Loading...
Attachment 54 - Part 2Joel Paulson From: John Shepardson <shepardsonlaw @me.com> Sent: Sunday, February 15, 2015 10:00 PM To: Marcia Jensen; Council; Greg Larson; Robert Schultz Subject: (Smart Lights for No. 40 & Town / /Danville Busing Program - -It works!) 1. Smart Traffic Lights http: / /www epp cmu edu/ Spring20l4Reports /SURTRAC %2OFina1 %2OReport vdf 1.0 Executive Summary Traffic congestion and vehicular emissions are some of the major issues faced by road users today. According to a recent Texas A &M annual mobility study, the average American commuter spends about 38 hours per traffic year in traffic jams.' This study identifies Washington DC as the the most traffic congested city in the U.S. followed by Los Angeles, with commuters spending as much as 67 hours spent in traffic per year. In developing a solution to this problem, the SURTRAC team designed a smart traffic control system that optimizes signal timings while allocating green time to different intersection phases based on vehicle presence, vehicle count and flow - through data collected by vehicle presence detectors at intersections. This approach to traffic control differs from methods previously used at it allows for real -time optimization of traffic controls by responding to changes in traffic conditions, while operating in a decentralized manner. It is designed to accommodate urban grid networks and road corridors with the aim of reducing the amount of time vehicles spend idling on roads while enabling an optimal use of road transportation networks and reducing the contribution from transportation to Green House Gas (GHG) emissions in the U.S. SURTRAC was invented by three (3) members of the Robotics Institute at Carnegie Mellon University, including research professor Stephen Smith and Project Scientists Greg Barlow and Xiao -Feng Xie. Currently, this team has achieved a number of successes with testing its technology, successfully filing provisional patent and also developed a partnership with the Pubic Works Department of Pittsburgh. The SURTRAC software was successfully piloted at 9 intersections in the East Liberty area of Pittsburgh and is in the process of bing expanded to an additional 31 intersections covering Point Breeze, Bakery Square and Baum and Centre. From this pilot project, the team was able to record significant savings in travel time and reduced emission levels showing results of 26% less time spent by vehicles on the roads with vehicles spending 41 % less time idling and experiencing 31 % fewer stops. The SURTRAC technology was also able to reduce vehicular emissions by 21 % based on data collected from the intersections. In characterizing SURTRACs non - market, we identified the major issue the firm has set out to solve which is addressing issues that might affect the ease of acceptance of its technology by various stakeholders in its industry; focusing on the challenges: liability, privacy, and opportunities: funding and emissions the fine might both have to face and also could leverage as it works towards commercializing its technology. We also identified key institutions including both Federal and State Departments of Transportation, traffic control system manufacturers such as Siemens and McCain, the general public, governmental agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), etc that would be interested in the workings and viability of this new technology and whose activities could significantly affect S I URTRACs bid to commercialize its technology. In this report, we started by giving an overview of the SURTRAC technology. We discussed SURTRACs traffic optimization technique, highlighting the various obstacles to adoption of the technology, standards and potential market the new innovation is looking to address. We then talked about the potential challenges the team might face going forward and also opportunities it could leverage in commercializing its technology, highlighting the policy context and various interest groups the SURTRAC team might need to engage with in trying to get its technology adopted. In our final recommendation for the SURTRAC team, we propose that they focus their marketing efforts on the emission reduction value proposition of their technology by targeting cities that are in noncompliance with National Ambient Air Quality Standards set by the Environmental Protection Agency. From our research, we also see that a number of funding opportunities exist for government agencies and cities in improving traffic safety and other usage metrics for their roads and we believe that companies like SURTRAC could create partnerships with these cities or agencies who might be interested in the ability of its technology in solving their needs in getting its product to market faster. Quoting from httn' / /en wikipedia org wiki /Smart traffic light Smart traffic lights or Smart traffic signals are by definition according to developers of a pilot project in Pittsburgh "' 'A new system that combines existing technology with artificial intelligence to create lights that truly think for themselves'. Also known as intelligent traffic lights and advanced traffic lights this system differs to the traditional Traffic light system which are advanced signaling devices positioned at pedestrian crossings, road intersections and other places to control the flow of traffic. They are, in essence, signals that utilize a buried induction coil to sense the presence of signals that adapt to information that is received from a central computer about the position, speed and direction of vehicles. The pilot project in Pittsburgh may be the first step in their production across the United States of America. The technology for smart traffic signals has been developed by professors and students at Carnegie Mellon University and is being used in a pilot project in Pittsburgh in an effort to reduce vehicle emissions in the city. Unlike other dynamic control signals that adjust the timing and phasing of lights according to limits that are set in controller programming, this new system combines existing technology with artificial intelligence to create lights that truly think for themselves. 2. Busing — Danville httv://www.ridetraffix.com/FAQ.aspx#1 General Questions: 1. Doesn't the school district already provide busing? 2. Will TRAFFIX also serve special needs students? 3. When will service start? 4. How were the schools chosen for bus service? 5. With a District this large why are only eleven schools petting service? 6. Is the school district operating the buses? 7. How safe are the buses? 8. How safe are the drivers? 9. How much does it cost? 11. How does the price of a I KAI-t -lx pass compare ro otner scnoui uus PI 12. Are there one -way passes available or discounts for multi -child families? 13. What if my growing neighborhood begins to contribute to traffic congestic 14. How do I stop receiving text messages from TRAFFIX? 15. What is CSA T -1? PASSES: 16. How do I buy a pass? 17. When will I receive the pass? 18. Can my child begin riding right away? 19. Do kids need to show a pass to board the bus? 20. What if my child loses the bus pass? 21. Do You pro -rate the price of the pass during the year? 22. Do you sell single use or weekly passes? 23. Can I get a refund? BUS OPERATIONS 24. When does the bus arrive at school? 25. When does the bus leave school? 26. What about Wacky Wednesdays and Conference Days? 27. Where does the bus stop in my neighborhood? 28. Why do you want children at the stop 5 minutes early? 29. What if my child misses the bus? 30. What if the bus is late? 31. Who do I call if there is a problem? RIDING PRIVILEGES 32. Can my child be assigned to more than one route? 33. Can my child get off at a different stop? 34. Can my child bring a friend home on the bus? SAFETY: 35. Do the buses have seatbelts? 36. Do all riders have to wear their seatbelts? 37. What if my child has to cross the street? 38. Can riders open the windows? 39. Can riders stick anything out the windows? 40. Do cars have to stop when a bus stops? DISCIPLINE: 41. What happens if a child doesn't follow the rules? 42. Who files the Incident Report Forms? 43. Can my bus pass be taken away? 44. Are parents financially responsible for vandalism? 45. What if my child is being bullied? 46. What if my child is accused of bullying? General Questions 1. Doesn't the school district already provide busing? The San Ramon Valley Unified School District (SRVUSD) dropped its school bus program in 2007 due to lack of funding. Only special needs students receive District busing now. With state budget cuts in education, there simply isn't funding available for the high cost of transportation. That money has been diverted to the classroom. 2. Will TRAFFIX also serve special needs students? No. The SRVUSD will continue to provide transportation for special education students. 3. When will bus service run? For the School year 2013 -14, service will begin on the first day of the school year, August 27th, 2013, and end on the last day of school, June 12th, 2014. For the School year 2014 -15, service will begin on the first day of the school year, August 25th, 2014, and end on the last day of school, June 11th, 2015. 4. How were the schools chosen for bus service? A traffic engineering firm conducted a comprehensive study of major intersections throughout the San Ramon Valley. The intersections were ranked by their congestion during peak morning and afternoon traffic periods related to nearby schools. Parents at all SRVUSD schools were then surveyed to measure their willingness to participate in a busing program. The schools were then ranked by how much traffic congestion they caused and how likely their parents were to buy a pass and have their kids ride. Based on these factors, TRAFFIX selected seven schools for service in the 2009 -2010 school year that showed the greatest chance to reduce traffic congestion: Los Cerros and Pine Valley middle schools; Country Club, Green Valley,Walt Disney, Neil Armstrong and Vista Grande elementary schools. In subsequent studies, California and Monte Vista high schools were selected for service in the 2012 -13 school year to reduce traffic congestion. For the 2014 -15 school year, Coyote Creek elementary school and San Ramon Valley high school have been added to the TRAFFIX fleet service. 