The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About04-07-1999 Council staff report -Redwood Middle School ExpansionMemo To: City Council From: Community Development Directo Date: March 11, 1999 rte: Redwood Middle School Initial Study Overview: An environmental Initial Study has been prepared and distributed by the Saratoga Union School District for public review for the Redwood Middle School expansion plans. The School District has determined that an EIR is not necessary for the project. Staff has forwarded copies of the Initial Study to the City Council and Planning and Public Safety Commissions for review and comment. Responses to the Initial Study were originally required to be received by the School District by March 4"-. The Planning Commission has reviewed the document and forwarded their comments to staff. Since neither the City Council nor the Public Safety Commission would have met within that timefiame, staff requested that the School District grant the City an extension of time in order to schedule the Initial Study for Council and Public Safety Commission consideration. At their February 23'd meeting, the School District board did grant the City an extension of time to March 18". Since the February 23`d meeting, staff has met with School District Superintendent Mary Gardner and the project architects to discuss what staff has already found to be deficenicies in the traffic analysis in the Initial Study. As a result of this meeting, Ms. Gardner agreed to postpone discussion of the Initial Study until such time as a comprehensive traffic circulation and queing analysis can be performed by a licensed traffic engineer and included in the document. The Initial Study would then be rescheduled for Public Safety Commission and City Council review at a later date. Recommendation: Continue the Redwood Middle School Initial Study review and response to the April 7' regular City Council meeting. Staff will forward a request to the Public Safety Commission to convene a special meeting in advance of the Council meeting to allow for their review of the revised Initial Study when it becomes available. If the School District cannot complete the revised report by these dates, these meetings may need to be further postponed. c: Public Safety Commission APR 02 '99 09 :26RM WSA SAN FRANCISCO 415 436 9337 P.2/18 REDWOOD MIDDLE SCHOOL TRANSPORTATION STUDY DRAFT REPORT Prepored for Saratoga Union School District by "A kV t<ralkik tt\ ■/1 �l I�r7"1 WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES April 1, 1999 APR 02 '99 09:27AM WSA SAN FRANCISCO 415 436 9337 P.3/18 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION .................................................... .................:............1 2. SETTING ........................................................................... ..............................2 2.1 Study Area Roadways ............................................................................ ..............................2 2.2 Intersection Conditions . ....................................................................... ..............................2 2.3 Existing Traffic Circulation Conditions .................................................... ..............................3 2.3.1 Utilization of the Existing Lots ............................................................ ..............................7 2.3.2 Queuing Conditions ............................................................................ ..............................7 2.3.3 Processing Rates ................................................................................. ..............................7 3. TRAVEL DEMAND ANALYSIS ........................................... .............................10 3.1 Existing Use ........................................................................................... .............................10 3.2 Trip Generation .................................................................................... .............................10 3.3 Trip Distribution .................................................................................... .............................10 4. PROJECT TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS ............ .............................10 4.1 Assumed Circulation Improvements ..................................................... .............................10 4.2 Future Traffic Impacts at Fruitvale and Allendale Avenues Intersection ..........................11 4.3 Circulation Impacts ............................................................................... .............................12 S. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .................... .............................13 S.1Transportation Improvement Measures 5.2 Recommendations to the Circulation Plan 340690 REDWOOD MIDDLE SCHOOL TRANSPORTATION STUDY W►LBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES Page APR 02 '99 09 :27RM WSA SAN FRANCISCO 415 436 9337 P.4i18 REDWOOD MIDDLE SCHOOL TRANSPORTATION STUDY This report evaluates the existing transportation conditions and potential transportation impacts associated with a proposed expansion of the Redwood Middle School in the City of Saratoga. The following transportation conditions were analyzed both on the school site and off -site in the immediate vicinity of the school: • traffic circulation • queuing conditions • intersection operating conditions The impacts of the increased student enrollment assuming the proposed improvements to the on- site circulation were also addressed. 1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The school site is located at 13925 Fruitvale Avenue near Allendale Avenue, less than a mile west of Highway 85 in the City of Saratoga. The school for students in grades six through eight currently consists of eleven buildings, including a library, a muti -use building, an administrative/classroom building, and several classroom buildings. The proposed project includes the expansion of the existing school facilities to accommodate the projected increase from 825 students to 1,282 students by the year 2008, The expected 55 percent increase in student enrollment would also increase the school staff at Redwood Middle School from 67 full -tinge equivalent positions to 78 full -tine equivalent staff members. The project consists of new buildings, additions to existing buildings, and a larger play area as well as the following site improvements to accommodate the anticipated increase in automobile traffic at the site: • Redesign of upper parking lot: This lot would be redesigned to allow a new circulation pattern consisting of two counter - clockwise loops to facilitate more efficient and safe drop - offs and pick -ups. • Cottage area driveway relocation: The driveway to the Cottage area would be relocated, and parking for employees, visitors and the disabled would be expanded. • Equalization of drop -off and pick -up area utilization: The two drop- off/pick -up areas would be assigned to specific groups of students to equalize the utilization of the lots. • Instruction of parents: Parents would be supplied with instructions and a map illustrating the drop -off and pick -up procedures. • Signage and volunteers: Signs and pavement stencils would designate the loading areas and procedures, and volunteers would help direct traffic. 340690 REDWOOD MIDDLE SCHOOL TRANSPORTATION STUDY WILBUR SM1TH ASSOCIATES Page 1 APR 02 '99 09:27AM WSA SAN FRANCISCO 415 436 9337 P.5/16 "- ..,.,...,..... -� "REDWOOD MIDDLE SCHOOL TRANSPORTATION STUDY • Improved bus service: Private subscription to bus service would be studied as an option to relieving automobile congestion during drop -off and pick -up times. • Traffic management: Parents would receive written drop -off and pick -up procedures at the beginning of each semester; they would also be encouraged to arrive to school earlier and/or carpool. • "Suggested Route to School Plan ": The District, in conjunction with the City, would prepare a school route plan indicating the suggested routes for students to use to walk and bike to school. This would be distributed to students and their parents. • Bus service: ALTRANS would initiate a busing program within the Saratoga Unified School District. 2. SETTING 2.1 Study Area Roadways The school site is bounded by Fruitvale Avenue to the east, Allendale Avenue to the north, and is close in proximity to Montauk Drive to the south. Fruitvale Avenue has two southbound and two northbound through lanes and a wide median in the vicinity of the school, with turn lanes provided in some locations. Allendale Avenue has one through lane in both the eastbound and westbound directions, with right and left turn lanes provided in some locations. Fruitvale Avenue also has bike lanes on some portions of its length. Currently, all three entrances to the site and two of the three exits from the site are located on Fruitvale Avenue, and one exit ,is located on Allendale Avenue. 2.2 Intersection Conditions Traffic counts were made in March, 1999 over a 24 -hour period on Fruitvale Avenue immediately south of Allendale Avenue, to determine the morning and afternoon peak hours. These counts are contained in Appendix A. The morning peak hour for the school coincides with the typical commute peak hour, and occurred between 8:OOAM and 9:OOAM. The afternoon peak hour also corresponds to the schools peak traffic period, occurring between 2:45PM and 3 :45PM. The PM peak hour on Fruitvale Avenue occurs earlier than is typical for an afternoon peak hour, which typically occurs between 4:OOPM and 6:00PM. The fact that this portion of Fruitvale Avenue experiences the afternoon peak hour much earlier than the typical commute peak hour is most likely due to the proximity of Redwood Middle School and possibly 'West Valley College. The intersection operation of Fruitvale and Allendale Avenues was analyzed as part of this study. The intersection level of service was evaluated for the morning and afternoon peak hours: i.e. 8:OOAM and 9:OOAM and 2:45PM and 3:45PM. These peak hours are the peak for traffic on Fruitvale Avenue as well as Redwood Middle school traffic, as explained above. The turning movement volume counts were gathered on Tuesday, March 16, 1999. The Level of Service (LOS) of an intersection is a measure of the ability of the intersection to accommodate traffic volumes. Intersection Level of Service ranges from LOS A, which indicates free -flow conditions with little overall delay, to LOS F, which indicates congested 331541 REDWOOD MIDDLE SCHOOL TRANSPORTATION STUDY WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES Page 2 APR 02 '99 09:28AM WSA SAN FRANCISCO 415 436 9337 P. 6/18 REDWOOD MIDDLE SCHOOL TRANSPORTATION STUDY conditions with extremely long delays. LOS A, B, C, and D are considered excellent to tolerable service levels. LOS E and LOS F conditions have excessive delay. The intersection of Fruitvale and Allendale Avenues, a signalized intersection, was evaluated using the 1994 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) operations methodology for intersection delay, outlined in Chapter 9 of the HCM. This method determines the capacity for each lane group approaching an intersection, and calculates the average delay for each intersection approach. Then the weighted average of the delays for each approach is calculated to determine the average delay for the intersection, which is used to determine the overall LOS for the intersection. As defined by the City of Saratoga, the operational impact on intersections is considered significant when project traffic causes the service level to deteriorate from LOS D or better to LOS E of F. Table 1 shows the results of the intersection analysis for existing weekday AM and PM peak hour conditions. The table indicates that the intersection of Fruitvale and Allendale Avenues operates at LOS C in both morning and afternoon peak hour conditions.' Average delay per vehicle at the intersection is 17.4 seconds in during the morning peak hour and 18.0 seconds per vehicle during the afternoon peak hour. Appendix B contains the detailed calculations • of the intersection Level of Service analysis. Table 1 EXISTING WEEKDAY PEAK HOUR LEVELS OF SERVICE Study Intersection Time Period Weekday LOS nelay (sec/veh) Fruitvale Ave. /Allendale Ave. AM Peak Hour C 17.4 Fruitvale Ave. /Allendale Ave. PM Peak Hour C 18.0 Source: Wilbur Smirk Associates, March 1999. Notes: 1 Traffic counts mada on Tuesday, March 16, 1999. 2.3 Existing Traffic Circulation Conditions Currently, traffic on the school site circulates inefficiently. Areas on -site that could potentially be used for circulation and queuing are only used under very congested conditions; for the most part, they remain underutilized, which forces queues to extend onto public streets. Furthermore, the clockwise direction of traffic, flow through the pick -up /drop -off area requires children to cross at least one stream of traffic if they choose to sit in the front seat. The circulation conditions observed on Tuesday, March 160' and the total number of vehicles entering and leaving the school driveways were counted in 15- minute increments. These counts are summarized in Table 2 and the detailed counts are presented in Tables 3 and 4, These counts indicate that 293 vehicles entered all three school driveways between 2:45PM and 4:OOPM, while double that number of vehicles (588 vehicles) entered the site between 7,15AM and 8:30AM. As these numbers illustrate, substantially fewer vehicles were observed entering and leaving the school driveways to pick up children in the afternoon than in the morning to drop -off children. However the queues on Fruitvale Avenue were worse in the afternoon. This is due to 331541 REDWOOD MIDDLE SCHOOL TRANSPORTATION STUDY WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES Page 3 APR 02 '99 09 :28AM WSA SAN FRANCISCO 415 436 9337 P.7/18 REDWOOD MIDDLE SCHOOL TRANSPORTATION STUDY several factors relating to the different characteristics between morning drop -offs and afternoon pick -ups. During the morning, parents can drop -off their children and then immediately leave, so vehicles have a relatively short duration in the drop -off lots. Vehicles entering the lots in the morning operate much more efficiently, generally following the first -in -first -out (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 axe traveling to their workplaces. Therefore there are more cars in the morning but they can be processed at a faster rate. During the afternoon, parents usually wait for their children to find their vehicle, and consequently spend more time in the pick -up lots. In addition to being in the lots for a longer duration, the first vehicles in the lots in the afternoon period aren't necessarily the first vehicles to leave the site. Vehicles can only park in one lane while waiting for children, in order to leave the other lane open for circulation purposes. This reduces the usable operational capacity of the lots in the afternoon. However there fewer vehicles arriving to pick up children compared to the morning since more children walk home in the afternoon, and some children have after- school activities on the school site. But the main reason fewer vehicles were observed entering the school site to pick up children in the afternoon is the school lots were filled to capacity with waiting vehicles, and the excess demand was queued on Fruitvale Avenue. Thus, the counts do not reflect the true demand for entering the school driveways during the afternoon. A more detailed discussion of queuing is presented in the next section. As a result of the inadequate existing capacity to accommodate the demand for picking -up students in the afternoon, parents were observed picking up their children in off-site areas surrounding the school, including Allendale Avenue, the Saratoga post office, and on Fruitvale Avenue. In conclusion, even though the morning sees a greater number of vehicles in the school lots, it is for a shorter duration and creates less congested conditions on local public streets than the fewer number of vehicles observed in the afternoon. The combination of several factors results in considerably fewer vehicles entering and leaving the school site at dismissal time. however, the queues and related congestion are worse in the afternoon. Figures 1 and 2 illustrate the arrivals and departures at the school site during the morning and afternoon, respectively. The graphs depict the cumulative total arrivals and total departures observed every 15 minutes. The arrival graphs in the morning and the departure graph in the afternoon have been repeated to delete the effects of teacher arrivals and departures. This is because, in the morning for example, teachers arrive but do not leave, thus would not be part of the cumulative queueing. 331541 REDWOOD MIDDLE SCHOOL TRANSPORTATION STUDY WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES Page 4 700 600 500 't d i 400 d E 2 Z d 300 1 0 E 200 11111A MI Figure 1. Existing Arrivals and Departures - School Start Time ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 588 71 533 16 570 t- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - If - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I -- - - - _ - - - e- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I ------------------------------------------ - - - - -/ 223 --------------------------------------- � 0 -+ -Total Arrivals ----------- --f- Departures —A Parent Arrivals 7:75 AM 7 :30 AM 7:45 AM 8 :00 AM 8:15 AM 8:30 AM Time of Day F" 350 300 d 250 V :c 0 200 a`► E 2 Z 150 a E v 100 50 RE Figure 2. Existing Arrivals and Departures - School Dismissal Time 231 222 4----------------------------------------------4-- 1------------------------------------------ - - - - -I 117 --0 Arrivals ------ - - - - -- - - - -- ---------------------------- f_TatalDepartures - - - - -- --A— Parent Departures 2 61 6 2:45 PM 3:00 PM 3:15 PM 3:30 PM Time of Day 3:45 PM 4:00 PM N APR 02 '99 09 :29AM WSA SAN FRANCISCO 415 436 9337 P. 10/18 2.3.1 Utilization of the Existing Lots The three on -site lots are used inefficiently in both the morning and afternoon periods. The Cottage lot has the least capacity for queued vehicles, but is used by a substantial portion of the traffic in both the morning and afternoon periods. At the same time, the northern lot has approximately the same capacity as the main lot, but is used by substantially less traffic than the other two lots during both the morning and afternoon periods. Table 2 indicates the percent of entering and exiting traffic in each lot during the morning and afternoon periods. Table 2. PERCENT UTILIZATION OF EXISTING LOTS Time Period Northern Lot Main Lot Cottage Lot Enter Exit Enter Exit Enter Exit Morning Afternoon 21 21.4 15.6 16.4 42.5 42.8 52.7 49.8 36.5 35.8 31.6 33.8 2.3.2 Queuing Conditions During the peak portion of the morning peak period (approximately 8:00 AM to 8.15 AM), traffic queues spill onto Fruitvale Avenue. The queue of vehicles in the curb lane of southbound Fruitvale Avenue waiting to turn right into the school site was observed to extend the entire distance between the entrance to the lot and the exit from the lot (about six vehicles), which also causes queues on -site to grow. The queue of vehicles in the curb lane on southbound Fruitvale Avenue reduced the capacity of southbound Fruitvale Avenue for vehicles wishing to turn right out of the school driveway. The increased difficulty of exiting vehicles to turn right onto Fruitvale Avenue caused exiting vehicles to queue on -site, which consequently exacerbated the queues extending off -site. During the afternoon peak period, queues extending onto Fruitvale Avenue were much longer than those observed during the morning peak period. At 3:05PM, when the dismissal bell rang, the queue of vehicles in the curb lane of southbound Fruitvale Avenue extended beyond the intersection with Allendale Avenue (approximately 25 vehicles). 