490 Mendocino Avenue, Suite 201 Santa Rosa, CA 95401 707.542.9500 w-trans.com SANTA ROSA • OAKLAND • SAN JOSE
May 1, 2020
Mr. Patrick O’Neill
McBride Lane Apartments LLC
19 Leona Drive
San Rafael, CA 94903
Traffic Study for the 1650 West Steele Lane Project
Dear Mr. O’Neill;
As requested, W-Trans has prepared a focused traffic study for the proposed residential development at 1650 West Steele Lane in the City of Santa Rosa. The purpose of this letter is to address the potential traffic impacts associated with the proposed multifamily residential development.
Project Description
The proposed project would include construction of a three-story 36-unit housing apartment complex including f o u r a f f o r d a b l e u n i t s o n a v a c a n t l o t a t 1 6 5 0 W e s t S t e e l e L a n e i n t h e C i t y o f S a n t a R o s a . T h e s i t e w o u l d b e accessible via a proposed driveway to be constructed on the southern end of the project site off Meadowbrook Court. There would be 36 vehicle parking spaces provided on-site.
Circulation Setting
Vehicular Circulation
The study area consists of West Steele Lane and Meadowbrook Court, which run along the frontages of the project site.
West Steele Lane is generally oriented east-west and is classified as a major collector. Along the project frontage the road has one 12-foot travel lane and a bicycle lane in each direction; the posted speed limit is 35 mph.
Meadowbrook Court is a cul-de-sac in a north-south orientation cla ssified as a residential street. The two-lane street has a posted speed limit of 25 mph.
Pedestrian Facilities
Pedestrian facilities include sidewalks, crosswalks, pede strian signal phases, curb ramps, curb extensions, and various streetscape amenities such as lighting, benches, etc. Continuous sidewalks are present along the project frontage on West Steele Lane, connected to a curb ramp at the project corner with Meadowbrook Court. There are no sidewalks along the project frontage on Meadowbr ook Court to connect to existing sidewalks on West Steele Lane and on Meadowbrook Court south of the projec t site nor are there sidewalks on the west side of Meadowbrook Court opposite the project site. There is no street lighting on Meadowbrook Court near the project site.
Bicycle Facilities
There are bicycle lanes on West Steele Lane between Marlow Road and Range Avenue, as well as on Range Avenue between Russell Avenue and West Steele Lane. According to the City of Santa Rosa Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan 2018 Update, 2019, the existing SMART trail is proposed to be extended north between Guerneville Road and north of the City limits. Additionally, existing bicycle lanes on Range Avenue would be extended south to Jennings Avenue. Sharrows are proposed along Hardies Lane between West Steele Lane and Russell Avenue.
Attachment 9
Mr. Patrick O’Neill Page 2 May 1, 2020
Transit Facilities
The closest bus stop from the project is approximately 2 00 feet to the near Range Avenue. The project site is within the quarter-mile walking distance considered an acceptable walking distance to transit of Santa Rosa CityBus Routes 1, 6 and 10, Mendocino Transit Authority (MTA) Route 95, and Sonoma County Transit (SCT) Routes 20, 30, 44, 48, 54, and 57. These routes provide connectivity from the site throughout the City of Santa Rosa, within the County of Sonoma, and to adjacent Mendocino County. The project site is within one-half mile of both the Santa Rosa North SMART Station and the Copeland Tran sit Mall. SMART provides access between North Santa Rosa and Larkspur Landing where a connection can be made by ferry to San Fran cisco. According to the City of Santa Rosa Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan 2018 Update, existing bicycle lanes on Range Avenue are proposed to be extended south, which would connect the project site between existing bicycle lanes on West Steele Lane and Guerneville Road to the Copeland Mall and the Santa Rosa North SMART Station.
Two bicycles can be carried on most CityBus, SCT, and MTA buses. Bike rack space is a first come first served basis.
Additional bicycles are allowed on these buses as the discretion of the driver.
Dial-a-ride, also known as paratransi t, or door-to-door service, is available for those who are unable to independently use the transit system due to a physical or mental disability. This service is available through CityBus and SCT. The service is designed to serve the needs of individuals with disabilities within Santa Rosa area and includes area within a three-quarters of a mile from an active CityBus or SCT route.
