The URL can be used to link to this page

.01 U-2011-04 Sunflower Learning Center OFFICE OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CITY HALL 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255 C U P E RT I N O (408) 777-3308 • FAX (408) 777-3333 • plannin �cu�ertino.org PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Agenda Item No:1 Agenda Date: Apri126, 2011 Application: U-2011-04, ASA-2011-05, EXC-2011-04, EA-2011-04 ApplicandOwner: Karl Shultz, Lili Zhu and Louis Tseng (Sunflower Learning Cener)/Nicholas Speno Property Location: 18900 Stevens Creek Boulevard Application Summary: 1. USE PEIZMIT to allow a child care facility with a pre-school and an after-school leaming program to operate at an existing 8,999 square foot commercial office building. The application also includes a new outdoor play area in the existing rear parking lot. 2. ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE APPROVAL for minor fa�ade, landscaping and parking lot modifications for an existing commercial office building. 3. EXCEPTION to the Heart of the City Specific Plan to allow non-commercial uses (a child care facility) to exceed 25% of the total building frontage along Stevens Creek Boulevard. RECOMMENDATION Staff recoinmends that the Planning Coinmission approve: 1. Mitigated Negative Declaration, EA-2011-04 2. Use Permit application, U-2011-04 3. Architectural and Site Approval application, ASA-2011-05, and 4. Exception to the Heart of the City Specific Plan, EXC-2011-04, per the model resolutions (Attachments 1, 2 and 3) Project Data: General Plan Designation: Commercial/Office/Residential Zoning Designation: P(Mixed Use Planned Development) Specific Plan: Heart of the City Acreage (Net): 0.568 (25,515 sc�are feet) Building SF: 8,999 square feet �' Building Height: 29 ft 6 in. (two-story) Floor Area Ratio: 35.3% Parking required: 27 spaces (including 3 vans) Parking proposed: 24 spaces (not including 3 vans to be parked in off- site location owned and operated by applicant) Project Consistency with: General Plan: Yes Zoning: No Environmental Assessment: Mitigated Negative Declaration 1-1 U-2011-04, ASA-2011-05 Sunflower Learning Center Apri126, 2011 EXC-2011-05, EA-2011-04 Page 2 BACKGROUND: The project site is located at 19800 Stevens Creek Boulevard at the southwest corner of the intersection of Stevens Creek Boulevard and Stern Avenue. The site is located on the eastern edge of the city and surrounded by the City of Santa Clara to the north and the City of San Jose to the east. The previous uses at the site included 100% medical and professional offices. The building was designed as an office building and Uuilt in San Jose. The property was annexed into the City in 1983. T`here are hotel and office uses to the north, a gas station and a 7-11 store to the east, single family residences and a daycare to the west and other single family residences to the sout�l. �.� � � �- � - -- �� , �� `�� _ __. .., _ �,. J :. ��;� � ��• ��, . Q. R r �� . a _ ""t- �.':� � , ��l � . . • �.�a.�.3d'l� : . .. .tl/� J� . ' • F7 . }� � .. � ,: z;. �..:.'. , _ . .. _ �� '1 `� � .� "M . � "' s: - C �� F 1�i�.'.� ;� cn a` _ Lllr'v� _ I ''� - r .�- -' ' �� :� ' . � ` . .�.` � r -- � i Y � .. _�� • � � '.-hild C�� r� , �« .... _._ - �.. -- --- � .�ity of Santa Clar�� `� :� ,�`� � d ,.� .v, � , , �- � � _ . , _ ^.�:t'+4F�� . ti,�y� i i ,,., yy � � ,b — . . _� .. . . .. . . _ �� . ` , x1: � < - Y_ _ � � '�.... « a � �' �Ga�wS �&''�.�'lYd�r�Y�..,�Y6�.. � r . . . . . . �, � . ', ..........�..�. �. � "� ' � � _ ,. . ..«.._ ....._........._�, _ , _.. .-�.•... . • " , . �.. ,.._. �j ..-........ -�. T� � .- .... . . . � . - . . .: . .. . .. .._ . � . ...._ .. r . . . i ... . . .... . . . _ ... . . . . ... . . . . .__..'_._�"�_._ __.._. _ . ...,.. . . ._ ,,... r'.,.,�.... . . . � ,; �. t . . � . -_ . ; -� . - .. . . T';rv,i"'r . . � ... � ,_ .. . . ., . _ . ..... , . .. _. .. . .�'' �. �. ., i :�. , .. ; � ] �.�� ,- , � ,�. , .� . _„_,,. � ._�.t , � t � � � . �. t � ; : . �-,- ��, � � - F � _ ' • � '�-� ^� .. _ � .. F r.4Y � . -. . . . ' .. .. . . �: . �' ��.� � ' ..��-` • `' ' ��.s;=_ s�,�z`- J �"T �-��. .,.,,�, � � . . .a"��. ,�`37��'�� r� . t s�, ,�, - �--• ' - . . _ x � �� `� � � �, ; �. y 4 J�, . rv f �� rrr � �, . _ - � 1 � � µ��'�� • � � . ..ra.. _.. _ � _ �._ .. _ __ .:i�'.o..... � � F � • yr 1 , �- ,i .. � r� ^ w� (. �, �a e� � ' �,;�, : � • k ' � • �,�.,, � - ' �r ' � ~ i� � �i�Z : .;-. �� ""��: � ��' ��; � � '� _ ' ;' � �; ��'.++.�+� t . � _ ..,� ra"' . , - li� - �e _ _ '� ' � • � - �� i , � � ` r t _ . •a,. . - f � . i, i"' - ._ -.-. , : , , ,:� "' r - w - � � �r� � +y -.-.--.—�,� r/ � _ "„' .i � _ � ►'� .si',�'.� - ° - ��i� `� `- . . " ` 1^z _.._ .j': ,:� �M.2 ' � ._ � i �s-r'--. � .�� r y � ,. , �` � .� . . . �._..� � _ �.. . �: . � � tt . . �. � _ ' 7 ._ .�.�. -� :��'� -� �-, � � ': •+�� ;' -- = r • � ' , ' - t : � ' . �, �_' "�..�c . w �. . � , r � � . � � J, �:. -�' �_ . �E � r . �. • *,_ - - -- ♦ , �'. � 1 �] -_; . a, 4 � � � J,T i +�� ;� � . r � 1�;�_�'!"'a '� Z +},� !► � rr II �.... . � �.. .� � ` ii/ Y �Y ' t�-- . I .. . y� � r �.� � ` � � � 1 , � _. _�' ' u � . Y A . . � �� _ ; ... tr;; , s ° ��.e I „�° �,� � .� � �� ?'.:. �� -$e--�i�_ � a ��Y`�^ . — �. — � >• • , r �', � '� ' + L t '" % �. �, � �li � u r � . ; . � R � } �1- `�.'Y� . , , I �.""'. `.� �. �, ...� � � . � �e �� ` �- ' � _ � • e -'� �~��,��. f � � • ^�` �"'�, I ° ' ,` r L y+ � ' '• � , - � � ` � . _ w / Al .i• n " _ -.,�: ��. � � " � '� � ' `� ' ��l i �.`'" l7 F - J �4`.�...�.r ( �'�' "'�"`f i,� � t.. ��+ " �. . ' ' �: � �, +��.._ � :: . * . ., ., �. .�� :1��' �� ,�,�J �f� tiL�. � .� 4 � t '� 5 � �:i'. � _ ,� ( �'� u R .�., .tr-�_ R „� 'x'L *. . � •! . w �. �r �a.) r � I ` �' •' ' I .._ �. � .. � a � . ' i � � 1 � . s r! � . _ 4 �� ' K� � . . ` j a � � - - , Y!�I� �L��e� - _�,r � , r r #� . '� � t � ��- .� , �� :i . ei" �"� '"a°" �� j ' :i� .� V . � �. _ �;�► -� �. .,�: ; Pla � ! _r '��:�_. :��,. i� � r �i� � �. J - k �� _ - , ° � .: , ��.� � � � �`�"''� "" � . � E ^ �} - , ,�-~, ` .�� y Z �. .1 � ��y � r i!'� �• d �� -..-',. � � The applicant proposes to occupy the entire 8,999-square foot building, with a pre-school and after-school uses that will serve up to 142 children. The applicant currently operates an after- school childcare at 19220 Stevens Creek Boulevard that has been in business since 2006. The enrollment capacity at that location is 130 school-age children. The applicant is proposing to ex�and his business by operating both the after-school care at 19220 Stevens Creek Boulevard �., and the operations at 18900 Stevens Creek Boulevard. DISCUSSION: The child care provider, Sunflower Learning Center, provides the following operational information about their operations (Attachment 4): Pre-sclzool: Days of operation: Monday thru Friday Hours of operation: 8:30 a.m. — 6:30 p.m. Maximum Capacity: 70 children (Zyrs 9 months to 4 yrs 9 months) 1-2 U-2011-04, ASA-2011-05 Sunflower Learning Center Apri126, 2011 EXC-2011-05, EA-2011-04 Page 3 No. of classrooms: 3 Childcare Staff: 6(based on community care licensing requirements - 1 teacher for every 12 students) Afte��-school: Days of operation: Monday thru Friday Hours of operation: 2:00 p.m. — 7:00 p.m. Maximum Capacity: 72 children (3rd grade and up) No. of classrooms: 8 Childcare Staff: 6(at a 1:12 teacher-student ratio) Tra ic: A traffic impact analysis was prepared by Hexagon Transportation Consultants since the project is anticipated to generate more than 100 peak hour trips above the previous use in the P.M. peak hour (between 5:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m.)(see Attachment 5). The traffic study revealed that the Stevens Creek Blvd/Stern Avenue intersection currently operates at Level of Service (LOS) F during the PM peak hour, and would continue to do so with tlle proposed project. The study also noted that the minimum thresholds for installation of a traffic signal would be met with the proposed project, whereas under existing conditions a traffic signal is not warranted. It should be noted that the City has no specific criteria with respect to unsignalized intersections and the Capital Improvement Program does not include funds to signalize this intersection. Additionally, the full cost of installing a traffic signal would be financially infeasible for the project applicant to bear. The low level of service during the PM peak hour is mainly due to excessive vehicle delays by vehicles attempting to turn left from northbound Stern Avenue onto westbound Stevens Creek Boulevard. This also creates an unsafe situation with vehicles attempting to make a left-turn by navigating multiple lanes of traffic on eastbound Stevens Creek Boulevard. Therefore, the traffic consultant is recommending restricting the traffic movement from northbound Stern Avenue onto westbound Stevens Creek Boulevard by constructing a median (see illustration below). � .�- �..,� --__ � _ _ � �� . ,� � �. � � � ``_ � . � ��. . . � �_� - = = ^ a � � � �" _ _ ' ��_ �' .... r`' �. - � , � �'� � "."` r• '" Y"-�- �__ - - � r � . . . . _ ib K S��B � r� M i .. .. . . . . ,_ . -� • - - - . � - - -- , ---- � - � �� F�� I _ �' . � � . - . _ �. +k a ' ` a' � . !� 3. i. �..� ..eA.�.. l .n��.wr 1_ w ... �u ► '' i � ' y .a, , � � ( C �� . � Y �. �. r} .. f 7s ^�� `•,'.7�Q�'y i� ...• I ' .C'�. � Y�� _ '- s � � . . rl_' � ��.�� '_ _ , .. riii . � . ; �� E ,, :H � t 'C-, ' E_ - •r'c. � '� i -• �� ti ,. � ' ' . �i"L'� (-�.`'�i'.:.. _ .. � ... _ • � � �� P�.,T r ��_ '' . . � � �� •�_ • � �I _ . n � f � - �, i� , - � , te ens Cree�k Bouleva� R- S v ° F3S_ A ... � � -. F�.'� F ��, � H�1.�s r �'� ��'. � ..��, � .... ._ ._ . . � �:� � � � 1 ,.- .�1 . �fIS � - - ' E vl .r �.�1 `.. f ✓ l. � ��tis+l..w. — — rt�_.l-��` �� :� 1: t r y�� .. �F� i + , . � .ff � 18F.'.t. `1 �T • ._, . .. ... .u.�.... . F . � -, � .� � . � __ ., .- _ _._ � �. _ 1� r !: 4 � � ' r' r ' � =i . � L• ° �e �. �� . . . . - �� _ i , : - �-� �. - ' ; � . ... . . . .. .. . .. � -� . - . : '. �• � . - �' � � _� w �--- .�-� — .. � c,-,. .� , .- � y . �� /y I^ .{ � �� E �� ^�� f_ � �_� � � � � � �+i C ,,,.,..�. , � u � } � '� ` � _ _ ' ' " ' �-' --,,'� F ~''- 'z t � , .,^�' �� - �'�i' . � "'�" ; ' _ _ . � .. .,..,... _ i�� .= � � . . , � Above: Unsafe movement during P.M. peak hour .;, � �� " �,�;}� Right: Mitigation recommended by Traffic Consultant to ��'�"•' •� , '�1 " ..'�}�;,��_a . .. . prohibit left turn from Stern Ave on to WB Stevens Creek ti; -� .�•- q�� ;� �� Boulevard. ''�' ��"' This would continue to allow left turns from westbound Stevens Creek Boulevard to southbound Stern Avenue as well as left-turns into the hotel driveway from eastbound Stevens Creek Boulevard. Vehicles attempting to go westbound on Stevens Creek Boulevard would � 1-3 U-2011-04, ASA-2011-05 Sunflower Learning Center Apri126, 2011 EXG2011-05, EA-2011-04 Page 4 make a right on eastbound Stevens Creek and a U-turn at the next signalized intersection. These improvements are consistent with other smaller intersections along arterials such as De Anza Boulevard and Stevens Creek Boulevard and would reduce intersection delays at the intersection and mitigate a potentially unsafe situation. As a condition of the project, the project will fund the median improvements as prescribed by the traffic consultant. The applicant is aware and agreeable to this condition. Par� The traffic consultant also studied the parking requirements for the proposed project. Based on analysis of the current operations of the Sunshine Learning Center at 19220 Stevens Creek Boulevard, it appears that the proposed project will require a total of 27 parking spaces (12 for , student pick-up, 12 for teachers and 3 van parking spaces). The business owns three vans that pick children up from schools and transport them to the facility. The applicant proposes to provide 24 parking spaces to accommodate the student pick-up and the teacher parking and proposes to park the 3 vans at its other business location at 19220 Stevens Creek Boulevard. The applicant also agrees to a condition of approval for this project that should the other business location shut down, the applicant shall either reduce the business plan for the pre-school/after-school care to allow for parking of the vans on the site or demonstrate that there will be no impacts to the parking requirements due to the additional van parking via a parking survey by an independent consultant. This has been added as a condition of approval for the development. Outdoor Pla� Area State law requires that daycare centers provide outdoor play areas for children. The applicant intends to meet the State requirement by providing approximately 2,124 square foot of play area behind the child care facility close to Stern Avenue (see Attachment 9). The location would enable the children to use the play area without having to cross the driveway or parking lot. The play area is set back 57 feet from the residential property line to the west, 71 feet from the property to the south and 12 feet from the property to the east (see site aerial on page 2 of the staff report). The proposed play area will consist of: • One (1) play structure • Rubber tiles around play structure • Six (6) foot metal perimeter fence � • Landscaping and curbs near the perimeter fence � v A secondary, approximately 450 square feet, play area is being proposed three feet from the west property line, 157 feet from the south property line, 70 feet from the east and north property lines. No play structures are proposed in this area. Additional Site Im�rovements on the Project Site: As part of this application, the applicant will be providing additional site improvements including new trees along the Stevens Creek frontage, landscape planters, enhanced walkways for ease of drop off and pick up of children, new roof on the trash enclosure and new parking . lot striping. Please refer to the site plan for the detailed list of all of the improvements. 1-4 U-2011-04, ASA-2011-05 Sunflower Learning Center Apri126, 2011 EXC-2011-05, EA-2011-04 Pa�e 5 Noise A noise impact and mitigation study was conducted by Illingworth and Rodkin, Inc. to evaluate the potential noise impacts on adjacent properties by the proposed facility (see Attachment 6). The noise engineer visited Sunflower Learning Center's existing operations at 19220 Stevens Creek Boulevard to establish the baseline noise levels. This establishment has 130 children enrolled. The consultant has also taken into consideration, in his analysis, that there already is another pre-school located on Bret Avenue. The primary source of noise from the operation of the facility would be intermittent and brief from the play areas. With the types of activities typical of child care play areas, the number of children estimated to be outside at any given time (a maximum of 28 children at one time in the larger play area and 2 children at one time in the smaller play area) and the distance of these activities from residential property lines, these activities would be well within the City's Noise Ordinance limits, and do not be expected to create any noise impacts in adjacent areas (please see Attachment 6 for the detailed noise analysis). Since the General Commercial Zoning Ordinance (19.56.070 (E).d.) requires a minimum 8-foot high sound wall between commercial and residential properties, the applicant will be increasing the height of the existing concrete masonry fence from 5 feet 8 inches to 8 feet along the west and south property lines, which will help provide visual and noise screening to the adjacent residences. A condition has been added to approve the final design of the wall prior to issuance of building permits. Fa�ade The applicant is making minor fa�ade changes to improve the functionality of the pre-school by enclosing areas under the open staircase at the rear to make the facility safer and more controlled. These changes are restricted to the rear of the building. EXCEPTION TO THE HEART OF THE CITY: The applicant is also requesting an exception to the Heart of the City Specific Plan requirement that no more than 25% of the building frontage along Stevens Creek Boulevard comprise of non-retail uses. This requirement was instituted with the last update to the Heart� of the City Specific Plan in March 2010. The building was originally designed for office use and the layout of the building does not make this an ideal location for retail uses. Staff therefore recommends that the exception to the Heart of the City be granted for this particular building. PLIBLIC OU�REACH: � On April l, 2011, the applicant mailed out notices to property owners within 300 feet of the project, inviting them to attend a neighborhood meeting. On Apri19, 2011, the applicant hosted the neighborhood meeting at the Conference Room at the Quinlan Community Center. The meeting was attended by the applicants, one staff inember, and one (1) neighbor. In addition, staff received phone calls from two neighbors. Comments and concerns are summarized below. Staff responses to each of the comments and concerns are also included. 1-5 U-2011-04, ASA-2011-05 Sunflower Learning Center Apri126, 2011 EXC-2011-05, EA-2011-04 Page 6 Nei hbor Comment/Concerns Staff Res onses 1. Restricting left turns from north Restricting left turn movements out of Stern Avenue bound Stern Avenue onto west reduces intersection delays and enhances safety. bound Stevens Creek Boulevard is a concern. 2. Apartment spill over parking The apartment complex in question is located in the City along Stern Avenue of San Jose. The street is not designated as a"no parking" zone. 3. Traffic and driveway conflicts No operational conflicts are expected and safety is not with 7-11 across the Stern compromised. This situation is typical throughout the Avenue city. 4. Vehicular visibility concerns The new landscaping proposed along Stevens Creek due to new landscaping Boulevard is in conformance with the requirements of the proposed along Stevens Creek Heart of the City Specific Plan. The landscaping proposed Boulevard when turning right includes trees that will have a higher canopy and will not onto Stern Avenue from east impede the view of cars making turns. bound Stevens Creek 5. Concerns with the lack of The City does not own the necessary right-of-way to sidewalk along Stevens Creek construct a sidewalk at that location. If, and when that Boulevard to the west of the property is developed, appropriate dedications and subject property public improvements shall be required of the develo er/owner. 6. Existing 6-foot fence along The scope of this project does not include any changes to Stevens Creek Boulevard of the the property to the west of this property. If, and when residential neighbor to the west that property is developed, appropriate public im rovements shall be re uired of the develo er/owner. 7. Maximize pedestrian path The applicant has provided additional pedestrian inside the parking lot pathways to provide safe access for children during icku and dro off times. 8. Afternoon sun makes turning The intersection improvements will reduce the number of left on to Stern Avenue from conflicts with the left-turn movement and make it safer. west bound Stevens Creek Boulevard a challen e. 9. Concerns about the cumulative The noise analysis did review the cumulative impacts of noise impacts from proposed the noise generated by the existing pre-school and the operations and existing pre- proposed operations. �' school on Bret Avenue. 10. The operator of the pre-school While, there are restrictions on how close large family on Bret Avenue raised concerns day care facilities may be located in residential zones to about economic impacts of the maintain the residential character of the neighborhood, proximity of another pre-school both the subject property and the other pre-school are to her business. located in a mixed use planned development zoning district where commercial, office and residential uses are � allowed. The city does not have any restrictions on the roximit of re-schools to each other in this zone. 1-6 U-2011-04, ASA-2011-05 Sunflower Learning Center Apri126, 2011 EXC-2011-05, EA-2011-04 Pa�e 7 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The Environmental Review Committee reviewed the proposed project and the environmental impacts of the project on April 7, 2011 (see Attachment �. At that meeting, the Committee recommended adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the proposed project recognizing that the impacts of the project were less than significant with mitigations. A summary of the proposed mitigation measures for the impacts are attached (see Attachment 8). Prepared by: Piu Ghosh, Associate Planner Reviewed by: Approved by: a Aarti ivastava Ci anner Community Development Director ATTACHMENTS: l. Model Resolution: Use Permit U-2011-04 (EA-2011-04) 2. Model Resolution: Architectural and Site Approval Permit ASA-2011-05 3. Model Resolution: Exception Permit EXC-2011-05 4. Sunflower Learning Center Operational Information/Business Plan 5. Traffic Impact Analysis dated April 5, 2011 prepared by Hexagon Transportation Consultants. Inc. 6. Noise Analysis dated March 10, 2011 prepared by Illingsworth & Rodkin, Inc. 7. Initial Study — EA-2011-05 S. Summary of Mitigation Measures for U-2011-04, ASA-2011-05, EXC-2011-04 and EA-2011-04 9. Plan Set G:\Planning\PDREPORT\pc U reports\2011ureports\U-2011-04.docx v � 1-7 ATTACHMENT 1 U-2011-04 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 RESOLUTION NO. OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO APPROVING A USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A CHILD CARE FACILITY WITH A PRE-SCHOOL AND AN AFTER-SCHOOL LEARNING PROGRAM TO OPERATE AT AN EXISTING 8,999 SQUARE FOOT COMMERCIAL OFFICE BUILING LOCATED AT 18900 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD SECTION I: PROTECT DESCRIPTION Application No.: U-2011-04 Applicant: Karl Shultz/Lili Zhu/Louis Tseng (Sunflower Learning Center) Property Owner: Nicholas Speno Location: 189D0 Stevens Creek Boulevard (APN: 37511 073) SECTION II: FINDINGS FOR USE/PLANNED DEV�LOPMENT PERMIT: WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application for a Use Permit as described in Section I. of this Resolution; and WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Committee has recommended adoption of a(Mitigated) Negative Declaration, WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given as required by the Procedural Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, and the P1aruling Comrnission has held at least one public hearing in regard to the application; and WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds as follows with regard to this application: a) The proposed use, at the proposed location, will not be detrimental or ir"tjurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience; b) The proposed use will be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the Cupertino Comprehensive General Plan and the purpose of the City's zoning ordinances. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That after careful consideration of the initial study, maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter, subject to the conditions which are enumerated in this Resolution beginning on PAGE 2 thereof,: 1-8 Resolution No. U-2011-04 Apri126, 2011 Page - 2 - 1. A Mitigated Negative Declaration (file no. EA-2011-04) is hereby adopted; and 2. The application for a Use Permit, Application no. U-2011-04 is hereby approved, and That the subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this Resolution are based and contained in the Public Hearing record concerning Application no.(s) EA-2011-04 and U- 2011-04 as. set forth in the Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting of April 26, 2011, and are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. 1. DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL Approval is granted for a child care facility with the following capacity: a) Pre-school: 70 children b) After-school program: 72 children The acival capacity of children at the facility maybe further restricted based on Fire Department, Building Department, CA Department of Social Services, CA Department of Education or other relevant agencies requirements. Appropriate licensing/registration from the Community Care Licensing Department and/or other relevant County/State agencies shall be obtained prior to commencement of the operation. 2. APPROVED EXHIBITS This approval is based on Exhibits titled "Business Plari' prepared by the applicant consisting of two pages and "Sunflower Learning Center, New Pre-school & After-school Program Facility, 18900 Stevens Creek Boulevard, Cupertino, CA" prepared by Shultz and Associates dated 4-15- 2011 consisting of pages A0.1, A1.0, A1.1, PL, A1.2, A2.0, A2.1, A4.1 and 1 of 1, except as may be amended by the Conditions contained in this Resolution. Planning Staff has the ability to approve minor modifications to the business plan as long as the changes are consistent with any applicable Building and/or Fire Codes (including but not limited to accessibility, fire safety, and building occupancy and other appropriate agencies. 3. NOISE CONTROL The outdoor play area schedule shall be limited as indicated in the Business Plan. Noise levels shall not exceed those as listed in Chapter 10.48 of the Cupertino Municipal Code. 4. FXPIRY DATE If the use for which this conditional use permit is granted and utilized has ceased or has been suspended for one year or more, this permit shall be deemed expired and a new use permit application must be applied for and obtained. 5. TOTAL AVAILABLE PARKING Parking for vans owned and operated for the benefit of this facility is not approved with this project. The applicant shall park these vans at the facility at 19220 Stevens Creek Boulevard. In the event, operations at 19220 Stevens Creek Boulevard cease or relocate and the applicant would like accommodate parking of these vans at 18900 Stevens Creek Boulevard, the applicant has the following options with the approval of a Director's Minor Modification: 1-9 Resolution No. U-2011-04 Apri126, 2011 Page - 3 - a) Modify the business plan to reduce required parking to allow the vans to be parked on site, b) Demonstrate to fhe City that the parking of the vans on site does not affect the parking requirements for the operations via a parking study by an independent traffic/parking consultant. 6. RECYCLING OF DEMOLISHED BUILDING MATERIALS A condition will be added to require recycling of demolished building materials to the maximum extent possible. 7. UTILITY STRUCTURES All new utility structures will be required to be located underground or screened from public view. 8. SIGNS Signage is not approved with this use permit application. Signage shall conform to the City Sign Code. . 9. REVOCATION OF USE PERMIT The Director may initiate proceedings for revocation of the Use Permit in any case where, in the judgment of the Director, substantial evidence indicates that the conditions of a planned development permit, conditional use permit or variance have not been implemented, or where the permit or variance is being conducted in a manner detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare, in accord with the requirements of Chapter 19.124. 10. NOTICE OF FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS OR OTHER EXACTIONS The Conditions of Project Approval set forth herein may include certain fees, dedication requirements, reservation requirements, and other exactions. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(d) (1), these Conditions constitute written notice of a statement of the amount of such fees, and a description of the dedications, reservations, and other exactions. You are hereby further notified that the 90-day approval period in which you may protest these fees, dedications, reservations, and other exactions, pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(a), has begun. If you fail to file a protest within this 90-day period complying with all of the requirements of Section 66020, you will be legally barred from later challenging such exactions. SECTION IV: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 1. STREET WIDENING Public street widening and dedications shall be provided in accordance with City Standards and specifications and as required by the City Engineer.� 2. CURB AND GUTTER IMPROVEMENTS Curbs and gutters, sidewalks and related structures shall be installed in accordance with grades and standards as specified by the City Engineer. 3. STREET LIGHTING INSTALLATION Street lighting shall be installed and shall be as approved by the City Engineer. Lighting fixtures shall be positioned so as to preclude glare and other forms of visual interference to adjoining properties, and shall be no higher than the maximum height permitted by the zone in which the site is located. 1-10 Resolution No. U-2011-04 Apri126, 2011 Page-4- 4. GRADING Grading shall be as approved and required by the City Engineer in accordance with Chapter 16.08 of the Cupertino Municipal Code. 401 Certifications and 404 permits maybe required. Please contact Army Corp of Engineers and/ or Regional Water Quality Control Board as appropriate. 5. DRAINAGE Drainage shall be provided to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Hydrology and pre- and post- development hydraulic calculations must be provided to indicate whether additional storm water control measures are to be constructed or renovated. The storm drain system may include, but is not limited to, subsurface storage of peak stormwater flows (as needed), bioretention basins, vegetated swales, and hydrodynamic separators to reduce the amount of runoff from the site and improve water quality. The storm drain system shall be designed to detain water on-site (e.g., via buried pipes, retention systems or other approved systems and improvements) as necessary to avoid an increase of one percent flood water surface elevation of the culvert to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 6. UNDERGROUND UTILITIES The developer shall comply with the requirements of the Underground Utilities Ordinance No. 331 and other related Ordinances and regulations of the City of Cupertino, and shall coordinate with affected utility providers for installation of underground utility devices. The developer shall submit detailed plans showing utility underground provisions. Said plans shall be subject to prior approval of the affected Utility provider and the City Engineer. 7. BICYCLE PARKING - The developer shall provide bicycle parking consistent with the City's requirements to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 8. IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT The project developer shall enter into a development agreement with the City of Cupertino providing for payment of fees, including but not limited to checking and inspection fees, storm drain fees, park dedication fees and fees for under grounding of utilities. Said agreement shall be executed prior to issuance of construction permits Fees: a. Checking & Inspection Fees: $ Per current fee schedule ($2,468.00 or 5%) b. Grading Permit: $ Per current fee schedule ($2,217.00 or 5%) c. Development Maintenance Deposit: $1,000.00 d. Storm Drainage Fee: $ TBD �, e. Power Cost: ** � f. Map Checking Fees: $ Per current fee schedule (N/ A) g. Park Fees: $ Per current fee schedule (N/ A) h. Street Tree By Developer ** Based on the latest effective PG&E rate schedule approved by the PUC Bonds: Faithful Performance Bond:100% of Off-site and On-site Improvements Labor & Material Bond:100% of Off-site and On-site Improvement On-site Grading Bond:100 % of site improvements. 1-11 Resolution No. U-2011-04 Apri126, 2011 Page - 5 - -The fees described above are imposed based upon the current fee schedule adopted by the City Council. However, the fees imposed herein may be modified at the time of recordation of a final map or issuance of a building permit in the event of said change or changes, the fees changed at that time will reflect the then current fee schedule. 9. TRANSFORMERS Electrical transformers, telephone vaults and similar above ground equipment enclosures shall be screened with fencing and landscaping or located underground such that said equipment is not visible from public street areas. The transformer shall not be located in the front or side building setback area. 10. BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES Utilize Best Management Practices (BMPs), as required by the State Water Resources Control Board, for construction activity, which disturbs soil. B11�IP plans shall be included in grading and street improvement plans. 11. NPDES CONSTRUCTION GENERAL PERMIT When and where it is required by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), the developer must obtain a Notice of Intent (NOI) from the SWRCB, which encompasses preparation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), use of construction Best Management Practices (BMPs) to control storm water runoff quality, and BMP inspection and maintenance. 12. C.3 RE UIREMENTS C.3 regulated improvements are required for all projects creating and/or replacing 10,000 S.F. or more of impervious surface (collectively over the entire project site). The developer shall reserve a minimum of 4% of developable surface area for the placement of low impact development measures, for storm water treatment, on the tentative map, unless an alternative storm water treatment plan, that satisfies C.3 requirements, is approved by the City Engineer. The developer must include the use and maintenance of site design, source control and storm water treatment Best Management Practices (BMPs), which must be designed per approved numeric sizing criteria. A Storm Water Management Plan, Storm Water Facilities Easement Agreement, Storm Water Facilities Operation and Maintenance Agreement, and certification of ongoing operation and maintenance of treatment BMPs are each required. All storm water management plans are required to obtain certification from a City approved third party reviewer. 13. EROSION CONTROL PLAN The developer must pro�%ide an approved erosion control plan by a Registered Civil Engineer. This plan should include all erosion control measures used to retain materials on site. Erosion control notes shall be stated on the plans. 14. WORK SCHEDULE Every 6 months, the developer shall submit a work schedule to the City to show the timetable for all grading/erosion control work in conjunction with this project. 15. OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT The developer shall enter into an Operations & Maintenance Agreement with the City prior to final occupancy. The Agreement shall include the operation and maintenance for non-standard 1-12 Resolution No. U-2011-04 Apri126, 2011 Page-6- appurtenances in the public road right-of-way that may include, but is not limited to, sidewalk, pavers, and street lights. 16. TRAFFIC CONTROL PLAN The developer must submit a traffic control plan by a Registered Traffic Engineer to be approved by the City. The plan shall include a temporary traffic control plan for work in the right of way as well as a routing plan for all vehicles used during construction. All traffic control signs must be reviewed and approved by the City prior to commencement of work. The City has adopted Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) standards for all signage and striping work throughout the City. 17. TRAFFIC SIGNS Traffic control signs shall be placed at locations specified by the City. 18. TRASH ENCLOSURES The trash enclosure plan must be designed to the satisfaction of the Environmental Programs Manager. Clearance by the Public Works Department is needed prior to obtaining a building permit. 19. REFUSE TRUCK ACCESS The developer must obtain clearance from the Environmental Programs Manager in regards to refuse truck access for the proposed development. 20. STREET TREES Street trees shall be planted within the Public Right of Way to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and shall be of a type approved by the City in accordance with Ordinance No.125. 21. FIRE PROTECTION Fire sprinklers shall be installed in any new construction to the approval of the City. 22. SANTA CLARA COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT A letter of clearance for the project shall be obtained from the Santa Clara County Fire Department prior to issuance of building permits. 23. FIRE HYDRANT Fire hydrants shall be located as required by the City and Santa Clara County Fire Department as needed. 24. SANTA CLARA WATER DISTRICT CLEARANCE Provide Santa Clara water district approval before issuance: of a building permit. The developer shall pay for and obtain Water District permit for activities or modifications within the District easement or fee right of way or affecting District facilities. 25. CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE COMPANY CLEARANCE Provide California Water Service Company approval before issuance of a building permit. 26. SANITARY DISTRICT A letter of clearance for the project shall be obtained from the Cupertino Sanitary District prior to issuance of building permits. 1-13 Resolution No. U-2011-04 Apri126, 2011 Page-7- 27. UTILITY EASEMENTS Clearance approvals from the agencies with easements on the property (including PG&E, PacBell, and California Water Company, and/or equivalent agencies) will be required prior to issuance of building permits. 28. MEDIAN EXTENTION ON STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD AT STERN AVENUE The Developer is required to install a median extension along Stevens Creek Blvd at the Stern Avenue intersection to prohibit left turns from Stern Avenue onto Stevens Creek Boulevard. The layout and installation shall be done to the satisfaction of the City Engi_neer. SECTION V: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE CITY OF SUNNYVALE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 1. SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM The project site is discharging sanitary sewer to the City of Sunnyvale system, therefore, prior to City of Cupertino's building permit issuance, a licensed Civil Engineer or Mechanical Engineer shall provide a written statement to the City of Sunnyvale, providing an estimated average water consumption (in gpd) for the proposed use and stating that the he/she has evaluated the existing sanitary sewer lateral and main pipe on Stern Avenue and determined that there is no adverse impact to the existing Sunnyvale sanitary sewer system (or; there is a small incremental impact to the existing Sunnyvale sanitary sewer system but would not trigger any system upgrades; or there is incremental impact to the existing Sunnyvale sanitary sewer system and improvements for upgrades are subject to City of Sunnyvale review and approval). PASSED AND ADOPTED this 26th day of April, 2011� Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ATTEST: APPROVED: w� Aarti Shrivastava Winnie Lee, Chair Director of Community Development Cupertino Plannulg Commission G: � Planning � PDREPORT � RES � 2011 � U-2011-04.doc 1-14 ATTACHMENT 2 ASA-2011-OS CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 RESOLUTION NO. OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO APPROVING AN ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE APPROVAL PERMIT FOR MINOR FA�ADE, LANDSCAPING AND PARKING LOT MODIFICATIONS AT AN EXISTING COMMERCIAL OFFICE BUILDING LOCATED AT 18900 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD SECTION I: PROTECT DESCRIPTION Application No.: ASA-2011-05 Applicant: Karl Schultz/ Lili Zhu/ Louis Tseng (Sunflower Learning Center) Property Owner: Nicholas Speno Location: 18900 Stevens Creek Boulevard (APN: 37511073) SECTION II: FINDINGS FOR ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE APPROVAL: WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application for an Architectural and Site Approval as described in Section I. of this Resolution; and WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Committee has recommended adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration, WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given as required by the Procedural Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, and the Planning Commission has held at least one public hearing in regard to the application; and WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds as follows with regard to this application: 1. The proposal, at the proposed location, will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, and,, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience; 2. The proposal is consistent with the purposes of Chapter 19.134, Architectural and Site Review, of the Cupertino Municipal Code, the General Plan, any specific plan, zoning ordinances, conditional use permits, exceptions, subdivision maps or other entitlements to use which regulate the subject property including, but not limited to, adherence to the following specific criteria: a) Only minor changes have been proposed to the existing building that do not affect the overall architectural quality of the building. b) Design harmony between new and existing buildings have been preserved and the materials, and with the future character of the neighborhood and purposes of the zone in which it is 1-15 Resolution No. ASA-2011-05 Apri126, 2011 Page - 2 - situated. The location, height and materials of walls, fencing, hedges and screen planting harmonize with adjacent development. Unsightly storage areas, utility installations and unsightly elements of parking lots have been concealed. Ground cover or various types of pavements have been used to prevent dust and erosion, and the unnecessary destruction of existing healthy trees have been avoided. Lighting for development is adequate to meet safety requirements as specified by the engineering and building departments, and shielding to adjoining property owners. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That after careful consideration of the initial study, maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter, subject to the conditions which are enumerated in this Resolution beginning on PAGE 2 thereof,: 1. A Mitigated Negative Declaration (file no. EA-11-04) is hereby adopted; and 2. The application for an Architectural and Site Approval, Application no. ASA-2011-05 is hereby approved, and That the subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this Resolution are based and contained in the Public Hearing record concerning Application no.(s) EA-2011-04 and ASA-2011-05 as set forth in the Minutes of Planning Con�unission Meeting of Apri126, 2011, and are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. 1. APPROVED EXHIBITS This approval is based on Exhibits titled "Business Plan" prepared by the applicant consisting of two pages and "Sunflower Learning Center, New Pre-school & After-school Program Facility, 18900 Stevens Creek Boulevard, Cupertino, CA" prepared by Shultz and Associates dated 4-15-2011 consisting of pages A0.1, A1.0, A1.1, PL, A1.2, A2.0, A2.1, A4.1 and 1 of 1, except as may be amended by the Conditions contained in this Resolution. Planning Staff has the ability to approve minor modifications to the business plan as long as the changes are consistent with any applicable Building and/or Fire Codes (including but not limited to accessibility, fire safety, and building occupancy and other appropriate agencies. 2. PARKING ADTACENT TO THE TRASH ENCLOSURE The applicant shall provide no parking signs between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 12:00 p.m. on Wednesday. The design and location of said signs shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning and Public Works Departments prior to issuance of building permits. � 3. ENHANCED PATHWAY � The applicant shall provide enhanced pathways, the final design and location of which shall be reviewed and approved by the P1aruling Department prior to issuance of building permits, from the parking areas on the site for safe pick up and drop-off of children. 4. DRNEWAY ENTRANCE The applicant shall design and install a new driveway entrance, the design of which shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning and Public Works Departments prior to issuance of building permits. 1-16 Resolution No. ASA-2011-05 � Apri126, 2011 Page-3- 5. SOUND WALL A masonry wall, the final design of which shall be reviewed and approved by the Plannulg Department prior to issuance of building permits, shall be provided on the project's common boundary with residentially zoned or used property up to the front setback line. The wall shall be at least eight feet in height as measured from the highest adjoining grade. 6. RECYCLING OF DEMOLISHED BUILDING MATERIALS A condition will be added to require recycling of demolished building materials to the maximum extent possible. 7. UTILITY STRUCTURES All new utility structures will be required to be located underground or screened from public view. S. FENCE The final design of the perimeter fencing around the play areas shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Department prior to issuance of building permits. 9. BICYCLE PARKING The applicant shall provide bicycle parking and bike racks for the proposed project in accordance with the City's Parking Regulations under Chapter 19.100 of the Cupertino Municipal Code. 10. LANDSCAPE INSTALLATION REPORT The project is subject to all provisions delineated in the Landscape Ordinance (CMC, Chapter 14.15). A landscape installation audit shall be conducted by a certified landscape professional after the landscaping and irrigation system have been installed. The findings of the assessment shall be consolidated into a landscape installation report. The landscape installation report shall include, but is not limited to: inspection to confirm that the landscaping and irrigation system are installed as specified in the landscape and irrigation design plan, system tune-up, system test with distribution uniformity, reporting overspray or run-off that causes overland flow, and preparation of an irrigation schedule. The landscape installation report shall include the following statement: The landscape and „ irrigation system have been installed as specified in the landscape and irrigation design plan and complies with the criteria of the ordinance and the permit." 11. LANDSCAPE AND IRRIGATION MAINTENANCE Per the Landscape Ordinance (CMC, Chapter 14.15), a maintenance schedule shall be established and submitted to the Director of Community Development or his/her designee, either with the landscape application package, with the landscape installation report, or any time before the landscape installation report is submitted. a) Sch�'dules should take into account water requirements for the plant establishment period and water requirements for established landscapes. b) Maintenance shall include, but not be limited to the following: routine inspection; pressure testing, adjustment and repair of the irrigation system; aerating and de-thatching turf areas; replenishing mulch; fertilizing; pruning; replanting of failed plants; weeding; pest control; and removing obstructions to emission devices. c) Failed plants shall be replaced with the same or functionally equivalent plants that may be size- adjusted as appropriate for the stage of growth of the overall installation. Failing plants shall either be replaced or be revived through appropriate adjustments in water, nutrients, pest control or other factors as recommended by a landscaping professional. 1-17 Resolution No. ASA-2011-05 Apri126, 2011 Page-4- SECTION 1V: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 1. STREET WIDENING Public street widening and dedications shall be provided in accordance with City Standards and specifications and as required by the City Engineer. 2. CURB AND GUTTER IMPROVEMENTS Curbs and gutters, sidewalks and related structures shall be installed in accordance with grades and standards as specified by the City Engineer. 3. STREET LIGHTING INSTALLATION Street lighting shall be installed and shall be as approved by the City Engineer. Lighting fixtures shall be positioned so as to preclude glare and other forms of visual interference to adjoining properties, and shall be no higher than the maximum height permitted by the zone in which the site is located. 4. GRADING Grading shall be as approved and required by the City Engineer in accordance with Chapter 16.08 of the Cupertino Municipal Code. 401 Certifications and 404 permits maybe required. Please contact Army Corp of Engineers and/or Regional Water Quality Control Board as appropriate. 5. DRAINAGE Drainage shall be provided to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Hydrology and pre- and post- development hydraulic calculations must be provided to indicate whether additional storm water control measures are to be constructed or renovated. The storm drain system may include, but is not limited to, subsurface storage of peak stormwater flows (as needed), bioretention basins, vegetated swales, and hydrodynamic separators to reduce the amount of runoff from the site and improve water quality. The storm drain system shall be designed to detain water on-site (e.g., via buried pipes, retention systems or other approved systems and improvements) as necessary to avoid an increase of one percent flood water surface elevation of the culvert to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 6. UNDERGROUND UTILITIES The developer shall comply with the requirements of the Underground Utilities Ordinance No. 331 and other related Ordinances and regulations of the City of Cupertino, and shall coordinate with affected utility providers for installation of underground utility devices. The developer shall submit detailed plans showing utility underground provisions. Said plans shall be subject to prior approval of the affected Utility provider and the City Engineer. 7. BICYCLE PARKING �' The developer shall provide bicycle parking consistent with the City's requirements to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 8. IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT The project developer shall enter into a development agreement with the City of Cupertino providing for payment of fees, including but not limited to checking and inspection fees, storm drain fees, park dedication fees and fees for under grounding of utilities. Said agreement shall be executed prior to issuance of construction permits Fees: a. Checking & Inspection Fees: $ Per current fee schedule ($2,468.00 or 5%) 1-18 Resolution No. ASA-2011-05 Apri126, 2011 Page-5- b. Grading Permit: $ Per current fee schedule ($2,217.00 or 5%) c. Development Maintenance Deposit: $1,000.00 d. Storm Drainage Fee: $ TBD e. Power Cost: ** f. Map Checking Fees: $ Per current fee schedule (N/ A) g. Park Fees: $ Per current fee schedule (N/ A) h. Street Tree By Developer ** Based on the latest effective PG&E rate schedule approved by the PUC Bonds: Faithful Performance Bond:100% of Off-site and On-site Improvements Labor & Material Bond:100% of Off-site and On-site Improvement On-site Grading Bond:100 % of site improvements. -The fees described above are imposed based upon the current fee schedule adopted by the City Council. However, the fees imposed herein may be modified at the time of recordation of a final map or issuance of a building permit in the event of said change or changes, the fees changed at that time will reflect the then current fee schedule. 