5. With a District this large, why are only eleven schools getting service? The money available through Measure J is only enough to operate 22 buses. Even with that many buses, it is necessary to serve all the middle schools first, then use the same buses to go out to the elementary schools. This "tiering" of service is necessary to get the most service out of the buses we have. 6. Is the school district operating the buses? No. SRVUSD does not have the funding or equipment to run the service. TRAFFIX conducted a formal bidding process to hire a private bus operator that would provide the greatest reliability, experience and safety at the most competitive rate. First Student, a nationally- recognized student transportation operator was selected to operate the TRAFFIX service. This made it possible to provide new buses and the most routing and service for the funding we have. 7. How safe are the buses? New school buses are some of the safest vehicles on the road today. Our buses are fully equipped with lap- shoulder seat belts, steel reinforced frames, GPS and video monitoring to ensure your child's safety. According to National Safety Council Statistics, School buses are 172 times safer than passenger cars in terms of occupant deaths per 100 million passenger miles traveled. In fact, school buses rank much better than any other form of surface transportation. 8. How safe are the drivers? Our operator, First Student, is a nationwide leader with an unparalleled safety record. All First Student drivers undergo a rigorous training, certification and supervision process that has kept First Student a national leader in student safety. These drivers are focused professionals - your child's safety is their number one concern. 9. How much does it cost? The annual pass is $285 but parents who purchase a pass during the promotional period offered each Spring will get the pass at a discounted price of only $210. That equals 58 cents per trip, much cheaper than the cost of driving a car ". 'The IRS currently rates the cost of driving an average priced /sized passenger vehicle at. 58 cents per mile. 10. Why do we even have to pay? Without a contribution from parents, Measure J funding will not cover the full cost of servicing five schools. And without service in these areas, we can't reduce traffic congestion enough to justify taxpayer support of the program. 11. How does the price of a TRAFFIX pass compare to other school bus programs? At the $210 promotional rate, the TRAFFIX annual pass is less than half the price of the previous program run by SRVUSD, and current programs in comparable communities. The Lamorinda School Bus Service charges $468 a year, Tiburon charges $854 a year, and in Palo Alto parents pay $960 for an annual bus pass. 12. Are there one -way passes available or discounts for multi -child families? We already discounted our round -trip pass to be less than a one -way pass or multi -child discount in other programs. We need to keep the program simple and streamlined so it can be run with minimal administrative staffing and expense. 13. What if my growing neighborhood begins to contribute to traffic congestion, will my student be eligible for service? The service and specific routes will be re- evaluated each school year. 14. How do I stop receiving text messages from TRAFFIX? To stop receiving test messages from TRAFFIX, simply go to your My Account page, click "Edit' and remove the phone number from the text message field, then save your changes. 15. What is CSA T -1? County Service Area T -1 (CSA T -1) was formed on March 24, 2006 as a dependent special district of the County to provide transit services to the Alamo Creek, Monterosso, and Ponderosa Colony communities of the Tassajara Valley. Thanks to the willingness of CSA T -1 to provide funding to our program, Traffix is able to add a fourth bus to Monte Vista High School, specifically serving students who reside within the CSA T -1 communities. 2.1NIAy 16. How do I buy a pass? If you are new to the TRAFFIX site, go to the Buy A Pass page and fill out the registration form. Then use a Visa, Master Card, American Express or Discover Card to buy the pass. If you have already purchased a bus pass from TRAFFIX in the past, LOGIN and either click the "Buy 20XX -XX Pass" from your Account page or go to the Buy A Pass page. 0 17. When will I receive the pass? If you are purchasing before the school year, your pass will be mailed about one week before the start of school. If buying during the school year, you'll receive your pass by mail within about three business days. 18. Can my child begin riding right away? Yes. As soon as your online transaction is complete you'll get an email receipt. Print it and have your child show it to the driver until your pass arrives. 19. Do kids need to show a pass to board the bus? Yes. All riders need to have their TRAFFIX pass with them whenever they ride the bus, even if the driver already knows them. 20. What if my child loses the bus pass? You need to buy a replacement pass on the website for $10. Your email receipt will allow your child to continue riding until the replacement arrives. Print a copy for your child to show the driver. 21. Do you pro -rate the price of the pass during the year? Yes. If you move to the area mid -year or you just decide to try the bus after the school year starts, you'll only pay for the time left in the school year. 22. Do you sell single use or weekly passes? No. TRAFFIX is a traffic congestion relief program and to maintain our funding we have to get cars off the road. Occasional riders do not help us relieve traffic in any significant way. We also can't afford to spend money staffing an office to sell day passes, and risk overloading buses for our regular riders. We want to put as much money into service as we can, and as little as necessary into overhead. 23. Can I get a refund? If you move or if your child is transferred to a different school, we will refund the unused portion of your pass. But please note these are the only circumstances under which we can offer a refund. 7 BIDS OPERATIONS 24. When does the bus arrive at school? All routes are timed to arrive at school 5 -10 minutes before the morning bell. 25. When does the bus leave school? All buses are scheduled to depart school 7 -10 minutes after the afternoon bell. 26. What about Wednesdays and Conference Days? There are separate schedules for Regular Days, Wednesdays, and Minimum Days for all routes posted on our website. Go to the page for your route to see the exact times. 27. Where does the bus stop in my neighborhood? On your route page you'll see a Google map showing the route of the bus and the exact location of every stop. Click on the map to zoom in or switch to Satellite view to see an actual photographic map of your street and the closest stop. 28. Why do you want children at the stop 5 minutes early? State law requires drivers to stop traffic and escort children to the bus if they are not already standing at the stop. This throws off our schedules and annoys the neighbors. We also don't want your kids to miss the bus by cutting it too close in the morning. Our drivers try hard to stick to the published schedule, but sometimes things happen and they just can't be that precise. 29. What if my child misses the bus? That does sometimes happen to some kids so please be prepared. Every family should have a backup plan where kids have a way to contact a parent or neighbor that can get them to school, or that they can notify if they plan to walk. 30. What if the bus is late? This sometimes happens too due to traffic or mechanical problems. Our bus operator would have a replacement bus on the way in case of a problem. To check on a late bus call the First Student Dispatch Office at (925) 926 -0375 between 5:30 a.m. and 5:00 p. M. 31. Who do I call if there is a problem? 3 If it involves Lost & Found or any issue relating directly to a bus or driver, call the First Student dispatch office at (925) 926 -0375 between 5:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on school days. For everything else, call or text the TRAFFIX Program Manager Elaine Schroth on school days from 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. at (925) 866 -TRFX (8739). RIDING PRIVILEGES 32. Can my child be assigned to more than one route? All students are assigned one route and one stop. But if circumstances require your child to be at different homes or after school care locations, contact the Program Manager and he will try to accommodate you. 33. Can my child get off at a different stop? Students may only travel to their assigned stop, unless prior arrangements have been made with the Program Manager. If it is for a one -time occurrence like a play date, please see the Play Date Policy on the Customer Service page. 34. Can my child bring a friend home on the bus? Yes, if that friend is a registered TRAFFIX rider and you make the request in writing two school days in advance. (Please see the Play Date Policy on the Customer Service page). But under no circumstance can we transport a child who is not a registered TRAFFIX rider. 35. Do the buses have seatbelts? Yes. All our buses are equipped with lap and shoulder seatbelts. 36. Do all riders have to wear their seatbelts? Yes. All riders must wear a seatbelt at all times without exception. 37. What if my child has to cross the street? When getting off the bus, drivers will escort any children having to cross the street. 38. Can riders open the windows? Yes, kids are allowed to open the windows, except when common sense or the bus driver dictates otherwise. 39. Can riders stick anything out the windows? 91 No. No part of a child's body should ever extend through a window, and no item of any kind may thrown out a window. 40. Do cars have to stop when a bus stops? Yes! When a bus stops and its red lights and stop arm are activated, cars in both directions must stop. Where there is a divided roadway with a median, only cars in moving the same direction as the bus must stop. There are significant fines for drivers who fail to yield to a School bus. DiSCIPLINE 41. What happens if a child doesn't follow the rules? A verbal warning will be issued to the student... If the student continues to violate student behavior guidelines, then an Incident Report Form will be filed. A copy of the report will be sent to the school and parents. The school may take appropriate disciplinary action and the TRAFFIX Program Manager can suspend or revoke transportation privileges. See Discipline and Safety Rules. 