Trip Generation
The anticipated trip generation for the proposed projec t was estimated using standard rates published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) in Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition, 2017 for a Multifamily Housing (Low-Rise) (Land Use #220). Based on application of these rates, the proposed project is expected to generate an average of 264 trips per day, including 17 a.m. peak hour trips and 20 trips during the p.m. peak hour. These results are summarized in Table 1.
Table 1 – Proposed Trip Generation Summary
Land Use Units Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Rate Trips Rate Trips In Out Rate Trips In Out
Apartments 36 du 7.32 264 0.46 17 4 13 0.56 20 13 7
Note: du = dwelling unit
Because the project is expected to generate fewer than 50 peak hour trips, only a focused study is required under the City’s Guidance for the Preparation of Traffic Operational Analysis, 2019.
Site Access
As part of the construction of the project, a drivew ay would be constructed o ff Meadowbrook Court at the southern side of the project site.
Emergency Vehicle Access
Based on the site plan dimensions, on-site circulation is adequate for emergency vehicle access, such as fire trucks and ambulances. There is a fire hydrant at the corner of West Steele Lane/Meadowbrook Court. Auto-turn exhibits of a fire truck maneuvering on-site is enclosed.
Mr. Patrick O’Neill Page 3 May 1, 2020
Sight Distance
Sight distances along Meadowbrook Court at the proposed new driveway were evaluated based on sight distance criteria contained in the Highway Design Manual, 6th Edition published by Caltrans. The recommended sight distances along the Meadowbrook Court at the private project driveway are based on stopping sight distance.
Based on a design speed of 25 mph, the minimum stopping sight distance needed is 150 feet. During the site visit, there was a vehicle parked where the proposed driveway would be, and sight distance was limited due to vehicles parked on either side of the proposed driveway. To ensure adequate sight lines, it is recommended that the curb be painted red on either side of the driveway for a length of 22 feet, or one standard vehicle length. Additionally, it is recommended that any signage or landscaping planne d at the driveway be outside of the driver’s vision triangle to maintain adequate sight lines.
Finding – Sight distance based on the posted speed limit at the proposed driveway was limited due to parked vehicles.
Recommendation – Parking should be prohibited through use of red-painted curb for 22 feet, or the length of one standard parking space, on either side of the project driveway to ensure adequate sight distance. Additionally, the project should be designed to keep any project signage or landscaping outside of the driver’s vision triangle.
Left-Turn Lane Warrant
The need for a left-turn lane on West Steele Lane at Meadowbrook Court was ev aluated based on criteria contained in the Intersection Channelization Design Guide , National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Report No. 279, Transportation Research Board, 1985, as well as an update of the methodology developed by the Washington State Department of Transportation and published in the Method For Prioritizing Intersection Improvements, January 1997.
Existing peak hour volumes at West Steele Lane/Range Aven u e a s w e l l a s s a f e t y c r i t e r i a w e r e u s e d . T h e t r i p generation for the existing single-family and multifamil y units that are accessible via Meadowbrook Court were assumed based on City GIS parcel maps, and 62 multifamily units and two single family units were assumed. Based on counts along West Steele Lane, it was assumed 60 perc ent of trips would travel to and from Meadowbrook Court from the east and 40 percent to and from the west. Under Existing plus Project conditions, which includes traffic associated with the existing residential units that are accessible via Meadowbrook Court and the proposed project, a left-turn lane is not warranted on West Steele Lane at Meadow brook Court during either of the peak periods evaluated. The left-turn lane warrant spreadsheets and counts used are enclosed for reference.
Non-Auto Modes
Pedestrian Facilities
Given the proximity of the Coddingtown Mall and rapid bus stops within one-half mile surrounding the site, it is anticipated that some project resident s will want to walk, bicycle, and/or use transit for trips from and to the project site. The site plan includes plans for construc tion of sidewalk and landscape buffering on the project frontage on Meadowbrook Court, which will provide a connection between existing sidewalks south of the project site and on West Steele Lane. The inclusion of a landscape buffer results in an indirect connection to the existing sidewalk to the south of the site. Because buffers are typically not required on minor streets it appears that the landscape buffer could be eliminated. If it is to be retained it should be tapered at the south end of the site so that there is a smoother transition to the existing sidewalk.