2.3.3 Processing Rates During the morning peak period, observations indicated that the process of dropping off children generally took approximately 15 seconds per vehicle. Because of the short amount of time required to drop-off children, queues extended onto Fruitvale Avenue only for a couple of minutes between 8:OOAM and 8:1 SAM. During the morning peak period, vehicles arrive in platoons or groups, which is presumably due to the fact that vehicles are platooned by the signals on Fruitvale Avenue. This grouping of arriving vehicles further exacerbates the problem of queuing under the current circulation plan since the driveway entrances to the Cottage lot and main lot are adjacent to one another. In 340690 REDWOOD MIDDLE SCHOOL TRANSPORTATION STUDY WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES Page 7 APR 02 '99 09 :29AM WSA SAN FRANCISCO 415 436 9337 P. 11/18 REDWOOD MIDDLE SCHOOL TRANSPORTATION STUDY particular, drivers traveling southbound on Fruitvale Avenue that want to turn right into the Cottage lot often block the entrance to the main lot for both vehicles traveling northbound on Fruitvale Avenue waiting to turn left into the main lot and vehicles traveling southbound on Fruitvale Avenue wishing to turn right into the main lot. As shown in Table 3, 191 (36 %) vehicles were observed entering and leaving the site at the Cottage lot, 228 (43 %) vehicles entered and exited the main lot, and only 114 (21%) vehicles entered and exited the northern parking lot. The Cottage lot, which has the least queuing capacity, was carrying approximately 36% of the drop -off traffic. In addition, this driveway serves as access to the majority of the teacher parking. As this lot provides only enough curb space to accommodate about five vehicles at one time and the greatest demand occurs during a relatively short period of time just before school starts, queues for entering the Cottage lot often extend onto Fruitvale Avenue and block the entrance to these two most utilized lots. At school dismissal time, fewer vehicles enter the site to pick up children than in the morning. However, the longer duration that vehicles wait for children to leave class and find their respective vehicles creates much worse queuing problems than at the school's start time. In addition, parents are more likely to drop -off their children early for school than they are to pick up their children later than dismissal time. This results in a very high demand for queuing space for a relatively short period of time. Table 4 indicates that 87 (32 %) vehicles were observed entering and leaving the southern lot, 145 (53 %) vehicles entered and left the main lot, and only 43 (15 %) vehicles entered and left the northern lot. The main lot is more heavily utilized than the other lots, but to a greater degree in the afternoon compared to the morning period. Queues to enter the main lot were observed to extend in the southbound curb lane of Fruitvale Avenue beyond the intersection of Allendale Avenue, with at least 25 vehicles waiting to enter the main lot. 331641 REDWOOD MIDDLE SCHOOL TRANSPORTATION STUDY WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES Page a REDWOOD MIDDLE SCHOOL TRANSPORTATION STUDY 331541 REDWOOD MIDDLE SCHOOL TRANSPORTATION STUDY WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES Page 9 Table 3. EXISTING VEHICLE ENTRANCES AND EXITS — SCHOOL START TIME Northern Lot Main Northern Lot Cottage Main Lot Cottage Lot Time 15 -mi.n. All Lots 15 -min. 15 -min. 15 -min. 15 -min. 15 -min. 15 -min. Period Cumulative 15 -min. Cumulative Period Cumulative Period Cumulative Period Cumulative Period Cumulative Enter Exit Period Cumulative ime Enter Exit Enter Exit Enter Exit Enter Exit Enter Exit Enter Exit Enter Exit Enter Exit :15AM - 7:30AM 11 9 11 9 41 34 41 34 28 9 28 9 17 80 52 80 52 7:30AM - 7:45AM 9 6 20 15 23 12 64 46 15 8 43 17 67 89 47 26 127 78 7:45AM - 8:OOAM 43 34 63 49 68 57 132 103 58 54 101 71 136 169 145 296 223 8:OOAM - 8:15AM 59 65 122 114 107 113 239 216 109 109 210 180 146 275 287 571 510 8:15AM - 8:30AM 1 0 123 114 11 12 250 228 5 11 215 191 17 23 588 533 331541 REDWOOD MIDDLE SCHOOL TRANSPORTATION STUDY WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES Page 9 Table 4. EXISTING VEHICLE ENTRANCES AND EXITS — SCHOOL DISMISSAL TIME Northern Lot Main Lot Cottage Lot All Lots Time 15 -mi.n. 15 -min. 15 -min. 15 -min. Period Cumulative Period Cumulative Period Cumulative Period Cumulative Enter Exit Enter Exit Enter Exit Enter Exit Enter Exit Enter Exit Enter Exit Enter Exit 2:45pm - 3:00pm 5 0 5 0 21 3 21 3 18 3 18 3 44 6 44 6 :00pm - 3:15pm 19 17 24 17 20 16 41 19 16 22 34 25 55 55 99 61 3:15prn - 3:30pm 12 22 36 39 67 89 108 108 35 50 69 75 114 161 213 222 3:30pm - 3:45pm 7 8 43 47 28 24 136 132 11 '12 80 87 46 44 259 266 3:45pm - 4:00pm 0 1 43 48 9 14 145 146 7 12 87 99 16 27 275 293 331541 REDWOOD MIDDLE SCHOOL TRANSPORTATION STUDY WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES Page 9 APR 02 '99 09 :30RM WSA SAN FRANCISCO 415 436 9337 P.13/18 REDWOOD MIDDLE SCHOOL TRANSPORTATION STUDY 3. TRAVEL DEMAND ANALYSIS 3.1 Existing Use Redwood Middle School currently has 825 students. These 825 students were observed to generate 588 inbound vehicle -trips during the morning peak period and 293 outbound vehicle - trips during the afternoon peak period. 3.2 Trip Generation The student body is expected to expand to 1,282 students by the year 2008, an increase of 457 students. As a worst -case estimate, we have assumed that the 55 percent increase in students at the school site would create a proportionally higher number of vehicles traveling to and from the school during the morning and afternoon peak hours.' The 588 inbound vehicle -trips would increase to 914 inbound vehicle -trips during the morning peak period, and the 293 outbound vehicle -trips would increase to 455 outbound vehicle -trips during the afternoon peak period. 3.3 Trip Distribution Approximately 60% of the vehicles entering the school site during the morning peak period were traveling south on Fruitvale Avenue and turning right into the site, while about 40% of the vehicles were traveling in the northbound direction on Fruitvale Avenue and turning left into the school site. Assuming that the current student residential distribution remaining in the future, the directional distribution of the additional vehicle trips generated by the school's expansion would not change. Then 196 of the additional 326 morning peak period vehicle trips would be turning right into the site and 130 of the 326 vehicles would be turning left into the site from northbound Fruitvale Avenue. Similarly, 91 of the additional 152 afternoon peak period vehicle trips would be turning right into the site from southbound Fruitvale Avenue and 61 of the additional 152 vehicles would be turning left into the site. These were assigned to the school driveways and the intersection of Fruitvale and Allendale as discussed below. 4. PROJECT TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS This section describes the transportation impacts of the proposed project on the traffic circulation conditions both on -site and at the intersection of Fruitvale and Allendale Avenues. The impacts on are addressed during both the morning and afternoon peak periods. 4.1 Assumed Circulation Improvements The proposed improvements to the transportation and traffic circulation conditions include the expansion and the redesign of the main lot and the northern lot. Both lots would be redesigned to have counterclockwise circulation patterns and to increase the total on -site area for circulation purposes. This will significantly expand the rate at which drop -offs and pick -ups can be made and will allow more of the queuing to occur on -site. This will alleviate some of the existing queuing problems, ad described in Section 4.3. The Cottage lot will be reduced in size and ' The impacts of school bussing and a comprehensive Safe Routes to School program for walking and bussing have not been considered, initially. 3A0690 REDWOOD MIDDLE SCHOOL TRANSPORTATION STUDY WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES Page 10 APR 02 '99 09:30RM WSA SAN FRANCISCO 415 436 9337 P. 14/18 REDWOOD MIDDLE SCHOOL TRANSPORTATION STUDY restricted to teachers only. This will remove teachers' vehicles from the congestion and educe the amount of traffic that occurs at the southern edge of the property, near the intersection of Montauk Drive. 4.2 Future Traffic Impacts at Fruitvale /Allendale Avenues Intersection As defined by the City of Saratoga, the operational impact on local intersections is considered significant when the project - related traffic causes the level of service to deteriorate from LOS D or better to LOS E or F, or from LOS E to LOS F. In addition, significant impacts would-also occur if the traffic would interfere with existing transportation systems causing substantial alteration to circulation patterns or causing major traffic hazards or would contribute substantially to cumulative traffic increases at intersections that would otherwise operate at acceptable levels, causing degradation to unacceptable levels. Traffic conditions at the intersection of Fruitvale and Allendale Avenues were evaluated during the weekday morning and afternoon peak period conditions with and without the addition of project traffic. Table 5 presents a comparison of the intersection level of service analysis under existing and future conditions. In order to evaluate the operation of the intersection under future conditions, the existing (1999) intersection volumes were increased by 1.5% per year to obtain a Year 2008 base scenario (without expansion of the school). Then, the additional traffic generated by the school expansion that would travel through the intersection was added to the Year 2008 base traffic volumes. In the year 2008, the LOS would remain C, the same as existing conditions, during both the morning and afternoon peak hours. The additional traffic resulting from the school's expansion would increase the average vehicle delay over the base year 2008 conditions. Table S PROJECTED YEAR 2008 WEEKDAY PEAK HOUR LEVELS OF SERVICE Study Time Year 2008 Year 2008 Year 2008 + Year 2008 + Intersection Period Weekday Delay Expansion Expansion LOS (sec /veh) Weekday Delay LOS (sec/veh) Fruitvale Ave. / AM Peak C 18.6 C 23.4 Allendale Ave. Hour Fruitvale Ave./ PM Peak C 19.9 C 21.2 Allendale Ave. Hour Source: Wilbur Smith Associates, March 1999. Notes: affic counts made on Tuesday, March 16; 1999. 340690 REDWOOD MIDDLE SCHOOL TRANSPORTATION STUDY WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES Page I I APR 02 '99 09:31AM WSA SAN FRANCISCO 415 436 9337 P. 15/18 REDWOOD MIDDLE SCHOOL TRANSPORTATION STUDY However, the service levels would remain at LOS C with the traffic generated by the expansion of the school. Appendix B provides the detailed calculations of the intersection Level of Service analysis. 4.3 Circulation Impacts The ability of vehicles to enter and leave the school site efficiently will be improved by the proposed changes to the transportation and traffic circulation system. The increased number of students would generate more traffic to the site, offsetting some of the benefits of the proposed improvements. This analysis evaluates the proposed circulation improvements with the 55 percent increase in students and the associated traffic. The proposed circulation improvements described previously will improve the situation in several ways. First the relocation of all three driveways (and the prohibition of drop -offs. and pick-ups in the Cottage lot) results in the two drop -off areas spaced at distances necessary to prevent blocking of access for either drop -off area. This redesign prevents entering vehicles from blocking exiting vehicles as is currently the case due to the long queues in the afternoon. It also separates the cottage lot entrance from the main lot entrance, improving the congestion related to the proximity of these two driveways. Last but not least, the proposed design increases the on -site capacity of the school's drop -off lots to a total of approximately 19 vehicles in the main lot and 21 vehicles in the northern lot for a total of 40 vehicles, compared to 23 vehicles under current utilization of the lots. The new circulation pattern would also force drivers to drive counter - clockwise through the lot, which facilities faster loading and unloading and consequently would maximize the use of unloading space within the lots. 4.3.1 AM Peak Period The 533 vehicles that currently enter the site to drop off children in the morning would increase to 828 vehicles on a typical morning at the school. Assuming the same peaking characteristics as existing, approximately 54 %, or 446 vehicles would enter the site during the peak 15 minutes i.e. between 8:OOAM and 8 :15AM. These improvements are expected to significantly improve the circulation and related queues and congestion under existing conditions. The proposed on -site drop -off capacity for 40 vehicles at one time should also accommodate the future peak of 446 vehicles in the morning's peak fifteen minutes if the lots are utilized correctly. The future demand of 446 vehicles in fifteen minutes equals fifteen vehicles per minute per lot. Since unloading was observed to take place at a rate of fifteen seconds per vehicle, and ten to fifteen vehicles can unload simultaneously, the arrival rate of fifteen vehicles per minute can be accommodated. To ensure that the maximum unloading capacity of ten to fifteen vehicles simultaneously is achieved, it is recommended that supervisors ensure that drivers pull as far forward as possible and otherwise maximize the available queuing space. 4.3.2 PM Peak Period During the aftemoon, 275 vehicles were observed to enter and leave the school site to pick up children after school was dismissed. After the school is expanded, the demand of vehicles at school dismissal time would increase to a total of 427 vehicles. Currently, the observed arrival 340690 REDWOOD MIDDLE SCHOOL TRANSPORTATION STUDY WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES Page 12 APR 02 '99 09:31AM WSR SAN FRANCISCO 415 436 9337 P.16/18 REDWOOD MIDDLE SCHOOL TRANSPORTATION STUDY rate of vehicles at the school's site is constrained by the processing rate, or the rate at which children can be picked up or dropped off. The proposed circulation scheme would increase the onsite queueing capacity of the lots and would improve the efficiency of pick -ups. But it is predicted that with 1282 students, the arrival demand rate in the afternoon would still be greater than the processing rate under the proposed circulation scheme, so offsite queuing would still occur_ If each of the projected 427 vehicles entering the site to pick up children in the afternoon were in a lot for an average of three minutes, it would still require 35 minutes to accommodate all 427 vehicles. Thus, if traffic increases proportionately to student enrollment, queues would again extend onto Fruitvale Avenue for about 30 minutes. 5. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The following presents our recommendations on the reducing the impacts of the school traffic, particularly during the afternoon peak period. It also contains an analysis of the outstanding issues related to the circulation design. 5.1 Transportation Improvement Measures Increases to the capacity of the existing lots and maximizing the utilization of the reconfigured lots will improve the efficiency of pick -ups and drop -offs at the school and the resulting queues onto Fruitvale Avenue. Additional improvements that could further improve circulation at the site include: • S aMered dismissal times - Circulation at the school site would benefit immensely from staggered dismissal times. For instance, if the school were divided into two groups with schedules offset by ten minutes or more, the proposed circulation plan and lot configuration could accommodate the project traffic onsite, due to the reduced number of cars during the peak. Staggering the dismissal times and subdividing groups within each dismissal would also make it easier for children to find their respective vehicles, making the pick -up process more efficient and consequently reduce the amount of time each vehicle is on the site. However, the most effective means of relieving traffic congestion at the school remains minimizing the number of vehicles traveling to and from the site during each morning and afternoon period. Strategies to manage the traffic at the school with this objective include: Bus service could most drastically reduce the number of automobiles at the school site, with a single van or bus replacing the traffic created by ten to twenty automobiles. • Encouraging parents to voluntarily arrive earlier than school start time and later than dismissal time. • Encouraging carpools would help manage the traffic at the site, but the parents would need help in obtaining a rider list for potential matches. RIDES for Bay Area Commuters could help provide such a service. 340690 REDWOOD MIDDLE SCHOOL TRANSPORTATION STUDY WILBUR S/NITHASSOCIATES Page 13 APR 02 '99 09:32AM WSA SAN FRANCISCO 415 436 9337 P. 17/18 REDWOOD MIDDLE SCHOOL TRANSPORTATION STUDY � A Suggested Route to School Plan —Creating a "Suggested Route to School Plan" would encourage students to bicycle or walk to and from school, thereby reducing the automobile traffic volumes at the site. However, the existing infrastructure may not be sufficiently safe for children to walk or bike to school. Ensuring that these routes have continuous bicycle paths and sidewalks between the school and adjacent residential neighborhoods and actuated pedestrian buttons and crossing guards would make traveling by foot or bicycle a more feasible mode of traveling to and from school. Finally if all these fail: • Utilize end of Allendale Avenue as pick-up point during the a ternoon dismissal only — In addition, allowing vehicles to use this space to queue may be attractive for those drivers who want to continue north on Fruitvale Avenue since all other exit points require vehicles to turn right onto Fruitvale Avenue. 5.2 Recommendations to the Circulation Plan The following elements of the proposed circulation plan are still under review. We have the following comments: 1. Closing access to Allendale Avenue from the northern lot would provide an additional outlet in the morning would allow vehicles to exit the lot more quickly, and therefore allow more vehicles into the lot to drop -off children. This would work best during the AM peak period. However, during the more critical afternoon period, the rate at which children can find and get in their respective vehicles is the limiting factor. It would be difficult for them to locate a parent on the far side of the lot intending to exit onto Allendale. Therefore it is not anticipated that providing an egress point onto Allendale would reduce any off -site queuing. It may provide an incentive for some parents to use the northern lot; however, given the existing utilization of the three lots, it does not appear to be attracting a majority of the vehicles. Therefore, it would not be used by most parents who are either dropping off or picking up students. It would primarily be a convenience for those who park in the lot who could then exit onto Allendale. To that extent it would reduce U -turns on Fruitvale Avenue_ It does not appear to cause any safety concerns onto Allendale. 2. Two -way flow on the Cottage Lot- Driveway_ The proposed site plan indicates a two -way flow on the driveway to the Cottage lot and the back teachers' lot. Given the relatively light traffic volumes anticipated at this driveway, a two -way configuration appears feasible. Alternatives to this circulation scheme are evaluated below. One -way outbound: Providing one -way outbound access to Fruitvale Avenue from the Cottage lot and a one -way access to Cottage lot from main lot is not recommended. Although this circulation pattern would allow teachers to turn left from Fruitvale Avenue into the site, it would require all teachers to circulate through the main lot to enter the Cottage lot and teacher parking spaces. Consequently, teacher traffic would add to the congestion in the main lot and cause unnecessary delay to teachers as well as drivers dropping off children in the morning. Teachers arriving at the school during the peak 15minute period would experience unnecessary delay; their access should remain separate from the congested drop -off lots, if possible. Teachers faced with the choice of congestion or being late would be tempted to use the Cottage Lot driveway as inbound regardless of how it is striped. 