The URL can be used to link to this page

15. Cupertino Village - Brian ReplingerCity of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3308 Fax: (408) 777-3333 CUPERTINO Summary Agenda Item No. Application: U-2007-06, ASA-2007-10 (EA-2007-08) Applicant: Brian Replinger (Kimco Realty) Property Location: Homestead Road and Wolfe Road APPLICATION SUMMARY Community Development Department Agenda Date: March 25, 2008 Use Permit and Architectural and Site Approval to construct two one-story retail buildings totaling 24,455 square feet and a two level parking structure. Negative declaration RECOMMENDATION Planning Commission recommends approval of the project with conditions listed on the attached Planning Commission resolutions. CURRENT CONDITION The center was approved in the 1960s and the existing use permit (2-U-66) lacks any conditions over any of the center's daily operations. As a result, the City has received and verified reports of: • Neighborhood spill-over parking, • Trash and maintenance issues, • Undesirable residential interface (noise and lights), and • Access issues along Homestead Road. Without a discretionary application, the City does not have the ability to require or implement any permanent solutions to solve these neighborhood issues. However, the Planning Commission has acknowledged that the proposed improvements and expansion of the Cupertino Village Shopping Center provide an opportunity to significantly enhance the relationship between the center and the adjacent neighborhood through the following measures: • Neighborhood access and parking will be closed off. • Screening and landscaping will minimize noise and light intrusion. • Internal circulation will be improved. 15-1 Cupertino Village Page 2 March 25, 2008 • Trash collection will be enhanced with new compactors and a recycling program. • Operational controls will be further enhanced by new conditions and a security patrol. The updated center will significantly improve the residential interface and address the neighborhood concerns while continuing to provide much demanded retail and restaurant services to the broader community. BACKGROUND Kimco Realty is the nation's largest publicly traded owner and operator of neighborhood and community shopping centers with more than 1,500 properties throughout 45 states and several countries. Kimco recently acquired the Cupertino Village Shopping Center from the former owner, Sand Hill Properties Company. Cupertino Village is located at the southwest corner of Homestead and Wolfe Road. The applicant, Brian Replinger of Kimco, is requesting approval to construct two one- story retail buildings and a two level parking structure at the existing shopping center. DISCUSSION Planning Commission The project was reviewed by the Planning Commission on November 13, 2007, March 11, 2008 and March 25, 2008. The Commission considered all of the public testimony and unanimously recommends that the City Council approve the project with conditions. The recommended conditions of approval include but are not limited to the following key conditions: • Noise Abatement (including masonry sound wall) • Refuse and Recycling Enhancements • Construction Management Plan • Pedestrian Crosswalk Enhancements • Interior Courtyard Enhancements • Site Permeability Enhancements • Transportation Demand Management Plan • New Screen wall between the Church and the Shopping Center •'• Landscape Maintenance Bond • Parking to Match the Increased Square Footage • Homestead Driveway Enhancements • Wolfe Road Mid-block Driveway Access • Neighborhood Sign Program • Design Review Committee Review and Approval of the Final Architectural and Site Plan • One Year Review of the Use Permit 15-2 Cupertino Village March 25, 2008 Page 3 Please refer to the attached Plannirg Commission resolution for a complete list of the recommended conditions of approval. Please refer to the attached Planning Commission staff reports for additional details. Additional Recommended Conditions Based of the public testimonies and the Planning Commission comments, staff is recommending several additional conditions listed below to help facilitate the implementation of the project and public improvements. These conditions are intended to clarify issues that have already been stipulated and brought up by the public testimony and/or comments from the Planning Commission during the public review process and are in addition to the Planning Commission's recommended conditions. Garage Construction The garage shall be built first so that the additional parking stalls are available during the construction period of the two retail buildings. Median and Sidewalk Improvement Plan The final median and sidewalk improvement plan, including but not limited to the sheltered left turn from Wolfe Road and the new sidewalk reconstruction along Wolfe and Homestead Roads, shall be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to commencement of the construction of the improvements. Said plan shall be