42. Who files the Incident Report Forms? Parents, other students, teachers, members of the public, school site administrators or the bus driver may report student behavior violations. 43. Can my bus pass be taken away? Yes. If your child does not respond to the progressive discipline assigned, your pass may be suspended or revoked without refund. See Parent Into Letter and Discipline and Safety Rules . 44. Are parents financially responsible for vandalism? Yes, parents /guardians are financially responsible for vandalism caused by their child. 45. What if my child is being bullied? Contact your school principal or the Program Manager immediately. 46. What if my child is accused of bullying? Your child may be entered into a progressive discipline process. If bullying is happening and does not cease, your child may be temporarily suspended from the bus, and /or may have the annual pass revoked without refund. Questions? Email: info(cDRideTRAFFIX.com; Phone: 925 - 866 -TRFX (8739) 10 Joel Paulson From: John Shepardson <shepardsonlaw @me.com> Sent: Sunday, February 15, 2015 11:04 PM To: Marcia Jensen; BSpector; Steven Leonardis; Marico Sayoc; Rob Rennie; Council; Greg Larson; Robert Schultz; Laurel Prevetti; Matt Morley Subject: No. 40 and Town (Steal Ideas from Danville (a lot like LG), a small town next to major highway) Quoting from http: / /www.danville.ca.gov /Services /Traffic -and- Transportation/Traffic- Concerns/ Neighborhood Traffic Management Program The Town recognizes that automobile traffic poses one of the greatest threats to the quality of life of its citizens. Recognizing the need for new and innovative techniques to address age -old neighborhood traffic issues, the Town Council directed staff to develop a Neighborhood Traffic Management Program (NTMP). Quoting from http: / /www.danville.ca.gov/ Services /Traffic- and - Transportation- Services/ TRAFFIX Program. TRAFFIX is a congestion relief program aimed at school - related traffic. A network of TRAFFIX buses serve various elementary, middle, and high schools throughout the San Ramon Valley. Quoting from http://www.danville.ca.gov/ Services / Traffic - and - Transportation /Transportation - Planning -and- Programs/ ie Town of Danville participates on regional transportation agencies at the regional and countywide level, vocating for the interests of the Town. These regional transportation planning and programmatic agencies ,lude: Tri- Valley Transportation Council (TVTC): Oversees the expenditures of development fees for transportaton ii the Tri- Valley area. Member agencies include the Town of Danville, counties of Alameda and Contra Costa al the cities of Dublin, Livermore, Pleasanton and San Ramon. Southwest Area Transportation Committee (SWAT): A regional transportation planning committee that provid recommendations to the Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA) on transportation projects in the San Ramon Valley and Lamorinda. Member agencies include the towns of Danville and Moraga, cities of Lafayett Moraga and San Ramon, and County of Contra Costa. Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA): Formed by Contra Costa County voters in 1988, CCTA manages the county's transportation sales tax program and manages countywide transportation planning. CCT. also serves as hte county's Congestion Management Agency, responsible for putting programs in place to keep traffic levels manageable. TRAFFIX (Measure J Traffic Congestion Relief Agency): Primarily funded by the Measure J half -cent sales tax in Contra Costa County, TRAFFIX's mission is to reduce traffic congestion along the San Ramon Valley's busiest intersections by providing school bus transportation to students. The service began in Fall 2009 and serves Los Cerros Middle School, Green Valley Elementary School and Vista Grande Elementary School in Danville, and four schools in San Ramon. Member agencies include the Town o Danville, City of San Ramon, County of Contra Costa and the San Ramon Valley Unified School District. (emphasis added) 511 Contra Costa: A transportation demand management program that promotes alternatives to the single occupant vehicle. 511 Contra Costa provides trip planning services for commuters and residentes who would like to cycle or use public transportation to get around. 511 Contra Costa is a program of the Contra Costa Transportaton Authority and its member agencies, with additional funding from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. Street Smarts: A traffic safety education program in the San Ramon Valley whose mission is to change pedestrian, cyclist and driver behavior. Street Smarts implements programs at elementary, middle and high schools as well as outreach activities in the community. Participating agencies include the Town of Danville, City of San Ramon, County of Contra Costa, San Ramon Valley Unified School District and other community Source for pics below http:// www. danville .ca.gov /Services/Traffic -and- Transportation/Parking Quoting from http:// www. danvil le.ca.gov /Services/rraffic- and- Transi)ortation/Traffic- Safety/ The Town of Danville supports the safety of those using all modes of transportation: pedestrians, cyclists and drivers. The Town practices the commonly- accepted elements of successful traffic safety efforts known as the three "E's ": education, engineering and enforcement. • Education: The Town is a collaborative partner in Street Smarts, a San Ramon Valley -wide traffic safety education program aimed at changing pedestrian, cyclist and driver behavior. Led by the Transportation Services Department, the program includes an elementary school poster and storybook contest, middle school video contest, high school teen driving program and community outreach efforts. As part of a federally- funded Safe Routes to School grant, Street Smarts also hosts after - school bike rodeos and assemblies at elementary and middle schools. The Danville Police Department partners with Street Smarts during activities throughout the year. • Engineering: Traffic safety is top of mind when designing improvements or additions to existing transportation infrastructure. The strategic placement and design of traffic calming devices and markings can improve safety along roadways, trails, bike lanes and pathways. Traffic calming measures may include the installation of speed humps, traffic control signage or infrastructure changes such as raised crosswalks and curb extensions. • Enforcement: Targeted police enforcement can also increase community awareness of speeding problems and safety concerns. The Police Department is committed to utilizing its available resources to respond to areas experiencing traffic problems as identified by collision analysis, resident concerns, and conditions observed by enforcement officers. JS:) This Page Intentionally Left Blank Joel Paulson From: John Shepardson <shepardsonlaw @me.com> Sent: Monday, February 16, 2015 11:51 AM To: Marcia Jensen; Council Subject: No. 40 ( "Perfect Storm ") > 1. Negotiation 101: I like Grosvenor and if we feel we HAVE TO HAVE them, we risk making make huge concessions to keep them. Peeps were made to believe Netflix might leave, that we had to have the tax money for Town and schools, and so Carlyle got 485K instead of EIR Superior Alternative of 350K. > 2. Solutions? Minimize damage. Whatever is the lowest impact on Town traffic. How do we fulfill that primary objective? > 1) Max on senior housing and if poss use to meet Rhna. > 2) Smarts lights > 3) Danville's Traffix bus system for schools > 4) Stanford like bus /shuttle system > 5) Switch to Sheriff to get off the Merry-Go -Round of big commercial requiring more housing. I would rather not file a lawsuit against the State of California re Rhna. > 6) 35 height limit. The higher, the denser. I would have sacrificed open space at Albright for lower heights. > 7) 25 percent reductions in commercial and residential. Poss traditional tract homes like Belwood. > Traffic generation for denser housing is less per unit is offset by greater number of units per acre. 20 units /acre x 5 car trips /unit is 100. 4 units /acre x 10 car trips /acre is 40. > 8) Massive shift to biking and safe routes to schools. > 9) Congestion pricing for cars passing thru? > 10) Promote VLR to LG (even though will bring more Rhna units). Understand the Rhna formula, and poss lobby for less impact on municipalities like us. > 3. Additional services to the peeps in Town are of reduced value if the traffic takes 15 minutes to go two miles. Drive around Santa Row around 5 p.m., and take note it has many more traffic lanes than LG Blvd. > 1S » Joel Paulson From: John Shepardson <shepardsonlaw @me.com> Sent: Saturday, February 21, 2015 9:14 AM To: Council Subject: N. 40 (Medical Trip Gen & Parking) Attachments: SUMC_9_Trips_Parking.pdf, ATT00001.txt htti): / /www. citvofpa loa lto.org /civicax /fileba nk /documents /8840 Stanford University Medical Center Trip Generation and Parking Demand Study 4 Ali wx r r FEHR & PEERS TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS 100 Pringle Ave, Suite 600 Walnut Creek, CA Prepared for: Stanford University Medical Center October 2008 WC06 -2327 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............... ............................... Purposeof Study ................................................................................................................... ............................... i Trip Generation and Parking Demand Rates ........................................................................ ............................... i Project Trip Generation and Parking Demand ......................................... ............................... ............................iii 1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... ..............................1 ProjectDescription ................................................................................................................. ..............................1 Purposeof Study .................................................................................................................. ............................... 7 2. DATA COLLECTION ........................................................................................................... ............................... 8 SurveyMethod ...................................................................................................................... ............................... 