The existing curb ramp on the project corner of Meadowbrook Court/West Steele Lane would be reconstructed to match the new curbline along Meadowbrook Court after wide ning the street along the project frontage by four Mr. Patrick O’Neill Page 4 May 1, 2020
feet. Additionally, the site plan includes a streetlight just south of West Steele Lane on Meadowbrook Court. Based on City staff comments, it is recommended that an additional streetlight be installed near the project driveway on Meadowbrook Court. To ensure adequa te sight distance, the streetlight pl acement should be designed to not limit visibility of drivers exiting the driveway.
The existing sidewalk on West Steele Lane along the project frontage will be reconstructed and the existing driveway on West Steele Lane on the project frontage would be closed and converted to sidewalk.
Finding – Planned sidewalks and street lighting along Mead owbrook Court, along with existing facilities, are adequate for anticipated demand and will improve connectivity from existing conditions.
Recommendation – Either the sidewalk along the project frontage should be contiguous with the curb and gutter or the transition at the south end shou ld be tapered to provide a more stan dard and comfortable connection to the existing sidewalk on the southern end of Meadowbrook Court.
Recommendation – In addition to the planned streetlight at the corner of Steele Lane/Meadowbrook Court, a streetlight should also be installed near the project driveway.
Bicycle Facilities
Existing bicycle facilities, including bike lanes on West Steele Lane, together with shared use of minor streets, provide adequate access for bicyclists. The proposed addition of bicycle lanes along some of the streets surrounding the project site as well as extension of the SMART trail north of the Santa Rosa North Station will provide adequate access for bicyclists.
Finding – Bicycle facilities serving the project are adequate and will be improved with the planned completion of additional facilities in the future.
Transit Facilities
Existing transit routes are acceptable to accommodate project-generated tr ansit trips. Existing bus stops are within an acceptable walking distance of the site, and accessible via sidewalks.
Finding – Transit facilities serving the project site are adequate.
Vehicular Parking
The proposed project would provide 36 off-street parking spaces. The City of Santa Rosa’s City Code stipulates the City’s parking requirements for new developments. A ccording to Zoning Code Section 20-36.050, “Parking requirements for projects located wi thin the Downtown and North Santa Rosa Station Area Specific Plan boundaries may be reduced by the review authority, as a condition of project approval or Minor Conditional Use Permit, when supported by a parking study.” Because the project site is within the North Santa Rosa Station Area Specific Plan boundary, the parking requirement fo r the 32 market-rate units of 1.5 spaces per unit is lower than for general multifamily dwelling units. Additionally, the four affordable units would have a required parking rate of one space per unit. Based on the applicable parking requirements, the proposed project would need 52 parking spaces, or 16 spaces more than are proposed. According to the City Code , “The review authority may approve a decrease in parking spaces after fi rst making the following finding: (C )(2)(a) The number of parking spaces approved will be sufficient for its safe, convenient and efficient operation of the use, and will be compatible with the neighboring properties.” Since the proposed parking supply is defi cient to meet City requirements, the project’s potential parking demand was evaluated.
Mr. Patrick O’Neill Page 5 May 1, 2020
Standard parking demand rates published by ITE in Parking Generation , 5 th Edition, 2019 were applied to the proposed project. Since the project site is within one-half mile of the SMART station and within walking distance of the Coddingtown Mall and Transit Center, the land use “Multifamily Residential Housing (Low-Rise) in a Dense Multi-Use Urban Area within One-Half Mile of Rail Transi t” (LU 220) was applied. Ba sed on ITE rates, the 36-unit project would generate a peak parkin g demand of 39 parking spaces, whic h is three spaces more than the proposed parking supply, but 13 spaces fewer than required based on application of City code.