prepared by a professional civil engineer and would require the peer review of the project traffic engineer. Sign Approval No signs are approved as part of this project. A separate sign program approval shall be obtained from the Design Review Committee prior to any approval of new signs associated with the new construction. Arborist Review The final landscaping plan shall be reviewed by the City Arborist prior to issuance of building permits. The City Arborist shall also verify that the landscaping has been carried out in accordance to the approved landscaping plan and that all of the landscaping features are in good standing prior to the final release of occupancy for the two commercial buildings. Department of Toxic Substatlces Co~ltrol The property owner is required to satisfy all of the requirements prescribed by the Department of Toxic Substances Control in regards to the clean up the former Cupertino Village Cleaner's site. 15-3 Cupertino Village Pale 4 March 25, 2008 PW Revised Conditions of Approval The Public Works Department is recommending that Condition #15 (see attached Planning Commission Resolution} be revised as follows: The applicant will be required to address, but are notlrriited to, the following concerns/deficiencies: 1. No left turns shall be permitted into or from the Homestead Road driveway. The redesigned driveway must be designated as a right turn in and right turn out only. 2. The applicant shall fund the traffic signal modification improvements at the Homestead/ Wolfe intersection in an amount not to $75,000, said amount shall be due as a deposit or reimbursement prior to final occupancy of the Cupertino Village development improvements. It is the City's intention that the traffic signal improvements be constructed as span as feasible and no later than five years from the project approval. Environmental Review Committee The Planning Commission recommended the granting of a mitigated negative declaration with the following conditions: 1. Modify the site plan to compensate for parking deficit; 2. Provide a Transportation Demand Managemerit~Plan. Such plan shall-be permanent and demonstrable and be linked to the leasing strategy. Please note that the recommendations from the Environmental Review Committee have been incorporated into the project conditions of approval. Community Outreach A total of three community meetings were hosted by the Kimco on October 18, 2007, . November 8, 2007 and December 13, 2007. Please refer to the March 11, 2008 Planning Commission Staff report for a detailed account of the neighborhood comments. Additionally, public notices were sent to a radius buffer of 1,000 feet {over 500 households) around the project site. ENCLOSURES Planning Commission Resolutions Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of November 13, 2007 {The draft meeting minutes of March 11, 2008 and March 25, 200$ are not available at the preparation of this staff report and will be made available at the Council hearing.) Planning Staff Report (March 25, 2008 and March 11, 2008 with attachments and planset.) 15-4 Cupertino Village Paee 5 Prepared by: Gary Chao, Senior Planner Submitted by: /s/Steve Piasecki Steve Piasecki Director, Community Development G: \Planning\PDREPORT \CC\2008 March 25, 2008 Approved by: David W. Knapp City Manager 15-5 U-2007-06 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 RESOLUTION NO. OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO RECOMMENDING APPROVAL TO A USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT TWO ONE- STORY RETAIL BUILDING TOTALING 24,455 SQUARE FEET AND A TWO LEVEL PARKING STRUCTURE AT THE CUPERTINO VILLAGE SHOPPING CENTER SECTION I: FINDINGS WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application for a Use Permit, as described in Section II of this Resolution; and WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given in accordance with the Procedural Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, and the Planning Commission has held one or. more public hearings on this matter; and WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application; and has satisfied the following requirements: 1) The proposed use, 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; and 2) The proposed use will be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the Cupertino Comprehensive General Plan and the purpose of the Conditional Use Permits Chapter of the Cupertino Municipal Code. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter, the application for a Use Permit is hereby approved, subject to the conditions which are enumerated in this Resolution beginning on Page 2 thereof; 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. U-2007-06 as set forth in the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of March 25, 2008, and are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. SECTION II: PROTECT DESCRIPTION Application No.: U-2007-06 Applicant: Brian Replinger (Kimco) Location: Homestead Road and Wolfe Road 15-6 Resolution No. U-2007-06 March 25, 2008 Page 2 SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMIl~IISTERED BY THE COMMUI~TITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. 