8 DataSummary ...................................................................................................................... ............................... 8 3. SUMC TRAFFIC AND PARKING CHARACTERISTICS ..................................................... .............................13 ParkingCharacteristics ......................................................................................................... .............................13 Trip Generation Characteristics ............................................................................................ .............................18 4. PROJECT PARKING NEEDS .............................................................................................. .............................20 Project Parking Demand and recommended supply ............................................................ .............................20 S. PROJECT TRIP GENERATION .......................................................................................... .............................22 EstimatedTrip Generation .................................................................................................... .............................22 LIST OF FIGURES Figure1 Traffic Study Area — Regional ................................................................................ ..............................3 Figure2 Traffic Study Area — Local ...................................................................................... ..............................4 Figure3 Parking to Be Demolished ...................................................................................... ..............................5 Figure4 Proposed New Parking ........................................................................................... ..............................6 Figure 5 Traffic and Parking Survey Locations .................................................................... ..............................9 Figure 6 AM Peak Hour SUMC Parking Occupancy ........................................................... .............................16 LIST OF TABLES Table ES -1 Estimated Trip Generation Rates ................................................................ ............................... ii Table ES -2 Estimated Parking Generation Rates .......................................................... .........................:..... ii Table ES -3 Summary of Medical Center Project ................................ ............................... ............................iii Table 1 Summary of Medical Center Project ...................................................................... ..............................2 Table 2 Summary of Hospital Peak Hour Driveway Counts .............................................. .............................10 Table 3 Mid - morning Parking Supply and Occupancy ...................................................... .............................11 Table 4 Mid - afternoon Parking Supply and Occupancy .................................................... .............................12 Table 5 Mid - moming Parking Occupancy ......................................................................... .............................14 Table 6 Mid - afternoon Parking Occupancy and Parking Demand .................................... .............................15 Table 7 Estimated Parking Generation Rate ..................................................................... .............................17 Table 8 Estimated Trip Generation Rates ......................................................................... .............................18 Table 9 Comparison of Trip Generation Rates for Medical Office Buildings ..................... .............................19 Table 10 Estimated Parking Demand and Recommended Supply ..................................... .............................21 Table 11 Current Parking Lot Vacancies (Palo Alto Lots) ................................................... .............................21 Table 12 Project Trip Generation ........................................................................................ .............................22 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PURPOSE OF STUDY This study provides an assessment of the expected parking demand and peak hour trip generation of the proposed LPCH and SHC projects. The study utilizes October 2006 traffic counts and parking occupancy surveys to define unique trip generation and parking demand rates for the hospitals as a whole (inpatient and clinic space) and also for certain Welch Road medical office buildings. These rates are applied to the growth plans for the hospitals, including new inpatient and clinic space, and for a new medical office building to be located on the Hoover Pavilion site. Note on March 2008 Revision -- This update to the September 2007 report incorporates changes to the project description, and adds notes regarding the final trip generation and parking demand rates accepted for use in the EIR, based on the City of Palo Alto staff and EIR consultant's peer review and analysis. The project description changes are: • New medical office space at Hoover Pavilion site reduced from 200,000 to 60, 000 • Clinic space at SHC increased by 100, 000 square feet • Hospital space at LPCH increased by 40, 000 square feet These changes result from the need to accommodate and serve more hospital and clinic uses at the main hospitals site. The previous project definition proposed a new 200,000 square foot medical office building at the Hoover Pavilion site, to be used to accommodate a Flexible mix of medical office and some clinic space. With the change, that space has been reduced to a new 60,000 square foot medical office building, and the remaining 140,000 square feet are relocated to the main hospitals site to be used for clinic space (100,000 square feet at SHC) and hospital space (40,000 square feet at LPCH). Table ES -3 and Table 1 contain the updated project description information. The final recommended trip generation and parking demand rates are identified in boldface in Tables E -1 and ES- 2, as well as Tables 7 and 8. These changes result in reduced net new project trips and parking demand, as summarized in Tables 10 and 12. TRIP GENERATION AND PARKING DEMAND RATES The survey data indicate that the hospitals generate traffic and parking demand at rates that are generally consistent with rates observed at other large medical centers. Tables ES -1 and ES -2 give the trip generation and parking demand rates. The rates are based on the total floor area for inpatient space and clinics. The tables also give rates for three Welch Road medical office buildings, two of which will be removed as part of the LPCH and SHC projects. The third building was added to provide a broader sample of Welch Road medical office building traffic and parking characteristics. The hospitals generate about 0.80 peak hour trips per thousand square feet, and the medical office buildings generate about 2.2 — 2.6 peak hour trips per thousand square feet. Based on the City of Palo Alto's EIR consultant's review and analysis, the trip generation rates shown in Table ES -1, in bold face, are accepted for use in the EIR. The hospitals' peak parking demand rate is 2.23 spaces per thousand square feet based on the current actual floor area, and 1.78 spaces per thousand square feet considering the increased space, or building "right- sizing ", that would be needed to accommodate current uses. The medical office buildings' peak parking demand is 4.36 spaces per thousand square feet. Based on the City of Palo Alto staff and EIR consultant's review of these rates, the medical office rate was adjusted to be consistent with Palo Alto zoning code, which requires 4.0 spaces per thousand square feet for medical office buildings. The bolded rates in Table ES -2 are the final recommended rates for planning for new parking at the Medical Center. TABLE ES -2 ESTIMATED PARKING GENERATION RATES TABLE ES -1 ESTIMATED TRIP GENERATION RATES Land Use Land Use Existing Size AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Hospital (inpatient and outpatient)' Trip Rate 1,753.197 ksf MENNEN AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Inbound Outbound Total Inbound Outbound Total Hospital 1,753.197 ksf 0.61 0.20 Medical Office - 900 Welch Road 0.81 3.45 vehicles per ksf 0.23 0.58 0.82 5.11 vehicles per ksf 5.60 vehicles per ksf Average Medical Office Medical Office 4.09 vehicles per ksf 4.36 vehicles per ksf Medical Office 703 Welch Road 23.5 ksf 1.87 0.77 2.64 0.47 1.79 2.26 900 Welch Road 45.481 ksf 2.02 0.86 2.68 0.59 1.08 1.67 1101 Welch Road 41.067 ksf 2.09 0.49 2.58 0.54 2.19 2.73 Total 110.048 ksf 2.03 0.62 2.6b 0.56 1.65 2.20 Note: ksf = 1,000 square -feet Source: Fehr & Peers. March 2008. The hospitals' peak parking demand rate is 2.23 spaces per thousand square feet based on the current actual floor area, and 1.78 spaces per thousand square feet considering the increased space, or building "right- sizing ", that would be needed to accommodate current uses. The medical office buildings' peak parking demand is 4.36 spaces per thousand square feet. Based on the City of Palo Alto staff and EIR consultant's review of these rates, the medical office rate was adjusted to be consistent with Palo Alto zoning code, which requires 4.0 spaces per thousand square feet for medical office buildings. The bolded rates in Table ES -2 are the final recommended rates for planning for new parking at the Medical Center. 'f F6HR& 11LIRs TABLE ES -2 ESTIMATED PARKING GENERATION RATES Land Use Existing Size Parking Demand Rate AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Hospital (inpatient and outpatient)' 1,753.197 ksf 2.23 vehicles per ksf 2.22 vehicles per ksf Hospital (incorporating current right - sizing need)z 2,199.197 ksf 1.78 vehicles per ksf 1.78 vehicles per ksf Medical Office Medical Office - 703 Welch Road 23.500 ksf 3.70 vehicles per ksf 3.91 vehicles per ksf Medical Office - 900 Welch Road 45.481 ksf 3.45 vehicles per ksf 3.58 vehicles per ksf Medical Office -1101 Welch Road 41.067 ksf 5.11 vehicles per ksf 5.60 vehicles per ksf Average Medical Office 4.09 vehicles per ksf 4.36 vehicles per ksf Medical Office 4.0 vehicles per ksf 4.0 vehicles per ksf 1. LPCH and SHC combined. See Technical Appendix for a detailed breakdown of the existing hospitals' Boor space. 1 Adds 320 ksf (right sizing need for SHC) and 126 ksf (right sizing need for LPCH). Note: ksf = 1,000 square -feet Source: Fehr & Peers, March 2008. 