340690 REDWOOD MIDDLE SCHOOL TRANSPORTATION STUDY WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES Page 14 APR 02 '99 09 :32AM WSA SAN FRANCISCO 415 436 9337 P. 18/18 REDWOOD MIDDLE SCHOOL TRANSPORTATION STUDY Finally, the outbound movement is the one affected by the proximity to Montauk Drive, so retaining the outbound flow does not improve the situation caused by the proximity of the driveway to Montauk Drive. One -way inbound: If proximity of the driveway to Montauk Drive is a concern, this could be ameliorated by making the driveway into the Cottage lot one -way inbound. This would relocate outbound vehicles further from Montauk Drive, by providing a one -way access to the main lot from the Cottage lot. This configuration would allow teachers to enter the teacher parking spaces on the south side of the school without mixing with drop -off traffic and would further remove any potential conflict of traffic exiting the site with traffic turning right at Montauk Drive. Concerns with this configuration are that parents could enter the Cottage lot from Fruitvale Avenue and exit from the main lot, circumventing the two official drop -off lots. If this occurs, the prohibited use of the lot by parents would need to be enforced. This enforcement could be provided with volunteers or by closing the connection with a gate prior to dismissal. 3. Secondary queuing lanes are not recommended. Although these lanes would provide more space for vehicles to queue and wait for children in the afternoon, driver behavior suggests that the lanes closest to the school would not be effectively utilized because drivers would feel "trapped" by the vehicles queued in the lane nearest the circulation lane. 3d0690 REDWOOD MIDDLE SCHOOL TRANSPORTATION STUDY WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES Page 15 ts Walgren Pete uoncla city of Saratoga rrom: Art Hnoerson he Award Winning Cheyenne Bitware Arthur W. An4lerson Jr., M.D., ff+.A.P.A. Diplomate, American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology 20574 Komina Avenue Saratoga CA 95070 -6022 408 867 -5455 xcalibur@pacbell.net March 11, 1999 Pete Gonda and James Walgren Fax 8681280 Dear Pete and James: J! I MOW iv:Z) i:u[ rage i vi Some new developments and thoughts.... I met yesterday with Lt. Colla. (I had asked to meet with Capt. Wilson, but he was elsewhere. Colla will make his report to the Safety Commission tonight, but will have to leave early.) It took a few minutes to convince him I wasn't just some old NIMBY fart after which he expressed much interest. He finally said, "lets get in the car." We drove all around the Oak Street school, and I could point out the substandard size of Komina, and show him the four stack -up lanes, and the two staging areas (in front on Oak, and the tum- around.) We walked around the back area, and then stopped in to the Adm. Office where I had to pick up latest architects plans and an extra Initial Report. Mary Gardner was not in to meet him, but her secy was mightily impressed to see me bringing Lt. Colla in to meet Mary(!!!!) I belatedly realize that the Sheriffs Dept is, or can be a major player in this mess. He emphasized that their primary concern is traffic safety. We talked about their issuing many citations, and agreed that expediency and political considerations should enter into such delicate decisions. I called later to learn from a deputy that although here is no specific time period, that stopping in a traffic lane and "impeding the flow of traffic" is illegal, and that would certainly obtain in those four stacked -up areas where cars are stopped in the traffic lanes for a period of a few to several minutes. Then I went to Kinko's to get copies of the architects plans. (I got an extra for you if you need it.) I then swung by John Kolstad's,( Pete -- he is well -known to James, served both on the Planning commission and the Safety Commission) gave him a copy of the plans and his own copy of the Initial Report. He is going to call MaryG for authorization (protocol, you know) to call LSA Associates, and the architect, about questions in their respective reports. I was amazed at how quickly he could breeze through the initial report and cull out the significant traffic issues. Re meeting tonight, I will be there - two others can't make it. I want to stress that the SchBd does have the legal authority to defy the City Council, and the neighborhood. However, the city owns the streets and can do whatever they want with them. They can order everything from no stopping at the Oak Street staging area, to no parking on Oak and /or Komina without a residents permit, to no right turns from Komina to Oak, and probably others, that would compound the problems of the parents delivering their kids to the school. This might be useful in encouraging car- pooling, and /or bussing. pies vvaigren reLe uonua airy of owmvya rium. ran miueiavn the Award Winning Cheyenne Bitware 011 1100 Iv.o I.JV rayc c vi c If the Sheriffs Dept., either on its own initiative, or at the request of the Mayor of Saratoga, would install deputies in the intersections at Kon ma and Oak, and 3rd and Oak, requiring cars in the stacked area to move through expeditiously, this would alert the parents in a big hurry that there are major traffic problems. I presume the parents would then be circling around circuitous routes and back again, maybe several times, (like SJ airport) delaying themselves, confounding the school classes, or the pick -up schedules. Their consternation (to use a mild word for how they might be feeling) would be conveyed to the Sch.Bd. and the Adm., hopefully influencing their vote, and /or the final plans re traffic congestion. I would like that this information be conveyed today both to the Mayor, and to the Chair, Safety commission, Frank Lemmon; so that they could include their thoughts in the discussion with SchBd members attending the meeting tonight. (I can call them myself if you think I should.) I can introduce these matters for discussion, unless Frank (or James) would prefer to do it himself. The role and the position of Jim Jefferey is still a total unknown to me. Whatever he has to say tonight might be muy macho importante. Please give some thought to these considerations, and give me a call. Thanks. Effla i rettic & Civil Engineering Consulting Services 11V 408.377 -6240 IM3/2/99 m 10:04AM LD 1/3 MEMO TO: James Walgren, AICP,Community Planning Director DATE:2/27/99 FROM: City Traffic Engineer RE: Environmental Review, Redwood Middle School Expansion, Saratoga Elementary School I would first suggest that in the future (although the City did not have any control /content of the present study under review) that only professionally licensed individuals with traffic engineering experience perform traffic studies being submitted to the City of Saratoga. I feel that many of my comments in both this and my previous environmental review memo's would not have been necessary with such a person authoring the traffic study, and especially with a site as important as a school site. I have reviewed the document provided: Intent to Adopt a Negative Declaration noticing a public comment period ending 5. March 1999. 1 would suggest that the Circulation (Project Description, page 8, which I am assuming although not stated is their mitigation plan) and Transportation /Circulation, page 32+ are somewhat lacking in a complete review and direct analysis of the potential traffic impacts. While this traffic study discusses the normal issue of level of service at intersections, the largest issue of any school traffic I have ever reviewed has been one of site circulation and neighborhood parking and circulation issues. These were definitely not discussed, if not specially they were certainly lacking in any detail. I would also in general question why there should be one school site for nearly 1300 students? Is there a limit to school site enrollment viz -a -viz lot size in the Education Code? I am in the process of hopefully obtaining a copy of the Wilbur Smith Associates (WSA) school site circulation letter prepared only last year for the subject site. But rather than hold up this review I thought it best to proceed. Ms. DeRobertis, P.E., of WSA is in the process of getting permission from Mary Gardner, Superintendent, for me to obtain this as well as other local school district circulation reports from WSA. Since a letter does exist and it is not part of the environmental document as present, I will not take time to discuss the site in any detail, except from the standpoint of my comments to the present environmental document. I will be available of course to comment and respond to the WSA or my own site suggestions should the City direct my services in that direction. I feel very strongly that the WSA letter should be included and considered as part of the circulation solution at the site, as it was prepared by a licensed professional. Again, based on my previous review of the other district school site, there seems to be some discrepancies between what a licensed Traffic Engineering firm recommended and the environmental consultant. I am not informed at the present time that there was any professionally licensed individuals with traffic engineering experience performing the initial study. I have reviewed the site during the Afternoon Peak Hour which consisted of a Tuesday Traffic & Civil Engineering Consulting Services 408.377 -6240 U312/99 G 10:05 AM 22/3 Mr. Walgren Page 2 March 2, 1999 when the entire school was released. I noted vehicles waiting for upwards to 1/2 hour in a NO STOPPING zone immediately in front of the school. This on several occasions blocked exiting traffic from the middle lot. I also noted several occasions of vehicles blocking the #2 lane of traffic queuing for the left lot (Lot #1 - Cottage Area lot). These conditions could and did result in interrupted traffic flow. Exiting vehicles to this lot were located next to Montauk Drive as were parents using this public roadway as a pick -up area. This exit is to close to the intersection of Fruitvale and Montauk Drive. These conditions are such that prompt amelioration of the present situation should be affected. Also, noted at Allendale Avenue exit were on -site stacking traffic. While this does not effect off -site traffic directly this condition could result in on -site traffic backing up the entrance to this Lot #3 to its Fruitvale Avenue entrance. This exit is very (to?) close to the intersection of Fruitvale and Allendale. A NO U TURN sign has been installed opposite lot s #1 & 2 and the West Valley entrance. I am not sure of the time of installation or its impact to school site circulation, but I do believe it was installed after the preparer reviewed the site and therefore something that should be addressed in their further review. The following are additional comments to the Circulation (page 8) section of the document: 1. The site was reviewed for traffic volumes on a non -peak release time (4 PM - 6 PM) and off -peak day (Wednesday, not Tuesday). The traffic count performed by the preparer apparently did not include all the traffic as only the entrance volumes (no exit volumes) were indicated in a traffic count sheet that I obtained from the preparer (this document is not shown in the present study). 2. A vehicle queuing study should be undertaken on this site in order to determine what the present problems are and how they can modified so that the expected increase of over 50 percent traffic can be accommodated. What impact has or will school class size reduction have on this? This may result in the need for more teachers with the resultant traffic and parking impact on and off site circulation. 3. 1 could not find any discussion of school times, or schedules of classes. Additionally, staggered schedules were apparently not mentioned as well. I believe some refinement of this may assist in traffic flow /circulation improvements. 4. Should the Allendale exit be removed altogether. The plans apparently indicate the driveway is to be two -way. The City of Saragtoga should not allow this. Was an encroachment permit ever issued for this driveway? 5. How will bus service and a potential "Safe Route to School" plan effect traffic impact and perhaps on and off site circulation. Under Section VI Transportation /Circulation I would have the following suggestions: (a) Table C- Project Trip Generation (page 36) discusses peak generation but not of site traffic, that is when the actual highest volume of traffic of the school site will be impacting the local traffic circulation. With 1250 trip ends generated during the day, the preparer only estimated 400 during the AM Peak Hour. Therefore, it would seem Traffic & Civil Engineering Gonsulling Services W 408.377 -6240 M0 12/99 G 10:05 AM 313 Mr. Walgren Page 3 March 2, 1999 reasonable that many would occur during the Afternoon Peak Hour of the generator. An analysis of this along with AM Peak Hour traffic circulation should have been undertaken as part of the present study. Since these rates are for new schools why couldn't have a study of existing school trip rates been established from the proper count data and then expanded to reflect this school sites unique traffic generation characteristics. (b) Hazards to safety (page 37) 1 find that this issue is at significance in the existing, but is mitigatible both now and perhaps in the future with a stand along mitigation plan (CEQA monitoring plan) incorporating the circulation comments as noted on page 8 of the Initial Study. I further believe that only a registered professional should be discussing safety hazards. (d) parking that plans indicate the location and enforcement of distribution of teacher, employee, and visitor parking areas. Additionally, designated parking areas were not shown on plans. (e) Hazards or barriers (page 39) 1 noted crossing guards during the PM peak period. I have not been present on site during the AM peak. I was informed by Erman Dorsey that Code Enforcement of the City of Saratoga is involved with crossing guards, but I have not seen any specific policies as mention at the end of this section of the traffic study. I am not familiar at present with any "Suggested Route to School" policy of the City or how the recommendation as contained in the traffic study will be accomplished, other than working with the City to have one adopted. My recommendation would be to create a detailed stand alone plan and drawings of proposed mitigations which have been mentioned as mitigation. This document would also serve as a mitigation monitoring program. There apparently has been an ongoing traffic circulation problem at the school site, where it is important for the school district to work with the City of Saratoga and its own parents and students to effectuate a needed improvement to the existing conditions. I would be pleased to review your submittal letter prior to it being sent out if you would desire that of me. Very Truly Yours, James C. Jeffery III, P.E. INITIAL STUDY /CEQA ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM REDWOOD MIDDLE SCHOOL EXPANSION January 1999 Prepared for: Saratoga Union Scbool District 20460 Forrest Hills Drive Saratoga, CA 95070 Prepared by. LSA Associates, Inc. 157 Park Place Pt. Ricbmond, California 94801 LSA Project #SSD831 TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Contents Page I. INTRODUCTION ....... ............................... 1 II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION . ............................... 2 REGIONAL LOCATION ............................ 2 PROJECT SITE LOCATION AND EXISTING CHARACTER.... ............................... 2 PROJECT SPONSOR'S OBJECTIVES .................. 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION .......................... 6 CONFORMANCE WITH PLANS AND POLICIES ......... 13 III. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM ..................... 14 DETERMINATION .............................. 15 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ......... 16 IV. RESPONSES TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST ............ 22 I. LAND USE AND PLANNING ....................... 22 II. POPULATION AND HOUSING ..................... 23 III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS .......................... 24 IV. WATER ....... ............................... 27 V. AIR QUALITY ... ............................... 30 VI. TRANSPORTATION /CIRCULATION .................. 32 VII. TRANSIT FACILITIES ............................ 39 VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ........................ 41 VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES ................ 42 DK. HAZARDS ..... ............................... 43 X. NOISE ........ ............................... 45 XI. PUBLIC SERVICES .............................. 47 XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS ................. 48 XIII. AESTHETICS ... ............................... 49 XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES .......................... 50 XV. RECREATION ... ............................... 52 XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE .......... 52 V. PREPARERS OF THIS STUDY ............................ 54 ISA ASSOCIATES, INC . .......................... 54 VI. PERSONS AND AGENCIES CONTACTED DURING REPORT PREPARATION ....... ............................... 55 VII. REFERENCES ........ ............................... 56 APPENDIX A: TRAFFIC DATA 01 /26/99(P:\SSD831\IIQITSTDY.D0C) ii LIST OF FIGURES Table of Contents PAGE Figure 1 - Regional Location .............................. 3 Figure 2 - Project Site and Vicinity .......................... 4 Figure 3 - Ddsting Site - Redwood Middle School .............. 5 Figure 4 - Proposed Site Plan .............................. 7 01R6/'99(P:\5SD831\INr=Y.D0Q iii Introduction 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 determination that has been made for the project, the Redwood Middle School Expansion, located on Fruitvale Avenue near Allendale 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 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 Redwood Middle 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 middle school expansion project. 0126/99(P:\SSD831WdrISTDY.DOC) 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 south west 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. Major highways within the area include Interstate 280 (Junipero Serra Freeway), State Highway 17 (Santa Cruz), and U.S. Highway 101 (Bayshore Freeway). These roadways provide regional and statewide access to the City of Saratoga. Other locally important highways include State Route 85 and State Route 9, both of which run through the City and adjacent communities and connect with the freeway system. PROJECT SITE LOCATION AND EUSTING CHARACTER The proposed expansion project would occur at the existing Redwood Middle School site, located at 13925 Fruitvale Avenue in Saratoga. The school is located at the Fruitvale Avenue /Allendale Avenue intersection and across from West Valley College in the central portion of the City of Saratoga (Figure 2). The property is owned by the Saratoga Union School District and currently provides educational facilities for students in grades 6-8. There are a total of eleven permanent structures, including a library building, a multi-use building, an administrative /classroom building, and several classroom buildings (Figure 3). The site also contains a hardscape playground, a playfield, and several modular buildings currently housing various uses. In addition, a parking lot is located along Fruitvale Avenue in the eastern part of the school. The land use and zoning designation for the site is "Community Facility - Schools" (CFS). Land uses that comprise this subcategory include elementary schools, middle schools, high schools, and West Valley Community College. Surrounding land uses consist of: West Valley College to the east; Saratoga City Hall, a post office, a community center, and City corporation yard to the north; and residential uses to the south and west of the site. General Plan land use designations for these adjacent land uses include "Medium Density Residential" (RLD), "Quasi- Public Facilities" (QPF), "Public Facilities" (PF), and "Community Facility" (CFS). 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 proceeds to modernize and expand their four school sites to support the educational 01/26/99(P.