9. TRANSFORMERS Electrical transformers, telephone vaults and similar above ground equipment enclosures shall be screened with fencing and landscaping or located underground such that said equipment is not visible from public street areas. The transformer shall not be located in the front or side building setback area. 10. BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES Utilize Best Management Practices (BMPs), as required by the State Water Resources Control Board, for construction activity, which disturbs soil. BMP plans shall be included in grading and street improvement plans. 11. NPDES CONSTRUCTION GENERAL PERMIT When and where it is required by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), the developer must obtain a Notice of Intent (NOI) from the SWRCB, which encompasses preparation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), use of construction Best Management Practices (BMPs) to control storm water runoff quality, and BMP inspection and maintenance. 12. C.3 REQUIREMENTS C.3 regulated improvements are required for all projects creating and/or replacing 10,000 S.F. or more of impervious surface (collectively over the entire project site). The developer shak� reserve a minimum of 4% of developable surface area for the placement of low impact development measures, for storm water treatment, on the tentative map, unless an alternative storm water treatment plan, that satisfies C.3 requirements, is approved by the City Engineer. The developer must include the use and maintenance of site design, source control and storm water treatment Best Management Practices (BMPs), which must be designed per approved numeric sizing criteria. A Storm Water Management Plan, Storm Water Facilities Easement Agreement, Storm Water Facilities Operation and Maintenance Agreement, and certification of ongoing operation and maintenance of treatment BMPs are each required. All storm water management plans are required to obtain certification from a City approved third party reviewer. 1-19 Resolution No. ASA-2011-05 Apri126, 2011 Page - 6 - 13. EROSION CONTROL PLAN The developer must provide an approved erosion control plan by a Registered Civil Engineer. This plan should include all erosion control measures used to retain materials on site. Erosion control notes shall be stated on the plans. 14. WORK SCHEDULE Every 6 months, the developer shall submit a work schedule to the City to show the timetable for all grading/erosion control work in conjunction with this project. 15. OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT The developer shall enter into an Operations & Maintenance Agreement with the City prior to final occupancy. The Agreement shall include the operation and maintenance for non-standard appurtenances in the public road right-of-way that may include, but is not limited to, sidewalk, pavers, and street lights. 16. TRAFFIC CONTROL PLAN The developer must submit a traffic control plan by a Registered Traffic Engineer to be approved by the City. The plan shall include a temporary traffic control plan for work in the right of way as well as a routing plan for all vehicles used during construction. All traffic control signs must be reviewed and approved by the City prior to commencement of work. The City has adopted Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) standards for all signage and striping work throughout the City. 17. TRAFFIC SIGNS Traffic control signs shall be placed at locations specified by the City. 18. TRASH ENCLOSURES The trash enclosure plan must be designed to the satisfaction of the Environmental Programs Manager. Clearance by the Public Works Department is needed prior to obtaining a building permit. 19. REFUSE TRUCK ACCESS The developer must obtain clearance from the Environmental Programs Manager in regards to refuse truck access for the proposed development. 20. STREET TREES Street trees shall be planted within the Public Right of Way to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and shall be of a type approved by the City in accordance with Ordinance No.125. 21. FIRE PROTECTION Fire spri�klers shall be installed in any new construction to the approval of the City. 22. SANTA CLARA COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT A letter of clearance for the project shall be obtained from the Santa Clara County Fire Department prior to issuance of building perxnits. 23. FIRE HYDRANT Fire hydrants shall be located as required by the City and Santa Clara County Fire Department as needed. 24. SANTA CLARA WATER DISTRICT CLEARANCE Provide Santa Clara water district approval before issuance of a building permit. The developer shall pay for and obtain Water District permit for activities or modifications within the District easement or fee right of way or affecting.pistrict facilities. 1-20 Resolution No. ASA-2011-05 Apri126, 2011 Page - 7 - 25. CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE COMPANY CLEARANCE Provide California Water Service Company approval before issuance of a building permit. 26. SANITARY DISTRICT A letter of clearance for the project shall be obtained from the Cupertino Sanitary District prior to issuance of building permits. 27. UTILITY EASEMENTS Clearance approvals from the agencies with easements on the property (including PG&E, PacBell, and California Water Company, and/or equivalent agencies) will be required prior to issuance of building permits. 28. MEDIAN EXTENTION ON STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD AT STERN AVENUE The Developer is required to install a median extension along Stevens Creek Blvd at the Stern Avenue intersection to prohibit left turns from Stern Avenue onto Stevens Creek Boulevard. The layout and installation shall be done to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 26th day of April, 2011� Regular Meeting of the Planning Coinmission of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll call vote: l�YES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ATTEST: APPROVED: Aarti Shrivastava Winnie Lee, Chair Director of Community Development Cupertino Planning Commission � G:, Planning, PDREPORT � RES � 201 T � ASA-2011-05 res.doc 1-21 ATTACHMENT 3 EXC-2011-OS CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 RESOLUTION NO. OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO APPROVING AN EXCEPTION TO THE HEART OF THE CITY SPECIFIC PLAN TO ALLOW NON-COMMERCIAL USES (A CHILD CARE FACILITY) TO EXCEED 25 % OF THE TOTAL BUILDING FRONTAGE ALONG STEVENS CREEK BOULE�'ARD LOCATED AT 18900 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD SECTION I: PROTECT DESCRIPTION Application No.: EXC-2011-05 Applicant: Karl Schultz/Lili Zhu/Louis Tseng (Sunflower Learning Center) Property Owner: Nicholas Speno Location: 18900 Stevens Creek Boulevard (APN: 37511073) SECTION II: FINDINGS FOR HEART OF THE CITY SPECIFIC PLAN EXCEPTION WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application for a Height Exception as described in Section I. of this Resolution; and WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Committee has recommended adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration, WHEREAS, the necessary notices have been given in accordance with the Procedural Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, and the Planning Commission has held at least one Public Hearing on this matter; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds the following with regards to the Heart of the City Specific Plan Exception for this application: 1. The proposed development is otherwise consistent with the City's General Plan and with the goals of this specific�lan and meets the criteria that unique surrounding land uses make it difficult to adhere to the development standards. 2. The proposed development will not be injurious to property or improvements in the area nor be detrimental to the public health and safety. 3. The proposed development will not create a hazardous condition for pedestrian vehicular traffic. 4. The proposed development has legal access to public streets and public services are available to serve the development. 5. The proposed development requires an exception, which involves the least modification of, or deviation from, the development regulations prescribed in this chapter necessary to accomplish a reasonable use of the parcel. 1-22 Resolution No. Application number Hearing Date Page 2 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That after careful consideration of the initial study, maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter, subject to the conditions which are enumerated in this Resolution begulning on P� thereof,: 1. A Mitigated Negative Declaration (file no. EA-2011-04) is hereby adopted; and 2. The application for an Exception to the Heart of the City Specific plan, Application no. EXC- 2011-05 is hereby approved, and That the subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this Resolution are based and contained in the Public Hearing record concerning Application no.(s) EA-2011-04 and EXC-2011-05 as set forth in the Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting of Apri126, 2011, and are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. 1. EXPIRY DATE This exception effective for as long as the Use Permit for the Sunflower Learning Center (File No. U-2011-04) is valid. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 26th day of April 2011, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino by the following roll call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ATTEST: APPROVED: Aarti Shrivastava Winnie Lee, Chair Director of Community Development Planning Commission �� G: � Planning � PDREPORT � RES � 2011 � EXC-2011-05 Res.doc 1-23 Attachment 4 Sunflower Learning Center 18900 Stevens Creek Blvd Project Cupertino, CA 95014 Subject: Business Plan For the 18900 Stevens Creek Blvd project, we plan to target two different student sectors: pre-school and school-age (3` grade and up). Pre-school children will be located in lst floor facilities; school-age children will be located in 2 floor facilities. In addition, will be a school-age classroom in 1 St floor as well. Pre-school Business Operational Plan: 1. Pre-school children will be operated in the 1 St floor facilities. There will be 3 classrooms to service 70 children. Two teachers per classroom, as required by licensing requirements of maximum 12:1 student-teacher ratio. 2. Pre-school children will learn how to socialize with children. They will be introduced to cultural activities, such as singing, dancing, drawing. They will also learn how to recognize shapes, color, plants, animals, etc. 3. Business hours will be: M-F 8:30-6:30pm. Closed on Saturdays and Sundays. Parents have the liberty to drop-off/pick-up children at their convenience. Therefore, drop-off times and pick-up times are dispersed. 4. There will be a pre-school playground on the premises. School-age Business Operational Plan: 1. We will serve school-age children 3` grade and up, for a total of 72 students. They will be based inostly on 2" floor facilities, with only 1 classroom on 1 St floor. There will be 8 classrooms, 1 classroom in l st floor and 7 classrooins in 2" floor; each classroom will have a teacher, for maximum a ratio of 12:1. 2. Business hours will be: M-F 2:00-7:OOpm; closed on Saturdays and Sundays 3. Student program: • Mandarin Chinese • Chinese cultural classes, such as folk dance, kung-fu, drama, folk singing, go, brush painting, calligraphy, abacus, traditional customs, etc. � • Other enrichment classes, such as chess, arts and craft, painting, dance, math, etc. 4. School-age children arrive at school via Sunflower transportation. These are typically Sunflower vans ("Sunflower van") carrying up to 12 children or Sunflower-contracted drivers ("drivers"), typically carrying up to 6 children. These "drivers" or "Sunflower vans" will arrive at staggered time slots because in the Cupertino Unified School District schools set their own schedules. As such, inany schools dismiss students at slightly different times. Therefore, students arrive at slightly different times. The effect is that drop off times are staggered; thus, relieving potential traffic congestion. 1-24 5. For safety reasons, we follow strict guidelines in dropping off children: a. a teacher must lead the children into Sunflower facilities before the van/car can move. b. Drivers must take roll call and check-off students at drop-off 6. We offset the closing business hour by 30minutes between pre-school and after- school in order to stagger pickup times. Most people tend to procrastinate till closing time to pickup their children; thus, we anticipate most parents picking up children during last 30min of business. 19220 Stevens Creek Blvd Business Operational Plan: 1. We will retain our current site at 19220 Stevens Creek Blvd. At this site, we will serve school school-age children K-2 grade. We will NOT serve under 5 age children. Enrollment capacity is 130 students. 2. Business hours are M-F 2:00-6:30pm; closed on Saturdays and Sundays. 3. Student program: • Mandarin Chinese • Chinese cultural classes, such as folk dance, kung-fu, drama, folk singing, go, brush painting, calligraphy, abacus, traditional customs, etc. • Other enrichment classes, such as chess, arts and craft, painting, dance, math, etc. 4. School-age children arrive at school via Sunflower transportation. These are typically Sunflower vans ("Sunflower van") carrying up to 12 children or Sunflower-contracted drivers ("drivers"), typically carrying up to 6 children. These "drivers" or "Sunflower vans" will arrive at staggered time slots because in the Cupertino Unified School District schools set their own schedules. As such, many schools dismiss students at slightly different times. Therefore, students arrive at slightly different times. The effect is that drop off times are staggered; thus, relieving potential traffic congestion. 5. All Sunflower pickup vans will park at the 19220 Stevens Creek location during regular business hours. This follows strict guidelines the City is setting as condition of our parking arrangement at 18900 Stevens Creek Blvd location. 6. For safety reasons, we follow strict guidelines in dropping off children: a. a teacher must lead the children into Sunflower facilities before the �� van/car can move. b. Drivers must take roll call and check-off students at drop-off 1-25 �- Attachment 5 t: .:��1 . .-.. � u �IEXA60N TRANSPORTATION COMSUITANTS, INC. 18900 Stevens Creek Boulevard Draft Traffic impact Analysis , � �� - Prepared for: City of Cupertino � Apri) 5, 2011 � f �� . t , � „ Hexagon Office: 111 W. St. John Street, Suite 850 San Jose, CA 95113 Hexagon Job Number: 11GB05 Phone: 408.971.6100 Document Name: 18900 Stevens Creek Boulevard.doc San lose • Gilroy • Pleasanton • Phoenix www.hextrans.com °_ - , : -� , . , : C� , .... � :•. u cs . . - Pl>ns Trzfic i�andfng ?l�as !mpa� Fees lntErcha��ge .�.na.'ysis P=_rku , ! i.z • �.; ,•'�'-on F'i:r-.ir ,: ; , . . ; _ . .:,; C 7 : c DpErtions ��."�: :mp;c( -`-.r�,!y:ls T2`7c 5fgr,al Qesign l"r; . and : . 1-26 18900 Stevens Creek Boulevard — Draft Traffic Analysis Report April 5, 2011 � �� Table of Contents Executive Summa "' ry ................................................................................................................................... iti 1 . Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 6 2. Existing Conditions ....................................................................................................................... 13 3. Existing Plus Project Conditions ................................................................................................... 19 r 4. Other Transportation Issues ......................................................................................................... 25 .� 5. Cumulative Conditions .................................................................................................................. 30 6. Conclusions .................................................................................................................................. 33 Appendices ---, Appendix A: Traffic Counts � Appendix B: Level of Service Calculations Appendix C: Signal Warrants List of Tables Table ES 1 Intersection Level of Service Summary .................................................................................vi � Tabie 1 Signalized Intersection Level of Service Definitions Based on Control Delay ......................... 11 Table 2 Unsignalized Intersection Level of Service Definitions Based on Control Delay ..................... 12 Table 3 Existing Intersection Levels of Service ........:............................................................................ 18 Table 4 Project Trip Generation Estimates ........................................................................................... 21 E ��-� Table 5 Project Intersection Levels of Service ...................................................................................... 23 Table 6 Cumulative Intersection Levels of Service ............................................................................... 31 ` F � � � � i �� -_ _ _ _ _ -- .___._. _. ._ - - ---- - - - - -- -- -- -- - - -- ---- - -- -- --- ---_------- - --- ---. _ i u I�ezagon TraosDortation Cansultantr. (nc. � � P a g e � 1-27 i 18900 Stevens Creek Boulevard — Draft Traffic Analysis Report April 5, 2011 �� '�'�y� List of Figures Figure 1 Site Location and Study Intersections ................................................................................... 8 Figure 2 Project Conceptual Site Plan (to be included) ....................................................................... 9 ,- Figure 3 Existing Lane Configurations ............................................................................................... 16 Figure 4 Existing Traffic Volumes ...................................................................................................... 17 Figure 5 Project Trip Distribution and Trip Assignment ..................................................................... 22 Figure 6 Existing Plus Project Traffic Volumes .................................................................................. 24 --�- Figure 7 Recommended Improvements at Stevens Creek Boulevard and Stern Avenue ................. 27 i"��; :� � .,, _. Figure 8 Cumulative Project Traffic Volumes ..................................................................................... 32 ��; ; F' � J � i� +._;%� .... . ____. ._ .. .__.._ ._..... ..- � --. __ .___._-- ----. _._ . _._ ___.- -� -- --�-._.__: .__._._ .. _. _.- -�---- � -- - . . ___ . _ - _ _ .. .._ . .. ^ ' ii � Page � �Iexagon Transportation Consultants Inc. 1-28 18900 Stevens Creek Boulevard — Draft Traffic Analysis Report April 5, 2011 �� Executive Summary �: �, This report presents the results of the traffic impact analysis conducfed for the proposed Sunflower Learning Center located at 18900 Stevens Creek Boulevard in Cupertino, Califomia. The project as proposed would consist of a preschool and an after-school learning center that wouid occupy an existing office building located in the southwest corner of Stevens Creek B�ulevard and Stern , Avenue. The learning center is currently located at 19220 Stevens Creek Boulevard and serves a total of 130 after-school students. The school is planning to relocate to the 18900 Stevens Creek Boulevard facility and expects to ultimately grow to 154 students of which 72 students are expected to be enrolled in preschool, and the remaining 82 students are expected to be after- school students. The buiiding is expected to be open Monday through Friday from 8:00 AM to 6:00 PM for preschool students and from 2:00 PM to 6:30 PM for after-school students. Access to the proposed project is provided on Stern Avenue ° The potential traffic impacts related to the proposed development were evaluated foliowing the '� standards and methodologies set forth by the City of Cupertino, City of Sanfa Clara and the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA). The VTA administers the County Congestion Management Program (CMP). The traffic study includes an analysis of only the PM peak hour traffic conditions for seven signalized intersections and one unsignalized intersection in the vicinity of the project site. No significant traffic impacts due to the project were determined based on the PM peak hour leveis of --� service for the signalized intersections. The peak hour signal warrant was checked for the � unsignalized intersection of Stevens Creek Boulevard and Stern Avenue to determine whether signalization would be justified on the basis of project peak hour traffic volumes. Project impacts on other transportation facilities, such as bicycle facilities and transit service, were determined on the basis of engineering judgment. �_ Project Trip GeneratiQn � Trip generation estir�ates for the proposed project was l�ased on a trip generation survey that was � conducted on February 17, 2011 during the PM peak hour from 4:30 PM to 6:30 PM at the existing facility at 19220 Stevens Creek Boulevard that currently has an enroliment of 130 students. The survey results showed that the existing school's trip generation peaked at 212 trips from 5:30 PM to 6:30 PM with 107 trips in and 105 trips out. The observed trip generation rate was 1.63 trips per student in the PM peak hour, for an enrollment of 130 students. For an enroliment of 154 students, the project is expected to generate a total of 251 trips in the PM peak hour with 127 trips coming into the site and 124 trips leaving the site. These trips were added to the peak hour of the adjacent street traffic which occurs between 5:00 PM and 6:00 PM, for a conservative analysis. - --- . __ _ ____-.- - - ___._ _ _ _ _ __ _ . _ _ - - __ . _ _ _ _ _. _ i=; � I�ezagon TranspaRation Coosulta�ls Inc. i i i ( P a g e _::__ � 1-29 18900 Stevens Creek Boulevard — Draft Traffic Analysis Report April 5, 2011 �� As the project proposes to occupy the existing office building, the project can receive cthedit for �!� trips generated by the existing office use. Based on the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 8 edition, an office building with 8,653 square feet is expected to generate a total of 13 peak hour trips, with 2 trips coming into the site and 11 trips leaving the site. After receiving credit for the existing office use, the proposed project is expected to generate a total of 238 net new trips, with 125 trips coming into the site and 113 trips leaving the site - Existing Plus Project Intersection Levels of Service The results show that, measured against acceptable level of service standards set forth by City of Cupertino, City of Santa Clara and VTA, all of the intersections would continue to operate adequately. The level of service results for the study intersections under existing plus project conditions are summarized in Table ES 1. �� Cumulative REus Project tntersectEOn Levels of Service The results show that, measured against acceptable level of service standards set forth by City of Cupertino, City of Santa Clara and VTA, all of the study intersections would continue to operate adequately. The level of service results for the study intersections under cumulative conditions are summarized in Table ES 1. Qther Transportat�on Issues The unsignalized intersection at Stevens Creek Boulevard and Stern Avenue was found to operate at an unacceptable level of service under existing, existing plus project and cumulative conditions. Based on the peak hour volume signal warrant analysis, this intersection was found to meet the signal warrant under existing plus project conditions and cumulative plus project conditions. The ,� unacceptable delay at this intersection is because of the delay experienced by the left turning vehicles from Stern Avenue onto westbound Stevens Creek Boulevard who have to find gaps in the uncontrolled traffic flow on eastbound and westbound Stevens Creek Boulevard. Alternative routes are available for the project generated traffic going westbound on Stevens Creek Boulevard. One of the alternative routes is for project traffic to go south on Stern Avenue, west on Loree Avenue, north on Tantau Avenue and west on Stevens Creek Boulevard at the signalized intersection of Tantau Avenue. As an alternative to a traffic signal, the City could consider ,� restricting northbound left turns at Stern Avenue. Hexagon recommends that the City consider installation of a median on Stevens Creek Boulevard at Stern Avenue to prevent outbound left furns but allow inbound left tums (see Figure 7). The median would result in acceptable levels of service without the necessity of signalizing this intersection. � ,, � J � - ...__.. __ ___ . . __ _. ____.. - - -- --- ---------____------ ___ --- ------- - .___ ,� n iv � Page �—`, � yexa9on Transportation Coasultaats, loc. C.?� r 1-30 � .....� t- � � � � I. w � 18900 Stevens Creelc Boulevard - Draft Traffic AnalySis Report Table ES 1 Intersection Level of Service Summary Stevens Creek Blvd. and N Wolfe Road PM 11/04/10 35.5 D 35.8 D Stevens Creek Bivd. and Finch Ave. PM 03/01/11 21.5 C 21.2 C Stevens Creek Blvd. and Tantau Ave. PM 03/01/11 30.9 C 30.7 C Stevens Creek Blvd. and I-280 SB Ramp PM 10/20/10 24.2 C 24.1 C c: Stevens Creek Blvd. and Agilent Technologies Drwy. PM 03/01/11 14.8 B 14.7 B Stevens Creek Blvd. and Lawrence Exp. SB PM 10/20/10 28.8 C 29.0 C Stevens Creek Blvd. and Lawrence Exp. NB PM 10/20/10 27.7 C 27.9 C 0.2 -0.2 0.1 0.1 -0.1 0.4 0.3 April 5, 2011 0.009 39.0 D 40 D 0.014 24.3 C 24 C 0.02 31.9 C 32 C 0.014 23.0 C 23.1 C 0.009 18.6 B 18.6 B 0.014 29.2 C 29.6 C 0.01 28.2 C 28.5 C 1.8 -0.2 0.4 0.3 0.1 0.7 0.3 0.026 0.014 0.02 0.014 0.009 0.014 0.01 �Box and bold indicates project significant impact. 1. Average control delay (seconds per vehicle) including all movements for intersections controlled by a signal and the worst delay associated with a turning movement on the minor street approach at unsignalized intersections. 2. Level of service (based on average delay). � � �I¢xagan Transportation Co�sultanls Inc. v � Page � 18900 Stevens Creek Boulevard - Draft Traffic Analysis Report April 5, 2011 ,��_, (`,� 1. ��_� Introduction This report presents the results of the traffic impact analysis conducted_for the proposed Sunflower Learning Center located at 18900 Stevens Creek Boulevard in Cupertino, California. The project as proposed would consist of a preschool and an after-school learning center that would occupy an � existing office buiiding located in the southwest corner of Stevens Creek Boulevard and Stern Avenue. The Sunflower learning center is currently located in Cupertino at 19220 Stevens Creek Boulevard. The existing center serves a total of 130 after-school students. The school is planning to relocate to the 18900 Stevens Creek Boulevard facility and expects to ultimately grow to 154 students of which 72 students are expected to be enrolled in preschool, and the remaining 82 students are expected to be after-school students. The building is expected to be open Monday � through Friday from 8:00 AM to 6:00 PM for preschool students and from 2:00 PM to 6:30 PM for ° after-school students. Access to the proposed project is provided on Stern Avenue. The project site "�t and the surrounding study area are shown on Figure 1. A conceptual site plan is shown on Figure 2. Scope of Study This study was conducted for the purpose of identifying the potential traffic impacts related to the proposed development. The potential impacts of the project were evaluated in accordance with the standards set forth by the City of Cupertino, City of Santa Clara and the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) Congestion Management Program (CMP). The traffic analysis is based on the PM peak hour levels of service for seven signalized intersections and one unsignalized intersection. The AM peak hour was not analyzed as the after-school leaming center is proposed to be open only in the afternoons, and the trips in AM peak hour from the preschool are less compared to the PM peak hour trips, which consist of trips from both the preschool and the E after school learning center. The peak hour signal warrant was checked for the unsignalized intersection of Stevens Creek Boulevard and Stern Avenue to determine whether signalization would be justifie� on the basis of project peak hour traffic volumes. The study ir�'�rsections are identified below, along with the jurisdiction they belong to. St�dy Intersectior�s 1. Stevens Creek Boulevard/North Wolfe Road/Miller Avenue (CMP, Cupertino) 2. Stevens Creek Boulevard/Finch Avenue (Cupertino) 3. Stevens Creek Boulevard/Tantau Avenue (Cupertino) 4. Stevens Creek Boulevard/Calvert Drive/I-280 SB (CMP, State) 5. Stevens Creek Boulevard/Agilent Technologies Driveway Access (Santa Clara) 6. Stevens Creek Boulevard/Lawrence Expressway Southbound (CMP, Santa Clara) 7. Stevens Creek Boulevard/Lawrence Expressway Northbound (CMP, Santa Clara) � � l -------- ---- ----- - -- - ---_-- - - -- - -- - - _ _ ---__ _ ___ _ _ _ _ - --__ _ - �:;1 � yeza9on Transuartation Contultaots. loe. 6 � P a g e 1-32 18900 Stevens Creek Boulevard — Draft Traffic Analysis Report April 5, 2011 -�;�� 8. Stevens Creek Boulevard/Stern Avenue (unsignalized) (Cupertino) �� Traffic conditions at the study intersections were analyzed for the weekday PM peak hour of traffic as the preschool/after schooi learning center is expected to generate maximum trips in the afternoon on a weekday. The PM peak hour is typically between 4:00 and 6:00 PM. It is during this • period that the most congested traffic conditions occur on an average day. - Traffic conditions were evaluated for the following scenarios: Scenario 1: Exisfing Conditions. Existing traffic volumes are based on traffic counts conducted in 2010 and early 2011. Scenario 2: Existing plus Project Conditions. Existing traffic volumes with the project (hereafter called project traffic volumes) were estimated by adding to existing , traffic volumes the additional traffic generated by the project. Project conditions E�� :, were evaluated relative to existing conditions in order to determine potential � � project impacts. Scenario 3: Cumulative No Project Condifions. Cumulative No Project traffic volumes for the study intersections were based upon trips generated by approved/pending , projects provided by the City of Cupertino. Trips generated by these .a ' approved/pending projects were added to existing volumes to represent near term cumulative no project conditions. Scenario 4: Cumulative Wifh Projecf Conditrons. Cumulative traffic volumes with the project were estimated by adding to cumulative no project traffic volumes the additional traffic generated by the project. � Methodolagy f r� This section presents the methods used to determine the traffic conditions for each scenario described above. It includes descriptions of the data requirements, the analysis methodologies, and the applicable level of service standards. Data Requirements The data required for the analysis were obtained from new traffic counts, the City of Cupertino, and field observations. The following data were collected from these sources: • existing traffic volumes •. existing lane configurations • signal timing and phasing, and • a list of approved projects [. . � � U � �, f.' :: -- _ _ . ___ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ __ - __ ___. ___ __ � yexagon Tianspartation Consultants, loc. 7 I P a g e 1-33 S�r�flo�er Learning Cente� � � � Prvneridge Ave �� . \ I � , �� W UI C m � :1 � J �� j Vallco Pkwy � Agflent Technology � '�� m i �. �� I \\ . Stevens Creek Bivd �� Ci � � � � � � \.• � I Q � ... I � c � Q ❑ a� � .,� � Q � � ; �` C Q �.. � H � U Loree Ave � m � �• LL I � IC \ - 1 Loree Ave � � Tilson Ave Phil Ln Mitty Way Bamhart Ave • �o c y 0 rc �o � � � Bollinger Rd Moorpark Ave LEGEND � � � '� = S ite �ocation F i g u re 1 �= Study Intersection Site Location and Stud� tntersectior�s �:-�: c �,� � I��%kGON TkAtlSpD�T�TIDti COhSIIITknTS I nc. " 1 _ � A NORTH � f Na b 5cal. � Sunflower Learning Center - —�- -- __ _ _- - --- -- � vv'ooti �um' '� �� _ � �. � - -- - -- _ - a . o �,�i-> . . , . o - --- - _ . _ __ � ; ;� ^" ' �.j:a��... _ --- � � , „ �� i c z.� ^ i �, � � . - �;� .; '^'�, `�_?' , �°'�Q� �"��,�'�-; � r j L� � � �i � 9 <— ,Q, � � L . J , Q_ Q ; � . � i-o <- -1 v i � i j ggg b S �'L'9 � �. r�. t n,w� � � � i ,� - < � rm- >- -� � �_ p 7.1 � � 9 10 11 11 li � 14 � ,5 j q � n ,b �� — �, � � t � � 1.! f �!_K 6 f l 1 6' 1 !'-i l f-1' 1 f I' l i'-Y 1 I6�'6� , Q�� bt� � I� �• -' �.-0. _• 7 I :. C.� �� ,.� � � I _ • Q . _- -p> '� <-�-> ° r � b. , � _T___ _ �/� , ., , _ i 6 L j Itl u.0 Y ) 7 t k � ^- ) „`` _� ' � �' �_ ' O _ .�__.. � C•. .R1M 1 ;�Yf`�?MN) . ' .. .__— �� _. _ 1 � "'Mwc v. E - '.. -. � °�- �J o , �- ;>; <�-� 1 � _p� 1 � - j o j �.� ._._.. �_r �3 _�.� � � — • r+ - ' � ..u•-r_ Cz� -- - § � i , — - � �urm � � . O I -- + L -�,' : : . . . I � �� . � � vn a tMav� �umm � = � , � ! . � �irin � m �� . -1 t � i . . � � � ` b � O ',�f � � . . . � + , _ • 1 I _ � L roa w �u+u�ww � I -- ;a,: : , "i.�_;_�� -- — -- � �� : y i C; ` a-a' �ru��a �uu t �, '� �� '.IiN I �.J * � t-�-� l�'-r ,� ,;---- � a � _ _ U � �4 I - . . -'._�_. .. _. t ' � � � - � `+. f r� �_�, � �.� � —Q , o � —� v- _ _ _� Q-�> O R7 vrniu _ - - - - 4, - - ------- � -- ` iq sa+�wr �n u STE RIV AVE �� 1 � � W � ,�� f � (F) ,au r<'xt _ � �� v�� - f-�7> � ;E) E3UILDING .� � � �'� � �, ) O I) � °�_� . �� , � � �� `' �' �+ � �.� ` a � � ( __ � � ( E-Qi ' � # .i �.� � �i � ��f- t � �� " °� i� �J F '� � _� � — -� � � � / .�ira}-tn c�rr�-w Figure 2 Site Plan �-� � NExa�on TQanscoRianoh Coasuita�its. Inc. � i i 18900 Stevens Creek Boulevard — Draft Traffic Analysis Report _ _ April 5, 2011 --- ._ _ _-- - _.._ _ . _ __ _ _ _ . _ _ __ _ � ;�� Level af Service Stat�dards and Ana�ysis MethodaEogi�s �� i Traffic conditions at the study intersections were evaluated using level of service (LOS). Level of Service is a qualitative description of operating conditions ranging from LOS A, or free-flow conditions with liitle or no delay, to LOS F, orjammed conditions with excessive delays. The various analysis methods are described below. Sianalized Intersections The signalized study intersections are subject to the City of Cupertino level of service standards. The City of Cupertino level of service methodology is TRAFFIX, which is based on the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) 2000 method for signalized intersections. TRAFFIX evaluates signalized intersection operations on the basis of average control delay time for all vehicles at the intersection. Since TRAFFIX aiso is the CMP-designated intersection level of service methodology, the City of �.� Cupertino methodology employs the CMP default values for the analysis parameters. The City level �.-� � of service standard for signalized intersections is LOS D or better. Table 1 shows the correlation � between delay and level of service. Although the project site is located in the City of Cupertino, four of the study intersections are located within the City of Santa Clara, three of which are CMP intersections. The City of Santa Clara LOS standard is LOS E at CMP intersections and LOS D at all other intersections. The CMP __ level of service methodology is the same as that used by the Cities of Cupertino and Santa Clara, except that the CMP level of service standard for signalized intersections is LOS E or better. The CMP intersection in Cupertino was analyzed with an acceptable LOS standard D. Unsictnalized Intersections One of the study intersections presently is unsignalized: Stevens Creek Boulevard and Stern Avenue. The methodology used to determine the level of service for unsignalized intersections also �- is TRAFFIX and the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual methodology for unsignalized intersection ;�, analysis. For the purpose of reporting level of service for one- and two-way stop-controlled intersections, the delay and corresponding level of service for the stop-controlled minor street approach with the highest delay is reported. The correlation between average control delay and level of service for unsignalized intersections is shown in Table 2. The level of service analysis at unsignalized intersections is supplemented with an assessment of the need for signalization of the intersection. This assessment is made on the basis of the Peak � Hour Volume Warrant #3, as described in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Confrol Devices for Sfreefs and Highways (MUTCD), Part 4, Highway Traffic Signals, 2003. This method makes no evaluation of intersection level of service, but simply provides an indication whether peak-hour traffic volumes are, or would be, sufficient to justify installation of a traffic signal. This method provides an indication of whether traffic conditions and peak-hour traffic levels are, or would be, sufficient to justify installation of a traffic signal. Other traffic signal warrants are available, however, they cannot � be checked under future conditions (project, and cumulative) because they rely on data for which €. forecasts are not available (such as accidents, pedestrian volume, and four- or eight-hour vehicle • volumes). � � � �;:��' -- - —___ __ .. - __ _ _ __-- ___ _ __ -- ___ _ __ -- -_____ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .� UezagonTranspartationConsultanu_In�. l 0 � P a g e ` 1-36 i � 18900 Stevens Creek Boulevard - Draft Traffic Analysis Report April S, 2011 ��'�`+� Tab6e 1 �'� Signafized tntersection Level of Service Definitions Based on Control Delay � r.,4 • ,o- c e t t e e t �' � Signal progression is extremely favorable. Most vehicles arrive during the green - A phase and do not stop at all. Short cycle lengths may also contribute to the very 10.0 or less low vehicle delay. � � Operations characterized by good signal progression and/or short cycle B lengths. More vehicles stop than �vith LOS A, causing higher levels of average 10.1 to 20.0 vehicle delay. � �;�� Higher delays may result from fair signal progression and/or longer cycle =~ � lengths. Individual cycle failures may begin to appear at this level. The number C of vehicles stopping is significant, though may still pass through the intersection 20.1 to 35.0 I without stopping. The influence of congestion becomes more noticeable. Longer delays may p result from some combination of unfavorable signal progression, long cycle 35.1 to 55.0 lenghts, or high volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratios. Many vehicles stop and individual cycle failures are noticeable. This is considred to be the limit of acceptable delay. These high delay values E generally indicate poor signal progression, long cycle lengths, and high volume- 55.1 to 80.0 to-capacity (V/C) ratios. Individual cycle failures occure frequently. �� This level of delay is considered unacceptable by most drivers. This condition (� often occurs with oversaturation, that is, when arrival flow rates exceed the F capacity of the intersection. Poor progression and long cycle lengths may also 9reater than 80.0 be major contributing causes of such delay levels. Source: Transportation Research Board, 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (Washington, D.C., 2000) p10-16. � C�EP Er��ers�ec�Eans The designated level of service methodology for the CMP is the 2000 HCM operations method for signalized intersections, using TRAFFIX. The only difference in level of service standards is that in the City of Cupertino the standard is LOS D or better; for the VTA, the CMP level of service standard for signalized intersections is LOS E or better. For the CMP intersections in Cupertino, ; LOS D�rvas used as the acceptable LOS and for the CMP intersections in Santa Clara, LOS E was - used as the acceptable LOS. ` ' J t� ��rt Q�rg��tza�ic�n The remainder of this report is divided into six chapters. Chapter 2 describes existing conditions in -� terms of the existing roadway nefwork, transit service, and existing bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Chapter 3 describes the method used to estimate project traffic and its impact on the transportation system and describes any recommended mitigation measures. Chapter 4 contains an evaluation of other transportation-related issues, such as site access, circulation, and parking. Chapter 5 presents the traffic conditions in the study area under cumulative conditions. Chapter 6 includes a summary of any proposed mitigation 'measures and recommended improvements. � �,; ; , �� __ . _ __._ _ __ _ ____ �... ___ _ _- - --- _ . _ _ � � 11 � Page � �exagon Tra�sportation Co�sultaats, Inc. � 1-37 18900 Stevens Creek Boulevard — Draft Traffic Analysis Report _ April S, 2011 � Table 2 Unsignaiized lntersection Level of Service Definitions Based on Control Delay � - e E- o o _ o-.l j � A Little or no traffic delay 10.0 or less B Short traffic delays 10.1 to 15.0 C Average traffic delays 15.1 to 25.0 � D Long traffic delays 25.1 to 35.0 � �_ - E Very long traffic delays 35.1 to 50.0 F Extreme traffic delays greater than 50.0 Source: Transportation Research Board, 2000 Highway Capacify Manua! (Washington, D.C., 2000) p17-2. ,- . . l�"`'F � � ► � � J � .. __ _ _ _ - _ . i:� •_�,:,'r � 12 � Page � (�eka9o� Transp�rtatio� Caasultants. Inc. 1-38 18900 Stevens Creek Boulevard — Draft Traffic Analysis Report April 5, 2011 .� :�,'�,c �.�_.� �,,�,,, �.. ��.. � . Existing Conditions This chapter describes the existing conditions for all of the major transportation facilities near the � site, including the roadway network, transit service, and bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Existing Roadway Network Stevens Creek Boulevard is a major east-west roadway in the City of Cupertino, extending from Permanente Road in Cupertino to West San Carlos Street in San Jose. In the vicinity of the project ' Stevens Creek Boulevard is a 6-lane arterial. The project is located on the southwest corner of ;��; Stevens Creek Boulevard and Stem Avenue, and access to the project is provided via Stern Avenue. The intersection of Stevens Creek Boulevard and Stern Avenue is unsignalized and allows all movements. The north leg of the intersection is a driveway into Woodcrest hotel. Wo/fe Road is a north-south roadway that extends from Stevens Creek Boulevard in Cupertino to Arques Avenue in Sunnyvale. South of Stevens Creek Boulevard it transitions into Miller Avenue, which is a four lane roadway. The intersection of Wolfe Road and Stevens Creek Boulevard is ,--: signalized. L• Finch Avenue is a two lane roadway that extends between Vallco Parkway in the north and Phil Lane (residential road) in the south. The intersection of Finch Avenue with Stevens Creek Boulevard is signalized. It is noted that no through movement is allowed across Stevens Creek Boulevard. , Tantau Avenue is a fivo lane roadway that extends between Homestead Road and Bollinger Road [ in Cupertino. Tantau Avenue primarily serves residential uses. The intersection of Tantau Avenue with Stevens Creek Boulevard is signalized. It is noted that southbound through movement on Tantau Avenue across Stevens Creek Boulevard is not permitted. �' � Stern Avenue is a two lane residential roadway that extends between Stevens Creek Boulevard and Tilson Avenue. The intersection of Stern Avenue and Stevens Creek Boulevard is unsignalized „ with a stop control on Stern Avenue. The proposed project is located in the southwest corner of Stevens Creek Boulevard and Stern Avenue and access to the project is proposed along Stern Avenue. Calvert Drive is a two lane roadway that connects Stevens Creek Boulevard to the north and Tilson Avenue to the south. The intersection of Stevens Creek Boulevard and Calvert Drive is signalized. The north leg of the intersection consists of the southbound off-ramp from I-280. �._�, _ --- - ___ __ .._ _ _ __ _ _ _ ___— - ___ _ _. _- -. �.. � I � 13 Page � uer.agon Tiansportation Consulta�u. Inc. I 1-39 18900 Stevens Creek Boulevard — Draft Traffic Analysis Report April 5, 2011 �;�� Lawrence Expressway is an eight-lane north-south expressway. South of US 101, the right-most `�.�� lane in each direction of travel is designated as a carpool lane, which is also known as a high- occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane. The HOV lane designation is in effect in both directions of travel during both the AM and PM peak commute hours. During other times, the lane is open to all users. Lawrence Expressway begins at its junction with SR 237 and extends southward into Saratoga, where it transitions into Quito Road at Saratoga Avenue. Full interchanges are located at US 101 and SR 237. Lawrence Expressway provides access to the project site via Stevens Creek - Boulevard. Existing Bicycle and Pedestrian Facif�ties Sidewalks are found along both sides of Stevens Creek Boulevard and along both sides of Stern Avenue, along the project frontage. ��` The main streets in the study area include bike lanes (Class II Bikeways). Bike lanes exist along -'�-' Stevens Creek Boulevard in the vicinity of the project. Existing Transit Service Existing transit service to the study area is provided by the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA). Three local bus lines serve the project area: lines 23, 101 and 182. The 23 line has bus stops located along Stevens Creek Boulevard at Wolfe, Finch, Tantau, Calvert and Lawrence Expressway. The 101 line has bus stops located an Stevens Creek Boulevard at Finch, Calvert, Lawrence and Wolfe. The 182 line has bus stops on Stevens Creek Boulevard at Lawrence and . Wolfe. �_. Existing Intersection Lane Configurations �� The existing lane configurations at the study intersections were obtained by observations in the field. The existing intersection lane configurations are shown on Figure 3. Existing Traffic Volun�es Existing traffic volumes were obtained from traffic counts conducted in Year 2010 and 2011. The -. existing peak hour intersection volume is shown on Figure 4. The traffic count data are included in Appendix A. Existing �ntersection Levels af Service The results of the intersection level of service analysis under existing conditions are summarized in � Table 3. The results show that, measured against City of Cupertino, City of Santa Clara and CMP standards, the signalized study intersections currently operate at acceptable levels of service during the�PM peak hour. The level of�ervice calculation sheets are included in Appendix B. � Observed Existing Traffic Conditians Traffic conditions in the field were observed in order to identify existing operational deficiencies and to confirm the accuracy of calculated intersection levels of service. The purpose of this efFort was (1) to identify any existing traffic problems that may not be directly related to level of service, and (2) to identify any locations where the level of service analysis does not accurately reflect existing traffic conditions. Overall, the study intersections operated well during the PM peak hour of traffic, and the level of service analysis appears to reflect actual existing traffic conditions accurately. � �� r;7:� — -- -- ___ -- - --- --_--- ----. _-------- — __—. _ . _-- __ __. _ u �Ie�agon Transp�r[ation Co�iultants. Inc. 1 4 � P a g e � 1-40 18900 Stevens Creek Boulevard — Draft Traffic Analysis Report April 5, 2011 '�;�-=� The following observations were noted at the unsignalized intersection of Stevens Creek Boulevard `��`'f' and Stern Avenue: • At certain times (especially after 5:30 PM) the eastbound through vehicles at the intersection of Stevens Creek Boulevard/Calvert Drive queued all the way to Stern Avenue. As a result of this queue, even if there were gaps in the eastbound direction on Stevens Creek Boulevard, it was hard to see the gaps in the westbound direction on Stevens Creek � Boulevard. ` • At one time it was observed that a vehicle going eastbound on Stevens Creek Boulevard � that was waiting for the queue at Calvert Drive to clear waited for a vehicle on Stern Avenue to make a left-turn by conveying (hand signs) that it was ok to make the turn. � Afthough the northbound left-turning vehicle on Stern Avenue managed to make the left- � turn, the vehicle was observed to be waiting in-front of the eastbound left-turn lane (taking refuge) to find gaps in the westbound traffic flow on Stevens Creek Boulevard, which is a •� , dangerous situation. �.�:.� • The delay was observed to vary anywhere between 15 and 350 seconds based on the arrival time at the intersection of Stevens Creek Boulevard/Stern Avenue in relation to the traffic signal timings at Tantau Avenue and Calvert Drive. • It was observed that most of the westbound left-turn traffic on Steven Creek Boulevard at Stern Avenue was U-turn traffic from IHOP, which is located across Stevens Creek Boulevard. Although there were gaps in the eastbound traffic, the northbound left turning traffic on Stern Avenue had to wait for all the westbound left-turn traffic (most of which were U-turns) to clear before making the left-turn. This added to the delay for the northbound left- turns on Stern Avenue. r==; E � ,. ' . � � � � I i i . I . ___ .' _ _. _.__ . -'. . . _ _ _... r ._� .. ... _. _ ___._ .... .___ .. __.-___... . . . ._...._. .. .. u yexaoon Transportatioo Coniultants In�. 1 5 � P a g e 1-41 SunfEov�er Learning Cente� . 1 � 2 3 L 4 0 `i es-- E-- F � � � 114 r � �► �► � � �► �► � � � � Stevens Creek Blvd s r r Stevens Creek Blvd r Stevens Creek Blvd r Stevens Creek Blvd o a 0 0 1 ��TT� � �� 1 ---� —► � � �--► � a Z' a �► � � ¢ --� � � � E c � � � iL F�- N T � � � 5 � 6 p 7 X a � �- �€ L W� m � � � � a�� " r � � � � � 3 Z � � = E— � 4 � F— Stevens Creek 61vd � r Stevens Creek Blvd o r Stevens Creek BIvd � Stevens Creek Blvd • � —' g � �' -� S �► � g 1 � `� � �' � � —� � � -� —► o � � � � � > --� � U � I � Pruneridge Ave i '-, i '�. � i � � �� .� , � a � �I � � m � 3 � . J: 1 J i Vallco Pkwy Agilent Technology � � m � j ` •.. i � Stevens Creek Bivd � .� � � � � �' - �' � � �``� i? � I � v � - �,;� ml � ' •. � ' �ai,,�� ~` � � m � � o �� . Q �o > � ¢ m \ ti ~ � � U \\• � ��. �, �\ � - LEGEND � = Site Location � = Signalized Intersection � Figure 3 O= Study Intersection Q= Unsignalized Intersection Existing �Lane Configurations i � ' � , �� IEXAGOfi T�AIiSDOPiATI0t1 CONSUL1kNTS. (ti(. � 1 — 4 Z NORTH Nm m sou S�nf�o�er Learning Certer 1 � 2 3 4 � t� � cD � Z-148 Z-6 � o, 't-78 Z--5 �� t-728 M °' �-801 �� t--669 rn c� �-817 � J. 4 1 —�s3 � 4 r �oa � 1�► r �s3 � 4 r -�7a Stevens Creek Blvd Stevens Creek Blvd Stevens Creek Blvd Stevens Creek Blvd 508-1 � T � 30-J � � 110-1 � T (� 26 � (� 931 �� 1170� o ti 1044 �° � N 1287 `� "' � � 141�, Q �`�' 95 ; `- 53�, Q 37 ; � Q � Q °' U =° E � s � ?? � H � � 5 E 6 � 7 8 �a � � s w a w � E �, �n o c, �n � a� L29 r` c� �� c m Z-258 �� N ° t-856 c�`v ° �1907 ti c°i �� f--1391 � Z E---898 t � 1 �► N �414 � �► r --18 � �► J J Stevens Creek Bivd Stevens Creek Blvd Stevens Creek Blvd Stevens Creek Blvd 44 364 913� � � 1299 � � 1514 1083 � Z � 501 o `t ►c' �' r d > . � U I I � � Pruneridge Ave I �� I I � I � I i n\ I ` `,` '�I ml �I � ., � -� I � j Valico Pkwy � • _—� Agilent Technology v � I .. � m � I . .. � � Stevens Creek Blvd � � � , t� ` �. �' � � I � I � � m \ � Q �j \` � Q a� O m 7 � � � m � � Q � � � t � Q > �'� c � � c � ,� u, � U � I � LEGEND �? = Site Location XX = PM Peak-Hour Traffic Volumes Figure 4 �s = Study Intersection � xisting Traffic Volumes � � � yExkconT�ans�o�t�zionCo�su�i�nTS.lnc. " � — 4 3 NORTH Nol lo SmM 18900 Stevens Creek Boulevard — Draft Traffic Analysis Report _ _ April 5, 2011 f � � Table 3 �� Existing Intersection Levels of Service � a �a r '� — t c �a�, � i c ! I� . ;E �E . ,.4�� " - Stevens Creek Blvd. and N Wolfe Road Pt��l 11/04/10 35.5 D Stevens Creek Blvd. and Finch Ave. P��I 03/01/11 21.5 C -, Stevens Creek Blvd. and Tantau Ave. PM 03/01/11 30.9 C ,� .. _ E �-_� Stevens Creek Blvd. and I-280 SB Ramp PM 10/20/10 24.2 C Stevens Creek Bivd. and Agilent Technologies Drwy. PM 03/01/11 14.8 B Stevens Creek Blvd. and Lawrence Exp. SB PM 10/20/10 28.8 � C Stevens Creek Blvd. and Lawrence Exp. NB PM 10/20/10 27.7 C 1. Average control delay (seconds per vehicle) including all movements for intersections � controlled by a signal and the worst delay associated with a turning movement on the minor street approach at unsignalized intersections. 