'f F6HR& 11LIRs PROJECT TRIP GENERATION AND PARKING DEMAND Table ES -3 shows the project as currently defined, with net increases in floor area at SHC and LPCH, the demolition of 701, 703 and 1101 Welch, and new medical office building space at the Hoover Pavilion site. The new project uses, as defined in Table ES -3, generate 766 AM peak hour trips and 746 PM peak hour trips, and a parking demand of 2,099 vehicles (1,522 parking spaces for hospital uses and 577 parking spaces for medical office uses). The recommended parking supply, which incorporates a 10 percent margin to facilitate traffic circulation, as well as a reduction of 258 spaces due to available vacancies in lots currently serving the hospitals, is 2,051 spaces (1,416 hospital spaces and 635 medical office spaces). Note that this recommended parking supply is calculated to meet the net new parking demand; replacement parking to address lots and structures to be demolished should be considered additive to these numbers. TABLE ES -3 SUMMARY OF MEDICAL CENTER PROJECT Location Proposed New Space Space to be Removed Space Credit for Right - Sizing/ Overcrowding Relief Net New Space Stanford Hospitals and Clinics Hospital 1,100,000 sf (551,800 sf) (320,000 sf) 228,200 at Clinics 429,000 sf (113,300 sf) -- 315,700 sf Hoover Pavilion Hospital use to be converted to MOB (84,230 sf) (84,230 sf) Subtotal 1, 529, 000 sf (749,330so (320,000st) 459,670 sf Lucile Packard Children's Hospital Hospital 471,300 sf -- (126,000 sf) 345,300 at Clinics 50,000 at -- -- 50,000 sf Subtotal 521,300 sf -- (126,000st) 395,300 sf Medical Office Buildings 701 Welch' (56,300 sf) (56,300 sf) 703 Welch' (23,500 sf) (23,500 at) 1101 Welch' (40,100 sf) (40,100 sf) Hoover Pavilion Site -- New 60,000 sf 60,000 sf Hoover Pavilion Hospital use to be converted to MOB 84,230 sf 84,230 sf Subtotal 144,230 sf (119,900 so 24,330 sf Total 2,194,530 sf (869,230 sf) (446,000 sp 879,300 sf Note: sf = square -feet 1. These medical office buildings would be removed to make way for new construction. Source: Stanford University Medical Center, March 2008. 111 P I l r. INTRODUCTION Fehr & Peers has conducted several traffic and parking studies in recent years for the hospitals, including due diligence for the Center for Cancer Treatment and Prevention /Ambulatory Care Pavilion /Parking Structure IV project (1999); the Stanford University Medical Center Traffic/Travel Demand Management Study (2003); a West Campus /Medical Center Area Circulation Study and Welch Road Origin- Destination study (July 2005); and most recently, a parking demand analysis for the Stanford Hospitals and Clinics (SHC) /Lucile Packard Children's Hospital (LPCH) Long Range Development Plans (LRDPs) (September 2005). This study draws on all of the traffic and parking characteristics data already developed, plus targeted new data collection and analysis, to provide an up -to -date, accurate assessment of the expected parking demand and trip generation associated with the SHC and LPCH projects. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Stanford University Medical Center (SUMC) is located in Palo Alto, California, on the Stanford University campus. SUMC is comprised of the SHC, LPCH, and Stanford University's School of Medicine (SoM). Figure 1 shows the regional context of SUMC and Figure 2 shows the SUMC local area. This study focuses on the SHC and LPCH components of SUMC. The proposed project would expand and replace components of the SHC and LPCH, and replace a component of the SoM. The latter is not considered here since it only serves to replace existing space. The proposed project would demolish medical office buildings located at 701, 703 and 1101 Welch Road. In addition, the project would construct 60,000 square -feet of medical office space on the Hoover Pavilion site. Table 1 summarizes the proposed project. The SHC project would provide 1,529,000 square -feet of new space and add 144 net new beds. The project would remove about 665,100 square -feet of space on the main hospital site, and would convert Hoover Pavilion (84,230 square feet) from hospital use to medical office use. The hospital is currently undersized, relative to the services it provides; therefore, a portion of the expansion is needed just to better accommodate existing uses. This adjustment, or "right- sizing" space credit, is estimated to be 320,000 square feet. Thus, the future space which would accommodate new uses is estimated to be 359,670 square feet. The LPCH project would increase its space by 521,300 square feet and add 104 net new beds. The hospital is currently undersized, relative to the services it provides; therefore, approximately 126,000 square -feet of the expansion is needed just to better accommodate existing uses. Thus, the future space which would accommodate new uses is estimated to be at 395,300 square feet. This study estimates the proposed project traffic and parking demand based on the new space accommodating new uses. The "right- sizing" space would not accommodate additional staff or patients; therefore, it would not generate new traffic or parking demand. Figure 3 shows the parking to be demolished, and Figure 4 shows proposed replacement/new parking locations. The project includes demolition of Parking Structure 3, a portion of the LPCH parking structure, and the surface lot near the Falk Center (see Figure 3). New parking structures will be built under and near the new SHC buildings, near LPCH, and at the Hoover Pavilion site. The project will construct the net new parking shown to be needed in this study. f 1 I II10.�L I'iiu TABLE 1 SUMMARY OF MEDICAL CENTER PROJECT Location Proposed New Space Space to be Removed Space Credit for Right - Sizing/ Overcrowding Relief Net New Space Stanford Hospitals and Clinics Hospital 1,100,000 sf (551,800 sf) (320,000 sf) 228,200 sf Clinics 429,000 sf (113,300 sf) -- 315,700 sf Hoover Pavilion Hospital use to be converted to MOB (84,230 sf) (84,230 sf) Subtotal 1 1, 529, 000 sf (749,330st) (320,000sf) 459,670 sf Lucile Packard Children's Hospital Hospital 471,300 sf -- (126,000 sf) 345,300 sf Clinics 50,000 sf -- -- 50,000 sf Subtotal 521,300 sf - (126,000st) 395,300 sf Medical Office Buildings 701 Welch' (56,300 sf) (56,300 sf) 703 Welch' (23,500 sf) (23,500 sf) 1101 Welch' (40,100 sf) (40,100 sf) Hoover Pavilion Site -- New 60,000 sf 60,000 sf Hoover Pavilion Hospital use to be converted to MOB 84,230 sf 64,230 sf Subtotal 144,230 sf (119,900so 24,330 sf Total 2,194,530 sf (869,230 sf) (446,000 sf) 879,300 sf Note: sf = square -feet 1. These medical office buildings would be removed to make way for new construction. Source: Stanford University Medical Center, March 2008. Ilur,� I'iir,� 9 /ate Poa dP /asp 41104r n 4e::o Scale FEHR & PEERS Sand Hill Road ~Ravenswood Avenue J6 JyP La Vineyard\ a Lane \1 a� h Pasteur Drive Qoad aY' O Stock FarmT Road Sgg � �on,Ae,n S^ A Galvez P Street Za F, O 1P A 9P/a ¢a5 Roa -+ a J� arcadgt¢poad Emb °av J¢ Galvez to 4s Street P a O LP a ""a a° htl a el (I 1z PPr a oi,'o9 Pa/ Stanford Medical Center Pre- application Traffic l Parking Study Figure 1 J¢ ¢C P a ""a a° S r�dot ci oaa as Stanford Medical Center Pre- application Traffic l Parking Study Figure 1 40 N Not to Scale Stanford Medical Center Preapplication Traffic / Parking Study FEHR & PEERS TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS TRAFFIC STUDY AREA - LOCAL MvM Xq9 C,m,ON.WarMpalW 2377_2 Rg,e 2 0 Qo�Q o� o�d� Peaao, pr -- WO7°o6° C� .[3, 0 / �.Snr• i Frnnrmairn �rO B Q 1 Qa,J/ i •'4 vSHOPPING • CENTER ° Io eoaa� NORDSTROM ST APARTMENT ° OO r O I ° D _ �o B o0 61 BB ° p O 5 LP so o- _ (p o i \mom] " LEGEND Q Parking Structure 3 ID D 0 �•�• —• Palo Alto Boundary © Falk Lot \ 4� Project Area Boundary © Hoover Site of to Sc a Parking, Demolish �. Stanford Medical Center Pre - application Traffic / Parking Study FEHR & PEERS TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS PARKING SUPPLY -DEMOLITION October 2008 Figure 3 OraphicslOct080C06- 2327_3 n{lCjocg�°°�� OQ6� � a�G�iap G� 116N eoUo.O � 0 P C& 'RD �'` \'o - Vo NORDSTROM 1 iii��.-- -__J I I vM-W FOM a �\ CJ' v V /• I s ME �' ❑ Q ❑� ° 0 O p. a gee ❑ n�i1 ❑ ❑ ° 00 — 1� ' II 4fl ORNE � LEGEND Palo Alto Boundary O (underground) (underground) Parking Structure © Structure (underground) (underground) Project Area Boundary © Clinic Structure 0 Hoover Structure No o (underground) Scale New Parking (above ground) Stanford Medical Center Pre-application Traffic / Parking Study FEHR & PEERS TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS PARKING SUPPLY -REPLACEMENT October 2008 Figure 4 Graphics \OCl08TWC06 - 2327_4 9 PURPOSE OF STUDY The purpose of this study is to provide information on the existing SUMC parking and trip generation characteristics as well as develop parking and trip generation rates to allow accurate assessment of the project's parking demand and traffic impacts. This report is divided into five chapters as described below: • Chapter 1 — Introduction discusses work completed to date, the project description, and purpose of this study. • Chapter 2 — Data Collection describes the survey methods and summarizes the existing data. • Chapter 3 — SUMC Traffic and Parking Characteristics discusses the parking and trip generation characteristics of SUMC, develops a parking generation rate and trip generation rates, and compares the SUMC rates to other area medical centers. • Chapter 4 — Project Parking Needs describes the project parking demand based on the rates developed in Chapter 3 and recommends a parking supply to accommodate the proposed project. • Chapter 5 — Project Trip Generation describes the proposed project trip generation. The technical appendix includes the driveway traffic counts and parking area surveys conducted for the study. liii & 2. DATA COLLECTION This chapter presents the existing traffic and parking data collected at the SUMC and the methods used for collection. SURVEY METHOD Fehr & Peers conducted traffic counts during the morning (7:00 to 9:00 AM) and evening (4:00 to 6:00 PM) peak periods for 20 parking areas (see Figure 5). These counts were conducted using both machine counts or tubes that count a vehicle as it drives over the tube (6 driveways) and manual/person counts It driveways). In addition to driveway counts, peak period occupancy and parking permit surveys were conducted for the 20 parking areas and three on- street locations (Oak Road, Welch