 -- -' - -- �- - -1 - - -� - --L-- �-- -J - -- �- _- L- _-'--- J--- 1-- -1- - -� -- -'-- -1--- 1-- -1 -- -� k -J i 752 '152' f ZI �� 164 6q IIII 12 1 1 1 IrY? 1 1 I 1 I 35 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 _ 44__f_I___�___a___F___ }___I___ r t 1 t 1 1 I 1 I 1 1 1 1 / 28 q5 I t 1 I t I 1 I 1 1 ( 1 1 1 I f I I I 1 ) 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 I I I --- - 1--- 1-- -T--- f--- 1-- ---- 7---- - -I - -- i-- -1- - -T- -- - - -� -- 7---1 - - --j -- '1----1-- -T-- -r---j -- ) 107 1 I 1 I I I [ I I I 1 1 1 { 1 1 I 1 1 1 I 1 1 . 3-.._ 1___ L___ L _- _I___J_- _1LIJ1 -IL__J___1-1-__ L f t I I 1 1 1 l 1 I I f 1 1 I 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 I , ( I I 1 1 I 1 1 1 l 1 r t 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 - i--- 7--- r- -- r--- I-- -'T- -- t--- T_- _��jj__"1 _1___ --- t��- I---^ I__- t-- -r"--- t- -- 1--- 7- '- f--- i-- -i -__' 1 , r 1 I 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 ►,y , I 1 eB t 1 [ 1 1 I I 9 I 1 1 , I t 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 --- 1------ +- - -F- -- -- '�--- +---- --1 - -- '+---a -- -1'---x---1----1 --- +---4�--1--- N---1 --- I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 I f 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 I I I I 1 I 1 1 1 I 1 I I I 1 1 I 1 I 1 1 1 I 1 I I I 1 1 I t 1 I 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 r I 1 I I 1 Y I 1 1 I I I I 1 1 1 f 1 1 1 I I 1 1 1 1 ) 1 I I 1 1 1 r 1 1 1 I 1 --- ArrlNQjs 1 -- -I- '-7-- -7- --� - T---1---"1-_'-7---r---1---'1---',---T---1----1---1---i---r---r--'l- _� -_ 7 ) 1i4 i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i— �Deparfunes 1/ A I 0 1 10 4 4 0. 0. a 4 d 4 4 I 4 O tt) O h O Irf O 1A O Ifj O h O In O In O )l7 O N N M C9 It W) O O •. N N 117 n7 `.t R V 1 Ill O N n! t`1 M N nl N N M N L`I k7i 6 /;7 n7 M I;j 6 1" M 6 6 -4 Time of Day 80 70 60 V > 50 L 41 E 40 Z m 30 7 3 20 10 Figure 3 Projected Cumulative Arrivals and Departures On -site Parking Lot - Afternoon Peak Period Time of Day a M M a a a s a IL a a a IL a [ ! 1 1 I 1 I l [ I I [ I I I 1 I 1 I I [� I 6.7 168 ' 68 1 ' 70 o to o U) o In W f I 1 [ I I 1 I 1 1 1 I 1 1 I 1 I 1 1 65 65 0 W) o O O r r N N n In � 1 I In 44 O O r +�- N M M it it In In O N N N N N N N 1 N I I , I I I I { 1 I ih J--- J___ 1_-- L___ L --- 1___ J ___J___1___L___L___I___J___J V) L__- L- _J_-- J--- L_- _L_ -_L___ ,h 1 I 1 1 1 l l I \ I I 1 1 I 1 1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 t I 1 1 I I 1 1 I I I I 1 I 1 [ 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I 1 ! I I [ 1 I 1 1 I I 1 I I t I 1 1 1 1 1 l I 1 ! I I 1 1 I I 1 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 I _L -- J--- J--- 1--- L--- t-- -'-- -,' - -- -- -1--- �----- - -' - -- ----J --- I --- L-- -L--- '--- J--- J 1 L-- 1 1 --- --- -� -- I 1 1 1 1 t [ 1 1 1 I 1 d6 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I 1 I I I 1 I I 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 t 1 I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I 1 t 1 I 1 1 t 1 1 1 I I 1 I 1 1 1 4 1 I I 1 1 I t 1 139 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 1 { 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 1 1 1 I I 1 1 I I I 1 1 I 1 f 1 1 11'30 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 [ I I 1 I 1 1 1 1 , 1 I I 1 I I f 1 --- r--- 1---- 1 --- -[---r-- -r--- r- --t- -- -t- - -r- -r-- -r � 2 - y--- �--- �--- r-- -r--- -r-- -1- -- 7--- r--- r-- -1- - -- 1 1 1 1 I t I 1 1 1 1 1 [ I I I 12 1 1 27 1 71 P� 1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ­4- Arrivals [ i i i i i 1l4 i i i i i i i i i i i i i -0-- Departures ; 1 1 I I I ! [ 1 1 1 I I 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I 1 --- I'--- I---'1- --1- -- ---t'---1---J---J---1---L---L---1----1---J---1---L---L---L__J___J___1-__L-_-L--- I I 1 1 1 1 t I I 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 ! 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 61 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 { 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 I [ 1 I 1 1 1 1 I I 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I { I I I I 1 1 I I 1 I 1 f Time of Day a M M a a a s a IL a a a IL a n. a a. CL a s a a a a a C) In o to o U) o In o to o to o In o In o In O In o u7 0 W) o O O r r N N n In � � In 44 O O r +�- N M M it it In In O N N N N N N N N N N N N cri ih {h Ih Q9 M V) V) (0 Cl) ,h M Iw Time of Day APR 07 '99 03:43PM WSA SAN FRANCISCO 415 436 9337 P.15/20 4.2 Pedestrian and Bicycle Conditions The proposed site plan includes a pedestrian/bicycle path connection to Forrest Hills Drive that would largely serve students living on Forrest Hills Drive and Aloha Avenue. This path would make walking and bicycling a more feasible mode for traveling to and from school. The provision of passenger loading/unloading activity at this location is not advised, as it would require out -of- the -way travel for drivers, and would increase traffic in this part of the neighborhood. There is no sidewalk on Komina Avenue. The street is narrow, 25 feet, the school property line is located only one foot $om the edge of pavement, and the Tennis Club's tennis courts on the north side of the street are also located very close to the roadway. The narrow road and limited right -of -way combine to make the provision of sidewalks difficult within the existing right -of- way. It is recommended that parking be prohibited on the north side of Komina Avenue. With the prohibition of parking, it may be possible to construct a narrow sidewalk using some school property and up to one to two feet of roadway. 4.3 Parking The proposed site plan indicates that 43 perking spaces will be provided onsite. The parking demand is generated by both employees Ji.e. teachers, teachers' aides, office staff and custodians), who are reflected in the full -time equivalent (FTC figures, and visitors/school volunteers, who are not reflected in the FTE figures. There is not necessarily a one- to-one correlation between FTE and required parking supply. First, not all staff work full time, so a FTE of 40 could mean 60 actual employees. However, this is offset by the fact that there are many part-time employees who do not work every day or who are not on the site at the same time everyday. For example, a morning teachers' aide is not at the school site at the same time as the afternoon custodian. It is also offset by employees who use alternative transportation to get to work (e.g. carpool, bus, bike or walk). However, an analysis of the work schedules of all the employees and their commute modes was beyond the scope of this study. In addition to employee parking, schools also need visitor parking. This is for short-term parking for those who are conducting business or errands and volunteer parking; e.g. parents who come to help out for one to several hours a day. The school staff estimates that currently, there can be twenty to thirty visitors/volunteers onsite at once on a typical day. Since about 75 percent of the students are within the local school attendance boundary, presumably many of these parents live close enough to walk and some actually do walk. To determine the actual peak parking demand, an hourly parking survey of the site and vicinity would be necessary. Given the dispersed nature of parking for Saratoga Elementary School, field observations would be somewhat complex due to the difficulty of watching where people come ilom who have parked offsite. This was beyond the scope of this study. For lack of any data, it will be assumed that 80 percent of the visitors /volunteers drive and park to school This means that the twenty to thirty volunteers use 16 to 24 parking on-greet parking spaces. One way to measure whether the proposed supply is an improvement over existing conditions is to compare the ratio of parking supply to the number of employees. The number of employees projected for the future enrollment of 500 students is 43.75 FTE. This results in a ratio of 0.98 510760 SARATOGA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL TRANSPORTATION STUDY YMBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES Page 12 APR 07 '99 03:44PM WSA SAN FRANCISCO 415 436 9337 P.16/20 spaces per FTE. The ratio of existing onsite parking to existing employees is 0.72. Thus the future supply is more than the existing parking supply, both in absolute numbers, 43 spaces compared to 25 spaces, and in terms of parking spaces per employee. It is expected that the proposed supply of 43 spaces will not accommodate all employee and visitor parking. Some parking will need to be accommodated offsite, as is currently the case. However, since the proposed site plan has 18 more spaces than the current site plan, and only nine more FM, it is estimated that fewer cars would be parking offfshe than under existing conditions. Several alternatives have been raised to accommodate the excess parking demand. These are evaluated below: 1. Parking at the District Offices - The district office, located on Forrest Hill Drive, is located within an easy five- minute walk from Saratoga Elementary School. The supply and demand at this location was evaluated to determine if this site could accommodate any of the excess demand from Saratoga School. Currently the site has 16 spaces for 14 employees. Again a parking utilization study was not performed to determine the adequacy of the 16 spaces for the 14 employees. With the planned improvements at this site, there will be 17 spaces for 20 employees. Providing more onsite parking at the district office does not appear feasible without sacrificing some of the very mature trees onsite, including the "Oldest tree in Saratoga." Thus, there will be fewer spaces per employee in the future at the District site. In addition, the District site will have a conference room, which will hold approximately 30 people. The parking for the attendees of these meetings cannot be accommodated onsite. In conclusion, there appears to be no opportunity to accommodate any of the Saratoga Elementary School parking demand at the District office site. 2. Parking on Forrest Hill Drive - Accommodating excess parldng demand on Forrest Hills Drive itself is theoretically feasible, staff could walk to the site via the planned pathway through the District offices site. However, this does not solve the offsite parking issue, it merely moves it from one street to another. Given that the future offsite parking demand should be less than existing conditions, thus lessening the impact on the streets currently used for offsite parking, there is no reason to shift any impacts to other streets. 3. Mite Leasing for Staff Parking - Leasing parking spaces from other organizations is another option to accommodate excess parking demand. This could be explored as an alternative to or in addition to the use of on- street parking. However, as stated previously, the on- street parking demand is estimated to be less than under existing conditions. 4. On-street Parking - The most feasible way to accommodate the excess parking demand is the use of the adjacent streets. Oak Street opposite the school can accommodate 21 cars. Typically, closer parking is designated as visitor parking and longer term parking is provided further away. To make the spaces on Oak Street opposite the school available for visitors, these spaces can be posted with time limits, e.g. Two Hour Parking from 8:00 AM to 3 :00 PM. Thus staff or other users who would otherwise park all -day would park one block further away. This designation ofthe closest on -street parking as essentially visitor parking also reduces the distance they have to walk making it less likely that they will park ]10760 SARATOGA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL TRANSPORTATION STUDY WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES Page 13 APR 07 '99 03 :44PM WSA SAN FRANCISCO 415 436 9337 P. 17/20 in the staff parking areas. This disperses the on -street all -day parking on several streets, and it also reduces the impact on the fronting properties opposite the school. Alternatively, some of the onsite spaces could be designated as visitor parking. However a balance needs to be maintained between providing visitor spaces and mpg the number of cars accommodated onsite. In other words, if too many spaces are designated visitor spaces, then some parldng stalls would remain empty which would negate the purpose of providing onsite parldng. Trial and error maybe needed to determine how best to allocate the 43 spaces so that they are fully used. If employees can fully occupy these spaces, then it is recommended that visitor parking be accommodated on Oak Street via 2 hour parking limits, and excess long -term parking can be accommodated on other blocks. S. RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENT MEASURES The following improvement measures are recommended to manage the expected increase in traffic at the school site so as to minimize impacts of queues on adjacent streets and minimize parking impacts; the recommended improvements to the roadway infrastructure are also illustrated in Figure 4: 1. Widen Oak Street by 2.5 feet on the east side (adjacent to the school) to be 37 feet in width for as much of the school frontage as possible (avoiding mature trees) between Komina Avenue and the School driveway. It appears that this would be possible for a length of about 400 feet beginning approximately 60 feet south of the school driveway and ending about 25 feet north of Komina Avenue. This 37 -foot cross - section would provide a standard sized curbside passenger loading zone, compared to 4.75 feet (with the off - center centerline) under existing conditions, enabling through vehicles to safely pass loading vehicles, with minimal sacrifice to the open space in front of the school and without widening the street more than necessary. Widening the street the full width of a parldng lane, eight feet, would impinge upon the open space in front of the school and would result in unnecessarily wide travel lanes, encouraging travel speeds greater than desirable in a school zone. 2. A center line should be striped on Oak Street as double yellow line for the full length of the block between Komina Avenue and Third Street. Between Komina Avenue and the School driveway, the centerline should be positioned such that there is 18 feet in the southbound direction and 19 feet in northbound direction. This assumes the 2.5 foot widening of Oak Street in front of the school recommended above. Between the school driveway and Third Street, where the cross- section is only 30 feet, the centerline should be positioned such that there is 18 feet in the southbound direction and 12 feet in northbound direction. (See item #4 below). 3. Paint the 60 feet of curb between the end of the Oak Street passenger loading/unloading zone and the entrance to the on site parking lot red and post `No Stopping" signs to minimize conflicts between vehicles entering the on-site loading/unloading zone and the vehicles exiting the Oak Street passenger loading/unloading zone. 4. Encourage the City of Saratoga to restrict parking between 8:00AM and 4 :OOPM on the west side of Oak Street for the approximately 150 feet where the southbound lane is narrow, immediately across from the ingress and egress to the on -site parking lot. If the 740760 SARATOGA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL TRANSPORTATION STUDY MLOUR SMUN ASSOCAATES Page 14 APR 07 '99 03:45PM WSA SAN FRANCISCO 415 436 9337 P. 18/20 centerline were placed approximately 12 feet away from the curb on the east side of the street, the width of approximately 18 feet in this area would be provided in the southbound direction. A width of 18 feet would allow other vehicles to pass the vehicles queued to make a left turn into the site in the southbound direction at school start and dismissal times. It is not recommended that a designated left -turn lane be striped, so that on- street parking would be permitted on the west side of the street when not needed for school- related circulation, i.e. after 4:00 PM 5. Restrict any passenger loading/unloading on Komina Avenue. Post signs that prohibit passenger loading/unloading from this street and paint the curb red. 6. Parking Management Strategies should be implemented to manage any parking demand that may exceed the proposed on -site parking supply. Most of the excess parking, 21 cars could be accommodated on Oak Street opposite the school. To make the spaces on Oak Street opposite the school available for visitors, these spaces can be posted with time limits, e.g. Two Hour Parking from 8 :00 AM to 3:00 PM 7. Create a Traffic & Circulation Monitoring Committee consisting of representatives from SUSD, Saratoga Elementary School, the City of Saratoga, community residents, and the Sheriff which could review issues such as traffic control/patterns, school size, carpooling, and bussing on a regular basis. Finally, another way to minimize queue spillover and traf le congestion at the school site is to encourage alternative modes for parents and/or students. Pedestrians and bicyclists substantially reduce the traffic at the site, which makes the school site safer and creates a more attractive environment. A pedestrian - friendly school campus perpetuates improved conditions because the more students that walk to and from school, the more comfortable parents feel about letting their children walk and the more likely they are to let their children walk to and from school. Some measures that would minimize the number of automobiles traveling to and from the school include. S. Coordinate with the City of Saratoga to provide continuous sidewalks on both sides of Oak Street between Saratoga -Los Gatos Road and Sixth Street, and on the north side of Romina Avenue between Aloha Avenue and Oak Street a. Conduct a "Suggested Routes to School" Study and Plan. Once the infiastructure improvements are in place, create a "Suggested Routes to School" Plan for students and their parents that suggest safe routes between the school and adjacent neighborhoods. b. Maintain pedestrian access from Komina Avenue upon the provision of a sidewalk on the north side of Komina Avenue. Independent of any provision of a sidewalk on Komina Avenue, signs should be posted indicating that the area is a school zone; this will alert drivers in the vicinity of the school and encourage slower traffic. 9. Bus service would most drastically reduce the number of automobiles traveling to and from the school site, with a single van or bus having the ability to replace the traffic created by ten to twenty automobiles. 440760 SARATOGA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL TRANSPORTATION STUDY WILSUR SMITH ASSOCIATES Pogo 15 APR 07 '99 03:46PM WSA SAN FRANCISCO 415 436 9337 P. 19/20 10Y.ncourage parents to voluntarily arrive earlier than the school start time and later than dismissal time. Such a measure would most easily work for fourth and fifth graders who could play in the play area with minimal supervision. i 1.Encourage parent carpools to reduce traffic at the site. Parents would need help in obtaining a rider list for potential matches; RIDES for Bay Area Commuters could help provide such a service. 12.Encouraging teacher carpools would slightly reduce the amount of traffic at the site, but would more noticeably reduce the long -term parking demand, which would leave more spaces available for visitors and volunteers. 310760 SARATOGA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL TRANSPORTATION STUDY WUBURWMASSOCIAM Page 16 F�gurG u . Reto rj%.rneeied l m p rolem zytt for / / ts' i'�i�.� •cs 1 ? w ,,,•�i mma, LCAQ t•Y� Y fiat =�stG _._ ..... .� i • • cn ifM _ - 1 = - En • 'l O � /IAlJb I r • Y� - - - • . - % ;ice F- _ N m - N m iv: James vvaiyien reLe vunua %.ny vi oaiawya riuni. ^t tmiiuciaun Sent by the Award Winning Cheyenne Bitware wcW.7J 1 I.LJ. c'1 rOVV 1 VI James- Pete was not sure this would be needed or useful. Your thoughts, please. Arihur W. AnJeraon Jr., M.D., I'.A.P.A. Diplomate, American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology 20574 Komina Avenue Saratoga CA 95070 -6022 408 867 -5455 xcalibur@pacbell.net March 26, 1999 Jim Shaw, Mayor, and Members Saratoga City Council Frank Lemmon, Chairperson and Members Saratoga Public Safety Commission Gentlepersons: A time- crunch is imminent regarding the School Board's decision to adopt a Negative Declaration. By Tuesday, April 6 another report is expected from Wilbur Smith Associates, the group whose May 1998 report was suppressed. The Public Safety Commission will be meeting April 6 to discuss with the School Board their Amended Negative Declaration, with traffic mitigation measures, based on that modified report. On April 7, the City Council will be meeting. On April 8, the School Board will meet to finalize the Negative Declaration. Our Kid's Safety First Committee would have been satisfied if the School Board had included the findings and recommendations of the May 1998 Wilbur Smith report in their planning. Regrettably, they chose to ignore them. We would have been pleased if they had accepted the suggestion from the City Council that staging (drop -off /pick up areas) and parking should be moved on -site. Our present concern is that the new Wilbur Smith report might back off from their earlier findings and recommendations, or that the School Board will again choose not to incorporate their findings and recommendations into their addended plans. Whatever the final outcome, this community has been subjected to woeful divisiveness and emotional polarizations, the effects of which may linger for years. Consequently, our group will be filing a formal complaint with the California Board of Architectural Examiners against their architectural firm, The HMC Group. We will allege complicity in an egregious conspiracy to suppress information about major traffic problems at the Saratoga Elementary School, for the purpose of advancing a construction project in which they have vested interests. The traffic elements of the "Initial Report" from LSA Associates were patently incomplete, misleading and deceptive. They were based exclusively on averaging traffic counts at intersections. Even though they had detailed information from our group, as well as access to the Wilbur Smith report; their report made no mention of the gridlock congestion that occurs at peak periods. Their traffic expert never once visited the site. Although the report may have measured up to industry standards for such reports, we will contend that The HMC Group should have appreciated its inadequacies and misleading elements, and so informed their clients, the School Board. t I MONT41 of ��R' ATOO GA 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 • (408) 868 -1200 COUNCIL MEMBERS: Incorporated October 22, 1956 Evan Baker Stan Bogosian John Mehalley MEMORANDUM Jim Shaw Nick Streit February 12, 1999 To: James Walgren, Community Development Director From: Public Safety Commission Chair Subject: Saratoga Union School District NOI Response At the joint City Council meeting with the Public Safety Commission (PSC) held on February 9, the City Council directed the PSC to formulate a written response to the Saratoga Union School District's (SUSD) Environmental Initial Study (study) concerning the proposed Saratoga Elementary School expansion. At the PSC meeting held on February 11, the following response was drafted: General Observations 1. There is a clear and convincing traffic safety issue with regard to the health and well- being of the school children. This was not addressed in the study conducted by LSA Associates, Inc. 2. The stakeholders must recognize the potential liability exposures which currently exist and will likely increase with projected school enrollment increases. 3. The study is inadequate and does not address the current status of traffic issues nor does it address the future impact of same; no specific or global traffic mitigation plans have been offered. 4. A comprehensive, joint study needs to be addressed involving all stakeholders in this issue including, but not limited to, the Community, the City and the School District. This study needs to fully address traffic circulation problems affecting the immediate and ancillary neighborhoods, as well as the immediate condition present at the school. Specific Suggestions 1. Traffic related to the drop -off and pick -up of students should be removed from public streets. 2. There should be provision for adequate off -street parking for staff and visitors. 3. With projected increases in enrollment, consideration should be given to the issue of busing so that an adequate pick -up and drop -off area can be identified. 4. Provision should be made for traffic mitigation at the Forest Hills Drive gate. Printed on recycled paper. 1 5. There needs to be immediate clarification of any State of California setback (or other) requirements that would impinge upon the creation of a loading/unloading area on Oak Street. Eucalyptus Trees While there are safety issues concerning the trees, this is ultimately the responsibility of the School District. Whether they are removed or not must be weighed more heavily in terms of safety than in terms of aesthetics. If you have any questions or concerns regarding the foregoing, please direct inquiries to the PSC or to staff liaison Pete Gonda at (408) 868 -1221. Cc: City Council City Manager PSC To: Larry Perlin, James Walgren, Pete Gonda Saratoga City From: Art Anderson is by the Award Winning Cheyenne Bitware 0 Memo to K -Grouu 3 -4 -99 3/3199 10:54:54 Page 1 of 2 Dan and I met with Stephanie Petrossi and Bonnie Yamaoka last evening for an intense 2 hour discussion. It was essentially congenial. Dan may see it more optimistically, but I am deeply discouraged. To me, they are locked into tunnel vision, their total preoccupation fixated on the their presumed mandate to provide more space for more students, and in denial about traffic hazards. They will be implementing a plan to stop all drop -off /pick -up's on Komina. I suspect that this may be a small concession to get that pack of domestic Komina dogs silent- "Out of sight, out of mind." They are also talking about a drop - off /walkway from Forrest Hills to the school. They estimated 25 -30 kids (their estimates were stated with an authoritative tone of voice, but based, I would bet, on no more than someone's hunch.) could use that reducing traffic on Oak. A road there would take up too much play - ground space, would require elimination of trees to the north, would traverse that swamp area (which I had thought would be eliminated for the playground), would be opposed by Forrest Hills people, and, not least, would be too expensive. They explained in excruciating detail about many of the vast complexities of the project, and those complexities are enormous indeed. "We wanted to expand the parking lot to 70, but there just isn't enough space" (for both that expansion and an adequate playground.) They did not see much of a problem with on -street parking of people inside the school for extended periods. (They were surprised to discover only 3 cars parked on Oak after the meeting. Huh? This gave them a ray of hope for effectively widening Oak by extended "No Parking" areas on Oak during school hours. Keeeeryyymany, we have been telling them that. They can't read ?) Re the possibility of increased exposure for liability in the event of a traffic casualty- they dismissed it abruptly with "That's the city's problem!" They spoke many times of approaching Erman Dorsey at City for assistance with traffic problems. They made several references to traffic experts having been involved, such as that there are "several traffic experts in the architects office" who would have examined the plans for the project. They did not consider the traffic aspects of the Initial Study to be a sham; Bonnie explained patronizingly that the study used a baseline that was the existing traffic situation, and that it spoke only of the effects of the expansion. Huh? Have they really read the Initial Study? Can anyone understand it really? Was it even perhaps designed to be impossible to be understood. Re the trees, they explained that the two big Eucalyptus trees would prevent leveling the playground (to remove that swale depression). It sounded like they were confident that they could win a suit for an injunction from the tree people. They are just enduring the harassment from the tree people, but not really worried. We did not mention the possibility of our filing a suit. They made several references to political problems between the SchBd and the City, over the years -- that the three new members of the Council were wrongly elected on some spurious grounds (I have forgotten just what) that adversely affected their attitudes toward SUSD. Some of these problems dated back at least 10 years, presumable a historic base for absense of good faith and collaboration with the City. Opposition to expanding the 40% of the city kids in SUSD schools was one of the issues. ? ? ? ? ?? To: Larry Perlin, James Walgren, Pete Gonda Saratoga City From: Art Anderson 3/3/99 10:55:56 Page 2 of 2 Sent by the Award Winning Cheyenne Bitware Re traffic problems, they kept dismissing them as "the city's problem." Repeated references to the extreme and unique narrowness of the streets, based on horse - and -buggy roads, just didn't get through to them. I kept emphasizing that sometimes you can't solve all problems, that "you can't get there from here ", that the streets were too narrow, could not be widened, and there was no hope of their getting wider. This was just not heard, just could not be factored in. I kept repeating that we, and the city were insisting that the present traffic hazards be corrected and realistic plans for mitigating future problems be worked out before they proceeded with the project. This they clearly do not plan to do. They want us and the city to accept their assurances that they will deal with traffic problems "to the best of our ability" after they are identified. They spoke of the possibility of an on -site drop -off along Oak, but were quite vague and imprecise about possible obstacles or advantages. They, and we, too, thought the opinion of an expert on that matter is important. Re addition of new enrollment, they were totally fixated on providing space pace for an expanded population of kids. Re sending those 27% kids to Foothill or Argonaut, "The people there are already protesting the additional students," that they would then claim "Unfair." Oak street school should- must- accept its fair quota. Traffic at Foothill is also very bad. The school Bond did not provide for funds to buy new ground for a new school. "What are we supposed to do ?" Re our getting out flyers and mailback cards, Bonnie asked that the cards should also include requests for advice about how to remedy traffic problems. We did not mention the poss. of a full -page ad in SarNews, and /or a lawsuit. Re their being locked into time- schedules, they spoke only of contracts with Strawberry Park, and with the need for getting the contracts out for bid as early as possible, but they obviously felt strongly about it. A delay of a few months or years would be out of the question. There was frequent reference to the role of Jim Jeffreys, the new traffic consultant for the city. There is a meeting with him and Mary Gardner Thursday morning that we asked to be included in, (but which just will not happen.) They were disappointed that Robt. Bertini will not be able to come down and help. The findings and recommendations of Jim J. were considered to be pivotal, of ultimate importance. No mention was made of other traffic experts being involved. They did mention that they would probably delay the decision about the Negative Declaration "for a couple of weeks" pending the traffic expert's study. It appears that the School Board is in denial, with tunnel vision that excludes awareness of traffic problems and hazards. Consequently we may have to up the ante, more coals on the fire, more pressure...... Art Anderson Pete and dames This is the edentulated, eviscerated, emasculated letter that was a work -in- progress until just before the deadline...... Art Arthur W. Anderson Jr., M.D., F.A.P.A. Diplomate, American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology 20574 Komina Avenue Saratoga CA 95070 -6022 408 867 -5455 acalibur @pacbell.net February 17, 1999 To Cindy Ruby, President, and Members, School Board, Saratoga Union School District Gentlepersons: We are a neighborhood group representing many others in our neighborhood who are strongly opposed to the endorsement by the School Board of the "Proposed Negative Declaration" suggested in the "Initial Report" of LSA Associates. This would authorize a major rebuilding/expansion program for the Saratoga Elementary School on Oak and Komina. The Saratoga City Council will be submitting a separate letter to the School Board expressing the serious concerns of the Council and the Public Safety Commission about current traffic hazards, and about inadequate planning for traffic problems after the proposed increase in enrollment. At their meeting on February 17, they mentioned that there could be consideration of their filing a lawsuit, albeit with great reluctance, to obtain an injunction against your proceeding with this project. Our neighborhood group, having studied these traffic congestion problems for many years, is convinced that the school is already too large and that traffic congestion there is now so severe as to impose unacceptable levels of risk to the children. Our group of several neighbors has been involved for years in efforts to get the city government and/or the school to remedy the already- existing traffic risks to the children. (Please refer to our "Letter to the Editor" in the Saratoga News for additional background information.) We recognize the wish of the School Board to expand the enrollment of the schools to accommodate an increased number of students. However, we do not understand the sense of urgency felt by the School Board in wanting to launch into what appears to be a hurry-up, poorly- planned project. We insist that the highest priority must always be the safety of the children. The School Board will be relying largely on the "Initial Report" from LSA Associates. That document proposes a "Negative Declaration" regarding the environmental impact of this rebuilding program, this including all traffic issues. It appears to us that LSA Associates have not had opportunity to conduct thorough, in -depth traffic studies. There "Initial Study" appears to be based on very limited information. None - the -less, they report that no further traffic studies are suggested, nor required. We cannot agree with their conclusions and recommendations, these being at such variance with our own direct observations and conclusions. Their report, in our judgment, is based on incomplete studies and investigations, insufficient on -site observations, irrelevant and incomprehensible traffic counts, and errors of fact. The report presents suggestions for dealing with traffic problems that do sound reassuring, but we are not satisfied. We are perhaps most concerned that, in their report, there are implicit assumptions that whatever problems that may be identified during the next ten years, and beyond, can be dealt with after they are encountered. The report would seem to assure us that there are no potential problems that cannot be overcome. A 27% increase in enrollment- no problem! An additional 16% increase in residential traffic- not to worry! Our neighborhood group is joined with the city government in requesting that those problems be anticipated in advance of approving this project, and that realistic resolutions of all potential traffic problems be presented before they are needed. That LSA report contains various statements about remedies for dealing with actual or potential traffic problems which reflect discussions with school officials. Although their comments represent some amalgam of the thoughts of both the School Board and LSA, we feel that LSA Associates, having included them in its Initial Study, should assume full responsibility for the contents of its own report. We are convinced that a full EIR -- a complete environmental impact study - -is required. Furthermore, even though some reputable agency performs the EIR, a separate in- depth, independent and unbiased traffic study should be performed. Very clear, explicit, comprehensive, practical, workable and fundable solutions to present and future traffic problems must be provided. We feel that we must then have firm commitments from the School Board and/or the City Government that they will be implemented for an indefinite period into the future. Some of our specific objections to the LSA Associates "Initial Report" include the following: 1. Their report regarding traffic problems seems to rely, perhaps exclusively, on "traffic counts" of uncertain interpretation, and which become quite incomprehensible to intelligent laypersons. We contend that such traffic counts in this situation have little relevance. Traffic congestion is relevant. 1000 cars over a 4 hour period may not be a problem. Fifty cars in a loading zone is -gridlock. The report talks of measuring the traffic delays in mere seconds. Everyone, hundreds of us, who has been in these gridlocks knows the delays are to be measured by minutes. A gridlock delay of few to several minutes can seem like a long time to drivers in a hurry. This kind of congestion turns good drivers into violators. It turns safe drivers into dangerous drivers. We have seen it happen, over and over and over....... Reliance on traffic counts alone conceals the reality that during peak drop -off /pick -up periods, cars and trucks are presently often stacked up 24- 6- 8 -10 -12 deep on all three access roads, stopped in the traffic lanes of south -bound Oak, north -bound Oak, and Komina. This causes delays of a few to several minutes both for the parents, and for pass - through traffic. For pass - through traffic, the only two alternatives available are patiently waiting for their turn to cross the intersection; or to turn out into the on- coming traffic lane to pass these stopped cars; such being dangerous in and of itself, and usually requiring drivers to illegally cross the double - yellow lines. Moreover, such delays become a frustration and an annoyance for both parents and pass - through drivers. It has been our observation that their driving sometimes becomes erratic, and consequently dangerous for the children or other traffic. We believe it to be abundantly self - apparent that, absent heroic and not yet envisioned corrective measures, a 27% increase in school enrollment plus the 16% projected increase in residential traffic will increase traffic congestion to immense proportions and greatly increase the risks to the children. Another traffic study performed by an independent traffic consulting firm (Wilbur Smith Associates) in May 1998 confirmed that there are major problems with traffic congestion, and that they presently impose significant traffic risks to the children. 2. The LSA report has the directions wrong regarding the two major streets involved. They state that Oak Street runs east and west, and that Komina Avenue runs north and south. Actually Oak is a north/south street (specifically 39/219 degrees) and Komina is an east/west street. Their report then contains dozens of references to directions of traffic flow, etc. Consequently, it then becomes quite uncertain and incomprehensible for anyone trying to understand what they are talking about, nor to begin to understand the significance of their tables. 