It is noted that the proposed project includes plans to provide unbundled parking, which could decrease parking demand and provide a cost saving to tenants. This ma kes parking a separate option in lease agreements and allows residents to choose if they want to lease a parkin g space or not. Residential parking spaces are typically bundled into the lease amounts, so residents may not realize the high cost of building, operating, and maintaining parking. Further, adding parking as a separate line item will help tenants understand the cost savings associated with reducing their parking needs. This parking demand strategy is estimated to reduce parking demand by 10 to 15 percent based on the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC)’s Reforming Parking Policies to Support Smart Growth. To be conservative, applying the lower pote ntial parking demand percentage decrease from unbundled parking (10 percent) the project would generate four fewer spaces than compared to ITE rates, for a total peak parking demand of 35 spaces. Compared to the proposed parking supply, the parking demand would be one less space than proposed with unbundled parking deductions applied.
Finding – Based on City requirements, the proposed parking supply would be deficient by 16 spaces. However, given the site’s proximity to rail tr ansit, application of ITE standard pa rking demand rates together with the project’s proposed use of unbundled parking, the anticipated peak parking demand would be one space less than the proposed supply. Under these assumptions, the proposed parking supply would be expected to be adequate to meet the project’s demand.
Bicycle Parking
According to the City Code, the project would be required to provide bicycle parking spaces at a rate of one space per four units unless units have a private garage or storage space for a bicycle. Based on the proposed number of units, the project would be required to provide at least nine bicycle parking spaces. As proposed, there would be nine long-term spaces and nine bicycle rack spaces, for a total of 18 bicycle parking spaces on-site; this would be more than adequate to meet City requirements. As the proposed su pply of bicycle parking spaces is double the number required based on City requirements, it is anticipated that this would encourage the use of active modes of transportation rather than vehicular ownership, further reducing parking demand associated with the project.
Conclusions and Recommendations
As proposed, the project would generate 264 trips daily, including 17 trips in the a.m. peak hour and 20 trips during the p.m. peak hour.
Emergency vehicle access would be adequate.
Sight lines at the proposed driveway location would be limited by vehicles parked on the project side of Meadowbrook Court. It is recommended that the curb be painted red for 22 feet, or one parking space length, on either side of the project driveway to ensure ade quate sight lines. Additiona lly, any project landscaping and signage at the driveway should be placed outside the driver’s vision triangle. A left-turn lane would not be warranted on West Steele Lane at Meadowbrook Court, with or without project generated trips.
Mr. Patrick O’Neill Page 6 May 1, 2020
With the construction of the proposed project, existing sidewalks on the project frontage on West Steele Lane would be improved, and the existing driveway elim inated. New sidewalk would be constructed on the Meadowbrook Court frontage. It is recommended that this sidewalk be placed contiguous to the curb and gutter to match facilities to the south or else realigned at the southerly end of the site to provide a transition to the connection with existing facilities. In addition to the planned streetlight at Steele Lane/Meadowbrook Court, a streetlight should be placed near the project driveway. Existing bicycle and transit facilities serving the site are adequate. The proposed supply of vehi cle parking spaces is deficient by 16 sp aces compared to City requirements; however, it is adequate to meet the peak demand pr ojected by applying standa rd parking demand rates combined with reductions in demand due to unbundled parking. The number of bicycle parking spaces on- site as proposed is double the number needed to meet City requirements, which would be expected to contribute to lower vehicle ownership.