Road, and Pasteur Drive). The surveyors counted occupied spaces as well as indicated which type of parking permit the vehicle had i.e., hospital, campus, or none. Mid -day parking occupancy typically peaks in the mid - morning or mid - afternoon. Hospital parking security indicated that parking peaked around 10:00 AM; therefore, parking surveys were conducted from 10:00 to 11:30 AM and 1:30 to 3:00 PM. Figure 5 illustrates the location of the parking areas surveyed. DATA SUMMARY Driveway Counts As discussed above, morning and evening peak period driveway counts were conducted for 20 parking areas serving SUMC. Driveway counts are included in the technical appendix section B. The driveway counts indicate the peak hour for the SUMC traffic is about 7:00 to 8:00 AM and 4:00 to 5:00 PM. The number of trips at each count location assumed to be generated by SHC or LPCH, as opposed to the University campus, was estimated based on the proportion of vehicles with Hospital versus Campus permits, as determined through the parking lot survey (described further in the next section). The proportion includes all vehicles with hospital permits, along with a lot- specific proportion of "other" vehicles (vehicles whose association with campus or hospital could not be determined, i.e. loading zones, service vehicles, etc.) In most cases, all metered or time - limited visitor spaces were counted as hospital - related, due to the proximity of the lots to the hospitals. Three medical office building driveways were counted, 703, 1101, and 900 Welch. The first two buildings were surveyed because they will be demolished as part of the construction, and the third was selected to provide a broader sample of office building trip rates along Welch Road. Table 2 summarizes the morning and evening peak hour inbound and outbound traffic for SHC, LPCH, and the medical office buildings. As shown in the table, the SHC and LPCH traffic volume is 1,442 vehicles during the AM peak hour with 75 percent of the traffic inbound and 25 percent of the traffic outbound, and 1,425 vehicles during the PM peak hour with 28 percent of the traffic inbound and 72 percent of the traffic outbound. The medical office traffic volume is about 290 vehicles during the AM peak hour with 77 percent of the traffic inbound and 23 percent of the traffic outbound and about 241 vehicles during the PM peak hour with 25 percent inbound and 75 percent outbound. I.inr�� I`iir.� Na. nx 5aam SunFry Vnw+arMN aegaunr5vwa 99 FA iw sbli (2 HO 62nna11 Canter sF m.`vnn.r 91 d INSETII pAM SRk(µ OP (AF O G�k Q s Lh+a� our CameK F ' I>owmawn y`% ^'. Hoover Pavilion F GaloPpo '.'. Classic Mraence (SBC IN$ET1 - TNCa MHrau snmom�. Pi uPlrPrlettl. t <ia y hr ` NnlAlrmen (!ureb6nir<a � 14 s� yam no >sa C7�o qc L HO SkanlmE "N ]bU\ )%I IDa SOinlam� r�geru 1Ymk 4� �eACj� 9 e i nPOrimmn ecv nJ i9`j /q}`i 'r�%]ry/ O L3 J01 At �9�I} OKY52 nluJ ,ucrl�/ /R /� /�/ //� Sle <p r .01"W M -0^'I C�Ilde ll[u 1�0 Nosoul 'Ij�� 1130 1 "Al rCeme a Suilom I`�:.j eeuo nso nld ( o a,m V 4 mu e >d lllR ( slanrore HeapNal r uCk"' o S'!4Ven 5erv5es Ned tlln4ee. Uaenes Lnl� m •es) k &iL y .' = O .a lPaM1ly (Marttl we wi1M1 camw ua.<camr.InaealPR Cenkr � - scnmlamea clrcl = Welch RO S I6, P %IF1 t.2 Pwlltrq Wks ED- Lw Uud W Eb'. SIaRI vd,.o pome chum on (om0'>tn Llben H °^r Ge.lor Stierce �' wM Campus) bdlefieN (enure = wawa PP a "' F irrylnrmrIM tory lA EPI �d WSinam P. Hie NumEee Na. nx 5aam SunFry Vnw+arMN aegaunr5vwa 99 FA iw sbli (2 HO 62nna11 Canter sF m.`vnn.r 91 d INSETII pAM SRk(µ OP (AF O G�k Q s Lh+a� our CameK F ' I>owmawn y`% ^'. Hoover Pavilion F GaloPpo '.'. Classic Mraence (SBC IN$ET1 - TNCa MHrau snmom�. Pi uPlrPrlettl. t <ia y hr ` NnlAlrmen (!ureb6nir<a � 14 s� yam no >sa C7�o qc L HO SkanlmE "N ]bU\ )%I IDa SOinlam� r�geru 1Ymk 4� �eACj� 9 e i nPOrimmn ecv nJ i9`j /q}`i 'r�%]ry/ O L3 J01 At �9�I} OKY52 nluJ ,ucrl�/ /R /� /�/ //� Sle <p r .01"W M -0^'I C�Ilde ll[u 1�0 Nosoul 'Ij�� 1130 1 "Al rCeme a Suilom I`�:.j eeuo nso nld ( o a,m V 4 mu e >d lllR ( slanrore HeapNal r uCk"' o S'!4Ven 5erv5es Ned tlln4ee. Uaenes Lnl� m •es) k &iL y .' '^ t «ea ides° p O camw Cenkr � - y P %IF1 t.2 LS J1 w9 f q � y '^ t «ea ides° mead rexa,we rims X_ mem `e GYam'(hem r\ RO)II Wv w9 f q lid, fltl9 (om0'>tn Llben H °^r Ge.lor Stierce �' n A bdlefieN (enure Br01eYr ®1 (need Wvtl ylarrtn lario a "' le Yee, �tfEAl lA EPI �d WSinam P. Hie Q waauaec NRi NeYa babl Cmw PayykMM TMe I Mlry Mulr FEHR & PEERS "•+`• `••`•` +" TRAFFIC AND PARKING COUNT LOCATIONS o>a.+e.am..maa y rq..e TABLE 2 SUMMARY OF HOSPITAL PEAK HOUR DRIVEWAY COUNTS Parking Area Location Stanford Parking Designation AM Peak Hour Traffic I Volume PM Peak Hour Traffic Volume In Out Total In Out Total SHC and LPCH Parking Areas East of Quarry Road and North of Arboretum L -1 45 16 61 32 49 81 East of Quarry Road at North of Vineyard Lane L -2 37 6 43 19 53 72 East of Quarry Road at South of Vineyard Lane L -3 27 7 34 34 77 111 West of Quarry Road L -5 35 35 70 42 49 91 West of Quarry Extension (Emergency Room Parking) L -7 30 25 55 19 21 40 East of Quarry Extension and North of Roth Way L -9 61 46 107 27 63 90 Blake Wilbur Clinic Parking L -13 36 12 48 2 22 24 North of Campus Drive West L -15 f L -16 62 16 78 28 56 84 North of Stock Farm Road and West of Campus Drive West L -17 11 1 12 1 11 12 South of Oak Road and West of Welch Road L -18 71 7 78 12 60 72 South of Oak Road and North of Stock Farm road L -20 53 2 55 10 46 56 North of Roth Way and Southeast of Campus Drive S -1 151 15 166 29 150 179 North of Pasteur Drive and East of Blake Wilbur Drive S -3 236 77 313 64 123 187 Between Pasteur Drive, East of Welch Road S -4 142 11 153 7 138 145 South of Oak Road and West of Welch Road S -5 35 1 36 6 60 66 Welch Road — LPCH Parking Structure LPCH 53 80 133 68 47 115 Total Hospital Traffic 1,085 357 1,442 400 1,025 1,425 Medical Office Parking Areas 703 Welch Road 44 18 62 11 42 53 900 Welch Road 92 30 122 27 49 76 1101 Welch Road 86 20 106 22 90 112 Total Medical Office Traffic 222 68 290 60 181 241 Total Traffic 1,307 425 1,732 460 1,206 1,666 Source: Fehr & Peers, data collected in October 2006 (all but Lt) and September 2007 (L1). Parking Supply and Occupancy Surveys Tables 3 and 4 display the mid - morning and mid - afternoon parking supplies and occupancies within the surveyed SUMC parking areas. The technical appendix contains the parking area survey worksheets. The occupied spaces are broken down by hospital, campus, visitor, and other types (the other includes service vehicles, loading zone parking, and any unknown use). As shown in the two tables, about 6,400 of the 8,900 total available spaces are occupied during both peak periods. The hospital and visitors occupy about 4,200 of the 8,900 total available spaces during both peak periods. 10 TABLE 3 MID - MORNING PARKING SUPPLY AND OCCUPANCY Parking Area Supply Occupied Spaces Hospital I Campus Visitor Other Total SUMC Parking Areas L -1 564 90 132 12 105 339 L -2 200 25 41 22 0 88 L -3 463 357 80 0 0 437 L -5 130 103 12 0 0 115 L -7 31 2 0 0 21 23 L -9 194 170 2 0 15 187 L -13 123 22 0 61 0 83 L -15 497 108 337 21 16 482 L -16 216 27 102 7 7 143 L -17 495 43 295 0 0 338 L -18 336 184 162 0 0 346 L -20 238 21 24 1 0 46 S -1 1,083 623 201 22 2 848 S -3 699 51 0 620 0 671 S-4 1,028 525 156 0 0 681 S -5 1,508 372 388 0 25 785 LPCH Parking Structure 295 26 0 169 0 195 Pasteur Drive On- street 54 10 0 51 7 68 Oak Road On- street 80 33 16 0 0 49 Welch Road On- street 55 10 24 0 3 37 Subtotal 8,289 2,802 1,972 986 201 5,961 Medical Office Parking Areas 703 Welch Road 125 63 0 24 0 87 900 Welch Road 224 68 3 89 0 160 1101 Welch Road 275 90 0 120 0 210 Subtotal 624 221 3 233 0 457 Totals 8,913 3,023 1,975 1,219 201 6,418 Source: Fehr 8 Peers, data collected in October 2006 (all but Li ) and September 2007 (1-1). 11 Iinr.AI'lir. TABLE 4 MID - AFTERNOON PARKING SUPPLY AND OCCUPANCY Parking Area Supply Occupied Spaces Hospital I Campus Visitor Other Total SUMC Parking Areas L -1 564 103 131 10 98 342 L -2 200 27 45 24 0 96 L -3 463 348 74 0 0 422 L -5 130 101 14 0 0 115 L -7 31 2 0 0 20 22 L -9 194 153 3 0 0 156 L -13 123 38 0 51 0 89 L -15 497 130 300 13 12 455 L -16 216 22 126 8 7 163 L -17 495 55 312 0 0 367 L -18 336 191 157 0 0 348 L -20 238 20 26 1 0 47 S -1 1,083 502 266 38 2 808 S -3 699 41 0 549 0 590 S4 1,028 628 122 0 1 751 S -5 1,508 403 400 0 32 835 LPCH Parking Structure 295 31 0 186 0 217 Pasteur Drive On- street 54 8 0 48 4 60 Oak Road On- street 80 37 18 0 0 55 Welch Road On- Street 55 21 24 0 3 48 Subtotal 8,289 2,861 2,018 928 179 5,986 Medical Office Parking Areas 703 Welch Road 125 56 0 36 0 92 900 Welch Road 224 76 2 87 0 165 1101 Welch Road 275 99 2 131 0 232 Subtotal 624 231 4 254 0 489 Totals 8,913 3,092 2,022 1,182 0 6,475 Source: Fehr & Peers, data collected in October 2006 (all but L1) and September 2007 (1-1). 12 Ili��. A I'iir� 3. SUMC TRAFFIC AND PARKING CHARACTERISTICS This chapter discusses the parking and trip generation characteristics of the SHC and LPCH based on the data presented in Chapter 2. PARKING CHARACTERISTICS The total parking supply available to the hospitals /clinics is 8,289 spaces (see Tables 3 and 4). Note that some of the parking lots and structures serve both the hospitals and the campus. Parking structures S -1 and S -5 supply the most spaces with about 1,100 spaces in S -1 and 1,500 spaces in S -5. Most of the parking areas supply between 200 and 500 spaces and on- street parking makes up about 190 of the available parking spaces. The three medical office buildings surveyed have a combined parking supply of 624 spaces. These spaces are dedicated to the uses in the buildings, and are not shared with other hospital uses or the main campus. Current Parking Demand Using the parking surveys described in Chapter 2, Fehr & Peers determined the peak hospital parking occupancy, or `demand', during both the mid - morning and mid - afternoon periods. Parking occupancy or demand is the number of spaces in which vehicles are parked. The occupancies are shown in Tables 5 and 6, respectively. Figure 6 illustrates the peak parking occupancy for each parking area during the mid - morning period (the higher of the two periods). As shown in Table 5, for the SUMC parking areas, some of which have shared use with the campus, total parking occupancy during the mid - morning is over 70 percent, and the hospital parking occupancy is about 47 percent. The hospital makes up about 65 percent of the total parking demand during the mid - morning in the SUMC parking areas. The parking demand in the medical office parking areas is between 70 and 80 percent during the mid- morning and almost all of the demand is attributed to the hospital /medical offices. Looking at all of the parking areas together shows that the total parking demand is about 72 percent during the mid - morning, and the hospital parking demand is about 49 percent. Overall, during the mid - morning, about 68 percent of the total parking demand is associated with the hospital. As shown in Table 6, for the SUMC parking areas, total parking occupancy during the mid - afternoon is over 70 percent and the hospital parking occupancy is about 47 percent. The hospital makes up about 65 percent of the total parking demand during the mid - afternoon in the SUMC parking areas. The parking demand in the medical office parking areas is between 70 and 85 percent during the mid - afternoon and almost all of the demand is attributed to the hospital /medical offices. Looking at all of the parking areas together shows that the total parking demand is about 73 percent during the mid - afternoon and the hospital parking demand is about 49 percent. Overall, during the mid - afternoon, about 68 percent of the total parking demand is associated with the hospital. 