3. We are not satisfied with stated suggestions for dealing with traffic problems. For instance: A. They indicate there is consideration of a new long on -site (on school grounds) drop- off /pick -up lane along the front of the school on Oak Street that is , we understand, in violation of the State Dept. of Education and/or the City of Saratoga requirements for street set - backs. It would also be esthetically quite unsightly, and might even be opposed by the Saratoga Heritage Commission. (In the absence of better alternatives, safety being of primary importance, our group strongly favors development of that Oak Street lane for rp esent problems.) B. They suggest utilizing the kindergarten drop -off area on Komina Avenue for drop off of additional children in other grades. This suggestion is shocking to us. Komina is extremely narrow, and is already severely impacted by severe traffic congestion, even when its use it limited to the drop- off/pick -up of K- children. The Komina drop- off/pick -up areas are, we believe, the most congested and the most dangerous. Automobile drop - off/pick -ups of children from other grades on that street would compound those risks. If any change is initiated for the Komina drop - off/pick -up procedures, it might be a new on -site drop- off/pick -up lane on Komina along the south side of the school. However, this also might violate set -back requirements. It would be esthetically unpleasant. It would destroy play areas and the garden presently available for the K- children. It would also require removal of many of the smaller trees along the street. If a new drop -off lane on Komina is not deemed possible, we would suggest that all Komina traffic be directed to Oak street; but only if and when a new long drop- off/pick -up lane can be developed there. Alternatively, traffic might be routed to a new on -site turn- around, drop- off /pick -up area planned in the proposed expansion. This might require relocating the Kindergarten classrooms to an area closer to that drop -off area. The turn- around area would need to be expanded and redesigned, to be substantially larger than that in the proposed plan. C. We are concerned that there has not been adequate concern expressed about the unique physical restrictions of Komina Avenue. This street, initially a county road, has become an arterial for residents in the entire area east and south of the school, and is the main ingress to the school. It is too narrow- a mere 25 feet wide from the curb on the north side. There is a narrow utility easement on the south. When cars are parked on both sides of the street, (which they are much of the time during school hours,) its available width is reduced to 12'47', depending how far out the parked cars project. A car approaching another car from opposing directions must often pull out to permit an on- coming car to come through. We wish there could have been mention of the need for street undulations on Komina to encourage drivers to drive slower and more carefully. We believe that we, the neighbors and the children who live on our street, as well as the school children deserve such undulations. There are no walk -ways on either side of Komina. Pedestrian traffic must proceed outside of the parked cars in the traffic lanes. Very few children are permitted to walk to school alone on Komina. Several parents walk with their children to the school, both neighbors and those whose cars are parked further east on Komina. It being the nature of children everywhere to do impulsive, erratic and unexpected things, walking in the traffic lanes would place them in jeopardy. A child on a bicycle or a skate -board would be in grave danger. D. The report suggested extending Forrest Hills Avenue in back of the school as an additional access /egress street for cars traveling to the school parking lot. (Our group strongly favors that proposal.) However, Forrest Hills is a street privately -owned by its own residents. The LSA group apparently did not have opportunity investigate that matter, nor check whether or not the owners would permit such use of their street. There was no mention of engineering or construction considerations, nor of the costs of extending the street, nor who would be willing to pay for it. E. The report proposes a bussing program of unstated size, since nearly 100% of the children are driven to the school by their parents. However, the report makes no reference to the costs involved in bussing, nor whether or not the school district can afford it. They are unclear about how large the buses would be, where the bus stop would be located, how many trips would be involved and how many students would be accommodated. (We favor a large bussing program, and we would want firm commitments from the School Board that they could and would maintain that program indefinitely.) F. They make references to staggering the times for class start-ups to reduce traffic congestion at peak periods. This is a fine idea in theory. However, it may impractical and unworkable for the school, and/or for the parents with more than one child in the school, and/or for bussing schedules. We doubt that this matter has been sufficiently explored. G. They also make reference to different schools collaborating by staggering their start-up times to utilize buses more efficiently and economically. This again is a fine idea in theory, but we doubt that anyone has checked with the schools and the parents about their willingness to cooperate with staggered start times for their own school. H. They refer to developing a "Suggested Route to School' plan for the school , adding ".....if the school does not already have one." This statement demonstrates that they have not been informed that the school has attempted such plans several times in the past, and that compliance by parents is brief, dropping off rapidly after a week or two. 1. The report suggests increasing the parking lot by enough spaces to accommodate the increased number of teachers and staff after the school expansion, to a total of 43 spaces. We ask that you consider that, during school hours when the present parking lot is full, there are an average of 32 cars parked on Oak and Komina. Most of these cars belong to people inside the school for extended periods. During evenings and week -ends there are only 2 -3 cars parked on Oak and 4 -5 cars along the entire 300 yards of Komina. Our own investigations have revealed that all of the apartments/ condominiums across from the school have two car garages, as well as all of the houses on Komina. Subtracting 8 from 32, the recommendations for the size of the new parking lot should, at a minimum, include additional spaces for those 24 cars that are now at the curb -sides during school hours, for a total of 66 spaces. Parked cars on Oak and Komina during school hours greatly reduce the available width of these already- too - narrow streets. Consequently they compound the congestion and the risks to the children. Has there been consideration of the possibility that all of Oak Street across from the school could be designated a "no- parking" area during school hours? J. The report suggests using students ( maximum age for this K -5 school is 10 or 11) and/or adult volunteers to serve as crossing guards. Using younger children for this purpose does not seem to consider the limited skills, or the authority, such kids can provide for such complex activities. Beyond that, those young children serving as crossing guards in this kind of traffic congestion may themselves be placed in harm's way. It has not been determined that the school will be able to recruit and train enough volunteer crossing guards willing to be available on regular schedules, and to perform these tasks. We consider it quite unlikely that this is a reasonable expectation. What is the feasibility of providing professional traffic guards,and how would they be paid? K. The report suggests that cars accessing the school from Komina should turn left on Oak. It not stated how that requirement could be enforced. The school's experience has shown that offering suggestions and expecting voluntary compliance with this kind of request does not work. More importantly, it appears that there has been no investigation of egress for such traffic. Our observations have taught us that there is no suitable egress for cars turning left on Oak. Those cars can hardly be expected to egress back east on Lomita, because Lomita is a privately -owned street that is extremely narrow, has several speed bumps and other intentional discouragements to pass -thru traffic. Can they be expected to egress down St. Charles, then down 6th street, to Big Basin Way? That long round -about route would be inconvenient and time consuming, and would not be complied with voluntarily. Furthermore, that would impact the heavy traffic flow now on Big Basin Way. The third and worst choice for these drivers would to be to U -turn on northbound Oak, and egress back on Komina, which is already impacted. L. " .......installing additional bicycle racks..." is one of the suggestions. None of us has ever seen a child on a bicycle during school hours. We believe that any child riding a bicycle or a skateboard into this traffic congestion would be at grave risk. Any suggestion to encourage bicycle traffic would appear not to have considered these special risks. We would recommend that this school should have a firm policy that no child is permitted to ride a bicycle to and from school. M. The report states, "M the 25 % trip reduction is achieved (by ALTRANS or some other bussing service )...it would nearly off -set the increased trips attributable to the proposed school expansion ". W0000ps! Whoa! Wait a little minute! That is about as big as an ]IF can get. A bussing program of that magnitude has been discussed at various levels for many years; but there are massive problems yet unresolved- primarily the cost. Just who has the money to pay for all that bussing? Would it be appropriate that the LSA report include some contingency statement that, absent this 25% trip reduction by bussing, they would reconsider their recommendations for a Negative Declaration? N. A more in -depth traffic study would have mentioned the fact that most of the access roads to the school have no designated walkways. Besides Komina, this includes 3rd Street, 6th Street, St. Charles, Lomita, Aloha, Vickery and Forrest Hills. O. Although there are acknowledged problems with traffic congestion at other schools, Lt. Colla of the Sheriffs Dept. reported to the Public Safety Commission that this intersection "...is the worst." Various Sheriffs Deputies have made similar statements. There have been many traffic citations issued at this intersection. One recent morning, one of us (Anderson) observed several dozen traffic violations at Komina and Oak during a 55 minute period. Most of those were cars and trucks stopped in the gridlock congestion that chose to pull out into the oncoming lane to pass stopped cars, usually crossing over double yellow lines. Many drivers made no more than rolling slowdowns (5 -20 mph) at the three stop signs. There were about 10 illegal "K" turns. (A "K" turn is a U -turn where there are two partial turns, and two back -ups.) We doubt that more strict law enforcement measures would help. These are not bad drivers nor bad people. They are good drivers caught in a traffic jam that is extremely complex and frustrating, and which seems, at those times, to require some "creative" (albeit illegal) driving maneuvers. We on this ad hoc neighborhood committee are the first to admit that we are not expert in the identification and evaluation of such traffic hazards, nor are we experts in finding solutions to such problems. We are troubled by our lack of expertise. However, we cannot deny what our eyes have seen, hundreds upon hundreds of times. There are two traffic studies on record, by experts, that are at variance. When experts disagree, (the LSA Report and Wilbur Smith Study seem to be at variance) we accept the one that is supported by our own observations. We believe that the agg_reaate of traffic problems at the Saratoga Elementary School are too difficult and so complex that they will completely defy any satisfactory resolution. We believe that it will be completely impossible to increase the enrollment of the school without placing the children in further jeopardy. Our committee believes that the streets of Komina and Oak are just too narrow to accommodate pEpsent traffic congestion, let alone for any large increase in school traffic. These streets can't be widened. We can not envision any ways to solve such problems. As the old saying goes, "You can't get there from here!" Although providing a high quality of education for all the students in Saratoga is of great importance, we will not yield in our demand that the safety of these children must become, and remain, the highest priority. , Beyond that, we in this neighborhood believe that we have some rights, too. We live here. These are our homes. Our streets are already congested with parked cars and severe traffic congestion during school hours. The traffic congestion in front of our homes has increased during the past ten years. Does the School Board claim the right to increase traffic on our streets another 27% during the next ten years? Our committee urges that: 1. There must be a full Environmental Impact Report; 2. Independent traffic experts be assigned to do thorough, in -depth studies of the traffic at the Saratoga Elementary School; 3. That traffic experts consider all of the implications of the projected 27% increase in enrollment, plus the expected 16% increase in residential traffic; 4. That they perform monitoring of the process in the future at appropriate intervals; 5. That there be serious considerations of large bussing programs; 6. That the rights of residents on these streets be given due consideration; 7. That at least two street undulations be placed on Komina to urge drivers to slow down and to proceed cautiously; 8. When serious problems are identified in the future, we ask for clear and firm commitments from the School Board and the City Government that every effort will be made to resolve them. For the "Kid's Safety First" Committee, and other concerned neighbors. Encl: 1. Letter from substitute teacher about narrowly - averted tragedy on Komina. 2. Flyer that will be distributed widely, with mail -back post cards, informing the community about these projected plans. Addendum: If the School Board does approve the Negative Declaration: 1. We will submit flyers (see enclosed) and mail -back post cards (similar to those sent out by Ernie Kraule for the Fire Department.) to 300 or 400 people who have personally observed these traffic problems. 2. We will be determine that their insurance carrier is informed of their increased liability in the face of opposition by the city government and widespread community concerns about traffic risks to children.. 3. Our neighborhood group may consider a law suit for an injunction against proceeding with this project. 4. We expect there to so much adverse publicity about this project that some construction companies may elect not to go to the trouble and expense of estimating the job. Those who do submit bids may factor in the possible effects of that opposition, particularly the delays that might occur in the event of legal injunctions. Artkur W F.A.P.A. Diplomate, American Neurology 20574 Komina Saratoga CA 95070-6022 408 367-SM Gk- r I •i i 1: �' •1 • s • s .,• • • • 1 � s � 9 1. r ♦ � I I � f • Name available on request To: Peter Gonda From: Art Anderson Sent by the Award Winning Cheyenne Bitware Art Anderson 20574 Komina Avenue Saratoga CA 95070 -6022 408 867 -5455 xcaliburga pacbell. net December 3, 1998 MEMO: 1213198 16:37:50 Page 1 of 1 Mary Gardner, Supt. SUSD, called to advise that the LSA Associates firm doing the environmental report on Saratoga School would not be including a study of taffic hazards to the children, as we had been expecting. I had not been following up with Robt. Bertini, Traffic Section at UC Berkeley, because I had assumed that the LSA study would preempt their involvement. The Chairman of the Saratoga Safety Commission advised us earlier that he felt that thev should not become involved until the school remodeling had been completed. I felt that that was like the horse trying to push the cart. However, other matters being contingent, I did not object. Mary requested that we again request the involvement of the Safety Commission, and that the school would support our request. She also was in favor of involvement of Dr. Bertini at UC, in conducting a study of traffic safety, and suggestions for remedies. CC: Mary Gardner Erman Dorsey, Asst Manager, Saratoga Robt. Bertini, UC ahugh Heximer, Chair, Safety Commission, Michael, Jeff, Jeff, Dan, Bob, Horace and Dianne To: Peter Gonda From: Art Anderson 1214/98 9:36:08 Page 1 of 1 Sent by the Award Winning Cheyenne Bitware Arihur W. Antlerson Jr., M.D., ]F.A.1P.A. Diplomate, American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology 20574 Komina Avenue Saratoga CA 95070 -6022 408 867 -5455 xcalibur@pacbell.net December 5, 1998 Hugh Hexamer, Chairman Safety Commission, City of Saratoga Fax Dear Mr. Hexamer: All of us concerned about traffic hazards at the Oak Street school have been assuming that the commercial firm, LSA Associates, conducting an environmental report would be including evaluation of traffic hazards and possible remedies. This is not to be the case, so we all need to develop alternative approaches. Concerned neighbors have articulated some of these concerns earlier. We are now joined by the Saratoga Union School District in requesting the involvement of the Safety Commission, before they proceed further with planning for remodeling. Please see MEMO dated Dec.4 for more information. Thank you. For concerned neighbors, and SUSD, Art Anderson + D1D MAR-1 &. INtrj4rc_ 1145 A"A y$;S WILBUR ,cIECEIVEL SMITH MAY 1 a 19% ASSOCIATES jKA(% roof it ENGINEERS • PLANNERS ,21 ..'AIN Sif'EET. SUITE 121M - SAN ; :,A C'I`; May 14, 1998 Mary Gardner Superintendent Saratoga Union Elementary School District 20460 Forest Hills Drive Saratoga CA 95070 Re: Saratoga Elementni School Circulation Dear Mary Gardner: This letter presents the results of our review of the existing drop -off and circulation at Saratoga Elementary School in Saratoga. Traffic conditions were observed on the morning of February 27 and March 12 and the afternoon of March 12. However, no traffic counts or detailed field measurements we're conducted for this study. OBSERVATIONS The existing traffic flow procedures given to parents are based on arriving from the intersection of Komina Avenue and Oak Street. This is necessary so that cars are oriented properly for drop -off at the curbs of Oak Street and Komina Avenue. Consequently, m=_cars were Qba(tto come from. Komina. Avenue, They either pull up along the curb of Oak Street or turn into the parking lot for the drop -off area. The Kindergarten parents use Komina ;venue for both a.m. and p.m. kindergarten drop -off and pick -up. Visitors who wish to park must use either the one parking lot or ark across the street on Oak Street or on side streets, since both Oak Street and Komina Avenue adiacent to the school grounds have white curbs for passenger loading and unloading. Two student safety patrols were observed: one was helping with the loading and unloading on Oak Street and one was helping at the crosswalks at Oak Street and Komina Avenue. According to the principal, up to six student safety patrols help in the morning, two at the intersection and four along Oak Street. Oak Street At the Oak Street drop -off area, the public street serves a major role in the school onsite circulation. The Oak Street curb is painted white and the curbside essentially functions as the drop -off lane while Oak Street itself functions as the bypass lane. The curb is posted with five signs reading "PASSENGER LOADING ZONE 8 AM TO 3 PM ". However, they are not ACCRA. GHANA - ALBANY, NY - ANAHEIM. CA - ATLANTA, GA - 3ALTINICVE, MD - BANGK_)K• THAILAND - CARACAS. VENEDJELA- CHARLESTCN. SC, COLUMBIA. SC - COLUMBUS. OH - DES MOINES, IA • FALLS "CHURCH, VA - HC ^: = KONG - HOUSTON. TX - KUWAIT - KNOXVII _E. III LEXINGTON, KY - LONDON. ENGLAND - MILWAUKEE, WI - NEW HAVEN. CT - )RLANDO. FL - PITTSBURGH. PA - RALEIG rlc: RICHMOND. VA - ROSELLE. IL - SAN FRANCISCO, CA - SAN JOSE. 'CA - TALLAHASSF.F. - TAMPA. FL - TORONTO. CANADA - NASHINGT .71. I ?C: EMPLOYEE -OWNED COMPANY - • Mary Gardner May 14, 1998 Page 2 numbered and labeled as separate loading zones as in the parking lot (see discussion below). On Oak Street, there is room at the curb for about ten cars, but on average only about six are loading or unloading at any given time. The most forward part of the loading zone was often empty; if the first car does not pull all the way forward, the cars in the rear simply pull in behind the first car, leaving space at the front for two or three cars. This happens despite the fact that cars would queue up behind these cars around the corner onto Komina. Impatient drivers on Komina often attempt to pass the queue but must cross the double yellow line in the process. This is dangerous as the visibility to children in the crosswalks is obscured by the queue of cars. Parking Lot In the parking lot, there are two signed loading zones for drop -off. These two zones are in tandem, i.e. one behind the other. This area has a clockwise circulation pattern which means students in the front seat have to cross in front of their parents car to access the school site. The two zones are used relatively efficiently by parents: the lead car must drive to the forward loading zone so that two cars can be loaded /unloaded simultaneously. (At about 8:28 a.m., observations indicated that four or five cars tend to discharge their passengers simultaneously to avoid being tardy. The current clockwise circulation pattern also results in cars exiting the parking lot having to yield to cars on Oak Street driving to the parking lot entrance. In other words, cars are delayed in leaving the parking lot by the cars on Oak Street trying to enter the lot. However, given the use of the Oak Street curb as a loading area, if the circulation were reversed and the first driveway were made the entrance, past experience has shown there would not be enough room for cars to queue on Oak Street before they turn into this first driveway. Having the entrance drivewav further down the street increases the storage length available for cars queuing to turn into the driveway. When the circulation in the parking area was counter - clockwise, the entrance drive,.vay was much closer to Komina, and the cars slowirg to turn right into the driveway backed up to Komina Avenue and also conflicted with cars leaving the Oak Street curb drop -off area. ANALYSIS AND CONSIDERATIONS Several factors contribute to the traffic congestion at this school: the loading /unloading area is essentially also the main school access route; the bypass lane is also the :rain school access route; clockwise circulation in the parking lot which slows passenger loadingiunioading; limited capacity to load/unload several students simultaneously; the lack of convenient visitor parking; and conflicts be:.veen Oak Street and the parking lot driveways due to the c:ose proximity of the two loading areas. One of the ,ig;est problems is that Oak Street is needed for both access, circulation and loading and unload ; -a. An onsite area for loading and vehicle turnaround ivould lessen some of the emphasis or Oak Street and improve tragic conditions. Also, the parking lot can be accessed by arriving from the nosh as well as the south. This �.v iil also be considered in the development of the recommendations. Mary Gardner May 14, 1998 Page 3 With the projected twenty -seven percent increase in enrollment from 393 to 500, changes are needed to accommodate the future demand for loading and unloading. As stated in my previous letter, the new circulation pattern should ideally: 1. Accommodate several vehicles loading and unloading simultaneously; 2. Preferably maintain counter - clockwise circulation to expedite passenger loading and unloading and to reduce conflicts between pedestrians and motor vehicles; 3. Provide good visibility from the school center to the main student queuing area; 4. Provide adequate sidewalk space for students to wait on; 5. Enable egress and ingress from the street that don't conflict with each other; 6. Have a bypass lane so that cars which are slow loading and unloading do not block the cars behind them, and so that cars which are finished can depart as soon as possible. If traffic volumes and conditions are worse than- projected, this bypass lane can become a second parallel loading/unloading lane. 7. In addition, the majority of the loading and unloading should take place onsite, if possible. This has several advantages including: it keeps the streets clearer for emergency vehicles and for neighborhood circulation, and it enables parents to turn around onsite so they can drive out of the area without having to make illegal U -turns or awkward maneuvers. This improves traffic safety and reduces the overall driving in and through the adjacent neighborhood. There are numerous strategies and combinations of strategies for improving access and increasing the capacity of the loading and unloading areas. However, there is no one obvious or easy solution. None of them incorporate all seven of the ideal elements listed in the preceding paragraphs. The options all have various impacts on the site planning of the school and on the neighborhood. Some of the strategies are mutually exclusive but some can be tried with others. The main options include: a) Better utilizing Oak Street as a loading zone, e.g. by designating five specific loading areas with student safety patrol or volunteer at each one. While labor intensive, the limited physical space requires the use of other resources. b) De- emphasizing Oak Street by developing more onsite drop -off capacity. c) Eliminating soft_scape_at the front of the school for a second small scale offstreet loading area to replace Oak Street curb loading. d) Creating a counter - clockwise on -site circulation pattern. e) Re- siting some of the proposed new buildings to increase the onsite drop -off area. I tl Utilizing the kindergarten drop -off area for other grades as well (�:vl only). These cars could then turn left onto Oak Street and avoid driving in ;rout of the school altogether. w�u4 .7 Mary Gardner May 14, 1998 Page 4 g) Developing a one -way circulation access from Forest Hills Drive to Oak Street through district property. RECOMMENDATIONS Given the revised site plan Option C.6 dated March 25, 1998, a conceptual loading/circulation plan was developed and is illustrated in Figure 1. The revised site plan shifts the driveway to the north edge of the property. It proNides for counter - clockwise circulation which will allows faster loading and unloading. It appears that this plan could accommodate four -to six onsite loading zones which is an improvement over the existing two spaces. Given this site plan, the loading zones must be located soon after the cars enter the driveway so that the children are let out at the school building and do not have to cross the parking lot. This means that there is room for only minimal onsite queuing prior to arriving at the loading zones. This will necessitate establishing a No Parking Zone on Oak Street prior to the driveway for cars waiting to enter the driveway. Even so, there would still be room to designate six loading zones on Oak Street. Two lanes will be needed on the inbound side of the parking lot, one for drop -offs and pick -ups adjacent to the curb and one as a bypass lane. If exiting vehicles become a problem, it may be necessary to install a right -turn only sign during the peak hours. If turns are restricted, it may be worth considering providing egress out onto Forest Hills Drive as well as Oak Street. This would reduce congestion on Oak Street as well as awkward or illegal maneuvers from parents who would normally have made a left -turn onto Oak Street. It is also recommended that signs be posted in each loading area, similar to existing signs at Redwood Middle school stating MOVE FORWARD AS FAR AS YOli CA_'_ FOR PASSENGER LOAD ING/LTILOADING. As stated previously, to increase the cbservance of these signs, volunteers, either parents or student safety patrols. Should direct cars to pull all the way up in order to facilitate quick loading and unloading and to open car doors. Blocks of about five cars should be unloaded simultaneously: the five cars would� pull up, volunteers would open their doors, and then all five would drive away and the next block of cars would pail up and be unloaded. While labor intensive, the lack of physical space -ust be made up for by traffic management techniques such as this. Other management techniques should be considered and /or continued, such as: • written drop -off pick -up procedures should be distributed to parents at the beginning of each semester, • encourage parents to arrive earlier than the five minutes be-7--re school: Mary Gardner May 14, 1998 Page 5 • encourage carpooling; • provide incentives for children to walk to school; this can include the formation of "walk - pools" whereby one adult will walk with children from several families to school; • An example of a strategy to encourage carpooling and walking is a voluntary surcharge of $1.00 for each car-trip to school. This could go into a special fund, for example for new playground or computer equipment for the children, or a special end -of -the -year field trip. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. If you desire, we would be happy to provide additional services such as more detail; regarding, the parking lot design and striping if we were provided with site plans at a larger scale. Very truly yours, WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES o ;' P R Michelle DeRobertis, P.E. Principal Transportation Engineer cc: Susie Lechner, HMC MNID/mmd 331540 u n e {� a S.Scn e-r I f;OC�inQ 1 A-L C -) r b J S A1Zn T-UQA_6 L6 ML;N 1 f\ K`( SCf(c_�C•L ., ,. No � RR`s -1n:Ca �I� G1,Ax�l�iS, I�1�U1b� rM�. �•�) FWF- (_ on w N4 ZONE 5 5:xTe,I'l eF, tq 15 I.AGi -ro p O p-1 l-:-,0 C- �, K1(4 N i Tu2nl JNLY cons ®ems pro��di�� eye b,,, o "to f-,:)rcst ECttls rtdc _o 0 T • Memo To: Planning, Heritage Preservation and Public Safety Commissions From: Community Development Directo Date: January 26, 1999 , Re: SUSD Proposed School Expansions Saratoga Elementary School - An environmental Initial Study (not an Environmental Impact Report) has been prepared and distributed by the Saratoga Union School District for the Saratoga Elementary School expansion plans. The School District has determined that an EIR is not necessary for the project. Staff had previously shared with the School District, both verbally and by letter, the fact that the Saratoga Elementary School is on the City's Heritage Resources Inventory and is therefor subject to consideration in the environmental analysis. The California Environmental Quality Act requires that the demolition or alteration of any Federal, State or locally designated historic structure be analyzed in the Initial Study to determine if the proposal results in a significant environmental impact - in this case, a potential cultural impact. Because of this, the School District is required by State law to address these impacts. The way to do this is to present the plans for the Saratoga Elementary School expansion to the Heritage Preservation Commission for their consideration. To date this has not been done, and staff will therefor be responding that the Initial Study is incomplete. Staff had also requested that the School District present the proposed school expansion plans to the Saratoga City Council and Planning and Public Safety Commissions, possibly at a special joint meeting, as a simple courtesy. Nothing has yet been arranged. The City Council has received copies of the Initial Study. Staff is also distributing the document to the Planning, Heritage Preservation and Public Safety Commissions. Any comments Councilmembers or Commissioners may have, particularly with regard to the renovation of the historic school building, the removal of the large Eucalyptus trees and/or the traffic and circulation impacts and proposed mitigation measures, will be forwarded via a single, coordinated-response letter from the Community Development Director to the School District. Since these responses need to be received by February 18, staff has recommended that the City Council use the February 9 joint meeting with the Public Safety Commission to frame the issues and concerns which staff would then • Page 1 incorporate into the City's comments on the Initial Study. The Heritage Preservation Commission also meets earlier on that day and their comments can be reported to Council that evening and combined with the Public Safety Commissioners'. The Planning Commission will discuss the Initial Study at their February 10 meeting. (Staff is preparing to fully respond to the draft document - the Initial Study is being distributed to Council and Commissions in response to widespread interest in the project). Redwood Middle School - The environmental consultants for the School District contacted staff last Fall to discuss the parameters for a traffic analysis the City would expect to see in the EIR. Staff has received no correspondence on the proposed Redwood Middle School expansion since then. c: City Manager • Page 2 SURTOOR URIOR SCHOOL DISTRICT 20460 FORREST HILLS DRIVE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3424 PUBLIC NOTICE INTENT TO ADOPT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION and AVAILABILITY OF PROPOSED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Proposed Saratoga Elementary School Expansion NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Saratoga Union School District intends to adopt a Negative Declaration for the proposed Saratoga Elementary School Expansion, located at 14592 Oak Street, in the city of Saratoga, Santa Clara County. The Negative Declaration and its accompanying Initial Study and Environmental Checklist Form is available for public review at the Saratoga Union School District Office, 20460 Forrest Hills Drive, Saratoga, for a period of 30 days from January 19, 1999 to February 18, 1999. Copies of the document are also available at the City of Saratoga Offices, Saratoga Community Library, Mail Boxes Etc., and Saratoga School. Upon review of the document, comments regarding any or all parts of the proposal to adopt a Negative Declaration may be made, in writing, to the Saratoga Union School District, 20460 Forrest Hills Drive, Saratoga, CA 95070. Comments should be addressed to Mary Gardner, Superintendent, by the end of the 30 -day review period. For further information, please contact (408) 867 -3424, ext. 502, between the hours of 8 a.m. - 4:30 p.m. INITIAL STUDY SARATOGA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EXPANSION January 1999 Prepared fora Saratoga Union School District 20460 Forrest Hills Drive Saratoga, CA 95070 Prepared by: LSA Associates, Inc. 157 Park Place Pt. Richmond, California 94801 LSA Project #SSD830 TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Contents PAGE I. INTRODUCTION ...... ............................... 1 II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION ............................... 2 III. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM ..................... 14 IV. RESPONSES TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST ......... 23 V. PREPARERS OF THE INITIAL STUDY ..................... 55 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC ............................... 55 VI. PERSONS AND AGENCIES CONTACTED ... ................ 56 VII. REFERENCES ....... ............................... 57 APPENDIX A - TRAFFIC ANALYSIS CALCULATIONS 01/07/99(PASSD830UNnSWD) ii Introduction I. INTRODUCTION In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and its Guidelines, the following Initial Study has been prepared as documentation to support the proposed Negative Declaration that has been made for the project, the Saratoga Elementary School Expansion, at the intersection of Oak Street and Komina Avenue in the City of Saratoga, County of Santa Clara. The Initial Study includes the location of the project site, project sponsor's objectives, description of the proposed project, evaluation of the potential environmental impacts based upon established significance criteria (based upon Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines (1998) and by qualitative criteria established as part of CEQA practice and judgement), the findings from the environmental review, and any relevant mitigation measures to address significant impacts. The Initial Study specifically addresses the potential project -level physical environmental impacts that may result from the expansion of the existing Saratoga Elementary School. Mitigation measures have been incorporated into the project to address potential impacts associated with the project. The Initial Study document and the proposed approval of a Negative Declaration, are subject to review and comment by responsive agencies and the public at- large. The Saratoga Union School District will serve as the "lead agency" for the proposed project. Its governing board will be responsible for approval of the environmental documentation and any subsequent approval of the elementary school project. 11/20/98(P:`SSD830\IN=UD) 1 Project Description II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION REGIONAL LOCATION Located in the southern part of the greater San Francisco Bay Area, the City of Saratoga is situated southwest of the City of San Jose in Santa Clara County (Figure 1). Other cities located within Santa Clara County that border Saratoga include Los Gatos, Campbell, Monte Sereno, and Cupertino. The City of Saratoga borders Santa Cruz County to the west, and provides major access to the Santa Cruz Mountains. The major highways serving Saratoga include State Highway 280 (Junipero Serra), State Highway 17 (Santa Cruz), and State Highway 101 (Bayshore). These highways provide regional and statewide access to the City of Saratoga. Other locally important highways providing access to the City include Route 85 and Route 9, both of which run through the City and continue through the adjacent communities to the freeway system. PROJECT SITE LOCATION AND EXISTING CHARACTER The proposed expansion project would be implemented on the existing 6.4- acre Saratoga Elementary School site, located at 14592 Oak Street, at the corner of Oak Street and Komina Avenue. The site is situated in the southern portion of the City of Saratoga, within the City's Hillside Area (Figure 2). The property is owned by the Saratoga Union School District and currently provides educational facilities for students in grades kindergarten to five (K -5). The existing site consists of a main building housing administrative and classroom facilities, three additional classroom buildings, and seven modular classrooms (Figure 3). The site also contains a play8eld and a parking lot. Currently, three portable classrooms are situated on site adjacent to the existing parking lot. The land use and zoning designation for the site is Community Facility - Schools (CFS). Land uses which comprise this sub - category consist of elementary schools, junior high schools, high schools, and the West Valley Community College. The area surrounding the school site is predominantly residential in character. Current General Plan land use designations for adjacent land uses include multi -use development (MUPD) to the north, south and west of the site, and planned development (RMF) across Oak Street to the east. PROJECT SPONSOR'S OBJECTIVES With the successful passage of Measure D in June of 1997, the Saratoga Union School District.will receive $40 million in General Obligation Bond monies to modernize and expand their four school sites to support the educational 11/20/98(P:\5SD830\INr1S7MD) 2 Mendocino County 1 Lake Colusa County County ........ ... ... ... ... ... ... . ....... .. 10 Yolo ............ ...... County Sonoma County Napa County u i -v,4-YY(bbv6juKcgion.4) 0. N L�A in Mateo County : Santa Cruz County . . ..... .......... C� 11�v VA Scalc in miles 0 20 Solano County ... ... ............... ... . ...... Contra Costa —, County Project Site k Alameda C5811 County ... ... ....... .......... Santa Clara County t Sacramento County .. ...... ... ... ......... Amador County ... .............. ....... ... ... ....... . 99 5 Calaveras County San Joaquin County 120 .... ..... .... ... ..... 108 Tuolumne County Stanislaus County ....... ....... ..... ... ... ... I . ... ... ...... 99 Merced County San Benito County �I Fresno County Figure I Regional Location 0 1 -04-99(SSD83OSaratogaVicinity) N LSD Approximate scale in feet 1100 Figure 2 Saratoga Elementary School Expansion: Project Site and Vicinity VIA 00, Cr 04.. RD. M! EVICH DIN FRIGH N DUARI P mills LN. THE ld R 21 AV, IR&EVAR LN. LLA FROWN VERDE EIILVfn XT r. 1 • / (Ac Ac 114-4 4 AM RA ru �, t S� lei A -,P 7 1 :; % w e� I UK OWS 00� ft. IS us 14TS 0 '4 4 SO OAK SAID ES Y WY. 100 s R*WYF L L NOW z ht U PROJECT cow; SITE VIA CT. Ct DI . .... a C�l ROEN� :w WY. U BILL LL THR OA16 WY Nor R , DR. OFL PAR W1' eelm ll LARK Y. LG eA ma %sr, L -Ty R-9 3. :-.A(ONrALVO 4 r1yU. 4i tip AROORETUA I I �0 r3 / %`` YeFd` o lI,N RD. i *OGE Source: Sunnyvale AAA Map 0 1 -04-99(SSD83OSaratogaVicinity) N LSD Approximate scale in feet 1100 Figure 2 Saratoga Elementary School Expansion: Project Site and Vicinity 3-t Co Hs L am �0 ME2ZLEVEL r K UBRARY i V.T LOWER LEVEL ao © © ;. LOBBY i 1 so so L t r a � LO S d W Sd C AMA C S I Hs S ems C K T C -= ' T 1 S I 'L K ' C _ —mono L--- --- --- --- --- -- --- --- -T v.r �wr —K..c . SpD _ C F I i i I I I I I Sourcc: HMC Group, 2/10/98 0 I - 04- 99(SSL)830SaratogaSrtc) N LSA Approximate scale in feet 0 uo Figure 3 Existing Saratoga Elementary School Site DISTRICT OFFICE o 0 I I.� t 1L 1: KEY: ALOFIA A Administration F Fwdd/rurf M Multipurpose S Storage/Mech/Custodian Ar AR G Gym Me Musk Se Science Ca Cafeteria wsp Me Made Studs Se Softcape C General Classroom IR Inbrmtlnt Retreral MeS N Moda Stotegs Nurse Sh Shop Co Computer Room K Kiudsrgarten P PaAdng SI Speech 3 Language Sp Speed Line / Servsry Chi Chapter 1 Kc Kitchen Pa Parent Room SpD Spacial Day Cn Corderence Room L Library Pg Play Gtound St Stage D Daycare Lo Stn Lau nge R kt �uruelor Su Support DC Double Classroom l�oea T Toilet Me/Ar/Moremerd Le Locher Shwr. Re Resource Sp@cW sNSpec.Pgnn. W Stan Wortaoom E ESL Wr Weight Room Sourcc: HMC Group, 2/10/98 0 I - 04- 99(SSL)830SaratogaSrtc) N LSA Approximate scale in feet 0 uo Figure 3 Existing Saratoga Elementary School Site Project Description program, upgrade the facilities, and accommodate the anticipated growth over the next ten years. The expansion of Saratoga Elementary School is part of a phased "Implementation Plan" that establishes a master program outline to define the scope and relative priorities of the District's "Modernization Program." The most critical issue to be addressed by the Modernization Program is the greater- than - anticipated growth of enrollment at each of the District's schools. Revised projections for District -wide enrollment for the school year 2006/7 include an increase of 400 students beyond those the District's Long -Range Facilities Master Plan forecasts. There is an increase of 48 students at Saratoga Elementary School over the Master Plan projections. The main objective of the proposed project would be the provision of new classrooms to accommodate the projected increase in student enrollment. The addition of new classrooms District -wide constitutes the highest priority of the District's Modernization Program. The project would also fulfill the projected need for an additional multi - purpose building on -site. Additional site improvements would include an expanded parking area, a larger play area, and the modernization of existing buildings on campus that would accommodate increased enrollment and improve traffic circulation. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed project would consist of expansion of the existing Saratoga Elementary School to accommodate projected increases in student enrollment from 393 to 500 students and an associated increase in the number of school staff by year 2007/8. Staffing would increase from the current 34.75 (full -time equivalent) personnel to a total of 43.85 (full -time equivalents). The facilities would include new buildings, modernization of the remaining buildings, site improvements to enhance traffic circulation, provision of a larger play area, and correction of drainage problems, and additional parking (Figure 4). The existing portables would be removed and replaced by the proposed new classroom building. The school site would be vacated during construction, and students and staff would be housed at Strawberry Park Elementary School. This school site is part of the Moreland School District in San Jose, and is located approximately four miles from the project location. The Strawberry Park School site has been used repeatedly in the past as a "swing- site" for schools that need to relocate temporarily. Student and staff populations of schools that have used the site in the past have been either similar to or larger than the existing student population at Saratoga Elementary School. School Buildings The proposed school facilities expansion would increase the total square footage on -site by 30,930 square feet (sq. ft.). A new two -story classroom 11R0/98(PASSD830UNrlSTUD) 6 Source: HMC Group, 11/16/98 01- 04- 99(SSD830ncwSara(ogaSitcPlan) n N LSA Figure 4 Saratoga Elementary School Expansion - Site Plan Landscaping Project Description building (approximately 25,200 sq. ft.) would be constructed immediately adjacent to the existing administration/classroom building, and would be connected to the existing building pedestrian ramp and walkway. The proposed classroom building would contain a total of 16 classrooms. It would include two restrooms, a tech room, two maintenance rooms, an English as a Second Language (ESL) room, and two storage closets. The proposed multi- use building (5,730 sq.ft.) would be a one -story building consisting of a multi- use room with a stage area, a storage room, a serving/kitchen area, restrooms, a maintenance room, and a room containing electrical facilities. An expanded playfield would be located adjacent to the proposed multi -use building, immediately to the north of the existing playfield. An additional 16 spaces, for a total of 43 parking spaces, would be provided in an expanded asphalt area adjacent to the existing parking lot. Access to the parking lot would be from Oak Street. The new school buildings would be designed to reflect the character of the existing architecture. The new classroom building would be set back from Oak Street at a distance consistent with existing structures. Except for the elevator tower portion of the proposed two -story classroom building, which would reach approximately 44 feet 4 inches in height, the structure would not exceed 37 feet 3 inches, a height consistent with the existing adjacent building. The proposed multi - purpose building would be a one -story building with a maximum height of 38 feet 8 inches. The multi - purpose structure would be constructed so that its roofline would slope downward in conformance with the topography of the site. Both structures would be constructed with sloped roofs. New buildings would be constructed of either wood or steel frame structures with slab -on -grade or wood floors. Structural loads would be representative of those typical for this type of construction. Fills ranging to four feet in thickness would be required to raise grades across the existing playground. Lighting would be installed around the perimeter of the buildings, along the walkways, and in the parking lot primarily for safety and security. Currently, there are two large eucalyptus trees located near the proposed playground renovation area. As part of the proposed project, these trees would be removed and replaced with several trees species that include coast live oak, redwoods, and accent trees (either spring flowering deciduous or fall color deciduous). In accordance with District policies, all trees to be removed as part of a project would be replaced at a minimum ratio of 1:1. Trees from five to ten inches in diameter would be replaced at a 2:1 ratio while those over ten inches, including the two eucalyptus, would be replaced at a 3:1 ratio. 11/20/98(P:1SSD830\INrrSTUD) 0 Circulation Project Description To improve access and increase the capacity of the loading and unloading areas, the following strategies have been incorporated into the project: 1. Better utilize Oak Street as a loading zone, i.e. by designating five specific loading areas with student safety patrol or volunteer at each one. 2. De- emphasizing Oak Street by developing more onsite drop -off capacity. 3. Creating a counter - clockwise on -site circulation pattern. 4. Utilizing the kindergarten drop -off for other grades as well (AM only). These cars could then turn left onto Oak Street and avoid driving in front of the school altogether. 5. Develop a "Suggested Route to School" plan for the school. The City would develop the plan in conjunction with the District and would be made available to students. 6. ALTRANS would initiate a bussing program in the District. The program would begin with two busses, which would serve up to three routes each. Infrastructure Utilities and Services Water would continue to be provided to the project site by the San Jose Water Company. Adequate water would be available to serve the elementary school expansion. Sewer services would continue to be provided by West Valley Sanitation District to accommodate the proposed expansion of facilities. Underground utilities would be installed to provide on -site water and sewer hook -ups for new facilities. To facilitate on -site drainage, which currently collections in the playfield area, an existing storm drain line in Aloha Street would be used as an outfall for runoff resulting from the development of the proposed project. The City of Saratoga has given tentative approval of this concept (Erman Dorsey, Assistant Engineer, Public Works Department, City of Saratoga, December 1998). The District would submit a more detailed set of plans and calculations for subsequent review and approval by the City of Saratoga. Site Preparation and Construction Site Plans Prior to construction, detailed design plans for the school expansion would be prepared. .. Plans would be consistent with the Division of the State Architect, State Department of Education criteria, and Title 24 of the Uniform 11R0M(PASSD830UN1 ISTUD) 9 Project Description Building Code (UBC). Foundations and materials would conform with requirements for adequate soils, seismic safety for Seismic Zone 4, and prevention of flooding. The following measures would be incorporated into the site plans: Areas of new construction would be properly cleared, stripped of all surface vegetation and topsoil, and excavated. Exposed surface soils to receive fill, slabs -on- grade, or pavements would be scarified and compacted in accordance with local requirements or recommendations contained in the geological investigation conducted for the project (LowneyAssociates, Geotechnicallnvestigation -Saratoga Elementary School Improvements, Saratoga, California, May 26, 1998). Material for fill would be imported material or recycled on -site materials which conform to the specifications of the geological investigation report. All utility trenches would be backfilled with compacted fill in accordance with local requirements or recommendations contained within the geotechnical investigation report. The contractor would be responsible for all temporary slopes and trenches excavated at the site and the design of any required temporary shoring. All fill and cut slopes in soil would have a minimum slope of 2:1 (horizontal: vertical), and would be landscaped to minimize erosion. All grading and earthwork would be performed under the observation of a professional qualified to check that the site is prepared properly. Erosion, Air Emissions and Noise Control Site preparation and facilities construction would require use of excavators, backhoes, dumptrucks, loaders, compactors, bulldozers, pavers, concrete trucks, and other heavy machinery. The following measures would be implemented to control erosion, air emissions, and noise. Erosion Control Best Management Practices (BMPs) would be used to control erosion and excess sedimentation and maintain water quality. These measures could include, but not be limited to, use of temporary detention basins, use of hay bales for reducing siltation from any site runoff, timely covering or revegetation of construction areas, street sweeping to remove soil from construction areas, and restriction of grading to the dry season. Landscaping for the project would be planted shortly after site preparation. 