- %5SD831\1NM- MY.D0C) 2 Mendocino Lake Colusa County County County .......... ............. .............. ....................... .......... ........................ 0 ......... Yolo . ........ County Sonoma County % Napa County Marin 680 Solano :ounty 78 —6 County , Contra Costa land r. county Alameda County in Mateo,` County • �roject .............. % Site Cta Clara Santa Cruz`; County \County 0 1-04-99(SSD83 I Region2) N LSD Scale in miles 0 20 Sutter Yuba County County Sacramento County San Joaquin County Nevada County XPI.,., Placer County ................ .......... El Dorado County Amador County Calaveras County I Tuolumne County PP Stanislaus I\ County San Benito County Merced County Fresno County Figure Regional Location 01- 04- 99(SSD831 RedwoodVicinity) Figure 2 N L SA Approximate scale in feet 1100 Redwood Middle School Expansion: Project Site and Vicinity .. l P9 Portt]mo� , F I I He I �"� r GARDENER LANE KEY: I- I i--. j I� I \ I I ,r I j I I j I I , I A Adminmtradon F ReWurt Me urPOee M� S tod Storage/Meeh/Cualan Ar M 0 Gym Se Science G Gfeteria tfe►d+c+Pe Me MKU Shift 8e Sottseape Me3 Media Storage Sh Shop C General lsoro0m IR h.b.ttaft PAbleeal N Nurse a Speech a Language Co Computer Roots K Nnderp~ P Parkkp Sp Speed Uns/ Servery Chi Chapter 1 Pa Parent Room SpO Special Day Cn Conference Room L. Pg Play Ground 81 Stage D ayeate Lo Staff LMW Ps Psyehologist/Cour"lor Su Support DC Double Classroom T Tollet Me/Ar/Monemerd Ls Locker Shwr. Rs Rtuource Specialisopec.Ppmt W Staff W0,1000. E ESL Wr QOM Room Source: HMC Group, 2/10/98 0 1 -04-99(SSD83 I RedwoodSite) N L Sh Approximate scale in feet 0 120 Figure Existing Redwood Middle School Site Project Description program, upgrade the facilities, and accommodate the anticipated growth over the next ten years. The expansion of the Redwood Middle 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 larger- 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 initially anticipated by the District's Long -Range Facilities Master Plan. There is an increase of 164 students at Redwood Middle School over the Master Plan projection. The main objective of the proposed project is to provide new classrooms and administrative facilities to accommodate the projected increase in student enrollment. The provision of new classrooms District-wide constitutes the highest priority of the District's Modernization Program. The project would also fulfill the projected need for additions to current facilities, improvements, modernization of existing buildings, and better access and expanded parking. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed project would consist of a two - phased expansion of the existing Redwood Middle School to accommodate projected increases in student enrollment from 825 to 1,282 students and an associated increase in the number of school staff from the present 66.7 "full -time equivalent" (FTE) positions to 78 FTE by year 2007/8. The facilities would include new buildings, additions and modernization to remaining buildings, and site improvements, including a larger play area and additional parking (Figure 4). During part of the construction and modernization, part of the students (possibly sixth graders for one year) may be relocated. Remaining students and staff could use other campus buildings while relocated students could be temporarily housed at the Strawberry Park Elementary School which is about five miles away. This school site is part of the Moreland School District in San Jose and has been used repeatedly in the past as a "swing site" for schools that need temporary relocation facilities School Buildings The proposed middle school expansion would increase total square footage on -site by 52,470 square feet ( sq.ft.). The increased square footage would include construction of the following: a two -story science classroom building (approximately 34,710 sq.ft.) located adjacent to the playfields in the northwest portion of the site; a one -story music and physical education addition to the existing multi-use building (6,630 sq.ft.); a library addition (6,630 sq.ft.); a new administration wing connecting two existing classroom 01/2"9(P:WD831\IIdnMDY.D0Q 6 1 `-.4 e \ '\ ALLENDA LE AVENUE U ■■ t= i MEN • : ❖:•:•:•::• '.•..�..:..•.: : s•.•.•. •.•.•.•..•..•....•.•.•.•.•.•.•. - • 4 of ■ ' i i I / 01i I� ij / ........ ......:... ... %�/ OEM • 01 -26-99(SSD83 I RedwoodSitePlan) N LSD Approximate scale in feet 0 135 Em W ............... . Figure 4 Redwood Middle School Expansion - S`° Plan Circulation Project Description wings (1,600 sq.ft.); and a one -story art and design addition to an existing classroom wing (6,000 sq. feet). The proposed science classroom building would comprise 16 classrooms, a computer room, science and language laboratories, maintenance /storage rooms, restrooms on each floor. The library addition would consist of a computer classroom and a computer research room, a conference room, a work room, restrooms, and storage and maintenance facilities. The proposed administrative addition would be situated between the building where administrative facilities are currently housed and the building immediately to the south, and would form a connection between the two buildings. In addition to the proposed structural improvements on -site, the existing parking area would be expanded. Parking lot improvements would include the creation of two drop -off loops circulating counterclockwise, allowing curbside dropoff in each loop. Drive aisles and curb cuts would accommodate the use of busses for student transportation as well. The new school buildings would be designed to reflect the character of the existing architecture. The height of proposed two -story science building would not exceed 39 feet, ten inches, a height consistent with existing buildings on -site. Heights of the proposed building extensions would not exceed those of existing structures. 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. In general, visual concerns would be minimized through compliance with existing design parameters. The architectural theme and scale of the proposed project would be consistent with that of the present middle school. Lighting would be installed around the perimeter of the buildings, along major walkways, and in the parking lot primarily as a safety measure. As an energy saving measure, many of the lighting fixtures installed in the interior of the campus would be triggered by motion sensors. Landscaping would include improvements within the drop -off area in front of the school, new planters placed around the perimeter of the plaza located adjacent to the proposed multi - purpose building, and minimal landscaping improvements around the perimeter of the new buildings. Any landscaping disturbed during construction would be replaced. Additionally, the live oak trees located in front of the school would be preserved. To accommodate the increase in vehicular traffic anticipated due to the projected increase in enrollment, the following measures would be incorporated into the proposed project: 01R6/99(P:\5SD831\1Nr SMY.DOC ) 8 Project Description 1) Redesign Upper Lot: The proposed project available space would be better utilized in this lot by incorporating two counter - clockwise loops for queuing and drop off. One loop would allow buses to circulate. 2) Move Cottage Area Driveway: The Cottage area driveway would be moved and parking would be expanded, primarily for employee, handicapped, and visitor parking. No student drop off would occur in this area. 3) Equalize Load Area Utilization: Each of the two loading areas would be assigned to a specific group of students to equalize utilization of lots (i.e., loading area #1 would be used for sixth grade students and carpools and loading area #2 would be utilized for seventh and eighth grade students. 4) Instructions for Parents: Supply parents with instructions and a map illustrating the drop -off and pick -up procedures. 5) Signage and Volunteers: Using signs and permanent stencils, clearly designate the loading areas and procedures; utilize volunteers to direct traffic. 6) Improve Bus Service. Private subscription to bus service is being studied as an options, because the District does not provide school bus service. 7) Tragic Management: The following traffic management techniques would be included: written drop -off pick -up procedures would be distributed to parents at the beginning of each semester; encourage parents to arrive earlier than five minutes before school encourage carpooling 8) Develop a "Suggested Route to Scbool Plan ": The District, in conjunction with the City, would prepare a school route plan and make it available to students and their parents. 9) Bus Service: ALTRANS will initiate a busing program within the District that includes the middle school. The program will begin with two buses that will serve up to three routes each. Infrastructure Utilities and Services Water would continue to the project site by the San Jose Water Company. Adequate water would be available to serve the middle school expansion. 01/16M(PASSD831\1NrrS rDY.DOC) 9 Project Description Sewer services would continue to be provided by West Valley Sanitation District and would be adequate for the proposed expansion. Underground utilities would be installed for on -site water and sewer connections for new school facilities. On -site drainage would be provided by a subdrain system positioned behind the walls of proposed structures. The subdrain outlet would be connected to a free - draining outlet or stump. Drainage panels would be connected to the perforated drain pipe at the base of the wall. 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 Building Code. Foundations and materials would conform with requirements for adequate soils and seismic safety for Seismic Zone 4. Flood prevention measures would not be necessary, as the project site is not located in a flood zone. The following measures would be incorporated into the site plan: • 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 (Lowrey Associates, August 19, 1998) and associated report prepared for the project. • Material for fill would be imported material or recycled on -site materials that conform to the specifications of the geotechnical investigation report prepared by Lowney Associates (August 19, 1998). • 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 properly prepared. 01R6/99(FA$SD831WdrISMY.DOC) 10 Project Description Erosion, Air Emissions and Noise Control Site preparation and facilities construction would require use of excavation equipment, 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. 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 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; 01/26/99(P:ISSD831\lNr STDY.DOC) 11 Project Description 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 CaIOSHA 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. In the event that asbestos or asbestos- containing materials are encountered during project construction, the District would conform with State and federal requirements for its identification, removal, and disposal. Protection of Potential Cultural Resources No known cultural resources are present on the existing school site. However, to ensure that there are no adverse effects on potential, unknown cultural resources during site preparation and construction, the following measures would be taken: 1) Work would be halted immediately if any such resources are uncovered; and 2) 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. 01/16M(P :�$SD831\1NTrS DY.DOC) 12 Prgect Description CONFORMANCE 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 Redwood Middle School would not alter existing land uses on -site and would conform with both General Plan and City zoning designations. Local Evacuation and Emergency Plans The District would continue to conform and coordinate with any local emergency and evacuation plans that are applicable to the City of Saratoga. California State Education Code and Related Requirements 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. Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Region According to the water quality control plans of this agency, any construction activities, including grading, that would result in the disturbance of five acres or more, would require a "General Construction Activity Stormwater Permit" consistent with Section 401 ("National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System" permit) of the federal Clean Water Act. The proposed project may result in five acres of disturbance. By obtaining the General Construction Activity Stormwater Permit, if it is applicable, the school district would comply with Regional Water Quality Control Board requirements. 01/26/99(P:1SSDS31\1NM- DY.DOQ 13 Environmental Cberklist Form III. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM 1. Project Title: Redwood Middle 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: Southeast comer of the intersection of Fruitvale Avenue and Allendale 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 01R6/99(PASSD831\1NM- rDY.D0C) 14 Emrironmentol Cbecklist Form ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: 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 Dctcrminadon (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 anal)= 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 because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier E1R pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier OR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Signature Date i ��. -�'�'c C l ?E'j� �. I;c C .Illy � �r•� %L� /s �. �. PRINTED E For 01R6M(P:\SSD831WirrSTDY.DOC) 15 ./ Environmental Cbecklist Form Evaluations of Environmental Impacts: 1. 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 .0 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. 01/16/99(P:�$SD831\1Nn7S DY.DOC) 16 I. Il. III ry Entdronmental Cbecklist Form EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact 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)? 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 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 t) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, X grading, or fill? g) Subsidence of the land? X h) Expansive soils? X i) Unique geologic or physical features? X 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 body7 X 01R6M(P.\SSD831WQrIMW-DOC) 17 I 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 O1/26/99(PASsD831VNI15TDY.DOC) 18 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? X fj Change in the quantity of groundwaters, either through direct additions or X withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations, or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? g) Altered direction or rate of Bow 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 X quality violation? b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? X c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in X climate? 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 X intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? 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 f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g., X bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? g) Rail, waterbome 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 O1/26/99(PASsD831VNI15TDY.DOC) 18 Environmental Cberdrlist Form . t Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Lcss 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 limited to plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds)? X 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: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? X 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 governmental services? X 01/26m(Pc\SSD831vNnsTDY.DOC) 19 Environmental Cbecklist Form XIV. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? X b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? X c) Create light or glare? X XV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleontological resources? X b) Disturb archaeological resources? X c) Affect historical resources? X d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique X ethnic cultural values? e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? X XVI. RECREATION. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other X recreational facilities? b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? X XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the X 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 prehistory9. b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short -term, to the X disadvantage of long -term, environmental goals? 01/26/99(P:NSSD831WdITSTDY.DOC) 20 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact XIII. 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? X b) Communications systems? X c) Local or regional crater treatment or distribution facilities? X d) Sewer or septic tanks? X e) Storm water drainage? X f) Solid waste disposal? X g) Local or regional water supplies? X XIV. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? X b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? X c) Create light or glare? X XV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleontological resources? X b) Disturb archaeological resources? X c) Affect historical resources? X d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique X ethnic cultural values? e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? X XVI. RECREATION. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other X recreational facilities? b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? X XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the X 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 prehistory9. b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short -term, to the X disadvantage of long -term, environmental goals? 01/26/99(P:NSSD831WdITSTDY.DOC) 20 c) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) d) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Erwironnseatal Cbecklist Form Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact X No Impact X 01/26/"(P:`SSD83I\IN1TS`MY.DOC) 21 Responses to the Eswironvwntal Cbeahlist IV. RESPONSES TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST The following explanations are presented in response to the items contained in Chapter III, CEQA Environmental Cbecktist 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 witb establisbed uses in the project area, disrupted or divided the establisbed land use configurations, or resulted in a substantial alteration to present or planned land uses. The consistency of the proposed project witb the City of Saratoga General Plan and zoning, and otber applicable environmental plans and policies is also evaluated in making a determination about potential land use impacts. a. Conflict witb General Plan Designation or Zoning? No Impact. The proposed project would be consistent with the use of the site 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. As 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 witb 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, and State regulations and guidelines. 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 proposed project, and would therefore remain compatible with 01/26/99(P.\SSD831\1NrrMDY.D0C) 22 Responses to the Environmental Cbecklist surrounding uses. Adjacent land uses consist of West Valley College to the east, a post office, and community center to the north, and residential uses to the south and west of the site. General Plan land use designations for these adjacent uses include Quasi- Public Facility (QPF), Public Facility (PF), Community Facility - Schools (CFS). Implementation of the proposed project would be consistent with the existing development pattern, generally compatible with surrounding uses, and consistent with existing planning within 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 site includes the existing school facility and is within an already urbanized area in which there are residential and public uses. e. Disrupt or divide the pbysical 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 SignijiEcance Criteria Impacts to population and bousing would be significant if the proposed project resulted in inconsistencies with official projections, induced substantial growth or concentration of a population, or displaced existing bousing. 