2. Level of service (based on average delay). � � . .- � J � — ..____ _ ..._ _ _ _. _ - ---__.._... ___ __--... _ _ _ __.. _..... � _ _ __ . . .____ � yeaa9on Transpartatian Consultants. Inc. 18 I P a g e � 1-44 i � I , 18900 Stevens Creek Boulevard — Draft Traffic Analysis Report April 5, 2011 ,�� f __ 3. ��- Existing Pfus Project Conditions This chapter describes traffic conditions with the project. it begins with a description of the significance criteria used to establish what constitutes a project impact. A description of the ,_ transportation system under existing plus project conditions and the method by which project traffic is estimated is then descri6ed. included in this chapter is a summary of existing plus project traffic conditions, as well as any impacts caused by the project. Existing pius project conditions are , represented by existing traffic conditions with the addition of traffic generated by the project. I � Significant tmpact Criteria -� Significance criteria are used to establish what constitutes an impact. For this analysis, the criteria i�� used to determine impacts on intersections is based on the City of Cupertino level of service standards and the Congestion Management Program (CMP) level of service standards. City af Cupertir�o defin�tion of SignifiGant Intersection Impacts The project is said to create a significant adverse impact on traffic conditions at a signalized intersection in the City of Cupertino if for either peak hour: _ 1. The level of service at the intersection degrades from an acceptable LOS D or better under existing conditions to an unacceptable LOS E or F under project conditions, or 2. The level of service at the intersection is an unacceptable LOS E or F under existing conditions and the addition of project trips causes both the critical-movement delay at the intersection to increase by four or more seconds and the demand-to-capacity ratio (V/C) to increase by .01 or more. € �� An exception to this rule applies when the addition of project traffic reduces the amount of average � r� delay for critical movements (i.e. the change in average delay for�ritical movements is negative). In U�' this case, the threshold of significance is an increase in the critical V/C value by .01 or more. A significant impact by City of Cupertino standards is said to be satisfactorily mitigated when measures are implemented that would restore intersection level of service to existing conditions or better. � CEty of Santa Cl�ra DefinitEOn of Significa�t Ir�tersectFOn Impacts Although the project site is located in the City of Cupertino, four of the study intersections are located within the City of Santa Clara, three of which are CMP intersections. The City of Santa Clara LOS sfandard is LOS E at CMP intersections and LOS D at all other intersections. The � ..�. �_. _- - _.._ - -- -- --- - -- - - -_ _-- . __ _ _ __ ___ _ . . . __ a�,. _ . .__ ..- _- _ � ue�ago� Transpnrtalioo Consultants, Inc. r 1 9 � P a g e 1-45 18900 Stevens Creek Boulevard — Draft Traffic Analysis Report April S, 2011 z�`�, significant impact criteria for City of Santa Clara-controlled intersections are the same as the City of ;, � ��" Cupertino significant impact criteria described above. CMP Definition af Significar�t lntersection impacts The definition of a significant impact at a CMP intersection is the same as for the Cities of Cupertino and Santa Clara, except that the CMP standard for acceptable level of service is LOS E or better. - However, the acceptable LOS for the CMP intersections in Cupertino is considered as LOS D. A � significant impact by CMP standards is said to be satisfactorily mitigated when measures are implemented that would restore intersection conditions to existing conditions or better. Trar�sportation Network under Proj�ct Conditions It is assumed in this analysis that the transportation network under project conditions, including "�` roadways and intersection lane configurations, would be the same as that described under existing � '` conditions. �_:��: Project Trip Estimates The magnitude of traffic produced by a new development and the locations where that traffic would -- . appear are estimated using a three-step process: (1) trip generation, (2) trip distribution, and (3) trip assignment. In determining project trip generation, the magnitude of traffic entering and exiting the site is estimated for the PM peak hour. As part of the project trip distribution, an estimate is made of the directions to and from which the project trips would travel. In the project trip assignment, the project trips are assigned to specific streets and intersections. These procedures are described below. Trip Generation R�� The project has proposed a private preschool and after-school tutoring center serving 154 students. Most of the after-school students are expected to be picked up from their schools and dropped off at the center by vans. Peak hour trip generation of the project is expected to occur in the evening between 4:30 PM and 6:30 PM, when the children at the center are picked up by their parents. The trip generation estimates for the proposed project was based on a trip generation survey that was conducted on February 17, 2011 during the PM peak hour from 4:30 PM to 6:30 PM at the -- existing facility at 19220 Stevens Creek Boulevard that currently has an enrollment of 130 students. " The survey results show that the existing school's trip generation peaked at 212 trips from 5:30 PM to 6:30 PM with 107 trips in and 105 trips out. The observed trip generation rate was 1.63 trips per � student in the PM peak hour, for an enrollment of 130 students. For an enrollment of 154 students, the project is expected to generate a total of 251 trips in the PM peak hour with 127 trips coming into the site and 124 trips leaving the site. These trips were added to the peak hour of the adjacent street traffic which occurs between 5:00 PM and 6:00 PM, for a conservative analysis. C � As the project proposes to occupy the existing office building, the project can receive credit for trips `' generated by the existing office use. Based a�n the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 8 edition, an n,,�,ffice building with 8,653 square feet is expected to generate a total of 13 peak hour trips, with 2 trips coming into the site and 11 trips leaving the site. After receiving.credit for the existing office use, the proposed project is expected to generate a total of 238 net new trips, with 125 trips coming into the site and 113 trips leaving the site (see Table 4). Trip Distrib�tiQn and Assignrnent The trip distribution pattern for the proposed project was estimated based on existing travel patterns on the surrounding roadway system and the locations of complementary land uses. Vehicular access to the site would be provided by one driveway on Stern Avenue. Figure 5 shows the project trip distribution and assignment. ..�.� .- i -----__ __ _._..____ _ _----- __ _ _____._. .__.__ ____ - `� . - � I�eyago� TtanspuRation Consultaots. In�. 2 0 � P a g e 1-46 i , 18900 Stevens Creek Boulevard — Draft Traffic Analysis Report April 5, 2011 '� Table 4 � Project Trip Generation Estimates ,, �, .. _ � " i � _ � � �, a� � �, � — - � ' I ;� - Proposed Use Preschool and After-School Tutoring Center 154 students 1.63 127 124 251 Existing Use Office 8.653 ksf 1.49 (2) (11) (13) .�., � -�-- �-. . � � � . 1. Rates expressed in trips per student and per 1,000 square feet for office. . 2. Based on trip generation survey conducted at Sunflower Learning Center located at 19220 Stevens Creek Boulevard, CA on 02/17/11. 3. Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation, 8th Edition. �� ,� < s i? • � � _ _� _ __ ---____. __.... _.. ... _ __� � Z1 � Page � I�exa�on TransPartation Consultants. Inc. . 1-47 Sunflo�rver Learning Center 1 � 2 3 4 0 � N Z— 23 e-- 23 �— 51 f— 53 Stevens Creek Blvd �� 6 Stevens Creek Blvd � 2 Stevens Creek Blvd r 6 5levens Creak Blvd r� 25 —► � 56 —► � 59 —� � � � �., � 65 �, °� � � Q Q ? a ' � � � � m � � �. � 5 E 6 � 7 �E 8 �a � � g a� W E � d t w � � `° U � � � Q F-- � c� C m � � t— 44 �� -- 31 � �--- 13 ' Stevens Creek Blvd Stevens Creek Bivd 5tevens Creek Blvd Stevens Creek Blvd 34 —� 23 --� 23 ---► 11 --♦ � 17 - � � � 0 � � > � U J Pruneridge Ave � i � x w � c o m � '� � F 7� 0 Valico Pkwy Agilent Technology m o o O � N � � Stevens Creek Blvd � � � + �, � � � �/J H � ~ � � o v o a o T0% �, > � � � � ty ' N �"� ca 7 0 � ; _ � O ` � a c Q d s ` E - ' � ~ m V � y � �\� . LEGEND '�i �� = Site Location XX = PM Peak-Hour Traffic Volumes Figure 5 O= Study Intersection Project Trip Distribution and Project Trip Ass�gnment � �� yEKkGONTGk�SPORTATlOh�O�SUITA�iS.IN(. " '� _ 4 8 NORTH Not tc Srak i I � 18900 Stevens �reek Boulevard — Draft Traffic,4nalysis Report April S, 2011 � .��`� . �x�s��g ��s PrQ��t �i raff�c V��u�es Project trips, as represented in the above project trip assignment, were added to existing traffic volumes to obtain existing plus project tra�c volumes; this is contrasted with the term projecf trips, which is used to signify the traffic that is produced specifically by the project. The project traffic ��- volumes are shown on Figure 6. i ��s�� s P��e�t �� s �� E�e The results of the intersection level of service analysis under existing plus project conditions are j summarized in Table 5. The results show that, measured against the City of Cupertino, City of '�` Santa Clara and CMP level of service standards, all of the intersections would continue to operate �;=�-�� , �_=` ` adequately. The intersection level of service calculation sheets are included in Appendix B. Table 5 Project lntersection Levels of Service , �;�-�n �i "�t�'�.lt'� e /.: • .�r •i r �. A O '� 1 ��► ' l , t I,' '� f ti �7 �' ! C�i} ' p'�j' Stevens Creek Blvd. and N Wolfe Road PP�� 35.5 D 35.8 D 0.2 0.009 Stevens Creek Blvd. and Finch Ave. PM 21.5 C 21.2 C -0.2 0.014 �: � Stevens Creek Blvd. and Tantau Ave. PM 30.9 C 30.7 C 0.1 0.02 Stevens Creek Blvd. and I-280 SB Ramp PM 24.2 C 24.1 C 0.1 0.014 Stevens Creek Blvd. and Agilent Technologies Drwy. PM 14.8 B 15.0 B 0.5 0.016 Stevens Creek Blvd. and Lawrence Exp. SB PM 28.8 C 29.0 C 0.4 0.014 �� Stevens Creek Blvd. and Lawrence Exp. NB PI�I 27.7 C 27.9 C 0.3 0.01 1. Average control delay (seconds per vehicle) including all movements for intersections controlled by a signal and the worst delay associated with a turning movement on the minor street approach at unsignalized intersections. ` 2. Level of service (based on average delay). � d - _ __ _ ._ _- __ _ __ _ � I � 23 Page � I�efa�oo Transp�rtatian Consultants. (nc. 1-49 S�nflo�ver Lea`nic�g Center � 1 m 2 3 4 0 � °°� Z— 171 �°' Z--- 6 �� t— 78 � N t- 5 stevens �--- 817 stevens �--- 7 51 Stevens I ♦-- 852 S t ev en s E— 722 C r e e k � �{. 2 3 4 Creek � 1 4 169 B v d k d� 1-- 106 Bi k ��, ,r 169 B►�d Blvd 26 �' � 508 - �' r► 1226 —► � � 1103 --♦ � T � 1287 ---� 956 ---r 141 Z �� 95 Z o� 53 - o�� , ti o m � � � �- ; Q a ' �� a m s � > E C � ¢ � � I � 5 Na 6 �� 7 � g �� ¢ L 3a w � �O N� a � i JWm m Z � c n� c�i ti o = N m t-- 258 stevens ,) I � 4�4 N � L 29 stevens E— �422 �♦— 911 Creek �- j Stevens l--- 1951 Creek Blvd r Creek � .� 8 Blvd Sfevens Creek Blvd Blvd 947 —► 375 e, ,�1 I � 55 1 1537 —♦ 1 Q94 —► I� I 518 -- N � 1322 ---► � � �ti� C�'� N f� � ��., � 'd' tf) c- � � � > t9 U � � Pruneridge Ave .,?� �. � � a x w m . c � m . 3 :i m � Vallco Pkwy � Agilent Technology � m o - � � � Stevens Creek Blvd � � � � � � � � v � m Q' ` m ca� ' 7 0 � m ¢ ` � > > m � Q �o > c Q m U W C � � � m V � � 'A . ' �.�`� LEGEND �= Site Location XX = PM Peak-Hour Traffic Volumes �igure 6 �= Study intersection Existing Plus Project Traffic Votumes �� ,,� �IEXk(0(1 TQkI15POQTkTIDh COtiSUlikfilS. Iti(. " 1 _ � O NORTH Na �o s�. i 189�0 Stevens Creek Boulevard - Draft Traffic Analysis Report April 5, 2011 �� 4. �� Other Transportation Issues This chapter presents other transportation issues associated with the project. These include an anaFysis of: � • Unsignalized intersection analysis at Stevens Creek Boulevard and Stern Avenue • Potential impacts to transit, bicycie and pedestrian facilities, • Site access and circulation, and • Parking Unlike the level of service impact methodology, which is adopted by the City Councii, the analyses in this chapter are based on professional judgment in accordance with the standards and methods ;-_<; employed by the traffic engineering community. r� Unsignalized tntersection Analysis Although the City of Cupertino has not established significant impact criteria for unsignalized intersections, an operational analysis was conducted for the unsignalized intersection of Stevens Creek Boulevard and Stern Avenue in order to determine the vehicle queuing and delay that would occur at this location under project conditions. The Peak Hour Volume Warrant #3, as described in the Manual on Uniform Traffrc Control Devices for Sfreets and Hrghways (MUTCD), Part 4, Highway Traffic Signals, 2003, is another tool for measuring the operations of an unsignalized intersection. Intersections that meet the peak hour warrant are subject to further analysis before determining that a traffic signal is necessary. Additional analysis may include unsignalized level of service analysis and/or operational analysis such as an evaluation of vehicle queuing and delay. Other options such as traffic control devices, signage, or geometric changes may be preferable � depending on existing field conditions. . � The results of the t;nsignali�"ed intersection analysis show that the Stevens Creek Boulevard and � Stern Avenue intersection would operate at LOS F during the PM peak hour under existing, existing plus project and cumulative conditions. The poor level of service during the PM peak hour is due mostly to the excessive vehicle delays that would occur for the northbound left-turn movement from Stern Avenue onto Stevens Creek Boulevard. During the PM peak commute periods, the opposing eastbound and westbound traffic volumes on Stevens Creek Boulevard would make it difficult for northbound vehicies to turn left onto westbound Stevens Creek Boulevard. This intersection was also found to meet the PM peak hour volume signal warrant under project conditions. It is noted that this intersection was found to operate at unacceptable LOS F during the PM peak hour under existing conditions but does not meet the peak hour volume signal warrant under existing conditions. ' _ :: { . _ __ _ __._.___ ____-- _.______.__ _- ___ _. _ _ _. _---. ___. _.._ ,� r� 25 � Page � I�eza9oa Transuortation Coosultanu. loc. � 1-51 i . 18900 Stevens Creek Boulevard - Draft Traffic Analysis Report April 5, Z011 � �� Important to note is that the excessive delays for the northbound left-tum movement would only occur during the PM peak commute periods and would not present a problem the remainder of the day. Also, the vehicle delay for this left-turn movement is an operational issue only and is not considered a project impact under City of Cupertino policy or CEQA. Although the project would add traffic to the northbound left turn movement at Stern Avenue, other alternative routes are availabie for the project traffic heading westbound on Stevens Creek Boulevard. One of the - alternative routes is to head south on Stem Avenue, west on L�ree Avenue, north on Tantau Avenue and west on Stevens Creek Boulevard at the signalized intersection on Tantau Avenue and Stevens Creek Boulevard. The other alternative route for the project trafFic heading westbound on Stevens Creek Boulevard is to make a right-turn onto Stevens Creek Boulevard at Stern Avenue and make a U-turn at the Agilent Technologies Driveway/Stevens Creek Boulevard. _.. Based on fieid observations, the left turn from Stern Avenue onto Stevens Creek Boulevard is difficult during the PM peak hour. To address the poor level of service for left turns from Stern �� Avenue, the City could consider restricting the northbound left-turns at Stevens Creek Boulevard or installation of a traffic signal that will permit safe turning movements for all approaches. The following three alternatives describe the possibie improvements at Stern: 1. Do Nothing - The northbound left-turn traffic from the project, aware of the delay associated with making the left-turn at Stern Avenue would look for alternative routes to go WB on Stevens Creek such as • make a right turn on Stevens Creek and then make a U-turn at the Agilent technologies driveway intersection to head west on Stevens Creek Blvd. or • make a right on Stern Avenue (going south), turn right on Loree Ave and right on Tantau Avenue and left at the signal at Tantau to continue WB on Stevens Creek Blvd. The "Do nothing" option would still have some people making the left-turns. c; 2. Restricting left-tums onto Stevens Creek Blvd - The pros of this alternative are that it is comparatively cheaper than a signal and the issue of unsafe left-turns is eliminated. However, it can result in delay at other intersections with traffic making U-turns. The intersection of Stevens Creek Boulevard/Agilent Technologies driveway was analyzed by adding the northbound left turn volume on Stern Avenue to the eastbound left turn volume at the Agilent Technologies driveway intersection. Under existing plus project conditions, the Agilent Technologies Driveway intersection is expected to continue to operate at LOS B - with 17.0 seconds of delay and LOS C with 21.1 seconds of delay under cumulative plus project conditions during the PM peak hour with the northbound left turn volume on Stern Avenue making a U-turn at the Agilent Technologies driveway intersection. 3. Signalization of the Stern Avenue intersection - The pros of this alternative are that fuil access is provided to all movements with minimal delays. The con is that it is expensive compared to the other alternatives. € ' By restricting the northbound and southbound left-turn and through movements from Stern Avenue af�to Stevens Creek Boul�'vard, the intersection of Stevens Creek Boulevard and Stern Avenue is expected to operate at LOS C with 18.4 seconds of delay under project conditions and LOS E with 41.6 seconds of delay under cumulative conditions. This is the delay associated with the westbound left-turns that would have to wait for gaps in the eastbound traffic flow on Stevens Creek Boulevard. --- The City should consider implementing this alternative as this alternative results in acceptable levels of senrice without the necessity for signalization at this intersection. A schematic illustration of the improvements at this intersection that would restrict northbound and southbound left turns and through movements from Stern Avenue onto Stevens Creek Boulevard but would allow the eastbound and westbound left turns from Stevens Creek Boulevard onto Stern Avenue and Wellesley Inn is shown on Figure 7. E�I -- ---___ __.________ ___.______._ _ __ __ __ _._ _ ._ ---- -- _ _ _ _ __...__ ___ _ g n 26 Pa e � yexa9on Transu�rtation Contulta�ts, I nc. � 1-52 � V 1 W Sunflo�nier Learning Center �. ---- _ - .. � 1� . �� ,�.� , r.. ,. . � s��_� �, ,�,, � ---- .. K �'� . � � ^ ' µ � � ._ :, � ; � ,�. �_ - .. � �`� � � : �. .._. ` s � n° � , � � � ». Q! , �� .1� ' � t` �w�, ' • ,. ; n�► � ,� � +�,� ' �Y - � a �'P' � � �_-- - � - �� +� #�'"`,' .,.a' `; - �� +"� .�R � i ; � � �� : ii"'�: ��'��' __ i •► �.. �--> � . _ � #fc, . . ' • . � �- � 's -. _ - � � .- � .. '�iPw.:�— .. �� -•�.- �r- �,�., �� . . t . . _ �. ��: s : . . :.- , _. ;,��'„ . . . _.. .. _ . " e v-�adp• � sx �s:"¢� : s!Y+�S+^��'i'+Aaer .. -i�1y�+'l ' '�q"v-' � ae..• _ �� .., s. _ ^'^T... - _ i . ., . ty•.�,. �l ._... . � . .. _ . _ __. — . ' ._'. ' _�. . � ' � ... . ' . "rw .. . . � �, -.. . _ ._ r- . ___ . L 4" . ... . .` � . . . . . � SteVe � �" . �._ . ns Creek Boule ` d _ -- _ � � ,,. var - — , _ . . : - - � . � . _ . , ,_ � :.f ��` �.. _ - -- + ? •_ � -F, - ,� =s.ia,�. �" _ . Fs'� - -- � _ "?_ ,� �' � __. � .'a �s�,m� a .,`+'�^,{'.�-. �� ' �"`. � "' - '�- � . . � � � T� . y� �ts�� p"'Y�aB`FY"'�'s IR.: � 7 ..: `,� - > >^;-.rx . lM1 aa4 .r ��r � �'`� �. `�� r ^'` �.�.�aFZ.��' �� . . . � � � s F �` z ,,�.�y� '' �� .�'. . tr�_ �4'°t� � .'., : , 1^� ,t:t.. � ..�Y . . t -�tP" . , ..�6 ��l��e�;'- °� d"•:.�. ...- s y: . .. . ;. . .. ; �r' - '-w-m� + ;--�.... _ ` - � . as4.Y..�,.-..: t.`�. ., • s .5�. . � - ... ... t .. . • -... .... . , .� .ac �. s. e .. r.n,d,_,_� - . . . - . -� ;s; A'..y .. _ -'� . -,�.a�`3�.6' ., K.<. •� ., •'L�AI�E+fi 'r �a � - . � ' .' - �. . �• T �rtt"' '� t _� � � �� .' ��, a _` .. . . . . � . . 4 .� i � ��.�, r�_ ,. . r ,,,y�. . . ' . ' - ,�+ : ' �, �`Ss. t� . . L �j��*� S � te"F P ., � .. � ��.. ��: +.,.� � y ��1: .. . . . � � � - � � : . .. . .ar3�. �. �g.� � n=.r e S . ,: t , . �..... �� . :•. � � � --•l ' i R.n. i.F... � .. . . . ' . . . � _ . . . . . . . .. .. . -- ' - * �+ 3 � M f ; . . Y _. � , . .. . � . . . . . . . . f _ . . � .. . � � . ; ' L � � . � " � � . � . . � � � �,,, , „ 3F�,,�- . F.� � '��Y ... . � . . . . . . � ��'`- _ �-. �, �,,,.. a+ � _ t : _ _ - .a �.' � _ f l rt. � ,� �, r_ � � t ,�� `�s'k3TS� -.•. _ - :ad- � N _..� - � �A ` � ' +, ,�, � : �'�`--r %�'�'4!s , t �,� t � w,_ . s =, � ��; - - -r� �` ^ 4 � t �. � � _. �. � �tl A� ' � � � ,.i � A +`�� ! . .- t .. � � � +`� � ..�i. V �: `�� ^ �. ..w - _ .. . � ,' ,� _� � 4 �' . l � � t � � � 1 �:r . * .�� '� . .. t � ° � � �.N �t� 1 1�'� Figure 7 Recommended Improvemenfis at Stevens Creek BoulevardlSfiern Avenue P-� ��,,.,� �EXA�On TR�IIISD02iAi101i t011SU1iA�111. �N(. 1 NORTH Na� a eww i 18900 Stevens Creek Boulevard — Draft Traffic Analysis Report April 5, 2011 �j �;�� Transit, Pedestrians and Bicycies Sidewalks are found on both sides of Stevens Creek Boulevard and on both sides of Stern Avenue along the project frontage. � The main streets in the study area include bike lanes (Class il Bikeways). Bike lanes exist along Stevens Creek Boulevard. The proposed project would not have an adverse effect on the existing transit, pedestrian, or bicycle facilities in the study area. Site Access and Circulation �-� � This section describes the site access and circulation of the proposed project. This review is based on a project site plan prepared by Shultz � Associates (see Figure 2). Site Access Site access was evaluated to determine the adequacy of the site's driveway with regard to the � foliowing: corner sight distance, traffic volume, average delays, vehicle queuing, and truck access. Vehicular access to the proposed project is. provided via one existing driveway on Stern Avenue. Pedestrian access to the project is provided on Stevens Creek Boulevard. No vehicular access is provided on Stevens Creek Boulevard. ' Corner Siaht Distance Based on the site plan and field observations, adequate sight distance is available at the driveway 6 on Stern Avenue to insure that exiting vehicles can see pedestrians on the sidewalk, as well as " ' vehicles on Stern Avenue. Traffic Volume Under existing plus project conditions, the project driveway would have 65 trips inbound and 63 trips outbound during the PM peak hour. _, Averac�e Detavs Driveway delays would be short, and motorists could exit the project site easily during the PM peak hour. Under project conditions, the driveway would experience an average outbound delay of 11.8 seconds (LOS B) during the PM peak hour. ParkFn E Since the traffic study was completed the project size has been reduced to 142 students. The foll�w�ing parking analysis is based on 142 students. Adequacy of parking for the proposed project was analyzed based upon observations at the existing Sunflower Learning Center located at 19220 Stevens Creek Boulevard. At the current location, students are usually dropped off at the after-schooi tutoring center by vans and picked up by their parents. During pick-up time, parents were observed to park at the learning center and walk into the schooi to pick up the child or a staff member was observed to walk the children to the car, while the parents waited inside their cars. Based on 15-minute interval observations, the largest number of cars parked was observed to be 11 vehicles for an enroliment of 130 students. With the project expected to increase the enrollment to 142 students, the maximum number of parked cars is expected to be 12 vehicles. In addition, all the staff members are expected to park on site. For an enroliment of 142 students the number of staff is expected to be 12, based on a teacher fo student _-�- ratio of 1:12. Three vans belonging to the center were observed to be parked at the existing 1_ ; , - -----.. ____ ______ _. _. _ _ - - - _ -- - __ . - - . _ _ ^ _ _ __--- - - __ ._ - 28 � Page � I�exa�oo Transuortation Co�sultants, Inc. ` 1-54 18900 Stevens Creek Boulevard — Draft Traffic Analysis Report April 5, 2011 I - - - - - _ __ _._ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ !F� learnin center. The ro ect a licant has committed to arkin the vans offsite Thus the � 9 P J PP � P 9 , � f ; maximum number of cars expected to be parked on site is 24 (12 vehicles from parents and 12 vehicles from staffl on a regular weekday. Based on the site plan, the parking area for the proposed school has a total of 24 parking spaces. It appears that the parking supply at the project site will meet the projected parking demand. Street parking is available for at least seven vehicies along the project frontage on Stern Avenue. However, the City parking code typically does not count street parking. No parking is allowed on Stevens Creek Boulevard. Truck Access An analysis was conducted to determine the adequacy of driveway access for the truck category SU 30, which includes small buses, fire trucks, garbage trucks, and other single unit trucks. According to this analysis, trucks would be able to negotiate the driveways, but would require the use of the entire drive aisle width. Given the infrequency of truck trips, the existing design would be adequate to handle the anticipated level of truck traffic. f i �; - �' On-Site Circulatian The onsite circulation was reviewed in accordance with generaliy accepted traffic engineering standards. The existing office building has 90-degree angled parking and the existing drive aisle is � approximately 25 feet in width. Based on review of the site plan, it appears that cars backing out of the handicapped parking stall and the northern most compact stall would have difficulty turning around to exit. Also, there appears to be interference between these two parking spaces so that they cannot both be occupied at the same time. C �. F9 k � � '-�j � --- _ _ -- - _ -- __ _ _ ___ ._ _ ___ . __. - __ - - -- _._ ._ _ _- - - � �:, __ _ _ � g � Uekagoa TraospoRa[iort Consultants. Inc. 2 9 P a e 1-55 � ' 18900 Stevens Creek Boulevard — Draft Traffic Analysis Report April 5, 2011 �� 5 ��=~��i . �umulative Conditions This chapter presents a summary of the traffic conditions that would occur under cumulative conditions both with and without the proposed project. �oadway Neiwork and TrafFic Voiumes The intersection lane configurations under cumulative conditions were assumed to be the same as described under existing conditions. �.,: Cumulative no project traffic volumes for the study intersections were generated by adding all the '� approved/pending projects in the vicinity of the project to existing traffic volumes. The following approved/pending projects were considered in developing the traffic volumes for the cumulative no project condition. • Vallco Mall expansion • 19770 Stevens Creek Boulevard (Marketplace Building C) • Vallco Hotel • Main Street Cupertino . 10100 N. Tantau Avenue . • 5301 Stevens Creek Boulevard (HP/Agilent Site) .� The project trip estimates were then added to the cumulative no project traffic volumes to derive U cumulative with project ,t�affic volumes. Figure 7 shows �,3e intersection turning-movement volumes under cumulative plus pro�ect conditions. lntersection Levels of S�rvice Unc�er Cumulat�ve Cor�d�tians The level of service results for the study intersections under all cumulative conditions are summarized in Table 6. The results show that, measured against the City of Cupertino, City of Santa Clara and CMP level of service standards, all signalized intersections would operate at acceptable LOS D or better under cumulative no project and cumulative with project conditions. �..t, ("i _-- �-- -___ _ - -__ .___._. -- --_ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ - - . _ _ _ - — - �.,-._� � _ 3 0 � P a g e � uexaqon Transportation Cnnsultanu. loc. 1-56 i . � 18900 Stevens Creek Boulevard — Draft Traffic Analysis Report April 5, 2011 ,•'�� r Table 6 Cumulative Intersection Levels of Seo e�� ,� -a��;�o► r ';� ,�I �a- a , ' � :.r � " - t � t� N '.► I ♦ � F � a� : e � , 1F ! 4 -p�.�.' � i�i �' Q �! t� C «�fl Stevens Creek Blvd. and N Wolfe Road PM 39.0 D 40.0 D 1.8 0.0 Stevens Creek Blvd. and Finch Ave. PM 24.3 C 24.0 C -0.2 0.0 �-� Stevens Creek Bivd. and Tantau Ave. P�� 31.9 C 32.0 C 0.4 0.0 �'''_ Stevens Creek Blvd. and I-280 SB Ramp PM 23.0 C 23.1 C 0.3 0.0 Stevens Creek Blvd. and Agilent Technologies Drwy. PM 18.6 B 18.9 B 0.6 0.0 Stevens Creek Blvd. and La�vrence Exp. SB PM 29.2 C 29.6 C 0.7 0.0 �. Stevens Creek Bivd. and Lawrence Exp. NB PM 28.2 C 28.5 C 0.3 0.0 1. Average control delay (seconds per vehicle) including all movements for intersections confrolled by a signal and the worst delay associated with a turning movement on the min�r street approach at unsignalized intersections. �� 2. Level of service (based on average delay). E ,� , � t- � s- � ,� �--�,- , --�, f 1 ;. .. .. . . _.. . .. . __. _ .... - - - . . . . . ..... .. .. ... . _ _ . . .. . . . ... .. . _.. _ _ . ... _. . _. _ .. . . . .. __. . _ .. . � � � 31 � Page � l�exa9on Transpnrtation Coasultants. Inc. � 1-57 Sunflo�►�e� �ea`ning Center � 1 � 2 3 4 0 � �`r; o� t-- 257 ° � Z-- 86 � co ° L 120 °' N L' 5 stevens � � �-- 2344 Stevens I I ♦ — 1037 stevens �-- 1256 stevens �--- 1182 Creek Creek Creek � � 88 Creek � 1, 175 B�`'d si�d . N 1`+ ,r— 227 Bi�a Bi�d � 575 � 130 — t, 172 �' � 1 � 17 96 � � 1221 --♦ � � 1544 ---► I � 1458 ---� � �02 141 - �� 95 Z o� 68 - �� . ►, o Q � m > a °> E °� � � Q m � � F- cn m c o'o d n. �' E 5 � °- 6 .� ° 7 o E Q, o a�i �' m r � Q L a � r� N� � �� a� Z � �Y' — G� ,J U � � ° � � L °' � � ° t-- 263 ste�ens � 1 �— 4147 � �� 48 steve�s �— 1894 � t�- 1230 Creek 5tevens I � 2432 Creek Blvd r g� k {� 18 Blvd Stevens Creek Blvd e, 387 1286 � I � B 1 h 1915 --♦ 1490 ---► �� 683 — N � 1657 ---► I � �� o � r . `� �n � � � � �a U � Pruneridge Ave �T� � ' `� � � . � a x W m U C i. � �� : 1 t0 J Vall�o Pkwy Agllent Technology � m 0 � � � Stevens Creek Blvd � � � � � � t,7 ` v � � � > ` ; C `��, g � , � m Q � O� > > d � a �° ' � a m � � m � � � U '� �� LEGEND �� = Sife Location XX = PM Peak-Hour Traffic Volumes Figure 8 �O, = Study Intersection Cumulative Plus Project Traffic Volumes �� IEXk(OFI TaAfiSPORTATIDh COIiSUliktilS. I Ii(. " 1 - 5 8 NORTH NrA Ic Sal� 18900 Stevens Creek Boulevard — Draft Traffic Analysis Report April 5, 2011 R�� ;t�� l , g r .� �■ �� Gonclusions This study was conducted for the purpose of identifying the potential traffic impacts related to the proposed Sunflower preschool and after-school learning center. The impacts of the project were evaluated following the standards and methodologies set forth by the City of Cupertino, Cify of Santa Clara and the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA). The VTA administers the county Congestion Management Program (CMP). Project impacts on other transportation categories, such as site access and circulation, were determined on the basis of engineering judgment. Signa�iaed tntersections t Y °� All signalized intersections are expected to operate at acceptable levels of service based on LOS standards set forth by the City of Cupertino, City of Santa Clara and VTA. The project is not expected to have any significant impact at any of the study intersections. Unsignalized �ntersections � The unsignalized intersection of Stevens Creek Boulevard and Stern Avenue was found to operate at unacceptable LOS under existing conditions but not satisfy the peak hour volume signal warrant. Under project conditions, this unsignalized intersection is expected to continue to operate at LOS F and also meet the peak hour volume signal warrant. The City can consider restricting the northbound left-turns from Stern onto Stevens Creek Boulevard or signalizing this intersection to improve traffic operations. r F The following three alternatives describe the possible improvements at Stern Avenue: `� � J 1. Do Nothing — The northbound left-turn traffic from the project, aware of the delay associated with making the left-turn at Stern Avenue will look for alternative routes to go WB on Stevens Creek such as `� • make a right turn on Stevens Creek and then make a U-turn at the Agilent technologies driveway intersection to head west on Stevens Creek Blvd. or • make a right on Stern Avenue (going south), turn right on Loree Ave and right on Tantau Avenue and left at the signal at Tantau to continue WB on Stevens Creek Bivd. The "Do nothing" option will still have some people making left-turns. � � _. __ _ _ _ __ c :.� - - . _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - ._ _.. - _ ___ _ _._ . � yezaoon Trans�ortation Cnnsultanu, lnc. 3 3 � P a g e � 1-59 ', 18900 Stevens Creek Boulevard — Draft Traffic Analysis Report April 5, 2011 _ _ ___ .. _ ._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ __. . _ _ _ _ ._ ��"� 2. Restricting NB left-tums on Stevens Creek Blvd — The pros of this alternative are that it is �� comparatively cheaper than a signal and the issue of left-turns is eliminated. However it can result in delay at other intersections with traffic making U-turns. The intersection of Stevens Creek Boulevard/Agilent Technologies driveway was analyzed by adding the northbound left turn volume on Stern Avenue to the eastbound left turn volume at the Agilent Technologies driveway intersection. Under existing plus project conditions, the Agilent Technologies Driveway intersection is expected to continue to operate at LOS B with 17.0 seconds of delay and LOS C with 21.1 seconds of delay under cumulative plus project conditions during the PM peak hour period with the northbound left turn volume on Stern Avenue making a U-turn at the Agilent Technologies driveway intersection. 3. Signalization of the Stern Avenue intersection — The pros of this altemative are that it would provide full access to all movements with minimal delay. The con is it is expensive compared to the other alternatives. � �-`"--' By restricting the northbound and southbound left-tum and through movements from Stern Avenue onto Stevens Creek Boulevard, the intersection of Stevens Creek Boulevard and Stem Avenue is expected to operate at LOS C with 18.4 seconds of delay under project conditions and LOS E with 41.6 seconds of delay under cumulative conditions. This is the delay associated with the westbound left-turns that would have to wait for gaps in the eastbound traffic flow on Stevens Creek Boulevard. The City should consider implementing this alternative " as this alternative results in acceptable levels of service without the necessity for signalization at this intersection. A schematic illustration of the improvements at this intersection that would restrict northbound and southbound left turns and through movements from Stern Avenue onto Stevens Creek Boulevard but would allow the eastbound and westbound left turns from Stevens Creek Boulevard onto Stern Avenue and Wellesley Inn is shown on Figure 7. __ � ('� [ � tr' �' �,,� ___ _ _. _ __ -- _ _ __ __- _ ___ —.__ __ __-- --_ _ __ � I�er.agon Ttanspurtation Co�sultants. Inc. 3 4 I P a g e 1-60 i , �: �� :_� ��' 189Q0 Stevens Creek Boulevard Technicai Appendices r =� � � "' � A�ril 5, 2011 � ' ��_i t -. t+ _. _ -- _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ ,: . � _ 1-61 i �� I �! � Appendix A �y Traffic Counts ,-f� < � � � � � ,� __ - _ _ _ _ __ __ ---___ �.;�.� _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ 1-62 TrafFic Bata Service Canzpbell, CA (408) 377-2988 r�bay@�s.�om File Name : 1 PM FINAL Site Code : 0�000001 Start Date : 11/4/2010 Page No : 1 Grou s Printed- Vehicles N. WOLFE RD STEVENS CREEK BLVD MILLER AVE STEVENS CREEK BLVD Southbound Westbound Northbound Eastbound Start Time RI ht Thru Left Peds qpp. Total Ri ht Thru LBft Peds App, Tolal Ri ht Thru Left Peds .npP. ro�i Ri ht Thru Left Peds App. Totel Irrt 7otai 04:00 PM 67 109 69 3 248 16 118 22 5 161 14 71 38 2 125 30 170 101 0 301 835 04:15 PM 75 104 65 3 247 35 137 24 2 198 13 54 34 4 105 41 190 91 3 325 875 04:30 PM 83 121 57 6 267 35 116 28 3 182 16 69 31 0 116 26 193 106 10 335 900 04:45 PM 100 171 42 3 316 38 139 25 3 205 17 88 28 0 133 36 188 102 6 332 986 Total 325 505 233 15 1078 124 510 99 13 746 60 282 131 6 479 133 741 400 19 1293 3596 05:00 PM 107 168 63 1 339 35 171 52 4 262 25 80 36 2 143 36 199 107 0 342 1086 05:15 P M 114 169 76 2 361 33 169 50 3 255 17 74 30 1 122 39 244 135 3 421 1159 05:30 PM 144 208. 88 7 447 34 208 51 3 296 14 89 32 2 137 33 263 130 3 429 1309 05:45 PM 123 199 92 2 416 50 173 37 1 261 8 97 50 3 158 42 221 118 8 389 1224 Total 488 744 319 12 1563 152 721 190 11 1074 64 340 148 8 560 150 927 490 14 1581 4778 06:00 PM 126 228 80 1 435 31 178 25 0 234 14 100 33 5 152 27 203 125 5 360 1181 06:15 PM 104 178 65 3 350 40 199 37 1 277 11 69 34 0 114 31 223 102 1 357 1098 06:30 P M 95 200 105 2 402 33 167 41 0 241 16 84 29 0 129 40 225 139 1 405 1177 06:45 PM 95 214 130 0 439 33 133 36 0 202 14 79 35 0 128 37 224 113 0 374 1143 Total 420 820 380 6 1626 137 677 139 1 954 55 332 131 5 523 135 875 479 7 1496 4599 Grand Total 1233 2069 932 33 4267 413 1908 428 25 2774 179 954 410 19 1562 418 2543 1369 40 4370 12973 APpfCh % 28.9 48.5 21.8 0.8 14.9 68.8 15.4 0.9 11.5 61.1 26.2 1.2 9.6 58.2 31.3 0.9 Tot�l % 9.5 15.9 7.2 0.3 32.9 3.2 14.7 3.3 0.2 21.4 1.4 7.4 3.2 0.1 12 3.2 19.6 10.6 0.3 33.7 N. WOLFE RD STEVENS CREEK BLVD MILLER AVE STEVENS CREEK BLVD Southbound Westbound Northbound Eastbound StaR Time Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Right Thru Left Peds App. Total int. Tofai Peak Hour Analysis From 04:00 PM to 06:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 05:15 PM 05:15 PM 114 169 76 2 361 33 169 50 3 255 17 74 30 1 122 39 244 135 3 421 1159 05:30 P M 144 206 88 7 447 34 208 51 3 296 14 89 32 2 137 33 263 130 3 429 1309 05:45 PM 123 199 92 2 416 50 173 37 1 261 8 97 50 3 158 42 221 118 8 389 1224 06:00 P M 126 228 80 1 435 31 178 25 0 234 14 100 33 5 152 27 203 125 5 360 1181 TotalVolume 507 804 336 12 1659 148 728 163 7 1046 53 360 145 11 569 141 931 506 19 1599 4873 % App. Total 30.6 48.5 20.3 0.7 14.1 69.6 15.6 0.7 9.3 63.3 25.5 1.9 8.8 58.2 31.8 1.2 PHF .880 .882 .913 .429 .928 .740 .875 .799 .583 .883 .779 .900 .725 .550 .900 .639 .885 .941 .594 .932 .931 �' � v 1-63 Traff c Data Se� � ce Campbell, CA (408) 377-2988 c�bay@�s.�om File Name : 1 PM FINAL Site Code : 00000001 Start Date : 11/4/2010 Page No : 2 Out In Total 1016 1659 2675 507 8D4 336 12 RigM Thru Left Peds � I � Peak Hour Data � m � orn u m-J t ��a wo JF- '� I "m N � m Nath w rn rn L—� �—� � u1 �� F- 2 m v Peak Hour Begins at 05:15 PM ° � � � � t � � m � � VEf71C�E5 �x W w O c �"� rn�y � t, � � � N � � N �, T r Left Thrv Ri M Peds 145 3G0 53 11 11D8 5b'9 1677 Out In Total a � J eJ 1-64 � � � C3l PM Peak-Hour Volume Count Worksheet Date: 10/20I10 � Counter: Kevn and 8yron Intersection Name: 280 Ramps and Stevens Creek Weather: Clear 09MH03 Santa Clara 280 SB Offram Stevens Creek North A roach East A roach Start Time Ri ht Thru Left Total Ri ht Thru Left Total Ri t 4:0� 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:15 10 110 97 217 0 133 80 213 10 4:30 28 210 158 396 0 292 158 450 25 4:45 46 318 233 597 0 535 245 780 37 5:00 52 396 301 749 0 720 337 1,057 41 5:15 64 499 362 925 0 950 436 1,386 54 5:30 76 587 433 1,096 0 1,155 563 1,718 70 5:45 88 724 505 1,317 0 1,382 676 2,058 83 6:00 97 831 581 1,509 0 1,576 751 2,327 94 �.er��►-��.r��v� T�affic Moniloring and Analysis 870 Castlewood Dr. #1 Los Galos, CA 9503Z Phone 408-8Z6-9673 Fax 908-877-1G25 Lawrence on ram 77 Stevens Creek South A roach West A roach Thru Left Total Ri ht Thru Left Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 18 83 181 0 264 0 14 39 176 362 0 538 0 25 62 276 549 0 825 0 30 71 364 708 0 1,072 0 37 91 476 896 0 1,372 0 41 111 633 1,156 0 1,789 0 50 133 753 1,396 0 2,149 0 59 153 865 1.621 0 2.486 Peak Hour Right Thru Left Total Rlght Thru Left Total Right Thru Left Total Right Thru Left Total PK Hoi 4:00 - 5:00 52 396 301 749 0 720 337 1,057 41 0 30 71 364 708 0 1,072 2,949 4:15 - 5:15 54 389 265 708 0 817 356 1,173 44 0 29 73 393 715 0 1,108 3,062 4:30 - 5:30 48 377 275 700 0 863 405 1,268 45 0 27 72 457 794 0 1,251 3,291 4:45 - 5:45 42 406 272 720 0 847 431 1,278 4G 0 25 71 477 847 0 1,324 3,393 5:00 - 6:00 45 435 280 760 0 856 414 1,270 53 0 29 82 501 913 0 1,414 3,526 eak Volumes: 45 435 280 760 0 856 414 7,270 53 0 29 82 501 913 0 1,414 3,526 Cut and Paste NBL NBT NBR SBL 'SBT SBR EBL EBT E8R W8L WBT WBR 29 0 53 280 435 45 0 913 501 414 856 0 � Y N N � U N C � > N � � Lawrence on ramp?? � � C cD 3 y n f� (D � r� �J PM Peak-Hour Volume Count Worksheet 1�►u��4a-��s�;tv��F; T�a�c Monrtoring and Analysis Date: 10/20/10 1v 870 Castlewood Dr. #1 Counter: Loqan and Hu Los Gatos, CA 95032 Intersection Name: Stevens Creek and Lawrence NB Ramps Phone 408-826-9673 Fax 408-877-1625 Weather: Clear Lawrence Stevens Crek Lawrence Stevens Crek North A roach East A roach South A roach West A �oach Start Time Ri ht Thru Left Total Ri ht Thru Left Total Ri ht Thru Left Total Ri ht Thru Left Total ' 4:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:15 0 0 0 0 46 195 0 241 66 120 96 282 0 242 107 349 4:30 0 0 0 0 95 364 0 459 120 260 163 543 0 422 191 613 4:45 0 0 0 0 156 587 0 743 168 405 276 849 0 684 274 958 5:00 0 0 0 0 221 822 0 1,043 225 544 375 1,1 �14 0 888 36G 1,254 5:15 0 0 0 0 284 1,024 0 1,308 269 701 460 1,430 0 1,109 451 1,560 5:30 0 0 0 0 347 1,223 0 1,570 317 862 574 1,753 0 1,416 535 1,951 5:45 0 0 0 0 413 1,446 0 1,859 365 970 682 2,017 0 1,717 620 2,337 6:00 0 °= 0 0 0 479 1,720 0 2,199 404 1,071 794 2.269 0 1,971 730 2,701 � � � Peak Hour Right Thru Left Total Right Thru Left Total Right Thru Left Total Right Thru Left Totai PK Hou 4:00 - 5:00 0 0 0 0 221 822 0 1,043 225 544 375 1,1d4 0 888 366 1,254 3,441 4:15 - 5:15 0 0 0 0 238 829 0 1,067 203 581 364 1,148 0 867 344 1,211 3,426 4:30 - 5:30 0 0 0 0 252 859 0 1,111 197 602 411 1,210 0 994 344 1,338 3,659 4:45 - 5:45 0 0 0 0 257 859 0 1,116 197 565 406 1,168 0 1,033 346 1,379 3,G63 5:00 - 6:00 0 0 0 0 258 898 0 1,156 179 527 419 1,125 0 1,083 364 1,447 3,728 eak Volumes: 0 0 0 0 258 898 0 1,156 179 527 419 1,125 D 1,083 364 1,447 3,728 Cut and Paste NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR 419 527 179 0 0 0 364 1083 0 0 f398 258 Lawre�ce � � � U w C d > 41 � Lawrence � m < m a N n � fD � � � Y� � � Q) � PM Peak-Hour Volume Count Worksheet Date: 10/20110 Counter: Patti and Stuart Intersection Name: Stevens Creek Blvd. and Lawrence Expy Weather: Clear 09MH03 Santa Clara C Lawrence Offram Stevens Creek None North A roach East A roach South A roach Start Time Ri ht Thru Left Total Ri ht Thru Left Total Ri ht Thru Left Total 4:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:15 115 0 53 168 0 291 0 291 0 0 0 0 4:30 247 0 113 360 0 563 0 563 0 0 0 0 4:45 384 0 179 5G3 0 879 0 879 0 0 0 0 5:00 514 0 229 743 0 1,209 0 1,209 0 0 0 0 5:15 690 0 287 977 0 1,525 0 1,525 0 0 0 0 5:30 890 0 371 1,261 0 1,861 0 1,861 0 0 0 0 5:45 1,079 0 452 1,531 0 2,212 0 2,212 0 0 0 0 G:00 1,271 0 515 1,786 0 2,600 0 2,600 0 0 0 0 �,il'ft't)-G�1'vE�U�l Tra�c Monitoring and Analysis 870 Castlewood Dr. #1 Los Gatos, CA 95032 Phone 408-SZG-9673 Fax 408-a77-1625 Stevens Creek West A roach ht Thru Left Total 0 0 0 0 0 318 0 318 0 620 0 620 0 935 0 935 0 1,234 0 1,234 0 1,577 0 1,577 0 1,982 0 1,982 0 2,373 0 2,373 0 2,748 0 2,748 Peak Hour Right Thru Left Total Right Thru Left Total Right Thru Left Total Right Thru Left Total PK Hou 4:00-5:00 514 0 229 743 0 1,209 0 1,209 0 0 0 0 D 1,234 0 1,234 3,186 4:15 - 5:15 575 0 234 809 0 1,234 0 1,234 0 0 0 0 0 1,259 0 1,259 3,302 4:30-5:30 643 0 258 901 0 1,298 0 1,298 0 0 0 0 0 1,362 0 1,362 3,561 4:45-5:45 695 0 Z73 968 0 1,333 0 1,333 0 0 0 0 0 1,438 0 1,438 3,739 5:00 - 6:00 757 0 286 1,043 0 1,391 0 1,391 0 0 0 0 0 1,514 0 1,514 3,948 eak Volumes: 757 0 286 1,043 0 1,391 0 1,391 0 0 0 0 0 1,514 0 1,514 3,946 Cut and Paste N8L NBT NBR SBL SB7 SBR EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR 0 0 0 286 0 757 0 1514 0 0 1391 0 Y G7 N U � c d > m N C N r+� N C m a a n -, m m �c •. ( PM Peak-Hour Volurrm Count Worksheet Date: 3/1 /11 Counter: Patti and Ryan Intersection Name: Aqilent and Stevens Creek Weather. Clear Cupertino A ilent Drivewa Stevens Creek Business Parkin North A roach East A roach South A roach Start Time Ri ht Thru Left Total Ri ht Thru Left Total Ri ht Thru Left Total 4:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:15 49 � 0 8 57 3 352 6 361 1 0 4 5 4:30 8z 0 19 101 5 790 13 808 3 0 G 9 4:45 137 0 33 170 15 1,202 14 1,231 7 0 17 24 5:00 189 0 44 233 22 1,595 18 1,635 8 0 21 29 5:15 256 0 73 329 28 2,024 24 2,076 13 0 40 53 5:30 322 0 100 422 36 2,511 25 2,572 16 0 52 68 5:45 399 0 123 522 42 2,988 30 3,060 ZO 0 63 83 6:00 464 0 150 614 51 3,502 36 3,589 22 0 G7 89 1�� i-��sa��..t��[�� T�affic Monitoring and Analysis 870 Castlewood Dr. #1 Los Gatos, CA 9503Z Phone 408-8Z6-9673 Fax 408-877-1625 Stevens Creek West A roach ht Thru Left Totai 0 0 0 0 0 285 13 298 0 544 24 568 0 815 42 857 0 1,05G 51 1,107 0 1,380 62 1,442 0 1,694 72 1,766 0 2,023 84 2,107 0 2,355 95 2,450 Peak Hour Right Thru Left Total Right Thru Left Total Right Thru Left Total Right Thru Left Total PK Ho� 4:00 - 5:00 189 0 44 233 22 1,595 18 1,635 8 0 21 29 0 1,05G 51 1,107 3,004 4:15 - 5:15 207 0 65 272 25 1,672 18 1,715 12 0 36 48 0 1,095 49 1,144 3,179 4:30 - 5:30 240 0 81 321 31 1,721 12 1,764 13 0 46 59 0 1,150 48 1,198 3,342 4:45 - 5:45 262 0 90 352 27 1,786 16 1,829 13 0 46 59 0 1,208 42 1,250 3,490 5:00-6:00 275 0 106 381 29 1,907 18 1,954 14 0 46 GO 0 1,299 44 1,343 3,738 eak Volumes: 275 0 106 381 29 1,907 18 1,954 14 0 46 60 0 1,299 44 1,343 3,738 Cut and Paste NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR EBL EBT EBR W8L WBT WBR 46 0 14 106 0 275 44 1,299 0 18 1 907 29 � d d � U N C W > N � � Business Parking � ... m < � � � n -i fD fD 7C' � � � C.fl PM Peak-Hour Volume Count Worksheet Date: 3/1/11 Counter: Ron and iUart Intersection Name: Stevens Creek and Finch Weather: Clear Cuoertino Finch North A roach Start Time Ri ht Thru Left Total 4:00 0 0 0 0 4:15 3 0 3 6 4:30 11 0 5 16 4:45 15 0 6 21 5:00 17 0 8 25 5:15 25 �•� 0 12 37 5:30 37 0 17 54 5:45 44 0 20 64 6:00 56 0 27 83 Stevens Creek East A roach i ht Thru Left Total Ri h 0 0 0 0 0 1 163 19 183 Z2 3 324 44 371 44 4 499 65 568 6� 6 659 79 744 73 7 833 98 938 92 9 1,009 130 1,148 108 10 1,231 151 1,392 130 12 1,460 183 1,655 149 �z��a�t�-�.;�.t��v��F� Traffic Monitoring and Analysis 87D Casllewood Dr. # 1 Los Gatos, CA 95032 Phone 408-826-9673 f 408-877-1G25 Fi�ch Stevens Creelc South A roach West A roacf� Thru Left Total Ri ht Thru Left Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 37 59 16 219 3 238 0 69 113 36 424 4 464 0 100 160 58 636 12 706 0 124 197 73 850 20 943 0 152 244 97 1,120 30 1,247 0 180 288 115 1,426 36 1,577 0 204 334 136 1,728 50 1,914 0 232 381 168 2,020 50 2,238 Peak Hour Right Thru Left Total Right Thru Left Total Right Thru LeFt Total Right Thru Left Total PK Ho� 4:00 - 5:00 17 0 8 25 6 659 79 744 73 0 124 197 73 850 20 943 1,909 4:15 - 5:15 22 0 9 31 6 670 79 755 70 0 115 185 81 901 27 1,009 1,980 4:30 - 5:30 26 0 12 38 6 685 86 777 64 0 111 175 79 1,002 32 1,113 2,103 4:45 - 5:45 29 0 14 43 6 732 8G 824 70 0 104 174 78 1,092 38 1,208 2,249 5:00 - 6:00 39 0 19 58 6 801 104 911 76 0 108 184 95 1,170 30 1,295 2,448 eak Volumes: 39 0 19 5a 6 801 104 911 76 0 108 184 95 '1,170 30 1,295 2,448 Cut and Paste NBL NBT NBR 5BL SBT SBR EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR 108 0 76 19 0 39 30 1170 95 104 801 6 Finch � Y d d � U w c a� > d , Y ^ V! Finch � (D < m � � C� � co � � P- � � � O t PM Peak-Hour Volume Counfi Worksheet Date: 3/1 /11 �, Counter: Kevin and �yron Intersection Name: Slevens Creek and Stern ' Weather: Clear Cupertino Hotel Lot Stevens Creek Stern North A roach East A roach South A roach Start Time Ri ht Thru Left Total Ri ht Thru Left Total Ri ht Thru Left Total 4:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:15 � � 4 5 1 158 22 181 7 0 5 12 4:30 4 0 5 9 2 322 57 381 22 0 7 29 4:45 7 0 5 12 2 531 90 623 26 0 8 34 5:00 7 0 5 12 3 689 116 808 38 0 12 50 5:15 8 � 6 14 6 898 149 1,053 57 0 15 72 5:30 9 0 7 16 6 1,091 185 1,282 72 0 19 91 5:45 15 0 7 22 6 1,283 236 1,525 83 0 21 104 6:00 16 0 7 23 8 1,506 294 1,808 93 0 24 117 1��1'1''fA-�)A:l�l:��lf� Traffic Monitarrng and Ana/ysis 870 Castlewood Dr. #1 Los Gatos, CA 95032 Phone 408-826-9673 Fax 408-877-1625 Stevens Creek West A roach _ i ht Thru Left Total 0 0 0 0 9 193 4 206 19 447 7 473 28 676 11 715 43 901 18 962 53 1,206 22 1,281 70 1,563 29 1,662 75 1,862 34 1,971 80 2,188 44 2,312 Peak Hour Right Thru Left Total Right Thru Left Total Right Thru Left Total Right Thru Left Total PK Hou 4:00 - 5:00 7 0 5 12 3 6f39 116 808 38 0 1 Z 50 43 901 18 962 1,832 4:15 - 5:15 7 0 2 9 5 740 127 872 50 0 10 60 44 1,013 18 1,075 2,016 4:30 - 5:30 5 0 2 7 4 769 128 901 50 0 12 62 51 1,116 22 1,189 2,159 4:45 - 5:45 8 0 2 10 4 752 146 902 57 0 13 70 47 1,186 23 1,256 Z,238 5:00 - 6:00 9 0 2 11 5 817 178 1,000 55 0 1 Z G7 37 1,287 26 1,350 2,428 eak Volumes: 9 0 2 11 5 817 178 1,000 55 0 12 67 37 1,287 26 1,350 2,428 Cut and Paste NBL r-NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR 12 0 55 2 0 9 26 1,287 37 178 817 5 Hotel Lot Y W N � U N C � 7 N � \i Stern � .