11/20/98(P:\,SSD830\INrrSWD) 10 Project Description Control of Air Emissions To minimize air quality impacts to the lowest practicable levels, Best Available Control Technology (BACTs) would be used during site preparation and construction of the middle school project. Dust (particulate matter), and to a lesser extent, other air emissions, would be controlled by implementing some or all of the following measures: 1) preparing and adopting a comprehensive construction activity management plan to most effectively use construction equipment and assure that it is properly maintained to minimize air emissions; 2) periodic watering or sprinkling of soils piles and unpaved parts of the site to prevent dust from leaving the site and increased watering whenever wind speeds exceed 15 miles per hour; 3) covering or watering all excavated materials transported off -site; 4) limiting on -site vehicle speeds; 5) removing mud and soils from the tires of equipment; 6) planting of landscaping as soon as possible after initiation of project construction; and 7) sweeping of adjacent streets as needed to remove accumulated dirt. Noise Controls To reduce potential noise - related impacts from site preparation and construction activities, measures would be incorporated as part of the proposed project. These measures would include: scheduling of work during normal daytime hours on weekdays (except holidays from about 7 a.m. to 3 -4 p.m. Activities with potentially adverse noise levels would not be performed prior to 8 a.m. nor after 5 p.m. consistent with City of Saratoga policies relevant to noise; muffling or control of any loud construction equipment; locating procedures with the highest noise potential away from any nearby sensitive land uses (i.e. residences on surrounding streets); performing noisy procedures at an off -site location, as practicable, and; scheduling of construction so that structures can be partially finished for use as noise barriers. Health and Safety Measures Site preparation and construction activities would be conducted consistent with Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA) and CalOSHA regulations and local requirements to provide for worker and public safety. To protect the general public and, as applicable, the project site would be fenced and signed and other appropriate measures taken to restrict public access. Construction activities would be clearly marked and controlled as necessary. When utility/service lines are to be connected, the appropriate agency would be notified and in -place procedures to protect/relocate the utilities would be implemented as part of the proposed project. As part of its ongoing program, the District would continue to manage use of pesticides, fertilizers, and other chemicals in accordance with manufacturers' requirements and to minimize the amounts of such materials that are applied to the extent practicable. 11R0/98(PASSD830\INr[=D) 11 Project Description Protection of Potential Cultural Resources While there are no known prehistoric cultural resources on the school site, two important historic features have been identified. These consist of a bell and a weathervane. The bell would remain in place both during and after construction, and the weathervane would be relocated and mounted onto the multi - purpose room portion of the new classroom building. To ensure that there are no adverse effects on potential, unknown cultural resources during site preparation and construction, work would be halted immediately if any such resources are uncovered. A cultural resource specialist would be consulted and appropriate mitigation actions, consistent with Appendix K of the CEQA Guidelines and federal requirements (e.g., National Historic Preservation Act of 1966), would be taken. Measures may include, but not be limited to, provision of setbacks and avoidance of the area until the extent of the impact and any subsequent procedures can be determined and implemented. Scheduling and Financing Upon approval of the project by the District Board of Education, detailed design of the project would be initiated followed by the start of construction in the Summer of 1999 and is scheduled to be completed by Fall of 2000. The project would be financed by a combination of District monies and State funds. COMPLIANCE WITH PLANS AND POLICIES City of Saratoga General Plan and Zoning The City of Saratoga General Plan, as amended in 1983, establishes goals, objectives, and policies to guide and implement current and future land use planning and growth within the community and to preserve its character. Presently, the General Plan land use and zoning designation for the site is Community Facility - School (CFS). The expansion of the Saratoga Elementary School would not alter existing land uses on -site and it would conform with both General Plan and City zoning designations. Local Evacuation and Emergency Plans The District would conform and coordinate with any local emergency and evacuation plans that are applicable to the City of Saratoga. 11/10/98(PASSD830UNr1=D) 12 Project Description California State Education Code The California State Department of Education has established criteria for the siting of school Facilities. Criteria include adequacy of acreage for development, access, setback from transmission lines, proximity to airports, flood areas, geological and soils engineering studies, traffic, safety (avoiding student crossings of main arterials), proximity to hazardous waste sites, and other factors. Some of these criteria are mandated for consideration under the State Education Code. As an existing school site, the project site has already been approved by the Department of Education as an acceptable site for school facilities. By conforming with the Department of Education criteria, Division of the State Architect design standards, Title 24 of the UBC and State Fire Marshall requirements, the proposed project (i.e. the expansion of school facilities on- site) is expected to be consistent with the California State Education Code. 11R0/98(P:ISSD830VNrrSTUD) 13 Environmental Cbeckiist Form III. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM 1. Project Title: Saratoga Elementary School Expansion 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: Saratoga Union School District 20460 Forrest Hills Drive Saratoga, CA 95070 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Mr. Chris Gombatz, Project Coordinator HMC Architecture, Planning & Interior Design 1570 The Alameda, Suite 330 San Jose, CA 95126 -2305 (408) 977 -9160 4. Project Location: Northeast corner of the intersection of Oak Street and Komina Avenue in the City of Saratoga, CA 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Saratoga Union School District 20460 Forrest Hills Drive Saratoga, CA 95070 6. Current General Plan Designation: CFS (Community Facilities - Schools) 7. Current Zoning: CFS (Community Facilities - Schools) 8. Description of Project: See previous discussion (Chapter II, Project Description). 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: See previous discussion (Chapter II, Project Description). 10. Other agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement.) - California Department of Education - California Division of the State Architect - City of Saratoga 11/I0/98(P:1$SD830UNrISTUD) 14 Environmental Cbecklist Form ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLYAFFECTED The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. _ Land Use and Planning _ Population and Housing _ Geological Problems _ Water _ Air Quality _ Transportation /Circulation _ Transit _ Biological Resources _ Energy and Mineral Resources Determination (To be completed by the Lead Agency.) On the basis of this initial evaluation: _ Hazards _ Noise _ Mandatory Findings of Significance _ Public Services _ Utilities and Service Systems _ Aesthetics _ Cultural Resources Recreation X I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case 11R0/98(P:\5SD830\JNrrS7rUD) 15 Environmental Cbecklist Form because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Signature A v , PRINTED Date For 11/20/98(P:1SSD830UNnSMD) 16 Environmental Checklist Form Evaluations of Environmental Impacts: 1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parenthesis following each questions. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to a project like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a Fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project - specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project - specific screening analysis). 2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off -site as well as on -site, cumulative as well as project- level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3. Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4. "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVII, "Earlier Analyses," may be cross - referenced) . 5. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, Program EIR, or the CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). Earlier analyses are discussed in Section XVII at the end of the checklist. 11/20/98(P:WD830\1NrrS`MD) 17 Environmental Checklist Form EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? X b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies X with jurisdiction over the project? c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? X d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g., impacts to soils or X farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)? e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community X (including a low- income or minority community)? 11. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? X b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g. X through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? X III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? X b) Seismic ground shaking? X c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? X d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? X e) Landslides or mudflows? X 0 Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, X grading, or 611? g) Subsidence of the land? X h) Expansive soils? X i) Unique geologic or physical features? X IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of X surface runoff? b) Exposure of people or property to water- related hazards such as flooding? X c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface Water quality X (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? X 11/20/98(P:GSSD830\lNITSTUD) 18 Environmental Cbecklist Form VII. TRANSIT FACILITIES. Would the proposal result in: a) Effects on existing transit facilities (bus and/or light rail), or demand for new X transit facilities? b) Need for new bus routes, or alterations to the existing system of bus routes X and stops? c) Increases in the frequency of service stops made by transit vehicles? X d) Disruption of public access to transit facilities and/or services? X 11R0/98(P:\SSD830\INrrMD) 19 Potentially Significant Potentially Unlcss Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? X t) Change in the quantity of groundwaters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations, or X through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? X h) Impacts to groundwater quality? X i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for X public water supplies? V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? X b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? X c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? X d) Create objectionable odors? X VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? X b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? X c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? X d) Insufficient parking capacity on -site or off-site? X e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? X t) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g., X bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? X VII. TRANSIT FACILITIES. Would the proposal result in: a) Effects on existing transit facilities (bus and/or light rail), or demand for new X transit facilities? b) Need for new bus routes, or alterations to the existing system of bus routes X and stops? c) Increases in the frequency of service stops made by transit vehicles? X d) Disruption of public access to transit facilities and/or services? X 11R0/98(P:\SSD830\INrrMD) 19 Environmental Cbecklist Form Potentially Significant Potentially I Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact VIII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: a) Endangered, threatened, or rare species or their habitats (including but not X limited to plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds)? b) Locally designated species (e.g., heritage trees)? X c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g., oak forest, coastal habitat, X etc.)? d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian, and vernal pool)? X e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? X IX. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: X a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? b) Use non - renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? X c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be X of future value to the region and the residents of the State? X. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, X but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals, or radiation)? b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency X evacuation plan? c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? X d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? X e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees? X XI. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? X b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? X XII. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas: a) Fire protection? X b) Police protection? X c) Schools? X d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? X e) Other govemmental services? X 11R0/98(PASSD830 INrrSTUD) 20 )[III. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a) Power or natural gas? b) Communications systems? c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? d) Sewer or septic tanks? e) Storm water drainage? f) Solid waste disposal? g) Local or regional water supplies? XIV. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? c) Create light or glare? XV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleontological resources? b) Disturb archaeological resources? c) Affect historical resources? d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? XVI. RECREATION. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short -term, to the disadvantage of long -term, environmental goals? 11/20/98(P:\SSD830UNTISI UD) Environmental Cbeck/ist Form Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Lcss Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 21 Environmental CLecklist Fornt Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact c) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively X considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) d) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial x adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? 11/20/98(P:\SSD830UNirSfUD) 22 Responses to CGecklist IV. RESPONSES TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST The following explanations are presented in response to the items contained in Chapter III, CEQA Environmental Checklist Form. The explanations are keyed to the corresponding number and letter of the topic presented in the checklist. The discussion contained in the responses are based upon information and judgements from the lead agency and based upon existing - site conditions. As appropriate, a reference or source for supporting information has been cited within the response for each topic. L LAND USE AND PLANNING Significance Criteria Significant land use impacts would occur if the project substantially conflicts with established uses in the project area, disrupted or divided the established land use configurations, or resulted in a substantial alteration to present or planned land uses. The consistency of the proposed project with the City of Saratoga General Plan and zoning, and other applicable environmental plans and policies is also evaluated in making a determination about potential land use impacts. a. Conflict with General Plan Designation or Zoning? No Impact. The proposed project would be consistent with the use of the 6.4- acre property permitted under the General Plan and zoning designations. The entire project site is within an area designated as "Community Facilities," subcategory - Schools (CFS) by the City's General Plan. Uses that comprise this subcategory consist of elementary schools, junior high schools, high schools, and the West Valley Community College. Since the proposed project consists of the expansion of an existing elementary school Facility and is consistent with the City's Zoning Code, the project would not conflict with the General Plan designation. b. Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? No Impact. The proposed project would have no known conflicts with any applicable environmental plans or policies. The project would be designed in accordance with State Department of Education criteria and requirements. The project would also conform with other applicable local, regional, State and federal regulations and guidelines, including design recommendations of the City's Heritage Committee. C. Be compatible with existing land use in the vicinity? No Impact. The proposed project is consistent with General Plan and zoning designations for the site. The project would be developed on an existing school site. Land uses on -site would not be altered as a result of the O1/07/99(PASSD830UNn`SWD) 23 Responses to CGecklist proposed project, and would therefore remain compatible with surrounding uses. Adjacent land uses primarily consist of residential development. Uses on all sides of the project site are designated as "multi -use development" (MUPD), with the exception of development to the east, across Oak Street from the site, that is designated "planned development" (PD). Implementation of the proposed project would be consistent with the existing development pattern, generally compatible with surrounding uses, and consistent with planning for the area. d. Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g., impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)? No Impact. The proposed project site is not located within or near agricultural lands. The 6.4 acres includes the existing school facility and is within an already urbanized area in which there are residential and commercial uses. e. Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a low - income or minority community)? No Impact. The proposed project would be consistent with the General Plan and zoning designations. Given that the project consists of an expansion on an existing school site, neither the scale nor type of use would disrupt or divide the community. II. POPULATION AND HOUSING Significance Criteria Impacts to population and housing would be significant if the proposed project resulted in inconsistencies with official projections, induced substantial growth or concentration of a population, or displaced existing housing. a. Exceed official regional or local population projections? No Impact. The school expansion would not significantly alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of the surrounding vicinity. In addition, the project would be consistent with District forecasts (as required by the State Department of Education) of future student growth within its attendance boundaries. In particular, the school expansion is intended to accommodate increased demand for educational facilities for students in grades K -5. b. Induce substantial growth in an area directly or indirectly (e.g., through projects in an undeveloped area of extension of major infrastructure)? 11/20/98(P:\.SSD830\INrrSnD) 24 Responses to Checklist Less Than Significant Impact. The project is not anticipated to be significantly growth- inducing. The implementation of the proposed project is a response to the increasing student growth that has occurred and is expected to continue in the surrounding community. There is a need to renovate, modernize and expand the facilities to accommodate this student growth. The addition of several staff would be a relatively minor increase in the local population. The project is located on an existing school site within an already urbanized area, and would not require the extension of any major infrastructure. C. Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? No impact. The project would be developed on an existing school site. The project site does not include any housing. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not displace any housing, including affordable housing. III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS Significance Criteria A significant geologic impact would occur if a project exposed people or structures to major geologic hazards such as earthquake damage, slope and /or foundation instability, erosions, or sedimentation, land subsidence, or other problems of a geologic nature. a. Fault rupture? No Impact. The closest known major fault is the San Andreas Fault, segments of which are located within two miles of the project site. Surface ruptures occur during a seismic event at the intersection of a fault with the ground surface. According to the geological investigation conducted for the school project (Lowney Associates, May 1998), the site is not located within a designated Alquist - Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone" (formerly known as Special Studies Zone), and no known surface expression of active faults is believed to exist within the site. For these reasons, fault rupture on the site is not anticipated. b /c. Seismic groundshaking; ground failure /liquefaction? Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is located within the San Francisco Bay Area, generally recognized as one of the most seismically active regions in the United States. Strong seismic groundshaking from earthquakes generated anywhere within the region can be expected to occur on -site during moderate to severe earthquakes. Such seismic shaking can result in property damage, personal injuries, from falling objects, and loss of life. The seismic his of the region and studies of recurrence intervals of major faults, such as the San Andreas fault, indicate that the site will experience 11/10/98(PASSD830UNn`SnD) 25 Responses to CGeck/ist shaking from a significant earthquake during the design life of the project. In addition to estimating the probability of an earthquake, the anticipated level of groundshaking is important to know for the purposes of designing buildings and other improvements. Groundshaking likely to occur on -site has been estimated to be a maximum magnitude (fault- specific moment) of 7.9 on the San Andreas Fault and 6.8 for the Monte Vista- Shannon Fault, both major faults approximately two miles from the project site (Lowney Associates, Geotechnical Investigation - Saratoga Elementary School Improvements, Saratoga, California, May 26, 1998). Major earthquake shaking can cause non - uniform compaction of the soil strata, resulting in movement of the near - surface soils. However, the probability of such ground movement at the site is judged to be low. Groundshaking associated with seismic activity can also cause liquefaction. Soil liquefaction results from loss of strength during cyclic loading, such as imposed by earthquakes. Soils most susceptible to liquefaction are clean, loose, saturated, uniformly graded, fine - grained sands. Sands were not encountered in the borings on this site. In addition, groundwater was not encountered to the terminal depth of the borings. For these reasons, the potential for liquefaction is low during seismic shaking. The probability of the occurrence of soil movement associated with differential compaction and /or lateral spreading on -site is also considered minimal. Incorporation of the site preparation and construction related measures recommended in the geological report and compliance with Title 24 of the Uniform Building Code would reduce the potential seismic groundshaking and ground failure/liquefaction impacts to a less than significant level. d. Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? No Impact. The site is located about 13.5 miles from the San Francisco Bay shoreline at about 510 feet above sea level. This location and elevation is well beyond and above the maximum projected runup by possible seismically generated tsunamis that may affect San Francisco Bay. The site is also not located next to any major bodies of water that would cause seismically induced waves or flooding from seiches. There are no known active volcanos within the region. e. Landslides or mudtlows? No Impact. The site is located on a broad, nearly level plain having no nearby ravines or excavations. The gently sloping site topography is characterized by a shallow, northeast- tending drainage swale. City of Saratoga ground movement potential maps (1987) indicate that the site is not within an area where landsliding or related movement would be of significant concern (Lowney Associates, Geotechnical Investigation - Saratoga Elementary School Improvements,. Saratoga, California, May 26, 1998). 11R0/98(P:\5SD830\JNnSTUD) 26 Responses to Check list f. Erosion, changes in topography, or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? Less Than Significant Impact. Implementation of the proposed project would not cause significant levels of erosion, changes in topography, or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading or fill. Necessary grading activities would be minimal and would not result in significant changes in topography, unstable soils conditions, or any significant changes in geologic substructures. The site has been previously disturbed for placement of the existing buildings. Some additional compaction would occur with the addition of new buildings on the 6.4 -acre site, specifically in areas to receive fill, slab -on- grade, or pavement. According to the geological investigation report, potential damage to structures due to future settlement of fill within the proposed building areas is of concern (Lowney Associates, GeotechnicalInvestigation - Saratoga Elementary School Improvements, Saratoga, California, May 26, 1998). However, implementation of mitigation measures incorporated into the project, i.e. the removal of existing fill within and surrounding proposed building areas, would reduce associated impacts to a less than significant level. Soil stability on site may also be affected by potential surface water infiltration and migrating subsurface water within the playfield portion of the site. The removal of existing fill within this area prior to fill replacement, along with the provision of permanent drainage measures within the existing drainage swale as recommended in the geological investigation report would reduce the potential for proposed fills to become saturated and unstable. Cut and fill associated with site preparation may also result in minor sloughing and erosion on -site. However, long -term erosion at the site is not anticipated to be a problem. Minimal erosion from wind or water runoff would occur during site preparation with implementation of the project. During and after construction, the . potential for erosion would be reduced to a less than significant level by implementation of the Best Management Practices incorporated into the project. Because less than five acres would be disturbed (i.e., 4.1 acres), a "General Construction Activity Stormwater Permit" under Section 401 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System would not be required from the local Regional Water Quality Control Board as part of the proposed project. Nevertheless, measures that would be consistent with such a permit have been incorporated as part of the project to reduce, erosion, stormwater runoff, and potential impacts to water quality. g. Subsidence of land? No Impact. No significant subsidence is expected to result from the project. No major groundwater withdrawals or building on unstable soils would occur. 11/20/98(P:WD83WNrISTUD) 27 Responses to Cbecklist Soils would be recompacted after clearing of the site to minimize the future potential for settlement. In general, site preparation for construction of additional buildings would conform to site specific design criteria, foundations, and engineering measures to minimize geological impacts associated with site development. b. Expansive soils? No Impact. Implementation of the proposed project is not anticipated to involve any known expansive soils. Per recommendations contained in the geological investigation report, as part of the proposed project, expansive soils would need to be removed or remediated as part of site preparation and replaced with suitable materials. i. Unique geologic or physical features? No Impact. Development of the site would not result in the destruction, covering, or modification of any unique geologic or physical features. The property is relatively flat and is a currently developed, existing school site with no unique geologic features. IV. WATER Significance Criteria Significant impacts to water resources would resultfrom substantialflooding or erosion, adverse effects on any significant water body, such as a stream, lake or bay, exposure of people to reasonably foreseeable hydrological hazards such as flooding, or adverse affects to surface or groundwater quality or quantity. a. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff`? Less Than Significant Impact. Absorption rates from development of the project would be similar to existing conditions. Additional development on- site would result in a small increase to impervious surfaces. Positive surface gradients would be provided within five feet of new buildings to direct surface water away from the foundations and slabs towards suitable discharge Facilities. Ponding of water would not be allowed on or adjacent to structures, slabs -on- grade, or pavements. Roof runoff would be directed away from foundation and slabs -on- grade. Permanent drainage measures would be provided within the existing drainage swale to intercept surface water infiltration and migrating subsurface water. These measures would reduce the potential for proposed fills to become saturated and unstable. Ultimately, runoff= from the site would be directed via trench drains to an existing stormwater line in Aloha Street. The District's engineer has discussed this means of drainage with the City of Saratoga and 11/20/98(PASSD830VNUSTUD) 28 Responses to Checklist the City has given its tentative approval of the concept (Erman Dorsey, Assistant Engineer, Public Works Department, City of Saratoga, December 1998). Detailed plans and calculations would be submitted to the City for their subsequent review and approval. With incorporation of such measures as part of the proposed project, the total amount of project runoff is not expected to pose a significant effect upon local drainage or the rate or amount of runoff. b. Exposure of people or property to water - related hazards such as ,flooding? No Impact. The project site is not within a 100 -year flood area, as identified in the City of Saratoga General Plan. The nearest major watercourses are Saratoga Creek and Wildcat Creek. These creeks have experienced flooding in the past. However, flooding has been confined to designated flood hazard areas adjacent to each creek. Flood hazard areas have been reduced over time with the ongoing improvement of drainage facilities. C. Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g., temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? Less Than Significant Impact. Project runoff would be expected to contain a minor addition to typical urban pollutants such as oil and grease from parking areas and fertilizers and pesticides from landscaped areas and is not expected to be significant. With the routing of part of the on -site stormwater to the existing line in Aloha Street that drains to Wildcat Creek, surface water quality would be potentially impacted by a small incremental increase to runoff. However, the incorporation of BMP measures as part of the project and sound management of chemicals to lessen use during school operation is expected to minimize potential impacts to water quality to the extent practicable. d. Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? Less Than Significant Impact. The project would not significantly alter surface water quantity. The site is currently occupied by existing elementary school facilities. Development of the project would result in an only a slight increase in impervious surface coverage on -site. Stormwater would be dispersed on -site and percolated into the grass field or directed toward existing drainage facilities to Wildcat Creek. While additional water flow from the school site would result in an incremental increase in the amount of water flow in the creek, the amount of surface water in the water body as a whole would not be significantly altered as a result of the proposed project. e. Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? No Impact. Construction of the proposed project would not result in changes to the course or direction of water movements. The project site is already 11/20/98(PASSD83GVNrrSTUD) 29 Responses to Checklist developed, and the proposed expansion would not result in alterations to any water body such that currents or the course or direction of water movements would be altered. Precipitation on -site would either recharge to the groundwater by percolating into pervious surfaces, or be directed to existing drainage facilities, per on -site drainage modifications incorporated into the proposed project. Modifications to surface flow resulting from connection of drainage from the project site to Wildcat Creek would result in an incremental increase in the amount of water flowing into the creek. However, this small increase in flow would not significantly change the current or course of direction of surface water movements. f /g. Changes in groundwater quality or altered direction or rate of ,flow of groundwater? Less Than Significant Impact. The project would not result in a substantial reduction in groundwater, or a significant alteration in the direction or rate of flow of groundwater. Site runoff would continue to percolate to subsurface soils and to the existing groundwater regime. Operation of the proposed project would not involve use of groundwater. Water for human consumption and maintenance would be provided to the site by the San Jose Water Company. The increased impervious surfaces associated with the construction of new buildings and paved areas on -site is not expected to result in a substantial loss of any groundwater recharge capability. Site preparation would not involve major grading, cuts, or excavation beyond that normally required for standard building foundations. h. Impacts to groundwater quality? Less Than Significant Impact. A less than significant change in the quality of groundwater would result from the proposed project. Runoff from the project would be expected to contain a small incremental increase in typical urban pollutants such as oil and grease from parking areas and fertilizers and pesticides from additional landscaped areas. Much of the runoff from operation of the proposed project would be directed toward existing drainage facilities. Some runoff would be routed toward the playfields and would percolate into the ground. Although contaminants may increase incrementally, the ambient groundwater quality is not likely to be adversely affected. The geological investigation conducted for the proposed project did not encounter free groundwater in the borings to a depth of 20 feet, the maximum depth explored. Perched groundwater was present at depths of four to five feet within existing fill layers. BMP measures and management of chemicals used during school operation, incorporated as part of the proposed project, are expected to minimize potential impacts to groundwater quality to the extent practicable. i. Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? 11/20/98(P:\SSD830VNrrSTUD) 30 Responses to Cbeckiist No Impact. The project would not result in a substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater available for public water supplies. San Jose Water Works supplies water to the school site. The present facilities do not use groundwater nor would operation of the proposed project. V. AIR QUALITY Significance Criteria Air quality impacts would be significant if the project causes or contribute to the violation of any ambient air quality standard, contribute substantially to an existing orprojected air quality violation, or expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. The primary source of air pollutant emissions associated with residential, commercial, institutional, and industrial land uses is motor vehicles. Typically these land uses do not directly produce significant amounts of air pollutants, but they attract vehicle trips whose emissions may adversely affect air quality. These land uses are therefore often referred to as "indirect" emission sources. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District has currently developed significance thresholds for air emissions under CEQA Guidelines. These significance standards include the following: • Reactive Organic Compounds (ROG) - 15 tons /year or 80 pounds /day. • Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) - 15 tons /year or 80 pounds /day. • Fine particulate matter (PM10) - 15 tons /year or 80 pounds /day. • Carbon Monoxide (CO) - 550 pounds /day. a. Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? Less Than Significant Impact. Given the scale of the proposed project and its relatively short duration of construction, significance thresholds for ItOG, NOx, and PM10 would not be exceeded during either construction activities or the operation of the elementary school after the expansion is completed. The development of the proposed project would result in short -term emission of particulates from preparation of the site and construction along with a small quantity of pollutants from construction equipment. To minimize the local impacts from site preparation and construction, measures for dust suppression and combustion engine emissions control have been incorporated as part of the proposed project. Potential adverse effects during site preparation and construction would be less than significant with incorporation of these measures and other Best Available Control Technologies consistent with measures identified by the BAAQMD. During the operation of the school, emissions would result from direct (on- site) and indirect (vehicular trips generated by the project) sources. Emissions 11/20/98(PASSD830\1NrrSTUD) 31 Responses to Cbeck/ist thresholds (described above) for project operation would not be violated by implementation of the project. Examples of projects with potentially significant operational emissions include approximately 375 new single - family housing units, general office development of 305,000 square feet, or a community college with 345,000 square feet of developed floor area. The project would total approximately 31,426 square feet. b. Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? Less Than Significant Impact. There are no hospitals, senior facilities or similar sensitive receptor locations in the immediate vicinity of the proposed project site. Pollutants from construction equipment (i.e., ROG, Nox and CO) and particulate matter from site preparation would be generated. However, these pollutants would be short-term and would be minimized by control measures incorporated as part of the project. Any adverse effects on workers would be minimized by contractor conformance with any applicable and already required OSHA and NIOSHA standards. As described above, total emissions during the construction period or resulting from project operations are not anticipated to exceed established thresholds. C. Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? No Impact. The scale and size of the proposed project would not result in the alteration of air movement, moisture, or temperature, or any change in the local or regional climate. Therefore, no significant impact would occur. d. Create objectionable odors? Less Than Significant Impact. There may be some objectionable odors resulting from the operation of diesel- powered equipment during the site preparation and construction of the proposed new buildings for the elementary school. However, these odors would be limited to the short -term construction period of the project, generally would be limited to the school site, and would not be significant. Operation of school facilities would not be expected to create objectionable odors. W. TRANSPORTATION /CIRCULATION Significance Criteria Transportation impacts would be significant if they result in a substantial increase in traffic in relation to the current traffic load and capacity of the street system (based on intersection operations), generate a parking demand that exceeds the proposed supply, create unsafe conditions (i.e., operational safety hazards, inadequate emergency access, or hazards to pedestrians or bicyclists), or conflict with adopted policies regarding alternative transportation. 11/20/98(P:%SSD830\1Nr STUD) 32 Responses to CGecklist The City of Saratoga has the following significance criteria for traffic operations: Level of Service (LOS) D shall be maintained at intersections and along roadways in the City of Saratoga. a. Increased Vehicle Trips or Traffic Congestion? Less than Significant Impact. The following describes the existing and future conditions of key arterials within close proximity to the project site. Existing Traffic Conditions Saratoga -Los Gatos Road (SR -9) - This street is designated as an Arterial in the City of Saratoga's General Plan Circulation Element, and is a regional highway within Santa Clara County. In the project vicinity, Saratoga -Los Gatos Road is a two lane roadway with a two -way continuous left turn lane. Sidewalks are constructed along selected portions of the street. Oak Street - This street is designated as a local street in the City's General Plan Circulation Element. In the project vicinity, Oak Street is a two lane roadway with residential frontage. Portions of the street have curb and gutter, while other sections are unimproved (i.e., no curb and gutter). Komina Avenue - This street is designated as a local street in the City's General Plan Circulation Element. In the project vicinity, Komina Avenue is a two lane roadway with residential frontage along the southerly /westerly side. The existing Saratoga Elementary School has frontage along the northerly /easterly side. Portions of the street have curb and gutter, while other sections are unimproved (i.e., no curb and gutter). City of Saratoga staff has identified three intersections for analysis in this Initial Study due to their close proximity to the project site: Komina Avenue /Oak Street - all -way stop sign control. Saratoga -Los Gatos Road /Oak Street - stop sign control on Oak Street. Saratoga -Los Gatos Road/Vickery Avenue - stop sign control on Vickery Avenue. Existing a.m. and p.m. peak hour traffic counts for these intersections were collected in early November, 1998. The peak hour volumes for these three analysis intersections are summarized in Table A -1 -1 of Appendix A -1 in Appendix A of this Initial Study. The ease with which intersections handle traffic largely controls the operation of the roadway system as a whole. Therefore, the operational status of these intersections is vital in determining how development affects area traffic and circulation. The operations of roadways and intersections are expressed in terms of "level of service" (LOS). The LOS are expressed using levels "A" 11/20/98(P.