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 6-8. b. Induce substantial growtb in an area directly or indirectly (e.g., througb projects in an undeveloped area of extension of major infrastructure)? 01/26/99(P:\5SD831UNM- MY.D0G) 23 Responses to the Environmental Cbecklist Less Tban Significant Impact. The project is not expected to be significantly growth - inducing. Rather, 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 about 11 additional full -time equivalent staff would represent a minor increase in area 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 bousing, especially affordable bousing? No Impact. The project would be developed on the existing middle school site. The project site does not include any existing housing. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not displace any housing, including affordable housing. W. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS Signifscance Criteria A significant impact would occur if the implementation of a project exposed people or structures to major geologic hazards such as eartbquake 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 major fault is the San Andreas Fault, which passes through the eastern flank of the Santa Cruz Mountains approximately 3.6 miles southwest of the Redwood Middle School site. More distant, active or potentially active faults in the site region include the Hayward fault, the southeast extension of which is located approximately 14 miles northeast of the site, and the Calaveras fault situated about 17 miles to the east. According to the geological investigation conducted for the proposed project, the site is not located within a currently designated Alquist - Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone (known formerly as a Special Studies Zone), and no known surface expression of active faults is believed to exist within the site (Lowney Associates, Geotecbnical Investigation - Redwood Middle School Improvements, August 19, 1998). Therefore, fault rupture on the site is not anticipated. b /c. Seismic groundsbaking; 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 01/26/99(PASSD831\1NnMDY.D0C) 24 Responses to the Environnuntal Cbeaklist can result in property damage, personal injuries, from falling objects, and loss of life. The seismic history of the region and studies of recurrence intervals of major faults, such as the San Andreas fault, indicate that the site will experience shaking from a significant earthquake during the 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 (i.e., fault - specific moment) of 7.9 on the San Andreas Fault and 6.8 for the Monte - Vista- Shannon Fault, both major faults. The San Andreas is approximately four miles from the project site while the Monte Vista- Shannon is 0.5 mile away (Lowrey Associates, Geotecbnical Investigation - Redwood Middle Scbool Improvements, August 19, 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 encountered on this site are dense and contain a significant amount of clayey fines. In addition, the old alluvial fan and Santa Clara Formation materials that underlay the site are well consolidated and become more dense with depth. 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. Seicbe, tsunami, or volcanic bazard? No Impact. The site is located about 12.5 miles from the San Francisco Bay shoreline at about 390 feet above sea level. The location and elevation are above and beyond the maximum projected runup by seismically generated tsunamis that may affect the San Francisco Bay. The site is also not located next to any major bodies of water that would be affected by seismically induced waves or flooding from seiches. There are no active volcanoes within the region. e. Landslides or mudJlows? 01/26/99(PASSD831\1Nn3 DY.DOQ 25 Responses to the Environmental Checklist No Impact. The site improvements would be located on a broad, gently sloping plain having no nearby watercourses, ravines, or excavations. Therefore, the potential for landsliding or mudflows is not significant. 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. Based on available topographic information, the site slopes down toward the north with a change in elevation from 397 to 387 feet within the developed school yard. Given the relatively level topography and vegetation on -site, long -term erosion is not anticipated to be a problem. Minimal erosion from wind and water runoff would occur during site preparation and implementation of the project. Once the construction period is completed, however, the potential for erosion would be minimized by landscaping incorporated into the project, Watering of the site during site preparation is proposed as part of the project to reduce particulate emissions and help minimize potential wind erosion. Potentially significant impacts related to erosion and changes in topography would be avoided with implementation of site preparation and construction- related measures incorporated into the proposed project. The site has been previously disrupted from the placement of existing buildings. Some additional compaction would occur with the addition of new buildings and the overpaying of the expanded parking area. Future settlement of fill encountered within the proposed building areas could result in damage to proposed buildings. Such impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level with implementation of mitigation measures incorporated into the proposed project. Because more than five acres may be disturbed, a "General Construction Activity Stormwater Permit" under Section 401 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System would be obtained, if necessary, from the local Regional Water Quality Control Board as part of the proposed project. Measures are also set forth in the permit to minimize erosion. g. Subsidence of the land? No Impact. No significant subsidence is expected to result from the project with the implementation .of recommended geotechnical recommendations. The major concern is the presence of up to eight feet of fill encountered within the proposed building areas during the geotechnical investigation. To reduce the potential for damage to the proposed buildings due to possible future settlement of these fills, all existing fill would be removed down to native soil within the proposed building areas and to a distance of five feet laterally beyond the perimeter of the buildings. As suitable, this material would be used as fill and/or other suitable material would be used. Soils would then be recompacted. In general, site preparation for 01/26/99(P:ISSD831\INTTSMY.DOC) 26 Responws to the Environmental Cbecklist 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. As part of the proposed project, any expansive soils would need to be removed or remediated as part of site preparation and replaced with suitable materials (Lowrey Associates, Geotecbnical Investigation - Redwood Middle Scbool Improvements, August 19, 1998). As required by the State Department of Education, more specific geotechnical investigation would be conducted after preparation of more detailed project design drawings. 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 or physical features. IV. WATER Sign Tcance Criteria Sign 1cant impacts to water resources would result from substantial flooding or erosion, adverse effects on any significant water body, such as a stream, lake or bay, exposure of people to reasonably foreseeable hydrological bazards such as flooding ( witbin the 100 year floodplain), or adverse affects to surface or groundwater quality or quantity. a. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runup 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 in 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. Detailed drainage measures, consistent with the recommendations of the geotechnical investigation report ( Lowney Associates, August 19, 1998), are incorporated into the proposed project. Implementation of these measures would result in a less than significant impact to absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff. 01R6/99(P:\SSD831WHrl'S MY.DOC) 27 Responses to the Environmental Cbecklist b. Exposure of people or property to water related baxards such as, flooding? No Impact. Wildcat Creek is incised in a deep channel along the extreme western edge of the school property and Saratoga creek is located approximately 1,500 feet to the northwest. The FEMA Flood Zone Maps indicate that the site is in Zone X, which is designated as an area between a 500 -year floodplain and 100 -year floodplain with an average depth of less than one foot or with a drainage area of less than one square mile. Therefore, since the project site is not within the 100 -year floodplain, flooding would not be a significant on -site water hazard. C. Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g., temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? Less Tban Significant Impact. Project runoff is expected to contain a small increase in typical urban pollutants such as oil and grease from parking areas and fertilizers and pesticides from landscaped areas. Post - project conditions are expected to be similar to existing conditions. Ongoing BMP measures and sound management of chemicals to lessen use during school operation, incorporated into the project, are expected to minimize potential impacts to the water quality of discharge into surface water to the extent practicable and would result in a less than significant impact. 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 middle school facilities. Development of the project would result in only a slight increase in impervious surface coverage on -site, and would not significantly alter the amount of surface water in any waterbody. Stormwater would be dispersed on -site and percolated into the grass field or directed toward existing 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 is expected to contain a small increase in typical urban pollutants such as oil and grease from parking areas and fertilizers and pesticides from landscaped areas. With the connection of on -site drainage to Wildcat Creek, surface water quality would be potentially impacted by runoff. The incorporation of BMP measures and sound management of chemicals as part of the proposed project would lessen use during school operation to the extent practicable. These measures are expected to minimize potential impacts to a level of insignificance. 01/16/99(P:�$SD831Wir1=Y.D0Q 28 Responses to the Environmental Checklist d. Cbanges 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 middle school facilities. Development of the project would result in only a slight increase in impervious surface coverage on -site, and would not significantly alter the amount of surface water in any water body. Stormwater would be dispersed on -site and percolated into the grass field or directed toward existing drainage facilities. e. Cbanges in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? No Impact. Construction of the middle school project would not result in changes-to the course or direction of water movements. Since the project site is already developed and no substantial topographic changes are proposed, modifications to surface flow resulting from the proposed project would not significantly change the current or course of direction of surface water movements. Precipitation on -site would either recharge to the groundwater by percolating into pervious surfaces, or be directed to existing drainage facilities. f /g. Cbanges in groundwater quantity or altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? Less Than Significant Impact. The project would not result in a significant reduction in groundwater or a significant alteration in the direction or rate of flow of groundwater. Amounts similar to present 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. b. Impacts to groundwater quality? Less Tban Significant Impact. A less than significant change in the quality of groundwater would result from the proposed project. Project runoff is 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. Runoff from operation of the proposed project would be directed toward existing drainage facilities. Some runoff would be directed toward the playfields and would percolate into the ground. 01/26M(P :\SSD831\ NrMDY.D0Q 29 Responses to the Environmental Checklist The geological investigation conducted for the proposed project encountered free groundwater in one boring at a depth of about 14 feet. Free groundwater was not encountered in the other borings at the time of drilling to a depth of 15 feet. Fluctuations in the level of groundwater may occur due to variations in rainfall and other factors not in evidence at the time of the investigation (Lowney Associates, Geotecbnical Investigation - Redwood Middle School Improvements, August 19, 1998). Although the level of contaminants entering groundwater beneath the site may increase incrementally, the ambient groundwater quality is not likely to be significantly affected. 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? No Impact. The project would not result in a significant reduction in the amount of groundwater available for public water supplies. San Jose Water Works supplies water to the school site. The present school does not use groundwater nor would operation of the expanded facilities. 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 or projected 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 tbresbolds 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. 01R6M(P:N5SD831\1NrISTDY.D0Q 30 Responses to the Environmental Checklist a. Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? Less 7ban Significant Impact. Given the scale of the project and its relatively short duration of construction, significance thresholds for ROG, 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 (BACTs) 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 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 52,470 square feet of expansion. 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 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? Less ?ban Significant Impact. The relatively small 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. 01R6M(PASSD831WNn*SMY.D0Q 31 Responses to the Envirommmal Cbeckliv d. Create objectionable odors? Less Tban Significant Impact. There may be some minor 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, would be generally limited to the school site, and would not be significant. Operation of school facilities would not be expected to create objectionable odors. VI. TRANSPORTATION /CIRCULATION Signif cane Criteria Transportation impacts would be significant if they result in a substantial increase in traffic compared 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 bazards, inadequate emergency access, or bazards to pedestrians or bicyclists), or conflict witb adopted policies regarding alternative transportation. The City of Saratoga bas the following significance criteria for traffic operations. Level of Service (LOS) D sbatl be maintained at intersections and along roadways in the City of Saratoga. a. Increased Vebicle 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 Fruitvale Avenue - This street is designated as an Arterial in the City of Saratoga's General Plan Circulation Element. In the project vicinity, Fruitvale Avenue is a four lane roadway with a raised median. Sidewalks are constructed along selected portions of the street. Allendale Avenue - This street is designated as an Arterial in the City's General Plan Circulation Element. West of Fruitvale Avenue, Allendale Avenue is a two-lane roadway with curb and gutter on both sites. This section of Allendale Avenue is not a through street and only provides access to the City Hall, Post Office, and Redwood Middle School. East of Fruitvale Avenue, Allendale Avenue is a four -lane roadway with left -turn lanes at key intersections and driveways.. 01/26M(PASSD831\1Nr1M DY.DOC) 32 Responses to the Environmental Chec 1W City of Saratoga staff has identified three intersections for analysis in this Initial Study due to their close proximity to the project site: Scotland Drive/Saratoga Avenue - signalized. Fruitvale Avenue/Saratoga Avenue - signalized. Fruitvale Avenue/Allendale Avenue - signalized. Existing a.m. and p.m. peak hour traffic counts for these intersections were taken from information provided by the City of Saratoga and supplemented by counts collected in the third week of November, 1998. The counts provided by the City for Fruitvale Avenue/Saratoga Avenue and Fruitvale Avenue /Allendale Avenue were collected in Fall, 1995. Upon consultation with City staff, it was determined that these counts would be applicable if increased to reflect ambient growth over the last three years (from 1995 to 1998). According to City staff, area traffic has been increasing at a rate of about 1.5 percent per year. Therefore, the 1995 volumes for Fruitvale Avenue/Saratoga Avenue and Fruitvale Avenue/Allendale Avenue were increased by 4.6 percent to develop 1998 volumes. The existing (1998) peak hour volumes for these three analysis intersections are summarized in Appendix A (Table A -1 -1 of Appendix A -1). 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" 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. For signalized study area intersections, the Comprehensive Analysis Program for a Single Signalized Intersection (CAPSSI) computer software, Version 11, has been utilized to determine intersection levels of service. Table A, below 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 of Appendix A. Table A - Existing (1998) Levels of Service Intersection Peak Hour A.M. P.M. 1. Scotland Drive/Saratoga Avenue LOS B LOS B 2. Fruitvale Avenue/Saratoga Avenue LOS B LOS B 3. Fruitvale Avenue /Allendale Avenue LOS D LOS C 01/2"(P.N$SD831WQnM DY.DOG) 33 Responses to the Environmental Cbeddist As this table indicates, all three analysis intersections are currently operating at satisfactory levels of service (LOS D or better) during both the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. Year 2008 Witbout Project Traffic Conditions The planned expansion of the Redwood Middle School is not expected to reach full capacity until the year 2008. Therefore, to examine the impacts of the project, traffic conditions with the proposed expansion have been examined relative to the 2008 without project condition. As noted above, 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. Therefore, the existing traffic volumes were factored by 1.16 to develop year 2008 without project volumes. Since increasing traffic volumes in the vicinity of the school by 16 percent results in a comparable increase in trips associated with the school, additional adjustments were made to those turning movements impacted by school - generated traffic (based on the subsequent trip distribution assumptions). These adjustments to eliminate trips associated with a 16 percent increase in school trips are necessary so as to more reasonably represent traffic conditions without implementation of the proposed school expansion, as well as to avoid double- counting of traffic associated with the proposed school expansion. The resulting 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 of Appendix A. 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 of Appendix A contains the level of service calculation sheets. Table B - Year 2008 Without Project Levels of Service Intersection Peak Hour A.M. P.M. 1. Scotland Drive/Saratoga Avenue LOS B LOS B 2. Fruitvale Avenue/Saratoga Avenue LOS B LOS B 3. Fruitvale Avenue/Allendale Avenue LOS D LOS C As this table indicates, all three analysis intersections are expected to operate at satisfactory levels of service (LOS D or better) during both the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. 01/16/99(PASSD831WdrrY=.D0Q 34 Responses to the Entironnuntal Cbedrlist 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, especially elementary and middle.schools, typically have low trip generation 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 Redwood Middle School would increase from 825 students to 1,282 students. This represents an increase of 457 students, or a 55 percent increase in student population. Trip generation for the increased student population was developed using middle school/junior high 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 school trip rates assume some students being bussed to school (although the actual percentage is not identified). At present, there is no bussing activity at Redwood Middle 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. Based on observations of the a.m. peak hour inbound trip activity at the school, it was determined that the actual trip generation was approximately 90 percent higher than indicated by the ITE rates. Therefore, for application to the proposed school expansion, the ITE rates were factored by 1.9. 