-' N G cD � N n � � fD 7G' � � � J � PM Peak-Hour Volume Count Worksheet Date: 3/1/11 Counter: Logan and Huy Intersection Name: Stevens Creek and Tantau Weather: Clear Cupertino r. N. Tantau Stevens Creek N. Tantau North A roach East A roach South A roach Start Time Ri ht Thru Left Total Ri ht Thru Left Total Ri ht Thru Left Total 4:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:15 35 0 29 64 16 119 28 163 9 18 20 47 4:30 65 0 64 129 28 255 67 350 17 28 31 76 4:45 90 1 101 192 57 430 97 584 28 35 47 110 5:00 117 1 166 28a 74 547 135 756 40 47 59 146 5:15 149 3 233 385 94 701 173 968 48 GS 72 188 5:30 191 4 329 524 114 856 207 1,177 52 77 81 210 5:45 228 5 425 658 134 1,035 252 1,421 57 92 96 245 6:00 268 7 525 800 152 1,216 298 1,666 65 108 109 282 /�AI'l'�A��[;1L1�1N[]I� Tra�c Monitoring and Analysis 870 Castlewood Dr. #1 Los Gatos, CA 9503Z Phone 408-826-9673 Fax 408-a77-1625 5tevens Creek West A roach i ht Thru Left Total 0 0 0 0 8 218 31 257 18 398 51 467 29 584 73 68G 40 777 90 907 53 1,052 113 1,218 64 1,331 145 1,540 79 1,609 173 1,861 93 1.821 200 2.114 Peak Hour R(ght Thru Left Total Right Thru Left Total Right Thru Left Total Right Thru Left Total PK Ho� 4:00 - 5:00 117 1 166 284 74 547 135 756 40 47 59 146 40 777 90 907 2,093 4:15 - 5:15 114 3 204 321 78 582 145 f305 39 50 52 141 45 834 82 9G1 2,228 4:30 - 5:30 126 4 ZG5 395 86 601 140 827 35 49 50 13�1 46 933 94 1,073 2,429 4:45 - 5:45 13a 4 324 466 77 605 155 837 29 57 49 135 50 1,025 100 1,175 2,613 5:00 - 6:00 151 G 359 51 G 78 669 163 910 25 61 50 136 53 1,044 110 1,207 2,769 eak Volumes: 151 6 359 516 78 669 163 910 25 61 50 136 53 1,044 110 1,207 2,769 Cut and Paste NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT W8R 50 61 25 359 6 151 110 1,044 53 163 669 78 N. Tantau Y d d U a c d > m w � � � �D � m � m n � �v m � N. Tantau �� `�� Appendix 6 Intersection Level of Service Calculations K�� 1 � � � � V � �� .. .......... . . . . .. . .. _.. .. ._. .. _. .. . .. .._ ... . . _ . . _ . ""._.._..._. ... _..._.__ .... . . ..___ ..... _ ..._ ..."_ _ _ VeGn 1 _ I L COMPP.RE Tue Mar 22 14:23:06 2D1'I Page 3-1 Surrflower Leaming Centar Traffic Impad Analysis Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operetions (Base Volume Altemative) Existing (PM) Intersection #1: Stevens Creek Blvd/N Wolfe Road Si gna1=P rotecURights=0vedap Final Vol: SD7 B04"' 336 Lanes: 1 0 2 0 1 � �► N► �► �► Signal=Proted Signal=Protect Flnal Vol: Lanes: Rights=lnclude Vol Cnt Date: 11/4/2010 Rights=lndude Lanes: Final Vol: Cycle Time (sec): 110 SD8"' 2 � 0 148 a � Loss Time (sec): 12 I�. , I� 931 3 � Critical V/C: D.687 � 2 728"` i 0 � Avg Crit Del (secJveh): 39.7 � 0 141 1 � Avg Delay (seGveh): 35.5 � 2 163 LOS: D i�i`� � ��" Lanes: 1 0 2 1 0 Fnal Vol: 145"' 360 53 Signal=ProtecURights=i nclude Street Name: N Wolfe Road 5tevens Creek Blvd Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement : L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------�---------------�I---------------��---------------II---------------� Min. Green: 0 0 0 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 ------------I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Volume Module: » Count Date: 4 Nov 2010 « Base Vol: 145 360 53 336 804 507 508 931 141 163 728 148 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 145 360 53 336 804 507 508 931 141 163 728 148 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 145 360 53 336 804 507 508 931 141 163 728 148 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vo1: 145 360 53 336 804 507 508 931 141 163 728 148 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 145 360 53 336 804 507 508 931 141 163 728 148 ------------I---------------II---------------��---------------��---------------� Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 0.99 0.95 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.92 0.83 0.99 0.95 Lanes: 1.00 2.60 0.40 1.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 2.47 0.53 Final Sat.: 1750 4880 719 1750 3600 1750 3150 5700 1750 3150 4653 946 ------------I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sa�': 0.�8 0.07 0.07 0�9 0.21 0.29 0.16 0.16 0.08 0.05 0.16 0.16 ' Crit Moves• **** **** **** **** Green Time: 13.3 13.1 13.1 34.1 33.9 59.7 25.8 36.6 36.6 14.3 25.0 25.0 Volume/Cap: 0.69 0.62 0.62 0.62 0.69 0.53 0.69 0.49 0.24 0.40 0.69 0.69 Delay/Veh: 55.5 47.9 47.9 34.7 35.1 16.8 41.1 29.5 26.8 44.6 40.5 40.5 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 55.5 47.9 47.9 34.7 35.1 16.8 41.1 29.5 26.8 44.6 40.5 40.5 LOS by Move: E D D C D B D C C D D D HCM2kAvgQ: 6 6 6 11 13 12 11 9 4 3 10 10 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Treffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 20 Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose COMPARE Tue Mar 2214:23:06 20'11 Page 33 Sunflower Leaming Center Treffic Impad Analysis Level Of Service Computation Report 2D00 HCM Operetions (Base Volume Altemative) ProJect (PM) Intersection #1: Stevens Creek Bivd/N Wolfe Road S ignal=P rotecf/Rights=0veriap Final Vol: 507 804"' 361 Lanes: 1 0 2 0 1 �� Signal=Prnted Signal=Proted Fnal Vol: Lanes: Rights=lndude Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=lnclude Lanes: Final Vol: � Cyde Time (sec): 110 � 508"' 2 0 '17'I O � Loss Time (sec): 12 I� , I T ;��- 956 3 � CriticalV/C: 0.696 � 2 751"' i 0 � Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 39.9 � 0 141 1 � Avg Delay (ser/veh): 35.8 � 2 �69 LOS: D . i� i�` �` �'` ��" Lanes: 1 D 2 1 D Fnal Vol: 145"' 360 59 S ig n a1=ProtecVRi ghts=l nclude Street Name: N Wolfe Road Stevens Creek Blvd Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement : L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------�---------------II---------------�I---------------��------ Min. Green: 0 0 0 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 9.0 4.0 4.0 9.0 ------------�---------------�I---------------��---------------��------- Volume Module: � Base Vol: 145 360 59 361 804 507 508 956 141 169 751 171 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 145 360 59 361 804 507 508 956 141 169 751 171 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 i.00 i.00 i.00 i.00 i.00 i.00 i.00 i.00 i.00 i.00 i.00 PHF Volume: 145 360 59 361 804 507 508 956 141 169 751 171 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 145 360 59 361 804 507 508 956 141 169 751 171 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.OQ 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 145 360 59 361 804 507 508 956 141 169 751 171 ------------I---------------��---------------��---------------II Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 0.99 0.95 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.92 0.83 0.99 0.95 Lanes: 1.00 2.56 0.44 1.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 2.42 0.58 Final Sat.: 1750 4810 788 1750 3800 1750 3150 5700 1750 3150 4560 1038 ------------�---------------�I---------------II---------------II Capacity Analysis Module: V;�1/5at: 0.08 0.07 0.07 0.21 0.21� 0.29 0.16 0.17 0.08 0.05 0.16 0.1'ti Crit Moves• **** **** **** **** Green Time: 13.1 12.4 12.4 34.1 33.4 58.9 25.5 37.3 37.3 14.2 26.0 26.0 Volume/Cap: 0.70 0.66 0.66 0.66 0.70 0.54 0.70 0.49 0.24 0.92 0.70 0.70 Delay/Veh: 56.4 49.5 49.5 36.1 35.7 17.4 41.7 29.0 26.3 44.6 90.0 40.0 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 56.4 49.5 49.5 36.1 35.7 17.4 41.7 29.0 26.3 44.8 40.0 40.0 LOS by Move: E D D D D B D C C D D D HCM2kAvgQ: 7 6 6 12 13 12 11 9 4 4 11 11 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) �8_DL1vIAg Associates, inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose -i�r COMPARE Tue Mar 22 14:23:06 2D'11 Page 3-4 Sunflower Leaming Center Traffic Impad Analysis Level OT Service Compuiation RepoR 2D00 HCM Operetions (Base Volume Altemative) Existing (PM) Intersection #2: Stevens Creek Blvd/Finch Ave Signal=S pliURi ghts=l nclude Fnal Vol: 39"' 0 19 Lanes: 1 0 0 0 2 �'�� Signal=Proted Signal=Proted Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=lnclude Vol Cnt Date: 3/�/2011 Rights=lnclude Lanes: Fnal Vol: Cycie Time (sec): 110 30 1 � 0 6 O � Loss Time (sec): 12 I� 1 1170"' 2 � CriticaIVIC: 0.394 ��_ _ 2 801 iT 1.� Avg Crit Del (serJveh): 20.6 '� 0 95 0 � Avg Delay (seciveh): 21.5 � 1 1 D4"' LOS: C i� '� i� � �* Lanes: 1 0 0 0 1 Fnal Vol: 1DB 0 76"' Signal=5 pliURights=lnclude Street Name: Finch Ave Stevens Creek Blvd Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------I---------------II---------------II---------------�I-- Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 ------------I---------------II---------------��---------------II-------- Volume Module: » Count Date: 1 Mar 2011 « Base Vol: 108 0 76 19 0 39 30 1170 95 104 801 6 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 108 0 76 19 0 39 30 1170 95 104 801 6 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 108 0 76 19 0 39 30 1170 95 104 801 6 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 108 0 76 19 0 39 30 1170 95 104 801 6 PCE Adj: 1.D0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 108 0 76 19 0 39 30 1170 95 104 801 6 ------------I---------------II---------------II---------------�I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.92 0.92 0.99 0.95 0.92 0.98 0.95 Lanes: 1.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 2.77 0.23 1.00 2.98 0.02 Final Sat.: 1750 0 1750 3150 0 1750 1750 5179 421 1750 5558 42 ------------I---------------II---------------II---------- Capacity Analysis Module: ,� Vol/Sat: 0.06 0.00��'0.04 0.01 0.00 O.D2 0.02 0.23 0.23 0.06 0.14 0.14 Crit Moves• **** **** **** **** Green Time: 15.G 0.0 15.6 10.0 0.0 10.0 22.2 57.3 57.3 15.1 50.2 50.2 Volume/Cap: 0.43 0.00 0.31 0.07 0.00 0.25 0.09 0.43 0.43 0.93 0.32 0.32 Delay/Veh: 44.3 0.0 93.0 45.8 0.0 47.3 35.8 16.4 16.4 44.8 19.1 19.1 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 44.3 0.0 93.0 45.8 0.0 47.3 35.6 16.4 16.4 44.8 19.1 19.1 LOS by Move : D A D D A D D B B D B B HCM2kAvgQ: 4 0 3 0 0 2 1 9 9 4 6 6 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix 8.0.07'I5 Copyright (c) 20 I' Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose COMPARE Tue Mar 22 �4:23:06 20'I'I Page 3-6 Surrtlower Leaming Center Traffic Impact Maysis Level Ot Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations (Base Volume Aitemative) Projed (PM) Intersection #2: Stevens Creek Blvd/Finch Ave Signal=SpliURighits=l nclude Final Vol: 39"' 0 19 Lanes: 1 0 0 0 2 ��'��' Signel=Proted Signal=Protect Final Volt Lanes: Rights=lnclude Vol Cnt Date: nla Rights=lndude Lanes: Final Vol: Cycle Time (sec): 1'f D 30 1 � 0 6 � Loss Time (sec): 12 � � 0 � ` � �'_� �226`•• Z � Critical V1C: 0.4D8 i�_ _ 2 B52 i7 1 � Avg Crit Del (sedveh): 20.4 � D 95 ' 0 � Avg Delay (sedveh): 21.2 � 1 106"' LOS: C � 'r�` I? �' � Lanes: 1 0 0 0 1 Final Vol: 108 0 79"' Signal=SpliVRights=l ndude Street Name: Finch Ave Stevens Creek Blvd Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement : L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------�---------------II---------------II------------ Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 9.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 ------------I---------------II---------------��---------------II Volume Module: Base Vol: 108 0 79 19 0 39 30 1226 95 106 852 6 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 108 0 79 19 0 39 30 1226 95 106 852 6 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.OD 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 108 0 79 19 0 39 30 1226 95 106 852 6 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 108 0 79 19 0 39 30 1226 95 106 852 6 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 108 0 79 19 0 39 30 1226 95 106 852 6 ------------I---------------II---------------II------------- Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.92 0.92 0.99 0.95 0.92 0.98 0.95 Lanes: 1.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 2.78 0.22 1.00 2.98 0.02 Final Sat.: 1750 0 1750 3150 0 1750 1750 5197 403 1750 5561 39 ------------�---------------��---------------��---------------�� ;, Capacity Analysis Module: � Vol/Sat: � 0.06 0.00 0.05 0.01 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.24 0.24 0.06 1.7.15 0.15 - � CT'lt Moves• **** **** **** ,t�** Green Time: 15.2 0.0 15.2 10.0 0.0 10.0 21.4 58.0 58.0 14.9 51.5 51.5 Volume/Cap: 0.45 0.00 0.33 0.07 0.00 0.25 0.09 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.33 0.33 Delay/Veh: 44.9 0.0 43.6 45.8 0.0 47.3 36.4 16.2 16.2 45.1 18.5 18.5 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 44.9 0.0 43.6 95.8 0.0 47.3 36.4 16.2 16.2 45.1 18.5 18.5 LOS by Move: D A D D A D D B B D B B HCM2kAvgQ: 4 0 3 0 0 2 1 9 9 4 6 6 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix 8.0.07'15 Copyright (c) 20�$�8�1� Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon T2ns., San Jose COMPARE Tue Mar 22 14:23:06 2011 Page 3-7 Sunflower Leaming Center Traffic Impad Malysis Level Oi Sarvice Computation Report 2000 HCM Operetions (Base Volume Altemetive) 6cisting (PM) Intersection #3: Stevens Creek Blvd/Tantau Ave Signal=SpliVRights=l nclude Fnal Vol: 151 6 359"' Lanes: 1 0 D 0 2 �� Signal=Protect Signal=Protect Fnal Vol: Lanes: Rights=0verlap Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=0ve�iap Lanes: Final Vol: Cycle Time (sec): 110 110 1 � 1 78 O � Loss Time (sec): 12 � O 1D44"' 2 � CriScaIV/C: 0.525 � 3 669 � i T 1 � Avg Crit Del (seclvehj: 33.3 ' 0 53 0 � Avg Delay (serJveh): 30.9 � 1 163••' LOS: C �, i�t t �►- �- Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 D Finai Vol: 50 61'"' 25 Signal=S pliURighis=l nclude Street Name: Tantau Ave Stevens Creek Blvd Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement : L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------�---------------��---------------II---------------��---------------� Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 ------------�---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Volume Module:3/1/11 Base Vol: 50 61 25 359 6 151 110 1044 53 163 669 78 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 50 61 25 359 6 151 110 1044 53 163 669 78 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 50 61 25 359 6 151 110 1044 53 163 669 78 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 50 61 25 359 6 151 110 1044 53 163 669 78 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLr Aa�: i.00 i.00 i.00 i.00 i.00 l.00 i.00 i.00 i.00 i.00 i.00 i.00 FinalVolume: 50 61 25 359 6 151 110 1044 53 163 669 78 ------------I---------------��---------------��---------------��---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.93 0.95 0.95 0.92 0.96 0.95 0.92 1.00 0.92 Lanes: 0.37 0.45 0.18 2.00 0.04 0.96 1.00 2.85 0.15 1.00 3.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 643 785 322 3552 69 1731 1750 5329 271 1750 5700 1750 ------------�---------------��---------------II---------------�I---------------I Capacity Analysis�Niodule: Vol/Sat: � 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.10 0.09 0.09 0.06 0.20 0.20 0.09 0.12 0.04 Crit Moves• **** **** **** **** Green Time: 16.3 16.3 16.3 21.2 21.2 21.2 21.3 41.0 57.3 19.5 39.3 60.4 Volume/Cap: 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.45 0.45 0.32 0.53 0.38 0.53 0.33 0.08 Delay/Veh: 95.3 95.3 45.3 40.4 39.6 39.6 38.7 27.1 15.8 42.7 25.9 11.7 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 45.3 45.3 45.3 90.4 39.6 39.6 38.7 27.1 15.8 42.7 25.9 11.7 LOS by Move: D D D D D D D C B D C B HCM2kAvgQ: 5 5 5 6 5 5 4 10 7 5 5 1 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traifix 8.0.07'IS Copyright (c) 20�B�ov7lin� Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose COMPARE Tue Mar 22 �4:23:06 2D11 Page 3-9 Sunflower Leaming Center Traffic Impad Analysis Level Of Service Computation Report 200D HCM Operations (Base Voiume Altemative) ProjeC (PM) Intersection #3:Stevens Creek Bivd/Tantau Ave Si gnal=5 pl iURig hts=1 n clud e Final Vol: '151 6 359"' , Lanes: 1 0 0 0 2 �� Signal=Proted Signal=Protect Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=0verlap Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=0vertap Lanes: Final Vol: Cycle Time (sec): 110 110 1 � 1 78 o � Loss Time (sec): 12 � o I�'�� 1103"' 2 � Critical V/C: 0.545 � 3 722 i � � Avg Crit Del (serJveh): 33.4 � D 53 0 � Avg Delay (sedveh): 30.7 � 1 169"' LOS: C i� i� i� �' � Lanes: D 0 1! 0 0 Final Vol: 50 61"" 31 Si gn a1=S pl iURights=l ncl ude Street Name: Tantau Ave Stevens Creek Blvd Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------I---------------��---------------�I---------------II----------- Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 9.0 ------------�---------------��---------------II---------------II- Volume Module: Base Vol: 50 61 31 359 6 151 110 1103 53 169 722 78 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 50 61 31 359 6 151 110 1103 53 169 722 78 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 50 61 31 359 6 151 110 1103 53 169 722 76 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 50 61 31 359 6 151 110 1103 53 169 722 78 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 50 61 31 359 6 151 110 1103 53 169 722 78 ------------I---------------�I---------------II---------------�� Saturation rlow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.93 0.95 0.95 0.92 0.98 0.95 0.92 1.00 0.92 Lanes: 0.35 0.43 0.22 2.00 0.09 0.96 1.00 2.86 0.14 1.00 3.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 616 752 382 3552 69 1731 1750 5343 257 1750 5700 1750 ------------�---------------��---------------II-------------- Capacity Analysis Module: � Vol/Sat: 0.08 a?08 0.08 0.10 0.09 0.09 0.06 0.21� 0.21 0.10 0.13 0.04 Crit Moves• **** **** *'`** **** Green Time: 16.4 16.4 16.4 20.4 20.4 20.4 20.5 41.7 58.1 19.5 40.7 61.1 Volume/Cap: 0.54 0.54 0.54 0.54 0.-47 0.47 0.34 0.54 0.39 0.54 0.34 0.08 Delay/Veh: 45.7 95.7 95.7 41.2 40.3 40.3 39.5 27.0 15.5 43.2 25.1 11.4 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 45.7 45.7 45.7 41.2 40.3 40.3 39.5 27.0 15.5 43.2 25.1 11.4 LOS by Move: D D D D D D D C B D C B HCM2kAvgQ: 5 5 5 6 5 5 4 11 8 6 6 1 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 200t pp�Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose COMPARE Tue Mar22 14:23:06 2D11 Page 3-1D Sunflower Leaming Center Traffic Impad Malysis Level Oi Service Computation Repori 2000 HCM Unsignafized (Base Volume Altemative) _ Existin (PM) Intersection #4: Stevens Creek Blvd/Stern Ave Si gn a1=S top/Rights=l nclu de Final Vol: 9 0 2 Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 D �� Signal=Uncontrol Signal=Uncontrol Final Vol: Lanes: R�s=lnclude Vol Cnt Date: 3/1/2011 Rights=lnclude Lanes: Final Vol: Cycle Time (sec): iD0 � 26 'I 0 5 � Loss Time (sec): 0 I � � � � 1 �3_. �ZB� Z � Critical V/C: 0.454 � 2 817 i 1 � Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 3.2 0 37 0 � Avg Delay (seGveh): 3.2 � 1 17g LOS: F �� Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 D Fnal Vol: 12 0 55 Signal=Stop/Righfs=l nclude Street Name: Stern Ave Stevens Creek Blvd Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement : L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ----------- -I---------------��---------------��---------------II---------------� Volume Module: » Count Date: 1 Mar 2011 « Base Vol: 12 0 55 2 0 9 26 1287 37 178 817 5 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 12 0 55 2 0 9 26 1287 37 178 617 5 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHr Volume: 12 0 55 2 0 9 26 1287 37 178 817 5 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 rinalVolume: 12 0 55 2 0 9 26 1287 37 178 817 5 ------------ � - - - ------------II---------------�I---------------��---------------I Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp: 7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 6.5 6.9 4.1 xxxx xxxxx 4.1 xxxx xxxxx Fo1lowUpTim: 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 xxxx xxxxx 2.2 xxxx xxxxx ------------�---------------��---------------��---------------��---------------� Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: 1986 2536 448 1657 2552 275 822 xxxx xxxxx 1324 xxxx xxxxx Potent Cap.: 37 28 564 66 27 729 816 xxxx xxxxx 528 xxxx xxxxx Move Cap.: 26 18 564 43 17 729 816 xxxx xxxxx 528 xxxx xxxxx Volume/Cap: 0.45 0.00 0.10 0.05 0.00 0.01 0.03 xxxx xxxx 0.34 xxxx xxxx ------------ �= - -------------II---------------�I---------------��---------------� Level Of Service Module: 2Way95thQ: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 0.1 xxxx xxxxx 1.5 xxxx xxxxx Control Del:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 9.6 xxxx xxxxx 15.2 xxxx xxxxx �� LOS by Move : * * * * * * A * * C * * J � � Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx 122 xxxxx xxxx 186 xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx SharedQueue:xxxxx 2.7 xxxxx xxxxx 0.2 xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shrd ConDel:xxxxx 66.1 xxxxx xxxxx 25.6 xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: * F * , * D * * * * * * * ApproachDel: 66.1 25.6 xxxxxx xxxxxx ApproachLOS: F D * * Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Peak Hour Delay Sianal Warrant Report ********************************************************+***************,r******* Intersection #4 Stevens Creek Blvd/Stern Ave *************************************************,r****************************** Base Volume Alternative: Peak Hour Warrant NOT Met --------- - - -�---------------��---------------��---------------��---------------I Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Treffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 20D Bew n ssociates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose COMPARE Tue Mar 22 14:23:D6 2D11 Page 3-11 ------------�---------------��---------------��---------------��----------- ---� Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Zanes : 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 2 1 0 Initial Vol: 12 0 55 2 0 9 26 1287 37 178 817 5 ApproachDel: 66.1 25.6 xxxxxx xxxxxx ------------�---------------II--------- Approach[northbound][lanes=l][control=Stop Sign] Signal Warrant Rule #1: [vehicle-hours=l.2] FAIL - Vehicle-hours less than 4 for one lane approach. Signal Warrant Rule #2: [approach volume=67] FAIL - Approach volume less than 100 for one lane approach. � Signal Warrant Rule #3: [approach count=4][total volume=2428] SUCCEED - Total volume greater than or equal to 800 for intersection with four or more approaches. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Approach[southbound][lanes=l][control=Stop Sign] Signal Warrant Rule #1: [vehicle-hours=0.1� rAIL - Vehicle-hours less than 4 for one lane approach. Signal Warrant Rule #2: [approach volume=ll] FAIL - Approach volume less than 100 for one lane approach. Signal Warrant Rule #3: [approach count=4][total volume=2428] SUCCEED - Total volume greater than or equal to 800 for intersection with four or more approaches. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SIGNAL WARRANT DISCLAIMER This peak hour signal warrant analysis should be considered solely as an "indicator" of the likelihood of an unsignalized intersection warranting a traffic signal in the future. Intersections that exceed this warrant are probably more likely to meet one or more of the other volume based signal warrant (such as the 4-hour or 8-hour warrants). The peak hour warrant analysis in this report is not intended to replace a rigorous arid complete traffic signal warrant analysis by the responsible jurisdiction. Consideration of the other signal warrants, which is beyond � the scope of this software, may yield different results. Peak Hour Volume Signal Warrant Report [Urban] ***�*******************�******************************************************** Intersection #4 Stevens Creek Blvd/Stern Ave ****************************�**********+*�+*�******************�****��********** Base Volume Alternative: Peak Hour Warrant NOT Met ------------I---------------II------- Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement : L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------�---------------��---------------��---------------��---------------� Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled (Jncontrolled Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 2 1 0 Initial Vol: 12 0 55 2 0 9 26 1287 37 178 817 5 ------------�---------------II-------- Major Street Volume: 2350 Minor Approach Volume: 67 Minor Approach Volume Threshold: -10 [less than minimum of 100J ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SIGNAL WARRANT DISCLAIMER This peak hour signal warrant analysis should be considered solely as an ,, "indicator" of the likelihood of an unsignalized intersection warranting b � �� a traffic signal in the fut�re. Intersections that exceed this warrant � are probably more likely to meet one or more of the other volume based signal warrant (such as the 4-hour or 8-hour warrants). The peak hour warrant analysis in this report is not intended to replace a rigorous and complete traffic signal warrant analysis by the responsible jurisdiction. Consideration of the other signal warrants, which is beyond the scope of this software, may yield different results. Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2�10�f��g Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon T2ns., San Jose CAMPARE Tue Mar 22 1423:06 2011 Page 3-14 Surrflower Leaming Center Traffic Impacl Analysis Level Oi Service Computetion RepoA 200D HCM Unsignalized (Base Volume Altemative) Projed (PM) Intersection #4: Stevens Creek Blvd/Stem Ave Signal=Stop/Rights=l nclude Final Vol: 9 0 2 Lanes: 0 D 1! 0 0 �� Signal=Uncontrol Signal=Uncontrol Final VoI: Lanes: Rights=lnclude Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=lnclude Lanes: Final Vol: Cycle Time (sec): 100 26 1 � 0 5 O � Loss Time (sec): 0 I� , I Z' 'ii'� 1287 2 � Cntical V/C: 4.037 � 2 817 i 1 � Avg Crit Del (seGveh): 111.8 � 0 102 0 � Avg Delay (sedveh): 'I'11.8 � � 234 LOS: F i'� i�` it �' � Lanes: 0 0 11 0 0 Final Vol: 71 0 106 Signal=Stop/Rig his=lnclude Street Name: Stern Ave Stevens Creek Blvd Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 71 0 106 2 0 9 26 1287 102 234 817 5 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 71 0 106 2 0 9 26 1287 102 234 817 5 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHr Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 71 0 106 2 0 9 26 1287 102 234 817 5 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FinalVolume: 71 0 106 2 0 9 26 1287 102 234 817 5 ------------�---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp: 7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 6.5 6.9 4.1 xxxx xxxxx 4.1 xxxx xxxxx Fo1lowUpTim: 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 xxxx xxxxx 2.2 xxxx xxxxx ------------I---------------��---------------��---------------��---------------I Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: 2130 2660 480 1769 2729 275 622 xxxx xxxxx 1389 xxxx xxxxx Potent Cap.: 29 22 537 54 21 729 616 xxxx xxxxx 499 xxxx xxxxx Move Cap.: 18 11 537 27 11 729 816 xxxx xxxxx 499 xxxx xxxxx Volume/Cap: 4.04 0.00 0.20 0.07 0.00 0.01• 0.03 xxxx xxxx 0.47 xxxx xxxx ------------I---------------II---------------II---------------��---------------I Level Of Service Module: 2Way95thQ: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 0.1 xxxx xxxxx 2.5 xxxx xxxxx Control Del:xxxxx xxxx xxx�Yx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 9.6 xxxx �cxxx 18.4 xxxx xxxxx � LOS by MoVe: * * * * * * A * * C * * U Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx 42 xxxxx xxxx 127 xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx SharedQueue:xxxxx 20.2 xxxxx xxxxx 0.3 xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shrd ConDel:xxxxx 1652 xxxxx xxxxx 36.1 xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shdr'ed LOS : * F * * E * * * * * * * ApproachDel: 1651.6 36.1 xxxxxx xxxxxx ApproachLOS: F E * * Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Peak Hour Delay Signal Warrant Report ********************�**********************�********************�*�*�*********** Intersection #4 Stevens Creek Blvd/Stern Ave *******************************************************************�************ Base Volume Alternative: Peak Hour Warrant Met ------------�---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement : L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 200 Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose COMPARE Tue Mar 22 14:23:06 2017 Page 3-'IS ------------�---------------��---------------��---------------��---------------� Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 2 1 0 Initial Vol: 71 0 106 2 0 9 26 1287 102 234 817 5 ApproachDel: 1651.6 36.1 xxxxxx xxxxxx ------------I---------------��---------------II---------------��---------------I Approach[northbound][lanes=l][control=Stop SignJ Signal Warrant Rule #1: [vehicle-hours=81.2] SUCCEED - Vehicle-hours greater than or equal to 4 for one lane approach. Signal Warrant Rule #2: [approach volume=177] SUCCEED - Approach volume greater than or equal to 100 for one lane approach. Signal Warrant Rule #3: [approach count=9)[total volume=2659� SUCCEED - Total volume greater than or equal to B00 for intersection with four or more approaches. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Approach[southbound][lanes=l][control=Stop Sign] Signal Warrant Rule #1: [vehicle-hours=0.1] FAIL - Vehicle-hours less than 4 for one lane approach. Signal Warrant Rule #2: [approach volume=ll] FAIL - Approach volume less than 100 for one lane approach. Signal Warrant Rule #3: [approach count=4][total volume=2659] SUCCEED - Total volume greater than or equal to BDO for intersection with four or more approaches. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SIGNAL WARRANT DISCLAIMER This peak hour signal warrant analysis should be considered solely as an "indicator" of the likelihood of an unsignalized intersection warranting a traffic signal in the future. Intersections that exceed this warrant are probably more likely to meet one or more of the other volume based signal warrant (such as the 4-hour or 8-hour warrants). The peak hour warrant analysis in this report is not intended to replace a rigorous and complete traffic signal warrant analysis by the responsible jurisdiction. Consideration of the other signal warrants, which is beyond the scope of this software, may yield different results. Peak Hour Volume Signal iaarrant Report [Urban] ***************************************�******************�*********�*********** Intersection #4 Stevens Creek Blvd/Stern Ave *************************************************** Base Volume Alternative: Peak HoUr Warrant Met ------------�---------------II---------------II----- Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement : L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------I---------------II---------------II--------- Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Lanes : 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 2 1 0 Initial Vol: 71 0 106 2 0 9 26 1287 102 234 817 5 ------------�---------------II---------------II-- Major Street Volume: 2471 Minor Approach Volume: 177 Minor Approach Volume Threshold: -27 [less than minimum of 100] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SIGNAL WARRANT DISCLAIMER This peak hour signal warrant analysis should be considered solely as an "indicator" of the likelihood of an unsignalized intersection warranting �a traffic signal in the futu�;�. Intersections that exceed this warrant are probably more likely to meet one or more of the other volume based signal warrant (such as the 4-hour or 8-hour warrants). The peak hour warrant analysis in this report is not intended to replace a rigorous and complete traffic signal warrant analysis by the responsible jurisdiction. Consideration of the other signal warrants, which is beyond the scope of this software, may yield dif£erent results. Treffix B.O.D7'IS Copyright (c) 20��,pc�lif� Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose � a� c., COMPARE Tue Mar 22 1423:D6 2011 Page 3-16 Surrtlower Leaming Center Traffic Impad Malysis Level �f Service Computation Report 20D0 HCM Operations (Base Volume Ahemetive) Existing (PM) Intersection #5: Stevens Creek Blvd/Calvert Drive/I 280 SB off ramp Signal=Spl iVRi ghts=l n clu de Final Vol: 45"' 435 280 Lanes: 0 1 D 1 1 ��- Signal=Protect Signal=Proted Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=0verfap Vol Crrt Date: �0/20/201D Rights=lnclude Lanes: Final Vol: Cycle Time (sec): � 00 D 0 � 0 0 a � • Loss Time (sec): 12 I� D i� 913 2 � Critical V/C: 0.636 � 3 856 i 1 � Avg Crit Del (serJveh): 28.4 � D 5D1"' 0 � Avg Delay (sedveh): 24.2 � 2 414"' LOS: C � i�` �' �'` �► Lanes: 1 0 0 0 'I Rnal Vol: 29 0 53"' 5 ignal=Spl iURights=l nclu de Street Name: Calvert Drive/I 280 SB off ramp Stevens Creek Blvd Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R � - T - R L - T - R ------------�---------------��---------------II---------------II---------------I Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 ------------�---------------��---------------II---------------��---------------I Volume Module: » Count Date: 20 Oct 2010 « Base Vol: 29 0 53 280 435 45 0 913 501 414 856 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 29 0 53 280 435 45 0 913 501 414 856 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 29 0 53 260 435 45 0 913 501 414 856 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 � Reduced Vol: 29 0 53 280 435 45 0 913 501 414 856 0 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 29 0 53 280 935 45 0 913 501 414 856 0 ------------�---------------II---------------��---------------��---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 0.95 0.95 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.92 Lanes: 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.12 1.70 0.18 0.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 0.00 Final Sat.: 1750 0 1750 1971 3062 317 0 3800 1750 3150 5700 0 ------------I---------------II---------------II---------------��---------------� Capacity Analysis Module: J Vol�at: 0.02 Q.00 0.03 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.00 0.24 0.29 0.13 0.15 0.00 Crit Moves• **** **** **** **** Green Time: 4.8 0.0 4.8 22.3 22.3 22.3 0.0 42.4 47.2 20.7 63.1 0.0 Volume/Cap: 0.35 0.00 0.64 0.64 0.64 0.64 0.00 0.57 0.61 0.64 0.24 0.00 Delay/Veh: 48.6 0.0 61.9 36.3 36.3 36.3 0.0 22.1 20.0 38.3 8.1 0.0 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 48.6 0.0 61.9 36.3 36.3 36.3 0.0 22.1 20.0 38.3 8.1 0.0 LOS by Move: D A E D D D A C C D A A HCM2kAvgQ: 1 0 3 8 8 8 0 10 12 8 4 0 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 20 Gia sociates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose COMPARE Tue Mar 22 14:23:06 2011 Page 3-18 Sunflower Leaming Center Traffic Impact Malysis Level Of Service Computation Report 2D00 HCM Operations (8ase Volume Aitemative) Projed (PM) Intersection #5: Stevens Creek Blvd/Calvert Drive/I 280 SB off ramp Si gna1=5 pliVRi g hts=1 nclude Flnal Vol: 58 435 280"' Lanes: D 1 0 1 1 '�� Signal=Protect Signal=Protect Fnal Vol: Lanas: Rights=0verlap Vol Cnt Dale: n!a Rights=lnclude Lanes: Final Vol: Cycle Time (sec): 100 0 0 � o 0 � Loss Time (sec): '12 I # p I T 0 947 2 � Critical V/C: 0.650 � 3 900 i 1 � Avg Crit Del (secNeh): 26.5 � 0 518"' 0 � Avg Delay (sedveh): 24.1 � 2 4'14"' LOS: C i'� i*�` it �' �` Lanes: 1 0 0 0 1 Fnal Vol: 29 0 53"' Signal=S pliURights=lnclude Street Name: Calvert Drive/I 280 SB off ramp Stevens Creek Blvd Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement : L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------�---------------II---------------II-------------- Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 9.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 ------------I---------------II---------------��---------------II Volume 1Kodule: Base Vol: 29 0 53 280 435 58 0 947 518 414 900 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 29 0 53 280 435 58 0 947 518 419 900 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 29 0 53 280 435 58 0 947 518 914 900 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 29 0 53 280 435 58 0 947 518 414 900 0 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 29 0 53 280 435 58 0 947 518 414 900 0 � --------=---I---------------�I---------------II------------ Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 0.95 .0.95 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.92 Lanes: 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.10 1.68 0.22 0.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 0.00 Final Sat.: 1750 0 1750 1938 3010 401 0 3800 1750 3150 5700 0 ------------I---------------II---------------��---------------��-- � Capacity Analysis Module: �> J Vol/Sat: 0.02 0.00 0.03 0.14 Os14 0.14 0.00 0.25 0.30 0.13 0.16 0.00 � Crit Moves• **** **** **** **** Green Time: 4.7 0.0 4.7 22.2 22.2 22.2 0.0 43.0 47.7 20.2 63.2 0.0 Volume/Cap: 0.36 0.00 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.00 0.58 0.62 0.65 0.25 0.00 Delay/Veh: 98.9 0.0 63.9 36.6 36.6 36.6 0.0 22.0 20.0 39.0 8.1 0.0 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 48.9 0.0 63.9 36.6 36.6 36.6 0.0 22.0 20.0 39.0 8.1 0.0 LOS by Move: D A E D D D A C B D A A HCM2kAvgQ: 1 0 3 9 9 9 0 11 13 8 4 0 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Treffix B.O.D715 Copyright (c) 2�08.O�vll�ig Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose COMPARE Tue Mar ZZ '1423:06 2011 Page 3-'19 Sunflower Leaming Center Treffic Impad Analysis Level Of Service Computation Report 2D00 HCM Operations (Base Voiume Altemative) Existing (PM) Intersection #6: Stevens Creek Blvd/Agilent Technologies Driveway Access Si gn a1=5 pliVRights=l n d u d e Rnal Vol: 275`^ 0 '106 Lanes: 1 0 1! 0 1 �� Signal=Proted Signal=Protect Final Vol: Lanes: Righis=0verlap Vol Cnt Dafe: 3/12011 Rights=0verfap Lanes: Fnal Voi: Cycle Time (sec): 100 ' 44"' 'I � 1 29 O ` Loss Time (sec): 12 � o --r�•f 1299 2 � Critical V/C: 0.549 � 3 �907"' i 'I � Avg Crit Del (sedveh): 17.9 � 0 D 0 � Avg Delay (sec/veh): 14.8 � 1 '18 LOS: B �i�� Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0 Final Vol: 46"' 0 14 5 i g n a I=5 p I i UR i g hts= I n clu d e Street 1Jame:Agilent Technologies Driveway Acc Stevens Creek Blvd Approach: North Bound 5outh Bound East Bound West Bound Movement : L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 ------------I---------------II---------------II---------------�I---------------� Volume Module: » Count Date: 1 Mar 2011 « Base Vol: 46 0 14 106 0 275 94 1299 0 18 1907 29 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 46 0 14 106 0 275 44 1299 0 18 1907 29 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHr Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 46 0 14 106 0 275 44 1299 0 18 1907 29 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 46 0 14 106 0 275 44 1299 0 18 1907 29 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 46 0 14 106 0 275 44 1299 0 18 1907 29 ------------I---------------�I---------------��---------------��---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Zane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.95 0.92 0.98 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 Lanes: 0.77 D.00 0.23 1.28 0.00 1.72 1.00 3.00 0.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1342 0 408 2247 0 3089 1750 5600 0 1750 5700 1750 ------------�---------------��---------------��---------------��---------------� Capacity Analysis Module: a J Vol/Sat: �.03 0.00 0.03 0.05 0.00 0.09 0.03 0.23 0.00 0.01 0.33 0.02 Crit Moves' **** **** **** **'`* Green Time: 6.2 0.0 6.2 16.2 0.0 16.2 4.6 62.8 0.0 2.8 61.0 77.2 Volume/Cap: 0.55 0.00 0.55 0.29 0.00 0.55 0.55 0.37 0.00 0.37 0.55 0.02 Delay/Veh: 51.3 0.0 51.3 37.0 0.0 39.5 54.5 9.1 0.0 52.4 11.6 2.7 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 51.3 0.0 51.3 37.0 0.0 39.5 54.5 9.1 0.0 52.4 11.6 2.7 LOS by Move: D A D D A D D A A D B A HCM2kAvgQ: 3 0 3 3 0 5 2 7 0 1 11 0 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Treffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 20 i Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose COMPARE Tue Mar 22 14:23:06 2011 P 3- 2� Sunflower Leaming Center Traffic Impad Analysis Level Ot Service Computation Report 2D00 HCM Operations (Base Volume Altemative) Projed (PM) intersection #6: Stevens Creek Blvd/Agilent Technologies Driveway Access ' Sign a1=5 pl iURights=l n clud e Final Vol: 275"` 0 106 Lanes: 1 0 1! 0 1 �� Signal=Proted Signal=Proted Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=0verlap Vol Cnt Date: n/a Righis=0variap Lanes: Final Vol: * Cycle Time (sec): 100 55"' 1 J 1 29 � Loss Time (sec): '12 � 0 � i 1322 2 � Critical V/C: 0.565 � 3 1951"' i1 1 � Avg Cril Del (serJveh): '18.3 � 0 0 0 � Avg Delay (sedveh): 15.0 � 1 �B LOS: B � i'� �` �' �► Lanes: 0 0 11 0 0 Fnal VoI: 46'^ 0 14 Signal=SpliVRights=l nclude Street Name:Agilent Technologies Driveway Acc Stevens Creek Blvd Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement : L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------I---------------II---------------II-------------- Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 ------------I---------------II---------------�I--------- Volume Module: Base Vol: 46 0 14 106 0 275 55 1322 0 18 1951 29 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 46 0 14 106 0 275 55 1322 0 16 1951 29 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 46 0 14 106 0 275 55 1322 0 18 1951 29 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 46 0 14 106 0 275 55 1322 0 18 1951 29 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 46 0 14 106 0 275 55 1322 0 18 1951 29 ------------I---------------II---------------II-------- Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.95 0.92 0.98 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 Lanes: 0.77 0.00 0.23 1.26 0.00 1.72 1.00 3.00 0.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1342 0 408 2247 0 3089 1750 5600 0 1750 5700 1750 ------------I---------------II---------------II------ Capacity Analysis Module: „ �Iol/Sat: � 0.03 0.00 0.03 0.05 0.00 0.09 0.03 0.24 0.00 0.01 0.34 0.02 Crit Moves• **** **** **** **** Green Time: 6.1 D.0 6.1 15.8 0.0 15.8 5.6 63.4 0.0 2.8 60.6 76.4 Volume/Cap: 0.56 0.00 0.56 0.30 0.00 0.56 0.56 0.37 0.00 0.37 0.56 0.02 Delay/Veh: 52.6 0.0 52.6 37.4 0..0 40.1 53.5 8.8 0.0 52.5 12.0 2.8 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 52.6 0.0 52.6 37.4 0.0 40.1 53.5 8.8 0.0 52.5 12.0 2.8 LOS by Move : D A D D A D D A A D B A HCM2kAvgQ: 3 0 3 3 0 6 3 7 0 1 11 0 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2�8,pQol� Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose v COMPARE Tue Mar 22 '1423:06 2011 • Page 3-22 SurAiower Leaming Center Traffic Impad Analysis Level Of Service Computation Report 20D0 HCM Operations (Base Volume Altemative) Existing (PM) Intersection #7: Stevens Creek Blvd/Lawrence Expressway SB S ignal=Split/Rights=0verlap Rnal Vol: 757"' 0 286 Lanes: 1 0 0 D 1 ��1�� Signal=Pertnit Signal=Permit Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=lnclude VoI CM Date: 10I20/201D Rights=lnclude Lanes: Fnal Vol: Cycle Time (sec): 12D 0 D � '� 0 D O � Loss Time (sec): 6 I� O ' j� -- 1514 5 � Critical V/C: 0.7�2 � 3 �391"' 0 � Avg Crit Del (serJveh): 29.6 � 0 0 0 � Avg Delay (serJveh): 28.8 � 0 0 LOS: C i� i�` �t �` � Lanes: 0 0 0 0 0 Final Vol: 0 0 0 S i 9na1=5pI it/Righis=0verlap Street Name: Lawrence Expressway SB Stevens Creek B1vd Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: � - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------�---------------II---------------II---------------��---------------� Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 ------------�---------------II---------------II---------------�I---------------� Volume Module: » Count Date: 20 Oct 2010 « Base Vol: 0 0 0 286 0 757 0 1514 0 0 1391 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 0 0 286 D 757 0 1514 0 0 1391 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 0 0 0 286 0 757 0 1514 0 0 1391 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vo1: 0 0 0 286 0 757 0 1514 0 0 1391 0 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 0 0 0 286 0 757 0 1514 0 0 1391 0 ------------�---------------��---------------II---------------�I---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 Lanes: 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 5.00 0.00 0.00 3.00 0.00 Final Sat.: 0 0 0 1750 0 1750 0 9500 0 0 5700 0 ------------I---------------II---------------��---------------��---------------I t� Capacity Analysis Module: � Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.00� 0.00 0.16 0.00 0.43 0�00 0.16 0.00 0.00 0.24 0.00 Crit Moves: **** **** Green Time: 0.0 0.0 0.0 72.9 0.0 72.9 0.0 41.1 0.0 0.0 41.1 0.0 Volume/Cap: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.27 0.00 0.71 0.00 0.47 0.00 0.00 0.71 0.00 Delay/Veh: 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.2 0.0 18.6 0.0 30.9 0.0 0.0 35.6 0.0 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.2 0.0 18.6 0.0 30.9 0.0 0.0 35.6 0.0 LOS by Move : A A A B A B A C A A D A HCM2kAvgQ: 0 0 0 5 0 21 0 B 0 0 15 0 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 20 B i Associates, Inc. Licensed to Heuagon Trans., San Jose COMPARE Tue Mar22 14:23:D6 2D11 Page 3-24 Surrflower Leaming Center Traffic Impad Analysis Level Of Service Computation RepoR 20D0 HCM Operations (Base Voiume Altemative) Projed (PM) Intersection #7: Stevens Creek Blvd/Lawrence Expressway SB Signa I=S pl it/Rights=0verlap Final Vol: 77D'"' D 2B6 Lanes: 1 D 0 0 1 �� Signal=Permit Signal=Permit Fnal Vol: Lanes: Rights=lnclude Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=lnclude Lanes: Fnal Vol: � Cycle Time (sec): 120 � 0 D 0 0 � Loss Time (sec): 6 � D � i '1537 5 � Critical V/C: 0.726 � 3 1422"' iT 0 � Avg Crit Del (seclveh): 30A � 0 0 0 � Avg Delay (sec/veh): 29.0 � 0 0 LOS: C i� i�t t� �' �' � Lanes: 0 0 0 0 0 Flnal Vol: 0 0 D S ignal=5 p1i VRights=0ve rl ap Street Name: Lawrence Expressway SB Stevens Creek Blvd Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement : L - T - R � - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------I---------------II-----------�---��------------- Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 ------------�---------------II---------------�I-- Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 0 0 286 0 770 0 1537 0 0 1422 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 0 0 286 0 770 0 1537 0 0 1922 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 0 0 0 286 0 770 0 1537 0 0 1922 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0. 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 0 0 286 0 770 0 1537 0 0 1422 0 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 0 0 0 286 0 770 0 1537 0 0 1922 0 ------------I---------------II---------------�I-- Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 Lanes: 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 5.00 0.00 0.00 3.00 0.00 Final Sat.: 0 0 0 1750 0 1750 0 9500 0 0 5700 0 ------------I---------------��---------------II---- �, Capacity Analysis Module: ;� � Vol/Sat: � 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.16 0.00 0.44 0.00 0.16 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.00 � Crit Moves: **** **** Green Time: 0.0 0.0 0.0 72.8 0.0 72.8 0.0 41.2 0.0 0.0 41.2 0.0 Volume/Cap: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.27 0.00 0.73 0.00 0.47 0.00 0.00 0.73 0.00 Delay/Veh: 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.3 0.0 19.1 0.0 30.9 0.0 0.0 35.8 0.0 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.3 0.0 19.1 0.0 30.9 0.0 0.0 35.8 0.0 LOS by Move: A A A B A B A C A A D A HCM2kAvgQ: 0 0 0 5 0 22 0 9 0 0 15 0 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffx 8.0.07'IS Copyrighl (c) 2�8a�'I� Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose COMPARE Tue Mar 22 1423:06 2011 Page 3-25 Surrflower Leaming Center Traffic Impad Anaysis Level Of Service Computation Report � 20�0 HCM Operations (Base Volume Altemative) Existing (PM) Intersection #8: Stevens Creek Blvd/Lawrence F�cpressway NB Sig nal=Spl iURig hts=0verlap Final Vol: 0 0 0 Lanes: 0 0 0 0 0 ��`�' Signal=Prntect Signal=Protect Final Vol: Lanes: RighLs=Overlap Vol Cnt Date: 10l2D/201D Rights=0veriap Lanes: Fnal Vol: Cycle Time (sec): 120 364^' 2 � 0 258 0 � Loss Time (sec): 9 I� ' I T � �'�_. 1083 3 � CriticalV/C: 0.576 � 2 898"` i 0 � Avg Crit Del (serJveh): 33.1 � 0 0 0 � Avg Delay (sec/veh): 27.7 � 0 0 LOS: C �i�� Lanes: 1 1 0 1 0 Fnal Vol: 4'19 527 179`^' Signal=SpliURights=l nclude Street Name: Lawrence Expressway NB Stevens Creek Blvd Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement : L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------I---------------II---------------�I---------------II---------------I Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4:0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 ------------�---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Volume Module: » Count Date: 20 Oct 2010 « Base Vol: 419 527 179 0 0 0 364 1083 0 0 898 258 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 419 527 179 0 0 0 364 1083 0 0 898 258 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 419 527 179 0 0 0 364 1083 0 0 898 258 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 419 527 179 0 0 0 364 1083 0 0 898 258 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 419 527 179 0 0 0 364 1083 0 0 898 258 ------------I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 0.95 0.95 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.63 1.00 0.92 0.92 D.99 0.95 Lanes: 1.14 1.39 0.47 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 3.00 0.00 0.00 2.31 0.69 Final Sat.: 1992 2506 B51 0 0 0 3150 5700 0 0 4349 1249 ------------I---------------��---------------�I---------------��---------------� Capacity Analysis Module: �� Vol/Sat: 0.21 0.21 0.21 0:'00 0.00 �0.00 0.12 0.19 0.00 0.00 0.21 0.21 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Green Time: 43.9 93.9 43.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 24.1 67.1 0.0 0.0 43.1 43.1 Volume/Cap: 0.58 0.58 0.58 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.58 0.34 0.00 0.00 0.58 0.58 Delay/Veh: 31.0 31.0 31.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 44.6 14.4 0.0 0.0 31.5 31.5 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 31:0 31.0 31.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 44.6 14.4 0.0 0.0 31.5 31.5 LOS by Move: C C C A A A D B A A C C HCM2kAvgQ: 12 12 12 0 0 0 7 7 0 0 12 12 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix B.D.0715 Copyright (c) 2 B-B Associates, Inc. Licensed lo Hexagon Trans., San Jose COMPARE Tue Mar ZZ 1423:06 2011 Page 3-27 Sunflower Leaming Center Traffic Impad Malysis Level Of Service Computation RepoR 20D0 HCM Operations (Base Voiume Altemative) P�ject (PM) Intersection #8: Stevens Creek Bivd/Lawrence Expressway NB S ignal=S pl iVRig his=0verlap Final Vol: 0 0 0 Lanes: 0 0 0 0 0 '��' Signal=Protect Signal=Proted Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=0verlap Vol Cnt Date: n/a Righis=0verlap Lanes: Final Vol: Cycle Time (sec): '120 375"' 2 � 0 258 � Loss Time (sec): 9 I � p I' __, 1 1094 3 � CriUcal VIC: 0.586 i�_ 2 911'° i7 0 � Avg Crit Del (sedveh): 33.4 � 0 0 0 � Avg Delay (serJveh): 27.9 � D 0 LOS: C i h i�` it '�' r� Lenes: 1 1 0 1 0 Fnal Vol: 438 527"' '179 Signal=SpliURights=l ndude Street Name: Lawrence Expressway ATB Stevens Creek Blvd Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement : L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------�---------------II---------------II----------- Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 ------------I---------------��---------------��------------ Volume Module: Base Vol: 438 527 179 0 0 0 375 1094 0 0 911 258 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.OD 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 938 527 179 0 0 0 375 1094 0 0 911 258 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 438 527 179 0 0 0 375 1094 0 0 911 258 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 438 527 179 0 0 0 375 1094 0 0 911 2.58 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 438 527 179 0 0 0 375 1094 0 0 911 258 ------------�---------------II---------------II------- Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 0.95 0.95 0.92 1.00 0.92 O.B3 1.00 0.92 0.92 0.99 0.95 Lanes: 1.17 1.37 0.46 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 3.00 0.00 0.00 2.31 0.69 Final Sat.: 2048 2464 837 0 0 0 3150 5700 0 D 4362 1235 ------------I---------------��---------------��---------------�I Capacity Analysis Module: J Vol/Sat: 0.21 G�.21 0.21 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.19 0.00 0.00 0.21 0.21 � Crit Moves: **** **** **** Green Time: 43.6 43.8 43.