1. APPROVED EXHIBITS The approval is based on Exhibits submitted by MCG titled: "Cupertino Village" consisting of 25 pages, except as maybe amended by the Conditions contained in this Resolution. 2. DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL Approval is granted to construct two one-story retail building totaling 24,455 square feet and a two level parking structure. 3. CONSTRUCTION MANGEMENT PLAN A construction management plan shall be provided to include but not limited to the following measures: • Construction schedule/duration/noise abatement. • Interim offsite employee/contractor parking. • Truck routes. • Onsite construction/traffic signage. •'• Best management practices. •'• Dust control. • Specific tree protection measures. • No construction parking or traffic shall occur on the residential streets to the west. • A hotline shall be established during the construction period for the adjacent residents to report any violations or concerns. The .hotline information shall be posted on the property owner's website and at appropriate locations at the construction site. Said plan shall be reviewed by the Director of Community Development prior to issuance of building permits. 4. NOISE ABATEMENT The final garage plan shall be reviewed by the project noise consultant (Illingworth and Rodkin) to ensure that all of the recommendations outlined by the noise report dated November 8, 2007 are sufficiently addressed. This includes but not limited to the required noise attenuation properties of the garage perimeter wall (ground level and second level) along Linnet Lane. 5. ODOR ABATEMENT All new restaurants shall install odor filtration system. Odor filtration plan shall be reviewed and approved by the City prior to issuance of any building permits. 15-7 Resolution No. U-2007-06 March 25, 2008 Page 3 6. LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE BOND A landscaping bond naming the City as beneficiary in the amount of $100,000 shall be provided to the City prior to issuance of any building permits. Said bond shall ensure that the approved landscaping enhancements associated with the project are going to be carried out and properly maintained. The bond shall be released five years from the final occupancy approval of the proposed new buildings with a letter from the City Consulting Arborist confirming that all of the landscaping features are in good standing. 7. DETAILED LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE PLAN A detailed landscaping maintenance plan be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. Said plan shall include details on the irrigation system and the routing schedule of maintenance and the upkeep of the landscaping area along east side of Linnet Lane. 8. TRASH ENCLSURE SIZE AND LOCATION The applicant shall work with a consultant to evaluate the refuse and recycling needs of the center and develop a permanent refuse/recycling improvement plan (including but not limited to provide newly updated versions of trash compactors/enclosures, any necessary grease filtration system upgrades, any necessary sewage facility upgrades and more efficient refuse pick-up schedule). Said plan shall be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. Any new trash facility shall be located away from the residential neighborhood as far as possible. 9. BUS SHELTERS There are currently two bus stops along Wolfe Road. One of the bus stops is located near the intersection of Homestead and Wolfe. This bus stop will be relocated to the south of the entrance drive in front of Starbucks Coffee in order to promote safer vehicular movement. The site plan already reflects this change. In addition, staff suggests that the project be required to design and build appropriate bus stop shelters at the two bus stops. The final bus shelter design and location shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department to the Valley Transportation Authority's (VTA) specification. 10. RECONSTRUCTION OF SIDEWALK In order to prolong the life of the double row of Ash Trees along Wolfe Road and the street trees along Homestead Road, the existing perimeter sidewalk should be replaced with a new at-grade sidewalk to facilitate proper root growth and reduce future uplifting of the sidewalk. All monolithic sidewalks shall be replaced with detached sidewalk (except in situations where trees are in the way or special physical/functional constraints warrants special consideration by the Director of Community Development). Unused driveway curb cuts, unnecessary and unsafe curb features or tree wells shall be eliminated. 