Thank you for giving W-Trans the opportunity to provide these services. Please call if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Julia Walker
Assistant Planner
Dalene J. Whitlock, PE, PTOE
Senior Principal
DJW/jaw/SRO547.L1
Enclosures: Site Plan; Auto-Turn Exhibit; Left-Turn Lane Warrant Spreadsheets; Counts
Lock to Lock TimeTrackWidth:::feetFIRE-LADDER6.08.208.2017.706.7034.20 Steering Angle36.8:
(veh/hr) (veh/hr)
530 335
3 4
Eastbound Speed Limit: 35 mph Westbound Speed Limit: 35 mph Eastbound Configuration: Westbound Configuration:
1. Check for right turn volume criteria %lt 1.2 %
AV 1025 veh/hr
2. Check advance volume threshold criteria for turn lane AV = 1027.6
Va = 533
No
NO
Right Turn Taper Warrants
1. Check taper volume criteria
2. Check advance volume threshold criteria for taper
AV = - Stud y Intersection
NO NO
Turn Lane Warrant Analysis - Tee Intersections
Study Intersection: West Steele Lane/Meadowbrook Court
Study Scenario: AM Existing
Direction of Analysis Street: East/West Cross Street Intersects: F rom the South Eastbound Right Turn Lane Warrants Westbound Left Turn Lane Warran ts Steele Lane Steele Lane
Eastbound Volumes Westbound Volumes
Through Volume = = Through Volume
Right Turn Volume = = Left Turn Volume
2 Lanes - Undivided Meadowbrook Court 2 Lanes - Undivided Percentage Left Turns
Advancing Volume Threshold
Thresholds not met, continue to next step If AV<Va then warrant is met Advancing Volume Threshold
Advancing Volume
If AV<Va then warrant is met
Right Turn Lane Warranted:
Eastbound
(evaluate if right turn lane is unwarranted)
NOT WARRANTED - Less than 20 vehicles
Advancing Volume Threshold
Advancing Volume Va = 533 Two lane roadway warrant threshold for: m ph If AV<Va then warrant is met - Turn lane warranted if point falls to right of warrant threshold line 35 Right Turn Taper Warranted: Left Turn Lane Warranted:
Methodology based on Washington State Transportation Center Research Report Method For Prioritizing Intersection Improvements , January 1997.
The right turn lane and taper analysis is based on work conducted by Cottrell in 1981.
The left turn lane analysis is based on work conducted by M.D. Harmelink in 1967, and modified by Kikuchi and Chakroborty in 1991. 100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
0 200 400 600 800 1000
Opposing Volume (Vo)
Advancing Volume (Va)
W-Trans 4/1/2020
(veh/hr) (veh/hr)
530 335
5 6
Eastbound Speed Limit: 35 mph Westbound Speed Limit: 35 mph Eastbound Configuration: Westbound Configuration:
1. Check for right turn volume criteria %lt 1.8 %
AV 942 veh/hr
2. Check advance volume threshold criteria for turn lane AV = 1012.6
Va = 535
No
NO
Right Turn Taper Warrants
1. Check taper volume criteria
2. Check advance volume threshold criteria for taper
AV = - Stud y Intersection
NO NO
Turn Lane Warrant Analysis - Tee Intersections
Study Intersection: West Steele Lane/Meadowbrook Court
Study Scenario: AM Existing plus Project
Direction of Analysis Street: East/West Cross Street Intersects: F rom the South Eastbound Right Turn Lane Warrants Westbound Left Turn Lane Warran ts Steele Lane Steele Lane
Eastbound Volumes Westbound Volumes
Through Volume = = Through Volume
Right Turn Volume = = Left Turn Volume
2 Lanes - Undivided Meadowbrook Court 2 Lanes - Undivided Percentage Left Turns
Advancing Volume Threshold
Thresholds not met, continue to next step If AV<Va then warrant is met Advancing Volume Threshold
Advancing Volume
If AV<Va then warrant is met
Right Turn Lane Warranted:
Eastbound
(evaluate if right turn lane is unwarranted)
NOT WARRANTED - Less than 20 vehicles
Advancing Volume Threshold
Advancing Volume Va = 535 Two lane roadway warrant threshold for: m ph If AV<Va then warrant is met - Turn lane warranted if point falls to right of warrant threshold line 35 Right Turn Taper Warranted: Left Turn Lane Warranted:
Methodology based on Washington State Transportation Center Research Report Method For Prioritizing Intersection Improvements , January 1997.
The right turn lane and taper analysis is based on work conducted by Cottrell in 1981.