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 24.4 67.2 0.0 0.0 42.8 92.8 Volume/Cap: 0.59 0.59 0.59 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.59 0.34 0.00 0.00 0.59 0.59 Delay/Veh: 31.2 31.2 31.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 44.6 14.5 0.0 0.0 31.9 31.9 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 31.2 31.2 31.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 44.6 14.5 0.0 0.0 31.9 31.9 LOS by Move: C C C A A A D B A A C C HCM2kAvgQ: 12 12 12 0 0 0 7 7 0 0 12 12 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 20q8�i� Associates, Inc. Licensed lo Hexagon Trans., San Jose COM Tue Mar 22 14:2D:30 2011 Page &1 Sunflower Leaming Center T2ffic Impad Analysis Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations (Base Volume Altemative) Cumuletive (PM) Intersection #1: Stevens Creek Blvd/N Woife Road Signal=Protact/Rights=0verf ap Final Vol: 566 859 403"' Lanes: 'I 0 2 D 1 �� Signal=Proted Signal=Protecl Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=lnclude Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=lnclude Lanes: Fnal Vol: Cycle Time (sec): 110 575"' 2 � 0 234 0 � Loss Time (sec): �2 � , �_'� 1196 3 � Critical VlC: 0.8�7 � 2 1014"' i 0 � Avg Crit Del (serJveh): 46.2 � D '141 1 � Avg Delay (serJveh): 39.D � 2 221 LOS: D �,�It�'� Lanes: 1 0 2 1 0 Fnal Vol: 145 421"' 95 Si gnal=P rotecURi g hts=1 nclu de Street Name: N Wolfe Road Stevens Creek Blvd Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement : L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------�---------------��---------------��---------------�I---------------� Min. Green: 0 0 0 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 ------------�---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 145 421 95 403 859 566 575 1196 191 221 1014 234 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 145 421 95 403 859 566 575 1196 141 221 1014 234 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 145 421 95 403 859 566 575 1196 141 221 1014 234 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 145 421 95 403 859 566 575 1196 141 221 1014 234 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLr Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 145 421 95 403 859 566 575 1196 141 221 1014 234 ------------I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 0.99 0.95 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.92 0.83 0.99 0.95 Lanes: 1.00 2.93 0.57 1.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 2.92 0.58 Final Sat.: 1750 4568 1031 1750 3800 1750 3150 5700 1750 3150 4599 1050 ------------�---------------II---------------��---------------II---------------� Capacity Analysis Module: Voly'Sat: 0.08 0.09 0.09 0�;23 0.23 0.32 0.18 0.21 0.08 0.07 0.22 0.22 Crit Moves• **** **** **** **** Green Time: 11.6 12.4 12.4 31.0 31.8 56.3 24.6 40.9 90.9 13.7 30.0 30.0 Volume/Cap: 0.78 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.78 0.63 0.82 0.56 0.22 0.56 0.82 0.82 Delay/Veh: 67.1 55.9 55.9 47.1 39.7 20.8 48.0 27.8 23.8 47.3 91.0 91.0 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 67.1 55.9 55.9 47.1 39.7 20.8 98.0 27.8 23.8 47.3 41.0 41.0 LOS by Move: E E E D D C D C C D D D HCM2kAvgQ: 7 8 8 16 15 15 13 11 3 5 16 16 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Treffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2 8-B li g Associates, Inc. Licensed lo Hexagon Trans., San Jose COMPARE Tue Mar 22 14:20:30 2011 � Page 3-3 Sunflower Leaming Center Traffic Impact Anaysis Level Of Service Computation Report , 2D00 HCM Operations (Base Volume Altemative) Cumulative+ProJect (PM) _ Intersection #1: Stevens Creek Blvd/N Wolfe Road Si gn a1=P rotecURights=0veriap Fnal Vol: 566 859 428"' Lanes: 1 D 2 0 1 �� Signal=Pmtect Signal=Proted Rnal Vol: Lanes: Rights=lnclude Vol Cnt Date: n/a Righis=lnclude Lanes: Fnal Vol: � Cycle Time (sec): 110 � 575"' 2 D 257 � Loss Time (sec): 12 I� 0 � �Z2� 3 � CriticalV/C: 0.844 i� _ 2 'I037"' � 0 � Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 47.9 � � �q� � AvgDelay(serJveh): 40.0 I� Z Zz� � LOS: D i'h i'�`` i�` �'�` r� Lanes: 1 0 2 1 0 Final Vol: 145 421"" 101 Signal=Protect/Rights=l nclude Street Name: IQ Wolfe Road Stevens Creek Blvd Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement : L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------�---------------li------------ Min. Green: 0 0 0 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 ------------I---------------II---------------II Volume Module: Base Vol: 145 421 101 928 859 566 575 1221 141 227 1037 257 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 145 921 101 428 859 566 575 1221 141 227 1037 257 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 145 421 101 426 859 566 575 1221 141 227 1037 257 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 145 421 101 926 859 566 575 1221 141 227 1037 257 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 145 421 101 428 859 566 575 1221 141 227 1037 257 ------------I---------------II------------ Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 0.99 0.95 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.92 0.83 0.99 0.95 Lanes: 1.00 2.90 0.60 1.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 2.38 0.62 Final Sat.: 1750 4515 1083 1750 3800 1750 3150 5700 1750 3150 4486 1112 ------------I---------------�I--------- � Capacity Anayysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.08 0.09 O.Q� 0.24 0.23 0.32 0.18 0.21 0.08 0.07 0.23 0.23 � Crit Moves: **** **** **** • **** Green Time: 11.8 12.2 12.2 31.9 32.2 56.0 23.8 40.4 40.4 13.6 30.1 30.1 Volume/Cap: 0.77 0.84 0.89 0.84 0.77 0.63 0.84 0.58 0.22 0.58 0.84 0.84 Delay/Veh: 65.4 58.2 58.2 98.9 38.9 21.1 50.7 28.5 24.1 97.B 42.2 42.2 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 65.9 58.2 58.2 48.9 38.9 21.1 50.7 28.5 24.1 47.8 42.2 42.2 LOS by Move: E E E D D C D C C D D D HCM2kAvgQ: 7 B B 17 15 15 14 11 4 5 17 17 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Tra�x 8.0.07'I5 Copyright (c) 2�OB.D��g Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trens., 5an Jose COMPARE Tue Mar 22 '14:20:30 2011 Page 3-4 Sunflower Leaming Center Traffic Impad Analysis Level Of 5ervice Computation Report 2DOD HCM Operetions (Base Volume Altemative) Cumulative (PM) Intersection #2: Stevens Creek Blvd/Finch Ave S ignal=S pl i VRi g hts=1 nclud e Final Vol: 10'I"' 0 130 Lanes: 1 D 0 D 2 '�� Signal=Protect Signal=P�tec1 Fnal Vol: Lanes: Rights=include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=lnclude Lanes: Final Vol: Cycle Time (sec): 110 '13D 1 0 B6 0 � Loss Time (sec): 12 I# , I,T_ 1486"• 2 � Critical V/C: O.SSD � 2 '1205 i 1 � Avg Crit Del (seclveh): 24.9 � 0 95 0 � Avg Delay (sedveh): 24.3 � 1 1B6'"' LOS: C i'� i� �` � �*` Lanes: 1 D 0 0 1 Flnal Vol: 108 0 76"' 5i gn aI � pl iVRi ghts=l ncl u de Street Name: Finch Ave Stevens Creek Blvd Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound [dest Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------�---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 9.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 ------------I---------------��---------------�I---------------��---------------� Volume Module: Base Vol: 108 0 76 130 0 101 130 1488 95 186 1205 86 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 108 0 76 130 0 101 130 1488 95 186 1205 86 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 108 0 76 130 0 101 130 1488 95 186 1205 86 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 108 0 76 130 0 101 130 1488 95 186 1205 86 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 108 0 76 130 0 101 130 1488 95 186 1205 86 ------------I---------------II---------------II---------------��---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.92 0.92 0.98 0.95 0.92 0.98 0.95 Lanes: 1.00 D.00 1.00 2.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 2.81 0.19 1.00 2.79 0.21 Final Sat.: 1750 0 1750 3150 0 1750 1750 5263 336 1750 5226 373 ------------�---------------II---------------��---------------II---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: �� Vol/Sat: � 0.06 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.06 0.0Y'0.28 0.28 0.11 0.23 0.23 Cr1t Moves• **** ** **** *,r*,t Green Time: 12.3 0.0 12.3 11.1 0.0 11.1 18.2 54.2 59.2 20.4 56.4 56.4 Volume/Cap:' 0.55 0.00 0.39 0.41 0.00 0.57 0.45 0.57 0.57 0.57 0.45 0.45 Delay/Veh: 49.5 0.0 46.6 47.3 0.0 51.8 42.5 20.0 20.0 43.3 17.1 17.1 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 49.5 0.0 46.6 47.3 0.0 51.8 42.5 20.0 20.0 43.3 17.1 17.1 LOS by Move: D A D D A D D C C D B B HCM2kAvgQ: 5 0 3 3 0 9 5 13 13 7 9 9 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 20 90 Associales, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trens., San Jose COMPARE Tue Mar 22 14:20:30 2011 P age 3-6 Sunflower Leaming Center Traffic impad Malysis Level Of Service Computation RepoR 20D0 HCM Operations (Base Volume Altemative) Cumulative+Projed (PM) Intersection #2: Stevens Creek Blvd/Finch Ave Signal=SpliVRights=l nclude Flnal Vol: 101"' 0 '130 Lanes: � D 0 0 2 �� Signal=Protect Signal=Proted Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=lnclude Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=lnclude Lanes: Rnal VoI: Cycle Time (sec): 1'10 130 1 � 0 86 a � LossTime.(sec): �2 � , i�� 1544"' 2 � Critical VIC: O.SfiS i� 2 'I256 fT 1 � Avg Crit Del (secJveh): 24.8 � 0 95 0 � Avg Delay (seGveh): 24.0 � 1 188"' LOS: C i�i�� Lanes: 1 0 0 0 1 Final Vol: 106 0 79"' Signal=SpliURights=l nclude Street Name: Finch Ave Stevens Creek Blvd , Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------I---------------II---------------II----------- Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 ------------�---------------II---------------��---------- Volume Module: Base Vol: 108 0 79 130 0 101 130 1544 95 188 1256 86 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 108 0 79 130 0 101 130 1544 95 188 1256 86 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 108 0 79 130 0 101 130 1544 95 188 1256 66 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 108 0 79 130 0 101 130 1544 95 188 1256 86 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 108 0 79 130 0 101 130 1544 95 188 1256 86 ------------I---------------II---------------�I-------- Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.92 0.92 0.98 0.95 0.92 0.98 0.95 Lanes: 1.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 2.82 0.18 1.00 2.80 0.20 Final Sat.: 1750 0 1750 3150 0 1750 1750 5275 325 1750 5241 359 ------------I---------------II---------------II----------- Capacity Analysis Module: ,;� � Vol/Sat: 0.06 0.00 0.05 0.04 0�0 0.06 0.07 0.29 Ob29 0.11 0.24 0.24 Crit Moves• **** **** **** **** Green Time: 12.0 0.0 12.0 10.8 0.0 10.8 17.8 55.0 55.0 20.2 57.4 57.4 Volume/Cap: 0.56 0.00 0.41 0.42 0.00 0.59 0.46 0.59 0.59 0.59 0.46 0.46 Delay/Veh: 50.4 0.0 47.1 47.5 0.0 52.6 42.9 19.8 19.8 43.9 16.7 16.7 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 50.4 0.0 47.1 47.5 0.0 52.6 42.9 19.8 19.8 43.9 16.7 16.7 LOS by Move: D A D D A D D B B D B B HCM2kAvgQ: 5 0 3 3 0 4 5 13 13 7 10 10 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 20p8.G�lj� Associates, Inc. Licensed lo Hexagon Trans., San Jose COMPP.RE Tue Mar 22 14:20:30 2011 Page 3-7 Sunflower Leaming Center Traffic Impad Malysis Level Of Service Computation RepoA 2D00 HCM Operalions (Base Volume Altemative) Cumulative (PM) Intersection #3: Stevens Creek Bivd/Tantau Ave 5 ignal=S pl iURights=l nclu d e Final Vol: 171 6 5D6"' Lanes: 1 0 0 0 2 ��' Signal=Protect Signal=Protecl Fnal Vol: Lanes: Rights=Overlap Vol Cnt Date: n/a Righis=0veriap Lanes: Final Vol: Cycle Time (sec): 110 172 1 � 1 120 0 � Loss Time (sec): 12 I+ 0 I �T t� �-- 1399"' 2 � CriticaIV1C: 0.658 � 3 1129 1 � Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 34.4 � 0 68 0 � Avg Delay (seGveh): 31.9 � 1 169"` LOS: C �i�'i��'� Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 D Final Vol: 57 61"• 25 S i gna1=5 pl iURi ghts=l n clude Street Name: Tantau Ave 5tevens Creek Blvd Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------�---------------��---------------�I---------------II---------------I Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 ------------�---------------II---------------��---------------��---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 57 67 25 508 6 171 172 1399 68 169 1129 120 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 57 67 25 508 6 171 172 1399 68 169 1129 120 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHr Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 57 67 25 508 6 171 172 1399 68 169 1129 120 Reduct Vol: 0 D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 57 67 25 508 6 171 172 1399 68 169 1129 120 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 tinalVolume: 57 67 25 508 6 171 172 1399 68 169 1129 120 ------------�---------------��---------------��---------------II---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.94 0.95 0.95 0.92 0.98 0.95 0.92 1.00 0.92 Lanes: 0.38 0.95 0.17 2.00 0.03 0.97 1.00 2.86 0.14 1.00 3.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 669 787 294 3555 61 1739 1750 5340 260 1750 5700 1750 ------------I---------------II---------------II---------------II---- C�pacity Analysis Module: � Vol/Sat: 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.14 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.26 0.26 0.10 0.20 0.07 � Crit Moves• **** **** **** **** Green Time: 14.2 14.2 14.2 23.9 23.9 23.9 19.9 43.8 58.0 16.1 40.0 63.9 Volume/Cap: 0.66 0.66 0.66 0.66 0.45 0.95 0.54 0.66 0.50 0.66 0.54 0.12 Delay/Veh: 52.5 52.5 52.5 40.9 37.6 37.6 42.9 27.8 16.8 50.5 28.0 10.4 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 52.5 52.5 52.5 40.9 37.6 37.6 42.9 27.8 16.8 50.5 28.0 10.4 LOS by Move : D D D D D D D C B D C B HCM2kAvgQ: 6 6 6 9 6 6 6 14 11 6 10 2 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix 8.0.07'I S Copyright (c) 20 B�B I Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose COMPARE Tue Mar 22'14:2D:30 2011 Page 3-9 SurtFlower Leaming Center Traffic Impad Analysis Level Of Service Computation Report 20D� HCM Operetions (Base Volume Altemative) Cumulative+Projecl (PM) Intersection #3: Sievens Creek Bivd/Tantau Ave S i gna1=S pl iURi ghts=l nclude Final Vol: 171 ' 6 508"` Lanes: 1 0 0 0 2 �� Signal=Protect Signal=Protect Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=0verlap Vol Cnt Date: n!a Rights=0vertap Lanes: Final Vol: Cycle Time (sec): 11D »z � � i �zo O � Loss Time (sec): 12 I� 0 i 1458"" 2 � Critical V/C: 0.678 �_ 3 1182 iT 1 � Avg Crit Del (sedveh): 34.8 0 68 0 � Avg Delay (serJveh): 32.0 � 1 175"' LOS: C � � It �` � Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 D Fnal Vol: 57 67"' 31 5 i g n a I=S pl iUR i g hts=1 n d u d e Street Name: Tantau Ave Stevens Creek Blvd Approach:� North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement : L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 9.0 4.0 4.0 ------------I---------------��---------------��---------------�I---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 57 67 31 508 6 171 172 1458 68 175 1182 120 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.D0 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 57 67 31 508 6 171 172 1458 68 175 1182 120 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 57 67 31 508 6 171 172 1458 68 175 1182 120 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 57 67 31 508 6 171 172 1458 68 175 1182 120 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 57 67 31 508 6 171 172 1458 68 175 1182 120 ------------�---------------II---------------II---------------II------- Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.94 0.95 0.95 0.92 0.98 0.95 0.92 1.00 0.92 Lanes: 0.37 0.43 0.20 2.00 0.03 0.97 1.00 2.86 0.14 1.00 3.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 644 756 350 3555 61 1739 1750 5350 250 1750 5700 1750 ------------�---------------��---------------��---------------��---------------� Capacity Analysis Module: y , Vol/Sat: 0.09 0.09 0.09 0��4 0.10 0.10 b�0.10 0.27 0.27 0.10 0.21 0.07 Crit Moves• **** **** **'`* **** Green Time: 14.4 14.9 14.4 23.2 23.2 23.2 19.4 44.2 58.6 16.2 41.0 64.2 Volume/Cap: 0.68 0.68 0.68 0.68 0.47 0.97 0.56 0.6B 0.51 0.68 0.56 0.12 Delay/Veh: 53.5 53.5 53.5 41.8 38.2 38.2 43.6 27.9 16.7 51.5 27.6 10.3 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 53.5 53.5 53.5 41.8 38.2 38.2 43.6 27.9 16.7 51.5 27.6 10.3 LOS by Move: D D D D D D D C B D C B HCM2kAvgQ: 7 7 7 10 6 6 6 15 11 6 10 2 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2�B.D�I� Associates, Inc. Licensed to He�cagon Trans., San Jose COMPARE Tue Mar 22 14:20:3D 20'11 Page 3-10 � Sunflower Leaming Center Traffic Impact Malysis Leval Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignal'ized (Base Volume Altemetive) Cumulative (PM) Intersection #4: Stevens Creek Blvd/Stem Ave Signal=Stop/Rights=l nclude Final Vol: 9 0 2 Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0 '� '� � � �' Signel=Uncontrol Signal=Uncontrol Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=lnclude Vol Cnt Date: nla Righls=lnclude Lanes: Final, Vol: � Cycle Time (sec): 100 � 26 1 0 5 � Loss Time (sec): 0 I� 0 � 1791 2 � Crilical V/C: 1.908 � 2 1324 I 1 � Avg Crit Del (seclveh): 16.2 �� 0 37 0 � Avg Delay (serJveh): 16.2 � � ��8 LOS: F i'� i'� � �' �" Lanes: 0 0 1! D 0 Fnal Vol: 12 0 55 Signal=Stop/Rights=l nclude Street Name: Stern Ave Stevens Creek Blvd Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L- T- R L- T- R L - T - R L - T - R ------------I---------------II---------------��- Volume Module: Base Vol: 12 0 55 2 0 9 26 1791 37 178 1324 5 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 12 0 55 2 0 9 26 1791 37 178 1324 5 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 12 0 55 2 0 9 26 1791 37 178 1324 5 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FinalVolume: 12 0 55 2 0 9 26 1791 37 178 1324 5 ------------I---------------II---------------II Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp: 7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 6.5 6.9 4.1 xxxx xxxxx 4.1 xxxx xxxxx Fo1lowUpTim: 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 xxxx xxxxx 2.2 xxxx xxxxx ------------�---------------II---------------II--- Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: 2659 3597 616 2332 3563 444 1329 xxxx xxxxx 1828 xxxx xxxxx Potent Cap.: 11 6 439 20 6 567 526 xxxx xxxxx 339 xxxx xxxxx Move Cap.: 6 3 439 10 3 567 526 xxxx xxxxx 339 xxxx xxxxx Volume/Cap: 1.91 0.00 0.13 0.20 0.00 0.02 0.05 xxxx xxxx 0.53 xxxx xxxx ------------�---------------�I---------------II Level Of Service Module: 2Way95thQ: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 0.2 xxxx xxxxx 2.9 xxxx xxxxx Control Del:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 12,:2 xxxx xxxx� 26.8 xxxx xxxxx LOS by MOVe : � * * * * * * B * * D * * Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx 33 xxxxx xxxx 51 xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx SharedQueue:xxxxx 7.6 xxxxx xxxxx 0.7 xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shrd ConDel:xxxxx 739 xxxxx xxxxx 94.1 xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: * F * * F * * * * * * * ApproachDel: 739.2 94.1 xxxxxx xxxxxx ApproachLOS: F F * * Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Peak Hour Delay Signal Warrant Report **********************************�********************************************* Intersection #4 Stevens Creek Blvd/Stern Ave ******************+******************************************************�****** Base Volume Alternative: Peak Hour Warrant NOT Met ------------�---------------�I------------ Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movsanent: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Treffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2 I' g Pssociates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose COMPARE Tue Mar 22 14:20:3D 2011 Page 3-11 ------------�---------------��---------------��---------------��---------------� Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 1 D 2 1 0 1 0 2. 1 0 Initial Vol: 12 0 55 2 0 9 26 1791 37 178 1324 5 ApproachDel: 739.2 94.1 xxxxxx xxxxxx ------------I---------------II---------------II---------------II------- Approach�northbound][lanes=l][control=Stop Sign] Signal Warrant Rule #1: [vehicle-hours=13.8� SUCCEED - Vehicle-hours greater than or equal to 4 for one lane approach. Signal Warrant Rule #2: [approach volume=67] FAIL - Approach volume less than 100 for one lane approach. Signal A�arrant Rule #3: [approach count=4][total volume=3439] SUCCEED - Total volume greater than or equal to 800 for intersection with four or more approaches. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Approach(southbound][lanes=l][control=Stop Sign] Signal Warrant Rule #1: [vehicle-hours=0.3] FAIL - Vehicle-hours less than 9 for one lane approach. Signal Warrant Rule #2: [approach volume=ll] FAIL - Approach volume less than 100 for one lane approach. Signal Warrant Rule #3: [approach count=4][total volume=3439] SUCCEED - Total volume greater than or equal to 800 for intersection with four or more approaches. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SIGNAZ WARRANT DISCLAIMER This peak hour signal warrant analysis should be considered solely as an • "indicator" of the likelihood of an unsignalized intersection warranting a traffic signal in the future. Intersections that exceed this warrant are probably more likely to meet one or more of the other volume based signal warrant (such as the 4-hour or 8-hour warrants). The peak hour warrant analysis in this report is not intended to replace a rigorous and complete traffic signal warrant analysis by the responsible jurisdiction. Consideration of the other signal warrants, which is beyond the scope of this �oftware, may yield different results. Peak Hour Volume Signal Warrant Report [Urban] **************************************************+***************************** Intersection #4 Stevens Creek Blvd/Stern Ave ********************************+*********************************************** Base Volume Alternative: Peak Hour Warrant NOT Met ------------I---------------II---------------II------------ Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement : L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------I---------------II---------------�I------------- Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 2 1 0 Initial Vol: 12 0 55 2 0 9 26 1791 37 178 1324 5 ------------I---------------��---------------II---------------��--- Major Street Volume: 3361 Minor Approach Volume: 67 Minor Approach Volume Threshold: -133 [less than minimum of 100] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SIGNAL WARRANT DISCLAIMER This peak hour signal warrant analysis should be considered solely as an "indicator" of the likelihood of an unsignalized intersection warranting a traf�ic signal in th� future. Intersections that exceed this warrant `: are probably more likely to meet one or more of the other volume based signal warrant (such as the 4-hour or 8-hour warrants). The peak hour warrant analysis in this report is not intended to replace a rigorous and complete traffic signal warrant analysis by the responsible jurisdiction. Consideration of the other signal warrants, which is beyond the scope of this software, may yield different results. Treffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2C�9.a�1 'I� Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trens., San Jose COMPARE Tue Mar 72 14:20:30 20'I'1 Page 3-14 Sunflower Leaming Center Traffic Impact Malysis Level Of Service Computation Report ' 2000 HCM Unsignalized (8ase Volume AHemative) Cumulative+Projed (PM) Intersection #4: Stevens Creek Blvd/Stern Ave � Signal=Stop/Rights=lnclude Final Vol: 9 0 2 Lanes: D D 'l! 0 0 �� Signal=Uncontrol Signal=Uncontrol Final VoI: Lanes: Rights=lnclude Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=lnclude La�es: Fnal Vol: � Cycle Time (sec): 100 � 26 1 0 5 � Loss Time (sec): 0 I� 0 � �7g� 2 � GriticalV/C: 21.186 i�_ _ 2 1324 �- � � Avg Crit Del (ser/veh): 489.4 � � '102 0 � Avg Delay (sedveh): 489.4 � 'I 234 LOS: F �i�� n�: o o , � o 0 Final Vol: 71 0 106 Si gn a1=Stop/Rig his=1 ncl u de Street Name: 5tern Ave Stevens Creek Blvd Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------I---------------�I---------------II Volume Module: Base Vol: 71 0 106 2 0 9 26 1791 102 234 1324 5 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 71 0 106 2 0 9 26 1791 102 234 1324 5 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 71 0 106 2 0 9 26 1791 102 234 1324 5 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FinalVolume: 71 0 106 2 0 9 26 1791 102 234 1324 5 ------------I---------------II---------------��- Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp: 7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 6.5 6.9 4.1 xxxx xxxxx 4.1 xxxx xxxxx Fo1lowUpTim: 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 xxxx xxxxx 2.2 xxxx xxxxx ------------I---------------�I---------------��-- Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: 2803 3691 648 2444 3740 444 1329 xxxx xxxxx 1893 xxxx xxxxx Potent Cap.: 9 5 418 17 4 567 526 xxxx xxxxx 320 xxxx xxxxx Move Cap.: 3 1 418 5 1 567 526 xxxx xxxxx 320 xxxx xxxxx Volume/Cap: 21.19 0.00 0.25 0.41 0.00 0.02 0.05 xxxx xxxx 0.73 xxxx xxxx ------------�---------------��---------------��---------------��---------------� Level Of Service Module: 2Way95thQ: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 0.2 xxxx xxxxx 5.4 xxxx xxxxx �� Control Del:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 12.2 xxxx xxxxx 41.6 xxxx xxxxx ;� LOS by Move: * * � * * �* * B * * E * * Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx S xxxxx xxxx 26 xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx SharedQueue:xxxxx 23.9 xxxxx xxxxx 1.3 xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shrd ConDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx 226 xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx ShaLed LOS: * F * * r * * * * * * * ApproachDel: xxxxxx 226.4 xxxxxx xxxxxx ApproachLOS: F F * * Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Peak Hour Delay Signal Warrant Report **,r***************************************************+*********� Intersection #4 Stevens Creek Blvd/Stern Ave ********�********************�*************+*******��**************�************ Base Volume Alternative: Peak Hour Warrant Met ------------I---------------II--------- Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 20 8�D I Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose COMPARE Tue Mar 22 1420:30 2011 Page 3-15 ------------�---------------��---------------��---------------��---------------� Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 2 1 0 Initial Vol: 71 0 106 2 0 9 26 1791 102 234 1324 5 ApproachDel: xxxxxx 226.4 xxxxxx xxxxxx ------------ � - --------------II---------------II---------------��---------------� Approach[northbound][lanes=l][control=Stop Sign] Signal Warrant Rule #1: [vehicle-hours=495.4] SUCCEED - Vehicle-hours greater than or equal to 4 for one lane approach. Signal Warrant Rule #2: [approach volume=177] SUCCEED - Approach volume greater than or equal to 100 for one lane approach. Signal Warrant Rule #3: [approach count=4][total volume=3670] SUCCEED - Total volume greater than or equal to 800 for intersection with four or more approaches. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Approach[southbound)[lanes=l][control=Stop Sign] Signal Warrant Rule #1: [vehicle-hours=0.7J FAIL - Vehicle-hours less than 4 for one lane approach. Signal Warrant Rule #2: [approach volume=ll] FAIL - Approach volume less than 100 for one lane approach. Signal Warrant Rule #3: [approach count=4][total volume=3670] SUCCEED - Total volume greater than or equal to 800 for intersection with four or more approaches. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SIGNAL hiARRANT DISCLAIMER This peak hour signal warrant analysis should be considered solely as an "indicator" of the likelihood of an unsignalized intersection warranting a traffic signal in the future. Intersections that exceed this warrant are probably more likely to meet one or more of the other volume based signal warrant (such as the 4-hour or 8-hour warrants). The peak hour warrant analysis in this report is not intended to replace a rigorous and complete traffic signal warrant analysis by the responsible jurisdiction. Consideration of the other signal warrants, which is beyond the scope of this software, may yield different results. Peak Hour Volume Signal Warrant Report [Urban] ******************************�********�**�********�*****+************+**�****** Intersection #4 Stevens Creek Blvd/Stern Ave ******************************************************************************** Base Volume Alternative: Peak Hour Warrant Met ------------�---------------II---------------��---------------II---------------� Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement : L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------- -- - --�---------------��---------------II---------------��---------------� Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 D 0 0 1! 0 0 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 2 1 0 Initial Vol: 71 0 106 2 D 9 26 1791 102 234 1329 5 ------------I---------------II---------------��---------------II---------------I Major Street Volume: 34B2 Minor Approach Volume: 177 Minor Approach Volume Threshold: -145 [less than minimum of 100] -------------------------------------=------------------------------------------ SIGNAL WARRANT DISCLAIMER This peak hour signal warrant analysis should be considered solely as an "indicator" of the likelihood of an unsi�nalized intersection warranting a traffic signal in the future. Intersections that exce�3 this warrant � are probably more likely to meet one or more of the other volume based signal warrant (such as the 4-hour or 8-hour warrants). The peak hour warrant analysis in this report is not intended to replace a rigorous and complete traffic signal warrant analysis by the responsible jurisdiction. Consideration of the other signal warrants, which is beyond the scope of this software, may yield different results. Traffix 8.0.07'IS Copyright (c) 2�OB.D��.ssociates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose COMPARE Tue Mar 22 14:20:30 2D11 Page 3-�6 Sunflower Leaming Center T2ffic Impad Malysis Level OF Service Computation Report 20DD HCM Operations (Base Volume Altemative) Cumulative (PM) Intersection #5: Stevens Creek Blvd/Calvert Drive/I 280 SB ofF ramp 5 ign al=Spl iVRig hts=l n dude Flnal Vol: 45"` 435 3D4 Lanes: 0 1 D 1 1 �� Signal=Proted Signal=Protect Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=0verfap Vol Cnt Date: n!a Rights=lnclude Lanes: Final Vol: Cycle Time (sec): 100 0 0 � D D o � Loss Time (sec): 12 I� o 1 ' 1252 2 � Critical V1C: 0.748 i� 3 1363 i'r 1 � Avg Crit Del (serJveh): 28.9 � 0 666"` 0 � Avg Delay (serJveh): 23.0 � 2 414"' LOS: C �i��► Lanes: 1 0 0 0 1 Flnal Voi: 29 D 53"' Signal=SpliURights=l nclude Street Name: Calvert Drive/I 280 SB off ramp Stevens Creek Blvd Approach: 1Qorth Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement : L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 ------------�---------------��---------------II---------------II---------------� Volume Module: Base Vol: 29 0 53 304 435 45 0 1252 666 414 1363 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 29 0 53 304 435 45 0 1252 666 414 1363 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Pf3F Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 29 0 53 304 435 45 0 1252 666 419 1363 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 29 0 53 304 435 45 0 1252 666 414 1363 0 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 29 0 53 304 435 45 0 1252 666 414 1363 0 ------------�---------------��---------------II---------------II---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 0.95 0.95 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.92 Lanes: 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.18 1.65 0.17 0.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 0.00 Final Sat.: 1750 0 1750 2074 2968 307 0 3800 1750 3150 5700 0 ------------�---------------�I---------------��---------------��---------------� Capacity Analysis Module: �� Vol/Sat: � 0.02 0.00 0.03 0.1`5 0.15 0.15 O.OD 0.33 0.38 0.13 0.24 0.00 Crit Moves• **** **** **** **** Green Time: 4.0 0.0 9.0 19.6 19.6 19.6 0.0 48.6 52.7 17.6 66.2 0.0 Volume/Cap: 0.41 0.00 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.00 0.68 0.72 0.75 0.36 0.00 Delay/Veh: 50.6 0.0 82.5 40.9 40.9 40.9 0.0 20.3 19.1 44.7 7.6 0.0 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 50.6 0.0 82.5 40.9 40.9 40.9 0.0 20.3 19.1 94.7 7.6 0.0 LOS by Move: D A F D D D A C B D A A HCM2kAvgQ: 1 0 3 10 10 10 0 14 17 9 6 0 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Treffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) i Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose CAMPARE Tue Mar 22 '14:2D:3D 201'I Page 3- Sunflower Leaming Center Traffic Impad Analysis Level Of Service Computation RepoR 20D0 HCM Operations (Base Volume Altemative) Cumulative+Project (PM) Intersection #5: Stevens Creek Blvd/Calvert Drive/I 280 SB off ramp Si g na1=SpIiVRi ghts= In clu d e Fnal Vol: 58"' 435 304 Lanes: 0 1 0 1 1 ��`�' Signal=Proted Signal=Protect Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=0verlap Vol Cnt Date: n!a Rights=lnclude Lanes: Final Vol: � Cycle Time (sec): 100 � 0 0 0 0 O � Loss Time (sec): 12 I� D '1286 2 � CriticalV/C: 0.762 i� 3 '1407 1 � Avg Crit Del (seclveh): 29.2 � 0 663"' 0 � Avg Delay (sedveh): 23.1 � 2 414"' LOS: C �i�� Lanes: 1 D 0 D 1 Fnal Vol: 29 0 53"' Signal=S pliVRights=lnclude Street Name: Calvert Drive/I 280 SB off ramp Stevens Creek Blvd Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------I---------------��---------------II---------------II---- Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 ------------I---------------��---------------II---------------II------ Volume Module: Base Vol: 29 0 53 304 435 58 0 1286 683 414 1407 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 29 0 53 304 435 58 0 1286 683 414 1407 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 29 0 53 304 435 58 0 1286 683 414 1407 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 29 0 53 304 935 58 0 1286 683 414 1407 0 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 29 0 53 304 435 58 0 1286 683 414 1407 0 ------------�---------------��---------------II---------------II Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 0.95 0.95 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.92 Lanes: 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.16 1.62 0.22 0.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 0.00 Final Sat.: 1750 0 1750 2040 2920 369 0 3800 1750 3150 5700 0 ------------I---------------��---------------II--------- Capacity Analysis Module: � Vol/Sat: 0.02 (�:00 0.03 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.00 0.34 0��9 0.13 0.25 0.00 � CT'1t Moves• **** **** **** **** Green Time: 4.0 0.0 4.0 19.5 19.5 19.5 0.0 49.0 53.0 17.2 66.3 0.0 Volume/Cap: 0.42 0.00 0.76 0.76 0.76 0.76 0.00 0.69 0.74 0.76 0.37 0.00 Delay/Veh: 50.9 0.0 85.B 41.4 41.4 41.4 O.D 20.4 19.2 45.7 7.6 0.0 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 50.9 0.0 85.8 41.4 41.4 41.4 0.0 20.4 19.2 45.7 7.6 0.0 LOS by Move: D A F D D D A C B D A A HCM2kAvgQ: 1 0 3 10 10 10 0 15 17 9 6 0 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix 8.0.07� 5 Copyright (c) 2QQ$,[lp��4ssociates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose � �v� COMPARE Tue Mar 22 14:20:30 201'I Page 3-�9 Surrtlower Leaming Center Traffic Impad Analysis Level Of Service Computation RepoA 2000 HCM Operations (Base Volume Altemative) Cumulative (PM) Intersection #6: Stevens Creek Blvd/Agilent Technologies Driveway Access Si gna1=S pliVRi g hLs=1 n clud e Final Vol: 446"' D 149 Lanes: 1 0 'I! 0 1 ' �� Signal=Protecl Slgnal=Proted Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=0verlap Vol Cnt Date: n!a Rights=0verlap Lanes: Final Vol: Cycle Time (sec): '100 72"" 1 � 1 48 O � Loss Time (sec): 12 � o �634 2 � Critical V/C: 0.723 i�__ 3 2388"` iT 1 � Avg Crit Del (sedveh): 23.1 � 0 0 0 � Avg Delay (serJveh): 'I8.6 � 1 18 LOS: B i�� Lanes: 0 0 'I! 0 0 Fnal Vol: 46•° 0 14 S ign a1=S pliURi ghts=l n clud e Street Name:Agilent Technologies Driveway Acc Stevens Creek Blvd Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound A�est Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------I---------------II---------------�I---------------II---------------I Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 ------------I---------------��---------------11---------------��---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 46 0 14 149 0 446 72 1634 0 18 2368 48 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 46 0 14 149 0 446 72 1634 0 18 2388 48 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHr Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHr Volume: 46 0 14 149 0 446 72 1634 0 18 2388 48 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 46 0 14 149 0 446 72 �1634 0 18 2388 48 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 46 0 14 149 0 446 72 1634 0 1B 238B 48 ------------I---------------��---------------��---------------II------------- Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.95 0.92 0.98 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 Lanes: 0.77 0.00 0.23 1.26 0.00 1.74 1.00 3.00 0.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 rinal Sat.: 1342 0 408 2198 0 3140 1750 5600 0 1750 5700 1750 ------------I---------------II---------------��---------------�I--------- Capacity Analysis Module: ,� ' Vol/Sat: 0.03 0.00 0.03 0.07 0.00 0:�14 0.04 0.29 0.00 0.01 0.92 0.03 J Crl.t Moves• **** **** **** **** Green Time: 4.7 0.0 4.7 19.6 0.0 19.6 5.7 61.5 0.0 2.2 57.9 77.6 Volume/Cap: 0.72 0.00 0.72 0.35.0.00 0.72 0.72 0.97 0.00 0.47 0.72 0.04 Delay/Veh: 73.7 0.0 73.7 34.8 0.0 40.6 69.2 10.6 0.0 57.4 16.0 2.6 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 73.7 0.0 73.7 34.8 0.0 40.8 69.2 10.6 0.0 57.4 16.0 2.6 LOS by Move: E A E C A D E B A E B A HCM2kAvgQ: 3 0 3 4 0 9 4 9 0 1 17 0 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyrighl (c) I ssociates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Josa COMPARE Tue Mar 22 14:2D:3D 2D� 1 Page 3-21 Su�lower Leaming Center Traffic �mpad Malysis Level Of Service Computation Report 200D HCM Operetions (Base Volume ANemative) Cumulative+Projed (PM) Intersection #6: Stevens Creek Blvd/Agilent Technologies Driveway Access Si gn a1=S pliURi ghts=ln clu d e Fnal Vol: 446"' 0 149 Lanes: 1 0 'I! 0 1 �� Signal=Protect Signal=Protect Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=0verlap Vol Cnt Date: n!a Rights=0veriap Lanes: Final Vol: Cycle Time (sec): 'IDD 83"' 1 � 1 48 0 � Loss Time (sec): 12 I� O I T :�_�� '1657 2 � CriScal V/C: 0.739 � 3 2432"' 1 � Avg Crit Del (serJveh): 23.7 � 0 0 0 � Avg Delay (seclveh): 18.9 � 1 '18 LOS: B i� i"�` I� �' � Lanes: 0 0 11 0 0 Fnal Vol: 46"' 0 14 S ignal=5 pI iVRights=l n clu d e Street Name:Agilent Technologies Driveway Acc Stevens Creek Blvd Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement : L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------�---------------II---------------II---------------�I---------------I Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 9.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 ------------�---------------��---------------��---------------II---------------� Volume Module: Base Vol: 46 0 14 149 0 446 83 1657 0 18 2432 98 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 46 0 14 149 0 446 83 1657 0 18 2432 48 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 46 0 19 149 0 446 83 1657 0 18 2432 48 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 46 0 14 149 0 446 83 1657 0 18 2432 48 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 46 0 14 149 0 446 83 1657 0 18 2432 48 ------------�---------------��---------------��---------------II---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.95 0.92 0.98 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 Lanes: 0.77 0.00 0.23 1.26 0.00 1.74 1.00 3.00 0.00 1.D0 3.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1342 0 408 2198 0 3140 1750 5600 0 1750 5700 1750 ------------I---------------II---------------II---------------��---------------� Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.03 0.00 0.03;� 0.07�0.00 0.14 0.05 0.30 0.00 0.01 0.43 0.03 ' Crit Moves• **** **** **** **** Green Time: 4.6 0.0 4.6 19.2 0.0 19.2 6.4 62.0 0.0 2.2 57.7 76.9 Volume/Cap: 0.79 0.00 0.74 0.35 0.00 0.74 0.74 0.48 0.00 0.48 0.74 0.04 Delay/Veh: 76.9 0.0 76.9 35.1 0.0 41.7 68.6 10.4 0.0 57.6 16.5 2.7 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 76.9 0.0 76.9 35.1 0.0 41.7 68.6 10.4 0.0 57.6 16.5 2.7 LOS by Move: E A E D A D E B A E B A HCM2kAvgQ: 4 0 4 4 0 9 4 9 0 1 18 0 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2QD8,pQv.�I1�dPssociates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose � i v"t COMPARE Tue Mar 22 1420:30 2011 Page 3-22 Sunflower Leaming Center Traffic Impact Anarysis Level Of Service Computation Report 200D HCM Operations (Base Volume Altemative) Cumulative (PM) intersection #7: Stevens Creek Bivd/Lawrence Expressway SB Signal=SpliVRig hts=Overlap Final Vol: 785"' 0 316 Lanes: 1 0 0 D 'I �� Signal=Permit Signal=Permit Flnal Vol: Lanes: Rights=lnclude Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=lnclude Lanes: Final Vol: � Cycle Time (sec): 120 � 0 0 0 0 � Loss Time (sec): 6 I� 0 p 1892 5 � CrilicalV/C: 0.816 � 3 1863"' i 0 � Avg Crit Del (serJveh): 32.4 0 0 0 � Avg Delay (sedveh): 29.2 � 0 0 LOS: C �i�� Lanes: 0 0 0 D 0 Fnal Vol: D 0 0 S ign a1=Spl iURig hts=0verl ap Street Name: Lawrence Expressway SB Stevens Creek Blvd Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R --- ---------I---------------��---------------II---------------��---------------I Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 ------------I---------------II---------------II---------------��---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 0 0 316 0 785 0 1892 0 0 1863 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 0 0 316 0 785 0 1892 0 0 1863 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 0 0 0 316 0 785 0 1892 0 0 1863 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 0 0 316 0 785 0 1892 0 0 1863 0 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 0 0 0 316 0 785 0 1892 0 0 1863 0 • ------------�---------------��---------------II---------------II---------------� Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 19D0 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 Lanes: 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 5.00 0.00 0.00 3.00 0.00 rinal Sat.: 0 0 0 1750 0 1750 0 9500 0 0 5700 0 ------------I---------------�I---------------II---------------��---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: ;'� Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.18 0.00 0.45 0.0(i�0.20 0.00� 0.00 0.33 0.00 Crit Moves: **** **** Green Time: 0.0 0.0 0.0 65.9 0.0 65.9 0.0 98.1 0.0 0.0 48.1 0.0 Volume/Cap: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.82 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.82 0.00 Delay/Veh: 0.0 0.0 0.0 15.1 0.0 27.6 0.0 27.0 0.0 0.0 34.4 0.0 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 0.0 0.0 0.0 15.1 0.0 27.6 0.0 27.0 0.0 0.0 34.4 0.0 LOS by Move: A A A B A C A C A A C A HCM2kAvgQ: 0 0 0 7 0 27 0 10 0 0 20 0 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Treffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2D 8-Bo I sociates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose COMPARE Tue Mar 22 14:20:30 2011 Page 3-24 Sunflower Leaming Center Traffic Impad Analysis Level Of Service Computation Report 200D HCM Operations (Base Volume Altemative) Cumulative+project (PM) Intersection #7: Stevens Creek Bivd/Lawrence Expressway SB Si g nal=5pl iURig hts=0ver1 ap Fnal Vol: 798"' 0 316 Lanes: 1 D D 0 1 �� Signal=Pertnit Signal=Pertnit Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=lnclude Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=lnclude Lanes: Final Vol: Cycle Time (sec): 120 0 0 � ' `� 0 0 O � Loss Time (sec): 6 � j O I�_ 1915 5 � Critical VIC: 0.630 � 3 1894"' i . 0 � Avg Crit Del (sedveh): 33.1 � 0 0 0 � Avg Delay (sedveh): 29.6 � D 0 LO5: C �i�� Lanes: 0 0 0' 0 D Fnal Vol: 0 0 0 Signal=SpliURights=0verlap � Street Name: Lawrence Expressway SB Stevens Creek B1vd Approach: 1Jorth Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Moveinent: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------I---------------II---------------II---------------��---------------� Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 ------------�---------------II---------------II---------------��---------------� Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 0 0 316 0 798 0 1915 0 0 1894 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 0 0 316 0 798 0 1915 0 0 1894 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 0 0 0 316 0 798 0 1915 0 0 1894 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 0 0 316 0 798 0 1915 0 0 1894 0 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 0 0 0 316 0 798 0 1915 0 0 1894 0 ------------�---------------�I---------------II---------------��---------------� Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 Lanes: 0.00 0.00 D.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 5.00 0.00 0.00 3.00 0.00 Final Sat.: 0 0 0 1750 0 1750 0 9500 0 0 5700 0 ------------�---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------� Capa�ity Analysis Module: VolfSat: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.18 O.C.�O 0.46 0.00 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.00 Crit Moves: **** **** Green Time: 0.0 0.0 0.0 65.9 0.0 65.9 0.0 48.1 0.0 0.0 48.1 0.0 Volume/Cap: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.83 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.83 0.00 Delay/Veh: 0.0 0.0 0.0 15.1 0.0 28.5 0.0 27.1 0.0 0.0 35.0 0.0 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 0.0 0.0 0.0 15-:1 0.0 28.5 0.0 27.1 0.0 0.0 35.0 0.0 LOS by Move: A A A B A C A C A A D A HCM2kAvgQ: 0 0 0 7 0 28 0 10 0 0 21 0 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Treffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2&B ssociates, inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose COMPARE Tue Mar 22 14:2D:30 2011 Page 3-25 Surtflower Leaming Center Traffic Impad Malysis Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Opera6ons (Base Volume Altemetive) Cumulative (PM) Intersection #8: Stevens Creek Blvd/Lawrence Expressway NB Si gn a1=SpIiURig hts=0vet1 ap Final Vol: 0 D 0 Lanes: 0 D 0 0 0 �� Signal=Proted Signal=Proted Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=0verlap Vol Crri Date: n/a Rights=0verfap Lanes: Final Vol: Cycle Time (sec): 120 376"' 2 � 0 263 O � Loss Time (sec): 9 I i , T 1479 3 � CriticalV/C: 0.676 � 2 12�7••• i 0 � Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 34.3 � 0 0 0 � Avg Delay (seclveh): 28.2 � 0 0 LOS: C � i�' f�`' � � Lanes: 1 1 D 1 0 Final Vol: 572'^' S39 179 • S i gna1=S pliURi ghLS=1 n cl ud a Street Name: Lawrence Expressway NB • Stevens Creek Blvd Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------I---------------��---------------��---------------��---------------� Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 ------------I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 572 539 179 0 0 0 376 1979 0 0 1217 263 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 572 539 179 0 0 0 376 1479 0 0 1217 263 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 572 539 179 0 0 0 376 1479 0 0 1217 263 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 572 539 179 0 0 0 376 1479 0 0 1217 263 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 572 539 179 0 0 0 376 1479 0 0 1217 263 ------------I---------------�I---------------II---------------�I---------------� � Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.93 0.95 0.95 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.92 0.92 0.99 0.95 Lanes: 1.35 1.24 0.41 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 3.00 0.00 0.00 2.45 0.55 Final Sat.: 2372 2235 742 0 0 0 3150 5700 0 0 4604 995 ------------�---------------II---------------��---------------II---------------I Capacity Analysis I�lodule: :� Vol/Sat: 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.00 0.({�0 0.00 0.12 0.26 0�'00 0.00 0.26 0.26 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Green Time: 42.8 42.8 42.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 21.2 68.2 0.0 0.0 47.0 47.0 Volume/Cap: 0.68 0.68 0.68 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.68 0.46 0.00 0.00 0.68 0.68 Delay/Veh: 33.7 33.7 33.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 49.5 15.2 0.0 0.0 31.1 31.1 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 33.7 33.7 33.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 49.5 15.2 0.0 0.0 31.1 31.1 LOS by Move: C C C A A A D B A A C C HCM2kAvgQ: 15 15 15 0 0 0 8 10 0 0 16 16 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Tratfix 8.0.07'I S Copyright (c) 2 Ob'D g ssociates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose COMPARE Tue Mar 22 14:20:30 2011 Page 3-27 Sunflower Leaming Center Traffic Impact Malysis Level Oi Service Computation Report 2D00 HCM Operetions (Base Volume Altemative) Cumulative+proled (PM) Intersection #8: Stevens Creek Bivd/Lawrence Expressway NB S ign a1=Sp I"rt/Rig hts=0verl ap Final Vol: 0 0 0 Lanes: 0 0 0 0 0 �� Signal=Proted Signal=Proied Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=0veriap Vol Cnt Date: nla Rights=0verlap Lanes: Final Vol: � Cycle Time (sec): 120 � 387"• 2 0 263 � Loss Time (sec): 9 I � 0 IT � 1490 3 Critical V/C: 0.686 ��_ � � 2 1230•» i D � Avg Crit Dei (seclveh): 34.7 � D 0 0 � Avg Delay (sedveh): 28.5 � 0 0 LOS: C � i�` it � �- Lanes: 1 1 0 1 0 Fna� Vol: 591 539 179"' 5 i g n a1=S pl i V R i g h Ls= I n cl u d e Street Name: Lawrence Expressway NB 5tevens Creek Blvd Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound Taest Bound Movement : Z - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------ � ---------- -----II---------------II---------------II---------------I Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 ------------ � ------- --------��---------------II---------------�I---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 591 539 179 0 0 0 387 1490 0 0 1230 263 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 591 539 179 0 0 0 387 1490 0 0 1230 263 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 591 539 179 0 0 0 387 1490 0 0 1230 263 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 591 539 179 0 0 0 387 1490 0 0 1230 263 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 591 539 179 0 0 0 387 1490 0 0 1230 263 --- ---------�---------------��---------------II---------------��---------------� Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.93 0.95 0.95 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.92 0.92 0.99 0.95 Lanes: 1.37 1.22 0.41 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 3.00 0.00 0.00 2.45 0.55 Final Sat.: 2415 2203 732 0 0 0 3150 5700 0 0 4612 986 ----------- -I---------------��---------------II---------------��---------------� Capacity Analysis Module: �, Vol/Sat: 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.00 0.00 0.00 t�.12 0.26 0.00 0.00 0.27 0.27 U Crit Moves: **** **** **** . Green Time: 42.8 92.8 42.