15-8 Resolution No. U-2007-06 March 25, 2008 Page 4 11. CORNER PLAZA ENHANCEMENTS The project shall enhance the corner areas at the intersections of Pruneridge/Wolfe and Wolfe/Homestead. Said areas shall be enhanced with special paving material, appropriate landscaping and sidewalk features and potentially benches or art features as determined by the City in order to improve the pedestrian experience and overall aesthetic of the site. A detailed corner plaza enhancement plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the Design Review Committee prior to issuance of building permits. The proposed site plan already acknowledges the plaza. 12. ENHANCEMENTS TO THE INTERIOR CROSWALKS The applicant shall work with staff to determine areas within the existing shopping center (consistent with the recommendations from Fehr and Peers) that should be better delineated as special pedestrian walks or crossing areas. Such areas shall be enhanced with special semi-pervious paving materials and striping. Detailed plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Design Review Committee prior to issuance of building permits. 13. ENHANCEMENTS TO THE INTERIOR COURTYARDS The applicant shall work with staff to enhance and activate the existing courtyards with the following measures: • New shading trees wherever possible. • Enhancements to benches, sitting areas and lighting features. • Enhancements to the interior plaza and gathering places (including but not limited to upgrades to special semi-pervious paving material, trellis/arbor features, water features and outdoor seating areas). Detailed enhancement plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Design Review Committee. 14. DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE The Design Review Committee shall review and approve the final architecture and site plan of the project. 15. RAIN GARDEN The site drainage and roof drainage shall be directed to the rain gardens and/or similar pervious areas to the maximum extent possible. The final site and roof drainage plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Design Review Committee. 16. TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT Provide a Transportation Demand Management Plan. Such plan shall be permanent and demonstrable and be linked to the leasing strategy (ie. tenant/use controls such as cap on restaurants and/or square footage limits). Said plan shall include but not be limited to incentives for employees carpool or 15-9 Resolution No. U-2007-06 March 25, 2008 Page 5 take public transportation such as bus passes, monetary incentives, shuttle services for off-site parking, employee or restaurant valet services, preferential car pool parking etc. The final TDM plan shall be submitted to the Planning Department for review and approval prior to final occupancy approval. 17. PARKING SUPPLY The total percent of increase in the proposed parking capacity shall equal or be greater than the proposed percent of increase in building square footage. Physical measures shall include but not be limited to valet parking, offsite parking and/or other dense types of parking measures (including urban lifts) to meet the parking demand. The final revised parking plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Design Review Committee prior to issuance of building permits. Urban lifts shall require Planning Commission review and approval. 18. SCREEN WALL A minimum eight (8) foot tall wall shall be constructed along the northerly property line between the shopping center and the church property. In addition, a locked gate shall be provided at a mutually (between the shopping center and church) agreed location. The final wall and gate plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Design Review Committee. 19. HOMESTEAD DRIVEWAY The driveway along Homestead Road shall be limited to right-in and right-out only. Appropriate signage and driveway modification to implement the right-in and right-out movement shall be reviewed and approved by Director of Public Works prior to issuance of building permits. 20. NEIGHBORHOOD SIGN PROGRAM A sign program shall be provided to address appropriate neighborhood signs to inform and deter the public from parking in the residential streets. Said program shall be reviewed and approved by the City of Sunnyvale. 21. PEDESTRIAN GARAGE ACCESS The parking garage shall either include a second set of stair or an elevator. The parking structure shall be consistent with all pertinent Building and ADA Codes. 22. GARAGE ENTRANCE Consider widening the ground level garage entry at the north end (unless it will serve only as exiting). 23. SHADING TREES Plant additional shading trees and enhance the existing landscaping wherever possible throughout the entire center. 15 - 10 Resolution No. U-2007-06 March 25, 2008 Page 6 24. ARCH ENTRY ELEMENTS Repeat the arch element throughout all of the pedestrian entrances. 25. STUCCO WALL TOP DETAIL Details should be provided on how stucco wall top is finished off (avoid sheet metal cap flashing). 