13 liuc& TABLES MID - MORNING PARKING OCCUPANCY Parking Area Supply Total Occupied Spaces' Hospital Occupied Spaces' Percent Total Parking Demand' Percent Hospital Parking Demand Percent of Total Demand Associated with Hospital' SUMC Parking Areas L -1 564 339 154 60.1% 27.3% 45.4% L -2 200 88 47 44.0% 23.5% 53.4% L -3 463 437 357 94.4% 77.1% 81.7% L -5 130 115 103 88.5% 79.2% 89.6% L -7 31 23 23 74.2% 74.2% 100.0% L -9 194 187 185 96.4% 95.4% 98.9% L -13 123 83 83 67.5% 1 67.5% 100.0% L -15 497 482 129 97.0% 26.0% 26.8% L -16 216 143 34 66.2% 15.7% 23.8% L -17 495 338 43 68.3% 8.7% 12.7% L -18 336 346 184 103.0% 54.8% 53.2% L -20 238 46 22 19.3% 9.2% 47.8% S -1 1,083 848 647 78.3% 59.7% 76.3% S -3 699 671 671 96.0% 1 96.0% 100.0% S -4 1,028 681 525 66.2% 51.1% 77.1% S -5 1,508 785 397 52.1% 26.3% 50.6% LPCH Parking Structure 295 195 195 66.1% 66.1% 100.0% Pasteur Drive On- street 54 68 68 125.9% 125.9% 100.0% Oak Road On- street 60 49 33 61.3% 41.3% 67.3% Welch Road On- Street 55 37 13 67.3% 23.6% 35.1% Subtotal 8,289 5,961 3,913 1 71.9% 1 47.2% 65.6% Medical Office Parking Areas 703 Welch Road 125 87 87 69.6% 69.6% 100.0% 900 Welch Road 224 160 157 71.4% 70.1% 98.1% 1101 Welch Road 275 210 210 76.4% 76.4% 100.0% Subtotal 624 457 454 73.2% 72.8% 99.3% Totals 8,913 6,418 4,367 72.0% 49.0% 68.1% 1. Total occupied spaces includes both campus and hospital and hospital occupied spaces includes only vehicles related to the hospital. 2. This represents the percent of vehicles occupying the parking area associated with the hospital. This does not represent the total occupancy of the parking area because campus demand is not included. 3. This is the portion of the total demand that is due to the hospital. Source: Fehr & Peers, data collected in October 2006 and September 2007 (Lot Li ). fp 14 Ilur�A I'IIr.� TABLE 6 MID - AFTERNOON PARKING OCCUPANCY AND PARKING DEMAND Parking Area Supply Total Occupied Spaces' Hospital Occupied Spaces' Percent Total Parking Demand' Percent Hospital Parking Demand' Percent of Total Demand Associated with Hospital' Hospital Parking Areas L -1 564 342 162 60.6% 28.7% 47.4% L -2 200 96 51 48.0% 25.5% 53.1% L -3 463 422 348 91.1% 75.2% 82.5% L -5 130 115 101 88.5% 77.7% 87.8% L -7 31 1 22 22 71.0% 71.0% 100.0% L -9 194 156 153 80.4% 78.9% 98.1% L -13 123 89 89 72.4% 72.4% 100.0% L -15 497 455 143 91.5% 28.8% 31.4% L -16 216 163 30 75.5% 13.9% 1B.4% L -17 495 367 55 74.1% 11.1% 15.0% L -18 336 348 191 103.6% 56.8% 54.9% L -20 238 47 21 19.7% 8.8% 44.7% S -1 1,083 808 542 74.6% 50.0% 67.1% S -3 699 590 590 84.4% 84.4% 100.0% S -4 1,028 751 628 73.1% 61.1% 83.6% S -5 1,508 835 435 55.4% 28.8% 52.1% LPCH Parking Structure 295 217 217 73.6% 73.6% 100.0% Pasteur Drive On- street 54 604 60" 111.1% 111.1% 100.0% Oak Road On- street 80 55 37 68.8% 46.3% 67.3% Welch Road On- Street 55 48 24 87.3% 43.6% 50.0% Subtotal 8,289 5,986 3,899 72.2% 47.0% 65.1% Medical Office Parking Areas 703 Welch Road 125 92 92 73.6% 73.6% 100.0% 900 Welch Road 224 165 163 73.7% 72.8% 98.8% 1101 Welch Road 275 232 230 84.4% 83.6% 99.1% Subtotal 624 489 485 78.4% 77.7% 99.2% Totals 8,913 6,475 4,384 72.6% 49.2% 67.6% 1. Total occupied spaces includes both campus and hospital and hospital occupied spaces includes only vehicles related to the hospital. 2. This represents the percent of vehicles occupying the parking area associated with the hospital. This does not represent the total occupancy of the parking area because campus demand is not included. 3. This is the portion of the total demand that is due to the hospital. 4. Some vehicles were illegally parked or double parked because there are loading parking spaces in this area. Source: Fehr & Peers, data collected in October 2006 and September 2007 (Lot Li ). 15 Ilnr.& I'llr� 'T }HYO tPa lot' LEGEND v^ PabaAX C. Ykve. Claui[SeeiJenm L.Y.. (S¢¢INSE I y k, Ov xrav sb I J � al PPe b ' X4 ®Q' Sb � rX •t11OK FW 'PI ey q. PAT' 61a1b `y�r P ,{ L y O 6Tnmll Lenbr _ �y )1� FYII a 47r Ma[AMv �' 9 * Jya rvam C Bu��ri �, 71 . E0.]O%Full Jeee {`P9 Jsh •4�5�' [p g'S ::l IkEVggO RC //�� FO • b5PN Full - • A1.0 Wuil V) Itl0 ICOBUn p •AM4 Full npanym�ewe �"- AeQw )01 CIIiIE' Center F j Sjf a'% L O � Teel' IL' INSETI elya __ Ie]0 I'BO M %Cn2x CiP Sane..: . � I Cenrt 1 'I o Om C ittS61 G.. C N _ Gnb � OmA PCB npammav Zb° N<tlwv w.n SX Ivl Y I� C2 Sx a(A � I McGCinv Ar6Q c•, pUSpUM11 g.. v.�5:nonl M, ICCSM Bpn11e' v0en —14 CIrJJ 2 p9an:Cnem AOTry WY STOCK fgRryl bLSI M (i SSaJIMf Old v, L. Cla rt�auilery '90 Y xII !kl iSUR+W fM Dmalem Cener SuPPUn Se vtc SvPP V k� Cm1b tl. lefieM Rea 3tl e � I em l ]t J Co9en � a Ce.lm Ex, qn GTbe �aba [. ESf ® .. i tllip B j [al H f AI an ea - InlyeaeM INVW 5[i etef HH3 Hy be..0 i�y� Ln rea Wba � c IO�nJ .Q $Y`IPmi fgCyaeJ mlluTP. _ (CI51 Haman waI-CrMee liv P ewn Tad[ I PanNp.1 FEHR & PEERS AM PEAK HOUR OCCUPANCY �Wp Weea�mmeaa Fpva6 Parking Demand Rates Hospitals Based on the data collected, hospital and medical office parking generation rates per 1,000 square -feet were determined for the mid - morning and mid - afternoon periods. Table 7 summarizes the estimated parking generation rates. These rates are used to determine the hospital parking demand and the ultimate supply required to serve the future parking demand. As shown in the table, using the actual existing floor space of the two hospitals, the estimated peak hospital parking demand is 2.23 vehicles per thousand square feet. However, when the current un -met floor space need to serve current activities is considered - 320 thousand square feet for SHC and 126 thousand square feet for LPCH - the parking demand rate is lower, 1.78 vehicles per thousand square feet. This is a more accurate measure of current parking demand rate for the hospitals. It is interesting to review the overall parking demand rate for the hospitals, relative to Palo Alto zoning code. City of Palo Alto code requires 0.67 spaces per bed for hospital /inpatient uses and 4 spaces per thousand square feet for clinic /outpatient uses. Applying these rates to the current Medical Center (hospitals and clinic space only), results in an aggregate rate of about 1.27 spaces per thousand square feet. This is lower than the 1.78 spaces per thousand square feet found in the SUMC survey. Another rate to compare to is the rate in the Institute of Transportation Engineers Parking Generation, 3rd Edition. This reference gives an average of 4.72 parking spaces per hospital bed for suburban locations, based on a review of 20 hospital sites. Using this rate, the parking demand for the current hospitals, at 713 total beds, would 3,365 spaces. This is about 600 fewer spaces than indicated in the surveys of SHC and LPCH, which showed a total parking demand of 3,913 spaces. Thus, the SUMC hospitals generate parking demand at a moderately higher rate than either Palo Alto zoning or ITE's Parking Generation. 17 lion& TABLE 7 ESTIMATED PARKING GENERATION RATE Land Use Existing Size Parking Demand Rate AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Hospital' 1,753.197 ksf 2.23 vehicles per ksf 2.22 vehicles per ksf Hospital (Incorporating current right - sizing need)z 2,199.197 ksf 1.78 vehicles per ksf 1.78 vehicles per ksf Medical Office Medical Office - 703 Welch Road 23.5 ksf 3.70 vehicles per ksf 3.91 vehicles per ksf Medical Office - 900 Welch Road 45.481 ksf 3.45 vehicles per ksf 3.58 vehicles per ksf Medical Office - 1101 Welch Road 41.067 ksf 5.11 vehicles per ksf 5.60 vehicles per ksf Average Medical Office 4.09 vehicles per ksf 4.36 vehicles per ksf Medical Office - Palo Alto Code 4.0 vehicles per ksf 4.0 vehicles per ksf 1. LPCH and SHC combined. See Technical Appendix for a detailed breakdown of the existing hospitals' floor space. 2. Adds 320,000 square feet for SHC and 126,000 square feet for LPCH, reflecting the current un -met floor space need, or "right- sizing ". Note: ksf = 1,000 square -feet Source: Fehr & Peers, March 2008. 