The left turn lane analysis is based on work conducted by M.D. Harmelink in 1967, and modified by Kikuchi and Chakroborty in 1991. 100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
0 200 400 600 800 1000
Opposing Volume (Vo)
Advancing Volume (Va)
W-Trans 4/1/2020
(veh/hr) (veh/hr)
483 593
9 14
Eastbound Speed Limit: 35 mph Westbound Speed Limit: 35 mph Eastbound Configuration: Westbound Configuration:
1. Check for right turn volume criteria %lt 2.3 %
AV 923 veh/hr
2. Check advance volume threshold criteria for turn lane AV = 982.6
Va = 492
No
NO
Right Turn Taper Warrants
1. Check taper volume criteria
2. Check advance volume threshold criteria for taper
AV = - Stud y Intersection
NO NO
Turn Lane Warrant Analysis - Tee Intersections
Study Intersection: West Steele Lane/Meadowbrook Court
Study Scenario: PM Existing
Direction of Analysis Street: East/West Cross Street Intersects: F rom the South Eastbound Right Turn Lane Warrants Westbound Left Turn Lane Warran ts Steele Lane Steele Lane
Eastbound Volumes Westbound Volumes
Through Volume = = Through Volume
Right Turn Volume = = Left Turn Volume
2 Lanes - Undivided Meadowbrook Court 2 Lanes - Undivided Percentage Left Turns
Advancing Volume Threshold
Thresholds not met, continue to next step If AV<Va then warrant is met Advancing Volume Threshold
Advancing Volume
If AV<Va then warrant is met
Right Turn Lane Warranted:
Eastbound
(evaluate if right turn lane is unwarranted)
NOT WARRANTED - Less than 20 vehicles
Advancing Volume Threshold
Advancing Volume Va = 492 Two lane roadway warrant threshold for: m ph If AV<Va then warrant is met - Turn lane warranted if point falls to right of warrant threshold line 35 Right Turn Taper Warranted: Left Turn Lane Warranted:
Methodology based on Washington State Transportation Center Research Report Method For Prioritizing Intersection Improvements , January 1997.
The right turn lane and taper analysis is based on work conducted by Cottrell in 1981.
The left turn lane analysis is based on work conducted by M.D. Harmelink in 1967, and modified by Kikuchi and Chakroborty in 1991. 100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
0 200 400 600 800 1000
Opposing Volume (Vo)
Advancing Volume (Va)
W-Trans 4/1/2020
(veh/hr) (veh/hr)
483 593
14 22
Eastbound Speed Limit: 35 mph Westbound Speed Limit: 35 mph Eastbound Configuration: Westbound Configuration:
1. Check for right turn volume criteria %lt 3.6 %
AV 790 veh/hr
2. Check advance volume threshold criteria for turn lane AV = 945.1
Va = 497
No
NO
Right Turn Taper Warrants
1. Check taper volume criteria
2. Check advance volume threshold criteria for taper
AV = - Stud y Intersection
NO NO
= Through Volume
Steele Lane
Right Turn Taper Warranted: Left Turn Lane Warranted:
(evaluate if right turn lane is unwarranted)
Va = 497 mph
Right Turn Lane Warranted:
If AV<Va then warrant is met
Advancing Volume
Turn Lane Warrant Analysis - Tee Intersections
Direction of Analysis Street: Cross Street Intersects:
The left turn lane analysis is based on work conducted by M.D. Harmelink in 1967, and modified by Kikuchi and Chakroborty in 1991.
Advancing Volume Threshold
Advancing Volume Threshold
The right turn lane and taper analysis is based on work conducted by Cottrell in 1981. -
Methodology based on Washington State Transportation Center Research Report Method For Prioritizing Intersection Improvements , January 1997.