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. 01/16M(PASSD831\1Nrr5roY.DOC) 35 Responses to the Environmental Checklist 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: 457 students Trips/Studentl 0.26 0.20 0.46 0.08 0.08 0.16 1.45 Adj. Trips/Stu 2 0.49 0.38 0.87 0.15 0.15 0.30 2.73 Trip Generation 224 174 398 69 69 138. 1,248 1 Trip rates from Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation (Sixth Edition, 1997). Rates includes an unspecified percentage of students being transported by bus. 2 Rate adjusted to reflect no bussing activity. ITE rates were factored by 1.9 to account for increased trips via private automobile. The proposed school expansion is forecast to generate approximately 1,250 additional daily trips, of which approximately 400 trips occur in the a.m. peak hour and 140 occur in the p.m. peak hour. It should be noted that the proposed school would generate approximately 250 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 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 Redwood Middle 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: North/West of School (access via Saratoga Avenue) 75% East of School (access from east via Allendale Avenue) 5% South of School (access from south via Fruitvale Avenue) 25% Table A -1 -2- in Appendix A -1 of Appendix A summarizes the peak hour project trip distribution and assignment patterns. Trips generated by the proposed expansion of Redwood Middle 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 01a6/99(P:\ssne31\wflsZVY.DOC) 36 Responses to the Environmental Checklist presented above. Table A-1-1 of Appendix A -1, contained in Appendix A, 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 of Appendix A contains the level of service calculation sheets. Table D - Year 2008 With Project Levels of Service Peak Hour Intersection A.M. P.M. 1. Scotland Drive/Saratoga Avenue LOS B LOS B 2. Fruitvale Avenue/Saratoga Avenue LOS B LOS B 3• Fruitvale Avenue/Allendale Avenue LOS D LOS C As this table indicates, all three analysis intersections are expected to operate at satisfactory levels of service (LOS D or better) during both the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. As indicated by this level of service analysis, addition of traffic generated by the proposed expansion of the Redwood Middle School would not result in any significant impact (i.e., degradation of operations to unacceptable levels of service) to 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. sbarp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? Less than Significant Impact. All traffic movements at the existing school occur on Fruitvale Avenue and Allendale 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 not significant, and would continue to be, minimized by isolating pedestrian movements on site, through use of the following measures as part of the project: Modification of the upper and lower lots to include more on -site loading capacity. The increased drop -off capacity has been included in the design for the proposed expansion. 01/26M(PASSD831\1NnMDY.DOC) 37 Responses to the Environmental Chea6list • Use of a counter - clockwise on -site circulation pattern. This circulation pattern would be implemented as part of the parking lot/loading area modifications. • Provide more equalized utilization of loading areas. Under the proposed modifications of the upper and lower lots, the upper lot loading area would be used for sixth graders and carpools, and the lower lot loading area would be used for seventh and eighth graders. • Use signs to designate loading areas and procedures, as well as have staffing available to direct traffic at the loading areas. • Use of traffic management techniques to control traffic flows and reduce traffic demand, including: Provide written drop - off/pick -up procedures and maps to parents at the beginning of each semester. Encourage parents to arrive earlier than five minutes before school. Encourage carpooling Access to the school is provided via three driveways on Fruitvale Avenue and one driveway on Allendale Avenue. The two northerly driveways on Fruitvale Avenue provide ingress and egress for the upper and lower lots, respectively, which have the planned loading areas. The southerly driveway provides ingress /egress for the visitor parking and employee parking areas. The driveway on Allendale Avenue provides egress only from the upper lot. 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 Fruitvale Avenue and Allendale Avenue. d. Insufficient parking capacity on -site or off-site? Less than Significant Impact. As part of the proposed expansion, the on -site parking would be increased to 111 spaces from the existing 65 spaces. During regular school sessions, the peak parking demand mould be approximately 78 vehicles (i.e., the projected number of full -time equivalent staff members). Therefore, the build -out supply would be more than adequate to accommodate the projected staff, as well as visitors parking on site. Parking demand may exceed on -site capacity during special school events, such as graduations, plays, and fairs. However, these events are infrequent. Parking demand for these events could be accommodated in nearby public lots for City Hall and West Valley College. 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. 01R6/99(P:,SSD831\1NM- DY.DOC) 38 Responses to the Environmental Cbedrlist 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 District and the City of Saratoga develop a "Suggested Route to School" plan for the school (if it does not already have one). This plan would be developed in conjunction with the Saratoga Unified School District and made available to the students and the parents of students. School Crossing Guards - School crossing guards would be provided, as appropriate, at those locations identified in the "Suggested Route to School" plan as warranting adult supervision, per City policies. f. Conflicts udtb adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? No Impact. The proposed project would continue to 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. S. Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? No Impact. The site is not located along or over rail, waterborne or air traffic corridors. VII. TRANSIT FACILITIES Sign icance 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? 01 /26M(PASSD831\)NrfMY.DOC) 39 Responses to the Envfronmerstal Cbeci ust No Impact. local public bus service in the Saratoga area is provided by the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority. This service provides transit service to the Village area and the West Valley College area. The proposed project would not generate a significant amount of public transit ridership, due to the age of the children attending the school and the unavailability of routes through most areas of the City. b. Need for new bus routes or alternatives to existing system? No Impact. The additional 457 students that would be accommodated in the proposed expansion would reside throughout the City and within the District. In addition, the City's Circulation Element states that "Saratoga alone cannot economically support a public transit system." Based on these two circumstances, 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 Redwood Middle 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 Redwood Middle School students would off -set approximately half of the increases in trips attributable to the proposed school expansion. For the bussing program to be 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. 01/209(PASSD831\1N nSTDY.DOQ 40 Responses to the Environmental Checklist d. Need for new bus routes or alterations to existing system? 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. VIII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Signticance Criteria Biological impacts would be significant if tbeproposed project substantially affected a rare or endangered species of animal or plant or the habitat of the species, interfered substantially witb the movement of any resident or migratory fisb or wildlife species, or substantially diminished babitat for fisb, wild! fe or plants. The following general guidelines identify the general parameters of " Significant Impact "for Biological Resources wbicb are under the jurisdiction of several resource agencies, the State Department of Fisb and Game, the U.S. Fisb and Wildlife Service, and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Wbetber these tbresbold criteria are broacbed by a particular project must be determined on a case -by -case evaluation. • Endangered, Tbreatened, or Rare Species -A significant impact would occur if a project directly or indirectly "reduces species population," "reduces species babitat," 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; tberefore a qualified biologist must make a determination of significance. • 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, tbreatened, 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 school 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 eadst on the property. The project would not result in a significant change in the diversity of species or number of any 01a6M(PASSD831\1NrM DY.D0Q 41 Responses to the Environmental Checklist species of animals (bird, land animals including reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic organisms, or insects). b. Locally designated species? No Impact. There would be no significant impact on locally designated floral or faunal species. Any vegetation removed or disturbed during construction of the proposed project would be replaced once the project is completed. 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 be no significant adverse impact upon natural biological communities. d. Wetland Impact? No Impact. The project site does not have any on -site wetland habitat. e. Wildlife dispersal or mitigation corridors? No Impact. The proposed site and the surrounding area have already been highly 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. EL ENERGYAIVD 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 project design and the utility systems. b. Use non- renewable resources in a wasteful and inericient manner? 01l2"9(P.\SSD831WVTT'STDY.D0Q 42 Responses to the EnWronnnewal Cbecklist 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 and the increase would not be a significant impact. 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. a 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. X HAZARDS Significance Criteria Appendix G of CEQA states that a significant impact would occur if the proposed project created a potential bealtb bazard or involved the use, production, or disposal of materials that posed a hazard to people or animal or plant populations in the project area; or interfered witb emergency response plans or emergency evacuation plans. A bazardous material is defined as a substance or combination of substances, tbat, because of quantity or concentration, orpbysical, chemica4 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 bazard to buman health or the environment wben improperly used, handled, treated, stored, transported, disposed or otberwise managed. Whetber the bazardous materials /waste impacts of a project are "significant" are determined on a case -by -case basis and depends upon: 1) individual or a cumulative pbysical baaard of material or materials; 2) amounts of materials on -site, either in use or storage; 3) proximity of bazardous materials to populated areas and compatibility of materials with neighboring facilities; 4) federal, State, local laws and ordinances, governing storage and use of bazardous materials; or 5) potential for spill or release. a. Risk of accidental explosion or release of bazardous substances? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed school expansion would not involve a significant risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous 01/26/"(P:\SSD831\]NnM'DY.DOC) 43 Responses to the Environmental Cbeafelist 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 additional storage and application of pesticides, fertilizers, paints or other potentially hazardous substances used for maintenance of school and related facilities. However, BMP measures during construction and management of chemicals used during school operation, have been proposed as part of 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 WE concerning water quality. The proposed project would 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 emergency evacuation plan. Part of the student population (i.e., possibly sixth graders for a period of one year) may be relocated during construction of the project. 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. a The creation of any bealtb bazard or potential bealtb 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 also has in -place safety programs 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 Dt a., above. d. Exposure of people to existing sources of potential bealtb bazards? No 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 and community/public facilities. e. Increased fire bazards in areas witb flammable brush, grass, or trees? 01R6/99(P:�$SD831 WVrrSTDY.DOC) 44 Responses to the Environmental Cbeuklist 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 site is not located within an area of extreme fire hazard, as defined in the City's General Plan. M. NOISE Sign fcance Criteria The Saratoga General plan establisbes tbresbold criteria, above wbicb significant noise impacts could result. Schools are identified as noise sensitive locations, along witb hospitals, nursing homes, cburcbes, libraries, assembly balls, and other recreational and residential uses. Public schools located near major transportation noise sources 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 for public /park uses. 60 dBA (Daytime Outdoor); 50 dBA (Indoor - Daytime and Outdoor - Evening); and 40 dBA (Indoor - Evening). Tbese standards are based upon preventing noise interference with human activities and are well below levels wbicb could damage bearing. Additionally, the General Plan stipulates that no individual piece of construction equipment sball produce a noise level exceeding 83 dBA at a distance of twenty -five feet from the source tbereof, and the noise level at any point outside of the property plan of the project sball not exceed 86 dBA. a. Increase in existing noise levels? Less Tban 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 operational noise from the school and potential effects upon 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, intermittent, and generally set back from existing roadways and residences on surrounding streets. Construction equipment would typically be located within the interior of the existing school site. 01/26/99(PASSD831\1N s MY.DOC) 45 Responses to the Eswironrnental Checklist 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, as added vehicular traffic would not be substantial. 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. Given surrounding land uses, it is expected that the school facilities would meet noise level goals for public facilities defined by the General Plan and described, above under thresholds of significance. However, some disturbance of people in the vicinity of the school may be inevitable during construction. Such activity would require the use of heavy machinery. Trucks 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. Noise levels associated with project construction would likely exceed City standards for the 25 -foot diameter criterion. However, 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 off -site. 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 (over 200 feet) from adjacent land uses would be maximized to the extent practicable. Structures closest to 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 the operation of the middle school facilities would meet noise level standards for public facilities defined by the Saratoga General Plan and described above under the significance criteria. 01/26/99(P:1S.SD831Wirr5TM.D0C) 46 Responses to the Entdron-up tal Cbeaklist MI. PUBLIC SERVICES Sign ticance Criteria Impacts to public services would be signYticant tf 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 Tban Significant Impact. Fire protection services for the site are provided by, and would continue to be provided by the Saratoga Fire District. The closest District station is located approximately 1.5 miles 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 proposed facilities 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. b. Police Protection? Less Tban Significant Impact. Police services to the project site would continue to be provided by the Santa Clara County Sheriffs Department. The closest Sheriffs station to the project site is the Saratoga Station, located at Saratoga Avenue and Big Basin Way (Highway 9), approximately 1.5 miles 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. C. Schools? No Impact. The implementation of the proposed project would have a beneficial impact on the Saratoga Unified School District. Additional educational facilities would be provided to accommodate an increase in enrollment from 825 to 1,282 students (projected 2007/8 enrollment). The expansion of the middle school would accommodate the projected increase in the number of students within the District. d. Maintenance of publicfacilities, 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 significant effect on any governmental services not already listed and discussed above. Ot/ "9(PA$SD831\1Nn -s DY.DOQ 47 Responses to the Entdromnental Checklist MIL UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Significant Criteria Impacts to utilities and service systems would be significant if the proposed project results in a need to develop new systems or causes a substantial 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. 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 Tban Signif: :cant 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 proposed project would generate approximately 27,200 gallons (1,282 students and 78 equivalent full -time staff) per day by the year 2006/7. Of this amount, about 17,840 gallons is already consumed by the existing students and staff. The remaining consumption is relatively minor and would not be considered significant. 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 about 20,400 gallons per day (1,282 students and 78 equivalent full -time staff)) by the year 2006/7. Approximately 7,020 gallons per day would be attributable to new students and staff. The wastewater from the project would represent 01/16M(P.X$SD831\1NnS- MY.D0Q 48 Responses to the Environmental Cbeclelist a relatively insignificant amount and would not result in a significant impact or a need to increase the capacity of the existing treatment facilities. e. Storm Water Drainage? Less Than Significant Impact. Current runoff from the site goes to storm drains or percolates to the existing fields. A drainage system would be installed so that excess runoff would be drained to the existing facility in Wildcat Creek. This 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 school 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 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. S. Local or regional water supplies? Less Tban Significant. As discussed in item Xll.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. .W. 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 or a designated scenic bigbway, resulted in the creation of an aestbetically offensive site open to the public, or bad a substantial, demonstrable negative aestbetic effect. A project would also result in an impact if it generates ligbt that would directly illuminate or reflect upon adjacent property or could be directly seen by motorists or persons residing, working or otberwise located within sigbt of the project. The level of significance is determined by the intensity of the ligbting. 