\SSD830\INn TUD) 33 Responses to Cbecklist through "F ", where LOS A represents minimal delays in traffic free flow activity and LOS F is overcapacity operations. For intersections in the City of Saratoga, the upper limit for satisfactory operations is LOS D. Analysis of operations at unsignalized intersections is determined through use of the level of service methodologies contained in the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM). For stop controlled intersections, this methodology provides an average total delay (in terms of seconds per vehicle) for each movement through the intersection. Based on the delays of each movement, an overall average delay is determined for the entire intersection. The HCM methodology provides an LOS based on the average delay for the entire intersections. Table A summarizes the existing a.m. and p.m. peak hour levels of service for the three analysis intersections. The level of service calculations sheets are contained in Appendix A -2. Table A - Existing (1998) Levels of Service Peak Hour Intersection A-M. P.M. 1. Oak Street/Komina Avenue LOS A LOS A 2. Saratoga -Los Gatos Road /Oak Street LOS A LOS A 3. Saratoga -Los Gatos Road/Vickery Avenue LOS A LOS A As this table indicates, all three analysis intersections are currently operating at LOS A during both the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. It should be noted that traffic turning from Oak Street and Vickery Avenue onto Saratoga -Los Gatos Road experience some delays while waiting for available gaps in traffic. However, overall, the intersections operate at satisfactory levels of service, with a majority of traffic experiencing minimal delays. Year 2008 Without Project Traffic Conditions The planned expansion of the Saratoga Elementary School is not expected to reach full capacity until the year 2008. Therefore, to examine the impacts of the proposed project, traffic conditions with the proposed expansion are examined relative to the 2008 without project condition. According to City staff, area traffic has been increasing at a rate of about 1.5 percent per year. For the ten -year period between 1998 and 2008, this growth rate would result in a 16 percent increase in traffic. Since the area immediately around the school is an established residential area, there is little possibility of increased development in this -area. With no increased development, there would likely be nominal future increases in traffic along the local roadways such as Oak Street, Komina Avenue, and 11/20/98(P:`SSD830VNrrSTUD) 34 Responses to CGecklist Vickery Avenue. There would, however, be increased traffic along major roadways such as Saratoga -Los Gatos Road. Therefore, for purposes of this analysis, the through traffic along Saratoga -Los Gatos Road was increased by 16 percent to reflect growth through the year 2008. Traffic volumes for the minor street movement (i.e., Oak Street and Vickery Avenue) were maintained at their existing levels. Forecast year 2008 a.m. and p.m. peak hour traffic volumes for the three analysis intersections are summarized in Table A -1 -1 of Appendix A -1. Forecast traffic conditions at analysis intersections were examined for the year 2008 without project condition, using the previously identified level of service methodology. Table B summarizes the year 2008 without project a.m. and p.m. peak hour levels of service for the three analysis intersections. Appendix A -2 contains the level of service calculation sheets. Table B - Year 2008 Without Project Levels of Service Peak Hour Intersection A.M. P.M. 1. Oak Street/Komina Avenue LOS A LOS A 2. Saratoga -Los Gatos Road/Oak Street LOS A LOS A 3. Saratoga -Los Gatos Road/Vickery Avenue LOS A LOS A As this table indicates, all three analysis intersections are expected to operate at LOS A during both the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. It should be noted that traffic turning from Oak Street and Vickery Avenue onto Saratoga -Los Gatos Road will experience some delays while waiting for available gaps in traffic. However, overall, the intersections along Saratoga -Los Gatos Road will operate at satisfactory levels of service, with a majority of traffic experiencing minimal delays. Potential Project Traffic Impacts Trip generation characteristics for development projects are generally identified for the a.m. and the p.m. peak hours. Typically, these trip generation characteristics are presented for the peak hour of adjacent street traffic, which corresponds to the peak commute periods. The a.m. peak hour of adjacent street traffic occurs for one hour between 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m.; the p.m. peak hour of adjacent street traffic occurs for one hour between 4:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. Schools, however, have different peaking characteristics from the standard commute periods. The a.m. peak hour trip generation for schools is consistent with the peak hour of adjacent street traffic (i.e., 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m.); however, the p.m. peak hour trip generation for schools is different. The peak hour of the school is between 2:00 p.m. and 4:00 p.m. Schools, 11/20/98(PASSD830UNUSTUD) 35 Responses to CGecklist especially elementary schools, typically have minimal trips generated during the p.m. peak hour of adjacent street traffic (i.e., 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.). With the proposed expansion, the enrollment of Saratoga Elementary School would increase from 393 students to 500 students. This change represents an increase of 107 students, or a 27 percent increase in student population. Trip generation for the increased student population was developed using elementary school trip rates from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation (6th Edition). It is important to note that the survey data used to develop the elementary school trip rates assume approximately 60 percent of students to travel to /from school via bus (with 40 percent via private automobile and walking). At present, there is no bussing activity at Saratoga Elementary School. To reflect the increased trip rates due to a greater dependence on private automobiles, the school trip rates were adjusted to reflect no bussing activity. Since nearly 100 percent of students are expected to travel via automobile (as opposed to 40 percent), the trip rates were factored by 2.5 (100 percent/40 percent). Table C summarizes the resulting peak hour and daily trip generation associated with the proposed expansion. The trip generation rates used represent peak hour trip generation for adjacent street traffic, and consequently no trips are generated for the typical p.m. peak hour. Table C - Project Trip Generation A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour (7:00 -9:00 a.m.) (4:00 -6:00 p.m.) In Out Total In Out Total Daily Proposed School at Build Out: 107 students Trips/Studentl 0.17 0.12 0.29 --- - -- - -- 1.02 Adj. Trips/Stu.2 0.43 0.30 0.73 --- — - -- 2.55 Trip Generation 46 32 78 0 0 0 273 1 Trip rates from Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation (Sixth Edition, 1997). Rates account for an average of 60% students being transported by bus (i.e., 40% by walking and automobile). 2 Rate adjusted to reflect no bussing activity. ITE rates were factored by 2.5 (100 % /40 %) to account for increased trips via private automobile. The proposed school expansion is forecast to generate approximately 270 additional daily trips, of which approximately 80 trips occur in the a.m. peak hour. It should be noted that the proposed school would generate approximately 70 additional peak hour trips during the school p.m. peak hour of the generator (i.e., 2:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.). This traffic, once distributed on the adjacent arterials during this mid - afternoon time frame, would not affect the level of service at intersections within proximity to the project site. These 11/20/98(P:1$SD830UNnSMD) 36 Responses to CGeck/ist intermediate trips occur as the school day ends, when ambient traffic is low and few area residents are present to experience any impact during a short period of time. Because of an open enrollment policy, the existing Saratoga Elementary School is attended by children from all over the Saratoga Unified School District. Based on the location of the school relative to the remainder of the City, the estimated distribution of trips is as follows: Northwest of School (access from west on Big Basin Way) 15% Northeast of School (access from north on Saratoga -Los Gatos Road)55% South and East of School (access from south on Saratoga -Los Gatos Road))30% Table A -1 -2 in Appendix A -1 of Appendix A summarizes the peak hour project trip distribution and assignment patterns. Again, it should be noted that the project would not generate p.m. peak hour (of adjacent street traffic) trips; therefore, no p.m. peak hour trip assignment is shown. Trips generated by the proposed expansion of Saratoga Elementary School were distributed and assigned to the circulation system in the vicinity of the school. The project trips were then added to the year 2008 without project conditions presented above. Table A -1 -1 of Appendix A -1 summarizes the resulting year 2008 plus project volumes. Forecast traffic conditions at analysis intersections were examined for the year 2008 plus project condition, using the previously identified level of service methodology. Table D summarizes the year 2008 plus project a.m. and p.m. peak hour levels of service for the three analysis intersections. Appendix A -2 contains the level of service calculation sheets. Table D - Year 2008 With Project Levels of Service Peak Hour Intersection A-M. P.M. 1. Oak Street/Komina Avenue LOS A LOS A 2. Saratoga -Los Gatos Road /Oak Street LOS B LOS A 3. Saratoga -Los Gatos Road/Vickery Avenue LOS A LOS A As this table indicates, all three analysis intersections are expected to operate at LOS B or better during both the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. As noted previously, traffic turning from Oak Street and Vickery Avenue onto Saratoga- 11/20/98(PA$SD830\JNnS`MD) 37 Responses to CGeckiist Los Gatos Road will experience some delays while waiting for available gaps in traffic. However, overall, the intersections along Saratoga -Los Gatos Road will operate at satisfactory levels of service, with a majority of traffic experiencing minimal delays. As indicated by this level of service analysis, addition of traffic generated by the proposed expansion of Saratoga Elementary School would not result in any significant impact to the operations of intersections in the project vicinity. Under year 2008 plus project conditions, the intersections identified for analysis would continue to operate at satisfactory levels of service as defined by the City's level of service criteria. b. Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? Less than Significant Impact. All traffic movements at the existing school occur on Oak Street and Komina Avenue. Traffic associated with the proposed expansion would likewise use these streets to access the school. Adequate signage and crosswalks are provided along these roadways. Pedestrian movements are accommodated within the existing design of the school, as well in the design of the proposed expansion. Potential pedestrian/vehicle conflicts are currently and would continue to be minimized by isolating pedestrian movements on site, through use of the following measures: De- emphasis of Oak Street by developing more on -site drop -off capacity. The increased drop -off capacity is being included in the design for the proposed expansion. Use of a counter - clockwise on -site circulation pattern. This circulation pattern would be implemented, in concert with the increased on -site drop -off capacity. Utilization of the kindergarten drop -off area for other grades, to be implemented as part of the proposed expansion. Access to the school is provided via two access driveways on Oak Street. These driveways provide ingress and egress movements for staff, as well as for parents dropping off the students. In addition, it may be possible to better utilize Oak Street as a loading zone by designating up to five specific loading areas with student safety patrols or volunteers at each one. C. Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? No Impact. The proposed expansion project would not alter access to nearby uses. Emergency access would continue to be provided to the school site via Oak Street and Komina Avenue. 11/20/98(PASSD830\INrr8TUD) 38 Responses to CGecklist d. Insufficient parking capacity on -site or off -site? Less than Significant Impact. There are currently 27 parking spaces for 34.75 full -time equivalent staff at the elementary school. As part of the proposed expansion, the on -site parking would be increased by 16 spaces to 43 spaces (from 27 existing spaces). During regular school sessions, the peak parking demand would be no more than 43 vehicles .(i.e., the projected number of 42.85 full -time equivalent staff members). Therefore, the build -out supply would be adequate to accommodate the projected staff, as well as visitors parking on -site. The project would not result in a significant impact upon parking capacity and the increased number of spaces would improve parking rapacity compared to existing conditions. Parking demand may exceed on -site capacity during special school events, such as graduations, plays, and fairs. However, these events are infrequent and are expected to be accommodated by on- street parking. Since such events currently occur as part of the existing school, and are of short -term duration, the proposed project would not have a significant impact on the adjacent streets. e. Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? Less than Significant Impact. Implementation of the project would not affect the pedestrian or bicycle circulation in the area; however, the most effective means of assuring pedestrian safety in the vicinity of the proposed school site would be through continued use and /or implementation of the following measures as part of the project: • Placement of School Zone and Pedestrian Warning Signs - School area warning and advisory signs would continue to be used within the school area, consistent with the policies contained in the Caltrans Traffic Manual (Chapter 10 - School Area Pedestrian Safety) and policies of the City of Saratoga. • "Suggested Route to School" - the City of Saratoga and the District would develop a "Suggested Route to School" plan for the school (if it does not already have one). The plan would be made available to the students and the parents of students. • School Crossing Guards - As an expansion of the District's existing program, school crossing guards would be provided, as appropriate, at any additional locations identified in the "Suggested Route to School" plan as warranting adult supervision, per City policies. f. Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? 11/20/98(P.'SSD830UNrrSTUD) 39 Responses to Cbecklist No Impact. The proposed project would support alternative transportation by serving a larger service area of pedestrians, providing off - street pick-up /drop- off areas, and installing additional bicycle racks on the project site. g. Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? No Impact. The proposed site is not located along or over waterborne or air traffic corridors. W. TRANSIT FACILITIES Significance Criteria The City of Saratoga does not provide any significance criteria for transit facilities. As noted in the City's General Plan Circulation Element, "the only economically feasible mass transit system is one that is Countywide." The Circulation Element further notes that "Saratoga alone cannot economically support a public transit system." a. Effects on existing transit facilities or increased demand? No Impact. Local public bus service in the Saratoga area is provided by Santa Clara County. This service provides transit service to the Village area and West Valley College. The proposed project would not generate a significant amount of public transit ridership, due to the age of the children attending the school. b. Need for new bits routes or alternatives to existing system? No Impact. The additional 107 students to be accommodated in the proposed expansion would reside throughout the City. In addition, the City's Circulation Element states that "Saratoga alone cannot economically support a public transit system." Based on these two facts, the proposed project would not create the need for new bus routes or alternatives to the existing transit system. ALTRANS currently provides trip reduction services to the Saratoga Unified School District and Saratoga Elementary School. Until recently, ALTRANS's services have primarily focused on outreach and education regarding trip reduction. Over the last two years, ALTRANS has implemented a carpool trip plan in which parents are matched to provide ridesharing of students to /from school. This program has resulted in a 19 percent reduction in vehicles traveling to the various schools in the Saratoga Unified School District. Beginning in early 1999, ALTRANS will initiate a bussing program in the Saratoga Unified School District. The program will begin with two busses, which will serve up to three routes each. Based on interest by parents and the School District, preliminary projections are that the bussing program could result in a 25 percent reduction in trips to area schools. If the 25 percent trip reduction is achieved, the implementation of bussing for Saratoga Elementary 11/20/98(P:�$SD830\INrrMD) 40 Responses to Cbecklist School students would nearly offset the increases in trips attributable to the proposed school expansion. For the bussing program to serve the maximum number of schools and students, ALTRANS staff has indicated that it would be desirable for schools to have staggered start times to provide sufficient time for busses to drop -off students and begin another route to pick -up students for another school. Prior to initiating the bussing service, it is recommended that ALTRANS and Saratoga Unified School District coordinate to develop a plan for school start times and bus routing so as to allow for maximum participation by students. C. Increase frequency of transit stops? No Impact. As stated in the City's Circulation Element, "Saratoga alone cannot economically support a public transit system." Based on the assessment, the proposed project would not create the need for new transit stops. d. Need for new bus routes or alterations to existing syste»:? No Impact. As stated in the City's Circulation Element, "Saratoga alone cannot economically support a public transit system." Based on the assessment, the proposed project would not create the need for new bus routes or alterations to the existing transit system. VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Significance Criteria. Biological impacts would be significant if the proposed project substantially affected a rare or endangered species of animal orplant or the habitat of the species, interfered substantially with the movement of any resident or migratory fish or wildlife species, or substantially diminished habitat for fish, wildlife or plants. The following general guidelines identify the general parameters of "Significant Impact" for Biological Resources which are under the jurisdiction of several resource agencies, the State Department of Fisb and Game, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Whether these threshold criteria are broached by a particular project must be determined on a case -by -case evaluation. • Endangered, Threatened, or Rare Species - A significant impact would occur if a project directly or indirectly "reduces species population," "reduces species habitat," or "restricts reproductive capacity. " • Wetland Habitat - A significant impact would result from the direct reduction of, or substantial indirect impact to, a "significant wetland habitat."..All wetlands are potentially significant; therefore a qualified biologist must make a determination of significance. 11/20/'98(P:\5SD83WNr STUD) 41 Responses to Checklist Locally Important Species - Since this group of species /communities is so diverse, the significance determination must be made by a qualified biologist on a case -by -case basis. a. Endangered, threatened, or rare species or their habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds)? No Impact. The project would be constructed on a currently developed site with habitat potential limited to urban - adapted species. Construction of the project would not result in the reduction of any unique, rare, or endangered species of plants or wildlife. No special - status plants or wildlife species are known to exist on the property. The project would not result in a significant change in the diversity of species or number of any species of animals (bird, land animals including reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic organisms, or insects). b. Locally designated species? No Significant Impact. There would be no significant impact on locally designated floral or Faunal species as a result of project development. Two eucalyptus trees currently located on -site would be removed as part of the proposed project. However, these trees do not represent locally designated species. The trees would be replaced with species that would include natives such as coast live oak and redwoods. C. Locally designated natural communities? No impact. Implementation of the project would have no impact on locally designated natural communities. The project site is already developed, and the project vicinity is highly urbanized. There would no significant adverse impacts upon natural biological communities. d. Wetland Impact? No Impact. The project site does not have any on -site wetland habitat. M existing school is located on the property. e. Wildlife dispersal or mitigation corridors? No Impact. The proposed site and the surrounding area have already been urbanized. Implementation of the school expansion would be contained to the existing site, and would not result in a significant adverse impact to wildlife dispersal or to migration corridors. 11/20/98(P.N$SD830\INnSWD) 42 Responses to Checklist VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES Significance Criteria Impacts to energy and mineral resources would be significant if the proposed project encouraged activities that resulted in the use of large amounts of fuel, water or energy. a. Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? No Impact. The implementation of the proposed project would not result in a conflict with adopted energy conservation plans and would not pose a significant impact. Energy use on -site would not significantly increase as a result of the proposed project. As applicable and required by State policies and guidelines for school construction, mandatory energy conservation measures would be incorporated into the design and utility systems. b. Use non - renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? Less Than Significant Impact. The implementation of the project would require use of nonrenewable resources for construction materials and energy during operation. However, because of its relatively small size, the project would not substantially alter the rate of natural resources use. The increase in the rate of use of natural resources would not be a significant impact. Since relatively small quantities of nonrenewable resources would be used, the project would not cause a substantial depletion of any such resources. Only materials needed to complete construction of the new school buildings and playfield upgrades would be used. Additional water, gas, electricity, and other energy supplies needed to serve the facilities would be minimal since these utilities already serve the project site. C. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State? No Impact. There are no known mineral resources on the project site, nor does the development include the use of mineral resources. The project site and surroundings are heavily urbanized. No significant impact would occur to a mineral resource. M HAZARDS Significance Criteria Appendix G of CEQA states that a significant impact would occur r the proposed project created a potential health hazard or involved the use, production, or disposal of materials that posed a hazard to people or animal 11/20/98(PASSD830VNrISnD) 43 Responses to Cbecklist or plant populations in the project area; or interfered with emergency response plans or emergency evacuation plans. A hazardous material is defined as a substance or combination of substances, that, because of quantity or concentration, orphysical, chemical, or infectious characteristics, may either: 1) cause or significantly contribute to an- increase in mortality or an increase in serious, irreversible, or incapacitating illness; or 2) pose a substantial present or potential hazard to buman health or the environment when improperly used, handled, treated, stored, transported, disposed or otherwise managed. Whether the hazardous materials /waste impacts of a project are "significant" are determined on a case -by -case basis and depends upon: 1) individual or a cumulative physical hazard of material or materials; 2) amounts of materials on -site, either in use or storage, 3) proximity of hazardous materials to populated areas and compatibility of materials wilb neighboring facilities; 4) federal, State, local laws and ordinances, governing storage and use of hazardous materials, and 5) potential for spill or release. a. Risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed school expansion would not involve a significant risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances in the event of an accident or upset condition. Schools do not typically use, store or emit substantial quantities of hazardous materials. Operation of the project could include storage and application of pesticides, fertilizers, paints or other potentially hazardous substances used for maintenance of school and related facilities. However, BMP measures and management of chemicals used during school operation, have been incorporated into the project. These measures are expected to minimize potential impacts to the extent practicable resulting in a less than significant operational impacts. Please see item IV.h. concerning water quality. The proposed project would also result in modernization of existing buildings. Current structures could contain asbestos in insulation, floor or ceiling tiles, and /or other materials, resulting in a potentially significant health hazard. As part of the project, the District has incorporated measures to identify asbestos/ asbestos- containing materials and a program for removal and disposal consistent with State and federal requirements. b. Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. No Impact. The completion and subsequent operation of the proposed project would not interfere with any known emergency response plan or an 11/20/98(PASSD830\INrrSTUD) 44 Responses to CGecklist emergency evacuation plan. The entire campus would be vacated during construction of the project. Therefore, emergency evacuation of students of staff would not be impacted by construction of the proposed project. New buildings on -site would be constructed in conformance with the requirements of the State Fire Marshall and Division of the State Architect. C. The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would not lead to the creation of any potential significant health hazard associated with new building construction or operation. The construction firm(s) and the associated workers employed for the project are subject to the worker safety regulations of OSHA and California OSHA. The District has also has safety programs in- place for school operation to minimize everyday health and safety risks to students and staff. The potential for exposure of persons to hazardous materials is described in response to item IX a., above. d. Exposure ofpeople to existing sources ofpotential health hazards? Less Than Significant Impact. There are no known, existing sources of significant potential health hazards within the area. The project site has been used for educational facilities for decades. Adjacent land uses primarily consist of residential development. Debris (i.e. branches) falling from the existing eucalyptus trees located adjacent to the playfield currently represent a current hazard to students and staff. As part of the proposed project, these trees would be removed and replaced with two coast live oak trees. This measure would result in a beneficial impact relevant to health hazards. e. Increased fire hazards in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees? No Impact. Implementation of the project would not significantly increase the fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass or trees. The proposed project site and surrounding vicinity is urbanized and largely overcovered by paving. The removal of the eucalyptus trees, a relatively flammable species, would actually lessen risk of fire hazard. The site is not located within an area of extreme fire hazard, as defined in the City's General Plan. K NOISE Significance Criteria The Saratoga General Plan establishes threshold criteria, above which significant noise impacts could result. Schools are identified as noise sensitive locations, along with hospilals, nursing homes, churches, libraries, assembly halls, and other recreational and residential uses. Public schools located near major transportation 11/20/98(P:\SSD830\JNnSMD) 45 Responses to Cberklist noises are required to provide mitigation measures such as landscaping, open space, and building setbacks to address noise impacts. The General Plan recommends the following maximum noise levels forpublic/ park uses. 60 dBA ( Daytime Outdoor); 50 dBA ( Indoor - Daytime and Outdoor - Evening); and 40 dBA (Indoor - Evening). These standards are based upon preventing noise interference with human activities and are well below levels which could damage hearing. No individual piece of construction equipment shall produce a noise level exceeding 83 dBA at a distance of twenty-five feet from the source thereof, and the noise level at any point outside of the property plan of the project shall not exceed 86 dBA a. Increase in existing noise levels? Less Than Significant Impact. The expanded school facility would not be defined as a sensitive land use, and no noise sensitive land uses are located within close proximity of the project site. There are two considerations relevant to increases in existing noise levels: short -term construction noise and operational noise from the school that could potential affect neighboring. residential uses. Construction of the proposed project would add short -term noise from equipment and vehicles to the ambient environment. However, elevated noise levels associated with construction would be temporary and intermittent and generally set back from existing roadways and residences on surrounding streets. Construction equipment would typically be located within the interior of the school site. Noise generated during school operation would not likely exceed recommended noise levels for residential uses. Outdoor noise would be expected during school, but would not increase significantly from existing noise levels. The expanded play area, a potential source of noise, would be set back from roads and largely shielded from residential uses. Noise associated with vehicular traffic would not increase significantly with expansion of the school since additional vehicular traffic would not be substantial and would occur only during the brief morning and afternoon peaks when student drop - offs /pick -up would occur. b. Exposure to severe noise levels? Less Than Significant Impact. School occupants and residents near the school would not be exposed to severe operational noise levels from the project. The school site would be vacated during construction. Therefore, students and staff would not be exposed to noise related impacts. Some disturbance of people in the vicinity of the school would be inevitable during construction, as construction activity would require the use of heavy machinery. Trucks 11/20/98(PASSD830\INr1STUD) 46 Responses to CGecklist would be required for delivery and removal of materials. Equipment use would result in the generation of noise above ambient levels presently experienced in the vicinity. Noise levels from equipment typically range from 70 to 95 dBA at a distance of about 50 feet. While noise levels associated with project construction would likely exceed City standards for the 25 -foot diameter criterion, existing buildings and landscaping on -site, in addition to setbacks, would act as a buffer between the sources of construction noise on -site and surrounding residential uses so that the 86 dBA off -site threshold would not be exceeded. With each doubling of distance, there is an approximately six dBA reduction. Noisier equipment would be located in the central part of the school site during construction so that the distance (overall, over 200 feet) from adjacent uses would be maximized so that noise levels at the school boundary would not be exceeded. Structures on the school frontage would be constructed as early as possible to act as further noise buffers for subsequent construction activities. Additionally, as part of the project, Best Available Control Technologies (BACTs), such as maintenance /proper tuning of construction equipment and reducing truck speeds, would be utilized to minimize construction period noise. Any construction - related noise impacts would be intermittent and temporary. For these reasons, effects associated with exposure to severe noise levels would be less than significant. Given surrounding land uses, it is expected that operation of the school facilities would meet noise level policies and standards for public facilities defined by the Saratoga General Plan and discussed, above, under the significance criteria. A7. PUBLIC SERVICES Significance Criteria Impacts to public services would be significant if The proposed project resulted in an adverse impact upon the quality of existing public facilities, substantially greater capacity, or require creation of new public facilities, including streets and sidewalks. a. Fire protection? Less Than Significant Impact. Fire protection services for the site are provided by, and would continue to be provided by the Saratoga Fire District. The closest Fire District station is located approximately three blocks from the project site, at Saratoga Avenue and Big Basin Way (Highway 9). The project is not anticipated to significantly affect the need for additional fire service or facilities. The project would be required to meet the minimum standards set forth by the State Fire Marshall and would be subject to the approval of the Division of the State Architect. 11/20/98(P:\SSD830VNrrSTUD) 47 Responses to CGeckllst b. Police protection? Less Than Significant Impact. Police services to the project site would continue to be provided by the Santa Clara County Sheriffs Department. The closest Sheriffs station is the Saratoga Station, located at Saratoga Avenue and Big Basin Way (Highway 9), approximately three blocks from the project site. As with fire protection services, the proposed school project is not expected to create a significant demand on police services. Lighting would be provided in parking and building areas for security and safety. C. Schools? No Impact. The implementation of the proposed project would have a beneficial impact on the Saratoga Union School District. Additional educational facilities would be provided to accommodate and increase in enrollment from 393 to 500 students (projected 2007/8 enrollment). The expansion of the elementary school would help to accommodate the projected increase in the number of students within the District. d. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? No Impact. Maintenance of the school's public facilities, including internal roadways, would be the responsibility of the District. e. Other governmental services No Impact. The proposed project would not have a significantly adverse effect on any governmental services not already listed and discussed above. XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Significant Criteria Impacts to utilities and services would be significant if the proposed project results in a need to substantially expand existingphysical facilities or causes a substantial physical alteration to existing utilities. a. Power or natural gas? Less Than Significant Impact. The Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG &E) currently provides electricity and natural gas to the project site and the Saratoga area. There are existing power and gas lines currently serving the project site. Minor extensions and /or upgrading of these Facilities would be needed to serve the project site. These minor extensions and upgrades would not cause a significant impact. 11/20/98(P:'SSD830\INrrSWD) 48 Responses to Checklist b. Communications systems? Less Than Significant Impact. Pacific Bell currently provides telephone service to the project site. Minor extensions and/or upgrading of these facilities would be necessary to serve proposed facilities. Installation of additional extensions /upgrades to serve the site would not be a significant impact. C. Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? Less Than Significant Impact. San Jose Water Works currently supplies domestic water to the site for human consumption and maintenance. The proposed project would incrementally increase demand for water for restrooms, drinking fountains, and playfield irrigation. The increased demand for water would not result in a significant effect upon utility capacity and San Jose Water works would be capable of supplying all of the future water needs of the proposed project. Using a water demand generation factor of 20 gallons per person per day, the projected increase, from an existing 393 students and 34.75 staff (full -time equivalent) to 500 students and 42.85 staff, would generate a further 2,302 gallons per day (107 students plus 8.1 staff) by the year 2006/7 along with some additional water for playfield irrigation. d. Sewer or septic tanks? Less Than Significant Impact. Sanitary sewer service would continue to be provided to the site by the West Valley Sanitation District (WVSD). The project would utilize existing connections to the sanitary sewer line. Wastewater would be treated at WVSD facilities. Using a wastewater generation factor of 15 gallons per day per person, the proposed project would generate up to approximately 1,726.5 additional gallons per day by the year 2006/7. The wastewater from the project would represent a relatively insignificant amount and would not result in a significant impact or need to increase the capacity of the existing treatment facilities. e. Storm Water Drainage? Less Than Significant Impact. Runoff from the site goes to existing storm drains or percolates to the subsurface of the existing fields. Much of the stormwater from the project would be handled through connection to an existing line in Aloha Street, a means already tentatively approved by the City (see the response to item 1V.a, above). The amount of impervious area or irrigation would not have a significant impact on present drainage facilities. f. Solid Waste Disposal? Less Than Significant Impact. Solid waste disposal would continue to be provided to the site by Green Valley Disposal Company, which currently provides service to portions of the City of Saratoga. Refuse collected at the site is transported to the Guadalupe Landfill, located within the City of Saratoga. Currently, Green Valley Disposal Company collects waste generated 11/20/98(P:1SSD830VNrISTUD) 49 Responses to CGecklist on -site on a weekly basis. No additional waste management services, new systems or major alterations to solid waste collection and disposal would be needed as a result of the project. g. Local or regional water supplies? Less Than Significant. As discussed in item XII.c, above, water to the project site is currently supplied by San Jose Water Works. The proposed project would increase demand for water supply for restrooms, drinking fountains, and playfield irrigation. However, the relatively small amount would not result in a significant impact to local or regional water supplies. MI. AESTHETICS Significance Criteria Aesthetic impacts would be significant if the proposed project resulted in the obstruction of any scenic view or vista open to the public, resulted in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to the public, or had a substantial, demonstrable negative aesthetic effect. A project would also result in an impact if it generates light that would directly illuminate or reflect upon adjacent property or could be directly seen by motorists or persons residing, working or otherwise located within sight of the project. The level of significance is determined by the intensity of the lighting. a. Effect on scenic vista or bigbway? No Impact. The site is not located near a scenic vista or alongside a scenic highway, and would therefore have no associated aesthetic impact. b. Demonstrable negative effect? Less Than Significant Impact. Development of the project would not result in a demonstrable negative effect. The site is presently developed and much of the project would be modernization of existing buildings and site improvements. No substantial changes to the topography on -site would occur as a result of the proposed project. New buildings would conform to existing on -site architectural styles and design standards. In general, existing heavily landscaped areas at the perimeter of the site would screen out visual impacts during project construction. Upon completion of the structural improvements, areas adjacent to existing, improved buildings, new buildings, and recreational areas would be landscaped both as a means of screening views of the site from adjacent uses and as an on -site aesthetic improvement. New building heights and setbacks from adjacent roadways would be generally consistent with existing structures. A temporary effect on project site aesthetics would occur with the removal of two eucalyptus trees, a non - native species, located on -site, adjacent to the existing playfields. While measures have been taken by the District to maintain 11R0/98(P:\.SSD830\INrrSrUD) 50 Responses to Checklist the trees, eucalyptus trees tend to shed debris including seed capsules, bark, leaves, twigs and small branches, as well as larger branches which can pose a possible safety problem to. both children and staff in the vicinity of the playground area. According to an arborist report prepared for the District, there is an approximately 50 percent chance that either student or school staff could be injured by such debris. Based upon the report, safety concerns and lengthy public discussions, the District concluded that the eucalyptus trees would need to be removed (Report of Deborah Ellis, Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist, September, 1998). As part of the proposed project, the eucalyptus trees would be removed and replaced with trees that would include native species such as coast live oaks and redwoods at a ratio of 3:1. The trees could initially range in height from 15 to 25 feet to minimize the maturity period of the replacement trees. The replacement trees would mitigate both the visual impact and the soils impact of removing the existing trees. C. Light /glare? Less Than Significant Impact. Development of the proposed project would result in new sources of light and glare. They would include lighting for safety, glass reflections, building surface materials, and additional vehicles using the site. Proposed playfields would not be lighted. Structures would include new lighting. These sources would be visible on Oak Street. However, additional light and glare is not expected to pose a significant impact, as additional light and glare on -site would not represent a significant increase over existing conditions. All lighting would be shielded to prevent off -site glare and would be used only for safety and security. The northern and southern perimeter of the site is currently screened by trees, which would shield lighting. Some additional light and glare from equipment would also be evident during construction of the project. However, because of the relatively short duration of construction, this impact would be temporary and not considered significant. MV. CULTURAL RESOURCES Significance Criteria Impacts to cultural resources would be significant if the proposed project disrupted or adversely affected a paleontological, prehistoric, or historic archaeological site or a property of historic or cultural significance to a community, ethnic, or social group. a. Disturb paleontological resources? No Impact. The proposed project would not disturb or affect known paleontological resources. The site has already been highly urbanized and covered by existing buildings. Because the site is already built upon and previously graded, it is unlikely that undiscovered paleontological resources 11/20/98(PASSD830\INrrSTUD) 51 Responses to Cbecklist would be encountered during construction of new buildings. Consistent with Appendix K of the CEQA Guidelines relevant to potential cultural resources, in the unlikely event that paleontological resources are uncovered during construction, work within 30 feet would be halted and a paleontologist consulted to develop and implement appropriate procedures. b. Archaeological resources? No Impact. Because the site has already been built upon and graded, the presence of archaeological resources is unlikely. The proposed project would not result in the alteration or destruction of any known prehistoric or archaeological site. The property is not located in proximity to any natural watercourses. Consistent with Appendix K of the CEQA Guidelines relevant to potential archaeological impacts, in the unlikely event that cultural resources are uncovered during construction, work within 30 feet would be halted and an archaeologist consulted to develop and implement procedures to determine the significance and means of protecting the find as applicable. C. Affect historical resources? No Significant Impact. The existing Saratoga Elementary School is listed on the City's Local Historic Inventory. As a historic site, development of the project would need to be reviewed by the City Heritage Committee for consistency with the "Mission" style architectural style of the current structures. In addition, there are two features on -site that are considered to be of historic value, consisting of a bell and a weathervane. As part of the proposed project, the bell would remain in place both during and after construction, and the weathervane would be relocated and mounted onto the multi - purpose room portion of the new classroom building. Preservation of these features and implementation of any relevant City Heritage Committee recommendations would avoid potential significant impacts to historical resources. d. Have the potential to cause a physical change which :would affect unique ethnic cultural values? No Impact. The proposed project does not have the potential to cause a physical change that would affect unique ethnic values nor would it result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure or object. The site has already been developed and is currently used for educational facilities. e. Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? No Impact. Implementation of the proposed project would not restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the project area. No such uses currently exist on the project site. The site is currently used as an elementary school. The property is not used for any religious or sacred purposes. 11/20/98(PASSD830VNrrSTUD) 52 Responses to Checklist XV. RECREATION Significance Criteria Impacts to recreation would be significant if the project resulted in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities or required creation of new recreational facilities. a. Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? No Impact. The project would not cause an increased demand for parks or recreational facilities. Recreational facilities would be included as part of the project (i.e., an expanded play area) and would enhance existing recreational opportunities. b. Affect existing recreational opportunities? Less Than Significant Impact. Outdoor recreational facilities on -site are currently utilized by residents in surrounding areas. These facilities would not be available for use during construction of the proposed project. However, as closure of the school facilities would be temporary, and other recreational facilities within the vicinity of the school site are available for public, no significant impact to existing recreational opportunities would occur. Additionally, after construction of the proposed project is completed, recreational opportunities within the community would be increased. Expanded outdoor facilities would be available for public use after normal school hours. XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a. Environmental Quality? No Impact. Based upon the findings in this environmental review, the proposed project would not have the potential to significantly degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self - sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. The project would result in the expansion of Saratoga Elementary School to accommodate the projected increase in elementary school attendance within the District. The property and surroundings are urbanized. There are no known prehistoric resources, nor are there significant biological resources on the site. Development would be consistent with the California State Education Code, which establishes criteria for the siting of school facilities. The proposed project is consistent with planning for the area by the City of San Leandro's General Plan and zoning designations. 11R0/98(PASSD830UN1r5rUD) 53 Responses to CGeckllst b. Short -term /Long -tern Goals? No Impact. Expansion of the elementary school would not have the potential to achieve short -term environmental goals to the disadvantage of long term ones (a short -term impact on the environment is one that occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long -term impacts would endure well into the future). Expansion of this school would accommodate projected increases in elementary school attendance in the District and the need to upgrade existing facilities. The proposed project is consistent with the City's use designation for the site and planning for the already urbanized area. C. Cumulative Impacts? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed school expansion would not result in impacts that are individually limited but cumulatively considerable. The project would have environmental impacts that are generally limited to the site and adjacent streets. There would be an incremental increase in stormwater flowing into Wildcat Creek. The school has been sized to accommodate projected student growth. The proposed project is consistent with the City's land use designation for the site and planning for the area. d. Human Effects? No Impact. The expansion of the school would not have environmental effects that would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. These environmental effects have already been discussed as part of the environmental evaluation. 11/20/98(PASSD830\1Nn'5MD) 54 Responses to CGeck/ist V. PREPARERS OF THE INITIAL STUDY LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. Larry Kennings, Principal -in- Charge Benson Lee, Project Manager Greta Kirschenbaum, Environmental Planner Kevin Fincher, Traffic Analysis 11/20/98(PASSD83WNrrSTUD) 55 Contacts VI. PERSONS AND AGENCIES CONTACTED Stephan Blaylock, President, ALLTRANS. Bryce Carroll, Carroll Engineering. Erman Dorsey, Assistant Engineer, Public Works Department, City of Saratoga. Eugene W. Ely, AIA, Project Architect, HMC. Chris Gombatz, Project Coordinator, HMC. Susan Lechner, AIA, Project Architect, HMC. Christina Ratcliffe, Assistant Planner, City of Saratoga. James C. Walgren, AICP, Community Development Director, City of Saratoga. City of Saratoga Fire District. Green Valley Disposal Company. Santa Clara County Sheriffs Department. 11/20/98(P- .1$SD830\1Nnn'YMD) 56 References VII. REFERENCES Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 19 . BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines. City of Saratoga, 1983. City of Saratoga Revised General Plan and Final Environmental Impact Report, 1983. State of California. Education Code Section 39000 et seq. Lowney Associates, May 26, 1998. Geotechnical Investigation - Saratoga Elementary School Improvements. Saratoga, California. 11/20/98(P:\$SD830\INn'FMD) 57 References APPENDIX A TRAFFIC ANALYSIS CALCULATIONS_ 11/10/98 (P:\.SSD830UNrrM D) LS9 Associates, Inc. APPENDIX A -1 TRAFFIC VOLUME SUMMARIES 1 in9i9s(x:\ssna3o \zTAFFIc.erx) Table A -1 -1 - Peak Hour Volume Summary 1 Komina Avenue /Oak Street 11/19/98 (RN5SD830\Model- es.xls \Vo1Sum) Project Traffic A.M. P.M. Pk. Hr. Pk. Hr LSA Associates, Inc. 2008 + Project A.M. P.M. Pk. Hr. Pk. Hr. 0 Existing A.M. P.M. Pk. Hr. Pk. Hr. Year 2008 Back. A.M. P.M. Pk. Hr. Pk. Hr NBL 10 1 10 1 NBT 0 0 0 0 NBR 9 9 9 9 SBL 0 0 0 0 SBT 0 0 0 0 SBR 0 0 0 0 EBL 0 0 0 0 EBT 102 58 102 58 EBR 4 2 4 2 WBL 26 28 26 28 WBT 70 99 70 99 WBR 0 0 0 0 North Leg 0 0 30 30 Approach 0 0 0 0 Departure 0 0 0 0 Total 0 0 0 0 South Leg 7 0 113 60 Approach 19 10 19 10 Departure 30 30 30 30 Total 49 40 49 40 East Leg 52 0 494 394 Approach 96 127 96 127 Departure 111 67 111 67 Total 207 194 207 194 West Leg Approach 106 60 106 60 Departure 80 100 80 100 Total 186 160 186 160 Total Approaches Approach 221 197 221 197 Departure 221 197 221 197 Total 442 394 442 394 11/19/98 (RN5SD830\Model- es.xls \Vo1Sum) Project Traffic A.M. P.M. Pk. Hr. Pk. Hr LSA Associates, Inc. 2008 + Project A.M. P.M. Pk. Hr. Pk. Hr. 0 0 10 1 0 0 0 0 16 0 25 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 109 58 0 0 4 2 0 0 26 28 3 0 73 99 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 0 35 10 0 0 30 30 16 0 65 40 3 0 99 127 23 0 134 67 26 0 233 194 7 0 113 60 3 0 83 100 10 0 196 160 26 0 247 197 26 0 247 197 52 0 494 394 LSA Associates, Inc. Table A -1 -1 - Peak Hour Volume Summary 2 Saratoga -Los Gatos Road /Oak Street 11/19/98 (R:\SSD830\Model- es.xls \Vo1Sum) Existing Year 2008 Back. Project Traffic 2008 + Project A.M. P.M. A.M. P.M. A.M. P.M. A.M. P.M. Pk. Hr. Pk. Hr. Pk. Hr. Pk. Hr. Pk. Hr. Pk. Hr. Pk. Hr. Pk. Hr. NBL 114 52 114 52 9 0 123 52 NBT 1,031 312 1,196 362 0 0 1,196 362 NBR 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 SBL 2 3 2 3 0 0 2 3 SBT 302 838 350 972 12 0 362 972 SBR 57 65 57 65 14 0 71 65 EBL 30 37 30 37 19 0 49 37 EBT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 EBR 114 32 114 32 10 0 124 32 WBL 1 2 1 2 0 0 1 2 WBT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 WBR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 North Leg Approach 361 906 409 1,040 25 0 435 1,040 Departure 1,061 349 1,226 399 19 0 1,245 399 Total 1,422 1,255 1,635 1,439 45 0 1,680 1,439 South Leg Approach 1,145 365 1,310 415 9 0 1,319 415 Departure 417 872 465 1,006 21 0 486 1,006 Total 1,562 1,237 1,775 1,421 30 0 1,806 1,421 East Leg Approach 1 2 1 2 0 0 1 2 Departure 2 4 2 4 0 0 2 4 Total 3 6 3 6 0 0 3 6 West Leg Approach 144 69 144 69 29 0 173 69 Departure 171 117 171 117 23 0 194 117 Total 315 186 315 186 52 0 367 186 Total Approaches Approach 1,651 1,342 1,864 1,526 63 0 1,928 1,526 Departure 1,651 1,342 1,864 1,526 63 0 1,928 1,526 Total 3,302 2,684 3,729 3,052 127 0 3,855 3,052 11/19/98 (R:\SSD830\Model- es.xls \Vo1Sum) LSA Associates, Inc. Table A-1 -1 - Peak Hour Volume Summary 3 Saratoga -Los Gatos Road/Vickery Avenue 11/19/98 (R.\SSD830\Model- esx6 \Vo1Sum) Existing Year 2008 Back. Project Traffic 2008 + Project A.M. P.M. A.M. P.M. A.M. P.M. A.M. P.M. Pk. Hr. Pk. Hr. Pk. Hr. Pk. Hr. Pk. Hr. Pk. Hr. Pk. Hr. Pk. Hr. NBL 24 12 24 12 2 0 26 12 NBT 1,170 373 1,357 433 12 0 1,369 433 NBR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SBL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SBT 377 855 437 992 10 0 447 992 SBR 7 24 7 24 0 0 7 24 EBL 8 8 8 8 0 0 8 8 EBT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 EBR 13 15 13 15 0 0 13 15 WBL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 WBT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 WBR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 North Leg Approach 384 879 444 1,016 10 0 454 1,016 Departure 1,178 381 1,365 441 12 0 1,377 441 Total 1,562 1,260 1,810 1,456 21 0 1,831 1,456 South Leg Approach 1,194 385 1,381 445 14 0 1,395 445 Departure 390 870 450 1,007 10 0 460 1,007 Total 1,584 1,255 1,832 1,451 23 0 1,855 1,451 East Leg Approach 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Departure 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 West Leg Approach 21 23 21 23 0 0 21 23 Departure 31 36 31 36 2 0 33 36 Total 52 59 52 59 2 0 54 59 Total Approaches Approach 1,599 1,287 1,847 1,483 23 0 1,870 1,483 Departure 1,599 1,287 1,847 1,483 23 0 1,870 1,483 Total 3,198 2,574 3,693 2,967 47 0 3,740 2,967 11/19/98 (R.\SSD830\Model- esx6 \Vo1Sum) LSA Associates, Inc. Table A-1-2 - Year 2008 Peak Hour Project Trip Assignment West Leg Approach 15 %. A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour Departure 0% In Out In Out Additional Trips 46 32 0 0 1 Komina Avenue /Oak Street Approach 50% 10% Project Trip Project Trip 50% 10% Distribution Assignment 100% 20% In Out A.M. P.M. NBL 0% 0% 0 0 NBT 0% 0% 0 0 NBR 35% 0% 16 0 SBL 0% 0% 0 0 SBT 0% 0% 0 0 SBR 0% 0% 0 0 EBL 0% 0% 0 0 EBT 15% 0% 7 0 EBR 0% 0% 0 0 WBL 0% 0% 0 0 WBT 0% 10% 3 0 WBR 0% 0% 0 0 North Leg Approach 0% 0% 0 0 Departure 0% 0% 0 0 Total 0% 0% 0 0 South Leg Approach 35% 0% 16 0 Departure 0% 0% 0 0 Total 35% 0% 16 0 East Leg Approach 0% 10% 3 0 Departure 50% 0% 23 0 Total 50% 10% 26 0 West Leg Approach 15 %. 0% 7 0 Departure 0% 10% 3 0 Total 15% 10% 10 0 Total Approaches Approach 50% 10% 26 0 Departure 50% 10% 26 0 Total 100% 20% 52 0 11/19/98 ( R:\,SSD830\,Model- es.xls\Assign) Table A-1-2 - Year 2008 Peak Hour Project Trip Assignment 11/19/98 (R:\,SSD830\Mode1- esxts\ ssign) LSA Associates, Inc. A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour in Out In Out Additional Trips 46 32 0 0 2 Saratoga -Los Gatos Road /Oak Street Project Trip Project Trip Distribution Assignment in Out A.M. P.M. NBL 20% 0% 9 0 NBT 0% 0% 0 0 NBR 0% 0% 0 0 SBL 0% 0% 0 0 SBT 25% 0% 12 0 SBR 30% 0% 14 0 EBL 0% 60% 19 0 EBT 0% 0% 0 0 EBR 0% 30% 10 0 WBL 0% 0% 0 0 WBT 0% 0% 0 0 WBR 0% 0% 0 0 North Leg Approach 55% 0% 25 0 Departure 0% 60% 19 0 Total 55% 60% 45 0 South Leg Approach 20% 0% 9 0 Departure 25% 30% 21 0 Total 45% 30% 30 0 East Leg Approach 0% 0% 0 0 Departure 0% 0% 0 0 Total 0% 0% 0 0 West Leg Approach 0% 90% 29 0 Departure 50% 0% 23 0 Total 50% 90% 52 0 Total Approaches Approach 75% 90% 63 0 Departure 75% 90% 63 0 Total 150% 180% 127 0 11/19/98 (R:\,SSD830\Mode1- esxts\ ssign) LSA Associates, Inc. LS4 Associates, Inc. Table A -1 -2 - Year 2008 Peak Hour Project Trip Assignment 11/19/98 (R:\SSD830\Model -es xls\Assign) A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour In Out In Out Additional Trips 46 32 0 0 3 Saratoga -Los Gatos Road/Vickery Avenue Project Trip Project Trip Distribution Assignment In Out A.M. P.M. NBL 5% 0% 2 0 NBT 25% 0% 12 0 NBR 0% 0% 0 0 SBL 0% 0% 0 0 SBT 0% 30% 10 0 SBR 0% 0% 0 0 EBL 0% 0% 0 0 EBT 0% 0% 0 0 EBR 0% 0% 0 0 WBL 0% 0% 0 0 WBT 0% 0% 0 0 WBR 0% 0% 0 0 North Leg Approach 0% 30% 10 0 Departure 25% 0% 12 0 Total 25% 30% 21 0 South Leg Approach 30% 0% 14 0 Departure 0% 30% 10 0 Total 30% 30% 23 0 East Leg Approach 0% 0% 0 0 Departure 0% 0% 0 0 Total 0% 0% 0 0 West Leg Approach 0% 0% 0 0 Departure 5% 0% 2 0 Total 5% 0% 2 0 Total Approaches Approach 30% 30% 23 0 Departure 30% 30% 23 0 Total 60% 60% 47 0 11/19/98 (R:\SSD830\Model -es xls\Assign) LSAAssociates, Inc. APPENDIX A-2 LEVEL OF SERVICE CALCULATION WORKSHEETS 11/19/98(R:\SSD830\TRAFFIC.AP}) LSA Associates, Inc. 1. Komina Avenue /Oak Street 11/19i98(USM830 RAFFicAM Center For Microcomputers In Transportation HCSs Unsigonlized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 1 center For Microcomputers In Transportation Center For Microcomputers In Transportation •••.•.•.••••••••••.••.•••..••••.• ..• ........ • ........ ••.•••••••• NCSm Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 2 HC3h Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 3 .••••..•.••••..•••••••.•••••••.•• ••• ...... *•••••..••.••••••....• ••.•••.•.•.....•.••..•••..•..••• •••••.•••u.••..•••••.•••••••••• Pile Name ................ SESIE10W.)IC0 Streets. (N -S) Kazin Avenue (R -N) Oak Street Analyst ................... MRP Date of Analysis.......... 11/17/98 Other Information......... Existing (1998) A.M. Peak Hour All -ray Stop - controlled Intersection ......................................... ............................... I Nordbavd I Southbmand I Eastbaud I Nestboud I L T RI L T RI L T RI L T R I- - -- - - -- --- - I - - -- - --- ---- I ---- ---- ---- I ---- - - -- - - -- No. Lanes 1 0. 04 01 0 0 01 0 14 01 Os 1 0 Volumes I 10 91 1 102 41 26 70 PHF 1 .95 .951 1 .95 .951 .95 .95 Graft 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 MC's m 1 0 01 1 0 01 0 0 SU/RV'a (t)1 0 01 1 0 01 0 0 CV's M I 0 01 1 0 01 0 0 PCB's 1 1.1 1.1.1 1 1.1 1.11 1.1 1.1 --------------------------------------------- --------------------- - - - --- --------------------------------------------------------------- Volume Summary and Capacity Analysis Worksheet --------------------------------------------------------------- NB SB EB We IT Flow Rate 11 0 27 RT Flow Rate 9 4 0 Approach Flow Rate 20 111 101 Proportion IT 0.55 0.00 0.27 Proportion RT 0.45 0.04 0.00 Opposing Approach Flow Rate 0 101 111 Conflicting Approaches Flow Rate 212 20 20 Proportion, Subject Approach Flow Rate 0.09 0.48 0.44 Proportion, Opposing Approach Flow Rate 0.00 0.44 0.48 Lanes on Subject Approach 1 1 1 Lanes on Opposing Approach 0 1 1 LT, Opposing Approach 0 27 0 Mr, Opposing Approach 0 0 4 LT, Conflicting Approaches 27 11 11 RT, Conflicting Approaches 4 9 9 Proportion LT, Opposing Approach 0.00 0.27 0.00 Proportion RT, Opposing Approach 0.00 0.00 0.04 Proportion LT, Conflicting Approaches 0.13 0.55 0.55 Proportion RT, Conflicting Approaches 0.02 0.45 0.45 Approach Capacity ---------------------------------------- --- 254 ------------ 773 ----- ----- 847 - -- - -- Intersection Performance Szmary Approach Approach WC Average Movement Flow Rate capacity Ratio Total Delay LOS ------- --- ---- ------ ----- ---- - - -- - -- ----- -- - --- ---- NB 20 254 0.08 1.3 A EB 111 773 0.14 1.7 A WB 101 847 0.12 1.6 A Intersection Delay . 1.63 Level of Service (Intersection) . A Center For Microcomputers In Transportation HISh Uosignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 1 ................................. ............................... Pile Name ................ SESIEIOM.HC0 Streetsm (N -S) Inrndna Avenue (E -W) Oak Street Analyst ................... MKP Date of Analysis.......... 11/17/98 Other Information......... Existing (1998) P.M. Peak Hour All -ray Stop - controlled Intersection ......................................... ............................... Mortbbasd I Southbound I Eastbound I Westbound L T RI L T RI L T RI L T R I - - -- ---- --- - I - - -- ---- --- - I - - -- - --- --- - I - - -- - - -- - --- Nu. Lanes I 0> 0. 01 0 0 01 0 1. 01 0> 1 0 Volumes I 1 91 1 58 21 28 99 PHF I .95 .951 1 .95 .95l .95 .95 Grade 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 MC's (t) 1 0 01 1 0 01 0 0 So /RV's MI 0 01 1 0 01 0 0 CV's (t) 1 0 01 1 0 01 0 0 PCB's 1 1.1 1.11 1 1.1 1.11 1.1 1.1 ------------------------------------------- -------------- -- ------- - - - - -- Outer For Microcomputers In Transportation H(Sh UMignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 2 ................................. ............................... ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Volume Summary and Capacity Analysis WorkSheet ----------------------------------------------------------------------- mB SB EB we ---------------------------------------------------------°°---------- LT Plow Rate 1 0 29 RT Flow Rate 9 2 0 Approach Flow Rate 30 63 133 Proportion IT 0.10 0.00 0.22 Proportion RI 0.90 0.03 0.00 Cppoeing Approach Flow Rate 0 133 63 Conflicting Approaches Flow Rate 196 10 10 Proportion, Subject Approach Flow Rate 0.05 0.31 0.65 Proportion, Opposing Approach Flow Rate 0.00 0.65 0.31 Lance on Subject Approach 1 1 1 Lame on Opposing Approach 0 1 1 LT, Opposing Approach 0 29 0 Rr, Opposing Approach 0 0 2 LT, Conflicting Approaches 29 1 1 RP, OOnflicting Approaches 2 9 9 Proportion LT, Opposing Approach 0.00 0.22 0.00 Proportion RT, Opposing Approach 0.00 0.00 0.03 Proportion LT, Conflicting Approaches 0.15 0.10 0.10 Proportion Rf, Conflicting Approaches 0.01 0.90 0.90 Approach Capacity ---------------------------------------- ------------------------------- 207 1032 1206 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation HCSh Uosignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 3 ................................. ............................... Intersection Performance Summary Approach Approach WC Average movement Plow Rate Capacity Ratio Total Delay - --- -- ---- ---------- --------- ------- ------- ---- NB 10 207 0.05 1.2 EB 63 1032 0.06 1.3 WB 133 1206 0.11 1.5 Intersection Delay . 1.43 Level of Service (Intersection) . A W Center For Microcomputers In Transportation IYSm Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Rage 1 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation Center For Microcomputers In Transportation •••••••..•••••••••••.•••••••••••• •..••a.....••••..•••••..••••••• HGSm Unnignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 2 HCSm Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 3 ••••.•.••.•••••••••.••••••••.•• •• ..... .•••.•.• ... •• ......... *• u•••..•..•••.••••..•••••••.••..• ••••••••••..•..••••.•••...••.•• File Nana ................ SE91BAAM.HC0 Streetsm (N -S) rjamina Avenue (E -M) Oak Street Analyst ................... M10'.+ Date of Analysis.......... 11/17/98 Other Information ......... Year 2008 Background A.M. Peak Hour All -way Stcp- controlled Intersection --------------------------------------------------------------- Volume Summary and Capacity Analysis MorkSheet ------------------------------------- ----------------------- --- NB SB ES NB IT Flow Rate Northbaad I Southbound I Eastbound I Heetbou d RT Flow Rate L T RI L T RI L T RI L T R No. Lanes I - - -- ---- I O> --- - I - 0< 01 - -- - - -- --- - I - 0 0 01 - -- ---- 0 14 --- - I - - -- 01 0. -- -- ---- 1 0 volumes 1 10 91 1 102 41 26 70 PHF 1 .95 .9si 1 .95 .951 .95 .95 Grade 1 0 1 0 1 0 ( 0 PC's (t) 1 0 01 1 0 01 0 0 BD /RV's M 1 0 01 1 0 01 0 0 come (4) 1 0 of 1 0 01 0 0 P'CE'a ---------------------------------------- 0.00 0.27 ------------------ Pr portion RT, Opposing Approach ------------- 0.00 --------------------------------------------------------------- Volume Summary and Capacity Analysis MorkSheet ------------------------------------- ----------------------- --- NB SB ES NB IT Flow Rate 11 0 27 RT Flow Rate 9 4 0 Approach Flow Rate 20 111 101 Proportion IT 0.55 0.00 0.27 proportion RT 0.45 0.04 0.00 Opposing Approach Flow Rate 0 101 111 Conflicting Approaches Flow Rate 212 20 20 Proportion, Subject Approach Flow Rate 0.09 0.46 0.44 Proportion, IS, irg Approach Flow Rate 0.00 0.44 0.48 Lanes an Subject Approach 1 1 1 Lam on Opposing Approach 0 1 1 LT, Opposing Approach 0 27 0 Mr. Opposing Approach 0 0 4 LT, Cmdlictirg Approaches 27 11 11 RT, Owdlicting Approaches 4 9 9 Proportion LT, Opposing Approach 0.00 0.27 0.00 Pr portion RT, Opposing Approach 0.00 0.00 0.04 Proportion LT, Conflicting Approaches 0.13 0.55 0.55 Proportion RT, Conflicting Approaches 0.02 0.45 0.45 Approach Capacity -----------------------.^--------------- 254 --------------- 773 --------------- 847 Intersection Performance Summary Approach Approach WC Average Movement Flow Rate Capacity Ratio 7Utal Delay LOS ---------- ---- -- - --- - -- -- - --- --- ---- -------- --- ---- NB 20 254 0.08 1.3 A EB 111 773 0.14 1.7 A MB 101 847 0.12 1.6 A Intersection Delay . 1.63 Level of Service (Intersection) . A Center For Microcarputers In Transportation MCSs Uhsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 1 •.•...•..••..•..••.••.•......•.• . ............................... File lane ................ SESIBAIM.HC0 Streets. (N -S) Kcatina Avenue (R -W) Oak Street Analyst ................... MKF Date of Analysis.......... 11/17/98 Other Information ......... Year 2008 Background P.M. Peak Hour All -hay Stcp- controlled Intersection ......................................... ............................... Northbound I Southbound I Eastbound I Weetbou d L T R1 L T R1 L T RI L T R I - - -- ---- --- - I - - -- - - -- --- - I - - -- ---- --- - I - - -- - - -- ---- No. Lanes 1 0. O< 01 0 0 01 0 1< 01 0> 1 0 Volumes I 1 91 1 58 21 28 99 PFD+ 1 .95 .951 1 .95 .951 .95 .95 Grade 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 "C's (t) 1 0 01 1 0 01 0 0 w /RV•s (%)1 0 01 1 0 01 0 0 CV's (t) 1 0 01 1 0 of 0 0 PM,a 1 1.1 1.11 1 1.1 1.11 1.1 1.1 -------------------------=----------------- -- -- -- ------ --- ----- --- -- - - -- Center For Microcomputers In Transportation HCA3h Uhsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 2 ................................. ............................... --------------------------------------------------------------- Volume Summary and Capacity Analysis WorkSheet --------------------------------------------------------------- NB SB ® WB IT Flow Rate 1 0 29 RT Flow Rate 9 2 0 Approach Flow Rate 30 63 133 Proportion IT 0.10 0.00 0.22 Proportion RT 0.90 0.03 0.00 Opposing Approach Flow Rate 0 133 63 Conflicting Approaches Flow Rate 196 10 10 Proportion, Subject Approach Flow Rate 0.05 0.31 0.65 Proportion, Opposing Approach Flow Rate 0.00 0.65 0.31 Lanes on Subject Approach 1 1 1 Lanes on Opposing Approach 0 1 1 LT, Opposing Approach 0 29 0 RT, Opposing Approach 0 0 2 LT, Conflicting Approaches 29 1 1 RT, Conflicting Approaches 2 9 9 Proportion LT, Opposing Approach 0.00 0.22 0.00 Proportion RT, Opposing Approach 0.00 0.00 0.03 Proportion LT, Conflicting Approaches 0.15 0.10 0.10 Proportion RT, Conflicting Approaches 0.01 0.90 0.90 Approach Capacity ---------------------------------------- ------------------------------- 207 1032 1206 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation HCSi Vnsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 3 ................................. ............................... Intersection Performance e Summary Approach Approach WC Average Movement Flow Rate Capacity Ratio Total Delay ---------- ---------- --------- ---- - -- ---- --- - --- MID 30 207 0.05 1.2 EB 63 1032 0.06 1.3 WB 133 1206 0.11 1.5 Intersection Delay . 1.43 level of Service (Intersection) . A r�i y Center For Microcomputers In Transportation HS, Uhsighalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 1 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation Center For Microcahputers In Transportation •••••••••••......•• ....... .•.•••.• ......•••••• HCS, U migalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 2 HCS, Unsigalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 3 ' ...........•.......•.••..•....•.• .....• ......................... .••.............................. .•.•...•.••.•.•..•..•.•......•. File Name ................ SESlPRAM.HCO Streete, (N -S) Kanira Aveare (E-N) Oak Street Analyst ................... MKF Date of Analysis.......... 11/17/98 Other Information ......... Year 2008 Bark. ♦ Proj. A.M. Penh Hour All -ray Stop- controlled Intersection --------------------------------------------------------------- Volhne Smeary and Capacity Analysis NorkSheet --------------------------------------------------------------- N8 SB ® NB IT Flow Rate NorUbahnd I Southbasd I Fastbmud I Nestbauhd RT Flow Rate L T RI L T RI L T RI L T R No. Lanes I - - -- - I 0> - -- --- - I - 0< 01 - -- - - -- --- - I - 0 0 01 - -- ---- --- 0 1< - I - - -- -- 01 0> -- - - -- 1 0 Vohsnes 1 10 251 1 109 41 26 73 PFD' 1 .95 .951 1 .95 .951 .95 .95 Grade 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 Mc's (t) 1 0 01 1 0 01 0 0 Su /RV'9 MI 0 01 1 0 01 0 0 CV's M 1 0 01 1 0 01 0 0 Pala ----------------------------------------- 1 1.1 1.11 1 ----------------- 1.1 1.11 1.1 -------- 1.1 - ----- --------------------------------------------------------------- Volhne Smeary and Capacity Analysis NorkSheet --------------------------------------------------------------- N8 SB ® NB IT Flow Rate 11 0 27 RT Flow Rate 26 4 0 Approach Plow Rate 37 119 104 Proportion IT 0.30 0.00 0.26 Proportion RT 0.70 0.03 0.00 Opposing Approach Flow Rate 0 104 119 Conflicting Approaches Plow Rate 223 37 37 Proportion, Subject Approach Plow Rate 0.14 0.46 0.40 Proportion, Opposing Approach Flow Rate 0.00 0.40 0.46 Lanes on Subject Approach 1 1 1 Lanes an Opposing Approach 0 1 1 LT, Opposing Approach 0 27 0 RT, Opposing Approach 0 0 4 LT, Conflicting Approaches 27 11 11 RT, Conflicting Approaches 4 26 26 Proportion LT, Opposing Approach 0.00 0.26 0.00 Proportion ST, Opposing Approach 0.00 0.00 0.03 Proportion LT, Conflicting Approaches 0.12 0.30 0.30 Proportion RT, Conflicting Approaches 0.02 0.70 0.70 Approach Capacity ---------------------------------------- ------------------------------- 311 881 949 Intersection Performance Summary Approach Approach WC Average Movement Flow Rate Capacity Ratio Total Delay IDS -- -- ---- -- ---- - - ---- --------- - - - - -- --- -- - -- - -- ---- NB 37 311 0.12 1.6 A EB 119 881 0.14 1.7 A HID 104 949 0.11 1.5 A Intersection Delay . 1.59 Level of Service ( Intersection) . A Outer For Microcomputers In Transportation HCL'Sm Uhsigalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 1 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation Center For Microcomputers In Transportation ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• ••• .................... *...•••• HCSm U signalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 2 HCSm Umignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 3 .•..••••.•••••••.••••••.••••••••• •.•......•.•...••.•.••..•••.... • .......... •• .... ••.•••.••.•.•..• •••••••..••..•••••• ... •.••.•••• Pile Name ................ SESIPRPM.HC0 Streets. (N -S) Xcmi a Avenue (E -W) Oak Street Analyst ................... MXF Date of Analysis.......... 11/17/98 Other Inforsation ......... Year 2008 Back. . Proj. P.M. Peak Hour All -way Step - controlled Intersection Northbcusd I Southbound I Eastbound I Westbound L T RI L T RI L T Rf L T R I - - -- - - -- --- - I - - -- - - -- --- - I - - -- - - -- --- -1- - -- - - -- . - -- Mo. I.arhee 1 0> 0< 01 0 0 01 0 1< 01 O> 1 0 Volumes I 1 91 1 58 21 28 99 PHE 1 .95 .951 1 .95 .9sl .95 .95 Grade 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 MC's (f) 1 0 01 1 0 01 0 0 SU/RV's MI 0 01 1 0 of 0 0 CV's (t) 1 0 01 1 0 01 0 0 PCB's 1 1.1 1.11 1 1.1 1.11 1.1 1.1 --------------------------=------------------ -- ---- ----- ---------- -- - --- --------------------------------------------------------------- Volume Summary and Capacity Analysis NorkSheet --------------------------------------------------------------- MB SB EB WB IT Plow Rate 1 0 29 RT Plow Rate 9 2 0 Approach Plow Rate 10 63 133 Proportion IT 0.10 0.00 0.22 Proportion RT 0.90 0.03 0.00 Opposing Approach Plow Rate 0 133 63 Conflicting Approaches Plow Rate 196 10 10 Proportion, Subject Approach Plow Rate 0.05 0.31 0.65 Proportion, Opposing Approach Plow Rate 0.00 0.65 0.31 lanes on Subject Approach 1 1 1 Lanes on Opposing Approach 0 1 1 LT, Opposing Approach 0 29 0 RT, Opposing Approach 0 0 2 LT, Conflicting Approaches 29 1 1 RT, Conflicting Approaches 2 9 9 Proportion LT, Opposing Approach 0.00 0.22 0.00 Proportion RT, Opposing Approach 0.00 0.00 0.03 Proportion LT, Conflicting Approaches 0.15 0.10 0.10 Proportion RT, O<mhflicting Approaches 0.01 0.90 0.90 Approach Capacity --------------------------------------- --------------- 207 1032 ----- ------------ 1206 Intersection Performance Summary Approach Approach WC Average Movement Plow Rate Capacity Ratio Total Delay ILLS ---------- ------- - -- -- ------- --- ---- -------- - -- - - -- NB 10 207 0.05 1.2 A ED 63 1032 0.06 1.3 A WB 133 1206 0.11 1.5 A Intersection Delay - 1.13 Level of Service (Intersection) . A L4AAssociates, Inc. 2. Saratoga -Los Gatos Road /Oak Street 11 /19/98(RASSD830\TRAFFIC.AP}) Center For Microcenputers In Transportation MCS, Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 1 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation Center For Microcomputers In Transportation ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• •`• ........................•••• HCS, Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 2 HCS, Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 3 ••..••.•.••••••.••••..••••••••• •••.••..••..•• ............. -... .......••••••••.•........•••••.•. •••••.••••...•••••..•.•......•• File Nano ................ SM52EXAM.MC0 critical Follow -up Maneuver Gap (tg) Tine (tf) Streets, (N -S) Saratoga -Las Gatos (S -W) Oak Street 2.10 Right Turn Minor Road 5.50 Major Street Direction.... NS Through Traffic Minor Road 6.00 3.30 Left Turn Minor Road 6.50 3.40 Length of Tine Analyzed... 60 (min) NB -------------------------------------------------------- Conflicting Plow, (vph) 1031 359 Potential Capacity (pcph) 553 Analyst ................... MRF Movement Capacity, (pcph) 553 1156 Prab. of Queue -free State, 1.00 0.89 Date of Analysis.......... 11/17/98 1700 RT Saturation Flow Rate, (pcphpl) 1700 Major LT Shared Lane Prob. other Information......... Ddstirg (1998) A.M. Peak Hour 1.00 -------------------------------------------------------- Step 3, TN from Minor Street 71.o -way Stop- controlled Intersection Ea -------------------------------------------------------- Conflicting Plows, (vph) 1506 1476 Potential Capacity (pcph) 177 ......................................... ............................... Northbound I Southbound I Bastbaud I Westbound L T R1 L T RI L T RI L T R �---- ---- --- - I - - -- - --- --- No. lane I I 14 01 0> 14 - I - - -- ---- 01 0> 14 --- - I - 01 - -- ---- 0> 14 ---- 0 Stcp /Yield ( NJ NJ 1476 Potential Capacity (pcph) 137 148 Major LT, Minor TH volumes 1 114 1031 01 2 302 571 30 0 1141 1 0 0 PHP 1 .95 .95 .9sl .95 .95 .951 .95 .95 .9sl .95 .95 .95 Grade 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 Mc's (1) 1 0 0 01 0 0 01 0 0 01 0 0 0 SU /RV's MI 0 0 01 O 0 01 0 0 01 0 0 0 CV's (1) 1 0 0 01 0 0 01 0 0 01 0 O 0 PCB's 1 1.1 1.1 1.11 1.1 1.1 ------------------------------------------ 1.11 1.1 ° °---------- 1.1 1.11 ---------------- 1.1 1.1 1.1 Adjustment Factors vehicle critical Follow -up Maneuver Gap (tg) Tine (tf) ----------------°°---------------------------------------------- Left Turn Major Road 5.00 2.10 Right Turn Minor Road 5.50 2.60 Through Traffic Minor Road 6.00 3.30 Left Turn Minor Road 6.50 3.40 NorkSheet for TWSC Intersection -------------------------------------------------------- Step 1, RT from Minor Street HB EB -------------------------------------------------------- Conflicting Flow, (vph) 1031 330 Potential Capacity, (pcph) 416 942 Movement Capacity (pcph) 416 942 Pub. of Queue -Eree State, 1.00 0.86 -------------------------------------------------------- Step 2, LT from Major Street SB NB -------------------------------------------------------- Conflicting Plow, (vph) 1031 359 Potential Capacity (pcph) 553 1156 Movement Capacity, (pcph) 553 1156 Prab. of Queue -free State, 1.00 0.89 7H Saturation Flow Rate, (pcphpl) 1700 RT Saturation Flow Rate, (pcphpl) 1700 Major LT Shared Lane Prob. of Queue -free State, 1.00 -------------------------------------------------------- Step 3, TN from Minor Street NB Ea -------------------------------------------------------- Conflicting Plows, (vph) 1506 1476 Potential Capacity (pcph) 177 163 Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Irtpeding Movements 0.88 0.88 Movement Capacity (pcph) 156 161 Prob. of Queue -free State, 1.00 1.00 -------------------------------------------------------- Step 43 IT iron Minor Street NB EB -------------------------------.-..--------------------- Conflicting Flow, (vph) 1534 1476 Potential Capacity (pcph) 137 148 Major LT, Minor TH Impedance Factor, 0.88 0.88 Adjusted Impedance Factor, 0.91 0.91 Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Immpedirg Movements 0.78 0.91 Movement Capacity, (pcph) -------------------------------------------------------- 107 135 Intersection Performance Summary F1owRate Movecap Shar dCap Avg.Total Delay Movement v(pcph) On(pcph) Cah(pcph) Delay LOS By App -- - - - - -- ------ - - - - -- - - ---- ------------ ------ --- - --- -- RB L 35 135 > > > 418 14.3 C 14.3 FB R 132 942 > > > NB L 1 107 > 107 > 34.0 > R NB L 132 1156 3.5 A 0.4 SB L 2 553 6.5 B 0.0 Intersection Delay . 1.5 level of Service A Center For Microcomputers In Transportation HCS. U migualized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 1 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation Center For Microernputere In Transportation •••••••••••• •••••••••••••••••••• ••••• ........................•• HCS. Uhsighalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 2 HCS. Unsighalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 3 •...........• .................... ....................•.•........ .....................•.......•.•• •....•...•..................... Pile Nana ................ SES2EX M.HC0 Critical Follow-up Maneuver Gap (tg) Time (tf) Streets. (N -S) Saratoga -Ins Gatos (E -W) Oak Street 2.10 Right 7Urn Minor Road S.SO Major Street Direction .... NS Through Traffic Minor Road 6.00 3.30 Left TUrn Minor Road 6.50 3.40 Length of Time Analyzed... 60 (min) NB -------------------------------------------------------- Conflicting Flows. (vph) 313 903 Potential Capacity. (pcph) 1216 Analyst ................... M" Movement Capacity. (pcph) 1216 636 Prab. of Queue -free State, 1.00 0.90 Date of Analysis.......... 11/17/98 1700 Rr Saturation Flow Rate. (r 1111) 1700 Major IT Shared Lane Prob. Other Information ......... Existing (1998) P.M. Peak Hour 0.99 _ -------------------------------------------------------- Step 31 7H from Minor Street Two -way Stop - controlled Intersection EB ------------------.---..-------..----------------------- Conflicting Flows# (vph) 1270 1238 Potential Capacity. (pcph) 235 ..................................°- °..................°- Northbound I Southbound I Eastbound I °......--° Westbound I L T RI L T RI L T RI L T R I- - -- - - -- --- - I - - -- - - -- No. Lam I 1 1. OI O> 1. --- - I - - -- 01 0> - - -- 1. --- - I ---- 01 ---- 0> I< ---- 0 Stop/Yield I N) NI 1238 I 199 203 Major LT. Minor TN Volumes I S2 312 11 3 838 651 37 0 321 2 0 0 "IF 1 .95 .95 .951 .95 .95 .951 .95 .95 .951 .9S .95 .95 Grade 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 MC's (f) 1 0 0 01 0 0 01 0 0 01 0 0 0 sv /RV•s MI 0 0 01 0 0 01 0 0 01 0 0 0 CV•s (t) 1 0 0 01 0 0 01 0 0 01 0 0 0 PC816 1 1.1 1.1 1.11 1.1 1.1 -------------------------------------- 1.11 1.1 --------------- 1.1 1.11 ----- 1.1 --- ----------- 1.1 1.1 Adjustment Factors Vehicle Critical Follow-up Maneuver Gap (tg) Time (tf) ------------------------------------------------------------------ Left Turn Major Road 5.00 2.10 Right 7Urn Minor Road S.SO 2.60 Through Traffic Minor Road 6.00 3.30 Left TUrn Minor Road 6.50 3.40 WorkSheet for THSC Intersection Intersection Performance Shzmary -------------------------------------------------------- Step 1. RT from Minor Street Na EB -------------------------------------------------------- Conflicting Flwe. (vph) 312 870 Potential Capacity. (pcph) 962 502 Movement Capacity. (pcph) 962 502 Prob. of Queue -free State. 1.00 0.93 -------------------------------------------------------- Step 21 IT from Major Street SB NB -------------------------------------------------------- Conflicting Flows. (vph) 313 903 Potential Capacity. (pcph) 1216 636 Movement Capacity. (pcph) 1216 636 Prab. of Queue -free State, 1.00 0.90 TH Saturation Flow Rate. (pcphpl) 1700 Rr Saturation Flow Rate. (r 1111) 1700 Major IT Shared Lane Prob. of Queue -free State. 0.99 _ -------------------------------------------------------- Step 31 7H from Minor Street WB EB ------------------.---..-------..----------------------- Conflicting Flows# (vph) 1270 1238 Potential Capacity. (pcph) 235 244 Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements 0.90 0.90 Movement Capacity. (pcph) 211 219 Prob. of Queue -free State. 1.00 1.00 -------------------------------------------------------- Step 4. IT from Minor Street WS ED -------------------------------------------------------- Conflicting Flown. (vph) 1254 1238 Potential Capacity. (pcph) 199 203 Major LT. Minor TN tupedance Factor. 0.90 0.90 Adjusted Impedance Factor. 0.92 0.92 Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Inpeding Movements 0.85 0.92 Movement Capacity. (pcph) -------------------------- --------- ---- 170 -- ---- ---- 167 - - - - - -- Intersection Performance Shzmary Flm&ate MoveCap SharedCap Avg.7bta1 Delay Movement --- --- -- v(pcph) cm(pcph) Ceh(pcph) Delay ------ - - - - -- - - - - -- -------- - - -- Ins By App --- - -- --------- EB L 43 187 > > > 263 19.6 C 19.6 EB R 37 502 > > > WO L 2 170 > 170 > 21.4 > D NB L 61 636 6.3 B 0.9 SB L 3 1216 3.0 A 0.0 Intersection Delay . 1.3 level of Service A Center For Microcomputers In Transportation HCS. Uaigmalized Intersection Release 2.1 page 1 (Tenter For Microcomputers In Transportation (enter For Microcarputers In Transportation ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• • ............•••.•••••• ICS. Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 2 HCS. U mignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 3 ••••••••••.•••••••••••.••.••••. ••....•.•.•••••....••..•....... • ..•.......•.•.•.•••......••.••••• .•••.•.•..•••..••.•.•••.••••••• Pile Nave ................ SBS2BNW.IM Streets. (N -S) Saratoga -Los Gatos (6 -M) Oak Street Major Street Direction .... NS Imgth of Time Analyzed... 60 (min) Analyst ................... MKF .. Date of Analysis.......... 11/17/96 Other Information ......... Year 2008 Background A.M. Peak Hour Two -way Stop- Controlled Intersection ......................................... ............................... I Northbound 1 Southbound I Eastbound I Mestbo ud I L T R1 L T R1 L T R1 L T R I - - -- - - -- --- - I - - -- - - -- --- - I - - -- - - -- --- - I - - -- - - -- - - -- No. Lanes 1 1 1< 01 0> 1< 01 0> l< 01 0> 1< 0 Stop /Yield I NI NI I Volumes 1 114 1196 01 2 350 571 30 0 1141 1 0 0 PHF 1 .95 .95 .951 .95 .95 .9S1 .95 .95 .951 .95 .95 .95 Grade 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 MC•a (1) 1 0 0 01 0 0 01 0 0 01 0 0 0 SU/RV• s MI 0 0 01 0 0 01 0 0 01 0 0 0 eve (r) 1 0 0 01 0 0 01 0 0 01 0 0 D PCB's 1 1.1 1.1 1.11 1.1 1.1 1.11 1.1 1.1 1.11 1.1 1.1 1.1 -------------------------------------- ---------------------------------- Adjustment Factors Vehicle Critical Follow-up Maneuver Cap (tg) Time MO ------------------------------------------------------------------ Left Turn Major Road 5.00 2.10 Right Turn Minor Road 5.50 2.60 Through Traffic Minor Road 6.00 3.30 Left Turn Minor Road 6.50 3.40 MorkSheet for Td9C Intersection Step 1. RT from Minor Street MB PB Conflicting Flwe. (vph) 1196 378 Potential Capacity. (pcph) 343 891 Movement Capacity. (pcph) 343 891 Prcb. of Queue -free State. 1.00 0.85 -------------------------------------------------------- Step 21 IT from Major Street SB NB -------------------------------------------------------- Conflicting Flows. (vph) 1196 407 Potential Capacity. (pcph) 461 1097 Movement Capacity. (pcph) 461 1097 Prob. of Queue -free State. 1.00 0.68 TH Saturation Flow Rate. (pcphpl) 1700 Ry Saturation Flow Rate. (pcphpl) 1700 Major IT Shared Lane Prob. of Queu -free State. 0.99 -------------------------------------------------------- Step 3. 7H from Minor Street we EB -------------------------------------------------------- Conflicting Flows. (vph) 1719 1690 Potential Capacity. (pcph) 137 142 Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements 0.87 0.87 Movement Capacity. (pcph) 120 124 Prcb. of Queue -free State. 1.00 1.00 -------------------------------------------------------- Step 4. IT from Minor Street MB ID -------------------------------------------------------- Conflicting Flows. (vph) 1748 1690 Potential Capacity. (pcph) 103 111 Major LT, Minor TH Dmpedance Factor. 0.87 0.87 Adjusted Impedance Factor. 0.90 0.90 Capacity Adjustment Factor du to Impeding Movements 0.77 0.90 Movement Capacity. (pcph) ------------------------------ ------------------ 79 100 -------- Intersection Performance Su nary F1wRate MoveCap SharedCap Avg.7btal Delay Movement v(pcph) Clo(pcph) Ceh(pcph) Delay LOB BY App -- -- ---- ------ -- ---- - - - - -- -- ---------- ------ --------- 8H L 35 100 > > > 335 21.3 D 21.3 ID R 132 891 > MB L 1 79 > 79 NS L 132 1097 SB L 2 461 > 46.2 > F 3.7 A 0.3 7.8 B 0.0 Intersection Delay . 1.9 Level of Service A Center For Microcomputers In Transportation HCS. Unsignalimed Intersection Release 2.1 page 1 Center For Microcomputers In 7Yansportaticn Center For Microco puters In Transportation •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• •••••• ......................... HCSs Umsignalired Intersection Release 2.1 Page 2 HCSi Uhsignalired Intersection Release 2.1 Page 3 ••••.••••••••••••.••••••••••••• •.....•.........- ...•..•.•••••• ••.••.••...••.••. ......... •. ... •.•• ....................... -... File Name ................ S S2BAPM.HC0 critical Pbllw -up Maneuver Gap (tg) Streets. (N -S) Saratoga -Ins Gatos (E-N) Oak Street 5.00 2.10 Major Street Direction .... NS 5.50 2.60 Thrown Traffic Minor Road 6.00 3.30 Length of Tine Analysed... 60 (min) 6.50 3.40 Potential Capacity. (pcph) 1151 549 Analyst ................... MKP 1151 549 Prob. of pum -free State. 1.00 0.89 Date of Analysis.......... 11/17/98 1700 Rfr Saturation Flow Rate. (pcphpl) 1700 other Information......... Year 2006 Background P.M. Peak Hour of Queue -free State. 0.99 Two -way Stop- controlled Intersection -------------------------------------------------------- Step 3. TH from Minor Street MR PS ---------------------.-------.