Through Volume =
Turn lane warranted if point falls to right of warrant threshold line Two lane roadway warrant threshold for: 35
NOT WARRANTED - Less than 20 vehicles
If AV<Va then warrant is met
Advancing Volume
Meadowbrook Court
Percentage Left Turns
If AV<Va then warrant is met
Westbound
Advancing Volume Threshold
2 Lanes - Undivided
Eastbound
Thresholds not met, continue to next step
Eastbound Volumes Westbound Volumes
Right Turn Lane Warrants Left Turn Lane Warrants
Right Turn Volume = = Left Turn Volume
2 Lanes - Undivided
Eastbound
Steele Lane
Study Intersection: West Steele Lane/Meadowbrook Court
Study Scenario: PM Existing plus Project
East/West From the South
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
0 200 400 600 800 1000
Opposing Volume (Vo)
Advancing Volume (Va)
W-Trans 4/1/2020
DATE: LOCATION: PROJECT #: SC
Tue, Feb 19, 19 NORTH & SOUTH: LOCATION #: 66
EAST & WEST: CONTROL: SIGNAL
NOTES: AM ▲
PM N
MD ◄ W E ►
OTHER S
OTHER ▼
NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND
NL NT N R SL ST S R EL ET E R WL WT W R TOTAL NB SB EB WB TT L LANES: 120 1 2011011 0 0 0 0 0
7:00 AM 7 27 9 5 8 1 9 74 7 6 43 2 198 00 00 0
7:15 AM 42 52 2 1 43 6 1 0 0 5 65 1 7 225 00 00 0
7:30 AM 11 43 8 9 23 8 6 101 10 5 75 5 304 00 00 0
7:45 AM 13 57 7 5 40 4 12 118 7 13 57 5 338 00 00 0
8:00 AM 1 5 5 87 1 1 3 781 6 9 5 1 999 31 1 379 00 00 0 8:15 AM 15 59 3 5 56 5 16 119 12 2 52 12 356 00 00 0
8:30 AM 1 2 5 17 1 0 3 66 79 8 1 455 91 0 315 00 00 0
8:45 AM 15 56 11 11 34 6 12 96 12 4 58 9 324 00 00 0
VOLUMES 92 376 54 58 248 41 84 801 86 50 488 61 2,439 0 0 0 0 0 APPROACH % 18% 72% 10% 17% 71% 12% 9% 82% 9% 8% 81% 10% APP/DEPART 522 / 521 347 / 384 971 / 913 599 / 621 0
BEGIN PEAK HR
VOLUMES 55 225 24 31 169 23 51 430 52 29 261 38 1,388
APPROACH % 18% 74% 8% 14% 76% 10% 10% 81% 10% 9% 80% 12% PEAK HR FACTOR 0.950 0.845 0.906 0.726 0.916
APP/DEPART 304 / 314 223 / 250 533 / 485 328 / 339 0
11:30 AM 18 39 13 22 69 5 9 76 14 17 59 13 354 00 00 0
11:45 AM 11 50 13 15 57 8 8 62 13 12 78 12 339 00 00 0
12:00 PM 2 64 0 8 1 4 7 41 0 9 7 51 41 98 5 1 9 393 00 00 0 12:15 PM 29 58 11 13 74 7 11 83 13 14 74 22 409 00 00 0 12:30 PM 2 54 1 8 7 7 0 8 1 26 41 01 56 6 1 7 343 00 00 0 12:45 PM 19 59 10 12 66 6 12 77 12 13 77 13 376 00 00 0 1:00 PM 2 26 9 5 3 6 6 5 1 46 81 01 16 9 1 6 358 00 00 0 1:15 PM 2 3 5 36 1 1 6 761 5 7 241 3 6 81 7 355 00 00 0 VOLUMES 173 409 74 97 543 55 90 577 90 114 576 129 2,927 0 0 0 0 0 APPROACH % 26% 62% 11% 14% 78% 8% 12% 76% 12% 14% 70% 16% APP/DEPART 656 / 628 695 / 747 757 / 748 819 / 804 0
BEGIN PEAK HR
VOLUMES 99 198 37 46 284 31 44 299 49 61 302 71 1,521
APPROACH % 30% 59% 11% 13% 79% 9% 11% 76% 13% 14% 70% 16% PEAK HR FACTOR 0.852 0.921 0.916 0.882 0.930
APP/DEPART 334 / 313 361 / 394 392 / 382 434 / 432 0
4 : 0 0 P M 2 65 1 6 2 1 9 61 51 28 92 12 19 9 1 1 468 00 00 0 4:15 PM 31 42 16 21 81 9 10 82 14 18 102 16 442 00 00 0 4:30 PM 29 39 10 18 95 10 10 85 14 16 109 12 447 00 00 0 4:45 PM 22 48 10 26 112 20 11 99 28 17 121 14 528 00 00 0 5:00 PM 20 48 9 17 128 22 13 82 13 19 107 12 490 00 00 0 5:15 PM 29 50 13 19 106 17 4 94 12 19 107 15 485 00 00 0 5:30 PM 25 44 14 16 106 7 14 100 22 19 110 15 492 00 00 0 5:45 PM 15 33 16 5 92 18 6 84 17 25 108 14 433 00 00 0
VOLUMES 197 355 94 143 816 118 80 715 141 154 863 109 3,785 0 0 0 0 0 APPROACH % 30% 55% 15% 13% 76% 11% 9% 76% 15% 14% 77% 10% APP/DEPART 646 / 544 1,077 / 1,111 936 / 952 1,126 / 1,178 0
BEGIN PEAK HR
VOLUMES 96 190 46 78 452 66 42 375 75 74 445 56 1,995