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 21.5 68.2 0.0 0.0 46.7 46.7 Volume/Cap: 0.69 0.69 0.69 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.69 0.46 0.00 0.00 0.69 0.69 Delay/Veh: 33.9 33.9 33.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 49.6 15.3 0.0 0.0 31.5 31.5 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 33.9 33.9 33.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 49.6 15.3 0.0 0.0 31.5 31.5 LOS by Move: C C C A A A D B A A C C HCM2kAvgQ: 15 15 15 0 0 0 8 10 0 0 16 16 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix B.O.D715 Copyright (c) 2�B.D4v r�ssociates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose , � ��. ":�;� `�rv Appendix C Peak Hour Volume Signal Warrant � ° � � =-; �"5 '_"_ ..._. ......__ ...._ _..___ _.._' ___._"" "".._. ._ .._.... _ .._ ..__._'.. ..__.__..__._._.. ._ ......._ .. _.. .._. ._. _u>.d 1-109 Sunflower Learning Cenler - Cuperlino, CP 3/22/2011 � � � � O Slcru Avcuue .uid Slc��ens Grcle Bouler:u�d PM Peak Hour Volumes Approach Lanes a u ? 2or � ` 2 2 u, One More w' u� ci Major 5[reet - Bolh Approaches sic� cns l'�cck U��J. Minor Street - Hiahest Aooroach Sicru A� c. I lcxagon Transportatiun Consultanls, Inc. " NOTE: 100 vph applies as the lower thresholG�volume for a minor street approach with 2 or more lanes and 75 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor street approach with 1 lane. C Peak Hour Volume Warrant Per 2003 MUTCD - Over 40 MPH Attachment 6 ENVIR ONMENTAL NOISE ASS'ESSMENT SUNFLOWER LEARNING CENTER NE W DA YCARE AND PRE-S'CHOOL 18900 S'TEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA March 10, 2011 ♦ ♦ ♦ Prepared for: Ms. Piu Ghosh, Associate Planner City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 Prepared by: Fred M. Svinth, INCE, Assoc. AIA ILLINGWORTH & RODKIN, INC. . Acoustics • Air Qualiry 505 Petaluma Boulevard South Petaluma, CA 94952 (707) 766-7700 Job No.: 11-038 1-111 INTRODUCTION The Sunflower Learning Center is planning to relocate from its current site at 19220 Stevens Creek Boulevard in Cupertino to an existing office building at 18900 Stevens Creek Boulevard also in Cupertino. At this new location Sunflower Learning Center would remodel the existing building and site to expand it's current operations from a Kindergarten through 6`�' grade after- school only program to include a morning and daytime program for pre-school aged children. This report describes potential noise effects at the new site resulting from the Sunflower Learning Center pre-school and after school programs. Included is a discussion of the fundamentals of acoustics, a description of state and local guidelines and policies, a description of the existing onsite noise environment, and an assessment of noise generated by the proposed use of the site. SETTING BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON NOISE Noise may be defined as unwanted sound. Noise is usually objectionable because it is disturbing or annoying. The objectionable nature of sound could be caused by its pitclz or its loudness. Pitch is the height or depth of a tone or sound, depending on the relative rapidity (frequency) of the vibrations by which it is produced. Higher pitched signals sound louder to humans than sounds with a lower pitch. Loudness is intensity of sound waves combined with the reception characteristics of the ear. Intensity may be compared with the height of an ocean wave in that it is a measure of the amplitude of the sound wave. In addition to the concepts of pitch and loudness, there are several noise measurement scales that are used to describe uoise in a particular location. A decibel (dB) is a unit of ineasurement that indicates the relative amplitude of a sound. The zero on the decibel scale is based on the lowest sound level that the healthy, unimpaired human ear can detect. Sound levels in decibels are calculated on a logarithmic basis. An increase of 10 decibels represents a ten-fold increase in acoustic energy, while 20 decibels is 100 times more intense, 30 decibels is 1,000 times more intense, etc. There is a relationship between the subjective noisiness or loudness of a sound and its intensity. Each 10 decibel increase in sound level is perceived as approximately a doubling of loudness over a fairly wide range of intensities. Technical terms are defined in Table 1. There are several methods of characterizing sound. The most common in California is the A- weighted sound level or dBA. This scale gives greater weight to the frequencies of sound to which the human ear is most sensitive. Representative outdoor and indoor noise levels in units of dBA are shown in Table 2. Because sound levels can vary markedly over a short period of time, a method for describing either the average character of the sound or the statisticai beYiavior of the variations must be utilized. Most commonly, environmental sounds are described in tenns of an average level that has the same acoustical energy as the summation of all the time-varying events. This energy-equivalent soundlnoise descriptor is called L The most common averaging period is hourly, but L can describe any series of noise events of arbitrary duration. The scientific instrument used to measure noise is the sound level meter. Sound level meters can accurately measure enviromnental noise levels to within about plus or minus 1 dBA. Various coinputer models are used to predict environmental noise levels from sources, such as roadways and Page 2 1-112 airports. The accuracy of the predicted models depends upon the distance the receptor is from the noise source. Close to the noise source, the models are accurate to within about plus or minus 1 to 2 dBA. Table 1: Definitions of Acoustical Terms Used in this Re ort Term Definitions Decibel, dB A unit describing, the amplitude of sound, equal to 20 times the logarittun to the base 10 of the ratio of the pressure of the sound measured to the reference ressure. The reference ressure for air is 20. Sound Pressure Level Sound pressure is the sound force per unit area, usually expressed in micro Pascals (or 20 micro Newtons per square meter), where 1 Pascal is the pressure resulting from a force of 1 Newton exerted over an area of 1 square meter. The sound pressure level is expressed in decibels as 20 times the logarithm to the base 10 of the ratio between the pressures exerted by the sound to a reference sound pressi.ue (e.g., 20 micro Pascals). Sound pressi.ue level is the quantity that is d'u measured � b a sound level meter. Frequency, Hz The number of coinplete pressure fluctuations per second above and below atmospheric pressure. Normal human hearing is between 20 Hz and 20,000 Hz. Infrasonic sound are below 20 Hz and Ultrasonic sounds are above 20,000 Hz. A-Weighted Sound Level, The sound pressure level in decibels as measured on a sound level � meter using the A-weighting filter network. The A-weighting filter de- emphasizes the very low and very high frequency components of the sound in a manner siinilar to the frequency response of the human ear and correlates well with sub'ective reactions to noise. Equivalent Noise Level, L� The average A-weighted noise level during the measurement period. �, Lmin The maximum and minimum A-weighted noise level during the measurement eriod. Lo�, L�o, Lso, �o The A-weighted noise levels that are exceeded 1%, 10%, 50%, and 90% of the time durin the measurement eriod. Day/Night Noise Level, T�e average A-weighted noise level during a 24-hour day, obtained affer L � addition of 10 decibels to levels measured in the night between 10:00 pm and 7:00 ain. Community Noise The average A-weighted noise level during a 24-hour day, obtained after Equivalent Level, CNEL addition of 5 decibels in the evening from 7:00 pm to 10:00 pm and after addition of 10 decibels to sound levels measured in the night between 10:00 in and 7:00 am. Ambient Noise Level d T�e composite of noise from all sources near and far. The normal or existing level of environmental noise at a given location. Intrusive That noise which intrudes over and above the existing ambient noise at a given location. The relative intrusiveness of a sound depends upon its amplitude, duration, frequency, and time of occui and tonal or informational content as well as the prevailing ainbient noise level. Page 3 1-113 Table 2: T ical Noise Levels in the Environment Common Outdoor Activities Noise Level dBA Common Indoor Activities 110 dBA Rock band Jet fly-over at 1,000 feet 100 dBA Gas lawn mower at 3 feet 90 dBA Diesel truck at 50 feet at 50 mph Food blender at 3 feet g� dBA Garbage disposal at 3 feet Noisy urban area, daytime Gas lawn mower, 100 feet '�� dBA Vacuum cleaner at 10 feet Coinmercial area Normal speech at 3 feet Heavy traffic at 300 feet 60 dBA Large business office Quiet urbaii daytime 50 dBA Dishwasher in next room Quiet urban nighttime 40 dBA Theater, large conference rooin Quiet suburban nighttiine 30 dBA Library Quiet rural nighttime Bedroom at night, concert hall 20 dBA Broadcast/recording studio 10 dBA 0 dBA ,, Since the sensitivity to noise increases during the evening and at night -- because excessive noise interferes with the ability to sleep -- 24-hour descriptors have been developed that incorporate artificial noise penalties added to quiet-time noise events. The Community Noise Equivale��t Level, CNEL, is a measure of the cumulative noise exposure in a community, with a 5 dB penalty added to evening (7:00 pm - 10:00 pm) and a 10 dB addition to nocturnal (10:00 pm - 7:00 am) noise levels. The Day/Night Average Sound Level, CNEL or Ld,,, is essentially the same as CNEL, with tlie exception that the evening time period is dropped and all occurrences during this three-hour period are grouped into the daytime period. Page 4 1-114 Effects of Noise Sleep and Speech h�ter ference The thresholds for speech interference indoors are about 45 dBA if the noise is steady and above 55 dBA if the noise is fluctuating. Outdoors the thresholds are about 15 dBA higher. Steady noise of sufficient intensity (above 35 dBA) and fluctuating noise levels above about 45 dBA have been shown to affect sleep. Interior residential standards for multi-family dwellings are set by the State of California at 45 dBA L�,. Typically, the highest steady traffic noise level during the daytime is about equal to the L�, and nighttime levels are 10 dBA lower. The standard is designed for sleep and speech protection and most jurisdictions apply the same criterion for all residential uses. Typical structural attenuation is 12-17 dBA with open windows. With closed windows in good condition, the noise attenuation factor is around 20 dBA for an older structure and 25 dBA for a newer dwelling. Sleep and speech interference is therefore possible when exterior noise levels are about 57-62 dBA Ld with open windows and 65-70 dBA L�, if the windows are closed. Levels of 55-60 dBA are common along collector streets and secondary arterials, while 65-70 dBA is a typical value for a primary/major arterial. Levels of 75-80 dBA are normal noise levels at the first row of developinent outside a freeway right-of-way. Annoya�zce Attitude surveys are used for measuring the annoyance felt in a community for noises intruding into homes or affecting outdoor activity areas. In these surveys, it was determined that the causes for annoyance include interference with speech, radio and television, house vibrations, and interference with sleep and rest. The Ld as a measure of noise has been found to provide a valid correlation of noise level and the percentage of people annoyed. People have been asked to judge the annoyance caused by aircraft noise and ground transportation noise. There continues to be disagreement about the relative annoyance of these different sources. When measuring the percentage of the population highly annoyed, the threshold for ground vehicle noise is about 50 dBA Ld,,. At an L�, of about 60 dBA, approximately 12 percent of the population is highly annoyed. When the Ld increases to 70 dBA, the percentage of the population highly annoyed increases to about 25-30 percent of the population. There is, therefore, an increase of about 2 percent per dBA between an Ld of 60-70 dBA. Between an Ld of 70-80 dBA, each decibel increase increases by about 3 percent the percentage of the population highly annoyed. People appear to respond more adversely to aircraft noise. When the Ld is 60 dBA, approxiinately 30- 35 percent of the population is believed to be highly annoyed. Each decibel increase to 70 dBA adds about 3 percentage points to the number of people highly annoyed. Above 70 dBA, each decibel increase results in about a 4 percent increase in the percentage of the population l�ighly annoyed. REGULATORY BACKGROUND , �' The State of California and the City of Cupertino establish guidelines, regulations, and policies designed to limit noise exposure at noise sensitive land uses. These plans and policies include: (1) the State CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G; (2) the City of Cupertino General Plan; and (3) the City of Cupertino Municipal Code. Page 5 1-115 State CEQA Guidelines The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) includes qualitative guidelines for determining significance of adverse environmental noise impacts. A project will typically have a significant impact if it would: a. Expose people to or generate noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan, noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies. b. Expose people to or generate excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels. c. Result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. d. Result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. e. For projects within an area covered by an airport land use plan or within two miles of a public airport or public use airport when such an airport land use plan has not been adopted, or within the vicinity of a private airstrip, expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive aircraft noise levels. f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels. Of these guidelines, items (a), (c), and (d) are applicable to the proposed project. Guideline (b) is not applicable to the project because the project is not located adjacent to, nor would it introduce, any known sources of groundborne vibration. Guidelines (e) and ( fl are not applicable because the project is not located within an airport land use plan or in the vicinity of a private airstrip. Therefore, checklist items (b), (e), and ( fl are not carried forward for further analysis. CEQA does not define what noise level increase would be considered substantial. Typically, project-generated noise level increases of 3 dBA CNEL or greater would be considered significant where exterior noise levels would exceed the normally acceptable noise level standard. Where noise levels would remain at or below the normally acceptable noise level standard with the project, noise level increases of 5 dBA CNEL or greater would be considered significant. City of Cupertino General Plan The Health and Safety Element of the City of Cupertino General Plan identifies noise and land use compatibility standards for various land uses. Residential land uses are considered "normally acceptable" in noise environments of 60 dBA CNEL or less while Schools are considered "normally acceptable" in noise environments of 70 dBA CNEL or less. Goal L of the noise section is to provide a compatible noise environment for existing and future land uses. Goal N of the noise section is to protect residential areas as much as possible from intrusive �non- :- traffic noise. The policies included in the Health and Safety Element are not directly applicable to the proposed project. City of Cupertino Municipal Code The City of Cupertino regulates noise within the community in Chapter 10.48 (Cominunity Noise Control) of the Municipal Code. Quantitative noise level limits are presented in Table 3. Section 10.48.040 states that, individual noise sources, or the combination of a group of noise sources located on the same property, shall not produce a noise level exceeding those presented Page 6 1-116 in Table 3. Nonresidential land uses, such as the proposed project, can generate noise levels up to 65 dBA during the daytime and 55 dBA during the nighttime at the complaint site of a receiving property. The "residential" standard allows noise levels up to 60 dBA during the daytime and 50 dBA during the nighttime. Although not explicitly stated, these limits are assumed to be in terms of the average noise level (L�). TABLE 3: Da time and Ni httime Maximum Noise Levels (L Land Use Maximum Noise Level at Com laint Site of Receivin Pro e at Point of Origin Ni httime Da time Residential 50 dBA 60 dBA Nonresidential 55 dBA 65 dBA Notes: 1. Nighttime is defined as between 8:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. (weekdays) and between 6:00 p.m. to 9:00 a.m. (weekends) in Municipal Code section 10.48.010. 2. Daytime is defined as between 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. (weekdays) and between 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.in. weekends in Munici al Code section 10.48.010. Section 10.48.050 allows for brief exceedances of the daytime noise limit providing that the sum of the noise duration in minutes plus the excess noise level does not exceed twenty in a two-hour period. Table 4 shows the allowable exceedance increment for periods in a 2 hour period per Section 10.48.050. An example using the noise increments shown in Table 4 would be that a noise level of 79 dBA could be experienced at a residential property for no more than 1 minute in any 2-hour period during the day. 80 dBA would be the maximum instantaneous noise level limit during daytime hours. Theoretically, the noise level limits presented in Section 10.48.050 are more restrictive than the noise level limits in Section 10.48.040 alone. For instance, a maximum noise level greater than 80 dBA could be generated by an activity over a short period of time; however, the average noise level could continue to be less than 60 dBA L during the two-hour averaging period. TABLE 4 Exeedances Allowed Above Da time Standard Noise Increment Above Normal Standard Noise Duration in 2-Hour Period 5 dBA 15 minutes 10 dBA 10 miiiutes 15 dBA 5 miuutes 19 dBA 1 minute The Municipal Code does not specify statistical noise limits for noises occurring during nighttime hot�rs. A reasonable interpretation of these regulations would similarly restrict nighttime events provided that the sum of the noise duration in minutes plus the excess noise level does not exceed twenty in a two-hour period. For example, a maximum instantaneous noise level of 70 dBA L would not be allowed between 8:00 PM and 7:00 AM on weekdays aiid 6:00 PM and 9:00 AM on weekends. Construction noise is limited in Section 10.48.053 as follows: A. Grading, construction and demolition activities shall be allowed to exceed the noise limits of Section 10.48.040 during daytime hours; provided, that the equipment utilized has high- quality noise muffler and abatement devices installed and in good condition, and the activity meets one of the following two criteria: Page 7 1-117 1. No individual device produces a noise level more than eighty-seven dBA at a distance of twenty-five feet (7.5 meters); or 2. The noise level on any nearby property does not exceed eighty dBA. B. Notwithstanding Section 10.48.053A, it is a violation of this chapter to engage in any grading, street construction, demolition or underground utility work within seven hundred fifty feet of a residential area on Saturdays, Sundays and holidays, and during the nighttime period, except as provided in Section 10.48.030. C. Construction, other than street construction, is prohibited on holidays, except as provided in Sections 10.48.029 and 10.48.030. D. Construction, other than street construction, is prohibited during nighttime periods unless it meets the nighttime standards of Section 10.48.040. E. The use of helicopters as a part of a construction and/or demolition activity shall be restricted to between the hours of nine a.m. and six thirty p.m. Monday through Friday only, and prohibited on the weekends and holidays. The notice shall be given at least twenty-four hours iii advance of said usage. In cases of emergency, the twenty-four hour period may be waived. EXISTING NOISE ENVIRONMENT The proposed site for the relocation PROJECT Sr� �:�iti• ;•,; ' of the Sunflower Learning Center is SITE an existing office building and parking lot at the southwest conier ., of the intersection of Stevens Creek „ Blvd. and Stern Avenue (18900 , `' �,� Stevens Creek Blvd) in Cupertino, California. This site is bordered by r ST � single-family homes to the west and ''~ � , LT-2 south and commercial businesses .. across Stern Avenue to the east. ` One of the single-family homes to LT-1 the west (10038 Bret Avenue) also � appears to operate as a preschool under the name of "The Learning . 5: �r Child (TLC) of Cupertino". Figure ` - " +` 1 shows an aerial photo of the project site and these surrounding � ` uses. Figure 1: Aerial Photo of Site Vicinity ` The existing ambient noise environment at the project site was quantified at two long-term and one short-term location. The first long-term measurement (LT-1) was made at the southern property line, and the second long-term measurement (LT-2) was made at the western property line adjacent to the home, which operates as a preschool between February 28 and March 1, 2011. The short-term measurement (ST) was made at the approximate center of the proposed project playground. The noise measurement locations are shown on Figure 1. All noise levels were measured using a Larson-Davis Laboratories (LDL) mode1820 precision Type 1 sound level Page 8 1-118 meter fitted with a'/2-incli pre-polarized condenser microphone and windscreen. The meters were calibrated before and after installation with a 114 dB, 1000 hertz LDL acoustical calibrator. Continuous 10-minute duration noise measurements were conducted at the loilg-term positioils to document tlie daily trend in ambient iloise levels over the course of a 25-hour period. During each interval the maximum instantaneous sound level (L,,,�), energy equivalent noise level (L sound levels and tlie sound levels exceeded 1, 10, 50, and 90 percent of tlie time interval (L L L L were documented. Average (L noise levels for were also summed for each of the 25 liours measured. The first long-term sound level meter (LT-1) was positioned in the branches of a tree on the southenl property line shared between the project site and tlle adjacent single-family home on Stern Avenue (see Figure 1). The ineasured noise levels at this location, and the average energy equivalent noise level (L for eacli hour are shown on Chart 1. Chart 1: Measured Noise Levels at LT-1 90 x 85 -- - — . x " , 5 g 0 X x — --�+C - � X ' � ' . r x x '; x ,lC X � 75 x , x � � - - - �c � � • X X X �X }C �X ,� x� ? � p ' — �� — -� � ; ' - — X -- ' --- � - - c' x X X • X ' �� ;. � x � X ' � X � r � r ' � � }� � k� � X • ; � ; � :jC � ; �. � � a65 ; x X ; ---- -- , � y � � 1 ; � x � k� L � � �60 - ; x � X - - - - • x � :� , U, � �, X �5 — - - - �+ 50 �------ - --- { - �++'� ±}+-"�"# `� � , �,�- ' � " -- , � �+++� �' + + �'� t � + }+�.� } + + } �'� � � �-��++ � ++++ � ++ + �- �' } }+ +± 45 - �� -# + - -- - CNEL = 63 dBA 40 , , , , , , �,., ,,,,, „ � , . , „ , , ., � ,,. ,�, ., , , .�, ,. , c�.. � c�.. � n.. ��., ��.. c�.� c�.. c�. ��.. a.. � a o. � Q¢�� Q Q Q¢¢ Q Q¢� Q 4 Q� Q Q Q Q Q� c�., �� 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o c o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o c o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O c�''y O r'� O r"i O c'1 O c'1 O r'� O r''� O r''� O�'1 O� O r'1 O e'"i O r'S O M O M O c�'"i O M O cn C r'1 O M O r'i O M O r1 O t'1 � � � N N c�l M �t d' �n v1 � Vr [� l� 00 00 O� O� O O--� --+ N N--� -� N N c'1 M'S � v1 v1 'V 'V I� I� 00 00 O� O� O O�� N N• --., •-• _ Hour Be innin Februa 28th to A�arch lst 2011 �� r �-- �E -- Lmax —�- LO 1-�- L 10 Leq �— L�0 -�- L90 --+-- Li�un • Hourly Leq A revie��v of Chart 1 shows that the noise levels at site LT-1 follow a diurnal pattern characteristic of traffic noise, with the daytime and nighttime average (L liourly noise levels ranging from 50 to 66 dBA and 48 to 62 dBA, respectively, and with an average daytime L� of 59 dBA and an average niglittime Leq of 55 dBA. The ConunLUlity Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) over the measurement period was calculated to be 63 dBA. Page 9 . 1-119 The second long-tenn sound level meter (LT-2) was positioned in a utility pole on the westei property line shared between the project site and tlie single-family home at 10038 Bret Avenue, wliich is also the home of the TLC of Cupertino daycare center (see Figure 1). The measured noise levels at this location, and the average energy equivalent noise level (L for each hour are shown on Chart 2, following. Chart 2: Measured Noise Levels at LT-2 90 � , r 85 – -- -- — ac x r � r r X g� — x ��— 1( � � X . � , X „ � � � aC ! ; 1 ?C � �C 75 — � ` � 5 1 Q y � . X. � v � X A � ?7� - r --- � - r - ; x �--- x � �� , r � � x � � I �� 'xX x� , "'� � : j( }� X : X x � � �65 X r , ' ; — ti - � ,X; � °. x X ' �60 x ' � � � , r x ' � � X o )( �55 x x t�� + # , + ++: �-: i ��.�' '},µ++, t 50 ; +,� ±�+ -�++�+++++ # � � } +, �+ � � �" } ++ ++ ±�.+.�. �. +++ + + 45 - + -- + CNEL = 62 dBA � + �- �+ }+++ + + 40 �, „ � , � ,,,� � „ ,,, , � �� , � ,., „ ., � �. ,�, ,� �,. , , �� , , ,�, .,,.. ,, ,,, , � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � ¢ ¢ 4 ¢ � ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ 4 ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ � ¢ Q ¢ ¢ ¢ � c�., a c�. � c, c. a. a. c. a c. c. a �, F. c. c, �. a. �-. �. �. c, a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o c o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o c o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O t+1 O M O N'1 O M O r'1 O t'1 O �"1 O r'1 O c"'� O c"1 O t'1 O �"1 O r�l O t"� O �''� O c"'1 O M O t''1 O t�Y O r'l O t�'1 O r•'f O c+7 O c''1 N N c�1 c�1 �. � v'i v'i � V I� [� o0 00 O� Q� O O—— N N-- -- N N r'y r'1 'V' �' v'� v'1 � V [� [� 00 00 O� O� O O•� •-.: N N—• ^� Hour Be February 28th to March lst 2011 �^ � ^ j - - •�E - - Lmax —� LO 1 —0-- L 10 Leq —� L50 —o L90 - - + • - Lnun • Hourly Leq A review of Chart 2 shows that the noise levels at site LT-2 also followed a diurnal pattern characteristic of traffic noise, with tlie daytime and nighttiine average (L hourly noise levels ranging from 46 to 68 dBA and 47 to 60 dBA, respectively, with an average daytime L of 61 dBA and an average nighttime Leq of 54 dBA. The Coinmunity Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) s �ver the measurement period was calculated to be 62 dBA. An analysis of the measurement results at LT-2 versus those at LT-1 indicates that, in general, noise levels measured at LT-2 were within 2 dBA (plus or minus) of those measured at LT-1, which is expected based on soinewhat greater shielding from traffic noise, at tI11S IOCat10I1 aI1C� tlle variability of traffic noise within parking lots. However, during some 10-minute periods between 8 am and 12pm and 3 pin and 5 pin the average noise levels measured at LT-2 were between 4 to 10 dBA higher than those at site LT-1. Based on the timing of these increases, the proximity to the outdoor play area at the adjacent daycare to the measureinent locations, these Page 10 1-120 noise levels increases are judged to be due to sound produced by outdoor activities at the TLC daycare center. Calculations using the differences in average noise levels at the two long term measurement positions during 10-minute periods when outdoor play was judged to occur, average noise levels due to outdoor play at the TLC daycare center were found to range froin 58 to 66 dBA at the property line. The results of the short-term measurement, conducted over made a 10-minute period simultaneous with the measurements at the long-term positions, indicate that noise levels at the center of the proposed playground can be characterized by an average daytime L of between 61 and 63 dBA and a CNEL of 64 dBA. A noise measurement survey was also conducted adjacent to the outdoor activity of the existing facility located at 19220 Stevens Creek Boulevard during scheduled periods of outdoor play on February 28, 2011. Measurements were made in a parking lot island at a distance of 50 feet from the edge of the play area. Outdoor recess is scheduled between 4:00 and 4:10 pm and 5:00 and 5:10 pm daily at the current facility. Significant sound from outdoor play activities occurred between 4:00 pm and 4:13 pm and again between 4:59 and 5:12pm. The purpose for these measurements was to establish the noise level is generated during outdoor play so that the potential effects could be assessed at the proposed site. The results of these measurements, including the maximum instantaneous sound level (L energy equivalent noise level (L sound levels and the sound levels exceeded 1, 10, 50, and 90 percent of the time interval (Lol, L�o, Lso, L9o) are shown in Table 5. The average noise level (L resulting from the children's play at a distance of 50 feet was between 61 and 63 dBA with maximum noise levels ranging from 74 and 75 dBA measured at a distance of 50 feet from the perimeter of the play area. This is judged to be a representative number to evaluate the potential effects at the new site. Table 5: Sound levels due to Outdoor Activi at 50 feet from the existin Pla Area Time of outdoor activity (2/28/2011) Lmax LO1 L10 Leq L50 L90 Prunary Source of Noise 4:OOpm to 4:13pm 75 69 65 61 59 48 Children's voices and play 4:59pm to 5:12pm 74 70 66 63 61 55 Children's voices and play NOISE IMPACTS A1�ID MITIGATION MEASURES SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA The following criteria are used in this report to evaluate the significance of iloise impacts: 1. Consistency with Local Noise Standards. A significant noise impact would result if the operation of the project would expose future project or adjacent noise sensitive users to noise levels that exceed applicable General Plan or Municipal Code noise standards. 2. Substantial Permanent Noise Increase. A significant noise impact would result if the project would increase noise levels at noise sensitive receptors by 3 dBA CNEL or greater where exterior noise levels would exceed the normally acceptable noise level Page 11 1-121 standard. Where noise levels would remain at or below the normally acceptable noise level standard with the project, noise level increases of 5 dBA CNEL or greater would be considered significant. 3. Construction Noise. Construction noise impacts would be considered significant if hourly average noise levels received at noise sensitive residential land uses are 60 dBA L and at least 5 dBA L above the ambient noise environment when the duration of the noise-generating activities last for more than one year. Impact la: Consistency with Local Noise Standards at the proposed Facility. Noise Exposure at the project site does not exceed the General Plan noise and land use compatibility standards. This is a less than significant impact. The results of the noise measurement survey and indicate that the playground area proposed at the project site would be exposed to a CNEL of 64 dBA under current conditions. Based on a review of the future traffic noise contours in the General Plan and a consideration that, under most conditions, for a 25 % increase traffic volumes in needed to produce a 1 dBA increase in traffic, future noise haffic noise are expected to reinain within 1 dBA of current levels. Therefore, the outdoor use are of the proposed facility would be considered to be "normally acceptable" in for school usage under both current and future conditions. Mitigation Measures: None Needed Impact lb: Consistency with Local Noise Standards at Adjacent Uses. Noise produced by the operation of the project would not generate noise levels in excess of the noise limits established in the Municipal Code and General Plan. This is a less than significant impact. The proposed projects hours of operation (8:30am to 6:30 pm Monday to Friday) fall within daytime hours as defined by in the City's Municipal Code. The Municipal code noise limits respective daytime noise levels produced by residential and nonresidential uses to 60 and 65 dBA L during these hours. The General Plan limits daily average noise levels to 60 dBA CNEL at residential land uses. The above standards are used in this assessment as a measure of acceptability for community noise in Cupertino. Use of the project site by the Sunflower Learning Center would primarily involve indoor activities, which do not have the potential for produce any significant noise impact on the surrounding residential uses. The inost significant noise effect related to the use of the site by the Sunflower Learni�ig Center would be due to children pla� ing in the main outdoor playground areas proposed in a portion of the existing parking area iinmediately south of the existing office building and children playing in the small outdoor activity area adjacent to the building at the western edge of the site (see Figure 2). The main playground will have a play structure installed, which will include an elevated play areas and slide(s), while the small outdoor activity would have no elevated play areas. The daily schedules for the pre-school and after-school programs proposed for the new site would include outdoor activities in the playground areas between 11:00 to 11:30am, 4:00 to 4:lOpm, and 5:00 to 5:30pm. . Page 12 1-122 � ��. ,.,� � , � — �l ��jf�' — — � � t l j r � � �s�5.� ' ~ Q . �"- . � �J�' ) --' � �' f � — F.— J ..--. �� =i � � Y � , _ � , c _� �0--� ( � � __ �n:. E> �� f�� 1 r� <—�—► � - �'i � ;'L.__' p . � {��--► ��„ _�._ j � � i'`�� , �� , ' — � � ` ` . � f —. —47 i n-..__..__ � /'� �J � . R+'W ', Y � , I � � � � f i l9' 7 . '_ '� a n n u x u � - _ -- ,, I � `L � � �1 I ��"' 1 � � ' I � � � _ - • � . . _ n . r i e ; � r 1 � � 1 '+.!' '-� . �• : j 1 C % � Q '� ��.1f�40I' � I ., �. I �` f- � � I ' '+� • l f �Cti�'} �' �f eA i � < �, � t PCa�� Str�tc�ur�� , a' :� t ` '�_> � , '� . (��t � � waa � k-c : 4�� 3 L Z..—s � ..� t{) 9u6„p�nG . .L . � O �Y'� ' �. nor :� n�b . � . � i I � � x � I � ` - -. �� t'��_.� � i.c��'�J I � . � RI �j �QJ'► � _ � � ' I ':: n � * � � _ � , � � ,�., w a . �.� W u , , . . _ . . r , w �.�.e E�� I c�i _ .�•� � k a wnn.uo.m �_- J,-. �� nn.m-x �� N f - ..�`, �� . 2 1 �?� � �� a .� � s. ��, �„�„� � � ` T .� � :,� (f�.L.� . � = __ � �� , _ �. _ . "a� ." 4�h1inY L��• 1 _ _ _ � _ � . - . t v 4 I ! I � I . I � + I ', _— C_I ? � �^�� ~ � II ' � � . = " I �� / � .—. � � � � '. I � ! t, � . . (_.�� _. '_. ,. � / � � —� � p{,-p � ��—� ' �'�/ � _ � C _ — _ _ _ ._ _. _ — _ — � _ / � o cu�-nc �.� . , p e.x"a � . --- _ .... � �-- ' � � .0 }. '�t�in �'Ia��ground ��"` }• _ rERN AVJE � ti�� Figure 2: Project Site Plan A review of the project site plan shows that the edge of the main play area will be 63 feet from the southem property line and 57 feet from the western property lu1e. This review also shows tliat tlie smaller outdoor activity area will be as close as 4'/z feet from the western property line with the center of the activity area at approximately 20 feet from t1�e western property line. Both the playground and activity areas will be enclosed with a 6-foot high solid wood fence. Currently, 5' 8" higli masoiuy block walls are installed at both the western and southern property lines of the site. The project includes increasing the height of this wall from 5'8" to eight feet (8'-0") high with solid masonry materials. Based on noise levels measured during outdoor recess periods at the current facility (see Table 5, page 11), considering the rate at which sound attenuates with increased distance, and the sound attenuation provided by 8-foot high masonry block property line walls, calculations indicate tliat average (L sound levels due to children's voices and play at the smaller outdoor activity area at the residential side of the western project property line would range from 43 to 45 dBA when children are in the center of the activity area to between 46 to 48 dBA when children are at the western edge of the activity area. These calculations also show that inaximuin (L sound levels at the residential side of the western project property line due to children playing at the sinaller outdoor activity area s would range from 56 to 57 dBA when children are in the center of the activity area to ! between 59 to 60 dBA when children are at the western edge of the activity area. Using the same assumptions as above and the variable source height at the main playground calculations indicate that average (L sound levels due to ground level ' Noise levels measured during outdoor recess periods at the current facility (see Table 5, page 11), the rate at ��vhich sound attenuates with increased distance, and the sound attenuation provided by 8-foot high masonry block property line walls. Page 13 1-123 play at the main playground would range from 37 to 39 dBA at the residential side of the western property line and from 36 to 38 dBA at the residential side of the southern property line. The maximum (L sound levels due to ground level play at the main playground would also range from 50 to 51 dBA at the residential side of the western property line and from 49 to 50 dBA at the residential side of the southern property line. Based on the preceding discussion, all sound levels produced by outdoor activities at the proposed project will comply with the residential (60 dBA L 80 dBA L max ) municipal code standards at the adjacent residential uses. Mitigation Measures: None Needed Impact 2: Substantial Noise Increase. Noise resulting from the operation of the proposed project would not substantially increase noise levels at residential receptors at the site perimeter. This is a less than significant impact. In addition to noise from outdoor play, the project activities would also produce noise during the pick and drop off of students in the parking lot. Noise produced by parking lot use from the propos'ed use of the site is not expected to differ substantially from that the current parking lot usage and therefore is not judged to result in a potentially significant change in the noise environment at the surrounding residences. The existing noise environment at the adjacent residential uses exceeds the "normally acceptable" liinit of 60 dBA CNEL. The current noise environment also includes noise due to outdoor play in from the existing daycare adjacent to the site (see pages 9 to 11). Based on measurements and analysis completed for this study, noise from the use of the proposed project is not expected to increase noise levels at adjacent residences by 3 dBA CNEL or greater or significantly alter the type, or quality, of noise in the site vicinity. Mitigation Measures: None Needed Impact 3: Construction Noise. Noise levels generated by construction activities on the site would not be expected to adversely affect adjacent land uses provided standard construction noise restrictions are implemented at the site. This is a less than significant impact. Though improvements to the existing facility will largely involve changes to the building interior, site improvements and work on the exterior fa�ade of the building will involve periods of noise. The construction of the project would generate noise, and would temporarily increase noise levels at adjacent residential land uses. With the incorporation of the construction noise limitations found in Section 10.48.053 of the Municipal Code the noise irn�act resulting from project construction would be considered less than significant. Mitigation Measures: None Needed 2 The height of children's voices are modeled as up to 7 feet above ground level on the play structure, and between 3 to 4 feet above ground level in all other areas. Page 14 1-124 Attachment 7 CITY OF CUPERTINO RECOMMENDATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE Apri17, 2011 As provided by the Environmental Assessment Procedure, adopted Uy the City Council of the City of Cupertino on May 27, 1983, as amended, the following described project was reviewed by the Environmental Review Committee of the City of Cupertino on April 7, 2011. PROTECT DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION Application No.: U-2011-04, ASA-2011-05, EXC-2011-05 (EA-2011-04) Applicant: Karl Sllultz, Lili Zhu and Louis Tseng (Sunflower Learning Center) Location: 18900 Stevens Creek Blvd DISCRETIONARY ACTION REQUEST Use Permit to allow a child care facility with a pre-school and an after-school learning program to operate at an existing 8,862 square foot commercial office building. T11e application also includes a new outdoor play area in the rear parking lot; Architectural and Site approval for minor fa�ade, landscaping and parking lot modifications at an existing commercial office building; Exception to the heart of the City Specific Plan to allow non-commercial uses (a child care facility) to exceed 25% of the total building frontage along Stevens Creek Boulevard FINDINGS OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE The Environmental Review Committee recommends the granting of a Mitigated Negative Declaration finding that the project is consistent with the General Plan and is determined to be insignificant. �� -�� '�2 Aarti Shrivastava Director of Community Development g/erc�IZEC EA-2011-04 1-125 City of Cupertino , ' � 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3308 FAX (408) 777-3333 C U P E RT I N O Community Development Department INITIAL'STUDY - ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION CHECKLIST Staff Use Only EA File No. EA-2011-04 Case File No. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: ttachments A, B, C Project Title: Sunflower Learninq Center (U-2011-04, ASA-2011-05, EXC-2011-05) Project Location: 18900 Stevens Creek Boulevard, Cupertino, CA (APN #375-11-073) Project Description: Use Permit (U-2011-04) to allow a child care facilitv with a pre- school and an after-school learninq proqram to operate at an existinq 8 ,862 s.f. commercial office buildinq. The application also includes a new outdoor qlay are in the existinq rear qarkinq lot. Architectural and Site Approval (ASA-2011-05) for minor fa�ade, landscapinq and parKinq lot modifications for an existinq commercial office buildinq. Exception (EXC-2011-05) to the Heart of the City Specific Plan to allow non-commercial uses (a child care facilitv) to exceed 25% of the total buildinq frontaqe alonq Stevens Creek Boulevard. Environmental Setting: The proiect is located inside an existinq office buildinq. The previous uses at the site included doctor's offices and therapist offices. The site is located on the eastern edqe of the citv and surrounded bv the Citv of Santa Clara to the north and the Citv of San Jose to the east. It is located at the south-west intersection of Stern Ave and Stevens Creek Boulevard The subiect property has � hotel and office uses to the north, a qas station to the east sinqle family residential uses and a davcare to the west and other sinqle family residential uses to the south. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Site Area (ac.) - 0.568 ac Building Coverage - 17% Exist. Building — 8,862 s.f. Proposed Bldg. — 8,862 s.f. Zone — P G.P. Designation — Commercial/OfFice/Residential Assessor's Parcel No. - 375 — 11 - 073 If Residential, Units/Gross Acre - N/A , Total# Rental/Own Bdrms Total s.f. Price Unit Type #1 Unit Type #2 Unit Type #3 Unit Type #4 -1- 1-126 Applicable Special Area Plans: (Check) ❑ Monta Vista Design Guidelines ❑ S. De Anza Conceptual ❑ N. De Anza Conceptual ❑ S. Sara-Sunny Conceptual Q Heart of the City Special Plan ❑ Stevens Creek Bivd. SW & Landscape INITIAL STUDY SOURCE LIST Project Site is Within Cupertino Urban Service Area - YES Q NO ❑ A. CUPERTINO GENERAL PLAN SOURCES OUTSIDE AGENCY DOCUMENTS 1. Land Use Element 36. BAAQMD Survey of Contaminant Excesses 2. Public Safety Element 37. FEMA Flood Maps/SCVWD Flood Maps 3. Housing Element 38. USDA, "Soils of Santa Clara County" 4. Transportation Element 39. County Hazardous Waste Management Plan 5. Environmental Resources 40. County Heritage Resources Inventory 6. Appendix A- Hillside Development 41. Santa Clara Valley Water District Fuel Leak 7. Land Use Map Site 8. Noise Element Amendment 42. CaIEPA Hazardous Waste and Substances 9. City Ridgeline Policy Site 10. Constraint Maps 43. Santa Clara County Environmental Health B. CUPERTINO SOURCE DOCUMENTS OTHER SOURCES 11. Tree Preservation ordinance 778 44. Project Plan SeUApplication Materials 12. City Aerial Photography Maps 45. Field Reconnaissance 13. "Cupertino Chronicle" (California History 46. Experience w/project of similar Center, 1976) scope/characteristics 14. Geological Report (site specific) 47. ABAG Projection Series 15. Parking Ordinance 1277 16. Zoning Map 17. Zoning Code/Specific Plan Documents 18. City Noise Ordinance C. CITY AGENCIES Site 19. Community Development Dept. List 20. Public Works Dept. 21. Parks & Recreation Department 22. Cupertino Water Utility OUTSIDE AGENCIES 23. County Planning Department 24. Adjacent Cities' Planning Departments D. OUTSIDE AGENCIES (Continued) ;�� 25. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District � 26. County Parks and Recreation Department 27. Cupertino Sanitary District 28. Fremont Union High School District 29. Cupertino Union School District 30. Pacific Gas and Electric 31. Santa Clara County Fire Department 32. County Sheriff 33. CALTRANS 34. County Transportation Agency 35. Santa Clara Valley Water District -2- 1-127 � 1NSTRUCTIONS A. Compiete ail information requested on the Initial Study Cover page. LEAVE BLANK SPACES ONLY WHEN A SPECIFIC ITEM IS NOT APPLICABLE. B. Consult the Initial Study Source List; use the materials listed therein to complete, the checklist information in Categories A through O. C. You are encouraged to cite other relevant sources; if such sources are used, job in their title(s) in the "Source" column next to the question to which they relate. D. If you check any of the "YES" response to any questions, you must attach a sheet explaining the potential impact and suggest mitigation if needed. E. When explaining any yes response, labei your answer clearly (Example "N - 3 Historical") Please try to respond concisely, and place as many explanatory responses as possible on each page. F. Upon completing the checklist, sign and date the Preparer's Affidavit. G. Please attach the following materials before submitting the Initial Study to the City. ✓Project Plan Set of Legislative Document ✓Location map with site clearly marked (when applicable) EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: ; , i � _ ; i i �� I C= � O == i j j ��, � �� p�+ cv �.�. I r ;ISSUES: � ! +��c�c� H��'•` ��c�v c�a ' c:�-a� y =��' ~ :�a Za ; [and Supporting Information Sources] i � c v� � �3 _ °�) N = � � ' ; p � �; � � p � �_ - � � aN � J N � _� J� ' , , � ; I , — ' , � � ; '; �_ _ __� _._._.._—_._..._;—_-------:_ __,_.T.�.��___ _---__...__.__ ._._._..----._ ..............._... I I. AESTHETICS -- Would the project: � I I i _ ._._. _.. ._.._..... _ ._ .. _........__... .. .._.. ... . _ :................... .. _. . _ ......... .. i .._..... _.... __ , ._.. __.._ i a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a I ❑ i ❑ I ❑ � Q ; scenic vista? [5,9,24,41,44] i � I :......................--....._..............__........_......._..._...._._......... ......... .. .. .._......... . _......._ _.. . . :._....... . . ........ ;. . .. .. ........_.... .. .._........... _ .. _ , , ; b) Substantially damage scenic resources, � ❑ � ❑ � 0 ' �� including, but not limited to, trees, rock I j ! outcroppings, and historic buildings within a I I ' � state scenic highway? [5,9,11,,24,34,41,44] � � _ I __ ' ' I , � c) Substantially degrade the existing visual � ❑ � ❑ ❑ C�1 ' � character or quality of the site and its � � surroundings? [1,17,19,44] I i --; ; — �! d) Create a new source of substantial light or i ❑ � ❑ � ❑ I Q ' � glare, which would adversely affect day or ; '; ; ; nighttime views in the area? [1,16,44] � j ( I ---------------- - __-------_ ____ ______ ____ ___. _____ �___ __._------ _ � ____ __ _ . ___ _ -3- 1-128 _.--.._.._..�---- - - ----..._.._..-- --- -.._.__. , . __ _ _ _ _.. __ _ ; _. I .—. __ _----- i ,_ � i � � � c i ; � , , � ; � � �i � 3 0 ,� � � U i u ' �' ! � ;F Q; 1- � � p F�.. � Q ! p Q , i I � � �� O � � � i Z � ! � -! � ISSUES: � a in j �� n I ';, [and Supporting Information Sources] i I `" I � _. .... .... _ ... .. _....._; . _._.... _......... _.. _ �. _ .............._......_.........._.._....._... ._......---......_._ .. _. _....._._... .... .. . ' ......... .. ... I ......_. _ I , ; ; :: � II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: In determining ; ! ; whether impacts to agricultural resources are ; ' ' ; significant environmental effects, lead agencies � 1 ! � may refer to the California Agricultural Land ; � i � � i Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) i ' � ; , i ! ; prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation i � � � ; as an optional model to use in assessing impacts ; � � j ; on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: ; ! i � :_-_______.�_ _._____---._..__._ ____________.____._ _._._.._.___.___ __.._..________.__...___._...,....___.___..___._—.....__. �__..._._. __ ..._.._ .._.! _..___ __..._. _ _. _. . ; ; ; � ; a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or ; ❑ ❑ I ❑ � � + i ! Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), ' � as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the i ! i Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of i i i j � the California Resources Agency, to non- ; � � ' i agricultural use? [5,7,39] � � � j �_.._._._ T____._ T___.__.__.____.�_.._.__;.______---.---.___s __ ; � ; i b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural i ❑ � ❑ � Q � use, or a Williamson Act contract? [5,7,23] i ; ', . � ---__..._._.._.____._._,_._.__.�_...._..._... __....: ;�� __.�___._.. ___.—_______.-,-.---_._____._._,..---.__________._._____�. � c) Involve other changes in the existing ❑ � ❑ ❑ � C�1 �; � environment which, due to their location or i ! i nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, � ; to non-agricultural use? [5,7,39] i � , ; i I ; !_.. _.. __.. . ._ ._.. _... _ ._ __ __ . i_ __ _ _ __ _.__ _ ___ _ _ . Items A-C: The project site is not located in an area identified as prime farmland, nor is the site being used for or zoned for agricultural use. Therefore, the proposed project will not result in a significant impact on the City's or Region's agricultural resources. „ -4- 1-129 _...._ _.._._._.... _ . _ _.._.. __.. . ___. _ _ _ ----_. _------- -..._...