17 lion& Medical Office The estimated medical office parking demand averages are 4.09 and 4.36 vehicles per 1,000 square feet during the two periods, respectively. Palo Alto zoning code requires 4.0 spaces per thousand square feet for medical office space. ITE's Parking Generation gives an average of 3.53 spaces per thousand square feet for this use. Since the medical office rate is only slightly higher than the City of Palo Alto zoning requirement of 4.0 spaces per thousand square feet, and since the proposed new medical office space will be located closer to the downtown Palo Alto Caltrain station, relative to the current Welch Road medical offices, the Palo Alto code requirement is recommended for use in planning parking for the new medical office space. In summary, the recommended parking demand rates for the hospitals and medical office space are shown in bold in Table 7. TRIP GENERATION CHARACTERISTICS Trip Generation Rate Based on the data collected, hospital and medical office trip generation rates per 1,000 square -feet were determined for the AM and PM peak hours. The hospitals generate 1,442 AM peak hour trips and 1,425 PM peak hour trips (see Table 2). The medical offices generate 290 AM peak hour trips and 241 PM peak hour trips. Table 8 presents the estimated trip generation rates per 1,000 square -feet for the hospitals and medical offices. The hospital generates about 0.82 trips per 1,000 square -feet during the AM peak hour and 0.81 trips per 1,000 square -feet during the PM peak hour. The medical offices generate about 2.64 trips per 1,000 square -feet during the AM peak hour and about 2.19 trips per 1,000 square -feet during the PM peak hour. Comparison of Trip Generation Rate to ITE Rate The Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation, 7th Edition has AM and PM peak hour trip generation rates of 1.18 and 1.20 trips per thousand square feet, respectively. These are about 45 percent higher than the rates observed in the surveys. However, the rates are based on a wide array of medical centers in varied environments, and do not reflect the excellent transit services and other travel demand management programs available to serve medical center staff and patients /visitors. The SUMC - specific trip generation rates are recommended for use in analyzing the traffic generation of the new uses. (p 18 linE:& I'iir. TABLE 8 ESTIMATED TRIP GENERATION RATES Land Use Size Trip Rate AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Inbound Outbound Total Inbound Outbound Total Hospital 1,753.197 ksf 0.62 0.20 0.82 0.23 0.58 0.81 Medical Office Welch Road 23.5 ksf 1.87 0.77 2.64 0.47 1.79 2.26 00 Welch Road 45.481 ksf 2.02 0.66 2.68 0.59 1.08 1.67 [703 101 Welch Road 41.067 ksf 2.09 0.49 2.58 0.54 2.19 2.73 otal 110.048 ksf 2.03 0.62 2.65 0.55 1.65 2.20 ote: ksf = 1,000 square -feet ource: Fehr 8 Peers, March 2008. Comparison of Trip Generation Rate to ITE Rate The Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation, 7th Edition has AM and PM peak hour trip generation rates of 1.18 and 1.20 trips per thousand square feet, respectively. These are about 45 percent higher than the rates observed in the surveys. However, the rates are based on a wide array of medical centers in varied environments, and do not reflect the excellent transit services and other travel demand management programs available to serve medical center staff and patients /visitors. The SUMC - specific trip generation rates are recommended for use in analyzing the traffic generation of the new uses. (p 18 linE:& I'iir. Table 9 shows a comparison of the estimated medical office trip generation rates versus ITE rates. During the AM peak hour both the Welch Road medical offices and ITE have about the same trip generation rate. During the PM peak hour, the Welch Road medical office trip generation rate is lower than the ITE rate. TABLE 9 COMPARISON OF TRIP GENERATION RATES FOR MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDINGS Site Size (Square -feet) AM Peak Hour Trip Rate PM Peak Hour Trip Rate 703 Welch Road 23,500 2.64 2.26 900 Welch Road 45,481 2.68 1.67 1101 Welch Road 41,067 2.58 2.73 Total 110,048 2.64 2.19 ITE Published Rates - 2.48 3.72 source: Fehr & Peers, March 2008. f� 19 4. PROJECT PARKING NEEDS This chapter discusses the project's parking demand and recommended net new supply, based on the rates presented in Section 3. PROJECT PARKING DEMAND AND RECOMMENDED SUPPLY Hospitals The hospitals' peak parking demand rate is 1.78 vehicles per thousand square feet. As discussed in Section 1, the proposed project, after space credit for right- sizing /overcrowding, would provide 459,670 square feet of new SHC space and 395,300 square feet of new LPCH space, for a total of 854,970 new square feet. Thus, the projected parking demand for the new development is 1,522 vehicles (see Table 10). Parking industry publications such as "Parking," published by The ENO Foundation, recommend that a vacancy factor of 10 to15 percent be applied to the calculated parking demand to quantify the needed parking spaces to meet parking demand; the vacancy factor is needed to ensure that drivers are able to locate an available parking space without re- circulating through the parking areas. Driver recirculation within parking lots increases the likelihood of vehicle parking maneuver conflicts and vehicle - pedestrian conflicts as drivers attempt to locate a limited number of parking spaces. Based on the estimated parking demand, 1,522 spaces, applying a vacancy factor of 10 percent yields a recommended parking supply of 1,674 spaces (see Table 10). However, some of the hospital demand can be met by existing vacancies in the parking lots currently serving the hospitals. Table 11 shows that 258 spaces are available to meet new parking demand, while still maintaining a 10 percent vacancy rate in each of the lots (all of the lots are in the City of Palo Alto). The remaining new parking supply needed for the hospitals, after the reduction of 258 spaces, is 1,416 spaces. Medical Office Building The medical office parking demand rate is 4.0 vehicles per thousand square feet. As discussed in Section 1, the proposed project will convert 84,230 square feet of existing space at Hoover Pavilion from hospital /clinic space to medical office space, and will add an additional 60,000 square feet of medical office space, for a total of 144,230 square feet. Thus, as shown in Table 10, the projected parking demand for medical office development is 577 vehicles. Applying a 10 percent vacancy factor gives a recommended parking supply of 635 vehicles for the new medical office space. Thus, the total recommended net new parking supply to serve the new uses is 2,051 spaces, as shown in Table 10. Note that this net new supply does not include spaces that will be demolished as part of the building program; all demolished spaces are to be replaced, at a rate of occupied spaces plus 10 percent. fp 20 luu:& TABLE 10 ESTIMATED PARKING DEMAND AND RECOMMENDED SUPPLY Land Use Size Parking Demand Rate' Parking Demand /Supply Hospital LPCH 395.300 ksf 1.78 vehicles per ksf 704 vehicles SHC 459.670 ksf 1.78 vehicles per ksf 818 vehicles Projected New Parking Demand 1,522 vehicles Gross Recommended New Parking Supply (Demand + 10 %) 1,674 spaces Spaces available from current vacancies (258 spaces) Net Recommend New Parking Supply— Hospitals" 1,416 spaces Medical Office Buildings Vacant Hoover Pavilion Site — New 60.000 ksf 4.00 vehicles per ksf 240 vehicles Hoover Pavilion — Re -use 84.230 ksf 4.00 vehicles per ksf 337 vehicles Hoover Pavilion — Total New Parking Demand 577 vehicles Net Recommended New Parking Supply (Demand + 10 %) — MOB 635 spaces Total Recommended New Parking Supply 2,051 spaces Note: ksf = 1,000 square -feet 1. Parking demand rate as presented in Section 3, Table 7. 2. Table 11 summarizes the parking areas with existing vacancies. These areas include L -7, L -13, S4. Pasteur Drive is over - capacity and so is included in Table 11 as negative supply. 3. Parking supply increases the parking demand by 10 percent to ensure drivers are able to locate the parking space without re- circulating through the parking area. Source: Fehr & Peers, March 2008. TABLE 11 CURRENT PARKING LOT VACANCIES (PALO ALTO LOTS) Total Useable Occupied Percent Total Vacant Percent Vacant Parking Area Supply Spaces' Occupancy Spaces Vacancy Spaces Parking Sites Within the City of Palo Alto L -7 31 23 74.2% 8 25.8% 5 L -13 123 83 67.5% 40 32.5% 28 S -4 1,028 681 66.2% 347 33.6% 244 Pasteur Drive On- street 54 68 125.9% -14 -25.9% (19) Total 1,935 1,526 78.9% 409 21.1% 258 Notes: 1. Total occupied spaces includes both campus and hospital- occupied spaces and is based on the AM peak hour data because the AM peak hour parking demand rate is used to calculate project parking demand. 2. Useable vacant spaces are the spaces that the project could potentially use to accommodate the parking deficiency. It considers a 10 percent vacancy factor to ensure that drivers are able to locate an available parking space without re- circulating through the parking areas. Source: Fehr & Peers, September 2007. 21 lilu:� &rI'Ilr.. 5. PROJECT TRIP GENERATION This chapter discusses the proposed project trip generation projections based on the trip generation rates estimated in Chapter 3. ESTIMATED TRIP GENERATION After space credit for right- sizing /overcrowding, the proposed project would construct 854,970 square feet of new hospital /clinic space, and 144,230 square feet of new medical office space. In addition, three medical office buildings would be removed: 701 Welch Road, 703 Welch Road, and 1101 Welch Road. Table 12 shows the future hospital development would generate a net increase of 766 AM peak hour trips and 746 PM peak hour trips. fp 22 11111, & fill:• TABLE 12 PROJECT TRIP GENERATION New/ Removed Trip Rate Trips AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Land Use Space (ksf) In 7 Out TTotal In Out Total in Out Total In Out Total Hospitals 854.970 0.62 0.20 0.82 0.23 0.58 0.81 530 171 701 197 496 693 701 Welch (56,300) 2.03 0.62 2.65 0.55 1.65 2.20 (114) (35) (149) (31) (93) (124) 703 Welch (23.500) 2.03 0.62 2.65 0.55 1.65 2.20 (48) (15) (62) (13) (39) (52) 1101 Welch (40.100 2.03 0.62 2.65 0.55 1.65 2.20 (81) (25) (106) (22) (66) (88) New MOB Spacel 144.230 2.03 0.62 2.65 0.55 1.65 2.20 293 89 382 79 238 317 Net New Project Trips 579 1 186 1 766 210 536 1 746 Note: ksf = 1,000 square -feet; MOB = Medical Office Building Source: Fehr 8 Peers, March 2008. fp 22 11111, & fill:• Joel Paulson From: John Shepardson <shepardsonlaw @me.com> Sent: Saturday, February 21, 2015 9:29 AM To: Marcia Jensen; Council Subject: N. 40 (75K ER VISITS- -Not including support persons) hnp___m bizioumals com /saniose/ news/ 2014 /07/15 /good- samaritan -to- spend- 33- initlion- expandiny.html ?r =full "The expansion will increase the number of beds to 34 from 25 and allow the hospital to boost the number of patients it sees each year almost 50 percent to 75,000, up from 54,000." (JS: 75K divided by 365 equals 205 ER visits per day. Study indicates more visits on Monday http:// www .medscal)e.com /viewartiele'836485 "The authors found that although the model "underestimated the actual number of ED visits," there was a significant correlation between the number of web searches and ED visits the following day (r = 0.77; P < .001). The researchers found that the highest number of visits occurred on Mondays, and the fewest visits occurred during the weekends (P <.001). ") "Volumes are growing," she said. "We're seeing a steady flow of patients through our ER. Our ER is due for an update — it's one of the busiest in the county." JS Sent from my iPhone This Page Intentionally Left Blank