APPROACH % 29% 57% 14% 13% 76% 11% 9% 76% 15% 13% 77% 10% PEAK HR FACTOR 0.902 0.892 0.891 0.946 0.945
APP/DEPART 332 / 288 596 / 601 492 / 499 575 / 607 0
Range
NORTH SIDE
W Steele WEST SIDE EAST SIDE W Steele
SOUTH SIDE
Range
AM
7:45 AM
PM
4:45 PM
MIDDAY
12:00 PM
PM SB queue
U-TURNS
Range Range W Steele W Steele
INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT COUNTS
PREPARED BY: AimTD LLC. tel: 714 253 7888 [email protected] Santa Rosa
Range
W Steele
Add U-Turns to Left Turns
Ingrid Anderson
Principal Architect
Anderson Architecture & Planning
Phone 707‐523‐7010 x103 Mobile 707‐318‐3162
Email: [email protected]
4752 Stonehedge Dr., Santa Rosa, CA 95405
privileges at the Premises, provided Tenant shows a valid state‐issued accessible placard.
ONSITE & NEARBY VEHICLE ALTERNATIVES
1. 36 units will have an outdoor balcony, bicycle rack, or secure storage area in which to store bicycles.
2. Two short‐term bicycle racks with eight spaces will be located onsite. Depending on resident interest, 1650 West Steele Lane Apartments is amenable to parƟcipaƟng in an on‐site bike rental program, which would further alleviate vehicle parking demand.
3. 1650 West Steele Lane Apartments is located along Santa Rosa City bus Routes 6 and 10 , with a bus stop directly outside the onsite community open space area along West Steele Lane.
4. Routes 6 and 10 provide service between the Coddington Transit Hub and Shopping Center and the Santa Rosa Transit Mall Terminal.
5. Routes 6 and 10 operate Monday through Friday with approximately half‐hour headways (Rt. 6) and 60 minute headways (Rt. 10) between 6:00 a.m. and 7:30 p.m.
6. On weekends, Routes 6 and 10 operate with approximately half‐hour headways (Rt. 6) and 60 minute headways (Rt. 10) between 10:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m.
7. Sonoma–Marin Area Rail Transit’ s north Santa Rosa train staƟon is less than ½ mile from the project and provides full commuter service from the neighborhood to Marin County and North Sonoma County.
8. The staƟon is located on Guerneville Road 0.3 miles west of the Coddingtown Mall.
Please give me any recommendaƟons you and Staff have to add to the above.
Thank you,
Ingrid
McKay, Conor <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 9:09 AM
To: [email protected]; Nicholson, Amy <[email protected]>; [email protected]; 'Jean Kapolchok' <[email protected]>
Cc: calum@generaƟonhousing.org
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] 1650 West Steele Lane Apartments Hello Ingrid, City Staff will be available to respond to City Code and process, and provide supporƟng logic for the findings present in the resoluƟon.
I am hoping you will be prepared to discuss the details of your parking program, since we have learned that parking is the primary concern of the neighborhood. City Staff will discuss the State laws that limit our ability to require parking, but it would be helpful if you provided greater detail about the parking program so the community is more comfortable that the overall parking demand would be reduced as a result of the parking demand management measures.
I will also defer to your team on project‐specific quesƟon that I am not able to answer .
Thank you,
Firefox https://outlook.office.com/ mail/inbox/id/AAQkAGEzZjYwMDk0LT... 2 of 3 1/24/2023, 2:36 PM
Conor McKay (he/his) | Senior Planner
Planning & Economic Development | 100 Santa Rosa Avenue | Santa Rosa, CA 95404 [email protected]
Firefox https://outlook.office.com/ mail/inbox/id/AAQkAGEzZjYwMDk0LT... 3 of 3 1/24/2023, 2:36 PM