—___--- -......._ _...-- ; i ' ; � ; � � c I ' ; �. +� j � ' � o I � +� ' �o � v: � � � �o ; t � � o � I j +, u�; � c� � � C;�- Q cv p C ' F— � a Z �. ''� � � � �` � _ � 0 � � � � i � ISSUES: a � '' � � � ' J N � ; [and Supporting Information SourcesJ `" � _ . . . ....... . ..... ..... ......_. _.. .......... .. _ ... .. _ . _..... ............ .. ..... .. .._ , ... .. _.... . ; ._. _. _... _... ... _... ...._ _ .. ; .... ... _._.... _ . . _ .; ; � ; III. AIR QUALITY - Where available, the i i ! � i ' significance criteria established by the applicable ; j i air quality management or air pollution control ; ; ; � � district ma be relied u on to make the followin � � ' Y p g i , ; determinations. Would the project: i ; � '' , ; , ; � � � ; �_ — ; ; ' ; 'i � ; a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of � ❑ ; ❑ i � I C�1 ', i � � � ; the applicable air quality plan? [5,37,42,44] � ; j ; ; , � � _______ ___.__ ._ � b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute ; ❑ � ❑ ; Q ❑ � ; substantially to an existing or projected air ; � ! ; quality vi [5,37,42,44] i i i I, � � ;-- ; - --- � c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net � ❑ ❑ ; ❑ Q ' ; increase of any criteria pollutant for which the � ; ; '� i project region is non-attainment under an � I i � ! applicable federal or state ambient air quality I ' ; ; standard (including releasing emissions which i i , � ; exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone � ; ; : ; , i precursors)? [4,37,44] � � ; d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial ; � '� � �� Q � � � pollutant concentrations? [4,37,44] � � � _� ' ' ❑ �~ ❑� ❑ �� Q �� ; e) Create objectionable odors affecting a i j � ; ; ; ; substantial number of people? [4,37 � ; ; �_ i.. _ .._. ._ .. _... '. _ _. � _______._�,.... -..___._..._.___......�.,.-._�_._._..._...^.._ ... _. �. _._ ._. _. _. _ . _..^r.,... _.._�.__. __..._...._._�....._._..}��._....._.._._.___._..._.._.. ..._.._..__..__._.._....__.__% ; f) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either ❑ � ❑ i Q ❑ � directly or indirectly, that may have a significant j ; i ' ; impact on the environment? � _._� ........ ........_...._. ........._...............__......_!........_..........._.. _. ._ _. .........._........._.._ _ ..'� ....................----...._.__._...._....._._...............__............................_._..................................._....__............._._......._._................__....;..._..........._............. ❑ ' ; g) Conflict with any applicable plan, policy or � ❑ � i ❑ Q I , i � , I regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose i i. I ' i of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? __�_ _.____ �__ _-_._ _______�-_-_-- _--____ �' Item B: Air Quality Impacts Temporary air quality impacts may result from demolition of the existing structure(s), excavation of soil, and other construction activities on the subject site. Implementation of the mitigation measures listed below will reduce the temporary construction impacts to a less than significant level. MITIGATION MEASURES: The following construction practices shall be implemented during all phases of construction for the proposed project to prevent visible dust emissions from leaving the site: -5- 1-130 • Water all active construction areas at least twice daily and more often during windy periods to prevent visible dust from leaving the site; active areas adjacent to windy periods; active areas adjacent to existing land uses shall be kept damp at all times, or shall be treated with non-toxic stabilizers or dust palliatives. • Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials or require all trucks to maintain at least 2 feet of freeboard; • Sweep daily (or more often if necessary) to prevent visible dust from leaving the site (preferably with water sweepers) all paved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas at construction sites; water sweepers shall vacuum up excess water to avoid runoff-related impacts to water quality; and • Sweep streets daily, or more often if necessary (preferably with water sweepers) if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent public streets. • The applicant shall incorporate the City's construction best management practices into the building permit plan set. Item F: Greenhouse Gas Emissions All facilities directly or indirectly generate greenhouse gas emissions; however this project is not anticipated to generate significant emissions that could adversely impact the environment. -.---------_ _:..__ _.___. i _ _. _ _. _ _ .. _ _ __ _ --------------------- ------- ------------ . � �-- � , ; � j i � � I i � , � � +� ' c � o � � *' i � c,,; ro 3 0+r ; ��. I �..� � � v �� s �-+ L � t v �, v� j I ++ fC; � C � �, fC I p f0 � i ��. Q fC � �- OA �- Z Q ' � � O � �i � � � � ( � � � � � � ISSUES: � a in J = � ° u � °�' "' ', � I °o c ; [and Supporting Information Sources] ; ; `" ��^ � i � I i j IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES — Would the i � i project: ( � ; � � 0 � ❑ ❑�_ Q.--..� ; a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either ; ; � ; ', , i � directly or through habitat modifications, on any I I ' ' ; species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or � � � j � special status species in local or regional plans, � � � I � policies, or regulations, or by the California ! � � � � � ; Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and ; � ! � ; Wildlife Se rvice? [5,10,27,44J i � ' ' , � ! � , � _�_.� __._. �_._ � _�� i b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any i �' ;� � ; ' � riparian habitat or other sensitive natural ' j � i i community identified in local or regional plans, � ! ; ! ' policies, regulations or by the California ; � � � ' ; � , � Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and � � � ', ! Wildlife Service? (5,10,27,44] ; � � _._ . ___._ : _..__ __. __ _.____ __.. � __.__.. :...._.._ _.._..._ _...._.... _. _........ _. -� 1-131 _... _...__...._..-----._... --....._....__.—...._.._..........._ ..................._...__._......- - -- -- _ _ ... .._.....------------- r _.__..__..._.....- --- - ---- - - - ; , � I j � = i i ! i � � ! ; � i A� i C = 0 ' _�'' ! _ +�; c� 3 0 +� ` � � �• � +� � ; ia ta u : s++ to i co � � ; � �� Q� �� p i H;�. Q � Z Q ' }�i � G! � � � a � H � � � G i O OA � � � O G1 N � ! d N ' J = v � � i ! ISSUES: � � � � _ � �. [and Supporting Information SourcesJ � `" � ; � . ......- -..... .. ..._....._ .......... .......... .._..................... . ... ._.... ........ _ _.. _._.__.. _ __.._.. .. .._ ... _.._...._ __.... __..__.. ' ( ; : IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES – Would the ; � ' � i ! project: � � � i _.... _ . ..__.._... _._ _... .. _..... __..__._ _......_. _.... . _ _ ... ___. ❑ _ _C� ' � ; _❑ ' � ; c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally ; , � � ; protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of ; ; � ; ; the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited ; � ; f to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through � ; ' ! direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, � ; i ' ; , , : ; or other means? [20,36,44] i ; ' _ ..........................._..... _............._.....................................,...........__..__..._...__..._: ;. ........_ ..............._..._..........._..._..._...._...._........................._............._..__............................._......._..........._........._........._........__...._........... ....._.�....._..............�._...._....._._...................................❑ ❑ � ; d) Interfere substantially with the movement of � ' � Q � � � ! any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife ! ( ! ; species or with established native resident or i ; ' ; migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of ; j ' native wildlife nursery sites? [5,10,12,21,26] ; j i i _ .......... . . ._. _............ . .. ............._.. ._. . ' _ ..... ..... ❑ .. . . ❑ .. ....... � . .. ._..... ❑ . _ .... __._ 1. Q . , e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances � � � � i � protecting biological resources, such as a tree i � � ; i � j preservation policy or ordinance? [11,12,41] ; i � � __ _.. ... ......_ . ... .. . _.._........... . _.❑...... . �........... I ........ �_ ......... __.._ ' f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted ; ; ' ; Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community j ; , � Conservation Plan, or other approved local, ; i ; � ' � regional, or state habitat conservation plan? � � � � [5,10,26,27] I � � ; , _...._..._ . ............ .. ... ._. .. _ . _.. _ _...__... ,_ _ _. _ .. _.... _..._... __.... .. _...__ . Item A, B and D: Biological Resources No rare, threatened, endangered or special status species of flora or fauna are known to inhabit the site. Item C: Wetlands No federally protected wetlands are present on the site. v� Item E: Tree Preservation Policy No protected trees are being proposed for removal. The applicant is proposing to plant additional trees along the frontage in order to meet the requirements of the Heart of the City Specific Plan. Item F: Habitat Conservation Plan etc The subject site is not part of any Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan or other approved local, regional or state habitat conservation plan. -7- 1-132 __----_ ------- ------- _.._......---- ----------._ _ _ . _ __ _ __ _ � r ' , ; i ,' " � = I I ' ; ' c��o c��v +,! � 3 �� a I �� u I u � i � u �: �" _ � L � V �O , Q �C �'. C;+= o: N ro � O ;� Q Z Q � � ��; �� +, Q- y �� ISSUES: ; a �' J a�o � c J �' � ; [and Supporting Information Sources] ' ; "' — ' _...... . _.._._......_ . ._ ..._ ............. . ....._....... _ .._ .. ; _ ' _.. . __.. .... __ _..... . _ __... . � j . V. CULTURAL RESOURCES— Would the project ! , � � , __ ........ .. ............... .. . .......... _... ,..... _ ❑.... .. ___ 1... _. ... � _...__.. i � ;� a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the ' ; � ; significance of a historical resource as defined in ; � ; , i §15064.5? [5,13,41] ' � ' � i ---..... .. _......... _ _ , o _ o ___. _ ❑ _ __ � _ b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the ' � � � ', ' ; i : � ; significance of an archaeological resource � ! pursuant to §15064.5? [5,13,41] � ; I i ;_... . _ .. _ .......... ......................... ; o . a . _ � � , � ; c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique ; ; � ; paleontological resource or site or unique � I � ; geologic feature? [5,13 � i _._. ; �.. _ .. . �.. . . .__. i ❑ i __� , ; ..__..._ . ............ . ......_............. ... ....... .. . .. ... . _..: . . ... ... _ _. .. . ; d) Disturb any human remains, including those � i ! ; interred outside of formal cemeteries? [1,5] ' ' ' , , � 1 _____ 1 _... . _ ___ _._ _ __ ._ __ _ Historic/Archeological According to the City's Archaeological Sensitivity Map, the project site has a low potential for the discovery of archaeological resources and is not considered archaeologically sensitive. In addition, this site is not listed on the City's Historic Resources inventory,The project is not anticipated to impact archaeological or historic resources. However, in the event any resources are found during construction, their disturbance would be a significant impact. _.._.._...____._—_._ .._._ _.. _.. . .. -.- --_._..... ! i I ' ; � c ; � ' ' � � *'� `° 3 0 � � � � � I u ' I , = y=. Q, y u � Q i y 4� �, ( Z Q '�, i � � �: � .''" �= O � ha � i � ' � �$$VE$: o ' a � n i �� , � N ` j [and Supporting Information Sources] � `" ( 1 __ � y _i _�___' I-.-._______ .- �. f t i � i ; VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS — Would the project: � ; i ', ; - ----� _ _�- _____ ; �. __ . _ . i a) Expose people or structures to potential j i j � substantial adverse effects, including the risk of � � i '. ; loss, injury, or death involving: ' � � ; � _._ i _ ❑ __ � � - ----_� -___ i ___. � _ ____ i i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as ; � � � ! delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo � � � I ; Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State ; i ', ' Geologist for the area or based on other ! � � , ' i substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to ; ' � � : � __ __. _ _ . _ __ _ __ __ , . . _.. _.. __ . . _. __ _.._ . _ ..__. __ _ -8- 1-133 _.__... _.._.. _.. . __._ __ __ ___._ ___. __ . _ _.._ t _ __ , , __ ++ C j I i �' ++ j C' C O i ++ � ++i fC � O ++ � � _ ! ': f9 f0 V� L �+ � (p + � � i � , ' C'� p, F ' f�0 � p ; E' y:. � v� b0 ' � Z , O pp �� J � �+ O i � pA � � � ISSUES: � a N � � N � oc c i N ' ; [and Supporting Information Sources] ; ( j .... ...... ... ........ .... .. .. .. .. . . .... _ � � _........ ... _.... . _ __._ ; _. , ... ...... __ , � VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS - Would the project: ' � ' ..._.........._........_ .............. ..... . _ .. .. .................. _ ....... � _._.... .. .. .... _._. � _...__. .. ...._. I � Division of Mines and Geology Special ' � � ,. ' � , Publication 42. [2,14,44] � � ; I ! ._ ___. ___ � ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? [2,5,10,44) � � i � � � � Q �._.___ _ _�____._._.______......__...._.__.__..---------.._.___.._�._...-.---------_.:_________ � . _--- ...____�..__..._._..._.�..__._ �......_.......; ; � p I ; iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including � ; liquefaction? [2,5,10,39,44] � ! � ��_.__^_.._._..__..___.—.._—___.____._...._._._._____._._._.__.._.--.___,_..___________.--_:--_T.. _�. ____ _ .. � __._ _ ' ; ❑ � O __ __ �__.. .._ �._ _ _........ : ; iv) Landslides? [2,5,10,39,44] � ' � I � ; , � � _.._....._...._._...__....._. __......._._....__...__.___ .._......: � .._._...--....._.__..._...-�-----.___--_----..._. ; b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of � � � � j � i Q , � ; topsoil? [2,5,10,44] � ! � � ' � � � � ! �_._____�.______.__..___.__._.______..____-._�._..__._..._._._.---. !_....__._,_�..__... _.. , _..__---_..___._..._.._ _...._... .__..._ .____.: ; c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is � � �� j � i Q � unstable, or that would become unstable as a ; i � i , � result of the project, and potentially result in on- ; � ; � ; or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, i i � ; subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? [2,5,10,39] � � i ' ;_____ _—..�_________.._...___..._____._...__._____..._______._...._,_.____-�_--.._.._...'.....___._.._� __._.._____._ ___ f. __._._ __..__ i d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in ! ; � � i Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code ' ! ! � i �(1997), creating substantial risks to life or ; � ; � � ; property? [2,5,10] ' � I , -- --____._.___.___.____.___---..._..T_._.__.._____...;_.._.___._..._..----..._.___�.__.._.._._._____..___._____._ ,...._. .__ _._._ , '_ _....____..._ .............__ _.. _ � e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting ; � � � � r Q ; the use of septic tanks or alternative waste ; I i water disposal systems where sewers are not � i � i available for the disposal of waste water? j ; i ; ; [6,9,36,39] � ; ; � 1 Items A-E: `' The project site is located on the Valley floor and as such, there are no seismic or geological hazards that °� need to be mitigated. The project is serviced by a sanitary sewer hookup and therefore, need not rely on septic systems for water disposal. -9- 1-134 _... __.._._.__._.....--�-�--------- --- ---......_..___ ____.......---.._...._......._...._,......_.... ._....._........� .. _. ..-----�...__ _. .. i ' � i ; i � i , , t ; � � c � � �' c ' � 3 � ° = c I i i ro co + 'i �++ ° r�o to t�, s +� s � c�i , ; c;F ai F" c � o F' ;F Q o Q. ; i a; � �� ' Q � � � � Z � ISSUES: i a 'v� J � � � i �' 'v� ! I ; [and Supporting Information Sources] `" ! � _. . ... ... .. ; ... , , _.... _.._. . _ . ...... _ .. _. . __...._ . ... ._ ................................... ... .. . . , .... . .. , , ' VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS — � � � Would the project: � � _.. _ . .. _ _ . _ __ _ _ _ _ _. .. _. _ .__. _ , _ _ ❑ CJJ ; ❑ � a) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in � � ' ; � ! Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code ! � ! �(1997), creating substantial risks to life or ' � � , property? (2,5,10] ' I ' _ .. . ........ ...... ........ _.._.... ._._.........;_.. _..... .. . . .._. ....._..._ . ...._.. . _. t _.._..._.... ; . Q !, b) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting ; � � �; � � ; the use of septic tanks or alternative waste � ' . , ', ; water disposal systems where sewers are not � � ' available for the disposal of waste water? ; ; i I [6,9,36,39] ; � ' ' __.._............_....._........... . _ . .. ...... ._..._ ........................ .... . . . . ... ......... .. ......._....... . ,..... _ .. . _. .._ . _.. _. __._ � c) Create a significant hazard to the public or the ; � � � � Q � environment through the routine transport, use, ; � , ; or disposal of hazardous materials? � � � ', ; I � , [32,40,42,43,44] j ; ; ;. _....._..........._............_........ _.._ ........__........__.....__ ................................... ..._......... .. ........ .... _, _..... ... ❑ . .. ; ❑ .........._........ .' .. . ... ......_� ...... . . . i � � d) Create a significant hazard to the public or the ' ; ! ; environment through reasonably foreseeable � i ; upset and accident conditions involving the � � ; � ; release of hazardous materials into the ' ; � ; ' ; ; : ; environment? [32,40,42,43,44] ; � ; _ ......._..._...... ...............:......... ... ................ ..... ..... .. ....... . _.. .._ _. ...... _. . _............. .. _.. . . ._.._._ O ❑ i ❑ Q e) Emit hazardous emissions or handle , � � hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, � � ':. substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of ; i � ' � � � I ; an existing or proposed school? [2,29,30,40,44] ; � ; i _.. . _.......... . . _ ......... .... .. _... . ... .. . i..... ❑ .._ _ _ .. ❑ ... ... . ._ 0 ....... _ � . _ _ 0 f) Be located on a site which is included on a list i � � ' � of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant ; � ' ; to Government Code S2ction 65962.5 and, as a � ! ' ' result, would it create a significant hazard to the � j ; public or the environment? [2,42,40,43] i i i ' , ........ _._....._ ........ . . _... _ _ . _ ._... ,..... . ❑ .. __.. . . ❑ -... .. ._.. _... __ ❑ ._... ..._ Q _.. _._ I_ � i : g) For a project located within an airport land � ; I � use plan or, where such a plan has not been ; ; � � adopted, within two miles of a public airport or i i i � public use airport, would the project result in a � � j ', ; safety hazard for people residing or working in i ' , ; , � j the project area? [ l �. _ � i i __ ;..... _ _....._..._ . _ _._... . ___._ __ _._ . . ___ � -10- 1-135 i ._---- --- ----_ ._. ---- - - - - - ___ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ � � � _ � i � � = r ! ; �' � +, ; � • 3 0 ° I c = ' , ; +' � �, H = � `' i � � � � o � �� Q ro � O �. p, ' a ', � *' � �� a�i :� �= p i y � � ( Z � ' ISSUES: � a in -' � � _ -' in ; ' 'i ; _ ; [and Supporting Information Sources] , _ ............................ .__ ._...... ......_... ... .. .. .................... ........................... ...... . . ...._.. ...N...... ... . . . ... _ _..... _ � I (. ' VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS - ' I ' ! Would the project: � � j ' ; _..._ ............... ... .. .. . ... . _ ._ _._ . .... ; _ __ __. _ i . ' h) For a project within the vicinity of a private ; � ; � � � � � ' � airstrip, would the project resuit in a safety � ; I � i hazard for people residing or working in the j � ' i ; ; ; ; project area? [ J j ; � ; ... . . _..._ .... ..... .... ......... .......... ..... ..... . .. ... . . . ,....... .. ❑. .. __.. .. . ❑ . .. �......... ... ❑. . __.. _.. Q ; i) Impair implementation of or physically � � I interfere with an adopted emergency response � ' ' ' � i � plan or emergency evacuation plan? [2,32,33,44] � � i ; _... _ .. ... ..... .... .. ................ . ... . _... _ _ _.. . _ .._... _. _ . ___ _ _ . . Q ; j) Expose people or structures to a significant nsk � � � ; � i of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, ' � � ; ; ; i including where wildlands are adjacent to ; ; ' ; urbanized areas or where residences are � i , ' intermixed with wildlands?[1,2,44] ' ' ; , � - _ _ _. . __ .. Item B: Soils The applicant will be required to submit a soils report to the satisfaction of the Building Division. If the site is found to have expansive soils, the appropriate actions will be taken by the soils engineer and Building Division to ensure that substantial risks to life and property are minimized. Item C, D, E, F: Hazardous Materials The project is not currently included on the State DTSC's Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List (Cortese List) or other federal, state or local databases. There is no historical information that indicates the location or use of hazardous materials at the subject site. The report concludes that subsurface investigation of the property is not warranted. Item J: Wildland Fires The site is not located in the state's Wildland-Urban Interface Fire Area. 4� -11- 1-136 ___. __ _... ___ _ _. _ . .. _..._ _._ _. . __ I i � ' � � ' � c I � � +� i c ' = o � +� ' ' � � �o � v� � 3 � � � � � � � I � C _ �; ~ r�o � p F 4 O. � � � ' � � y � �; � � +, a I N � � ; Z � ; ISSUES: ' a in ! �� a' in ' � o,o c ; I I [and Supporting Information Sources] `" � � VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY -- i � ; ' Would the project: i _ ....... .............. ... . . . . ....... . . _ ._._... _.. _ _....._... ; _. __.. . __. __ _ __ .._. _ . __ _ _ . _ ; a) Violate any water quality standards or waste � � � ! � i Q ; discharge requirements? [20,36,37] � ; � _ ...... ..........._ .... ........._ ._. ... � . .... ............. ... . . __.... �_... . . _...... _._... _ _ b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or ; � ' � � � ; Q � ; i � ; interfere substantially with groundwater � ; � � � recharge such that there would be a net deficit � � � i ! ; in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local ; � `; ; groundwater table level (e.g., the production � � � ' ; rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a; � i ; level which would not support existing land uses ; i � � ; or planned uses for which permits have been ; � ; � i ! granted)? [20,36,42] ' � � ' � i I i , , �;�___� �� I ; c) Substantially alter the existing drainage ; � � � � ; Q ' � pattern of the site or area, including through the ; i I ; ; alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a� ; ' i ; manner which would result in substantial ' � � I ; erosion of siltation on- or off-site? [14, 20,36] � ' ! I i � _;____—_ _ __ _ �— ; d) Substantially alter the existing drainage �� ' � � � i ; pattern of the site or area, including through the � ; � � , ' alteration of the course of a stream or river, or ; ; i ' ; substantially increase the rate or amount of � ; ! � surface runoff in a manner which would result in i i � � flooding on- or off-site [20,36,38] � j � V __,- - ,: _ _ _�.� __._____________�.._ �._. _.: i � �� ;^ ❑ � ❑ � ; e) Create or contribute runoff water which ; ; � r ' � would exceed the capacity of existing or planned � i ! i stormwater drainage systems or provide � ' !_ ' ; substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? � I � , ; [20,36,42] ( � � i ! -- � �� ' f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? � � � � � � Q ', i ! [20,36,37] � � � ' � _. __ + ' Place housin within a 100- ear flood hazard � � � � � � Q ' � g) g Y � ; i area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard � � I � ; Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other � i I ; i flood hazard delineation map? [2,38] ' ' ' � ; ; ; � — -----;-- �— � ; — - � —, � ---- i-- � ; h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area _ ; , _ _ _ _ _ ; _ _ ._ _ _ -12- 1-137 _._.... _..._.. _ _ __. _ _ . � ; _ _.. , _ _ , ; i � � � c ` I � +� ; � • � o ! � � ' � � t�o �� s.� � t�o � �� u u ; v �,,, C � L. � t t� �p 0 � , � � a � � � Q , N � Q Z a i °�..' � �' v ;� ±• a � � � E � � ISSUES: ' a'� J �� = i J '�' ; ; N _ ; i[and Supporting Information Sources] � � � � ; ........... ......_..._ .. .. .._ ... .. ..... .. . __ ._. _...._ _....._ _. , VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY -- ' ' ' � !, Would the project: ; � , i i :............. . . .... . .. . ... .... ...__ . ..._ _.,_.. _. .__... . .:_._.. . __ _ _..._ _. _ . __ _ _ ! structures which would impede or redirect flood � ' i i flows? [2,38] ; � � ; ; _. ; i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk ; � i � � ' Q � ; of loss, injury or death involving flooding, ; ; i , ; including flooding as a result of the failure of a ' � levee or dam? [2,36,38] ' � ; � i � ' ; ❑ i ❑ -- �--....__�___ - ; j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? ; i [2,36,38] ' � ' � � ____ _._ Item A, B, F, E: Water Quality and Runoff — During and Post-Construction City, State, and Federal Regulations The discharge of stormwater from the City's municipal storm sewer system is regulated primarily under the federal Clean Water Act (CWA) and California's Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act. The San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) implements these regulations at the regional level. Under the CWA, the RWQCB has regulatory authority over actions in waters of the United States, through the issuance of water quality certifications. Under Section 401 of the CWA, permits are issued in combination with permits issued by the Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE), under Section 404 of the CWA. When the Water Board issues Section 401 certifications, it simultaneously issues general Water Discharge Requirements for the project, under the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act. Activities in areas that are outside of the jurisdiction of the ACOE (e.g., isolated wetlands, vernal pools, or stream banks above the ordinary high water mark) are regulated by the Water Board, under the authority of the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act. Activities that lie outside of ACOE jurisdiction may require the issuance of either individual or general waste discharge requirements (WDRs) from the Water Board. New construction in Cupertino is subject to the conditions of the City's National Pollutant Discharge `' Elimination System (NPDES) Permit, which was reissued by the RWQCB in February 2001. Additional ` water quality control measures were approved in October 2001 (revised in 2005), when the RWQCB adapted an amendment to the NPDES permit for Santa Clara County. This amendment, which is commonly referred to as "C3" requires all new and redevelopment projects that result in the addition or replacement of impervious surfaces totaling 10,000 sq. ft. or more to 1} include stormwater treatment measures; 2) ensure that the treatment measures be designed to treat an optimal volume or flow of stormwater runoff from the project site; and 3) ensure that stormwater treatment measures are properly installed, operated and maintained. A new NPDES construction permit was adopted by the RWQCB on September 2, 2009, and a new Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit was adopted on October 14, 2009. ` -13- 1-138 The City has developed several policies that implement Provision C.3 of the NPDES Permit, requiring new development and redevelopment projects to include specific construction and post-construction measures for improving the water quality of urban runoff. The City's Post-Construction Urban Runoff Policy established general guidelines and minimum Best Management Practices (BMPs) for specified land uses, and includes the requirement of regular maintenance to ensure their effectiveness. Implementation of these Policies will reduce potential water quality impacts to less than significant levels. New Construction The development of a play area on an existing parking lot will result in some decrease in the water impermeable surface and surface runoff. If the site involves the redevelopment of over 10,000 s.f. of project area, project drainage shall be provided to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department. The project site is served by onsite storm drainage facilities connected to the City's storm drainage system. The site drainage and storm drain construction will result in a less than significant environmental impact. Implementation of the following mitigation measures, consistent with NPDES Permit and City Policy requirements, will reduce potential construction impacts to surface water quality to less than significant levels: MITIGATION MEASURES: Prior to Construction • Project drainage shall be provided to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department. • Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit, if required by the Public Works Department, the applicant must provide details of specific Best Management Practices (BMPs), including, but not limited to, bioswales, disconnected downspouts that drain to landscape areas, direct roof runoff into rain barrels or cisterns for onsite irrigation reuse, pervious paving materials and native/drought-tolerant landscaping to reduce impervious surface areas, project areas should be dry-swept routinely and onsite litter should be picked-up and disposed of properly, onsite inlets and catch basins that area stenciled "No Dumping — Flows to Bay," etc., to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. • The project shall comply with Provision C.3 of NPDES Permit Number CAS612008, which provides enhanced performance standards for the management of stormwater of new development and redevelopment. • The project shall comply with applicable provisions of City Policies which establishes guidelines and minimum BMPs for all projects and provides for numerically-sized (or hydraulically-sized) TCMs for projects that create a�d/or replace 10,000 sq. ft. or more of impervious surface or are considered a"Land Use of Concern" and 2) Post-Construction Hydromodification Policy which requires the incorporation of ineasures to control hydromodification impacts resulting from new development and redevelopment projects where such hydromodification is likely to cause increased erosion, silt pollutant generation or other adverse impacts to local rivers and creeks. Construction Measures, if required • Prior to the commencement of any clearing, grading or excavation, the project shall comply with the State Water Resources Control Board's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Construction Activities Permit, to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works, as follows: -14- 1-139 1. The applicant shall develop, implement and maintain a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Pian (SWPPP) to control the discharge of stormwater pollutants inciuding sediments associated with construction activities; 2. The applicant shall file a Notice of Intent (N01) with the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). • The project shall incorporate Best Management Practices (BMPs) into the project to control the discharge of stormwater pollutants including sediments associated with construction activities. Examples of BMPs are contained in the publication Blueprint for a Clean 8ay. For additional information about the Erosion Control Plan, the NPDES Permit requirements or the documents mentioned above, please call the Department of Public Works. Item G, H, I, J: Flooding Based on the FEMA flood insurance maps for the City of Cupertino, the project site is not located within a 100-year floodplain and would therefore have no impact on 100-year flows. The project would not expose people to flood hazards associated with the 100-year flood. The site is not subject to seiche or tsunami. � � c ' �- +-+ � = o ' _ +r ; _+�: ro 3 0*' ' � u i v � �o U v s= � L L� a+ fC! � � ! � f4 p cC C:� Q' N fC pG � j �`.F_' Q. Z Q. ; i a.' � E' Q � �= � � � CO � i � ISSUES: a �' J n�o � c i J `� ' �j [and Supporting Information Sources] � "' ': � � � , , —_._., -_— ------- __ _.._ ; IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would the � ' � project: ' ' � ' � ; —_�___. _-- ; a) Physically divide an established community? � � � � �_—_ � � Q � j [7,12,22,41] i � � _ ___ ! b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, ! � ' � � � � �� ! � ; policy, or regulation of an agency with � ; � � jurisdiction over the project (including, but not � I , � � limited to the general plan, specific plan, local i i � � i coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted ; ' � for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an ' , � environmental effect? [1,7,8,16,17,18,44] ; ` i ', . ........ . ..... ..... _.._ _.. _.. _..._.. __ _ _ . ._ ....._ _: _ _ __. _ _.. .._. _. . __ Item A: land Use Projects that have the potential to physically divide an established community include new freeways and highways, major arterials streets, and railroad lines. The proposed project will not physically divide an established community, and the project is consistent with the site's General Plan Land Use designation. Item B: Conflict with land use plan, policies, specific plans or zoning ordinances The proposed project complies with development standards and policies required by the City's General Plan and the General Commercial (CG) Ordinance in order to avoid possible impacts to surrounding land uses. The proposed project also includes the request for an exception from the Heart of the City Specific Plan regulations to exceed 25% of the frontage of the building frontage to have non-commercial (chi�d care) uses. The subject site is located at the eastern fringes of the city and surrounded by other non- -15- � 1-140 commercial uses such as hotel and office. The potential for this space to be redeveloped as a commercial site is limited. Therefore, it is not anticipated that gran�ing an exception to allow the child care facility will have any significant impact on the surrounding land uses. _ _ __ __ _ _ , __ __ . '� i I � i � c i ' �' +' ; C = p � ++ , ' _ +�' �a 3 0 +� � � +.. + J i � � u, L+' �p ' rp v � v ' ++ V fa: � � � L � �„_., V f0 ' p fC , c;«_ n �� o ' ;+_ a� a ' +; ��' �� +., Q' i vi � E � Z E ISSUES: � � a 'v� � � � � � -� in � ' i[and Supporting Information Sources] ; ; j � !__._�_.__�__.___._____..___._—. ___._.._ � ; -.----__..._..__..__..__.._. _. ._ _ _ _ __ __ _ _. ....._ _...._. .___ . _.. . ----- -_ . _ _._._... _. ... __.._ __.... ; X. MINERAL RESOURCES -- Would the project: , � I , I _.._ .... ... ................_.......................... .... ... _.... .... ..._ _ _. ..._ ...... ... .. ... .. . ___. _ � I ; a) Result in the loss of availability of a known � � ; � , � � � : mineral resource that would be of value to the ` i ' ' region and the residents of the state? [5,10] ' ' _ ..... ... .. ...... .. _. .. .. . ,__ _.. __ � � , _ .. . . � ; b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally- � � � � � � i Q ; important mineral resource recovery site � ' � � j � delineated on a local general plan, specific plan ; � � ', ; or other land use plan? [5,10] � '; � � , ,._..._. ....._... . . _.. __.._...._.._ _. _.._ .. __ __.. _.._ ___.._ : .. __.__ :_ _...__ _ _._. _ _ .. .. ._.. __ � ___ ... Item A, B: Mineral Resources The project site is not known to be located in an area with mineral resources, and will therefore not result in a significant impact from the loss of availability of a known mineral resource. ___ _______ _ _ _ _ _ __ __ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ ___ ___ __ _ _- -___ __ _--- - - _ .- - -_ _ � _ _ _ i ; � � � '' i ' � � ; _ ' _ °- ; c � I ' j �+�' ro 3 0+� i �o �+� I +� � � � �' � � � � � � � � o � ' ' *' o�n �' a:�_ � o i �� E � Z E ISSUES: ; a 'v� ; -' � � _ � 'v� i ; [and Supporting Information Sources] ; � "' i ;_._._._..._____.___.._...._.._.._._.._.______..__._.....___......._.__ ................._....._..._._.........__.._.._.......................,........__..___...___....._........:._.._..............._____._....._.__.....__.........._ __......._..._....._..__.._.... __.._..._....__. _ .. _ i _ _... ; XI. NOISE -- Would the project result in: ' � � ' !..___.__._..__._.._.___._�____._..__._..----.--- __ �__......__..___...... _ _. . !... .... .._. __. .. _._.. __._......_...... __ _._._ 1 .____._. __.__ ... �; a) Exposure of persons to, or generation of, � � i � i Q , � ; noise levels in excess of standards established in ! ; j � the local general plan or noise ordinance, or ; i i � `' i applicable standards of other agencies? [8,18,44] ; ; '; , ; ...---__._____._._.�__.______.__..__...._.__..__.___.__....__.....__.___.._._..__._....._.....__.__..._.....r.._....__.. �..__.._._'._...__.._...____�__.._...__.___...-- -_----....� ..__..__ __..._.._ , r _i_ ; b) Exposure of persons to or generation of � ; I ' � excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne ' � i ', ; i � , noise levels? [8,18,44] � � ' ' i ! � _. ______._.---__.� � _ ❑ .— i � � �i c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient � i �� ! noise levels in the project vicinity above levels � ; j i ', existing without the project? [8,18] ; � , j .,__.... _...._._. ._. .............. ._...._.... _ _..._.. ..... __ _...__ ......._ .._ i._.. _ _..... . _.. _. . . _..____. 1 ._..__._ .._ . . . .... . _. -16- 1-141 _". .. ." _' __...._.._"_'____"______...._......_..........._....'__.....__._._...._..._.__.__"'__-.._.-._....._...._...__._ ................_.._....._...._.._.._......--__-_._...___...__...._._....._.. .._.__.... '___'___..._..__.._'_'__ _ i . � i � � I � � � : C � � � � � � ! ; c� �0 3 0 � c I i ' � u u ; s�+ L ; t ° u ; v � i c a; H' � ro o ( �"' ;«. c. � � a ' ; °�' � � y " ;� a N = � I Z � wo — a� :*_- p I � wo _ I ! ISSUES: ' a in '' �� j �'v� i � [and Supporting information Sources] � `" ................................._ .. . . . ..... . .... ... ..... _.... _.. ... .. .. . _..__._.... _ . .. : . ...... . .. ..._.. _ ...... . .... ... . ... .. . .... � � � � � � XI. NOISE -- Would the project result in: ; { ' --..._.._.......__ ............._........ ..... .......... ..... ._..._...... .. _.... .._...._ ....... ..... .. .. ;_ . _. . _.. __..._ _ _..... . i d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase � � � � Q i � ; in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity � ; , �' above levels existing without the project? � ' ' ! ; ; � i [$,18,44] � ' j � _ ... .. .... ... .... . __. ❑ .... _.._... _ _. ❑ . ... ... __.. _� .... .._... _ _.. . .. e) For a pro�ect located within an airport land , ; use plan or, where such a plan has not been ; ; ' ' ! adopted, within two miles of a public airport or � ' � , ; public use airport, would the project expose ! � ' ; ; people residing or working in the project area to i ; ; I excessive noise levels? [8,18,44] � ; _.. ...:. .. ...... . __.. _.... _ . � I_ ❑ ❑ � ❑ � Q i f) For a project within the vianity of a private � airstrip, would the project expose people � � j � � residing or working in the project area to ; ; ; i , , , � excessive noise levels? [8,18] ; � � ' _... _..._......._.._._ _ . __......_._ . ....._.. ....._ _.._ _ _.__. _.. _ . _ __. ........ _ _...... Item A: Exposure to Noise Levels in excess of Standards Noise at the proposed facility: The project has been reviewed by an independent Acoustical Engineering firm, Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc. The results of their noise measurement survey indicate that the playground area proposed at the project site would be exposed to a CNEL of 64 dBA under current conditions. Based on a review of the future traffic noise contours in the General Plan and a consideration that, under most conditions, a 25 % increase in traffic volumes is needed to produce a 1 dBA increase in traffic, future noise traffic noise are expected to remain within 1 dBA of current levels. Therefore, the outdoor use are of the proposed facility would be considered to be "normally acceptable" in for school usage under both current and future conditions. The proposed projects hours of operation (8:30am to 6:30 pm Monday to Friday) fall within daytime hours as defined�by in the City's Municipal Code. The Municipal code noise limits respective daytime noise levels produced by residential and nonresidential uses to 60 and 65 dBA Leq during these hours. The General Plan limits daily average noise levels to 60 dBA CNEL at residential land uses. The above standards are used in this assessment as a measure of acceptability for community noise in Cupertino. Noise at the adiacent properties: Use of the project site by the Sunflower Learning Center would primarily involve indoor activities, which do not have the potential for produce any significant noise impact on the surrounding residential uses. The most significant noise effect related to the use of the site by the Sunflower Learning Center would be due to children playing in the main outdoor playground areas proposed in a portion of the existing parking area immediately south of the existing office building and children playing in the small outdoor activity area adjacent to the building at the western edge of the site. The main playground will have a -17- 1-142 play structure installed, which will include an elevated play areas and slide(s), while the small outdoor activity would have no elevated play areas. The daily schedules for the pre-school and after-school programs proposed for the new site would include outdoor activities in the playground areas between 11:00 to 11:30am, 4:00 to 4:10pm, and 5:00 to 5:30pm. Two playgrounds are proposed one on the eastern side of the property and a much smaller one on the western side of the property. Both areas will be enclosed with a 6-foot high solid wood fence. Currently, 5'8" high masonry block walls are installed at both the western and southern property lines of the site. The project includes increasing the height of this wall from 5'8" to eight feet (8'-0") high with solid masonry materials. Based on noise levels measured during outdoor recess periods at the current facility, considering the rate at which sound attenuates with increased distance, and the sound attenuation provided by 8-foot high masonry block property line walls, calculations indicate that average (Leq) sound levels due to children's voices and play at the smaller outdoor activity area at the residential side of the western project property line would range from 43 to 45 dBA when children are in the center of the activity area to between 46 to 48 dBA when children are at the western edge of the activity area. These calculations also show that maximum (Lmax) sound levels at the residential side of the western project property line due to children playing at the smaller outdoor activity area would range from 56 to 57 dBA when children are in the center of the activity area to between 59 to 60 dBA when children are at the western edge of the activity area. Using the same assumptions, calculations indicate that average (Leq) sound levels due to ground level play at the main playground would range from 37 to 39 dBA at the residential side of the western property line and from 36 to 38 dBA at the residential side of the southern property line. The maximum (Lmaxj sound levels due to ground level play at the main playground would also range from 50 to 51 d6A at the residential side of the western property line and from 49 to 50 dBA at the residential side of the southern property line. Based on the preceding discussion, all sound levels produced by outdoor activities at the proposed project will comply with the residential (60 dBA Leq, 80 dBA Lmax) municipal code standards at the adjacent residential uses. Noise from operation of the proposed prolect: In addition to noise from outdoor play, the project activities would also produce noise during the pick and drop off of students in the parking lot. Noise produced by parking lot use from the proposed use of the site is not expected to differ substantially from that the current parking lot usage and therefore is not judged to result in a potentially significant change in the noise environment at the surrounding residences. The existing noise environment at the adjacent residential uses exceeds the "normally acceptable" limit of 60 dBA CNEL. The current noise environment also includes noise due to outdoor play in from the existing daycare adjacent to the site. Based on measurements and analysis completed for this study, noise from the use of the proposed project is not expected to increase noise levels at adjacent residences by 3 dBA CNEL or greater or significantly alter the type, or quality, of noise in the site vicinity. Item D: Temporary Noise Levels during Construction The Cupertino General Plan states that the City's acceptable exterior noise level is 55 DNL long term, and 65 DNL short-term. The General Plan recognizes that the noise levels may not be achievable near major roadways. Though improvements to the existing facility will largely involve changes to the building interior, site improvements and work on the exterior fa�ade of the building will involve periods of noise. The -18- 1-143 construction of the project would generate noise, and would temporarily increase noise levels at adjacent residential land uses. MITIGATION MEASURES: • Construction will be limited to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. Monday through Friday for any on- site or off-site work within 500 feet of any residential unit. Construction outside of these hours may be approved through a development permit based on a site-specific construction noise mitigation plan and a finding by the Community Development Director that the construction noise mitigation plan is adequate to prevent noise disturbance of affected residential uses. • Weekend construction hours, including staging of vehicles, equipment and construction materials, shall be limited between the hours of 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. Permitted work activities shall be conducted exclusively within the interior of enclosed building structures provided that such activities are inaudible to existing adjacent residential uses. The developer shall be responsible for educating all contractors and subcontractors of said construction restrictions. Rules and regulation pertaining to all construction activities and limitations identified in this permit, along with the name and telephone number of a developer appointed disturbance coordinator, shall be posted in a prominent location at the entrance to the job site. The Community Development Director may rescind provisions to allow extended hours of construction activities on weekends upon written notice to the developer. • The contractor shall use "new technology" power construction equipment with state-of-the-art noise shielding and muffling devices. All internal combustion engines used on the project site shall be equipped with adequate mufflers and shall be in good mechanical condition to minimize noise created by faulty or poor maintained engines or other components. • No individual device may produce a noise level more than eighty-seven dBA at a distance of 25 feet (7.5 meters) or generate noise level on any nearby property that exceeds eighty dBA. • Locate stationary noise generating equipment as far as possible from sensitive receptors. Staging areas shall be located a minimum of 200 feet from noise sensitive receptors, such as residential uses. • The developer will implement a Construction Management Plan approved by the Community Development Director to minimize impacts on the surrounding sensitive land uses to the fullest extent possible. The Construction Management Plan would include the following measures to minimize impacts of construction upon adjacent land uses: a) Early and frequent notification and communication with the neighborhood of the construction activities. b) Prohibit unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines. c) Designate a"noise disturbance coordinator" who would be responsible for responding to any local complaints about construction noise. The disturbance coordinator would determine the cause of the noise complaints (e.g., beginning work too early, bad muffler, etc.) and institute reasonable measures warranted to correct the problem. A telephone number for the `� disturbance coordinator would be conspicuously posted at the construction site. d) Delineate the limits of development onsite. e) Discuss construction-staging methods. The construction of the parking area on the north side of Mercedes Road should be considered for use as a primary staging area. f) The plan shall demonstrate that emergency access along Mercedes Road shall not be impeded at any time. g) A garbage/debris container shall be placed on the site to store debris and the project site shall be cleared of debris at the end of every day during project construction. The container shall be emptied regularly such that no garbage is visible over the rim of the container. Only one portable toilet shall be permitted on the construction site. The portable toilet shall be allowed -19- 1-144 only during the period of project construction and shall be removed immediately after completion of construction. _...--------. _......- -- -._._ _...._.._ ............._... ..__ __ __ _ _ _._.. - --- _ , __ __ � ; � j ; , � � ' ,+�_+ c i ' � ++ _ = O ' � ++ ; C�,' � 3 O�+ � �_�., � r., �,, • i � V �J� t+� � L � L V U i U C G' F- � fC I �- � i � � � pD � i O. Q. �£ N u C. vf =� i z� � }� L {A O � � J � 0 � � � .. � ISSUES: a N �� ; J � � ! [and Supporting Information SourcesJ "' ; ; � XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING -- Would the ; � i � ; project: ; ' � I _ ........ . . ......_ ..... . ............... ... ._.. ._._._. .. ..... . ... .. . . ...... . .... . __ __ { ....... .. �... � .... . ..._ .. � _ . f � . a) Induce substantial population growth in an ; i f ; area, either directly (for example, by proposing ; � � � new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for i ' � i i example, through extension of roads or other � � infrastructure)? [3,16,47,44] i i _ ............................... _........_.. _...._. __... _.......... _.... . _. _ ........., ( _ b) Displace substantial numbers of existing � ' � { � i ' � housing, necessitating the construction of i ; ; ' � � � replacement housing elsewhere? [3,16,44] i ! ; ; ; � , ....__ . ............ ....... . ._... .. . .. ....... ... .. .. .. . . __...... ..... . ... _ ,....... ❑....... ❑ . .. . _ ..... _..__ ❑. _.. _ _� � ' i c) Displace substantial numbers of people, ; , � necessitating the construction of replacement i � i , i housing elsewhere? [3,16,44] ' � � ' _ ... _._ _. _ _ __ _ __ _ _' _ _ -_ :__ _ _ _. __ . . __.__._ __ _ __ _ _ . . _ _ _ , Item A, B, C: Population and Housing The proposed project would not induce substantial population growth because no residential development is being proposed. ,__.._ _. _ _..__ .._. _ __ _ _ __ . _ _ __ __ _ ; _..._.. , � � i � ; ; i � � i ! � �+� c � c o i �+� � i ! � � f9 f9 {�',�'; � +�+ � f0 ( � � U U i ++ u t�; F- �� L � v � O� � � C;= Qj y � p,p � ~:= Q. Z Q. i i +'' � �' y � �' � � OA � � i � � J ! ISSUES: ; a N— o v N i � � V J � i I h0 C ;[and Supporting Information Sources] j I � � Y '. �---.