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. O1/26J99(P:1SSD831\Uff=Y.DOG) 49 Responses to the Environmental Cbecklist b. Demonstrable negative effect? Less Than Significant Impact. Development of the project would not result in a significant, demonstrable negative effect. The site is presently the location of the existing Redwood Middle School. Much of the proposed project would consist of modernization and improvements to present facilities. No substantial changes to the topography on -site would occur as a result of the proposed project and new buildings would conform with existing architectural styles and design standards on -site. New building heights and setbacks from adjacent roadways would be consistent with the current structures of the middle school. Existing landscaped areas along the perimeter of the site and present structures would screen out potential visual impacts during the relatively short -term construction period. Whenever possible, damage to -present landscaping during construction would be avoided. Landscaping disturbed during project construction would be replanted or replaced. 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. c. Ligbt /Glare? Less Tban Significant Impact. Development of the proposed project would result in relatively minor new sources of light and glare. They would include lighting for safety and security, 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 Gardner Lane from the southern edge of the project site. 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. The southern perimeter of the site is currently screened by trees, which would shield lighting to prevent off -site glare. Some additional light and glare from equipment would also be evident during project construction. However, because of the relatively short duration of construction, this impact would be temporary and not significant. XV. CULTURAL RESOURCES Significance Criteria Impacts to cultural resources would be significant if the proposed project disrupted or adversely affected a paleontological, prebistoric, or bistoric arcbaeological site or a property of historic or cultural significance to a community, etbnic, or social group. 01/26/99(P:\SSD831W1rISMY.DOC) 50 Responses to the Enrdronmental Checklist 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 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 bistorical resources? No Impact. No historic structures are known to exist on the middle school project site. Therefore, the proposed project would not affect historic d. Have the potential to cause a pbysical change wbicb would affect unique etbnic 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 a middle school. The property is not used for any religious or sacred purposes. 01/26/99(P:�$SD831\1Nr1MMY.DOC) 51 Responses to the Environmental Checklist XVI. 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 development of new recreational facilities. a. Increase the demand for neigbborbood or regional parks or otber recreational facilities? No Impact. The project would not cause an increased demand for parks or recreational facilities. On -site outdoor facilities presently provide recreational opportunities for both students and residents in the surrounding area which is highly urbanized. b. erect existing recreational opportunities? Less Than Significant Impact. In addition to student use, outdoor recreational facilities on -site are currently utilized by residents in the surrounding area after normal school hours. During implementation of the proposed project, these facilities would be lost due to construction activities. The baseball field would not be available for use along with some current basketball courts. However, because the construction would be of relatively short-term duration, the temporary loss of the recreational opportunities would not be considered significant. XVII. 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 Redwood Middle 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 Saratoga's General Plan and zoning designations. 01/26M(P:\SSD831Wir1'STDY.D0C) 52 . Responses to the Environmental Cbedelist b. Sbort- term /Long -term Goals? No Impact. Expansion of the middle 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 middle 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. a 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. Additional school - related traffic would not have a significant cumulative effect. The school has been sized to accommodate projected student growth. The proposed project is consistent with the City's land use and zoning designations 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. 0l/26M(pASSD831\1NrMDY.DOC) 53 Preparers V. PREPARERS OF THIS STUDY LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. Larry Kennings, Principal-in- Charge Benson Lee, Project Manager Greta Kirschenbaum, Environmental Planner Kevin Fincher, Traffic Analysis 01/26M(1PASSD831\)NM- rDY.D(X) 54 Contacts VI. PERSONS AND AGENCIES CONTACTED Stephan Blaylock, President, ALIRANS. Eugene W. Ely, AIX Project Architect, HMC. Erman Dorsey, Assistant Engineer, City of Saratoga Public Works Department. Chris Gombatz, Project Coordinator, HMC . Susan Lechner, AM Project Architect, HMC Christina Ratcliffe, Assistant Planner, City of Saratoga Planning Department. James C. Walgren, AICP, Community Development Director, City of Saratoga. Green Valley Disposal Company. Santa Clara County Sheriffs Department. San Jose Water Company. City of Saratoga Fire District. West Valley Sanitation District. o1/R6/99(P:\SSD831\1NM- DY.D0Q 55 References VII. REFERENCES Bay Area Air Quality Management District. BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines. California, State of Education Code Section 39000 et seq. Lowney Associates, August 19, 1998. Geotecbnicallnvestigation for Redwood Middle Scbool Improvements. Saratoga, California. Saratoga, City of, 1983• City of Saratoga Revised General Plan and Final Environmental Impact Report. 01/26/"(PASSD831\INnMMY.DOC) 56 Appendix A APPENDIX A. TRAFFIC DATA 01/26/99(P:\$SD831\lNrl IVY.DCC) 57 LSA Associates, Inc. APPENDIX A-1 TRAFFIC VOLUME SUMMARIES 11/25/98(V5SD831 \TRAFFIC.APJ) IS1 Associates, Inc. Table C -1 - Peak Hour Volume Summary 1 Scotland Drive/Saratoga Avenue 11/25/98 ( R:\SSi)831\Model- ms.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 3 1 0 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 1 0 NBT 1 7 1 8 1 0 0 8 1 NBR SBL 172 84 200 97 0 0 200 97 SBT 1 169 1 78 1 196 1 90 0 0 0 0 1 196 1 90 SBR EBL 128 63 148 73 0 0 148 73 EBT 1,432 913 1,649 1,054 44 17 1,692 1,071 EBR 3 0 3 6 0 2 0 0 0 0 3 6 0 2 WBL WBT 5 1,199 2 1,322 1,375 1,529 56 17 1,431 1,546 WBR 30 103 35 119 0 0 35 119 North Leg Approach 342 163 397 189 0 0 397 189 Departure 159 166 184 193 0 0 0 0 184 581 193 382 Total 501 329 581 382 South Leg Approach 11 2 13 2 0 0 13 2 Departure 9 3 10 23 3 6 0 0 0 0 10 23 3 6 Total 20 5 East Leg Approach 1,234 1,427 1,415 1,650 56 17 1,471 1,668 Departure 1,611 998 1,856 1,153 44 17 1,900 1,170 Total 2,845 2,425 3,271 2,803 100 35 3,371 2,838 West Leg Approach 1,563 976 1,801 1,127 44 17 1,844 1,144 Departure 1,371 1,401 2,377 1,574 3,375 1,620 2,747 56 100 17 35 1,630 3,474 1,637 2,782 Total 2,934 Total Approaches Approach 3,150 2,568 3,625 2,969 100 35 3,725 3,003 Departure 3,150 2,568 3,625 2,969 100 35 3,725 3,003 Total 6,300 5,136 7,251 5,938 199 69 7,450 6,007 11/25/98 ( R:\SSi)831\Model- ms.xls \Vo1Sum) LSA Associates, Inc. Table C -1 - Peak Hour Volume Summary 2 Fruitvale Avenue/Saratoga Avenue 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 252 169 267 187 87 35 354 221 NBT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NBR 579 400 660 459 44 17 703 476 SBL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SBT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SBR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 EBL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 EBT 844 395 979 459 0 0 979 459 EBR 211 187 213 207 112 35 325 242 WBL 855 593 975 683 56 17 1,031 700 WBT 552 599 641 695 0 0 641 695 WBR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 North 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 South Leg Approach 832 569 927 645 131 52 1,058 697 Departure 1,066 780 1,188 890 168 52 1,356 942 Total 1,897 1,349 2,115 1,536 299 104 2,413 1,639 East Leg Approach 1,407 1,192 1,616 1,378 56 17 1,672 1,396 Departure 1,424 795 1,639 917 44 17 1,682 934 Total 2,830 1,987 3,255 2,295 100 35 3,354 2,330 West Leg Approach 1,055 583 1,192 666 112 35 1,304 700 Departure 804 769 908 882 87 35 995 916 Total 1,860 1,351 2,100 1,548 199 69 2,299 1,617 Total Approaches Approach 3,294 2,344 3,735 2,689 299 104 4,033 2,793 Departure 3,294 2,344 3,735 2,689 299 104 4,033 2,793 Total 6,588 4,688 7,469 5,379 597 207 8,066 5,586 11/25/98 (R:\SSD831\Model•msxb \VolSum) LSA Associates, Inc. Table C -1 - Peak Hour Volume Summary 3 Fruitvale Avenue /Allendale Avenue 11/25/98 (R:�,SSD831\Model- mssl3\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 21 21 24 24 0 0 24 24 NBT 448 257 500 291 66 26 566 317 NBR 81 65 92 75 3 1 96 76 SBL 383 227 444 263 0 0 444 263 SBT 600 410 648 461 168 52 816 513 SBR 61 227 70 263 0 0 70 263 EBL 81 128 81 141 64 26 145 166 EBT 15 45 15 52 5 2 21 54 EBR 13 32 13 36 17 7 30 43 WBL 68 50 76 57 11 3 87 61 WBT 25 41 29 47 0 0 29 47 WBR 297 153 345 177 0 0 345 177 North Leg Approach 1,044 864 1,162 987 168 52 1,330 1,039 Departure 825 538 925 609 131 52 1,056 661 Total 1,869 1,402 2,088 1,596 299 104 2,386 1,700 South Leg Approach 549 343 617 390 70 28 687 418 Departure 681 493 736 554 197 62 933 616 Total 1,230 836 1,353 944 266 90 1,619 1,033 East Leg Approach 390 244 449 282 11 3 461 285 Departure 478 337 552 390 671 9 20 3 7 561 1,021 393 678 Total 868 581 1,001 West Leg Approach 108 205 109 228 87 35 196 262 Departure 107 289 124 335 0 0 124 335 Total 214 494 232 563 87 35 319 597 Total Approaches Approach 2,091 1,656 2,337 1,887 336 117 2,673 2,004 Departure 2,091 1,656 2,337 1,887 336 117 2,673 2,004 Total 4,182 3,312 4,675 3,774 672 235 5,346 4,009 11/25/98 (R:�,SSD831\Model- mssl3\Vo1Sum) LSA Associates, Inc. Table C -2 - Year 2008 Peak Hour Project Trip Assignment A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour In Out In Out Additional Trips 224 174 69 69 1 Scotland Drive/Saratoga Avenue 0% Project Trip Project Trip Distribution Assignment In Out A.M. P.M. NBL 0% 0% 0 0 NBT 0% 0% 0 0 NBR 0% 0% 0 0 SBL 0% 0% 0 0 SBT 0% 0% 0 0 SBR 0% 0% 0 0 EBL 0% 0% 0 0 EBT 0% 25% 44 17 EBR 0% 0% 0 0 WBL 0% 0% 0 0 WBT 25% 0% 56 17 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 0% 0% 0 0 Departure 0% 0% 0 0 Total 0% 0% 0 0 East Leg Approach 25% 0% 56 17 Departure 0% 25% 44 17 Total 25% 25% 100 35 West Leg Approach 0% 25% 44 17 Departure 25% 0% 56 17 Total 25% 25% 100 35 Total Approaches Approach 25% 25% 100 35 Departure 25% 25% 100 35 Total 50% 50% 199 69 11/25/98 (R:\SSD831\ModelansxlsW3ign) LSA Associates, Inc. Table C -2 - Year 2008 Peak Hour Project Trip Assignment A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour In Out In Out Additional Trips 224 174 69 69 2 Fruitvale Avenue/Saratoga Avenue Project Trip Project Trip Distribution Assignment In Out A.M. P.M. NBL 0% 50%. 87 35 NBT 0% 0% 0 0 NBR 0% 25% 44 17 SBL 0% 0% 0 0 SBT 0% 0% 0 0 SBR 0% 0% 0 0 EBL 0% 0% 0 0 EBT 0% 0% 0 0 EBR 50% 0% 112 35 WBL 25% 0% 56 17 WBT 0% 0% 0 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 0% 75% 131 52 Departure 75% 0% 168 52 Total 75% 75% 299 104 East Leg Approach 25% 0% 56 17 Departure 0% 25% 44 17 Total 25% 25% 100 35 West Leg Approach 50% 0% 112 35 Departure 0% 50% 87 35 Total 50% 50% 199 69 Total Approaches Approach 75% 75% 299 104 Departure 75% 75% 299 104 Total 150% 150% 597 207 11/25/98 (R:\.SSD831VHode1- msjdsWsign) LSA Associates. Inc. Table C -2 - Year 2008 Peak Hour Project Trip Assignment 11/25/98 (R:\.SSD831\Mode1•tns.xl3Waign) A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour In Out In Out Additional Trips 224 174 69 69 3 Fruitvale Avenue /Allendale Avenue Project Trip Project Trip Distribution Assignment In Out A.M. P.M. NBL 0% 0% 0 0 NBT 0% 38% 66 26 NBR 0% 2% 3 1 SBL 0% 0% 0 0 SBT 75% 0% 168 52 SBR 0% 0% 0 0 EBL 0% 37% 64 26 EBT 0% 3% 5 2 EBR 0% 10% 17 7 WBL 5% 0% 11 3 WBT 0% 0% 0 0 WBR 0% 0% 0 0 North Leg Approach 75% 0% 168 52 Departure 0% 75% 131 52 Total 75% 75% 299 104 South Leg Approach 0% 40% 70 28 Departure 80% 10% 197 62 Total 80% 50% 266 90 East Leg Approach 5% 0% 11 3 Departure 0% 5% 9 3 Total 5% 5% 20 7 West Leg Approach 0% 50% 87 35 Departure 0% 0% 0 0 Total 0% 50% 87 35 Total Approaches Approach 80% 90% 336 117 Departure 80% 90% 336 117 Total 160% 180% 672 235 11/25/98 (R:\.SSD831\Mode1•tns.xl3Waign) LSA Associates, Inc. APPENDIX A -2 LEVEL OF SERVICE CALCULATION WORKSHEETS 11/15/98(MSSM UTRAFFIC.AM) LSAAssociateA Inc. 1. Scotland Drive /Saratoga Avenue 11R5/98(R:�SSD831 \TRAFFiC.AP}) C A P S S I 11 -25 -98 COMPREHENSIVE ANALYSIS PROGRAM FOR A SINGLE SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION Year 2008 Plus Project SOLUTION USING REQUIRED CYCLE TIME FLN:rms01 Scotland Drive /Saratoga Avenue P.M Peak Hour Scenario 6 Movement EBT EBL EBR SBT SBL SBR WET WBL WBR NBT NBL NBR Phase 1 - 5 secs X X Phase 2- 4 secs X X X - Phase 3- 81 secs X X X X Phase 4- 20 secs X X X X X X Phase 5 - 0 secs - Phase 6 0 secs ' Critical Mvmt - ** * * ** * * ** * * ** Peak 15 Vol -vph 1071 73 10 10 97 90 1546 10 119 10 10 10 Saturation -vph 3800 1750 Shrd 1900 1400 Shrd 3800 1750 Shrd 1300 Shrd Shrd Lost time -sec 2.00 2.00 - 2.00 0.00 - 2.00 2.00 - 2.00 - - Relative Sat 'X' 0.38 0.66 - 0.32 0.38 - 0.61 0.21 - 0.14 - - Effective Gr -sec 83 7 - 18 20 - 79 3 - 18 - - Move Time -sec 85 9 - 20 20 - 81 5 - 20 - - Min /Ped Time -sec 20 5 - 20 5 - 20 5 - 20 - - Prog Factor PAF 1.00 1.00 - 1.00 1.00 - 1.00 1.00 - 1.00 - AvDelay/veh -sec 4 47 - 31 31 - 6 40 - 30 - - Level of Service A E - D D - B+ E+ - D+ - - Av.'Q'/ lane veh 4 2 - 3 2 - 7 0 - 1 - - Veh Stopping % 34 98 - 88 88 - 50 98 - 86 - Do Veh Clear ? YES YES - YES YES - YES YES - YES - - Whole Intersection - Weighted Av Delay (sec) = 8 Level of Service = B+ Critical Movements - Weighted Av Delay (sec) = 9 Level of Service = B+ 11 It - Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) = 0.57 Required Cycle Length is 110 seconds (All Minimum times are satisfied) * CAPSSI (Release 11) - Based on Delay Methodology Per 1985 Highway Capacity Manual C A P S S I 11 -25 -98 COMPREHENSIVE ANALYSIS PROGRAM FOR A SINGLE SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION Year 2008 Plus Project SOLUTION USING REQUIRED CYCLE TIME FLN:rms01 Scotland Drive /Saratoga Avenue A.M Peak Hour Scenario 5 Movement EBT EBL EBR SBT SBL SBR WBT WBL WBR NBT NBL NBR Phase 1 - 5 secs X X Phase 2- 5 secs X X X Phase 3- 41 secs X X X X Phase 4- 20 secs X X X X X X Phase 5 - 0 secs Phase 6 0 secs Critical Mvmt - ** * * ** * * ** * * ** Peak 15 Vol -vph 1692 148 10 10 200 196 1431 10 35 10 10 10 Saturation -vph 3800 1750 Shrd 1900 1400 Shrd 3800 1750 Shrd 1200 Shrd Shrd Lost time -sec 2.00 2.00 - 2.00 0.00 - 2.00 2.00 - 2.00 - - Relative Sat 'X' 0.72 0.75 - 0.43 0.51 - 0.70 0.14 - 0.10 - - Effective Gr -sec 44 8 - 18 20 - 39 3 - 18 - - Move Time -sec 46 10 - 20 20 - 41 5 - 20 - - Min /Ped Time -sec 20 5 - 20 5 - 20 5 - 20 - - Prog Factor PAF 1.00 1.00 - 1.00 1.00 - 1.00 1.00 - 1.00 - - AvDelay /veh -sec 8 33 - 17 17 - 10 25 - 15 - Level of Service B+ D - C+ C+ - B+ C- - C+ - Av.'Q'/ lane veh 6 3 - 3 3 - 7 0 - 0 - - Veh Stopping % 69 97 - 84 84 - 73 96 - 77 - - Do Veh Clear ? YES YES - YES YES - YES YES - YES - - Whole Intersection - Weighted Av Delay (sec) = 11 Level of Service = B- Critical Movements - Weighted Av Delay (sec) = 12 Level of Service = B- 11 " - Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) = 0.65 Required Cycle Length is 71 seconds (All Minimum times are satisfied) * CAPSSI (Release 11) - Based on Delay Methodology Per 1985 Highway Capacity Manual C A P S S I 11 -25 -98 COMPREHENSIVE ANALYSIS PROGRAM FOR A SINGLE SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION Year 2008 Without Project SOLUTION USING REQUIRED CYCLE TIME FLN:rms01 Scotland Drive /Saratoga Avenue P.M Peak Hour Scenario 4 Movement EBT EBL EBR SBT SBL SBR WBT WBL WBR NBT NBL NBR Phase 1 - 5 secs X X Phase 2- 4 secs X X X Phase 3- 80 secs X X X X Phase 4- 20 secs X X X X X X Phase 5 - 0 secs Phase 6 0 secs Critical Mvmt- ** * * ** * * ** * * ** Peak 15 Vol -vph 1054 73 10 10 97 90 1529 10 119 10 10 10 Saturation -vph 3800 1750 Shrd 1900 1400 Shrd 3800 1750 Shrd 1300 Shrd Shrd Lost time -sec 2.00 2.00 - 2.00 0.00 - 2.00 2.00 - 2.00 - - Relative Sat 'X' 0.37 0.65 - 0.32 0.38 - 0.61 0.21 - 0.14 - - Effective Gr -sec 82 7 - 18 20 - 78 3 - 18 - - Move Time -sec 84 9 - 20 20 - 80 5 - 20 - - Min /Ped Time -sec 20 5 - 20 5 - 20 5 - 20 - - Prog Factor PAF 1.00 1.00 - 1.00 1.00 - 1.00 1.00 - 1.00 - - AvDelay /veh -sec 4 46 - 31 30 - 6 40 - 30 - - Level of Service A E - D D - B+ D- - D+ - - Av.'Q'/ lane veh 4 2 - 3 2 - 7 0 - 1 - - Veh Stopping % 34 98 - 88 88 - 50 98 - 85 - - Do Veh Clear ? YES YES - YES YES - YES YES - YES - - I I I I Whole Intersection - Weighted Av Delay (sec) = 8 Level of Service = B+ Critical Movements - Weighted Av Delay (sec) = 9 Level of Service = B+ 11 11 = Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) = 0.57 Required Cycle Length is 109 seconds (All Minimum times are satisfied) * CAPSSI (Release 11) - Based on Delay Methodology Per 1985 Highway Capacity Manual C A P S S I 11 -25 -98 COMPREHENSIVE ANALYSIS PROGRAM FOR A SINGLE SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION Year 2008 Without Project SOLUTION USING REQUIRED CYCLE TIME Scotland Drive /Saratoga Avenue FLN:rms01 A.M Peak Hour Scenario 3 Movement EBT EBL EBR SBT SBL SBR WBT WBL WBR NBT NBL NBR Phase 1 - 5 secs X X Phase 2- 5 secs X X X 10 10 Phase 3- 39 secs X X X X Phase 4- 20 secs X X X X X X Phase 5 - 0 secs Shrd h 6 - n core Lost time -sec P ase Critical Mvmt - ** * * ** * * ** * * ** Peak 15 Vol -vph 1649 148 10 10 200 196 1375 10 35 10 10 10 Saturation -vph 3800 1750 Shrd 1900 1400 Shrd 3800 1750 Shrd 1200 Shrd Shrd Lost time -sec 2.00 2.00 - 2.00 0.00 - 2.00 2.00 - 2.00 - - Relative Sat 'X' 0.72 0.73 - 0.42 0.49 - 0.69 0.13 - 0.10 - - Effective Gr -sec 42 8 - 18 20 - 37 3 - 18 - - Move Time -sec 44 10 - 20 20 - 39 5 - 20 - - Min /Ped Time -sec 20 5 - 20 5 - 20 5 - 20 - - Prog Factor PAF 1.00 1.00 - 1.00 1.00 - 1.00 1.00 - 1.00 - - AvDelay /veh -sec 8 31 - 16 16 - 10 24 - 15 - Level of Service B+ D - C+ C+ - B+ C- - B- - Av.'Q'/ lane veh 6 3 - 3 3 - 6 0 - 0 - - Veh Stopping % 69 97 - 83 83 - 74 96 - 76 - - Do Veh Clear ? YES YES - YES I YES - YES I YES - YES - - Whole Intersection - Weighted Av Delay (sec) = 11 Level of Service = B- Critical Movements - Weighted Av Delay (sec) = 12 Level of Service = B- ig " - Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) = 0.64 Required Cycle Length is 69 seconds (All Minimum times are satisfied) * CAPSSI (Release 11) - Based on Delay Methodology Per 1985 Highway Capacity Manual C A P S S I 11 -24 -98 COMPREHENSIVE ANALYSIS PROGRAM FOR A SINGLE SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION Existing (1998) SOLUTION USING REQUIRED CYCLE TIME FLN:rms01 Scotland Drive /Saratoga Avenue P.M Peak Hour Scenario 2 Movement EBT EBL EBR SBT SBL SBR WBT WBL WBR NBT NBL NBR Phase 1 - 5 secs X X Phase 2- 3 secs X X X Phase 3- 74 secs X X X X Phase 4- 20 secs X X X X X X Phase 5 - 0 secs Phase 6 - 0 secs I I Critical Mvmt- ** * * ** * * ** * * ** Peak 15 Vol -vph 913 63 10 10 84 78 1322 10 103 10 10 10 Saturation -vph 3800 1750 Shrd 1900 1400 Shrd 3800 1750 Shrd 1300 Shrd Shrd Lost time -sec 2.00 2.00 - 2.00 0.00 - 2.00 2.00 - 2.00 - - Relative Sat 'X' 0.33 0.61 - 0.26 0.31 - 0.53 0.19 - 0.13 - - Effective Gr -sec 75 6 - 18 20 - 72 3 - 18 - - Move Time -sec 77 8 - 20 20 - 74 5 - 20 - - Min /Ped Time -sec 20 5 - 20 5 - 20 5 - 20 - - Prog Factor PAF 1.00 1.00 - 1.00 1.00 - 1.00 1.00 - 1.00 - - AvDelay /veh -sec 4 43 - 28 27 - 6 37 - 27 - - Level of Service A E+ - D+ D+ - B+ D- - D+ - - Av.'Q'/ lane veh 3 2 - 2 2 - 6 0 - 1 - - Veh Stopping % 35 98 - 86 86 - 47 98 - 84 - - Do Veh Clear ? YES YES - YES YES - YES YES - YES - - Whole Intersection - Weighted Av Delay (sec) = 8 Level of Service = B+ Critical Movements - Weighted Av Delay (sec) = 8 Level of Service. =. B+ to 11 - Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) = 0.49 Required Cycle Length is 102 seconds (All Minimum times are satisfied) * CAPSSI (Release 11) - Based on Delay Methodology Per 1985 Highway Capacity Manual C A P S S I 11 -24 -98 COMPREHENSIVE ANALYSIS PROGRAM FOR A SINGLE SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION Existing (1998) SOLUTION USING REQUIRED CYCLE TIME FLN:rms01 Scotland Drive /Saratoga Avenue A.M Peak Hour Scenario 1 1 1 1 1 Movement EBT EBL EBR SBT SBL SBR WBT WBL WBR NBT NBL NBR Phase 1 - 5 secs X X Phase 2- 4 secs X X X Phase 3- 36 secs X X X X Phase 4- 20 secs X X X X X X Phase 5 - 0 secs Phase 6 - 0 secs Critical Mvmt - ** Peak 15 Vol -vph 1432 128 10 10 172 169 1199 10 30 10 10 10 Saturation -vph 3800 1750 Shrd 1900 1400 Shrd 3800 1750 Shrd 1200 Shrd Shrd Lost time -sec 2.00 2.00 - 2.00 0.00 - 2.00 2.00 - 2.00 - - Relative Sat 'X' 0.65 0.68 - 0.34 0.40 - 0.62 0.12 - 0.09 - - Effective Gr -sec 38 7 - 18 20 - 34 3 - 18 - - Move Time -sec 40 9 - 20 20 - 36 5 - 20 - - Min /Ped Time -sec 20 5 - 20 5 - 20 5 - 20 - - Prog Factor PAF 1.00 1.00 - 1.00 1.00 - 1.00 1.00 - 1.00 - - AvDelay /veh -sec 7 28 - 14 14 - 9 23 - 13 - Level of Service B+ D+ - B- B- - B+ C- - B- - Av.'Q'/ lane veh 5 2 - 2 2 - 5 0 - 0 - - Veh Stopping % 67 96 - 80 79 - 70 96 - 74 - - Do Veh Clear ? YES YES - YES YES - YES YES - YES - - I I Whole Intersection - Weighted Av Delay (sec) _ -10 Level of Service = B+ Critical Movements - Weighted Av Delay (sec) = 11 Level of Service = B- 11 of - Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) = 0.55 Required Cycle Length is 65 seconds (All Minimum times are satisfied) * CAPSSI (Release 11) - Based on Delay Methodology Per 1985 Highway Capacity Manual LSA Associates, Inc. 2. Fruitvale Avenue /Saratoga Avenue 11R5/98(RASSD83 ATRAFFIC.AM C A P S S I 11 -25 -98 COMPREHENSIVE ANALYSIS PROGRAM FOR A SINGLE SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION Year 2008 Plus Project SOLUTION USING PREDETERMINED CYCLE TIMES Predetermined Cycle Length is 60 seconds (All Minimum times are satisfied) * CAPSSI (Release 11) - Based on Delay Methodology Per 1985 Highway Capacity Manual FLN:rms02 Fruitvale Avenue /Saratoga Avenue P.M Peak Hour Scenario 6 Movement 1 EBT EBL 1 EBR SBT SBL SBR 1 WBT 1 WBL WBR NBT NBL NBR Phase 1 - 28 secs X X X Phase 2 - 17 secs X X X Phase 3 - 15 secs X X Phase 4 - 0 secs Phase 5 - 0 secs Phase 6 - 0 secs Critical Mvmt - ** Peak 15 Vol -vph 459 242 695 700 221 476 Saturation -vph 3800 1750 1900 3200 1750 3500 Lost time -sec 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 Relative Sat 'X' 0.48 0.55 0.51 0.50 0.51 0.20 Effective Gr -sec 15 15 43 26 15 41 Move Time -sec 17 17 45 28 15 43 Min /Ped Time -sec 20 20 20 5 5 5 Prog Factor PAF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AvDelay /veh -sec 15 16 3 10 15 3 Level of Service B- C+ A B+ C+ A Av.'Q'/ lane veh 3 3 3 3 3 1 Veh Stopping % 85 87 45 73 86 37 Do Veh Clear ? YES YES YES YES YES YES Whole Intersection - Weighted Av Delay (sec) = 9 Level of Service = B+ Critical Movements - Weighted Av Delay (sec) = 6 Level of Service = B+ 11 It - Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) = 0.51 Predetermined Cycle Length is 60 seconds (All Minimum times are satisfied) * CAPSSI (Release 11) - Based on Delay Methodology Per 1985 Highway Capacity Manual C A P S S I 11 -25 -98 COMPREHENSIVE ANALYSIS PROGRAM FOR A SINGLE SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION Year 2008 Plus Project SOLUTION USING PREDETERMINED CYCLE TIMES Predetermined Cycle Length is 60 seconds (All Minimum times are satisfied) * CAPSSI (Release 11) - Based on Delay Methodology Per 1985 Highway Capacity Manual FLN:rms02 Fruitvale Avenue /Saratoga Avenue A.M Peak Hour Scenario 5 Movement EBT EBL EBR SBT SBL SBR WBT WBL WBR NBT NBL NBR Phase 1 - 25 secs X X X Phase 2 - 21 secs X X X Phase 3 - 14 secs X X Phase 4 - 0 secs Phase 5 - 0 secs Phase 6 - 0 secs Critical Mvmt - ** * * ** * * ** * * ** Peak 15 Vol -vph 979 325 641 1031 354 703 Saturation -vph 3800 1750 1900 3200 1750 3500 Lost time -sec 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 Relative Sat 'X' 0.81 0.59 0.46 0.84 0.87 0.33 Effective Gr -sec 19 19 44 23 14 37 Move Time -sec 21 21 46 25 14 39 Min /Ped Time -sec 20 20 20 5 5 5 Prog Factor PAF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AvDelay /veh -sec 17 14 3 17 29 4 Level of Service C+ B- A C+ D+ a Av.'Q'/ lane veh 6 4 3 5 5 2 Veh Stopping % 92 84 40 91 96 48 Do Veh Clear ? YES YES I YES YES YES YES Whole Intersection - Weighted Av Delay (sec) = 13 Level of Service = B- Critical Movements - Weighted Av Delay (sec) = 19 Level of Service = C+ 11 it - Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) = 0.84 Predetermined Cycle Length is 60 seconds (All Minimum times are satisfied) * CAPSSI (Release 11) - Based on Delay Methodology Per 1985 Highway Capacity Manual C A P S S I 11 -25 -98 COMPREHENSIVE ANALYSIS PROGRAM FOR A SINGLE SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION Year 2008 Without Project SOLUTION USING PREDETERMINED CYCLE TIMES Predetermined Cycle Length is 60 seconds (All Minimum times are satisfied) * CAPSSI (Release 11) - Based on Delay Methodology Per 1985 Highway Capacity Manual FLN:rms02 Fruitvale Avenue /Saratoga Avenue P.M Peak Hour Scenario 4 Movement 1 EBT EBL 1 EBR SBT SBL SBR 1 WBT 1 WBL WBR NBT NBL NBR Phase 1 - 28 secs X X X Phase 2 - 19 secs X X X Phase 3 - 13 secs X X Phase 4 - 0 secs Phase 5 - 0 secs Phase 6 - 0 secs Critical Mvmt - ** * * ** * * ** Peak 15 Vol -vph 459 207 695 683 187 459 Saturation -vph 3800 1750 1900 3200 1750 3500 Lost time -sec 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 Relative Sat 'X' 0.43 0.42 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.20 Effective Gr -sec 17 17 45 26 13 39 Move Time -sec 19 19 47 28 13 41 Min /Ped Time -sec 20 20 20 5 5 5 Prog Factor PAF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AvDelay /veh -sec 13 14 2 10 17 3 Level of Service B- B- A B+ C+ A Av.'Q'/ lane veh 3 2 3 3 2 1 Veh Stopping % 82 81 39 72 88 40 Do Veh Clear ? YES YES YES YES YES YES Whole Intersection - Weighted Av Delay (sec) = 8 -Level of Service = B+ Critical Movements - Weighted Av Delay (sec) = 5 Level of Service = B+ 11 to - Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) = 0.49 Predetermined Cycle Length is 60 seconds (All Minimum times are satisfied) * CAPSSI (Release 11) - Based on Delay Methodology Per 1985 Highway Capacity Manual C A P S S I COMPREHENSIVE ANALYSIS PROGRAM FOR A SINGLE SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION Year 2008 Without Project SOLUTION USING PREDETERMINED CYCLE TIMES Fruitvale Avenue /Saratoga Avenue 11 -25 -98 FLN:rms02 A.M Peak Hour Scenario 3 Movement EBT EBL EBR SBT SBL SBR WBT WBL WBR NBT NBL NBR Phase 1 - 25 secs X X X Phase 2 - 24 secs X X X - Phase 3 - 11 secs X X Phase 4 - 0 secs Phase 5 - 0 secs Phase 6 - 0 secs Critical Mvmt - ** * * ** * * ** * * ** Peak 15 Vol -vph 979 213 641 975 267 660 Saturation -vph 3800 1750 1900 3200 1750 3500 Lost time -sec 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 Relative Sat -X' 0.70 0.33 0.43 0.79 0.83 0.33 Effective Gr -sec 22 22 47 23 11 34 Move Time -sec 24 24 49 25 11 36 Min /Ped Time -sec 20 20 20 5 5 5 Prog Factor PAF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AvDelay /veh -sec 13 11 2 15 29 5 Level of Service B- B- A C+ D+ Av. -Q -/ lane veh 5 2 2 5 4 2 Veh Stopping % 85 72 33 89 96 53 Do Veh Clear ? YES YES YES YES YES YES Whole Intersection - Weighted Av Delay (sec) = 11 Level of Service = B- Critical Movements - Weighted Av Delay (sec) = 16 Level of Service = C+ of of - Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) = 0.77 Predetermined Cycle Length is 60 seconds (All Minimum times are satisfied) * CAPSSI (Release 11) - Based on Delay Methodology Per 1985 Highway Capacity Manual C A P S S I COMPREHENSIVE ANALYSIS PROGRAM FOR A SINGLE SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION Existing (1998) SOLUTION USING PREDETERMINED CYCLE TIMES Fruitvale Avenue /Saratoga Avenue Movement EBT EBL Phase 1 - 28 secs Phase 2 - 18 secs X Phase 3 - 14 secs Phase 4 - 0 secs Phase 5 - 0 secs . Phase 6 - 0 secs Critical Mvmt - ** Peak 15 Vol -vph 395 Saturation -vph 3800 Lost time -sec 2.00 Relative Sat 'X' 0.39 Effective Gr -sec 16 Move Time -sec 18 Min /Ped Time -sec 20 Prog Factor PAF 1.00 AvDelay /veh -sec 14 Level of Service B- Av.'Q'/ lane veh 2 Veh Stopping % 82 Do Veh Clear ? YES P.M Peak Hour EBR SBT SBL SBR WBT WBL X X X X I * * ** 187 599 593 1750 1900 3200 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.40 0.43 0.43 16 44 26 18 46 28 20 20 5 1.00 1.00 1.00 14 3 9 B- A B+ 2 3 3 82 39 70 YES YES YES WBR NBT 11 -24 -98 FLN:rms02 Scenario 2 NBL NBR X X X * * ** 169 400 1750 3500 0.00 2.00 0.41 0.17 14 40 14 42 5 5 1.00 1.00 15 3 C+ A 2 1 85 38 YES YES Whole Intersection - weighted Av Delay (sec) = 8 Level of Service = B+ Critical Movements - Weighted Av Delay (sec) = 5 Level of Service = B+ if it - Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) = 0.43 Predetermined Cycle Length is 60 seconds (Min. times may not be satisfied) * CAPSSI (Release 11) - Based on Delay Methodology Per 1985 Highway Capacity Manual C A P S S I 11 -24 -98 COMPREHENSIVE ANALYSIS PROGRAM FOR A SINGLE SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION Existing (1998) SOLUTION USING PREDETERMINED CYCLE TIMES Predetermined Cycle Length is 61 seconds (Min. times may not be satisfied) * CAPSSI (Release 11) - Based on Delay Methodology Per 1985 Highway Capacity Manual FLN:rms02 Fruitvale Avenue /Saratoga Avenue A.M Peak Hour Scenario 1 Movement 1 EBT EBL 1 EBR SBT SBL SBR 1 WBT 1 WBL WBR NBT NBL NBR Phase 1 - 26 secs X X X Phase 2 - 22 secs X X X Phase 3 - 13 secs X X Phase 4 - 0 secs Phase 5 - 0 secs Phase 6 - 0 secs Critical Mvmt - ** * * ** * * ** * * ** Peak 15 Vol -vph 844 211 552 855 252 579 Saturation -vph 3800 1750 1900 3200 1750 3500 Lost time -sec 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 Relative Sat 'X' 0.68 0.37 0.39 0.68 0.68 0.27 Effective Gr -sec 20 20 46 24 13 37 Move Time -sec 22 22 48 26 13 39 Min /Ped Time -sec 20 20 20 5 5 5 Prog Factor PAF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AvDelay /veh -sec 15 12 2 13 20 4 Level of Service B- B- A B- C- A Av.'Q'/ lane veh 5 2 2 4 3 2 Veh Stopping % 86 76 35 83 92 47 Do Veh Clear ? YES YES YES YES YES YES Whole Intersection - Weighted Av Delay (sec) = 10 Level of Service = B- Critical Movements - Weighted Av Delay (sec) = 14 Level of Service = B- el 11 - Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) = 0.68 Predetermined Cycle Length is 61 seconds (Min. times may not be satisfied) * CAPSSI (Release 11) - Based on Delay Methodology Per 1985 Highway Capacity Manual C A P S S I ' COMPREHENSIVE ANALYSIS PROGRAM FOR A SINGLE SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION Year 2008 Plus Project SOLUTION USING REQUIRED CYCLE TIME Fruitvale Avenue /Allendale Avenu P.M Peak Hour 11 -25 -98 FLN:rms03 Scenario 6 Movement EBT EBL EBR SBT SBL SBR WBT WBL WBR NET NEL NBR Phase 1- 20 secs X X X X Phase 2- 20 secs X X X X Phase 3 - 19 secs X X X Phase 4- 27 secs X X X X Phase 5 0 secs ' Phase 6 - 0 secs ' Critical Mvmt - ** * * ** * * ** * * ** * * ** Peak 15 Vol -vph 54 166 43 513 263 263 47 Saturation -vph 950 2600 Shrd 3800 1750 Shrd 1900 Lost time -sec 2.00 2.00 - 2.00 2.00 - 2.00 Relative Sat 'X' 0.49 0.31 - 0.70 0.76 - 0.56 Effective Gr -sec 18 18 - 25 17 - 18 Move Time -sec 20 20 - 27 19 - 20 Min /Ped Time -sec 20 5 - 5 5 - 20 Prog Factor PAF 1.00 1.00 - 1.00 1.00 - 1.00 AvDelay /veh -sec 24 22 - 22 31 - 25 Level of Service C- C- - C- D - C- Av.'Q'/ lane veh 2 3 - 7 5 - 4 Veh Stopping % 88 84 - 89 94 - 90 Do Veh Clear ? YES YES - YES YES - YES I Whole Intersection - Weighted Av Delay (sec) = 22 Critical Movements - Weighted Av Delay (sec) = 24 to 11 - Intersection Capacity Utilizat 61 177 317 1750 Shrd 3800 2.00 - 2.00 0.17 - 0.29 18 - 25 20 - 27 5 - 5 1.00 - 1.00 21 - 18 C- - C+ 1 - 3 82 - 77 YES - YES Level of Service Level of Service ion (ICU) = 0.63 24 76 1750 1750 2.00 0.00 0.07 0.04 17 86 19 88 5 5 1.00 1.00 21 0 C- A 0 0 81 0 YES YES C- C- Required Cycle Length is 86 seconds (All Minimum times are satisfied) * CAPSSI (Release 11) - Based on Delay Methodology Per 1985 Highway Capacity Manual C A P S S I 11 -25 -98 COMPREHENSIVE ANALYSIS PROGRAM ' FOR A SINGLE SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION Year 2008 Plus Project SOLUTION USING REQUIRED CYCLE TIME Required Cycle Length is 103 seconds (All Minimum times are satisfied) * CAPSSI (Release 11) - Based on Delay Methodology Per 1985 Highway Capacity Manual FLN:rms03 Fruitvale Avenue /Allendale Avenu A.M Peak Hour Scenario 5 Movement EBT EBL EBR SBT SBL SBR WBT WBL WBR NBT NBL NBR Phase 1- 20 secs X X X X Phase 2- 24 secs X X X X Phase 3 -. 30 secs X X X Phase 4- 29 secs X X X X Phase 5 - 0 secs Phase 6 - 0 secs Critical Mvmt - ** Peak 15 Vol -vph 21 145 30 816 444 70 29 87 345 566 24 96 Saturation -vph 950 2600 Shrd 3800 1750 Shrd 1900 1750 Shrd 3800 1750 1750 Lost time -sec 2.00 2.00 - 2.00 2.00 - 2.00 2.00 - 2.00 2.00 0.00 Relative Sat 'X' 0.31 0.32 - 0.89 0.93 - 0.92 0.23 - 0.57 0.05 0.05 Effective Gr -sec 18 18 - 27 28 - 22 22 - 27 28 103 Move Time -sec 20 20 - 29 30 - 24 24 - 29 30 105 Min /Ped Time -sec 20 5 - 5 5 - 20 5 - 5 5 5 Prog Factor PAF 1.00 1.00 - 1.00 1.00 - 1.00 1.00 - 1.00 1.00 1.00 AvDelay /veh -sec 29 28 - 35 46 - 49 26 - 26 21 0 Level of Service D+ D+ - D E - E D+ - D+ C- w Av.'Q'/ lane veh 1 3 - 9 10 - 9 2 - 6 1 0 Veh Stopping % 87 87 - 96 98 - 98 83 - 87 74 0 Do Veh Clear ? YES YES - YES I YES - YES YES - YES YES YES Whole Intersection - Weighted Av Delay (sec) = 35 Level of Service = D Critical Movements - Weighted Av Delay (sec) = 40 Level of Service = D- it to - Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) = 0.80 Required Cycle Length is 103 seconds (All Minimum times are satisfied) * CAPSSI (Release 11) - Based on Delay Methodology Per 1985 Highway Capacity Manual LG1 Associates, Inc. 3. Fruitvale Avenue /Allendale Avenue 11/I5/98(RASSD831 \TWFIC.APXQ C A P S S I 11 -25 -98 COMPREHENSIVE ANALYSIS PROGRAM FOR A SINGLE SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION Year 2008 Without Project SOLUTION USING REQUIRED CYCLE TIME FLN:rms03 Fruitvale Avenue /Allendale Avenu P.M Peak Hour Scenario 4 1 1 1 1 Movement EBT EBL EBR SBT SBL SBR WBT WBL WBR NBT NBL NBR Phase 1- 20 secs X X X X Phase 2- 20 secs X X X X Phase 3 - 19 secs X X X Phase 4- 25 secs X X X X Phase 5 - 0 secs Phase 6 - 0 secs Critical Mvmt - ** * * ** * * ** * * ** * * ** Peak 15 Vol -vph 52 141 36 461 263 263 47 57 177 291 24 75 Saturation -vph 950 2600 Shrd 3800 1750 Shrd 1900 1750 Shrd. 3800 1750 1750 Lost time -sec 2.00 2.00 - 2.00 2.00 - 2.00 2.00 - 2.00 2.00 0.00 Relative Sat 'X' 0.43 0.25 - 0.70 0.74 - 0.55 0.15 - 0.28 0.07 0.04 Effective Gr -sec 18 18 - 23 17 - 18 18 - 23 17 84 Move Time -sec 20 20 - 25 19 - 20 20 - 25 19 86 Min /Ped Time -sec 20 5 - 5 5 - 20 5 - 5 5 5 Prog Factor PAF 1.00 1.00 - 1.00 1.00 - 1.00 1.00 - 1.00 1.00 1.00 AvDelay /veh -sec 23 21 - 22 29 - 24 20 - 18 21 0 Level of Service C- C- - C- D+ - C- C- - C+ C- A Av.'Q'/ lane veh 2 3 - 6 5 - 4 1 - 2 0 0 Veh Stopping % 87 83 - 90 94 - 89 81 - 79 81 0 Do Veh Clear ? YES YES - YES YES - YES YES - YES YES YES Whole Intersection - Weighted Av Delay (sec) = 22 Level of Service = C- Critical Movements - Weighted Av Delay (sec) = 24 Level of Service = C- 10 It - Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) = 0.61 Required Cycle Length is 84 seconds (All Minimum times are satisfied) * CAPSSI (Release 11) - Based on Delay Methodology Per 1985 Highway Capacity Manual C A P S S I COMPREHENSIVE ANALYSIS PROGRAM FOR A SINGLE SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION Year 2008 Without Project SOLUTION USING REQUIRED CYCLE TIME Fruitvale Avenue /Allendale Avenu A.M Peak Hour 11 -25 -98 FLN:rms03 Scenario 3 I Movement EBT EBL EBR SBT SBL SBR WBT WBL WBR NBT NBL NBR Phase 1- 20 secs X X X X Phase 2- 23 secs X X X X Phase 3 - 29 secs X X X X Phase 4- 23 secs X X X Phase 5 - 0 secs ' Phase 6 - 0 secs ' Critical Mvmt - ** Peak 15 Vol -vph 15 81 13 648 444 70 29 76 345 500 24 92 Saturation -vph 950 2600 Shrd 3800 1750 Shrd 1900 1750 Shrd 3800 1750 1750 Lost time -sec 2.00 2.00 - 2.00 2.00 - 2.00 2.00 - 2.00 2.00 0.00 Relative Sat 'X' 0.16 0.16 - 0.85 0.89 - 0.89 0.20 - 0.60 0.05 0.05 Effective Gr -sec 18 18 - 21 27 - 21 21 - 21 27 95 Move Time -sec 20 20 - 23 29 - 23 23 - 23 29 97 Min /Ped Time -sec 20 5 - 5 5 - 20 5 - 5 5 5 Prog Factor PAF 1.00 1.00 - 1.00 1.00 - 1.00 1.00 - 1.00 1.00 1.00 AvDelay /veh -sec 24 24 - 33 38 - 42 23 - 26 19 0 Level of Service C- C- - D D- - E+ C- - D+ C+ Av.'Q'/ lane veh 1 2 - 7 8 - 8 2 - 5 0 0 Veh Stopping % 84 84 - 96 96 - 97 81 - 90 73 0 ri— uoin rl Par ? YES YES - YES YES - YES YES - YES YES YES Whole Intersection - Weighted Av Delay (sec) = 32 Level of Service = D Critical Movements - Weighted Av Delay (sec) = 36 Level of Service = D- II " - Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) = 0.73 Required Cycle Length is 95 seconds (All Minimum times are satisfied) * CAPSSI (Release 11) - Based on Delay Methodology Per 1985 Highway Capacity Manual I C A P S S I COMPREHENSIVE ANALYSIS PROGRAM FOR A SINGLE SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION Existing (1998) SOLUTION USING REQUIRED CYCLE TIME Fruitvale Avenue /Allendale Avenu P -M Peak Hour 11 -25 -98 FLN:rms03 Scenario 2 Movement EBT EBL EBR SBT SBL SBR WBT WBL WBR NBT NBL NBR Phase 1- 20 secs X X X X Phase 2- 20 secs X X X X Phase 3 - 17 secs X X X Phase 4- 23 secs X X X X Phase 5 0 secs phase 6 - 0 secs Critical Mvmt - ** Peak 15 Vol -vph 45 128 32 410 227 227 41 Saturation -vph 950 2600 Shrd 3800 1750 Shrd 1900 Lost time -sec 2.00 2.00 - 2.00 2.00 - 2.00 Relative Sat 'X' 0.36 0.22 - 0.64 0.69 - 0.45 Effective Gr -sec 18 18 - 21 15 - 18 Move Time -sec 20 20 - 23 17 - 20 Min /Ped Time -sec 20 5 - 5 5 - 20 Prog Factor PAF 1.00 1.00 - 1.00 1.00 - 1.00 AvDelay /veh -sec 20 19 - 21 27 - 21 Level of Service C- C+ - C- D+ - C- Av.'Q'/ lane veh 1 2 - 5 4 - 3 Veh Stopping % 84 82 - 89 93 - 86 Do Veh Clear ? YES YES - YES YES - YES Whole Intersection - Weighted Av Delay (sec) = 20 Critical Movements - Weighted Av Delay (sec) = 22 it " - Intersection Capacity Utilizat 50 153 257 21 65 1750 Shrd 3800 1750 1750 2.00 - 2.00 2.00 0.00 0.13 - 0.26 0.06 0.04 18 - 21 15 80 20 - 23 17 82 5 - 5 5 5 1.00 - 1.00 1.00 1.00 19 - 18 20 0 C+ - C+ C- A 1 - 2 0 0 80 - 79 82 0 YES - YES YES YES Level of Service = C- Level of Service = C- ion (ICU) = 0.53 Required Cycle Length is 80 seconds (All Minimum times are satisfied) * CAPSSI (Release 11) - Based on Delay Methodology Per 1985 Highway Capacity Manual C A P S S I 11 -25 -98 COMPREHENSIVE ANALYSIS PROGRAM FOR A SINGLE SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION Existing (1998) SOLUTION USING REQUIRED CYCLE TIME Required Cycle Length is 86 seconds (All Minimum times are satisfied) * CAPSSI (Release 11) - Based on Delay Methodology Per 1985 Highway Capacity Manual FLN:rms03 Fruitvale Avenue /Allendale Avenu A.M Peak Hour Scenario 1 Movement EBT EBL EBR SBT SBL SBR WBT WBL WBR NBT NBL NBR Phase 1- 20 secs X X X X Phase 2- 20 secs X X X X Phase 3 - 25 secs X X X Phase 4- 21 secs X X X X Phase 5 - 0 secs ' Phase 6 - 0 secs ' Critical Mvmt - ** I * * ** * * ** * * ** * * ** Peak 15 Vol -vph 15 81 13 600 383 61 25 68 297 448 21 81 Saturation -vph 950 2600 Shrd 3800 1750 Shrd 1900 1750 Shrd 3800 1750 1750 Lost time -sec 2.00 2.00 - 2.00 2.00 - 2.00 2.00 - 2.00 2.00 0.00 Relative Sat 'X' 0.14 0.15 - 0.79 0.82 - 0.81 0.19 - 0.53 0.04 0.05 Effective Gr -sec 18 18 - 19 23 - 18 18 - 19 23 86 Move Time -sec 20 20 - 21 25 - 20 20 - 21 25 88 Min /Ped Time -sec 20 5 - 5 5 - 20 5 - 5 5 5 Prog Factor PAF 1.00 1.00 - 1.00 1.00 - 1.00 1.00 - 1.00 1.00 1.00 AvDelay /veh -sec 21 21 - 28 30 - 33 21 - 23 18 0 Level of Service C- C- - D+ D - D C- - C- C+ Av.'Q'/ lane veh 1 2 - 6 7 - 6 1 - 4 0 0 Veh Stopping % 81 82 - 94 94 - 95 82 - 88 74 0 Do Veh Clear ? YES YES - YES YES - YES YES - YES I YES YES Whole Intersection - Weighted Av Delay (sec) = 26 Level of Service = D+ Critical Movements - Weighted Av Delay (sec) = 29 Level of Service = D+ 11 " - Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) = 0.65 Required Cycle Length is 86 seconds (All Minimum times are satisfied) * CAPSSI (Release 11) - Based on Delay Methodology Per 1985 Highway Capacity Manual