-------------------------- Conflicting Plows. (vph) 1454 ......................................... ............................... I Northbound I Southbms d I Eastbound I Westbound I L T RI L T RI L T RI L T R I---- - - -- ---- I ---- ---- No. Lanes 1 1 14 01 0> 1< --- - I - - -- 01 0> - - -- 1< --- - I - - -- - 01 0> - -- 14 - - -- 0 Stop/Yield I NI NI 1.00 -------------------------------------------------------- Step 41 IT from Minor Street WS ES volumes 1 52 362 11 3 972 651 37 0 321 2 0 0 FEW 1 .95 .95 .951 .95 .95 .951 .95 .95 .951 .95 .95 .95 ctade 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 )C's (t) 1 0 0 01 0 0 01 0 0 01 0 0 0 SU/RV' e MI 0 0 01 0 0 01 0 0 01 0 0 0 LV's (1) 1 0 0 01 0 0 01 0 0 01 0 0 0 PCB's 1 1.1 1.1 1.11 1.1 1.1 ----------------------------------------- 1.11 1.1 ---- ---------------------------- 1.1 1.11 1.1 1.1 1.1 Adjustment Factors vehicle critical Pbllw -up Maneuver Gap (tg) Tyne (tf) ------------------------------------------------------------------ Left TVrn Major Road 5.00 2.10 Right TUrn Minor Road 5.50 2.60 Thrown Traffic Minor Road 6.00 3.30 left Turn Mimr Road 6.50 3.40 Worko,..t for T 49C Intersection ------------------------------------------------------- Step 1. RT from Minor Street R® EB Conflicting Flwe. (vph) 362 1004 Potential Capacity, (pcph) 908 429 Movement capacity. (pcph) 908 429 Prcb. of Queue -free State. 1.00 0.91 -------------------------------------------------------- Step 2. IT from Major Street SB NB -------------------------------------------------------- Conflicting Flows. (vph) 363 1037 Potential Capacity. (pcph) 1151 549 Movement Opacity. (pcph) 1151 549 Prob. of pum -free State. 1.00 0.89 TH Saturation Flow Rate. (pcphpl) 1700 Rfr Saturation Flow Rate. (pcphpl) 1700 Major IT Shared Lam Prob. of Queue -free State. 0.99 -------------------------------------------------------- Step 3. TH from Minor Street MR PS ---------------------.-------.-------------------------- Conflicting Plows. (vph) 1454 1422 Potential Opacity. (pcph) 188 196 Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements 0.88 0.88 movement Capacity. (pcph) 166 173 Prob. of Queue -free State. 1.00 1.00 -------------------------------------------------------- Step 41 IT from Minor Street WS ES -------------------------------------------------------- Conflicting Plows. (vph) 1436 1422 Potential Opacity. (pcph) 156 159 Major LT, Minor TN Impedance Factor. 0.88 0.88 Adjusted Impedance Factor, 0.91 0.91 capacity Adjustment Factor due to Irtpedirg movements 0.83 0.91 Movement Opacity. (pcph) ------------------------ ---------------------------- 130 145 ---- Intersection Performance Summary F1owRate MoveCap SharedCap Avg.TOtal Delay Movement v(pcph) On(pcph) Csh(pcph) Delay Lob By APP -------- ------ ------ -- ---- ------ -- ---- - - ---- --- - ----- ® L 43 145 > > > 209 27.8 D 27.8 ® R 37 429 > > a W9 L 2 130 > 130 > 28.1 > D NB L 61 549 7.4 B 0.9 SB L 3 1151 3.1 A 0.0 Intersection Delay . 1.6 Level of Service A Center For Microcomputers In Transportation HCSs Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 1 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation Curter For Microcomputers In Transportation .................................. ••••• ....... * ......... *...... PRSs Uhneignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 2 HCSs Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 3 ••••.•.•••••••••.•••....• ... .•••• . ......... * *•••.•.••.•• .... .... .•.•........•••..•..•..•...•...•• .•••.•••.•.••••.••••••••..••.•• Pile Name ................ SES2PRAM.HCO Critical Follow-up Maneuver Crap (tg) Streets. (N -S) Saratoga -Pas Gatos (S -W) Oak Street ------- --------------------- 5.00 2.10 Major Street Direction.... NS 5.50 2.60 Through Traffic Minor Road 6.00 3.30 Length of Time Analyzed... 60 (min) 6.50 3.40 SB DID -------------------------------------------------------- Conflicting Plows (vph) Analyst ................... MKF 433 Potential Capacity. (pcph) 461 1066 Movement Capaeitys (pcph) Date of Analysis.......... 11/17/98 1066 Prob. of Qnxue -free States 1.00 0.87 TH Saturation Plow Rates (pcphpl) Other Information ......... Year 2008 Badc. . Proj. A.M. Peak Hour Rr Saturation Plow Rates (pcphpl) Two-way Stop-controlled Intersection Major IT Shared lane Prob. of Queue -free States ......................................... ............................... Northbound I Scuthbou d I Eastbound I Westbound L T RI L T RI L T RI L T R I - - -- - - -- --- - I - - -- - - -- --- No. Lacs 1 1 1< Of 0> 1< - I - - -- 01 O> ---- 1< --- - I - - -- ---- 01 O> 1< ---- 0 Stcp /Yield I NJ NJ 0.86 0.86 Movement Capaeitys WPM 113 Volumes 1 123 1196 01 2 362 711 49 0 1241 1 0 0 FEW 1 .95 .95 .951 .95 .95 .951 .95 .95 .951 .95 .95 .95 Grade 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0.86 MC's M 1 0 0 Of 0 0 of 0 0 of 0 0 0 SU /RV's MI 0 0 Of 0 0 of 0 0 Of 0 0 0 CV's (t) 1 0 0 of 0 0 Of 0 0 of 0 0 0 PCB's 1 1.1 1.1 1.11 1.1 1.1 ----------------------------------------- 1.11 1.1 - --------------------- 1.1 1.11 1.1 1.1 --- -- 1.1 - - -- Adjustment Factors Vehicle Critical Follow-up Maneuver Crap (tg) Time (tf) -------------------------------------- Left Turn Major Road ------- --------------------- 5.00 2.10 Right Turn Minor Road 5.50 2.60 Through Traffic Minor Road 6.00 3.30 left Turn Minor Road 6.50 3.40 WorkSheet for TWX Intersection -------------------------------------------------------- Step is RT from Minor Street WB EB -------------------------------------------------------- Conflicting Flows (vph) 1196 398 Potential Capacity. (pcph) 343 870 Movement Capacitys (pcph) 343 870 Prob. of Queue -free States 1.00 0.83 -------------------------------------------------------- Step 21 IT from Major Street SB DID -------------------------------------------------------- Conflicting Plows (vph) 1196 433 Potential Capacity. (pcph) 461 1066 Movement Capaeitys (pcph) 461 1066 Prob. of Qnxue -free States 1.00 0.87 TH Saturation Plow Rates (pcphpl) 1700 Rr Saturation Plow Rates (pcphpl) 1700 Major IT Shared lane Prob. of Queue -free States 0.99 -------------------------------------------------------- Step 3s TH from Minor Street WB LS -------------------------------------------------------- Conflicting Plovas (vph) 1754 1718 Potential Cbpacitys (pcph) 131 137 Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements 0.86 0.86 Movement Capaeitys WPM 113 lie Prob. of Queue -free States 1.00 1.00 -------------------------------------------------------- Step 4m IT from Minor Street NO EB -------------------------------------------------------- Conflicting Flows. (vph) 1780 1718 Potential Capacity, (pcph) 99 107 Major LT, Minor TH Impedance Factors 0.86 0.86 Adjusted Impedance Factors 0.89 0.89 Capacity Adjustment Factor dne to Impeding Movements 0.75 0.89 Movement C7pacitys (pcph) ------------------------- ------------------------- 74 96 -- - --- Intersection Performance Summary FIcwRate MbveCap SharedCap Avg.TOtal Delay Movement v(pcph) Cm(pcph) Cah(pcph) Delay LOS By App -------- ------ ------ --- - -- - ----- - - - - -- - - ---- --------- EB L 57 96 > > > 265 52.7 F 52.7 EB R 144 870 > WB L 1 74 > 74 NB L 142 1066 SB L 2 461 > > > 49.3 > P 3.9 A 0.4 7.8 B 0.0 Intersection Delay . 5.0 Level of Service B Center For Micruooemputers In Transportation ICS, Uhnignalized Intersection Release 2.1 page 1 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation Center For MicrocrnQuters In Transportation ........... ••••••••••••••••.......... * .......... * ......... ••••• FMCS. Unsignslized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 2 HC3. Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 3 ................................. ............................... ................................. ............................... Pile Name ................ SIMPRPM.HCO Critical Follow-up Maneuver Gap (tg) Streets. (N -S) Saratoga -Los Gatos (R -N) Oak Street 5.00 2.10 Major Street Directi.on.... NS 5.50 2.60 Through Traffic Minor Road 6.00 3.30 Length of Timms Analyzed... 60 (min) 6.50 3.40 Potential Capacity. (pcph) 1151 549 Analyst................... MIS+ 1151 549 Prob. of Queue -free State. 1.00 0.89 Date of Analysis.......... 11/17/98 1700 7.4 Rf Saturation Plow Rate. (pcpt>pl) 1700 3 1151 Other - Information ......... Year 2008 Bach. a Proj. P.M. Peak Hour Too -way Step- controlled Intersection 0.99 -------------------------------------------------------- Step 3. TH from Minor Street WB EB ......................................... ............................... Morthbcuatl I Southbound I Eastbound I Westbound 1454 L T RI L T RI L T RI L T R I - - -- - - -- --- - I - - -- - - -- --- No. lanes 1 1 1< 01 0> 1< - I - - -- 01 O> - - -- 1< --- - I - - -- - 01 O> --- ---- 1< 0 Stop /Yield I NJ NJ 1.00 1.00 -------------------------------------------------------- Step 4. IT from Minor Street WB Volumes 1 52 362 11 3 972 65) 37 0 321 2 0 0 Won I .95 .95 .9sl .95 .95 .9sl .95 .95 .95l .95 .95 .95 Grade 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 PC's (0) 1 0 0 01 0 0 01 0 0 01 0 0 0 Sam's (%) 1 0 0 01 0 0 01 0 0 01 0 0 0 CV's (t) 1 0 0 01 0 0 01 0 0 01 0 0 0 PCE's 1 1.1 1.1 1.11 1.1 1.1 ----------------------------------------- 1.11 1.1 ------------------------------- 1.1 1.11 1.1 1.1 1.1 Adjustment Factors Vehicle Critical Follow-up Maneuver Gap (tg) Time (tf) ------------------------------------------------------------------ Left Turn Major Road 5.00 2.10 Right Turn Minor Road 5.50 2.60 Through Traffic Minor Road 6.00 3.30 Left Turn Minor Road 6.50 3.40 Worksheet for TWSC Intersection -------------------.-.-.----.--------------------------- Step 1. RT from Minor Street WB EB Conflicting Flows. (vph) 362 1004 Potential Capacity. (pcph) 908 429 Movement Capacity. (pcph) 908 429 Prob. of Queue -free Staten 1.00 0.91 -------------------------------------------------------- Step 2. IT from Major Street SB MID -------------------------------------------------------- Conflicting Plowe. (vph) 363 1037 Potential Capacity. (pcph) 1151 549 Movement Capacity. (pcph) 1151 549 Prob. of Queue -free State. 1.00 0.89 TH Saturation Plow Rate. (pcphpl) 1700 7.4 Rf Saturation Plow Rate. (pcpt>pl) 1700 3 1151 Major IT Shared Rare Prob. A 0.0 of Queue -free State. 0.99 -------------------------------------------------------- Step 3. TH from Minor Street WB EB -------------------------------------------------------- Conflicting Phew. (vph) 1454 1422 Potential Capacity. (pcph) 188 196 Capacity Adjustment Factor die to Impeding Movements 0.88 0.88 Movement Capacity. (pcph) 166 173 Prob. of Queue -free State. 1.00 1.00 -------------------------------------------------------- Step 4. IT from Minor Street WB EB --------------------------------------------------.----- Conflicting Plows. (vph) 1438 1422 Potential Capacity. (pcph) 156 159 Major LT, Minor TH Impedance Factor. 0.88 0.88 Adjusted Impedance Factor. 0.91 0.91 Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movenerts 0.83 0.91 Movement Capacity. (pcph) ------------------------------- ------------------------- 130 145 Intersection Performance Slzmary Flmftte MoveCap SharedCap Avg.Total Delay Movement -------- v(pcph) Chi(pcph) Cah(pcph) ------ - - ---- ------ Delay ------------ LOS By APP ------ LB L 43 145 > > --------- > 209 27.8 D 27.6 RB R 37 429 > > > W8 L 2 130 > 130 > 28.1 > D MID L 61 549 7.4 8 0.9 SB L 3 1151 3.1 A 0.0 Intersection Delay . 1.6 Level of Service A LSA Associates, Inc. 3• Saratoga -Los Gatos Road/Vickery Avenue 11A19/98(RNSSD830 \TRAFFIC.AM Center For Microcomputers In Transportation HCS, Unsignalimed Intersection Release 2.1 Page 1 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation Center For Microcomputers In Transportation •• ff•• f•• f•••• f•• f•• ff ••••11f1f .....................• • ........ HCS. Unsignalired Intersection Release 2.1 Page 2 HCi. Uisignalired Intersection Release 2.1 Page 3 •••••f•f••f••• .. ...........................••f• f......•... ff•ff• ♦•••ffflffff.....••fff••ff 1f.... f ..f• ..... ••f.•• ... •••f•••fff... File Nana ................ SES3EXhM.HC0 critical Streets. (N -S) Saratoga -Los Gatos (E-N) Vickery Avenue Major Street Direction .... NS Timms (tf) ------------------------------------------------------------------ Left Turn Major Road Length of Time Analysed... 60 (min) 2.10 Right Turn Minor Road Analyst ................... MKF 2.60 Toro 3h Traffic Minor Road Date of Analysis.......... 11/17/98 3.30 Left Turn Minor Road Other Informticn......... Existing (1998) A.M. Peak Hour Two -way Stop- controlled Intersection ......................................... ............................... Nord bound ( Scuthbasd I Eastbound I 'Mestbaud L T RI L T RI L T RI L T R I - - -- - - -- --- - I - - -- - --- No. Lanes I 1 1 01 0 14 --- - I - - -- - 01 O> - -- --- - I - - -- - - -- - - -- 04 01 0 0 0 Stop/Yield I NJ NJ Volume 1 24 1170 1 377 71 8 131 PHF ( .95 .95 1 .95 .9si .95 .951 Grade 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 Mc•a (t) 1 0 0 '1 0 01 0 01 SU /RV's (t) 1 0 0 1 0 01 0 ` 01 CV's (t) 1 0 0 1 0 01 0 01 PCB's 1 1.1 1.1 1 1.1 ------------------------------------------------- 1.11 1.1 1.11 --- -------------- - - - - -- Adjustment Factors vehicle critical Follow -up Maneuver Gap (tg) Timms (tf) ------------------------------------------------------------------ Left Turn Major Road 5.00 2.10 Right Turn Minor Road 5.50 2.60 Toro 3h Traffic Minor Road 6.00 3.30 Left Turn Minor Road 6.50 3.40 NorkSheet for TWSC Intersection Step Is RT from Minor Street NB EB Conflicting Plows. (vph) 380 Potential Capacity. (pcph) 889 Movement Capacity. (pcph) 889 Prob. of Queue -free State. 0.96 Step 2. IT from Major Street SB NS Conflicting Plows. (vph) 384 Potential Capacity. (pcph) 1125 Movement Capacity. (pcph) 1125 Prob. of Queue -free State, 0.96 Step 4. IT from Minor Street M® EB -------------------------------------------------------- Conflicting Plows. (vph) 1574 Potential Capacity. (pcph) 130 Major LT, Minor 7H Impedance Factor. 0.96 Adjusted Impedance Factor. 0.98 Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements 0.98 Movement Capacity. (pcph) ----------------------- - --------- ----------------------- 127 Intersection Performance Summary FlouRate MoveCap SharedCap Avg.Tbtal Delay Movement v(pcph) Cm(pcph) Coh(pcph) Delay LOS By App -------- --- - -- - - - - -- ------ ------ - - - - -- ------ ----- - - -- EH L 9 127 > > > 274 14.4 C 14.4 RD R 15 809 > > > NB L 28 1125 3.3 A 0.1 Intersection Delay . 0.2 Level of Service A Center For Micrommputers In Transportation H S, Uueigalined Intersection Release 2.1 Page 1 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation Center For Mi a000mQuters In Transportation •.•....... .•••.•••••.•.••..••.•• a •••••..•...•••.•..••.•••••••••• HCS, U,sigalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 2 HCS, U,sig,alized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 3 ...••..••........•.•.....•....•.. •....•..•.••••.•••...••••..••.• .••.•••.•..........••.•....•••••• ••.•.•••.••••...••.•.••.•..•... Pile Mamma ................ SE93EX1M.HCO Critixsl Streets, (M -S) Saratoga -Los Cates (E -W) Vickery Avenue Major Street Direction .... HS Time (tf) ------------------------------------------------------------------ Ieft Turn Major Road Length of Time Analysed... 60 (min) 2.10 Right Thin Minor Road Analyst ................... MXF 2.60 lhrargh Traffic Minor Road Date of Analysis .......... 11/17/98 1.30 Left Turn Minor Road Other Information ......... Existing (1998) P.M. Peak Hour Two -way Stop-controlled Intersection ......................................... ............................... I Mort3nbosnd I Southbaad I Eastbound I Westbound I L T RI L T RI L T RI L T R I-- -- - - -- --- - I - - -- - - -- N0. Lanes I 1 1 01 0 1< --- - I - - -- - 01 0> - -- --- - I - - -- - - -- - - -- 04 01 0 0 0 StP /Yield I NI NI I Vb1WMs 1 12 373 1 855 241 8 151 HIP 1 .95 .95 1 .95 .951 .95 .951 Grade 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 MC's (4) 1 0 0 1 0 01 0 01 SU/RV's MI 0 0 1 0 01 0 01 CV's (t) 1 0 0 1 0 01 0 01 PCE's 1 1.1 1.1 1 1.1 ---------------------------------------- 1.11 1.1 ------------ 1.11 --.--------- °. - --.- Adjustment Factors vehicle Critixsl Follw -up Maneuver Cap (tg) Time (tf) ------------------------------------------------------------------ Ieft Turn Major Road 5.00 2.10 Right Thin Minor Road 5.50 2.60 lhrargh Traffic Minor Road 6.00 1.30 Left Turn Minor Road 6.50 3.40 WurkSheet for TW9C Intersectim Step 1, RT from Minor Street WB EB Conflicting Plows, (vph) 667 Potential Capacity, (pcph) 504 Movement Capacity, (pcph) 504 Prob. of Queue -free State, 0.% Step 2, IT from Major Street SB NS Conflicting Flaws, (vph) 879 Potential Capacity, (pcph) 653 Movement Capacity, (pcph) 653 Prob. of Queue -free State, 0.98 Step 4, IT from Minor Street WS ER ------------------------- ------------------------------- Conflicting Plows, (vph) 1252 Potential Capacity, (pcph) 199 Major LT, Minor TH Impedance Factor, 0.98 Adjusted Impedance Factor, 0.98 Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements 0.98 Movement Capacity, (pcph) ------------------------- ------------ 195 ---------------- --- Intersection Performance Summary F1owRate MoveCap ShacedCap Avg.Tbtal Delay Movement v(pcph) Cm(pcph) Csh(pcph) Delay LOS By App - ------- -- - - -- - ----- - ----- ------------ ------ ------- -- ES L 9 195 > > > 330 11.9 C 11.9 EB R 18 504 > > > NB L 14 653 5.6 8 0.2 Intersection Delay . 0.3 Level of Service A Center For Microccuputers In Transportation HCS. Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 page 1 ................................ •.........................u...• File Nang ................ SE53BAAM.HCO critical Streets. (N -S) Saratoga -Los Gatos (8 -W) Vickery Avenue Major Street Direction.... NS Time (tf) Left Turn Major Road Length of Time Analyzed... 60 (min) 2.10 Right Turn Minor Road Analyst ................... MW 2.60 Through Traffic Minor Road Date of Analysis.......... 11/17/98 3.30 Left Turn Minos Road Other Informmation ......... Year 2008 Background A.M. Peak Ham 7YO -way Stop - controlled Intersection ......................................... ............................... Northbasd I Scuthhasd I Fastbcurd I Nestbasd L T RI L T RI L T RI L T R I - - -- ---- --- - I - - -- - - -- No. Lanes I 1 1 01 0 1< --- - I - - -- ---- 01 0> --- - I - - -- ---- ---- 0< 01 0 0 0 Stop /Yield I NJ NJ Volumes 1 24 1357 1 437 71 8 131 RIF 1 .95 .95 1 .95 .9sl .95 .951 Grade 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 MC's (t) 0 0 1 0 01 0 01 SU/RV's MI 0 0 1 0 01 0 01 CV's (4) 1 0 0 1 0 01 0 01 PCB's 1 1.1 1.1 1 1.1 ---------------------------------------- 1.11 1.1 ---------------------- 1.11 ---------- Adjustment Factors vehicle critical Follow-up Maneuver ------------------------------------------------------------------ Gap (tg) Time (tf) Left Turn Major Road 5.00 2.10 Right Turn Minor Road 5.50 2.60 Through Traffic Minor Road 6.00 3.30 Left Turn Minos Road 6.50 3.40 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation HCS. Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 2 ................................. ............................... W rkSheet for 7WSC Intersection Step It Rf from Minor Street WB P9 Conflicting Flows. (vph) 440 Potential Capacity. (pcph) 829 Movement Capacity. (pcph) 829 Prcb. of Queue -free State. 0.98 Step 2. IT from Major Street SB NB Oanflicting Floras. (vph) 444 Potential Capacity. (pcph) 1053 Movement Capacity. (pcph) 1053 Prob. of Queue -tree State. 0.97 Step 4. IT from Minor Street i® EB -------------------------------------------------------- Conflicting Flows. (vph) 1622 Potential Capacity. (pcph) 93 Major LT, Minor TH Impedance Factor. 0.97 Adjusted Impedance Factor. 0.97 Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements 0.97 Movement Capaeity. (pcph) ------------------------- ------------------------------- 91 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation HCS. Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 3 ................................. ............................... Intersection Performance Summary F1ouRate MoveCap SharedCap Avg.Total Delay ltoveuent v(pcph) Cn(pcph) Csh(pcph) Delay LOS By APP ------ -- ---- -- - - ---- ------ ---------- -- ------ --- - - ---- EB L 9 91 > > > 205 19.9 C 19.9 EB R 15 829 > > > NB L 28 1053 3.5 A 0.1 Intersection Delay . 0.3 Level of Service A Center For Microcomputers In Transportation HCS. Uhsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 1 Center For Microcarmputers In Transportation Center For Microcomputers In Transportation •••••••••••••••••• ............ •'• ••••••••••`•`• ............... •• HCS. Iknsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 page 2 HCS. Ubsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 3 ••••....••..•.•..•...•.•.•••.•... ..•....•••.•.••••••.•.....•.••. •.••••.••....•...••••••••.•...••• ••••••..•••.••..••.•••••••••... File Name ................ SES3MPM.HC0 critical Streets. (N -S) Saratoga -Los Gatos (E -N) Vickery Avenue Major Street Direction.... NS Time (tf) Left Turn Major Road Length of Tim Analyzed... 60 (min) 2.10 Right Turn Minor Road Analyst ................. ... MKF 2.60 Through Traffic Minor Road Date of Analysis.......... 11/17/98 3.30 Left Turn Minor Road Other Information......... Year 2008 Background P.M. peak Hour Two -way Stop - controlled Intersection -----------------------------------------------------.-- Step 4. IT from Minor Street FPS EB ......................................... I Northbound ............................... I Southbound I Eastbound I Nestbmumd I L T RI L T RI L T RI L T R I---- ---- ---- No. Larys 1 1 1 I ---- - - -- --- 01 0 1. - I - - -- - --- 01 0> ---- I ---- ---- -- -- 0< 01 0 0 0 Stop/Yield I NI NI I volumes 1 12 433 1 992 241 8 351 RIF I .95 .95 1 .95 .951 .95 .951 Grade 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 "C's (i) 1 0 0 1 0 01 0 01 SU/RV's MI 0 0 1 0 01 0 01 CV's (4) 1 0 0 1 0 01 0 01 PCB's 11.1 1.1 -------------------------------------------- I 1.1 1.31 1.1 ---------------------- 1.11 - - - - -- Adjustment Factors Vehicle critical Follow-up Maneuver ------------------------------------------------------------------ Gyp (tg) Time (tf) Left Turn Major Road 5.00 2.10 Right Turn Minor Road 5.50 2.60 Through Traffic Minor Road 6.00 3.30 Left Turn Minor Road 6.50 3.40 WorkShmt for TWSC Intersection . ------------------------------------------------------- Step 1. RT frcml Minor Street MB EB Conflicting Flwsk (vph) 1004 Potential Capacity. (pcph) 429 Movement Capacity. (pcph) 429 Prcb. of Queue -free State. 0.% ---------------------------.---------------------------- Step 2. IT from Major Street SB Ne -------------------------------------------------------- Conflicting Plows. (vph) 1016 Potential Capacity. (pcph) 562 Movement Capacity. (pcph) 562 Prob. of Queue -free State. 0.96 -----------------------------------------------------.-- Step 4. IT from Minor Street FPS EB -------------------------------------------------------- Conflicting Plows. (vph) 1449 Potential Capacity. (pcph) 153 Major LT. Minor TH Impedance Factor. 0.98 Adjusted Irtpedarre Factor. 0.98 Ckpaeity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements 0.98 Movenent Capacity. (pcph) ------------------------- ------ ------------------- 149 - - - - -- Intersection Performvnee Sum.ary FlowRate MoveCap SharedCap Avg.TOtal Delay Movement v(pcph) Cm(pcph) Cah(pcph) Delay LOS By App ----- - -- - - - --- ------ ------ ------ - - ---- -- - - -- --------- EB L 9 149 > > > 264 15.2 C 15.2 ES R 18 429 > > > NB L 14 562 6.6 B 0.2 Intersection Delay . 0.3 Level of Service A Oenter For Microcomputers In Transportatim HCS. Unsigalized Intersection Release 2.1 page 1 ••..•..•••••.••••••.••••••••••••• •••.•.•••.••••••••••••••..••••. File Name ................ S631- M.HCO Critical Streets. (N -S) Saratoga -Imo Gatos (E-M) Vickery Avenue Major Street Direction.... NS Time (tf) ------------------------------------------------------------------ Ieft Turn Major Road Length of Time Analyzed... 60 (min) 2.10 Right Turn Minor Road Analyst ................... M)0? 2.60 Through Traffic Minor Road Date of Analysis.......... 11/17/98 3.30 Left Turn Minor Road Other Information ......... Year 2008 Bade. a Proj. A.M. Peak Hour Two -ray Step- controlled Intersection ......................................... ............................... I Northbound I Soutitc sd I Eastbound I Westbound I L T R1 L T R1 L T R1 L T R I - - -- - - -- --- - I - - -- - - -- No. Laro 1 1 1 01 0 1. --- - I - - -- - 01 0> - -- --- - I - - -- - - -- - - -- 0. 01 0 0 0 Stcp/Yield I NI NI I Volumes 1 26 1369 1 447 71 8 131 RIF 1 .95 .95 1 .95 .951 .95 .951 Grade 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 MC'e (t) 1 0 0 '1 0 01 0 01 SU /RV's MI 0 0 1 0 01 0 01 CV's (i) 1 0 0 1 0 01 0 01 PCE's 1 1.1 1.1 1 1.1 ---------------------------------------- 1.11 1.1 -------------------------- 1.11 - - - - -- Adjustment Factors vehicle Critical Follow-up Maneuver cap (tg) Time (tf) ------------------------------------------------------------------ Ieft Turn Major Road 5.00 2.10 Right Turn Minor Road 5.50 2.60 Through Traffic Minor Road 6.00 3.30 Left Turn Minor Road 6.SO 3.40 Oenter For Microcomputers In Transportation HCS. Unsigalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 2 Nork5beet for TWSC Intersection Step 1. RT from Minor Street NB BB Conflicting Flows. (vph) 450 Potential Capacity. (pcph) 819 Movement Capacity. (pcph) 819 Prob. of Queue -free State. 0.98 Step 2. IT from Major Street SB NB Conflicting Flows. (vph) 454 Potential Capacity. (pcph) 1042 Movement Capacity. (pcph) 1042 Prob. of Queue -free State. 0.97 Step 4. LT from Mimr Street MB IS -------------------------------------------------------- Cmflicting Flowa. (vph) 1846 Potential Capacity. (pcph) 90 Major LT. Minor TH Impedance Factor. 0.97 Adjusted Impedance Factor. 0.97 capacity Adjustment Factor ds to Impeding Movements 0.97 Movement Capacity. (pcph) --------------------------- --- -------------------------- 87 Oenter For Microcomputers In Transportation HCS. Unsigialired Intersection Release 2.1 Page 3 Intersection Performance Summary FlwRate MoveCap S aredCap Avg.Total Delay Movement v(pcph) Cm(pcph) Cah(pcph) Delay LOS By App ---- - - -- - - - - -- - ----- ------ ------ - - - --- --- - -- --- -- - - -- IB L 9 87 > > > 197 20.8 D 20.8 FB R 15 819 > > > MB L 30 1042 3.6 A 0.1 Intersection Delay . 0.3 Level of Service A Center For Microcomputers In Transportation HCSs Gaasigaalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 1 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation Curter Poe Microcv.putere In Transportation ..................• .................................... HCS. umigaalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 2 HCS. lfisigaalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 3 ................................. ............................... ................................. ............................... Pile Nme ................ SES3PRPM.HC0 critical Streets. (N -S) Saratoga -Ice Gatos (E -M) Vickery Avenue Major Street Direction .... NS Time (tf) left Turn Major Road Length of Time Analyzed... 60 (min) 2.10 Right Turn Minor Road Analyst ................... KKK 2.60 Through Traffic Minor Road Date of Analysis.......... 11/17/98 3.30 Left Turn Minor Road Other Information......... Year 2008 Back. . Proj. P.M. Peak Hour Teo -way Stop- controlled Intersection ......................................... ............................... Northbound { Soudabouad { Eastbound I Westbound { L T RI L T RI L T RI L T R { - - -- - - -- --- - I - - -- ---- No. Lacs { 1 1 01 0 lc --- - I - - -- ---- 01 0> --- - I - - -- - - -- - - -- 0< 01 0 0 0 Stcp /Yield I NJ NJ Volumes { 12 433 992 241 8 15{ PHP { .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95l Grade { 0 0 1 0 1 0 !C's (t) { 0 0 { 0 01 0 01 S) /RV's MI 0 0 1 0 01 0 01 cv's (4) { 0 0 1 0 01 0 01 PCB's 1 1.1 1.1 1 1.1 ----------------------------------------- 1.11 1.1 ------------------------------- 1.11 Adjuso.eat Factors Vehicle critical Follow-up Maneuver ------------------------------------------------------------------ cap (tg) Time (tf) left Turn Major Road 5.00 2.10 Right Turn Minor Road 5.50 2.60 Through Traffic Minor Road 6.00 3.30 Left Turn Minor Road 6.50 3.40 MorkSheet for TWSC Intersection Step 1. RT from Minor Street P® ED Comflicting Plows. (vph) 1004 Potential Capacity. (pcph) 429 Movement Capacity. (pcph) 429 Prob. of Omue -free State. 0.96 Step 2. IT from Major Street SB NB Cnflicting Plows. (vph) 1016 Potential Capacity. (pcph) 562 Havesent Capacity. (pcph) 562 Prob. of Queue -free State. 0.98 Step 4. IT from Minor Street WB ES -------------------------------------------------------- Cbnflicting Plows. (vph) 1449 Potential Capacity. (pcph) 153 Major LT, Minor TH Impedance Factor. 0.98 Adjusted Impedance Factor. 0.96 Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements 0.98 Movetent Capacity. (pcph) --------------------------- ----------------------- 149 - --- -- Intersection Performance Summary Flmitate MoveCop ShacedCap Avg.Tbtal Delay MovenYat v(pcph) C1n(pcph) Cah(pcph) Delay LOS By App -------- - ----- - ----- -- ---- - ----- - - ---- ------ - -------- EB L 9 149 > > > 264 15.2 C 15.2 EB R 18 429 > > > NB L 14 562 6.6 B 0.2 Intersection Delay . 0.3 Level of Service A " D t D M A 41 G I r�j i n AT-C- Tttt S A "A i_,y S i c WILBUR .(ECEIVEL SMITH MAY 1 9 11% ASSOCIATES ENGINEERS • PLANNERS 221 %'AIN SiI,ErT. SUITE 12!;0 • SAN f r;ANUI 10'f) ... u .. ' : • ! A t t.11 ,, < .r, May 14, 1998 Mary Gardner Superintendent Saratoga Union Elementary School District 20460 Forest Hills Drive Saratoga CA 95070 Re: Saratoga Elementary School Circulation Dear Mary Gardner: This letter presents the results of our review of the existing drop -off and circulation at Saratoga Elementary School in Saratoga. Traffic conditions were observed on the morning of February 27 and March 12 and the afternoon of March 12. However, no traffic counts or detailed field measurements we 're conducted for this study. OBSERVATIONS The existing traffic flow procedures given to parents are based on arriving from the intersection of Komina Avenue and Oak Street. This is necessary so that cars are oriented properly for drop -off at the curbs of Oak Street and Komina Avenue. Consequently, o_sLcars were izj ved to come from.Komina_Avenue, They either pull up along the curb of Oak Street or turn into the parking lot for the drop -off area. The Kindergarten parents use Komina ,venue for both a.m.. and p.m. kindergarten drop -off and pick -up. Visitors who wish to park must use either the one parking lot or park across the street on Oak Street or on side streets, since both Oak Street and Komina Avenue adjacent to the school grounds have white curbs for passenger loading and unloading. Two student safety patrols were observed: one was helping with the loading and unloading on Oak Street and one was helping at the crosswalks at Oak Street and Komina Avenue. According to the principal, up to six student safety patrols help in the morning, two at the intersection and four along Oak Street. Oak Street At the Oak Street drop -off area, the public street serves a major role in the school onsite circulation. The Oak Street curb is painted white and the curbside essentially functions as the drop -off lane while Oak Street itself functions as t1Te bypass lane. Tile curb is posted with five signs reading "PASSENGER LOADING ZONE 8 AM TO 3 PM ". However, they are not ACCRA, GHANA - ALBANY, NY • ANAHEIM. CA • ATLANTA, GA - 3ALTIMORE, MD - BANC=',(_)K, THAILAND • CARACAS. VENETJELA- CHARLESTCTL SC: COLUMBIA. SC COLUMBUS, OH • DES MOINES, IA - FALLS :-.HURCH. VA - IIC!: = KONG • HOUSTON, TX • KUWAIT - KNOXVIP F. III LEXINGTON, KY LONDON, ENGLAND • MILWAUKEE. WI • NEW HAVEN, CT - ORLANDO. FL • PITTSBURGH, PA • RALEIG ". r1C RICHMOND. VA • ROSELLE, IL - SAN FRANCISCO. CA - SAN JOSE. CA - TALLAHASSEE F. • TAMPA. FL - TORONTO. CANADA • NASHINGTC ?J. IUC EMPLOYEE -OWNED COMPANY ' Mary Gardner May 14, 1998 Page 2 numbered and labeled as separate loading zones as in the parking lot (see discussion below). On Oak Street, there is room at the curb for about ten cars, but on average only about six are loading or unloading at any given time. The most forward part of the loading zone was often empty; if the first car does not pull all the way forward, the cars in the rear simply pull in behind the first car, leaving space at the front for two or three cars. This happens despite the fact that cars would queue up behind these cars around the corner onto Komina. Impatient drivers on Komina often attempt to pass the queue but must cross the double yellow line in the process. This is dangerous as the visibility to children in the crosswalks is obscured by the queue of cars. Parking Lot In the parking lot, there are two signed loading zones for drop -off. These two zones are in tandem, i.e. one behind the other. This area has a clockwise circulation pattern which means students in the front seat have to cross in front of their parents car to access the school site. The two zones are used relatively efficiently by parents: the lead car must drive to the forward loading zone so that two cars can be loaded /unloaded simultaneously. (At about 8:28 a.m., observations indicated that four or five cars tend to discharge their passengers simultaneously to avoid being tardy. The current clockwise circulation pattern also results in cars exiting the parking lot having to yield to cars on Oak Street driving to the parking lot entrance. In other words,. cars are delayed in leaving the parking lot by the cars on Oak Street trying to enter the lot. However, given the use of the Oak Street curb as a loading area, if the circulation were reversed and the first driveway were made the entrance, past experience has shown there would not be enough room for cars to queue on Oak Street before they turn into this first driveway. Having the entrance drivevvav further down the street increases the storage length available for cars queuing to turn into the driveway. When the circulation in the parking area was counter - clockwise, the entrance driveway was much closer to Komina, and the cars slowing to turn right into the driveway backed up to Komina Avenue and also conflicted with cars leaving the Oak Street curb drop -off area. ANALYSIS AND CONSIDERATIONS Several factors contribute to the traffic congestion at this school: the loading /unloading area is essentially aiso the main school access route; the bypass lane is also the main school access route; clockwise circulation in the parking lot which slows passenger loading/unloading, limited capacity to load/unload several students simultaneously; the lack of convenient visitor parking; and conflicts bet%veen Oak Street and the parkin; lot driveways due to the c:ose proximity of the two loading areas. One of the ;;ingest problems is that Oak Street is needed for both access, circulation and loading and unload:-u. An onsite area for loading and vehicle turnaround N%ould lessen some of the emphasis on Oak Street and improve tragic conditions. Also, the parking lot can be accessed by arriving from the north as well as the south. This will also be considered in the development of the recommendations. Mary Gardner May 14, 1998 Page 3 With the projected twenty -seven percent increase in enrollment from 393 to 500, changes are needed to accommodate the future demand for loading and unloading. As stated in my previous letter, the new circulation pattern should ideally: 1. Accommodate several vehicles loading and unloading simultaneously; 2. Preferably maintain counter - clockwise circulation to expedite passenger loading and unloading and to reduce conflicts between pedestrians and motor vehicles; 3. Provide good visibility from the school center to the main student queuing area; 4. Provide adequate sidewalk space for students to wait on; 5. Enable egress and ingress from the street that don't conflict with each other; 6. Have a bypass lane so that cars which are slow loading and unloading do not block the cars behind them, and so that cars which are finished can depart as soon as possible. If traffic volumes and conditions are worse than projected, this bypass lane can become a second parallel loading/unloading, lane. 7. In addition, the majority of the loading and unloading should take place onsite, if possible. This has several advantages including: it keeps the streets clearer for emergency vehicles and for neighborhood circulation, and it enables parents to turn around onsite so they can drive out of the area without having to make illegal U -turns or awkward maneuvers. This improves traffic safety and reduces the overall driving in and through the adjacent neighborhood. There are numerous strategies and combinations of strategies for improving access and increasing the capacity of the loading_-, and unloading areas. However, there is no one obvious or easy solution. None of them incorporate all seven of the ideal elements listed in the preceding paragraphs. The options all have various impacts on the site planning of the school and on the neighborhood. Some of the strategies are mutually exclusive but some can be tried with others. The main options include: a) Better utilizing Oak Street as a loading zone, e.g. by designating five specific loading areas with student safety patrol or volunteer at each one. While labor intensive, the limited physical space requires the use of other resources. b) De- emphasizing Oak Street by developing more onsite drop -off capacity c) Eliminating soft -scope at the front of the school for a second small scale offstreet loading area to replace Oak Street curb loading. i d) Creating a counter - clockwise on -site circulation pattern. e) Re- siting some of the proposed new buildings to increase the onsite drop -off area t) Utilizing the kindergarten drop -off area for other grades as well (..M only). These cars could then turn left onto Oak Street and avoid driving in tront of the school altogether. I��G� • 'Mary Gardner May 14, 1998 Page 4 g) Developing a one -way circulation access from Forest Hills Drive to Oak Street through district property. RECOMMENDATIONS Given the revised site plan Option C.6 dated March 25, 1998, a conceptual loading/circulation plan was developed and is illustrated in Figure 1. The revised site plan shifts the driveway to the north edse of the property. It pro,,ides for counter - clockwise circulation which will allows faster loading and unloading. It appears that this plan could accommodate four -to six onsite loading zones which is an improvement over the existing two spaces. Given this site plan, the loading zones must be located soon after the cars enter the driveway so that the children are let out at the school building and do not have to cross the parking lot. This means that there is room for only minimal onsite queuing prior to arriving at the loadin_s zones. This will necessitate establishing a No Parking Zone on Oak Street prior to the driveway for cars waiting to enter the driveway. Even so, there would still be room to designate six loading zones on Oak Street . Two lanes will be needed on the inbound side of the parking lot, one for drop -offs and pick -ups adjacent to the curb and one as a bypass lane. If exiting vehicles become a problem, it may be necessary to install a right -turn only sign during the peak hours. If turns are restricted, it may be worth considering providing egress out onto Forest Hills Drive as well as Oak Street. This would reduce congestion on Oak Street as well as awkward or illegal maneuvers from parents who would normally have made a left -turn onto Oak Street. It is also recommended that signs be posted in each loading area. similar to existing signs at Redwood Middle school stating MOVE FORWARD AS FAR AS YOU CAN- FOR PASSENGER LOAD INGIU OADING. As stated previously, to increase the observance of these signs, volunteers, either parents or student safety patrols, should direct cars to pull all the way up in order to facilitate quick loading and unloading and to open car doors. Blocks of about five cars should be unloaded simultaneously: the five cars would pull up, volunteers would open their doors, and then all five would drive away and the nest block of cars would pull up and be unloaded. While labor intensive, the lack of physical space -rust be made up for by traffic management techniques such as this. Other management techniques should be considered and /or continued, such as: • written drop -off pick -up procedures should be distributed to parents at the beg:nnins of - each semester, • encourage parents to arrive earlier than the five minutes be-7--re school. Mary Gardner Nfay 14, 1998 Page 5 • encourage carpooling; • provide incentives for children to walk to school; this can include the formation of "walk - pools" whereby one adult will walk with children from several families to school; • An example of a strategy to encourage carpooling and walking is a voluntary surcharge of $1.00 for each car-trip to school. This could go into a special fund, for example for new playground or computer equipment for the children, or a special end -of -the -year field trip. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. If you desire, we would be happy to provide additional services such as more detail;, regarding the parking lot design and striping if we were provided with site plans at a larger scale. Very truly yours, WILBUR SMITH ASSOCLXTES m M O- o //*_ Michelle DeRobertis, P.E. Principal Transportation Engineer cc: Susie Lechner, HMC M1VID/mmd 331540 - L - -3 2- 51 is 1_ann1N6 2CNC. —T I cc kk] - --�1 -- drop C4 A \ u n e � aSscf Cr kCocicnq • at C- Cif- b J No 'P R9,vt-i M C, OgiW GI40-Alelt2M4. (rNTi? -PL,l' Twlo -y�oR: 51x Loflnlrvc� Z�n1ES= - { X14 h r � to lz tDM Ly �:X -rp,O VF o !� I pS I,PGK?"o P Cons�de� - pro,t�di�� Press pn�o ->rest kQls rWc U C:w A C L& M L N l S C t (,��) C> L O P T( 0 .a 4 D►D tAA41 ES, IrvtricrrG TtttS A- ALYS;; ? - WILBUR �(ECEIVEL SMITH MAY 1 a 1998 ASSOCIATES 'JkAf% n%pnitr ENGINEERS • PLANNERS 771. 'Ally SIPEET. SUITE 173(1 . SAN;J('I':. ., :�l !'!'� = .'