�_..._.___. _.. _.____.____.--.--_._._.._._.____.__ .____ .._.. _� _..__ _....._......._.... ..!.__ . ___.N._..__—..__ . ; i ; I ' XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES ; � I ! d� _—;—. _�. —� -- � ' a) Would the project result in substantial � � ' i adverse physical impacts associated with the � � i ; provision of new or physically altered j i � ; ' '; governmental facilities, need for new or ' ; i � ' physically altered governmental facilities, the ! i � I construction of which could cause significant � j i environmental impacts, in order to maintain ; ; ; , � acceptable service ratios, response times or � � I I ! ' I ; other performance objectives for any of the � ; � I � public services: ; � � !. _. _..._ __. _ �....._. _ _.._ ..__ ____ __ _....._ __ __ __ _ _ � __ _ __ -20- 1-145 _._._._..._—._. . ---....._..----- - _..----- -.... ._ _ _ ,._......_ __.._, _ _. _. _ ._ ____ _ __ _. , � � c � � � �• ++ I � ' = O � ++ i ' � i 3 � f0 f0 �j: t i+ � f0 � � U I U ' � '~ a � � V � �. Vf '� �C � Z � '. �,� � �i N � � L � In = G � � �, '�' ISSUES: ' a ° 'v� ; _' � � = I a' N ; ; [and Supporting Information Sources] `" ! _. _ .. . _... _. _.._... . .__ ..__ _ .. ... . ___ _...._...._._._._. ... . _. __. _ .._.. _ � � XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES � -- _._. _. ___ __._ _ _ _ ___.__ _ � ___ _. .. . _ _ -- .� ___ __ .._ _; _ _..... ��._. _ . _ I .__._. ._� _ i ._._.__.___..-Fire protection? [19,32,44) : ; _..._ ____......._.._. _..._ __..___._ __.___. ......._�._ ..._.. ____ _.._ _ . _. _� ..___.___...._. _._. _ _---. __ ... ... _._..�. _ _...._ _ _...�. _. _ _ ❑ ❑ ; ❑ I Q Police protection? [33,44] � , � _ _.... __..._ _..._..._....__ _. .___ . _...... _� ___. _�._. _ _.________....._..._ .�....______..._._._.. . . . ..._. _ . _.__.... . _ ._ _.._. 0 � 0 ❑ i ❑ ; ' Schools? [29,30,44] � ---- - � ; __._._._� .�__��_.___�---� __ Parks? [5,17,19,21,26,27,44] ' � i i ____-- _ _� . .. �_— � _ � ---; �-- � --- ; --�----�-- -�--�- � '� Other public facilities? [19,20,44] � � ' ; , ; , � __. _. _. . _..__. _.__ _ _ : _ ___ ____ . , _ _. _.._ _ Item A: Public Services The project site is located in an urbanized area of Cupertino, and is served by existing Fire, Sheriff, School, Park and other Public Facilities. No additional Fire or Police personnel or equipment are necessary to serve the proposed project. _._ i __ _ ........_ i _...__ �. _...._...._ _.._ __ ___._...._ ' � � c � , = 0 = � I ! � C,F,� f4 � O a,;,, � C� i +, i f0 fd {�i F L " C f�0 � � � � I O � � �, c� �� ,,, v j c;� o: � f° � O ;~ a I z°- ' o °-° �' v � �' o � � °° � I � ISSUES: a �' J a�o � c J �' � � � ! [and Supporting Information Sources] � "' � ' �____� ' .`_�—___. _^_ i_^ _- - ____ _ ._._ ; _} _, �------- : ; XIV. RECREATION -- ; 1 i �__.__T_____...._._.____._------....__---___ ____._ .._. _.__ __..... _._ ._..❑_. i .._..____ ❑ ..._.._._._' _�.__❑-_.__�.._ j_ _.._ ! a) Would the project increase the use of existing ; ' � ' ':. neighborhood and regional parks or other ' ; i � ', ' recreational facilities such that substantial ' � ' ! ' ; physical deterioration of the facility would occur ; ; ! ' ' or be accelerated? [5,17,19,21,26,27,44] ; j ; �.__.._____ _. __...____ .---.---.__.._.._. ... ._._.. ... __. _ _. ;_�.. _ � _--.._ _ _ _.. _.____. __ _. _ _ ,.._ _ � ❑ -_._ _. _ ---❑. , �� . � b) Does the project include recreational facilities ; � ; � ' or require the construction or expansion of ; ; ( i recreational facilities which might have an ; , ; � ! adverse physical effect on the environment? ; � ! I � [5,44J ; � i � i : _______ —.____._ _ __ _ ._. _ __ _ _ i_ _____.___ _L___ __.____-_________ __ �______ _____. _-- _'___._ .__ Item A, B: Recreation The proposed project would increase does not increase the number of residents. -21 - 1-146 __ ___...___...--- - - -- __........._._... .... ..... _ . ..._........-- - _..........._. _ . — ...--, _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ i �� -+ C � j . i � � j � � C � � � i ��. i i � � �. S � 0 � i � � V i V ��. C ',+�_- G ~ � � � ~ ;�' �- � C. ' OA 1 � � � � �, � � � Q. � N � I Z � ISSUES: a v� ; �� v� ' c ; [and Supporting Information Sources] "' _ .. .... ... .. ... . _..... ... _....__. . _ :_..._ _ ... _.... . , ._ .. .. _.. ._..._ _ ... ; __ . _. _ _ ; XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC -- Would the ' � project: � __._ ....... _..... _ _._.. __. _ __ _ _ ❑ _ . __ _ _ ❑ __ 0 ; a) Cause an increase in traffic which is ; ; ; substantial in relation to the existing traffic load ! ; i , � and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a i ; � ; ; ; substantial increase in either the number of ! � ' ' vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on ' ; ' ; ' i roads, or congestion at intersections)? ; ( � ' ; � [4, 20, 35,44] � ' � _. ........_. .. . . _ .. ....... . .. .... . :....._ ❑._. ____. ....._❑ ...... � . ..... .._� _ .__._... _� � b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a � � ' ; level of service standard established by the i i ' � : county congestion management agency for ` designated roads or highways? [4,20,44] ; ; _...... _._ .. ... __..._... 0 ...._ _..❑ _ _ � .. .._ ; Q c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, ; ; ! including either an increase in traffic levels or a ' � ', change in location that results in substantial ' ` : ; ; ': safety risks? [4,?] ' ' � , : � � � _ ...... .......... . . .... .......... ... .. _.... .. __ _..._ _.__ . _... _._ _... _ . � � ' ❑ ' ❑ � � d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design I ; ; ; , ' feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous i ; i ', ; intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm � ' + i ; equipment)? [20,35,44] ' i i ' _..._.�_ ........... .. ........_ ...... . q .. .... g . .... v � ..._ , _.. _ . �.__ ,_.... ._ � . ......... , � _ _ . . _. � � Q ' e Result in inade uate emer enc access. ' � ' � � ; [2,19,32,33,44] ; i ' _..... .. , .... _...._... _ . _.. _. _ _ .. .... .... . .. ... .......... .. .. _._._ _ _ __. , ; ; O ❑ Q I ❑ � f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? [17,4�1] ; , i ; _..._......_. ....... ... ........._.. .... ................. _.........._........_... ..... .. ..... ......... .. . .... . i ... . .. ... ... . , ... .... . .... .. ....._...._ . . ..._..... . _..__. _ Q _ i ❑ ❑ � ; g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or ; � ; ' ( ; programs supportin� alternative transportation i � �� ; ;(e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? [4,34] � � � _...._ . _...... _ _ _.. __._.... _..._ ;_.. _ ..__. .____. _.._ ... . . ...... .. . _ _.__. . Item A, B: Traffic The City contracted with Hexagon Transportation Consultants to determine the traffic impacts of the project. The proposed project is to allow a child care facility to serve 142 children (70 pre-school and 72 after-school). The project is expected to generate 238 net new trips (127 entering the site and 124 leaving the site). -22- ` 1-147 The results of the unsignalized intersection analysis show that the Stevens Creek Boulevard and Stern Avenue intersection would operate at LOS F during the PM peak hour under existing, existing plus project and cumulative conditions. The poor level of service during the PM peak hour is due mostly to the excessive vehicle delays that would occur for the northbound left-turn movement from Stern Avenue onto Stevens Creek Boulevard. During the PM peak commute periods, the opposing eastbound and westbound traffic volumes on Stevens Creek Boulevard would make it difficult for northbound vehicles to turn left onto westbound Stevens Creek Boulevard. Based on field observations, the left turn from Stern Avenue onto Stevens Creek Boulevard is difficult during the PM peak hour. To address the poor level of service for left turns from Stern Avenue, the City could consider restricting the northbound left-turns at Stevens Creek Boulevard or adding a traffic signal at this intersection. By restricting the northbound and southbound left-turn and through movements from Stern Avenue onto Stevens Creek Boulevard, the intersection of Stevens Creek Boulevard and Stern Avenue is expected to operate at LOS C with 18.4 seconds of delay under project conditions and LOS E with 41.6 seconds of delay under cumulative conditions. This is the delay associated with the westbound left-turns that would have to wait for gaps in the eastbound traffic flow on Stevens Creek Boulevard. The Traffic Consultant recommends implementing this alternative, as this alternative will result in acceptable levels of service without the necessity for signalization at this intersection. Item E: Emergency Access The Santa Clara County Fire Department has reviewed the application and did not find that the project will result in inadequate emergency access. Item F: Parking Capacity Adequacy of parking for the proposed project was analyzed based upon observations at the existing Sunflower Learning Center located at 19220 Stevens Creek Boulevard. At the current location, students are usually dropped off at the after-school tutoring center by vans and picked up by their parents. During pick-up time, parents were observed to park at the learning center and walk into the school to pick up the child or a staff inember was observed to walk the children to the car, while the parents waited inside their cars. Based on 15-minute interval observations, the largest number of cars parked was observed to be 11 vehicles for an enrollment of 130 students. With the project expected to increase the enrollment to 142 students, the maximum number of parked cars is expected to be 12 vehicles. In addition, all the staff members are expected to park on site. For an enrollment of 142 students the number of staff is expected to be 12, based on a teacher to student ratio of 1:12. Also 3 vans belonging to the center were observed to be parked at the existing learning center. The maximum number of cars expected to be parked on site is 27 (12 vehicles from parents, 12 vehicles from staff and 3 vans) on a regular weekday. Based on the site plan, the parking area for the proposed school has a total of 24 parking spaces. The applicant co�firms that the current location for the Sunflower Learning Center at 19220 Stevens Creek Boulevard will still be operational even with the new location at 18900 Stevens Creek Boulevard. He also confirms that the three vans will be parked at the other business location. In case the other business location ceases operation, the applicant shall reduce operation at the subject site to allow the parking of the three vans. The applicant may also apply for a parking exception at that time. If the other business location relocates and adequate parking is available at the new location, no changes to business operations are needed at the subject site. PARKING CONDITION: The applicant shall park all company owned vans off site. In case, the applicant desires to park these at the subject site, he/she shall either reduce the business operation at the subject site or apply for a parking exception to demonstrate that there is adequate parking available with the additional van parking on site. - 23 - 1-148 MITIGATION MEASURES: Install a median in the right of way on Stevens Creek Boulevard to prevent left turns out of Stern Avenue as discussed in the Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc and depicted on Page 27 thereof (Attachment B). � c � �- +r : � • � o i � +� i �o t�o u' f° 3� �o � u u t � t ' i� V (C: � � (� L � ~ V �O : � �O ��. ! � ;��' Q.� � � 0 ;� fl. i Q. � +' d�iD �I d =� p J �� i z � ; ISSUES: � a i'n —' � � � % in , � [and Supporting Information Sources] ; "' � � ' , ........ _ ... ............... _. ..... ... .. .. .. ... __.. _. __..... .. .__ ... ... _... : ... _ { ... �. � XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS — Would � ! � � � I � the project: ; � I : i ..____._____.��.._.._ ______.....__._.__....____.._._._....._.__._..._.____.__.._......__...._:......_..__.._....._....._........_�_...._......_.___ . �._._ __..._ _..._ _.__. _ _ _ _.-- ❑ � 0 _.�.._ _...� __ , . _ .... _. : � a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements i � � Q of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control : � ' ' Board? [5,22,28,36,44] i �.._...___._._..----.---. _ ___.... .._ .__. _._ ....._....._. . _ ._ � _ �_ ..._.. _...__ ___ . _ ..._ _...._._. _ . .._ _ . ._ ......_ __ ...._ _ ._..... � _...__. _. _� , b) Require or result in the construction of new � � � ; � ' water or wastewater treatment facilities or � i expansion of existing facilities, the construction ' of which could cause significant environmental i ; ' effects? [36,22,28,36] � ' .__...._._ _.—�__..._.._.____._.._..._.._.----- --_.__ __ . _. .._ . _.. _...... _.._... _ ,..__ _ __.._.. .. ...._.... ......._ .._ .. ._ __ __. _ �_... _ � c) Require or result in the construction of new � � � � Q � ' : ; i storm water drainage facilities or expansion of , ; � - existing facilities, the construction of which could ; � ; cause significant environmental effects? � � ' � � � ` � [5,22,28,36,44] ' ; ; j .__ _ ___.._..___ ...._.__.._._._._..___�. _ ._ .. _._ _ .__..__.__ _... _ ._.. _ . _. ___�_ _.__.. _. _ , .--- --- --. ________._.._ _ _ � ❑ ❑ , ❑____ , Q ; e) Result in a determination by the wastewater � ; : i ; ; ( treatment provider which serves or may serve i ; ; ; the project that it has adequate capacity to serve i ; ` � the project's projected demand in addition to � � � � the provider's existing commitments? � ' � ' ; [5,22,28,36,44] � ; ' � � , �..__.._____..__..____.___.__......_.._. .___.._,_. ___..________._ i _. _.___ _ _ i ❑ __ � ..___..._ ___��..,� Y . . .___ ___ _...._... ...__.. . .... ... ❑ ❑ I f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient ; ; , ; permitted capacity to accommodate the �' ' ; ' ; project's solid waste disposal needs? [?] ; ; ,______.—.__.__ _..__.._._.._. _____......_ . ._ ___ _ _..__. _. _.._ __ _..._... _.. _._._._ ._....._. _._._ _ __ . ❑ ❑ ❑ ..__. . _. � g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes � ' ; and regulations related to solid waste? [7] � ' ' _ _.._. _ ._ ___ _ _ ;__ _ _ _ _ _ Item B: Wastewater Facilities The City of Sunnyvale Public Works Department has confirmed that they can provide service for this use. They are currently in the process of reviewing the project and any conditions they may have will be incorporated into the final approval for the project. Improvement plans shall be reviewed by the City of Sunnyvale Public Works Department prior to construction. -24- 1-149 Item C: Stormwater Drainage Facilities The applicant shall provide stormwater drainage to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department. The construction of new stormwater drainage facilities will result in a less than significant environmental impact. __..__. _.._. . _._.___.__ _._. __..___ ___._.__. _ _ ._ ._ _..__. _____... ___ . _....._.. _.._ _.__... . __ _.._ .. _ __ XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE , (To be completed by City Staff) __._..._.._.____ ...______ .. .__.._ ...._.... ------.___..__.. _ .. _.. _- -.._ ._. __ _ _.. _.. � _.__.._ ..... . .. _.� . , _ _. ... .--.---- _. . ...__..._____._._._�_ ..._ . _. _ _ _ . . � ! � c ; � � ' � � + �i � � 0 � � � +, ; +J ' ' ia ro �� t ++ to to c� u i +, v �; H = � � .� u � ! o � c?«_ c' �, �� a : y= Q- i Z fl- i +.�i � �- � � � L (A � � ; � ' �S$VE$: O � , a ° in �� -' in � � [and Supporting Information Sources] ' ' � i `� � _ ............... . .................... . _ _..... _..__... ❑._... Q ___ ; __.. ❑ . ___- ❑ a) Does the project have the potential to " � degrade the quality of the environment, ; ; �: substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or i � ' ; wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife ; ; ; population to drop below self-sustaining levels, � � ' ; threaten to eliminate a plant or animal ' � � : i � ; ! community, reduce the number or restrict the ; '� ; range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or ; ; I ; eliminate important examples of the major j ; ; i ; periods of California history or prehistory? [] ; ! i �______.______.___._____�_._____._ _.__- -----____.---- . -...... ____ : - - - . .__.._. _._ _._..__ _.____._ _ � _ _ ._. � _ _ _.._. i , ! b) Does the project have impacts that are ! � ` � � � ; Q � individually limited, but cumulatively ! ; ':. considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" ; ' ' �; means that the incremental effects of a project ; � are considerable when viewed in connection � � with the effects of past projects, the effects of � � ', i other current projects, and the effects of � � � ', � � ; p rob a ble f uture projects)? [] i � ' � _ _ _._____.—.________—_.___._..___ _.._--.--.__.______ .___...._._..-----._. _.___ __..__.. _______ � _...._ ... _. .. _ � _ -- p _, _ _ � ❑ .. _ ; c) Does the project have environmental effects i ; � � which will cause substantial adverse effects on ; ; ; ' ; hum be ings, either directly or indirectly? [] ; i � See attachment C for a summary of mitigation measures. ` - 25 - 1-150 ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION (To be Completed by City Staf� ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentialiy affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a"Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ❑ Aesthetics � Agriculture Resources � Air Quality � Biological Resources � Cultural Resources � Geology /Soils � Hazards & Hazardous � Hydrology / Water � Land Use / Planning Materials Quality � Mineral Resources � Noise � Population / Housing � Public Services � Recreation � Transportation/Traffic � Utilities / Service Systems � Mandatory Findings of Significance DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) finds that: � The proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. Q Although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. � The proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. � The ro osed ro'ect MAY have a" otentiall si nificant im act" or " otentiall si nificant p p p J p Y g p p Y g unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. A� ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. � Although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures hat are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. � �/ � 4.¢�'?7�/ --�� Staff Evaluator Date -26- 1-151 ,.� - - t-�-r- r I ERC Chairperson % Date Attachments: Attachment A: Environmental Noise Assessment by Iliingsworth & Rodkin, Inc. dated March 10, 2011 Attachment B: Traffic Impact Analysis by Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. dated April XX, 2011 Attachment C: Summary of Mitigation Measures , ` -27- 1-152 Attachment 8 SUMMARY OF MITIGATION MEASURES FOR U-2011-04, ASA-2011-05, EXC-2011-05 and EA-2011-04: Air Quality, Item B: Temporary Air Quality Impacts • Water all active construction areas at least twice daily and more often during windy periods to prevent visible dust from leaving the site; active areas adjacent to windy periods; active areas adjacent to existing land uses shall be kept damp at all times, or shall be treated with non-toxic stabilizers or dust palliatives. • Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials or require all trucks to maintain at least 2 feet of freeboard; � Sweep daily (or more often if necessary) to prevent visible dust from leaving the site (preferably with water sweepers) all paved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas at construction sites; water sweepers shall vacuum up excess water to avoid runoff-related impacts to water quality; and • Sweep streets daily, or more often if necessary (preferably with water sweepers) if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent public streets. • The applicant shall incorporate the City's construction best management practices into the building permit plan set. Hydrology and Water Quality, Item A, B, F, E: Prior to Construction • Project drainage shall be provided to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department. • Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit, if required by the Public Works Department, the applicant must provide details of specific Best Management Practices (BMPs), including, but not limited to, bioswales, disconnected downspouts that drain to landscape areas, direct roof runoff into rain barrels or cisterns for onsite irrigation reuse, pervious paving materials and native/drought-tolerant landscaping to reduce impervious surface areas, project areas should be dry-swept routinely and onsite litter should be picked-up and disposed of properly, onsite inlets and catch basins that area stenciled "No Dumping — Flows to Bay," etc., to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. • The project shall comply with Provision C.3 of NPDES Permit Number CAS612008, which provides enhanced performance standards for the management of stormwater of new development and redevelopment. • The project shall comply with applicable provisions of City Policies which establishes guidelines and minimum BMPs for all projects and provides for numerically-sized (or hydraulically-sized) TCMs for projects that create and/or replace 10,000 sq. ft. or more of impervious surface or are considered a"Land Use of Concern" and 2) Post-Construction Hydromodification Policy which requires the incorporation of ineasures to control hyddomodification impacts resulting from new development and redevelopment projects where such hydromodification is likely to cause increased erosion, silt pollutant generation or other adverse impacts to local rivers and creeks. Construction Measures, if required • Prior to the commencement of any clearing, grading or excavation, the project shall comply with the State Water Resources Control Board's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Construction Activities Permit, to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works, as follows: 1-153 1. The applicant shall develop, implement and maintain a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to control the discharge of stormwater pollutants including sediments associated with construction activities; 2. The applicant shall file a Notice of Intent (N01) with the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). • The project shall incorporate Best Management Practices (BMPs) into the project to control the discharge of stormwater pollutants including sediments associated with construction activities. Examples of BMPs are contained in the publication Blueprint for a Clean eay. For additional information about the Erosion Control Plan, the NPDES Permit requirements or the documents mentioned above, please call the Department of Public Works. Noise, Item D: - Temporary Noise Levels during Construction • Construction will be limited to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. Monday through Friday for any on- site or off-site work within 500 feet of any residential unit. Construction outside of these hours may be approved through a development permit based on a site-specific construction noise mitigation plan and a finding by the Community Development Director that the construction noise mitigation plan is adequate to prevent noise disturbance of affected residential uses. • Weekend construction hours, including staging of vehicles, equipment and construction materials, shall be limited between the hours of 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. Permitted work activities shall be conducted exclusively within the interior of enclosed building structures provided that such activities are inaudible to existing adjacent residential uses. The developer shall be responsible for educating all contractors and subcontractors of said construction restrictions. Rules and regulation pertaining to all construction activities and limitations identified in this permit, along with the name and telephone number of a developer appointed disturbance coordinator, shall be posted in a prominent location at the entrance to the job site. The Community Development Director may rescind provisions to allow extended hours of construction activities on weekends upon written notice to the developer. • The contractor shall use "new technology" power construction equipment with state-of-the-art noise shielding and muffling devices. All internal combustion engines used on the project site shall be equipped with adequate mufflers and shall be in good mechanical condition to minimize noise created by faulty or poor maintained engines or other components. • No individual device may produce a noise level more than eighty-seven dBA at a distance of 25 feet (7.5 meters) or generate noise level on any nearby property that exceeds eighty dBA. • Locate stationary noise generating equipment as far as possible from sensitive receptors. Staging areas shall be located a minimum of 200 feet from noise sensitive receptors, such as residential uses. v� • The developer will implement a Construction Management Plan approved by the Community �� Development Director to minimize impacts on the surrounding sensitive land uses to the fullest extent possible. The Construction Management Plan would include the following measures to minimize impacts of construction upon adjacent land uses: a) Early and frequent notification and communication with the neighborhood of the construction activities. b) Prohibit unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines. c) Designate a"noise disturbance coordinator" who would be responsible for responding to any local complaints about construction noise. The disturbance coordinator would determine the ' cause of the noise complaints (e.g., beginning work too early, bad muffler, etc.) and institute 2 1-154 reasonable measures warranted to correct the problem. A telephone number for the disturbance coordinator would be conspicuously posted at the construction site. d) Delineate the limits of development onsite. e) Discuss construction-staging methods. f) The plan shall demonstrate that emergency access along Mercedes Road shall not be impeded at any time. g) A garbage/debris container shall be placed on the site to store debris and the project site shall be cleared of debris at the end of every day during project construction. The container shall be emptied regularly such that no garbage is visible over the rim of the container. Only one portable toilet shall be permitted on the construction site. The portable toilet shall be allowed only during the period of project construction and shall be removed immediately after completion of construction. Transportation/Traffic, Item A, B: Increase in Traffic, Level of Service: • Install a median in the right of way on Stevens Creek Boulevard to prevent left turns out of Stern Avenue as discussed in the Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc and depicted on Page 27 thereof L' 3 1-155 ;� � � � ; . � ` . �J L D � o� � � �� 6� � 7 Z Z y � N � �� "� f� � v�. � �� , � �� T I � = s � � �� VN ..mA"r' w O \ j �� 9�3�� o �� m� � � be� �m o��o�ig � �� o a�xxx�x � � O T �� Z � �` � � m � �j �� o � _ � � ..� :., � � . � � � 4 { :?:aw:� � A t � u • ^ ' � � ... g:... jt::. H � :. . • % � / � � ..' ;. �.:,, , y . Z + �� • 4 r � � . ��_."": �..... � �`�f�..:~..��... � � _ � ,� �"+� p, ,,, j I ,«,;� �p�' :} { V L :':', ; � .z � \ 1 : � � � � s' � � , : �, r � � � I .i f\•L 4 t :;�� 3a . '.. � I 9 � J. O t'iY+c! j 0 � .. .: ' �:�.'�� .f.'. ••'� u � r - - � � �� , � � �� g��o��s�� • m N i �� A � ��+ � ��1� n I tn p � b � � -� � O /"F' � A � � E � .. 2 n ��''.�' v �> � � Z m ,�y ; ^ � - m � � m A �ui � � m � � � ��y e � � � �1 � � � �� =� � ��= g� � � =J�o� �" .� �- � � � ��A N � D m �'iv"C I � �► r � a ms� < �v�� r � 111 A yZ l�1 �T ,�y 4Jb C � � m T 4/ � -- � 8 a � � � � � Ny � � �� m ►� � � N � � � � . ^ � � � s �D� ~� � ,�'H,o, r+ � � �� " �A��;�� . �� o � � � � � �� _ � �� O Projsct g � � � ,� � DDD��D � o • • ,��e��°��,��,� � � ,� A ,��• Sunflower Learning Center a � � � � : � � � ro � �° � ��.��.:�� ,.:� D � n�>' � o 'P< y � � carrmrt iuic sn�rL wiw. Manecr moe ` �„7 t;� �� , �e..-' � � .. � New Pre-school & After-School Facili � � � � � � � � � � � � y 7FC7f MAN! ND FlONIS 1lEREOf. A3 NSIRlI1tMS OF f � � � � �W Z � 18900 Stevens Creek Blvd. � � «� TMS � °wY �� 38360 CMa Cenier Dr. � w � � nnenn� ooNSVrt aF nc �rt[cr s fone000+. SuNe 30B � � � n �y G`upertino, CA $ o Fromont. CA 91639 � � ti, I I I I I I I It I� � AX B o- i��rtrn com * PHONE: 61Q798-7801 �, " � N N N N N S BA3T�OOY N �'' '� N � N � ^' O � O O � �v N O ' N - ___ - _��_- _ �� _-_- I II II II II II II II N II II II I II I II II II 0 �� J II II II II II II II �� II II II � II � �� I� II � 0 �� )) u u u u u � � � J � � � � �� i N =____,, i �� `� -� ii �`___�� `� � II l N -�� Z �—\) � � � „— _ _� _ — � �� +� I � I �� _ _ — I � ( II II II N � � � o —I�_�L__Il_ I) ii--u--i�--u_ c===�l i l II II �' II � � � I II tl II � � u � � _ N c��a�� I � " u i �� ---�, i I N II� c = = o �I � N I' � � � � � ° _ _ = I � p � y �� N O N � II � �II il� II � c--- �� N �" �_ lL _ �L N I I V J � _ _ _ _ � � � � / d 8'-6 1/2' �� B� 2'-0� � �� N o � ►� � o ! < � �, _ � �--�--� �I � � G I r j I � �� N ° ' _ 0 �I � � N N \� O � � � � m m f-� � X Z o ? ��N � N � � m r z � m� g om c� � I �� p � � ( N m v o m � C 9'- 6 1 /2" 6 p� � O � e' � � o ( ? O °� o � ,-•: ,� _ � � � � � m �n o m T � N N � �V �• C _ l N ° N � ' YI N N � O . � ° � �v J � A N I �I � � 8 o P� �� b � c�i � c�i p g � m u \ (� SUEIMAII( GJ o£ �' A �$ o � — — _ o � ° � � W � � O� i" � O °� O� V � O O O O ° � r 8�-8" -- - i I � - - - - - - � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � = I i o �� 9�� -* � � � € � s � � � o � Z Q � c� � � �l � � — t/� � � � � � � � � �i �� c ; o � i o � � � � � � � � � � �^ / � A� - �1 � � � � � 0 � � � � � � � � � � i rn� i m � � � � � I I � � � I I � � � I � I � m L _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - J � � b i. � � � � � U � � � ■ � � N � � � � � � � * � P� DDDD D � o • • ,�,��,� �,�� y x � ik O a A �� O � SfAM O Wlm N RWSL S'fAM l011 AID MCNIIF1Cf ':' ��,�,��.�,. D � � � ,� c�, Sunflower Learning Center � n� � �„��,� m �. � � � '�~ � � �� n New Pre-school & Afler-School Facili y � � � `°�"" """'""'� "`", """"E" m°° � � ��)(� � �� :#�� ,� � ,� �.� ,�. u .�,�,� � � O � -� c> °� li p spMCe � av�n er wrc a�+�rz. iwartECr �uo � rort 38350 Civlo Center Dr. � � �, z � �� _ ,, 18900 Stevens Creek Blvd. � "��„ „� °�„�„ ,,,„, �,,, „�„,� °° � = � � �y � C`upertino, CA � � � ,� �,�► B �. s�na � � � s m �'� � �� I I I I I I I I� ( � � FA7(: 510�79�5134 * PHnNE:610.78&7801 DK ARL. FlNIAL 2%4 TOP RAIL 5' Dl+l RM1GS 1xS RA0. 3%3 CALV. IUBE STEEL POST AT 6'-0' O.C. AIAX. ix� cuv. rn vQrr. 06'O.G � Play Structure 7 Fence: West Elevation, Typ. s�e: ,rr=,�-0• s�ie: va•=,�-o• 4 —•-- . ._.. s�ie: �r=r� 3 3X4 GALV. SiL BOTTOM RAIL � �° �'-o' ou� x z'-4' o� CONCREtE F'OOTING AT FACH POST LOCAiIOrI. ° ��n�s� � r a . �1�iiLY W�ER TNAN TOP. �,�� I AWAY FRqI POST AS Sf1pNIN e 6� GRAVEL BiISE 1'-Ob�l Section @ Fence, Typ. 2 S��e: ,.-,�-0. Zo � ,� z, (q conc. a�e ro �aK, nP. O(� CONCRETE MW1. 5-8' Hlql. EXIIIID tALL i0 B'-0' HKii. FlNSFi TO BE SlUCCO WI1H WNL G1P. (1� WALL 10 IEET CRY OF CUPFRIINO SIDS iYP. O (� 6' w00D FDCE O(Q ASPIIALT SUI6AGE 70 RE11AB1� TYP. Q (q CONC. IIAIJ(NAY 26 4' caic. woE wNxw�r w/ ure aioau �, nr. � 6' �iE CIlRB. IYP. � A�E VAN PARIUNC SfAil 10 tE11 UN-S� PAItqNC SfN.LS. SItAPING PER CIIY OF CUPERIYIO SIDS„ 1YP. aExr o z�i (� u►osGaric. ita. z.�z (►� tr�. sg urosr�wE Pu►s, tr�. �3 (►� uNO.�anc. s� u►us�wnic a�x+s. nP. 14 (E) 1RASH 9q ENp.09JAE, $FE pEfAL 2/AIA. �s (q cac. v�o ra � i6 aux o� m�va: � � ooxrnuais �n+ � �u �ccss� a�ans; waf wx. Y' awr� N aEVAtion; ui w�n�s ro e� �ar. �e' a� wottt wr�o+ IECfSWlY TO CWINCE FiEYATpN AT A AAPE DICEmING 5x SFNLL HAVE PmESIRAN RAIpS. 17 �8' YN. NDE RIIIP, W1X 1:12 SLOPE �1 6'-0' NETAL FF110E AT PIAYI�t01Md 19 �s'-0' M�E C�ITE � PIAY CROUIO SfiMlCfl� TO � NSfN1ID PFR MiFR AECOIYQId11pNS. � 24�C14' RUBBQt 11fS 0 PUY SIRUCRIRE, � CONC. MAIFFl SfOP � YODFY EJOSING ORNEWAY PfR pIY OF QIPfRIWO SID, IYP. 214 PROYIOE SIGNAGE AT PARICNG SfAl1S AT BOiH 9DES OF 1RIlSH ENIXASUI€. SId116E ID SAT: ND � BEIwEDI 1Fff HOI�tS OF 9�0 AY. AID 1200 P.Y. ON Nm1E��Y w� ��►w riac O PRONOE 4'-0' WDE PATHNAY. PNMID NFIIE N/ SIRPQIC 0 J6' O.G 226 NODFY EASING DfdVEYfAT AS SHOMN. PER CJIY OF CIPERfNO SIQS 10.1 SIfE ENIRANCE 9q1AGE. 10 (N) IIDM11E1Jf SICN PF1t CIIT OF CUPEHINO REOIARfIIFNIS 2aSF W1X. AREA OF SCINCE �. 9CNACE TO BE DEFfJ3tFD SIIBI/fTAI t6.2 (E� E1EC►IeI'A UGNi AIO PoSi 1b.3 (E) E1fC1RIC/�L BW( Sheet Notes O 1 E � m $ $ �� .�o �� -�d'° �j �L �'�� %4 � . � � ��i �: M� �� . � � � � � �� . �� c �� , � � � � �� R��t� �E� 6� �� °� �� RELEASE STATUS DATE � ae� �v�w 01-1T-11 � � � 0�24-11 � m�ar�ue�o REYISIONS � 0 � � � .. � v � �w U ° o .� �� :.; � � � � � a �U y � �U � a� o 3 �, o �, v� . � � w"o� � � a �a � a t/] ',7 � S�mP � �� N �C (i fC'�` � 1 * No. C13762 * Ren.: 11/30/11 � qTE A� CpUFt%` � tMsot 7'Nx SITE PLAN Dete: 04-7St 1 �roJed * 105� 'aheet No.: A1.1 � g g � � �� $�EweZ :,d�:8�� .� � � ,�': �: � � ,� � � � �` � :;� � � �� . � � � �� R�� E� ��s �� °� �� RELEASE S TATUS DATE � a� � 01-17-11 � � �� 03-2411 � oo�amucrow REVISIONS � � m � � � � .... ..� � �V cb �w � °o .cs � � .� . � �, f� a� � ctt � � w ��U � Q � � �U 3 q .� � o d, rn . � � a, o �, � ��a a v� z °.�° � S� � �.� f� ARC �' pWOV s y / �c� � �� * Re 1 * � A�' CAL 5heetTMlx TRAFFIC MI7IGATION PROPOSAL oaa: o�-�s» Ro�.ar �o.w snsa No: A1.2 . (E) OLFANDERS AND iRE6 TO REMAIN ALONG PROP. IJNE 10 PN 10 ND � $,� 9 PN (E) PLAMING TO REAIAIN (E) VIC. BOX (2) (� ►,�py� _ ?: iT�;'.^..n� {4* /� ^ . • :; _ —_ _— . 'A �. . .,w......r :� .. __ ' —_ '_—_— _— ' _ . ___—.t_ �' _' .:.G ____' _____ f ii � � ��.'+^'^'."� �C �' R ::v..�..:x.:�i��»:� ` �.i .� �_ vai+C,.n: �. , :':.xr�.,. ��/ �— j � �' i� /' %• % ` / o p p (- � ..:ar.r�..Y. � _1v.%Ci`� �.:Y�.'. � ..:rwL.:..n�..:::� :; �:.rs4-'�_, . � if . '.':(_"^: .y..i+". y�.i.::'e�n.�.��r.:5•...::n:y:: . . . .... . .. . D . . ' � t� L I �..i�.n : 'X% o a• o � �' �.� E � � � ��: �.� �: � ��. � � , � C~� Q .� _ _ .. , . . : .. .. ... . . _ . . ... . . , . .. ..�:� . . . ,, , __ _ . . . ,� . ': � t � . � �� _ •.� � _ �'� , ; ........._........... PP ;: : � _ / s o > `�E _ y , . „ ,. .:.' • �s.� . j .: .. . . t . ' . . � � � . I i �..,.'r .. s � � ,.{ • tt � ry ' �.: �� ... �" j � , �. � . x . 3 �. . �TRANSF. Ej LAWN � ,� __.:::.::::-:,::.m-.-::: , ' ' �y, � � _ _ ._ y'�-. _ _' " 1 FA Y-� � � ;� f ''• j s ' ,�`' . ._.... � ' ��•...._._.. � ;i � X y �- � I �' � _ , � I ` I `� . :. J � �3 J .i. :i.`: s1 ; : � :` �!/ :. ,i ; Y'� �! j �, I� BIKE RACK • =. O . ; ' . ' ,; � ' • - � � � . � . I � �� . : ... �, •.. ;, : . ....... ............... ._... � , � � �x ..._ ._.......---- :.. .., ; . ::...................... . � , , . �. ,,� � �� r * ' � � , € i � �.;� .� . � .�.� : ^ � ;; f 5 � (E) MAGNOLIA � ;... �,�`•;� .. �,; (E) LAWN '( . . � ,. v � 6 � 1l�� ' : :: : : '� �� t ( ) PIANTiNG TO REMNN �' � • .. `::. _ . ,� . .:: :; i� : �' ;; -•, - . ....... . :• ; ... ' . :: : .:�:%:,.�.:: �..:.:-:-::..: E , ;+ j; (E) BOUGAINVI .�// _ (E) LAWN �� , �� '' : .., ::: : ,x. , ;; : :: . . � : : _. � (E) OLEANDERS AND TREES �: � (E) STAR J�ISMINE (E) MALLOW SHRUBS (E) MAGNOLIA . .. _ _�' '•. �-�----_........ � � TO RE1�WN ! I �r"�" �� JUNIPER _ : : `� _, s < , ... r :�::•� _„ . :. : .: : ,. �� o �»-^� _� - m:.;��.. - .:,:�x-u�e:sy . � ' i _. ! ; �, , • . ,'. :i:: t�i ALONG PROP. LINE :; j i� � ,�. - �'�:�� .�:_........ ; ; .. .�:�- -.� __...___._�.._.._...... J � `..... i 20 AO ♦. . . ..-,,.� . A _.r .,�,.,,,• ,.•,-r,��., .::,�,.� ,.: ; /'-"� .....�.`.�.�.. ' � ��% ..t..C. ' � � � � ` ... ..y E'.. ',..i ./ -� 1 FA ' iYr'r' �1 i . _ ; : 1.'" � : / � ~/ . � . „ � t q "' { f .� " : :: ... y.... .: :• i ••r,u . � ' ..: ' ; i , . .. . . ,• . � v, : : : •: . ., . �. i � r ' O . .. �.+.rh. w. ' a. � � .�:; : :: � . ..r• ' � �� i ? . . . ! . : . . ..." �.�.. .. ._... .. .�. r . . • i ji� .. ..:t::it... .. ..... . ... .. '. :. �:i: � � . . . '.... .... a...�'-'�"R" • w14.7F..2.Y XXTb.kS..X' w,�('i.F.,e• , �� j ; 2 ':s�;y�.�.' ................. ........... '5?li!<'.yc!+."i.."..'�':'.�:r. �� . .... ... '%w: / � y �.::, , . ` � ;.�; � ' 2 M�I '�:>':�x., :� i ` � :..,: [. �� :�:;• - .,, ; . ,.�> ti u . .:.....,.;. r.. '��_' : :`-�.s.:ri. ' � ,�..a� _..._.. ��; .._ . � , . "� ' 1 TJ ��...� , , .,.• . <�:, . .. : ; : :: . :. �,. . • .. . �! .. _.-._. . . , . _. . : / t \ �; :: . : : : � ( ) STAR JAS �_ :[ i ' � ': � MINE ..._ ........................................ F� '€ � '° :� _.._ ....................................._... 4 FA � E , _ ;; s � _ ox : :: ; ;: ; , ., ; ' ` -' 3 SJ ' ' = • � :° _.� ' , : .: ;� ; :; 'y � .................�--..._._..........................---.......--��-��- .s ti i ; :� f i j: .Y . _.. .. , y X : ............._.........___.� i I o � � P�LLB�X . .: , . :: . . .. ,. . .. ., . , . : •, .: : .� _ . _ ._ } � _ . _ ; �'� 3 AG �' d :� i � � ^; " : 6 ND � ; ;� 3 PT 3 AG 1 Fl �' _: :� ; � � • . , ,: ,: - ... :. .: .. : �::�,: � _;�:,:- . .._.. .� : , . ..�-;,.,;k;: -+a�,,� '��;�,..�:�:-- �:;��. PUWTING TO REMAIN r. ;:........_...... . O �: : �: .. :....:..:..: ..�; w�s;::,...':�, - . .. !: :� ; . � ,�: .: ,......:::,< r�� ;::::;;�;;.:�. ..::x:,: . � ;. . : .,.. `i r :.� :: ,.%�' �a. >x," /" _. � � ' � . .: E . . .. . .. /" ::. ;,� . :yti ) . . .._ , , ,. ., ....:,;•.>, �,c. � --., i '' . �� , 4 s� / + F /' ' �' •� / �Y . .� , . C � $ ! � y �� I.. � ... . �' � / �: ,....,; ;; . • : 3 � . . i '� f , i :,�, , .. i ,�' ... � ' �'" + � ' ..... � �± �� .. ., o-...... ....., ...a' .`+ . . _.... ..... . ._.... ._ ....._.... ....... _. _. _..» ....._ _ � . . : . . �, ,/ „ ... . . .. �.........�__..........._.....�... . , ... .. is' �s,." �.: S ` .. F >".- � � � //' / �, `_ ,/, � 2 `� �' - � �-� � ------'�#---- � ��_ K � � .t, :�' .' 1-1/2� BFP (E} LAWN ��; ,. , ; ; ,: --�- �::------ _°,--�-- ------------------- --------- — -- - - •-••<ti - - — ....;., . _ _. :�::,..ri.;:: :�'""- g � / . , ,� 1' . . ...� . .. .. . _ ' /�. �-------�---_•- . . .., : w; a.. _.._.._..__ ..........................._. ._...... . ...... .: .x!t9!:.. ..":f?!�'.*.+Q�f'��'P:M:P�' � ��. �J ✓ �. �_ ; < , .. . , . . .... . ....... � . ....... .. ... ...... ... :.. ... .. ....... . ...... ....... ...............___.._..........._............ ..,...........,,. ..... ....._............................. ...... . . �, _ . . . �WM '. .. . . . ' /�� :: . ,: � .._ .........................._.._.............._........._.._.._.....................__......_.._...._........._._ ..�..�..,�...._.. _ ._. _. -,�.. ,; � : � �Y �' ;_; <�;�:�:n � {� ASH F.H. ..... . ...._.._.._�:_:-.--...ELA .. ..............................._ ....,-,'- ..- , , J...... ..�...... .._...._.. _ ................__........_.. F1ATS� _. _. � > ....._ ...................._........_... . ......................._..........._. ..........._ ......................_........._....._...__............-�----_...._.---......._. L (E} ASH (YOUNG) .... ......................_.......�� i ♦r - aE PU1NT LIST �U/WTITY SYMBOL SaentlEeName GommonName Sim Commen6 � B FA FR/WNUS AMERICANA AUTUMN PURPLE' WHffE ASH 24 " BOX KEEP TURF 3' FROM lRUNK INSTALL'DEEPROOT' ROOT CONTROL BN2RIER- CON7INUOUS ATCURBS � IN PARKING LOT SHRlBS A!� PB@INW.S CRABAPPLE 8 AG ABELIAGRANDIRORA GlO55YA8ELW 50ALLON 20 AO MiIWIWTHUSO.'PETER PIW' DWARFLILY-OF-THE-NILE 1 GPLLON e EF EscnLLONU��noES�r escauarw 5GALLON 1 FI FORSYTHIA I. LYNVJOOD GOLD' FORSYfHIA 5 GALLON DECIDUOUS SHRUB 2 MM MeLVA MDSCHATA ROSEA N41gK MaL�pyy 5 Gp��ON l 10 ND NMIDINADOIYESTICA'CONPACTPt HEAVENLYBAhB00 SGALLON ', 3 PT PRTDSPORUM T. 7NARJORIE CHANNOM TAWHNVMI 5 GALLON S PTT PHORMUMIENAXTOMTHUMB' DWARFNEWZEALpNDFLA7( 1 GP�LON 19 PN PITTOSpORUMT086tAYMIEGATA VARIEGATEDTOBIRA 5CiALLON 1 TJ TRACHEL0.5PERI�UMJASMINOIDES STAR JASNBNE 1 GALLON 6 VT 1ABURNUMTINUS'SPRINGBOUQUET LAURUSTINUS SGPLLON c�OlAm COVet 3' O.C. ARCT0.STAPHYLOS E.'CARA�Et, SUR' DVWRF MNJZlW RA 1 GALLON 2' O.C. VTE �ERBENATENUISECTA NpSS VERBENA Fl.qTS v�na 4 SJ SOUWUM JASMNOmES anram uu� � �.� �.,.� o �� t� � �.�. G�i,��.�. � 0 5 io zo ao 40 z �� a� � r�. r3�-t: \� ,� � CAI�f� Z � � � n a. � ° Q , � �, U ° (n N o � W � Z � � � � a � � � V� Xc Y �� r O ��o� o � �� a a m o � W � V m � <000a 0 U(>Z J � Ovf��< Q Z �� p Y J� 0 J�CO�W Q � � � � W Q � z � U �--i � � Q W Z � Q � J � � �-- > z� U � � � Z W '�1 H �"�"� z� � U Q W � Q -� W U � � � wwz 3 0 v / � J � L�. ° o W z�� (� � U DATE 4-14-11 DRAWN DW �HECKED �CALE ,_ �HEET PL � � � �� m d � 5 � a5 `'� 0�� z �= � �nmLL�u.a ,'�`� �i.�r3 � -6..:3 � ��4 �;, !""p + +w y � a. �"'E "/,k +,�.�a.4 ;.�' � � �� . �� F� � �� g � °� i��:�� 4� d�a�$� �� ""� �'�� RELE STATUS DATE � �� ' 01-17-11 � � �� 03-2411 � casm (� OFFlCE (E) D(TERIOR _________,� ii ii (E) OFFlCE II I� I� �I ii ii �� i L_ (� EXTERIOR IV �11 I; STAIRS `= r �� (� OFFlCE � � T �� I� I I I I � � (E) OFFICE I I L \ � � _____ � rr ' �� (E) OFFICE I I I� ��-------_ i �------- i� � I (E) OFFICE �\\ �cr� _____ � � ' (E) OFFlCE i� II I� u r-�' u � �==�__�� T �� I I � � I � I I (E) OFFlCE � � I I � � ' � I (� 0�10E � � � I (E) OFFlCE II I I� ��II �I (E) HALLWAY i� i ii � u� i i � ' L====� �`_________� ----�--� \_ �� _ _ _ _ ' � � J �� - -_�� f�====_ �_� � I (E} OFFICE�L �`---- � �I \� / L__ _ _� !J �� % �' C_ �I L_ ____� � �\ r=� F====,� F�====___ I � � II� � �-�` fii F �I J II` (� OFFlCE � � � �I I� �� I � {E) OFFICE I I (E] OF�'ICE I I �'I I`' � I I I II II �I II NOTE: pA$Hm LINE$ INDICA'fE NON-l.OAD BEARING WALL,$ TO BE REMOVED, TYP. (E) Ex�oR (E) EXTERIOR (E) STAI I� �� (E) OFFICE � � �I �I � I � -� I (E) OFFlCE �I / I�I 4 =====�� i ii �-. � �� i�� "- J =____ �C _ _ _� - m � (E) OFFlCE � - ---ll W i ��s:� i � i i ii LL � i � I �� OFFICE �� _ � �I � [�_� _____ (E) OFFICE I � �� L �� L =— � � i�i II � (E) OFFlCE II (E) OFFlCE II �� i� �� II t--� _ _ 1 (� HALLWAY , (� woM�s I� I� ,7 � ,il =� (E) OFFlCE � (- - J I / �C _� U� L� _�� — c� �" � a�� ' �� I II ` J (E) MENS � ( � a.E II J �� I _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ � � I = J sraRS \ �� - - - - - - (E� sraRs fr==----- ��7 � (E) OFFlCE � I � I� �- � I \ � (E) OFf10E i � (E) OFFlCE I I � NO'iE: DASHm LINES INDICATE � I �� NON—LOAD BEARING WALLS TO I; � I BE REMOVED. TYP. 2nd Floor Demolition Pian n Scale:l/8'=1'-0' J , n 1 st Floor Demolition Plan � Scale: 1/B"=1'-0' REVISIONS 0 � 8 � 0 � � r-+ � � w U o , l.1Q � � w. � � � a� a �3 U O yd y�;U q � � O o� r� . � r� o � � � 3�a � V� Z °,�° � � � �� " �T �� * No. C13762 * Ren.: 11 /30/11 P �lf qc �p��f� Iha�t 71tls: 1ST FLOOR DEMOLITION PLAN 2ND FLOOR DEMOLRION PLAN )a0s: 04-1 S11 'ro)ad tM 10D0 ihset No.: �.� TOTAL N0. OF AffER SCHOOL STUDENTS ON 2nd FLOOR ALLOWED = 88 OCC TOTAL N0. OF AFTER SCHOOL STUDENTS ON 2nd FLOOR TO BE ENROLLED � 52 OCC (� ExrEwoR (� �rtioR � (� �oR sn�coMr � i w „ BREAK RM � sTORacE COMPUTER RM AREA � 230 SF OCC. LOAD s 20 TOTAL OCC. s 1 CLASSROOM —4 CLASSROOM —5 AREA = 198 SF �� 196 SF OCC. LOAD = 20 �C. LOAD � 20 TOTAL OCC. = 1 TOTAL OCC. = i CLASSROOM —6 CLASSROOM —3 AREA = 198 SF AREA = 198 SF OCC. LOAD =20 OCC. LOAD s 20 TOTAL OCC. =10 TOTAL OCC. = 1 � CLASSROOM —7 CL4SSROOM —2 AREA = 787 SF f+RfJ� - 798 SF OCC. LOAD � 20 OCC. LOAD = 20 TOTAL OCC. = 7 TOTAL OCC. � 10 srn� �� o� Puu CIASSR00M —8 OFFlCE AREA � 274 5F DN TEACHERS RE50URCE OCC. LOAD = ZO ROWi AREA = 274 SF TOT� �. = 1 EA - 438 SF OCC. LOAD = 10 CC. LOAD = 10 TAL OCC. � 3 TAL OCC. � 5 �� STAIRS (E) DCTERIOR TOTAL N0. OF PRE—SCHOOL STUDENTS ALLOWED ON 1ST FLOOR � 67 TOTAL N0. OF AFTER—SCHOOL STUOENTS ON tat FLOOR TO BE ENROLLED — 20 (E) IXTERIOR UP wmm�ic TO PLAY GRI BREAK RM CUSSROOM —1 �I � AREA = 405 SF c OCC. LOAD = 20 TOTAL OCC. = 20 E �I ELEC. {� HAI,�WAY (E) sraRs PRESCHOOL CLASSROOM —1 AREA = 735 SF OCC. LOAD = 35 TOTi1L OCC. = 21 �r 2nd Floor Plan 5 Scaie: 1/8"=1'-0" r_. �i 1 st Floor Plan � Scale: 1/8"=1'-0' : PRESCHOOL CLASSROOM —3 ARFA = 790 SF OCC. LOAD � 35 TOTAL OCC. s 23 1�11 (N) CHILD PRESCHOOL CLASSROOMA —2 AREA � 800 SF OCC. LOAD — 35 TOTAL OCC. = 23 � S � 3�� d U�{�bZ E � o � n��a ,� _ , � ;'q�„�4 �Mel� . „ � `�i� '!"'"f f�'�. n..�i .,� �•4 -,�,: � � a� � #� �� R �� .��.�� g�� RELEASE S TATUS DA7E � �� D1-17-11 � � � 03-2411 O wanuc� REYISIONS � � m � � 0 � �,,,� ... {,�,, � c� � �w U ° o ,� ��.� w � Qi � � a �U � � �V 3 � �o O o� vs.� � c� o � � � �� a rr1 z .� � � J N �G / ��'� yy� U r * No. C13762 * Ren.: 11 /30/11 P 9lf q�' CpL\ �,..► n�: 1 ST FLOOR PLAN 2ND FLOOR PLAN DaDx 04-161 � 'raJsd A 1050 3Aeet No.: A2.1 c � ; Q - Q_` � Q- Q- O � � al� � ' • � O � �� _� � ,� r � � � � �_I�III'�r�'lll(� � � ��o� �1=1=11111 Existing North Elevation S��e:,�-=,�-o• 6 TOP Of 29' .- j ' ' u0 Existing South Elevation s�ie: ve•=��-o• 4 Existing East Elevation Scale:l/8'=1'-0" � Existing West Elevation S��e:,�8•=,�-0• 3 ■E I� _■ ��° ��° ' ^ ��° ��? � �v� �� °�� '':.�I� WAl.L 29 Proposed South Elevation n Scale:l/8'=1'-0' L Proposed West Elevation Scale:l/B"=1'-0' � 1. EXISTING STUCCO FlNISH 2. EXI5TING PAlNTED AWNING 3. IXISi1NG WINDOWS, NO CHANGE i 4. EXISTING WINDOW TO BE REMOVED = 5. IXISTING DOOR TO REMNN 6. DCISf1NG DOOR TO BE REM01/ED 7. NEW DOOR TO MATCH IXISTING B. NEW WALL W/ SNCCO FlNISH, PAfNT AND TEXTURE TO MATCH DCISTING 4. DCISTING STAIRS, NO CHANGE I 10. DCIS'11NG STAIR WEL� F 7 t. EXISIING 3'-6' HIGH PARAPET WALL , ' � � � g � 5 � �� ° � ■�d ��.j�d'° p� � :,�`''"�� ° � �n�'�Qaa � � °�►..�. v�.�.i L ��E •* +I+r1� y� �1lwlrrt J 'W�. : ?..wl, � yy� r'�tk � "v� f r�f � C � �� ° 7� ��.� � � �� R��2 �r�� g!S �� °� �� RELEASE STATUS DATE • �� 01-17-11 � � �� 03�2471 � �niClnw REVISIONS � � � � � � �� v o� �� a �1 U ; � �v 3 �� o b rn.� ��°� � � e V � z a�o U � �� N �G / ��'� � �1 * No. C13762 * Ren.: 11/30/11 ! q Tcr �, �� Irst lltls: EXTERIOR E�EVnnoNs �te: 04-1571 'roJ�ct * 1050 �hset No.: A4.1 • _ . ._ _ . .... " o � 'u, . 'n� 'o� `as . _ . � �,.. ��'. . .. �`O.t '0.1 :. �O.t �01:' '07 P.t 0�-3 0.i::::':,:0.7��.�.. ..:`OS : ' - D3�.�.:;. :.p�.....: ....::'Q3 Q7 ,.. . .. ... . . . �' " � .. ,:: 03 'OJ :: 03 02 � . . ... . . ' :0�1< 02` 02 C2 �' -... . , . . . . .. ... ... . . . .. . . � :. . .. . ..,.. � _ . .: . ,, � �'.. :�_, . . :< :� � .' ; :. : 0 2 �03 �0.3 Oa3 03 �0.'a �0.^� ' U.3 " 0.1 �'0.5 �OB �� 'OS �OK 0� :'0.{ �03 :, �03 �0�: �03 a3 ¢S 01 ;�� 01 ..�OS . '05 �OS '�.l '0.3 , � � - ::. . ... . :, : �.: :: � � : : .: : . .. .. . ,. .:..'^.�. `%(G� A6 :'0.6 0? :' 'O.S 0.¢ �'0.! �0.8 � � �0.5 �� 05' O6� p,5 -� AB 08 ;:• 08. 0.7 :: 1S �OS 0.7 :�OS .:.'0.4 . .. ... .. ....... . , . .. � . �.: " : 02 �03 0.5 '0.7 'tA �t.t �1.0 0.9 1.0 Oa �0.9 �0.8 �O.B �OA 04 .:.....• 10 �09 tA �09 �� 1.0 1.1 0a �'0.6 �'O.t . ..:.� 0_ ..: �0.1 � �00 i : t' �. �`-"'�""'"� '� �0 �O.d '0.6 '0.4 �1,: '13 '1.I 'i8 1.8 1.8 1S �13 �73 �73 �13 �15 �7.7 �16 '1.5 I.'a �13 'f.l '0.) '0.5 '0.�.. , 0�� 0.1 '0.0:� . . . . ..... .... . . �: . . .; ,.. . . �...... , . .... . .... .: :;.- :. - �. �e�::• �: • .. � ..�0 '0.8 'I.0 �t.t `1.6 ':.0 '23 '2.6 ':.9 �".5 .t V "19 ... • ��.0 �:3 . ... . . : -.. .: . ' � . . 2S '22 - 1.7 'S.8 '1: '0.6 QS �L3 � 0,$� 0:1 �00 : .':'' . .. _ . ..... . . � �. . ..8 . ..�.7 - ::. : : ; :; . .: .....�0 04 0.8 'I.0 1A ;] :� 2.7 '3.1 �.� �4.1 i2 �^a.0 32 3.8 {5 �3.9 �i.0 :5 2.0 '1.8 �t i '0.8 T 0.5 .. :O.i .� OA ... ... . . . . , '� ,` " 0 �0 t 'OA '0.9 '13 �1.5 '1 a ' ' .: : :':• � . " '2.7 �3.5 ��6 ♦9 ��2 {.0 �1.1 �SO SA �tl 33.. 4 �1.7 .14 i+� - AS-.... _..0.5.,.. p � p�. . � .... �. ..r . .....�.�r. . ..,.. _ . _ .. :. a�� ; o OS � 0.8� �tA �ti �1.a" i.6 ^..^. 3.0 �lt..-�.'5..... . i:S.-�: : ai r:� . .. ... . .... ... .. ,. . ,,. : �. Y 1 3 OS � .: � � : .. . . .. .. . ... .. . ....S.II - ��.33:.�. .�.. . �A '.. . :,.. :. ..: : � :...: .. ... . ... .:....:.: .:. .::. . . ..... . . . .. 'a,� . " 9 < 'i `o.s ..._. . . . . , .. � " " ' 0 0.1 0.6 'iD 1.'a �i.3 '1.l ':.1 �2.4 �3b � �1-. . �i,5-.=: . ..... .. .. ... . . i : '.:.; :,. : ��"::`�- .�:trs. ._..r,F:; �xa_. � .,.:.'+� � '�� ' � '73 0 CS .. .. ..� ..;� ... ...... �' �� . ;,:. . � :.�.. .:_:.�..:.:': .. ........... .. ... . . .., .. .. .. .. .,, .....:.. . � .. . . . ; .: .. . ,.,. +..Y.. . . ...... . .... ..... . . .. .. ..... .. . .. . . .�. . �. . � ��.::'. �' . . .. . . . �� .. .. . :� :; �. . W .. :: -. ;. ,:.. . . ... . :... � .... •: ..... ...� - 03 . �; 09 13', :: :7:3 � 1.6 '2.8 �3.5 �.7 52 �4.4 32 ��3 �5A 5.0 38 �i3 '21 _�1:Z . ~ t.?... �0.6 :�� d.5 .;. � � :.>�� .. �... _ .. . . . ... .. . "' :. ;., �..,.... .. .: . ;, .. . .. .�. �-::..... ..,:. .::.. .-...,.�...:: -...... •. , . .. .._ .:. ... ... � . .. ... ....... . .....:.��.. . ..,. � :�:..:�'; . . ,,.. .:..� : �0. �OA AB 'IA 'f.4 'i.I '2.1 �2.' �32 IS �d3 �^aJ �i2 i.J �3.7 4 . . . .. . ................ . ............ .. , . _ ., . ,�.,:,:, ::. ..: , ...,. . y�.:.. 'io ':.s j a 16 . '7 S a:s " ; os ' € �. . .. . . .. .. . _ . : s ' ... :� :,:,., ,.:.. ..{. .; ,..�... • . ° oz o.e '�.o '�.s 'i.e 'a� 'z-� ...7 '3 �'aL '23 21 :� ;��€ �" ��, s,� ,,'go 2e ':. '1.6 't9 '1 'as� ;'os � ': : , : . ... . .. ... ... ., . .. .. . _ _..... ........ . _... .. ..... .... . ... .. _._ ,: :_ . �.:� :` .. � ,. " ,�:.,`� � : .:..:. . � <:. � r.'�;i: : <`::.. ' �0. �O.J '0.6 �Oa �12 tA '1.5 1.7 i.6 �1.B ��. 15 ��1.d 7A �14 ��. .�14 � ��18 �t8 I.7 'I.1 1.! t.l �0.8 05 : . .. . . . � ....... ��... � � .. ,' :; �OT �D3 0.5 �0.6 �1.0 1.1 �I.1 iA �1.1 �1.0 ;` 10 : 09 �OB �09 - 1A 1�1 �..� 1.0� �� t.i ... '1.0 .. �t.�.. . .� 1.1 . �0a . ..... �0.7 ; O.L ' . - .... :, .... .... . .......... ......... . .... �.. .... '�: : ;: 02 �0 3 0.5 O.B �0.& 0 a �0.8 C.' '0.8 �0.8 0 8 0.5 0 5 �0 5 �0.8 �O.B 0.8 � 0.7 'Q a 0.9 '0,6 '0.6 ' O.t ; e .. � :: ...._ .... : � '; :: �O1 � O.I '0.5 0.6 �O.B '0.8 'OS 'O.a OA ��..ICi:'� k�F G3 � o. ��QY:' � - �.�d' : Ad �. ��C . �C.b -., �� C.B, ;. , :::��OS:::::�:��;-�� ' T� .. _,... .... '_': aa.....::'o� ....:, - 'o s 'o.a 'u.a `o.a '0.3 ' - ':; ... .. __ .. .... . ... ... .... . .. . ... ..._. .._ .... . _ . . _ ... ._. _.. : .,.:. � •� , .. ...�. .. : .. .. ... .. . .. ,, .. . .. ,.. . .: ... ... v ., � ,<. :, ,. :.. u� 'o: '02 'os 'os 'o+ � . . .:: .. .. . .. . .. .. .. .....:. . . . .. . .......: :;� . .. .. ... : : . . Plan View s�. r=,o� LUMINAIRE SCHEDULE Symbol La6ol Oty Cahiog Numb�r D�sMptbn lamp Fllo Lumriu LLF Watts � A � KAD 175M SR3 Area Luminaire. 200W � (PULSE START) MH, Hph PeAormance ��H KAD 20pM S 14000 0.72 480 SR3 Rsfbdor, Futl Cutofl R3 (PULSE 5 MEEfS THE 'NIGHTTIME TART).ies FRIENDLY' CRITERIA STATISTICS Wserlptlon S�rmbol Avg M�x Mln AAa:/AAIn Avg/Mln Calc Zone d�t - 1.3 fc 5.4 ic 0.0 fe N/ A N/ A NO T E S 1. Fhtture Is poN mount�d 20' - 0" AFG 2 NI akuhtlon polrtts ara o' - 0" APG 16600 Qaleulatlons Dlsehlmor Glculrtlo�s �n prAormW using Industry-neognlxad sottwua, �nd an pmMdW tor astlm�Uon purposas oNy. Input dah for tAo ulcul�tbns eornsponds to th� IMorrtrtbn proMd�d to us (�pumptlons m�y M mrC� tor Irrtorm�tbn that �s not proMdad). h k tfr r�onslbllity o} thoso using thk wrvin to wrqy th�t our I�ut d�h Is conslst�nt wlth r�act�d ildd condltb�u. R�sults af th� IyMing aleuMlons aeeur�t�iy nHact tM Input d�t�. Howawt, �Mwl IlgMing I�Is wlll v�ry d�p�nding on tlNd eondRlons aueh �s room cfrnetMstks, trmp�nWn, volt�ge, �nd I�mp/b�ll�st output �ntl atlrrf�etors. GkuMtbns �n �Iso subJ�et to tfu IImlMlons a} tM softwu�, pu� to tha �bow consld�rtbns,16S00 anrat gu�nrrtN ttnt �etu�l NgM I�wls musuAd In ttr t1�id wlll mrteh our IMtld cdwl�tbns. � 1 � 200f Brosdway, qth Floor Oakland, GA 9d812 Ph. 510-20B-�OS Fx. 510-208-32i7 www.16300.com �J O � � � L � � � � i ^ � i�.L � U Designer AL Date Jan 27 2011 Scale As shown Drawing No. 1 of 1