� • .. u.. , • �� r r: May 14, 1998 Mary Gardner Superintendent Saratoga Union Elementary School District 20460 Forest Hills Drive Saratoga CA 95070 Re: Snratoga Elementary School Circulation Dear Mary Gardner: This letter presents the results of our review of the existing drop -off and circulation at Saratoga Elementary School in Saratoga. Traffic conditions were observed on the morning of February 27 and March 12 and the afternoon of March 12. However, no traffic counts or detailed field measurements were conducted for this study. OBSERVATIONS The existing traffic flow procedures given to parents are based on arriving from the intersection of Komina Avenue and Oak Street. This is necessary so that cars are oriented properly for drop -off at the curbs of Oak Street and Komina Avenue. Consequently, m1,st cars weriZ_Qbs ed to come from.Komina.Avenue. They either pull up along the curb of Oak Street or turn into the parking lot for the drop -off area. The Kindergarten parents use Komina ;venue for both a.m. and P.M. kindergarten drop -off and pick -up. Visitors who wish to park must use either the one parking lot or park across the street on Oak Street or on side streets, since both Oak Street and Komina Avenue adiacent to the school grounds have white curbs for passenger loading and unloading. Two student safety patrols were observed: one was helping with the loading and unloading on Oak Street and one was helping at the crosswalks at Oak Street and Komina Avenue. According to the principal, up to six student safety patrols help in the morning, two at the intersection and four along Oak Street. Oak Street At the Oak Street drop-off area, the public street serves a major role in the school onsite circulation. The Oak Street curb is painted white and t1Te curbside essentially functions as the drop -off lane while Oak Street itself functions as the bypass lane. The curb is posted with five signs reading "PASSENGER LOADING ZONE 8 AM TO 3 PM ". However, they are not ALCRA. GHANA - ALBANY, NY - ANAHEIM. CA - ATLANTA, GA • ;zALTINIORE. MD - BANGk()K, THAILAND - CARACAS. VENE71JELA- CHARLESTCN. SU COLUMBIA. SC COLUMBUS, OH - DES MOINES, IA - FALLS :'HURCII. VA - IIC %= KONG - HOUSTON, TX - KUWAI' - KNOXVII'_T. III LEXINGTON, KY LONDON. ENGLAND • MILWAUKEE, WI - NEW HAVEN. CT - )RLANUO. FL - PITTSBURGH. PA - RALEIG ". PIC RICHMOND. VA - ROSELLE, IL - SAN FRANCISCO, CA -.SAN JOSE. _'A - TAI.LAHASSF.F, F. - TAMPA. FL • TORONTO. CANADA - NASHINGTCrI I)(- EMPLOYEE -OWNED COMPANY rl Mary Gardner + May 14, 1993 Page 2 numbered and labeled as separate loading zones as in the parking lot (see discussion below). On Oak Street, there is room at the curb for about ten cars, but on average only about six are loading or unloading at any given time. The most forward part of the loading zone was often empty; if the first car does not pull all the way forward, the cars in the rear simply pull in behind the first car, leaving space at the front for two or three cars. This happens despite the fact that cars would queue up behind these cars around the corner onto Komina. Impatient drivers on Komina often attempt to pass the queue but must cross the double yellow line in the process. This is dangerous as the visibiiity to children in the crosswalks is obscured by the queue of cars. Parking Lot In the parking lot, there are two signed loading zones for drop -off. These two zones are in tandem, i.e. one behind the other. This area has a clockwise circulation pattern which means students in the front seat have to cross in front of their parents car to access the school site. The two zones are used relatively efficiently by parents: the lead car must drive to the forward loading zone so that two cars can be loaded/unloaded simultaneously. (At about 3:23 a.m., observations indicated that four or five cars tend to discharge their passengers simultaneously to avoid being tardy. The current clockwise circulation pattern also results in cars exiting the parking lot having to yield to cars on Oak Street driving to the parking lot entrance. In other words, cars are delayed in leaving the parking lot by the cars on Oak Street trying to enter the lot. However, given the use of the Oak Street curb as a loading area, if the circulation were reversed and the first driveway were made the entrance, past experience has shown there would not be enough room for cars to queue on Oak Street before they turn into this first driveway. Having the entrance drive"yav further down the street increases the storage length available for cars queuing to turn into the driveway. When the circulation in the parking area was counter - clockwise, the entrance driveway was much closer to Komina, and the cars slowing to turn right into the driveway backed up to Komina Avenue and also conflicted with cars leaving the Oak Street curb drop -off area. ANALYSIS AND CONSIDERATIONS Several factors contribute to the traffic congestion at this school: the loading /unloading area is essentially aiso the main school access route; the bypass lane is also the main school access route; clockwise circulation in the parking lot which slows passenger load inaiL iloading; limited capacity to load/unload several students simultaneously; the lack of convenient visitor parking; and conflicts beryeen Oak Street and the parking lot driveways due to the close proximity of the two loading areas. One of the '-i<T�;est problems is that Oak Street is needed for both access, circulation and loading and unload:.. ^._. An ensite area for loading and vehicle turnaround could lessen some of the emphasis or Oak Street and improve traffic conditions. Also. the parking, lot can be accessed by arriving from the nosh as well as the south. This also be considered :n the development of the recommend -Hors. r Mary Gardner May 14, 1998 Page 3 With the projected twenty -seven percent increase in enrollment from 393 to 500, changes are needed to accommodate the future demand for loading and unloading. As stated in my previous letter, the new circulation pattern should ideally: 1. Accommodate several vehicles loading and unloading simultaneously; 2. Preferably maintain counter - clockwise circulation to expedite passenger loading and unloading and to reduce conflicts between pedestrians and motor vehicles; J. Provide good visibility from the school center to the main student queuing area; 4. Provide adequate sidewalk space for students to wait on; 5. Enable egress and ingress from the street that don't conflict with each other; 6. Have a bypass lane so that cars which are slow loading and unloading do not block the cars behind them, and so that cars which are finished can depart as soon as possible. If traffic volumes and conditions are worse than projected, this bypass lane can become a second parallel loading/unloading lane. 7. In addition, the majority of the loading and unloading should take place onsite, if possible. This has several advantages including: it keeps the streets clearer for emergency vehicles and for neighborhood circulation, and it enables parents to turn around onsite so they can drive out of the area without having to make illegal U -turns or awkward maneuvers. This improves traffic safety and reduces the overall driving in and through the adjacent neighborhood. There are numerous strategies and combinations of strategies for improving access and increasing the capacity of the loading and unloading areas. However, there is no one obvious or easy solution. None of them incorporate all seven of the ideal elements listed in the preceding paragraphs. The options all have various impacts on the site planning of the school and on the neighborhood. Some of the strategies are mutually exclusive but some can be tried with others. The main options include: a) Better utilizing Oak Street as a loading zone, e.g. b_v designating five specific loading areas with student safety patrol or volunteer at each one. While labor intensive, the limited physical space requires the use of other resources. b) De- emphasizing Oak Street by developing more onsite drop -off capacity. c) Eliminating soft -scape at the front of the school for a second small scale offstreet loading area to replace Oak Street curb loading d) Creating a counter - clockwise on -site circulation pattern. e) Re- siting some of the proposed new buildings to increase the onsite drop -off area. I t t) Utilizing the kindergarten drop -off area for other grades as well (:kM only). These cars could then turn left onto Oak Street and avoid driving in front of the school altogether. r Mary Gardner May 14, 1998 Page 4 g) Developing a one -way circulation access from Forest Hills Drive to Oak Street through district property. RECOMMENDATIONS Given the revised site plan Option C.6 dated March 25, 1998, a conceptual loading/circulation plan was developed and is illustrated in Figure 1. The revised site plan shifts the driveway to the north edge of the property. It proNides for counter - clockwise circulation which will allows faster loading and unloading. It appears that this plan could accommodate four -to six onsite loading zones which is an improvement over the existing two spaces. Given this site plan, the loading zones must be located soon after the cars enter the driveway so that the children are let out at the school building and do not have to cross the parking lot. This means that there is room for only minimal onsite queuing prior to arriving at the loading zones. This will necessitate establishing a No Parking Zone on Oak Street prior to the driveway for cars waiting to enter the driveway. Even so, there would still be room to designate six loading zones on Oak Street . Two lanes will be needed on the inbound side of the parking lot, one for drop -offs and pick -ups adjacent to the curb and one as a bypass lane. If exiting vehicles become a problem, it may be necessary to install a right -turn only sign during the peak hours. If turns are restricted, it may be worth considering providing egress out onto Forest Hills Drive as well as Oak Street. This would reduce congestion on Oak Street as well as awkward or illegal maneuvers from parents who would normally_ have made a left -turn onto Oak Street. It is also recommended that signs be posted in each loading area. similar to existing signs at Redwood Middle school stating MOVE FORWARD AS FAR AS YOU CA.NvFOR PASSENGER LOAD ING/L,'NLOADING. As stated previously. to increase the observance of these signs, volunteers, either parents or student safety patrols, should direct cars to pull all the way up in order to facilitate quick loading and unloading and to Coen car doors. Blocks of about five cars should be unloaded simultaneously: the five cars would pull up, volunteers would open their doors, and then all five would drive away and the next block of cars would pull up and be unloaded. While labor intensive, the lack of physical space -rust be made up for by traffic management techniques such as this. Other management techniques should be considered and /or continued, such as: • written drop -off pick -up procedures should be distributed to parents at the beginning of each semester; • encourage parents to arrive earlier than the five minutes be :_re school; r Mary Gardner May 14, 1998 Page 5 • encourage carpooling; • provide incentives for children to walk to school; this can include the formation of "walk - pools" whereby one adult will walk with children from several families to school; • An example of a strategy to encourage carpooling and walking is a voluntary surcharge of $1.00 for each car-trip to school. This could go into a special fund, for example for new playground or computer equipment for the children, or a special end -of -the -year field trip. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. If you desire, we would be happy to provide additional services such as more detail; regarding the parking lot design and striping if we were provided with site plans at a larger scale. Very truly yours, WILBUR SMITH ASSOCLATES Michelle DeRobertis, P.E. Principal Transportation Engineer cc: Susie Lechner, HMC MIV1D /mmd 331540 Lc�A01N6 2clNC: T --�- -- drop J A \ u n e V'Ct 1 Ur\e a Ssc�.�er f�acl�nq at� sAKn I UQ E- l_.EMLN l (\R`{ SCIjc_�C,L No 'PRR`F,1NCa ��I� G1,axtzMs. ��1�uJb� rN�. c•r�) F \\J F- OK 51 x LOADINo LOf�lES :. j'rI.AGi�?"oP� 0 P -1 1,:�,1J C -4:�, K\ c, IL F Tu zo OM Ly 4t � 1 Consider pro�ldi�� e�ress ��f o forest kQ s rtic 0 2 4 y 4 DID MA41 Er, I?JJrJATr, n-nS ANAL_Yc;;, • WILBUR .(ECEIVEL SMITH MAY 1 a 19% ASSOCIATES ENGINEERS • PLANNERS iil VAIN SIRErT. SUITE 12'111 • SAN -,AV'I';. 'al Ir!'j iC A! , P%(: May 14, 1998 Mary Gardner Superintendent Saratoga Union Elementary School District 20460 Forest Hills Drive Saratoga CA 95070 Re: Saratoga Elementary School Circulation Dear Mary Gardner: This letter presents the results of our review of the existing drop -off and circulation at Saratoga Elementary School in Saratoga. Traffic conditions were observed on the morning of February 27 and March 12 and the afternoon of March 12. However, no traffic counts or detailed field measurements we're conducted for this study. OBSERVATIONS The existing traffic flow procedures given to parents are based on arriving from the intersection of Komina Avenue and Oak Street. This is necessary so that cars are oriented properly for drop -off at the curbs of Oak Street and Komina Avenue. Consequently, most cars were Qbserve to come from Kornina.Avenue. They either pull up along the curb of Oak Street or turn into the parking lot for the ;crop -off area. The Kindergarten parents use Komina :venue for both a.m. and P.M. kindergarten drop -off and pick -up. Visitors who wish to park must use either the one parking lot 02 park across the street on Oak Street or on side streets, since both Oak Street and Komina Avenue adiacent to the school grounds have white curbs for passenger loading and unloading. Two student safety patrols were observed: one was helping with the loading and unloading on Oak Street and one was helping at the crosswalks at Oak Street and Komina Avenue. According to the principal, up to six student safety patrols help in the morning, two at the intersection and four along Oak Street. Oak Street At the Oak Street drop -off area, the public street serves a major role in the school onsite circulation. The Oak Street curb is painted white and the curbside essentially functions as the drop -off lane while Oak Street itself functions as the bypass lane. The curb is posted with five signs reading "PASSENGER LOADING ZONE 8 AM TO 3 PM ". However, they are not ACCRA, GHANA • ALBANY. NY - ANAHEIM, CA - ATLANTA. GA - 3ALTIMORE. MD -BANG; OK THAILAND - CARACAS. VENEDJELA- CHARLEST N. S(: COLUMBIA. SC - COLUNIBUS, OH - DES MOINES, IA - FALLS " HURCH. VA - Ilr KONG - HOUSTON, TX - KUWAI' - KNOXVII'_F. Ill LEXINGTON, KY - LONDON, ENGLAND - MILWAUKEE. WI - NEW HAVEN, CT • ")RLANDO. FL - PITTSBURGH. PA - PALE](-,". P1C RICHMOND. VA - ROSELLE, IL - SAN FRANCISCO. CA • SAN JOSE. 7A - TALLAHASSFF. F': - TAMPA. FL - TORONTO. CANADA - NASHINGTC7I_ I?C EMPLOYEE -OWNED COMPANY Mary Gardner May 14, 1998 Page 2 numbered and labeled as separate loading zones as in the parking lot (see discussion below). On Oak Street, there is room at the curb for about ten cars, but on average only about six are loading or unloading at any given time. The most forward part of the loading zone was often empty; if the first car does not pull all the way forward, the cars in the rear simply pull in behind the first car, leaving space at the front for two or three cars. This happens despite the fact that cars would queue up behind these cars around the corner onto Komina. Impatient drivers on Komina often attempt to pass the queue but must cross the double yellow line in the process. This is dangerous as the visibiiitv to children in the crosswalks is obscured by the queue of cars. Parking Lot In the parking lot, there are two signed loading zones for drop -off. These two zones are in tandem, i.e. one behind the other. This area has a clockwise circulation pattern which means students in the front seat have to cross in front of their parents car to access the school site. The two zones are used relatively efficiently by parents: the lead car must drive to the forward loading zone so that two cars can be loaded/unloaded simultaneously. (At about 8:28 a.m., observations indicated that four or five cars tend to discharge their passengers simultaneously to avoid being tardy. The current clockwise circulation pattern also results in cars exiting the parking lot having to yield to cars on Oak Street driving to the parking lot entrance. In other words, cars are delayed in leaving the parking lot by the cars on Oak Street trying to enter the lot. However, given the use of the Oak Street curb as a loading area, if the circulation were reversed and the first driveway were made the entrance, past experience has shown there would not be enough room for cars to queue on Oak Street before they turn into this first driveway. Having the entrance drivewav further down the street increases the storage length available for cars queuing to turn into the driveway. When the circulation in the parking area was counter - clockwise, the entrance driveway was much closer to Komina, and the cars slowirg to turn right into the driveway backed up to Komina Avenue and also conflicted with cars leaving the Oak Street curb drop -off area. ANALYSIS AND CONSIDERATIONS Several factors contribute to the traffic congestion at this school: the loading /unloading area is essentially —,-',so the main school access route; the bypass lane is also the :Main school access route; clockwise circulation in the parking lot which slows passenger loadinaiunioading; limited capacity to load/unlcad several students simultaneously, the lack of convenient visitor parking; and conflicts bev.veen Oak Street and the parking lot driveways due to the c:ose proximity of the two loading areas. One of the ;,i,l�; Mary Gardner May 14, 1998 Page 3 With the projected twenty -seven percent increase in enrollment from 393 to 500, changes are needed to accommodate the future demand for loading and unloading. As stated in my previous letter, the new circulation pattern should ideally: 1. Accommodate several vehicles loading and unloading simultaneously; 2. Preferably maintain counter - clockwise circulation to expedite passenger loading and unloading and to reduce conflicts between pedestrians and motor vehicles; I Provide good visibility from the school center to the main student queuing area; 4. Provide adequate sidewalk space for students to wait on; 5. Enable egress and ingress from the street that don't conflict with each other; 6. Have a bypass lane so that cars which are slow loading and unloading do not block the cars behind them, and so that cars which are finished can depart as soon as possible. If traffic volumes and conditions are worse than projected, this bypass lane can become a second parallel loading/unloading lane. 7. In addition, the majority of the loading and unloading should take place onsite, if possible. This has several advantages including: it keeps the streets clearer for emergency vehicles and for neighborhood circulation, and it enables parents to turn around onsite so they can drive out of the area without having to make illegal U -turns or awkward maneuvers. This improves traffic safety and reduces the overall driving in and through the adjacent neighborhood. There are numerous strategies and combinations of strategies for improving access and increasing the capacity of the loading and unloading areas. However, there is no one obvious or easy solution. None of them incorporate all seven of the ideal elements listed in the preceding paragraphs. The options all have various impacts on the site planning of the school and on the neighborhood. Some of the strategies are mutually exclusive but some can be tried with others. The main options include: a) Better utilizing Oak Street as a loading zone, e.g. by designating five specific loading areas with student safety patrol or volunteer at each one. While labor intensive, the limited physical space requires the use of other resources. b) De- emphasizing Oak Street by developing more onsite drop -off capacity. c) Eliminating sott_sc_ape_at the front of the school for a second small scale offstreet loading area to replace Oak Street curb loading,..� d) Creatina a counter - clockwise on -site circulation pattern. e) Re- siting some of the proposed new buildings to increase the onsite drop -off area. t) Utilizing the kindergarten drop -off area for other grades as well (A.M only). These cars could then turn left onto Oak Street and avoid driving in front of the school altogether. wAu4' 'Mary Gardner May 14, 1998 Page 4 g) Developing a one -way circulation access from Forest Hills Drive to Oak Street through district property. RECOMMENDATIONS Given the revised site plan Option C.6 dated March 25, 1998, a conceptual loading/circulation plan was developed and is illustrated in Figure 1. The revised site plan shifts the driveway to the north edge of the property. It provides for counter - clockwise circulation which will allows faster loading and unloading. It appears that this plan could accommodate four -to six onsite loading zones which is an improvement over the existing two spaces. Given this site plan, the loading zones must be located soon after the cars enter the driveway so that the children are let out at the school building and do not have to cross the parking lot. This means that there is room for only minimal onsite queuing prior to arriving at the loading zones. This will necessitate establishing a No Parking Zone on Oak Street prior to the driveway for cars waiting to enter the driveway. Even so, there would still be room to designate six loading zones on Oak Street . Two lanes will be needed on the inbound side of the parking lot, one for drop -offs and pick -ups adjacent to the curb and one as a bypass lane. If exiting vehicles become a problem, it may be necessary to install a right -turn only sign during the peak hours. If turns are restricted, it may be worth considering providing egress out onto Forest Hills Drive as well as Oak Street. This would reduce congestion on Oak Street as well as awkward or illegal maneuvers from parents who would normally have made a left -turn onto Oak Street. It is also recommended that signs be posted in each loading area, similar to existing signs at Redwood Middle school stating MOVE FORWARD AS FAR AS YOU) CAN V FOR PASSENGER LOAD ING/L- NL.OADING. As stated previously. to increase the obsen•ance of these signs, volunteers, either parents or student safety patrols, should direct cars to pull all the way up in order to facilitate quick loading and unloading and to open car doors. Blocks of about five cars should be unloaded simultaneously: the five cars would pull up, volunteers would open their doors, and then all five would drive away and the next bleck of cars would pail up and be unloaded. While labor intensive, the lack of physical space must be made up or by traffic management techniques such as this. Other management techniques should be considered and /or continued, such as: • written drop -off pick -up procedures should be distributed to parents at the beginning of _ each semester, • encourage parents to arrive earlier than the five minutes be -7-re school: Nary Gardner May 14, 1998 Page 5 • encourage carpooling; • provide incentives for children to walk to school; this can include the formation of "walk - pools" whereby one adult will walk with children from several families' to school; • An example of a strategy to encourage carpooling and walking is a voluntary surcharge of $1.00 for each car -trip to school. This could go into a special fund, for example for new playground or computer equipment for the children, or a special end-of-the-year field trip. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. If you desire, we would be happy to provide additional services such as more detaila regarding the parking lot design and striping if we were provided with site plans at a larger scale. Very truly yours, WILBUR SMITH ASSOCLXTES Michelle DeRobertis, P.E. Principal Transportation Engineer cc: Susie Lechner, HMC MM]) /mmd 331540 r � L . L. -3 J. P.14 H T tuizo OM Ly � �l� Gl,�ax�l�Is. ��NT�R -��1' �yJo -ti�oR i�J�uJb� rMl✓. 6.r-) LoAwN C, z�NES; Torte 4t � u n e yaSscr nay jGacl.nq ' J Cons�de� pr Jdj*r, Press orito forcSt kt�lls r�JC S AK1\ T v(,/t_C L- E- ML- N'I f\ KY SC t(c)C,L o p-[ (':-, 1,3 C. - 0 0 -1 ' ,�. litl� MA+Zy ( I►JiT��T're 'n'1t3 A�v4rrYc;S � ' WILBUR - CECEIVEL SMITH MAY 1 a 19% ASSOCIATES jikA(% n—oo l ir ENGINEERS • PLANNERS 221 . 'AIN Si Q[ [T. SUITL 12'3() • SAN ;A.,( . . May 14, 1998 Mary Gardner Superintendent Saratoga Union Elementary School District 20460 Forest Hills Drive Saratoga CA 95070 Re: Saratoga Elementary School Circul:itiou Dear Mary Gardner: This letter presents the results of our review of the existing drop -off and circulation at Saratoga Elementary School in Saratoga. Traffic conditions were observed on the morning of February 27 and March 12 and the afternoon of March 12. However, no traffic counts or detailed field measurements we're conducted for this study. OBSERVATIONS The existing traffic flow procedures given to parents are based on arriving from the intersection of Komina Avenue and Oak Street. This is necessary so that cars are oriented properly for drop -off at the curbs of Oak Street and Komina Avenue. Consequently, most cars werp Qbaerved to come from Komina-Avenue. They either pull up along the curb of Oak Street or turn into the parking lot for the ;crop -off area. The Kindergarten parents use Komina Avenue for both a.m. and P.M. kindergarten drop -off and pick -up. Visitors who wish to park must use either the one parking lot or park across the street on Oak Street or on side streets, since both Oak Street and Komina Avenue adjacent to the school grounds have white curbs for passenger loading and unloading. Two student safety patrols were observed: one was helping with the loading and unloading on Oak Street and one was helping at the crosswalks at Oak Street and Komina Avenue. According to the principal, up to six student safety patrols help in the morning, two at the intersection and four along Oak Street. Oak Street At the Oak Street drop -off area, the public street serves a major role in the school onsite circulation. The Oak Street curb is painted white and the curbside essentially functions as the drop -off lane while Oak Street itself functions as the bypass lane. The curb is posted with five signs reading "PASSENGER LOADING ZONE 8 AM TO 3 PM ". However, they are not A�_C;RA, GHANA • ALBANY. NY • ANAHEIM. CA • ATLANTA. GA • 3ALTINIIORE. MD • BANG-1 _)K. THAILAND - CARACAS, VENET_JELA •CHARLESTCf 1, S(: COLUMBIA. SC • COLUMBUS. OH • DES MOINES. IA • FALLS :'HURCII. VA • HC', 'z KONG - HOUSTON. TX • KUWAIT • KNOXVII'_F. Ill LEXINGTON, KY - LONDON. ENGLAND • MILWAUKEE. WI • NEW HAVEN. CT )RLAND0. FL - PITTSBURGH. PA • RALEIG,4. PIC RICHMOND. VA - ROSELLE. IL • SAN FRANCISCO. CA - SAN JOSF.'_'A - TALLAHASSFF. ='. • TAMPA. FL • TORONTO. CANADA - NASHINGTC'1 IX- EMPLOYEE -OWNED COMPANY M Mary Gardner May 14, 1998 Page 2 numbered and labeled as separate loading zones as in the parking lot (see discussion below). On Oak Street, there is room at the curb for about ten cars, but on average only about six are loading or unloading at any given time. The most forward part of the loading zone was often empty; if the first car does not pull all the way forward, the cars in the rear simply pull in behind the first car, leaving space at the front for two or three cars. This happens despite the fact that cars would queue up behind these cars around the corner onto Komina. Impatient drivers on Komina often attempt to pass the queue but must cross the double yellow line in the process. This is dangerous as the visibility to children in the crosswalks is obscured by the queue of cars. Parking Lot In the parking lot, there are two signed loading zones for drop -off. These two zones are in tandem, i.e. one behind the other. This area has a clockwise circulation pattern which means students in the front seat have to cross in front of their parents car to access the school site. The two zones are used relatively efficiently by parents: the lead car must drive to the forward loading zone so that two cars can be loaded /unloaded simultaneously. (At about 8:28 a.m., observations indicated that four or five cars tend to discharge their passengers simultaneously to avoid being tardy. The current clockwise circulation pattern also results in cars exiting the parking lot having to yield to cars on Oak Street driving to the parking lot entrance. In other words, cars are delayed in leaving the parking lot by the cars on Oak Street trying to enter the lot. However, given the use of the Oak Street curb as a loading area, if the circulation were reversed and the first driveway were made the entrance, past experience has shown there would not be enough room for cars to queue on Oak Street before they turn into this first driveway. Having the entrance drivewav further down the street increases the storage length available for cars queuing to turn into the driveway. When the circulation in the parking area was counter - clockwise, the entrance driveway was much closer to Komina, and the cars slowirg to turn right into the driveway backed up to Komina Avenue and also conflicted with cars leaving the Oak Street curb drop -off area. ANALYSIS AND CONSIDERATIONS Several factors contribute to the traffic congestion at this school: the loading /unloading area is essentially also the main school access route; the bypass lane is also the :-lain school access route; clockwise circulation in the parking lot which slows passenger loading /unloading; limited capacity to load/unload several students simultaneously; the lack of convenient visitor parking; and conflicts be:,.veen Oak Street and the parking lot driveways due to the close proximity of the two loading areas. One of the 'C iggest problems is that Oak Street is needed for both access, circulation and loading and unload: -a. An onsite area for loading and vehicle turnaround «ould lessen some of the emphasis or Oak Street and improve tragic conditions. Also. the parkir:g lot can be accessed by arriving from the nosh as well as the south. This x ill also be considered in the development of the recommencations. 1 - Mary Gardner May 14, 1998 Page 3 With the projected twenty -seven percent increase in enrollment from 393 to 500, changes are needed to accommodate the future demand for loading and unloading. As stated in my previous letter, the new circulation pattern should ideally: 1. Accommodate several vehicles loading and unloading simultaneously; 2. Preferably maintain counter - clockwise circulation to expedite passenger loading and unloading and to reduce conflicts between pedestrians and motor vehicles; 3. Provide good visibility from the school center to the main student queuing area; 4. Provide adequate sidewalk space for students to wait on; 5. Enable egress and ingress from the street that don't conflict with each other; 6. Have a bypass lane so that cars which are slow loading and unloading do not block the cars behind them, and so that cars which are finished can depart as soon as possible. If traffic volumes and conditions are worse than projected, this bypass lane can become a second parallel loading/unloading, lane. 7. In addition, the majority of the loading and unloading should take place onsite, if possible. This has several advantages including: it keeps the streets clearer for emergency vehicles and for neishborhood circulation, and it enables parents to turn around onsite so they can drive out of the area without having to make illegal U -turns or awkward maneuvers. This improves traffic safety and reduces the overall driving in and through the adjacent neighborhood. There are numerous strate_ies and combinations of strategies for improving access and increasing the capacity of the loading and unloading areas. However, there is no one obvious or easy solution. None of them incorporate all seven of the ideal elements listed in the preceding paragraphs. The options all have various impacts on the site planning of the school and on the neighborhood. Some of the strategies are mutually exclusive but some can be tried with others. The main options include: a) Better utilizing Oak Street as a loading zone, e.g. by designating five specific loading areas with student safety patrol or volunteer at each one. While labor intensive, the limited physical space requires the use of other resources. b) De- emphasizing Oak Street by developing more onsite drop -off capacity c) Eliminating soft-sscape_at the front of the school for a second small scale offstreet loadinC area to replace Oak Street curb loading. d) Creating a counter - clockwise on -site circulation pattern. e) Re- siting some of the proposed new buildings to increase the onsite drop -off area. I fl Utilizing the kindergarten drop -off area for other grades as well (A-M only). These cars could then turn left onto Oak Street and avoid driving in front of the school altogether. I A&4 B 'Mary Gardner May 14, 1998 Page 4 g) Developing a one -way circulation access from Forest Hills Drive to Oak Street through district property. RECOMMENDATIONS Given the revised site plan Option C.6 dated March 25, 1998, a conceptual loading/circulation plan was developed and is illustrated in Figure 1. The revised site plan shifts the driveway to the north edge of the property. It provides for counter - clockwise circulation which will allows faster loading and unloading. It appears that this plan could accommodate four -to six onsite loading zones which is an improvement over the existing two spaces. Given this site plan, the loading zones must be located soon after the cars enter the driveway so that the children are let out at the school building and do not have to cross the parking lot. This means that there is room for only minimal onsite queuing prior to arriving at the loading zones. This will necessitate establishing a No Parking Zone on Oak Street prior to the driveway for cars waiting to enter the driveway. Even so, there would still be room to designate six loading zones on Oak Street . Two lanes will be needed on the inbound side of the parking lot, one for drop -offs and pick -ups adjacent to the curb and one as a bypass lane. If exiting vehicles become a problem, it may be necessary to install a right -turn only sign during the peak hours. If turns are restricted, it may be worth considering providing egress out onto Forest Hills Drive as well as Oak Street. This would reduce congestion on Oak Street as well as awkward or illegal maneuvers from parents who would normally have made a left -turn onto Oak Street. It is also recommended that signs be posted in each loading area. similar to existing signs at Redwood Middle school stating MOVE FORWARD AS FAR AS YOU CAN FOR PASSENGER LOADING/T_NL.OADING. As stated previously, to increase the observance of these signs, volunteers, either parents or student safety patrols, should direct cars to pull all the way up in order to facilitate quick loading and unloading and to open car doors. Blocks of about five cars should be unloaded simultaneously: the five cars would pull up, volunteers would open their doors, and then all five would drive away and the next block of cars would puil up and be unloaded. While labor intensive, the lack of physical space must be made up for by traffic management techniques such as this. Other management techniques should be considered and /or continued, such as: • written drop -off pick -up procedures should be distributed to parents at the beg:aning of each semester, • encourage parents to arrive earlier than the five minutes be:7.: re school. Mary Gardner May 14, 1998 Page 5 • encourage carpooling; • provide incentives for children to walk to school; this can include the formation of ",%-alk- pools" whereby one adult will walk with children from several families to school; • An example of a strategy to encourage carpooling and walking is a voluntary surcharge of $1.00 for each car-trip to school. This could go into a special fund, for example for new playground or computer equipment for the children, or a special end -of -the -year field trip. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. If you desire, we would be happy to provide additional services such as more detail; regarding the parking lot design and striping if we were provided with site plans at a larger scale. Very truly yours, WILBUR SMITH ASSOCUTES Michelle DeRobertis, P.E. Principal Transportation Engineer cc: Susie Lechner, HMC MNID /mmd 331540 1_UhnIN6 2r_,NE: No �hRV� I') C., �JGw GL.0"xrzM4. (wrlp -ra.Y - roo -yVOP C -W-) FWF- oK 51x LoADIN4 ZotlES I. 11 ( 1. IL !i \ ` 11D l.0 ---� -- drop o \ un �xTF1.1eE� I AGK-ToP• assc,.Ier kc�oclmj uA C. .,j r b AKA T uc C,L O P -[ (,�- IJ L.. !, C1(4 N T Tu K►J oN Ly rte- Consider providim� e�rebs t -o Forest kvLtL, rIJC 0 .A 1 • pID MAZY (=r. lt�itri4rTmc. TimS A-vAL_VS;; ? WILBUR cECEIVEL SMITH MAY 1 a 11% ASSOCIATES ENGINEERS • PLANNERS :21 . niN SIRLCT. SUITE 17 !n • SAID 'n c i :. :n r. r, r> ... • . �, . ; n. May 14, 1998 Mary Gardner Superintendent Saratoga Union Elementary School District 20460 Forest Hills Drive Saratoga CA 95070 Re: Saratoga Elementary School Circulation Dear Mary Gardner: This letter presents the results of our review of the existing drop -off and circulation at Saratoga Elementary School in Saratoga. Traffic conditions were observed on the morning of February 27 and March 12 and the afternoon of March 12. However, no traffic counts or detailed field measurements we're conducted for this study. OBSERVATIONS The existing traffic flow procedures given to parents are based on arriving from the intersection of Komina Avenue and Oak Street. This is necessary so that cars are oriented properly for drop -off at the curbs of Oak Street and Komina Avenue. Consequently, mog izars were observed to come from Komina.Avenue, They either pull up along the curb of Oak Street or turn into the parking lot for the drop -off area. The Kindergarten parents use Komina ;venue for both a.m. and P.M. kindergarten drop -off and pick -up. Visitors who wish to park must use either the one parking lot or park across the street on Oak Street or on side streets, since both Oak Street and Komina Avenue adiacent to the school grounds have white curbs for passenger loading and unloading. Two student safety patrols were observed: one was helping with the loading and unloading on Oak Street and one was helping at the crosswalks at Oak Street and Komina Avenue. According to the principal, up to six student safety patrols help in the morning, two at the intersection and four along Oak Street. Oak Street At the Oak Street drop -off area, the public street serves a major role in the school onsite circulation. The Oak Street curb is painted white and the curbside essentially functions as the drop -off lane while Oak Street itself functions as the bypass lane. The curb is posted with five signs reading "PASSENGER LOADING ZONE 8 AM TO 3 PM ". However, they are not ACCRA, GHANA - ALBANY. NY • ANAHEIM. CA • ATLANTA. GA • 9ALTIMORE. MD •BANr4�:X. THAILAND • CARACAS. VENEDJELA- CHARLFSI N. S(: COLUMBIA. SC • COLUMBUS. OH • DES MOINES. IA • FALLS :-HURCII. VA - IIQ": = KONG • HOUSTON, TX - KUWAIT KNOXVII _F. III LEXINGTON. KY • LONDON, ENGLAND • MILWAUKEE. WI - NEW HAVEN. CT • )RLAND0. FL - PITTSBURGH. PA RALEIG -=. PIC: RICHMOND. VA • ROSELLE, IL • SAN FRANCISCO, CA - SAN JOSF. '_:A - TALLAHASSF.F. F. • TAMPA. FL • TORONTO. CANADA - NASHINGT ., I I)(- EMPLOYEE -OWNED COMPANY F Mary Gardner May 14, 1998 Page 2 numbered and labeled as separate loading zones as in the parking lot (see discussion below). On Oak Street, there is room at the curb for about ten cars, but on average only about six are loading or unloading at any given time. The most forward part of the loading zone was often empty; if the first car does not pull all the way forward, the cars in the rear simply pull in behind the first car, leaving space at the front for two or three cars. This happens despite the fact that cars would queue up behind these cars around the corner onto Komina. Impatient drivers on Komina often attempt to pass the queue but must cross the double yellow line in the process. This is dangerous as the visibility to children in the crosswalks is obscured by the queue of cars. Parking Lot In the parking lot, there are two signed loading zones for drop -off. These two zones are in tandem, i.e. one behind the other. This area has a clockwise circulation pattern which means students in the front seat have to cross in front of their parents car to access the school site. The two zones are used relatively efficiently by parents: the lead car must drive to the forward loading zone so that two cars can be loaded /unloaded simultaneously. (At about 3:23 a.m., observations indicated that four or five cars tend to discharge their passengers simultaneously to avoid being tardy. The current clockwise circulation pattern also results in cars exiting the parking lot having to yield to cars on Oak Street driving to the parking lot entrance. In other words, cars are delayed in leaving the parking lot by the cars on Oak Street trying to enter the lot. However, aiven the use of the Oak Street curb as a loading area, if the circulation were reversed and the first driveway were made the entrance, past experience has shown there would not be enough room for cars to queue on Oak Street before they turn into this :first driveway. Having the entrance drive�,vav further down the street increases the storage length available for cars queuing to turn into the driveway. When the circulation in the parking area was counter - clockwise, the entrance driveway was much closer to Komina, and the cars slowing to turn right into the driveway backed up to Komina Avenue and also conflicted with cars leaving the Oak Street curb drop -off area. ANALYSIS AND CONSIDERATIONS Several factors contribute to the traffic congestion at this school: the leading /unloading area is essentially also the main school access route; the bypass lane is also the :-rain school access route; clockwise circulation in the parking lot which slows passenger loading / unloading; limited capacity to load/unload several students simultaneously; the lack of convenient visitor parking; and conflicts berveen Oak Street and the parkin` lot driveways due to the close proximity of the two loading areas. One of the ;,iagest problems is that Oak Street is needed for both access, circulation and loading and unload;-a. An onsite area for loading and vehicle turnaround would lessen some of the emphasis or Oak Street and improve tragic conditions. Also, the parkin.- lot can be accessed by arriving from the nosh as well as the south. This will also be considered in the development of the recommendations. r Mary Gardner May 14, 1998 Page 3 With the projected twenty -seven percent increase in enrollment from 393 to 500, changes are needed to accommodate the future demand for loading and unloading. As stated in my previous letter, the new circulation pattern should ideally: 1. Accommodate several vehicles loading and unloading simultaneously; 2. Preferablv maintain counter - clockwise circulation to expedite passenger loading and unloading and to reduce conflicts between pedestrians and motor vehicles; 3. Provide good visibility from the school center to the main student queuing area; 4. Provide adequate sidewalk space for students to wait on; 5. Enable egress and ingress from the street that don't conflict with each other; 6. Have a bypass lane so that cars which are slow loading and unloading do not block the cars behind them, and so that cars which are finished can depart as soon as possible. If traffic volumes and conditions are worse than projected, this bypass lane can become a second parallel loading/unloading lane. 7. In addition, the majority of the loading and unloading should take place onsite, if possible. This has several advantages including: it keeps the streets clearer for emergency vehicles and for neighborhood circulation, and it enables parents to turn around onsite so they can drive out of the area without having to make illegal U -turns or awkward maneuvers. This improves traffic safety and reduces the overall driving in and through the adjacent neighborhood. There are numerous strategies and combinations of strategies for improving access and increasing the capacity of the loading and unloading areas. However, there is no one obvious or easy solution. None of them incorporate all seven of the ideal elements listed in the preceding paragraphs. The options all have various impacts on the site planning of the school and on the neighborhood. Some of the strategies are mutually exclusive but some can be tried with others. The main options include: a) Better utilizing Oak Street as a loading zone, e.g. by designating five specific loading areas with student safety patrol or volunteer at each one. While labor intensive, the limited physical space requires the use of other resources. b) De- emphasizing Oak Street by developing more onsite drop -off capacity c) Eliminating soft - scape at the front of the school for a second small scale offstreet loadinc area to_ replace Oak Street curb loading! d) Creating a counter - clockwise on -site circulation pattern. e) Re- siting some of the proposed new buildings to increase the onsite drop -off area. fl Utilizing the kindergarten drop -off area for other grades as well (A-M only). These cars could then turn left onto Oak Street and avoid driving in front of the school altogether. wA(.4 Mary Gardner May 14, 1998 Page 4 g) Developing a one -way circulation access from Forest Hills Drive to Oak Street through district property. RECOMMENDATIONS Given the revised site plan Option C.6 dated March 25, 1998, a conceptual loading/circulation plan was developed and is illustrated in Figure 1. The revised site plan shifts the driveway to the north edge of the property. It provides for counter - clockwise circulation which will allows faster loading and unloading. It appears that this plan could accommodate four -to six onsite loading zones which is an improvement over the existing two spaces. Given this site plan, the loading zones must be located soon after the cars enter the driveway so that the children are let out at the school building and do not have to cross the parking lot. This means that there is room for only minimal onsite queuing prior to arriving at the loading zones. This will necessitate establishing a No Parking Zone on Oak Street prior to the driveway for cars waiting to enter the driveway. Even so, there would still be room to designate six loading zones on Oak Street . Two lanes will be needed on the inbound side of the parking lot, one for drop -offs and pick -ups adjacent to the curb and one as a bypass lane. If exiting vehicles become a problem, it may be necessary to install a right -turn only sign during the peak hours. If turns are restricted, it may be worth considering providing egress out onto Forest Hills Drive as well as Oak Street. This would reduce congestion on Oak Street as well as awkward or illegal maneuvers from parents who would normally have made a left -turn onto Oak Street. It is also recommended that signs be posted in each loading area, similar to existing signs at Redwood Middle school stating MOVE FORWARD AS FAR AS YOU CA_\ FOR PASSENGER LOAD ING/L'NL.OADING. As stated previously, to increase the observance of these signs, volunteers, either parents or student safety patrols, should direct cars to pull all the way up in order to facilitate quick loading and unloading and to Coen car doors. Blocks of about five cars should be unloaded simultaneously: the five cars would pull up, volunteers would open their doors, and then all five would drive away and the next block of cars would pull up and be unloaded. While labor intensive, the lack of physical space 7nust be made up fir by traffic management techniques such as this. Other management techniques should be considered and /or continued, such as: • written drop -off pick -up procedures should be distributed ;c parents at the beginning of each semester, • encourage parents to arrive earlier than the five minutes be-'---re school; Mary Gardner May 14, 1998 Page 5 • encourage carpooling; • provide incentives for children to walk to school; this can include the formation of "%-alk- pools" whereby one adult will walk with children from several families to school; • An example of a strategy to encourage carpooling and walking is a voluntary surcharge of $1.00 for each car-trip to school. This could go into a special fund, for example for new playground or computer equipment for the children, or a special end -of -the -year field trip. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. If you desire, we would be happy to provide additional services such as more detain; regarding the parking lot design and striping if we were provided with site plans at a larger scale. Very truly yours, WILBUR SMITH ASSOCUTES Michelle DeRobertis, P.E. Principal Transportation Engineer cc: Susie Lechner, HMC MNID/mmd 331540 L-1 Uj L� 1_Gftn�0 6 `L r_;NC:.• T �W GI.Ax�Ms. l �Nt�F -��1' TyJo -y�oR 10cuJbr�, rM�. �•�) F'k \JF- OK Six LoAnir\i4 LANES �--- -$ drop o A \ �xTBI•IbE� u n e. j3 I.AGK•To P � A - -,4-- b� wa s One a sscr.�er ead,nq - a-� A V, A T 0 (4 A c t- e-- m (- N i- A- K Y S C r (c) C, L OPI( 0 C., to T . V,14 ti r Tu enl JNLY 4t n co A. ides eyebs onto �ofGSt i4�i� r•lJC 0 T • DID nnazy CT. I,��ricF Ti-tiS ANAL -yS'L ? WILBUR - CECEIVE4 SMITH MAY 1 0 19% ASSOCIATES 'JI►A1% r_oo lit ENGINEERS • PLANNERS ..'AIN SHIEFT. SUITE 12'!0 • SAN A%('1''.. :/1 '"� iC !� • .. u.. a.. • Ar .t ;i },• May 14, 1998 Mary Gardner Superintendent Saratoga Union Elementary School District 20460 Forest Hills Drive Saratoga CA 95070 Re: Saratoga Elementary School Circtrl:ttion Dear Mary Gardner: This letter presents the results of our review of the existing drop -off and circulation at Saratoga Elementary School in Saratoga. Traffic conditions were observed on the morning of February 27 and March 12 and the afternoon of March 12. However, no traffic counts or detailed field measurements were conducted for this study. OBSERVATIONS The existing traffic flow procedures given to parents are based on arriving from the intersection of Komina Avenue and Oak Street. This is necessary so that cars are oriented properly for drop -off at the curbs of Oak Street and Komina Avenue. Consequently, mo.z Lcars werq_Qb_s ed to come from Komina Avenue, They either pull up along the curb of Oak Street or turn into the parking tot for the drop -off area. The Kindergarten parents use Komina Avenue for both a.m. and P.M. kindergarten drop -off and pick -up. Visitors who wish to park must use either the one parking lot or park across the street on Oak Street or on side streets, since both Oak Street and Komina Avenue adiacent to the school grounds have white curbs for passenger loading and unloading. Two student safety patrols were observed: one was helping with the loading and unloading on Oak Street and one was helping at the crosswalks at Oak Street and Komina Avenue. According to the principal, up to six student safety patrols help in the morning, two at the intersection and four along Oak Street. Oak Street At the Oak Street drop -off area, the public street serves a major role in the school onsite circulation. The Oak Street curb is painted white and the curbside essentially functions as the drop -off lane while Oak Street itself functions as the bypass lane. Tile curb is posted with five signs reading "PASSENGER LOADING ZONE 8 AM TO 3 PM ". However, they are not ACCRA, GHANA • ALBANY. NY • ANAHEIM. CA - ATLANTA, GA - 3ALTIMORE. MD •BANr,C)K, THAILAND - CARACAS. VENE7UELa•CHARLESTCN. SC COLUMBIA. SC • COLUMBUS, OH • DES MOINES. IA - FALLS :'HURCII. VA - HCh = KONG - HOUSTON. TX - KUWAIT • KNOXVII'_F. III LEXINGTON, KY • LONDON. ENGLAND - MILWAUKEE. WI • NEW HAVEN. CT • )RLANDO. FL - PITTSBURGH. PA - RALEIG- =. Pic RICHMOND. VA - ROSELLE, IL - SAN FRANCISCO. CA - SAN JOSE. _'A • TALLAHASSFF. F`. • TAMPA. FL - TORONTO. CANADA - NASHINGTC': I)C EMPLOYEE -OWNED COMPANY 0 Mary Gardner May 14, 1993 Page 2 numbered and labeled as separate loading zones as in the parking lot (see discussion below). On Oak Street, there is room at the curb for about ten cars, but on average only about six are loading or unloading at any given time. The most forward part of the loading zone was often empty; if the first car does not pull all the way forward, the cars in the rear simply pull in behind the first car, leaving space at the front for two or three cars. This happens despite the fact that cars would queue up behind these cars around the corner onto Komina. Impatient drivers on Komina often attempt to pass the queue but must cross the double yellow line in the process. This is dangerous as the visibilitv to children in the crosswalks is obscured by the queue of cars. Parking Lot In the parking lot, there are two signed loading zones for drop -off. These two zones are in tandem, i.e. one behind the other. This area has a clockwise circulation pattern which means students in the front seat have to cross in front of their parents car to access the school site. The two zones are used relatively efficiently by parents: the lead car must drive to the forward loading zone so that two cars can be loaded /unloaded simultaneously. (At about 8.28 a.m., observations indicated that four or five cars tend to discharge their passengers simultaneously to avoid being tardy. The current clockwise circulation pattern also results in cars exiting the parking lot having to yield to cars on Oak Street driving to the parking lot entrance. In other words, cars are delayed in leaving the parking lot by the cars on Oak Street trying to enter the lot. However, given the use of the Oak Street curb as a loading area, if the circulation were reversed and the first driveway were made the entrance, past experience has shown there would not be enough room for cars to queue on Oak Street before they turn into this first driveway. Having the entrance drive,,ti•av further down the street increases the storage length available for cars queuing to turn into the driveway. When the circulation in the parking area was counter - clockwise, the entrance driveway was much closer to Komina, and the cars slowing to turn right into the driveway backed up to Komina Avenue and also conflicted with cars leaving the Oak Street curb drop -off area. ANALYSIS AND CONSIDERATIONS Several factors contribute to the traffic congestion at this school: the loading /unloading area is essentially also the main school access route; the bypass lane is also the .rain school access route; clockwise circulation in the parking lot which slows passenger loadins%unloading; limited capacity to load /unload several students simultaneously; the lack of convenient visitor parking; and conflicts be:.yeen Oak Street and the parking lot driveways due to the close proximity of the two loading areas. One of the 'C iggest problems is that Oak Street is needed for both access, circulation and loading and unload: An onsite area for loading and vehicle turnaround % euld lessen some of the emphasis on Oak Street and improve traffic conditions. Also, the parkirg lot can be accessed by arriving from, the nosh as well as the south. This wiil also be considered in the development of the recommendations. Mary Gardner May 14, 1998 Page 3 With the projected twenty -sevdn percent increase in enrollment from 393 to 500, changes are needed to accommodate the future demand for loading and unloading. As stated in my previous letter, the new circulation pattern should ideally: 1. Accommodate several vehicles loading and unloading simultaneously; 2. Preferably maintain counter - clockwise circulation to expedite passenger loading and unloading and to reduce conflicts between pedestrians and motor vehicles; 3. Provide good visibility from the school center to the main student queuing area; 4. Provide adequate sidewalk space for students to wait on; 5. Enable egress and ingress from the street that don't conflict with each other; 6. Have a bypass lane so that cars which are slow loading and unloading do not block the cars behind them, and so that cars which are finished can depart as soon as possible. If traffic volumes and conditions are worse than projected, this bypass lane can become a second parallel loading/unloading lane. 7. In addition, the majority of the loading and unloading should take place onsite, if possible. This has several advantages including: it keeps the streets clearer for emergency vehicles and for neighborhood circulation, and it enables parents to turn around onsite so they can drive out of the area without having to make illegal U -turns or awkward maneuvers. This improves traffic safety and reduces the overall driving in and through the adjacent neighborhood. There are numerous strategies and combinations of strategies for improving access and increasing the capacity of the loadin<7 and unloading areas. However, there is no one obvious or easy solution. None of them incorporate all seven of the ideal elements listed in the preceding paragraphs. The options all have various impacts on the site planning of the school and on the neighborhood. Some of the strategies are mutually exclusive but some can be tried with others. The main options include: a) Better utilizing Oak Street as a loading zone, e.g. by designating five specific loading areas with student safety patrol or volunteer at each one. While labor intensive, the limited physical space requires the use of other resources. b) De- emphasizing Oak Street by developing more onsite drop -off capacity. c) Eliminating soft`scape at the front of the school for a second small scale offstreet loading area to replace Oak Street curb loading; d) Creating a counter - clockwise on -site circulation pattern. e) Re- siting some of the proposed new buildings to increase the onsite drop -off area. t) Utilizing the kindergarten drop -off area for other grades as well (:A.M only). These cars could then turn left onto Oak Street and avoid driving in ront of the school altogether. i��G� Mary Gardner May 14, 1998 Page 4 g) Developing a one -way circulation access from Forest Hills Drive to Oak Street through district property. RECOMMENDATIONS Given the revised site plan Option C.6 dated March 25, 1998, a conceptual loading/circulation plan was developed and is illustrated in Figure 1. The revised site plan shifts the driveway to the north edge of the property. It provides for counter - clockwise circulation which will allows faster loading and unloading. It appears that this plan could accommodate four -to six onsite loading zones which is an improvement over the existing two spaces. Given this site plan, the loading zones must be located soon after the cars enter the driveway so that the children are let out at the school building and do not have to cross the parking lot. This means that there is room for only minimal onsite queuing prior to arriving at the loadine zones. This will necessitate establishing a No Parking Zone on Oak Street prior to the driveway for cars waiting to enter the driveway. Even so, there would still be room to designate six loading zones on Oak Street . Two lanes will be needed on the inbound side of the parkin, lot, one for drop -offs and pick -ups adjacent to the curb and one as a bypass lane. If exiting vehicles become a problem, it may be necessary to install a right -turn only sign during the peak hours. If turns are restricted, it may be worth considering providing egress out onto Forest Hills Drive as well as Oak Street. This would reduce consestion on Oak Street as well as awkward or illegal maneuvers from parents who would normally have made a left -turn onto Oak Street. It is also recommended that signs be posted in each loading area. similar to existing signs at Redwood Middle school stating MOVE FORWARD AS FAR AS YOU CAN FOR PASSENGER LOADING/T NLOADING. As stated previously, to increase the observance of these signs, volunteers, either parents or student safety patrols, should direct cars to pull all the way up in order to facilitate quick loading and unloading and to open car doors. Blocks of about five cars should be unloaded simultaneously: the five cars would pull up, volunteers would open their doors, and then all five would drive away and the next block of cars would pull up and be unloaded. While labor intensive, the lack of physical space must be made up for by traffic management techniques such as this. Other management techniques should be considered and /or continued, such as: • written drop -off pick -up procedures should be distributed to parents at the beg:aning of each semester; • encourage parents to arrive earlier than the five minutes be' -re school: r Mary Gardner Llay 14, 1998 Page 5 • encourage carpooling; • provide incentives for children to walk to school; this can include the formation of "walk - pools" whereby one adult will walk with children from several families to school; • An example of a strategy to encourage carpooling and walking is a voluntary surcharge of $1.00 for each car -trip to school. This could go into a special fund, for example for new playground or computer equipment for the children, or a special end -of -the -year field trip. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. If you desire, we would be happy to provide additional services such as more detail3 regarding the parking lot design ar_d striping if we were provided with site plans at a larger scale. Very truly yours, NILBUR SMITH ASSOCLATES I'm Michelle DeRobertis, P.E. Principal Transportation Engineer cc: Susie Lechner, HMC MNID/mmd 331540 I_c��1�1r76 2t_ NC:... T No ?A9,1-1MC -4 i�1�UJb� rN+.` �•�) FWE oK SIX LOADIN<? G�nIES „ �--- drop \ane. �x1F1.1t�E� pS LAGK -To P �A S une �assc �er �C�acinq t • r-- �� Tu Q1j °NLY T�� I it IMT I CON5(der pr id►,.� eyeas o"to rldc A x 11 j C) c, L N i K `( s C C, L o P-1 I� ° - ' A pID MA 41 G- tIJ1T1A T-G Tt- S AnAL -,y ;; ? WILBUR o(ECEiVEL SMITH MAY 1 a 11% ASSOCIATES 'JRA(% r%_0P1,jr ENGINEERS • PLANNERS 221 VAIN S IQ[ rT.SUITE 12,10 - SAN ;Ar , 'Y •t: . May 14, 1998 Mary Gardner Superintendent Saratoga Union Elementary School District 20460 Forest Hills Drive Saratoga CA 95070 Re: Snratogn Elementary School Circulation Dear Mary Gardner: This letter presents the results of our review of the existing drop -off and circulation at Saratoga Elementary School in Saratoga. Traffic conditions were observed on the morning of February 27 and March 12 and the afternoon of March 12. However, no traffic counts or detailed field measurements we're conducted for this study. OBSERVATIONS The existing traffic flow procedures given to parents are based on arriving from the intersection of Komina Avenue and Oak Street. This is necessary so that cars are oriented properly for drop -off at the curbs of Oak Street and Komina Avenue. Consequently, come from Komina.Avenue. They either pull up along the curb of Oak Street or turn into the parking lot for the drop -off area. The Kindergarten parents use Komina ,venue for both a.m. and p.m. kindergarten drop -off and pick -up. Visitors who wish to park must use either the one parking lot or park across the street on Oak Street or on side streets, since both Oak Street and Komina Avenue adiacent to the school grounds ITa�,e white curbs for passenger loading and unloading. Two student safety patrols were observed: one was helping with the loading and unloading on Oak Street and one was helping at the crosswalks at Oak Street and Komina Avenue. According to the principal, up to six student safety patrols help in the morning, two at the intersection and four along Oak Street. Oak Street At the Oak Street drop -off area, the public street serves a major role in the school onsite circulation. The Oak Street curb is painted white and the curbside essentially functions as the drop -off lane while Oak Street itself functions as the bypass lane. The curb is posted with five signs reading "PASSENGER LOADING ZONE 8 AM TO 3 PM ". However, they are not A�_CRA, GHANA - ALBANY. NY - ANAHEIM. CA - ATLANTA, GA - ?ALTINIORE. MD •BANG�UK. THAILAND • CARACAS. VENE7_UELA•CHARLESTCfJ, S(: COLUMBIA, SC COLUMBUS, OH • DES MOINES, IA • FALLS :- IAURCH. VA • IIG = KONG • HOUSTON, TX - KUWAIT - KNOXVII'_F. Itl LEXINGTON. KY LONDON, ENGLAND • MILWAUKEE. WI • NEW HAVEN. CT - )RLANUO. FL - PITTSBURGH. PA • RALEIGH. rJC RICHMOND. VA • ROSELLE. IL - SAN FRANCISCO. CA • SAN JOSE. CA • TALLAHA.SSFF. F. - TAMPA. FL • TORONTO. CANADA • NASHINGTC'1 I?C: EMPLOYEE -OWNED COMPANY Mary Gardner May 14, 1998 Page 2 numbered and labeled as separate loading zones as in the parking lot (see discussion below). On Oak Street, there is room at the curb for about ten cars, but on average only about six are loading or unloading at any given time. The most forward part of the loading zone was often empty; if the first car does not pull all the way forward, the cars in the rear simply pull in behind the first car, leaving space at the front for two or three cars. This happens despite the fact that cars would queue up behind these cars around the corner onto Komina. Impatient drivers on Komina often attempt to pass the queue but must cross the double yellow line in the process. This is dangerous as the visibility to children in the crosswalks is obscured by the queue of cars. Parking Lot In the .parking lot, there are two signed loading zones for drop -off. These two zones are in tandem, i.e. one behind the other. This area has a clockwise circulation pattern which means students in the front seat have to cross in front of their parents car to access the school site. The two zones are used relatively efficiently by parents: the lead car must drive to the forward loading zone so that two cars can be loaded /unloaded simultaneously. (At about 8:28 a.m., observations indicated that four or five cars tend to discharge their passengers simultaneously to avoid being tardy. The current clockwise circulation pattern also results in cars exiting the parking lot having to yield to cars on Oak Street driving to the parking lot entrance. In other words, cars are delayed in leaving the parking lot by the cars on Oak Street trying to enter the lot. However, given the use of the Oak Street curb as a loading area, if the circulation were reversed and the first driveway were made the entrance, past experience has shown there would not be enough room for cars to queue on Oak Street before they turn into this first driveway. Having the entrance drive%vav further down the street increases the storage length available for cars queuing to turn into the driveway. When the circulation in the parking area was counter - clockwise, the entrance driveway was much closer to Komina, and the cars slowing to turn right into the driveway backed up to Komina Avenue and also conflicted with cars leaving the Oak Street curb drop -off area. ANALYSIS AND CONSIDERATIONS Several factors contribute to the traffic congestion at this school: the loading /unloading area is essentially aiso the main school access route; the bypass lane is also the :-lain school access route; clockwise circulation in the parking lot which slows passenger loadina/unloading; limited capacity to load/unload several students simultaneously; the lack of convenient visitor parking; and conflicts bev.veen Oak Street and the parking lot driveways due to the c:ose proximity of the two loading areas. One of the 'i<l�; i - Mary Gardner May 14, 1998 Page 3 With the projected twenty -seven percent increase in enrollment from 393 to 500, changes are needed to accommodate the future demand for loading and unloading. As stated in my previous letter, the new circulation pattern should ideally: 1. Accommodate several vehicles loading and unloading simultaneously; 2. Preferably maintain counter - clockwise circulation to expedite passenger loading and unloading and to reduce conflicts between pedestrians and motor vehicles; 3. Provide good visibility from the school center to the main student queuing area; 4. Provide adequate sidewalk space for students to wait on; 5. Enable egress and ingress from the street that don't conflict with each other; 6. Have a bypass lane so that cars which are slow loading and unloading do not block the cars behind them, and so that cars which are finished can depart as soon as possible. If traffic volumes and conditions are worse than projected, this bypass lane can become a second parallel loading/unloading lane. 7. In addition, the majority of the loading and unloading should take place onsite, if possible. This has several advantages including: it keeps the streets clearer for emergency vehicles and for neighborhood circulation, and it enables parents to turn around onsite so they can drive out of the area without having to make illegal U -turns or awkward maneuvers. This improves traffic safety and reduces the overall driving in and through the adjacent neighborhood. There are numerous strategies and combinations of strategies for improving access and increasing the capacity of the loadin <z and unloading areas. However, there is no one obvious or easy solution. None of them incorporate all seven of the ideal elements listed in the preceding paragraphs. The options all have various impacts on the site planning of the school and on the neighborhood. Some of the strategies are mutually exclusive but some can be tried with others. The main options include: a) Better utilizing Oak Street as a loading zone, e.g. by designating five specific loading areas with student safety patrol or volunteer at each one. While labor intensive, the limited physical space requires the use of other resources. b) De- emphasizing Oak Street by developing more onsite drop -off capacity. c) Eliminating soft -sscape at the Front of the school c _ 1 for a second small scale offstreet loadin area to replace Oak Street curb loadina� d) Creating a counter - clockwise on -site circulation pattern. e) Re- siting some of the proposed new buildings to increase the onsite drop -off area. 1 t) Utilizing the kindergarten drop -off area for other grades as well (.kM only). These cars could then turn left onto Oak Street and avoid driving in tront of the school altogether. I A &4 Mary Gardner May 14, 1998 Page 4 g) Developing a one -wav circulation access from Forest Hills Drive to Oak Street through district property. RECOMMENDATIONS Given the revised site plan Option C.6 dated March 25, 1998, a conceptual loading/circulation plan was developed and is illustrated in Figure 1. The revised site plan shifts the driveway to the north edge of the property. It provides for counter - clockwise circulation which will allows faster loading and unloading. It appears that this plan could accommodate four -to six onsite loading zones which is an improvement over the existing two spaces. Given this site plan, the loading zones must be located soon after the cars enter the driveway so that the children are let out at the school building and do not have to cross the parking lot. This means that there is room for only minimal onsite queuing prior to arriving at the loadin_a zones. This will necessitate establishing a No Parking Zone on Oak Street prior to the driveway for cars waiting to enter the driveway. Even so, there would still be room to designate six loading zones on Oak Street . Two lanes will be needed on the inbound side of the parking lot, one for drop -offs and pick -ups adjacent to the curb and one as a bypass lane. If exiting vehicles become a problem, it may be necessary to install a right -turn only sign during the peak hours. If turns are restricted, it may be worth considering providing egress out onto Forest Hills Drive as well as Oak Street. This would reduce congestion on Oak Street as well as awkward or illegal maneuvers from parents who would normally have made a left -turn onto Oak Street. It is also recommended that signs be posted in each loading area, similar to existing signs at Redwood Middle school stating MOVE FORWARD AS FAR AS YOU CAN FOR PASSENGER LOAD ING/L`NL.OADING. As stated pre,,iously. to increase the observance of these signs, volunteers, either parents or student safety patrols, should direct cars to pull all the way up in order to facilitate quick loading and unloading and to Coen car doors. Blocks of about five cars should be unloaded simultaneously: the five cars would pull up, volunteers would open their doors, and then all five would drive away and the next block of cars would pull up and be unloaded. While labor intensive, the lack of physical space must be made up for by traffic management techniques such as this. Other management techniques should be considered and /or continued, such as: • written drop -off pick -up procedures should be distributed to parents at the beginning of - each semester, • encourage parents to arrive earlier than the five minutes be:.: re school; Mary Gardner May 14, 1998 Page 5 • encourage carpooling; • provide incentives for children to walk to school; this can include the formation of "walk - pools" whereby one adult will walk with children from several families to school; • An example of a strategy to encourage carpooling and walking is a voluntary surcharge of $1.00 for each car -trip to school. This could go into a special fund, for example for new playground or computer equipment for the children, or a special end -of -the -year field trip. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. If you desire, we would be happy to provide additional services such as more detail; regarding the parking lot design and striping if we were provided with site plans at a larger scale. Very truly yours, W LBUR SMITH ASSOCLATES A, �, . ;, Michelle DeRobertis, P.E. Principal Transportation Engineer cc: Susie Lechner, HMC MNID /mmd 331540 LGflnirJ6 'Lc,NC. ,. - - 'P �%�I� GI„F►S�rLM�s. lwwuy TrJo -ti'roR i�l�uJb� r ~i.. G•�) F \\J is oK 51 X LoADINO I �3- ----- drop A \ �. �xTF1.1t�E� u n pS I.AGK•Yo P � a: s ` U n e �aSscn�ar �CxocA nq A� c r b J sAKnTUQA LLEM(- N I AIK`( SC_1 C.L o P-[ (-:-� IJ C. �, -t- K� c,11 r to 2nl 4T 1 I coNside` prt vdim Preys D"to f-,:>rcSt n4c 0 A T • 4 DTD fAAZy (. Ip�,,rtATG T17i5 A /VALYc;; ? WILBUR .cECEIVEL SMITH MAY 1 a 19% ASSOCIATES 'JKAP ann„r ENGINEERS • PLANNERS 221 . 'SIN S112CCT, SUITE 1211f1 •SAN : 1'J('I;;. :1!'!'� .0 (� • .. N :. �: . I Ar May 14, 1998 Mary Gardner Superintendent Saratoga Union Elementary School District 20460 Forest Hills Drive Saratoga CA 95070 Re: Snratogn Elementnry School Circulation Dear Mary Gardner: This letter presents the results of our review of the existing drop -off and circulation at Saratoga Elementary School in Saratoga. Traffic conditions were observed on the morning of February 27 and March 12 and the afternoon of March 12. However, no traffic counts or detailed field measurements were conducted for this study. OBSERVATIONS The existing traffic flow procedures given to parents are based on arriving from the intersection of Komina Avenue and Oak Street. This is necessary so that cars are oriented properly for drop -off at the curbs of Oak Street and Komina Avenue. Consequently, LQaLcars wereQbserved to come from Komina-Avenue, They either pull up along the curb of Oak Street or turn into the parking lot for the drop -off area. The Kindergarten parents use Komina Avenue far both a.m. and P.M. kindergarten drop -off and pick -up. Visitors who wish to park must use either the one parking lot or park across the street on Oak Street or on side streets, since both Oak Street and Komina Avenue adiacent to the school grounds have white curbs for passenger loading and unloading. Two student safety patrols were observed: one was helping with the loading and unloading on Oak Street and one was helping at the crosswalks at Oak Street and Komina Avenue. According to the principal, up to six student safety patrols help in the morning, two at the intersection and four along Oak Street. Oak Street At the Oak Street drop -off area, the public street serves a major role in the school onsite circulation. The Oak Street curb is painted white and the curbside essentially functions as the drop -off lane while Oak Street itself functions as the bypass lane- The curb is posted with five signs reading "PASSENGER LOADING ZONE 8 AM TO 3 PM­. However, they are not ALC;RA, GHANA • ALBANY. NY • ANAHEIM. CA • ATLANTA- GA • :zALTIN10RE. MID •BANG1.1K. THAILAND • CARACAS, VENE71JELa•CHARLESTCN, SC: COLUMBIA. SC COLUMBUS. OH • DES MOINES. IA • FALLS :'HURCH, VA HC% = KONG • HOUSTON, TX • KUWAI' • KNOXVII'_ =. III LEXINGTON, KY LONDON, ENGLAND • MILWAUKEE. WI • NEW HAVEN, CT • ?RLANDO, FL • PITTSBURGH. PA • RALEIC; ,4. Pic RICHMOND. VA • ROSELLE. IL • SAN FRANCISCO, CA • SAN JOSE. CA • TALLAHASSFF.. F': • TAMPA. FL • TORONTO. CANADA • NASHINGTC I I)(- EMPLOYEE -OWNED COMPANY Mary Gardner May 14, 1998 Page 2 numbered and labeled as separate loading zones as in the parking lot (see discussion below). On Oak Street, there is room at the curb for about ten cars, but on average only about six are loading or unloading at any given time. The most forward part of the loading zone was often empty; if the first car does not pull all the way forward, the cars in the rear simply pull in behind the first car, leaving space at the front for two or three cars. This happens despite the fact that cars would queue up behind these cars around the corner onto Komina. Impatient drivers on Komina often attempt to pass the queue but must cross the double yellow line in the process. This is dangerous as the visibiiity to children in the crosswalks is obscured by the queue of cars. Parking Lot In the .parking lot, there are two signed loading zones for drop -off. These two zones are in tandem, i.e. one behind the other. This area has a clockwise circulation pattern which means students in the front seat have to cross in front of their parents car to access the school site. The two zones are used relatively efficiently by parents: the lead car must drive to the forward loading zone so that two cars can be loaded /unloaded simultaneously. (At about 8:28 a.m., observations indicated that four or five cars tend to discharge their passengers simultaneously to avoid being tardy. The current clockwise circulation pattern also results in cars exiting the parking lot having to yield to cars on Oak Street driving to the parking lot entrance. In other words, cars are delayed in leaving the parking lot by the cars on Oak Street trying to enter the lot. However, given the use of the Oak Street curb as a loading area, if the circulation were reversed and the first driveway were made the entrance, past experience has shown there would not be enough room for cars to queue on Oak Street before they turn into this first driveway. Having the entrance drivewav further down the street increases the storage length available for cars queuing to turn into the driveway. When the circulation in the parking area was counter - clockwise, the entrance driveway was much closer to Komina, and the cars slowing to turn right into the driveway backed up to Komina Avenue and also conflicted with cars leaving the Oak Street curb drop -off area. ANALYSIS AND CONSIDERATIONS Several factors contribute to the traffic congestion at this school: the loading /unloading area is essentially aiso the main school access route, the bypass lane is also the :Hain school access route; clockwise circulation in the parking lot which slows passenger loading /unloading; limited capacity to load/unload several students simultaneously; the lack of convenient visitor parking; and conflicts be:,.t?een Oak Street and the parking lot driveways due to the close proximity of the two loading areas. One of the 1-iguest problems is that Oak Street is needed for both access, circulation and loading and unload:.. ^.g. An cnsite area for loading and vehicle turnaround «euld lessen some of the emphasis or Oak Street and improve traffic conditions. Also, the parkins lot can be accessed by arriving from the nosh as well as the south. This kill also be considered in the development of the recommencations. Mary Gardner May 14, 1998 Page 3 With the projected twenty -seven percent increase in enrollment from 393 to 500, changes are needed to accommodate the future demand for loading and unloading. As stated in my previous letter, the new circulation pattern should ideally: 1. Accommodate several vehicles loading and unloading simultaneously; 2. Preferably maintain counter - clockwise circulation to expedite passenger loading and unloading and to reduce conflicts between pedestrians and motor vehicles; 3. Provide good visibility from the school center to the main student queuing area; 4. Provide adequate sidewalk space for students to wait on; 5. Enable egress and ingress from the street that don't conflict with each other; 6. Have a bypass lane so that cars which are slow loading and unloading do not block the cars behind them, and so that cars which are finished can depart as soon as possible. If traffic volumes and conditions are worse than projected, this bypass lane can become a second parallel loading/unloading lane. 7. In addition, the majority of the loading and unloading should take place onsite, if possible. This has several advantages including: it keeps the streets clearer for emergency vehicles and for neighborhood circulation, and it enables parents to turn around onsite so they can drive out of the area without having to make illegal U -turns or awkward maneuvers. This improves traffic safety and reduces the overall driving in and through the adjacent neighborhood. There are numerous strategies and combinations of strategies for improving access and increasing the capacity of the loading and unloading areas. However, there is no one obvious or easy solution. None of them incorporate all seven of the ideal elements listed in the preceding paragraphs. The options all have various impacts on the site planning of the school and on the neighborhood. Some of the strategies are mutually exclusive but some can be tried with others. The main options include: a) Better utilizing Oak Street as a loading zone, e.g. by designating five specific loading areas with student safety patrol or volunteer at each one. While labor intensive, the limited physical space requires the use of other resources. b) De- emphasizing Oak Street by developing more onsite drop -off capacity c) Eliminatin, soft -sscape._at the Front of the school for a second small scale offstreet loading area to replace Oak Street curb loading d) Creating a counter - clockwise on -site circulation pattern. e) Re- siting some of the proposed new buildings to increase the onsite drop -off area. t) Utilizing the kindergarten drop -off area for other grades as well (AM only). These cars could then turn left onto Oak Street and avoid driving in wont of the school altogether. i,64 I Mary Gardner May 14, 1998 Page 4 g) Developing a one -way circulation access from Forest Hills Drive to Oak Street through district property. RECOMMENDATIONS Given the revised site plan Option C.6 dated March 25, 1998, a conceptual loading/circulation plan was developed and is illustrated in Figure 1. The revised site plan shifts the driveway to the north edge of the property. It provides for counter - clockwise circulation which will allows faster loading and unloading. It appears that this plan could accommodate four -to six onsite loading zones which is an improvement over the existing two spaces. Given this site plan, the loading zones must be located soon after the cars enter the drivewav so that the children are let out at the school building and do not have to cross the parking lot. This means that there is room for only minimal onsite queuing prior to arriving at the loading zones. This will necessitate establishing a No Parking Zone on Oak Street prior to the driveway for cars waiting to enter the driveway. Even so, there would still be room to designate six loading zones on Oak Street . Two lanes will be needed on the inbound side of the parking lot, one for drop -offs and pick -ups adjacent to the curb and one as a bypass lane. If exiting vehicles become a problem, it may be necessary to install a right -turn only sign during the peak hours. If turns are restricted, it may be worth considering providing egress out onto Forest Hills Drive as well as Oak Street. This would reduce consestion on Oak Street as well as awkward or illegal maneuvers from parents who would normally have made a left -turn onto Oak Street. It is also recommended that signs be posted in each loading area, similar to existing signs at Redwood Middle school stating MOVE FORWARD AS FAR AS YOU, CAN V FOR PASSENGER LOADING/UT LOADING. As stated previously. to increase the observance of these signs, volunteers, either parents or student safety patrols, should direct cars to pull all the way up in order to facilitate quick loading and unloading and to open car doors. Blocks of about five cars should be unloaded simultaneously: the five cars % vould pull up, volunteers would open their doors, and then all five would drive away and the next block of cars would puit up and be unloaded. While labor intensive, the lack of physical space must be made up ibr by traffic management techniques such as this. Other management techniques should be considered and /or continued, such as: • written drop -off pick -up procedures should be distributed tc parents at the be_mning of each semester, • encourage parents to arrive earlier than the five minutes be -7-re school: Mary Gardner May 14, 1998 Page 5 • encourage carpooling; • provide incentives for children to walk to school; this can include the formation of "w-alk- pools" whereby one adult will walk with children from several families to school; • An example of a strategy to encourage carpooling and walking is a voluntary surcharge of $1.00 for each car-trip to school. This could go into a special fund, for example for new playground or computer equipment for the children, or a special end -of -the -year field trip. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. If you desire, we would be happy to provide additional services such as more detail:, regarding the parking lot design and striping if we were provided with site plans at a larger scale. Very truly yours, WILBUR SMITH ASSOCLATES Michelle DeRobertis, P.E. Principal Transportation Engineer cc: Susie Lechner, HMC MNID/mmd 331540 L c n o mj 6 2 c� (,1 C: T No � ftR�,ln)Ca Ly r�lo- tiToi? locuJb,c, r ~i.. G-rz) FWE oK Six LC)ADIN,* Z�n1E5 -- LEI I �3-- --�- -- drop o� A \ u n e. �ixT F� 1.1 b�.� CA � I.AGK�1"o P �aSscn9er �OaG��nq CA C. r b J `_AKA T UCaA 6LE-MCN I t\Ki SCI(,�-_-�C•L O P-[ 1-::� 0 L • (, K1 c, H F TuZO ,DMLY Y consider pr iAt*m� e�re5s unto f-urCSt VLL IS n4c 0 X�. T • Report of telephone conversation, city officlal 2 -9 -99 11:45am I called, requesting an "off the record" exchange re developments in the Saratoga School situation. I told him that our neighborhood group became convinced that the LSA report was a whitewash, concealing real problems and hazards, this conclusion based not only on our own observations, but based on some insider information. He had not seen the Wilbur Smith report, and I told him I would get him a copy. I spoke to him, off the record, about considerations for mounting an offensive against the school board to prevent their accepting the LSA "Negative Declaration" and moving ahead. If our presentation before the school board fails, or perhaps even before that meeting occurs, we might take the following actions:. This might include a 300 -plus mail -back survey of the extended neighborhood, all of the school employees, all of the parents, the members of the Tennis Club, and all of the drive - through traffic at peak hours. We might initiate a law suit, obtaining an injunction until an independent evaluation of the traffic problems and risks from an organization expert in evaluating these matters. We would and could include the Saratoga News. He advised that a community survey would be useful, and very persuasive. He thought that including the Saratoga News would be appropriate, since it is our local newspaper. At the least, an editorial -letter could be submitted. He thought that their reporter would be getting plenty of information from other sources as well. He does believe that the Safety Commission has been, and is, an effective organization- not anything resembling, as I had heard earlier, a gutless and impotent organization intended and designed to be subordinate to political expediency. A meeting occurred yesterday morning (I observed everyone filing in) including members of the school board, of the safety commission, of city government, the Heritage Commission, and ? ? ?? I presume the topic was largely, if not exclusively, the expansion program. The Public safety commission asked some questions based on our reports and our appearances before them. Art Anderson tip - �Q, a - ��o-r 2J S ,Jl V o c.• C a ; Report of telephone conversation, city officlal 2 -9 -99 11:45am I called, requesting an 'off the record" exchange re developments in the Saratoga School situation. I told him that our neighborhood group became convinced that the LSA report was a whitewash, concealing real problems and hazards, this conclusion based not only on our own observations, but based on some insider information. He had not seen the Wilbur Smith report, and I told him I would get him a copy. I spoke to him, off the record, about considerations for mounting an offensive against the school board to prevent their accepting the LSA "Negative Declaration" and moving ahead. If our presentation before the school board fails, or perhaps even before that meeting occurs, we might take the following actions:. This might include a 300 -plus mail -back survey of the extended neighborhood, all of the school employees, all of the parents, the members of the Tennis Club, and all of the drive - through traffic at peak hours. We might initiate a law suit, obtaining an injunction until an independent evaluation of the traffic problems and risks from an organization expert in evaluating these matters. We would and could include the Saratoga News. He advised that a community survey would be useful, and very persuasive. He thought that including the Saratoga News would be appropriate, since it is our local newspaper. At the least, an editorial - letter could be submitted. He thought that their reporter would be getting plenty of information from other sources as well. He does believe that the Safety Commission has been, and is, an effective organization- not anything resembling, as I had heard earlier, a gutless and impotent organization intended and designed to be subordinate to political expediency. A meeting occurred yesterday morning (I observed everyone filing in) including members of the school board, of the safety commission, of city government, the Heritage Commission, and ? ? ?? I presume the topic was largely, if not exclusively, the expansion program. The Public safety commission asked some questions based on our reports and our appearances before them. Art Anderson Report of telephone conversation, city officlal 2 -9 -99 11:45am I called, requesting an 'off the record" exchange re developments in the Saratoga School situation. I told him that our neighborhood group became convinced that the LSA report was a whitewash, concealing real problems and hazards, this conclusion based not only on our own observations, but based on some insider information. He had not seen the Wilbur Smith report, and I told him I would get him a copy. I spoke to him, off the record, about considerations for mounting an offensive against the school board to prevent their accepting the LSA "Negative Declaration" and moving ahead. If our presentation before the school board fails, or perhaps even before that meeting occurs, we might take the following actions% This might include a 300 -plus mail -back survey of the extended neighborhood, all of the school employees, all of the parents, the members of the Tennis Club, and all of the drive - through traffic at peak hours. We might initiate a law suit, obtaining an injunction until an independent evaluation of the traffic problems and risks from an organization expert in evaluating these matters. We would and could include the Saratoga News. He advised that a community survey would be useful, and very persuasive. He thought that including the Saratoga News would be appropriate, since it is our local newspaper. At the least, an editorial -letter could be submitted. He thought that their reporter would be getting plenty of information from other sources as well. He does believe that the Safety Commission has been, and is, an effective organization- not anything resembling, as I had heard earlier, a gutless and impotent organization intended and designed to be subordinate to political expediency. A meeting occurred yesterday morning (I observed everyone filing in) including members of the school board, of the safety commission, of city government, the Heritage Commission, and ? ? ?? I presume the topic was largely, if not exclusively, the expansion program. The Public safety commission asked some questions based on our reports and our appearances before them. Art Anderson AQ 1- p n "9 (�( - V - "r e- C Report of telephone conversation, city officlal 2 -9 -99 11:45am I called, requesting an "off the record" exchange re developments in the Saratoga School situation. I told him that our neighborhood group became convinced that the LSA report was a whitewash, concealing real problems and hazards, this conclusion based not only on our own observations, but based on some insider information. He had not seen the Wilbur Smith report, and I told him I would get him a copy. I spoke to him, off the record, about considerations for mounting an offensive against the school board to prevent their accepting the LSA "Negative Declaration" and moving ahead. If our presentation before the school board fails, or perhaps even before that meeting occurs, we might take the following actions:. This might include a 300 -plus mail -back survey of the extended neighborhood, all of the school employees, all of the parents, the members of the Tennis Club, and all of the drive - through traffic at peak hours. We might initiate a law suit, obtaining an injunction until an independent evaluation of the traffic problems and risks from an organization expert in evaluating these matters. We would and could include the Saratoga News. He advised that a community survey would be useful, and very persuasive. He thought that including the Saratoga News would be appropriate, since it is our local newspaper. At the least, an editorial -letter could be submitted. He thought that their reporter would be getting plenty of information from other sources as well. He does believe that the Safety Commission has been, and is, an effective organization- not anything resembling, as I had heard earlier, a gutless and impotent organization intended and designed to be subordinate to political expediency. A meeting occurred yesterday morning (I observed everyone filing in) including members of the school board, of the safety commission, of city government, the Heritage Commission, and ? ? ?? I presume the topic was largely, if not exclusively, the expansion program. The Public safety commission asked some questions based on our reports and our appearances before them. Art Anderson A0- pp y1�(- V'I - v- e-