26. MULTI-LANGUAGE SIGNS Require clear multi-language signs at each of the pedestrian entrances along Linnet Lane, informing them not to park in the residential streets. Also, the installation of amulti-language sign to inform truckers of the delivery hours and rules shall be provided. Detailed signage plans shall be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. 27. DISCLOSURE OF CONDITIONS TO TENANTS Require that the conditions of approval (including the City's noise ordinance) be made part of the lease agreements of all new tenants so they will be informed of the conditions and rules that will be enforced. 28. SECURITY CAMERAS Require security cameras to be installed at key delivery areas to assist in monitoring and enforcing delivery hours and noise violators. A detailed security camera plan shall be submitted for review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. 29. SECURITY SERVICES Require the center to enhance patrol service so that they can monitor and prevent spill over parking into the neighborhood and the delivery activities. The center should also provide a hotline to the adjacent residents to report any code violation and unsafe activities. Said patrol service shall also monitor the trash facilities to ensure all tenants are using the facilities properly. A detailed security plan shall be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. 30.ONE YEAR REVIEW PERIOD Require a 1-year review of the use permit from the time the two new buildings receive final occupancy. The Planning Commission may consider and require additional parking remedies (i.e., parking lifts, valet parking and/or other parking demand management measures) if deemed appropriate at the time of the review hearing. 15 - 11 Resolution No. ~ U-2007-06 March 25, 2008 Page 7 31. 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 ADMIlVISTERED BY THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPT. See attachment 1 PASSED AND ADOPTED this 25th day of March 2008, at a 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: Steve Piasecki Director of Community Development APPROVED: Lisa Giefer, Chair Planning Commission 15 - 12 ASA-2007-05 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 RESOLUTION N0.6464 OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO APPROVING AN ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE APPROVAL TO CONSTRUCT A 10,582 SQUARE FOOT RETAIL BUILDING AND ONE-LEVEL PARKING GARAGE ON AN EXISTING OFFICE SITE SECTION I: FINDINGS WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application for an Architectural and Site Approval, as described in Section 1T of this Resolution; and WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given in accordance with the Procedural Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, and the Planning Commission has held one or more public hearings on this matter; and WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application; and has satisfied the following requirements: 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 zoning ordinance, the General Plan and the North Vallco Master Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter, the application for Architectural and Site Approval is hereby approved, subject to the conditions which are enumerated in this Resolution beginning on Page 2 thereof; 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. ASA-2007-10 as set forth in the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of March 25, 2008, and are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. SECTION II: PROTECT DESCRIl'TION Application No.: ASA-2007-10 Applicant: Brian Replinger (Kimco) Location: Homestead and Wolfe Road 15-13 Resolution No. ASA-2007-10 March 25, 2008 Page 2 SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMIl~IISTERED BY THE COI~~IlVIUNTTY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. 1. APPROVED EXHIBITS The approval is based on Exhibits submitted by MCG titled: "Cupertino Village" consisting of 25 pages, except as maybe amended by the Conditions contained in this Resolution. 2. DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL Approval is granted to construct two one-story retail building totaling 24,455 square feet and a two level parking structure. 3. CONSTRUCTION MANGEMENT PLAN A construction management plan shall be provided to include but not limited to the following measures: • Construction schedule/duration/noise abatement. • Interim offsite employee/contractor parking. • Truck routes. • Onsite construction/traffic signage. •'• Best management practices. • Dust control. •'• Specific tree protection measures. •• No construction parking or traffic shall occur on the residential streets to the west. • A hotline shall be established during the construction period for the adjacent residents to report any violations or concerns. The hotline information shall be posted on the property owner's website and at appropriate locations at the construction site. Said plan shall be reviewed by the Director of Community Development prior to issuance of building permits. 4. NOISE ABATEMENT The final garage plan shall be reviewed by the project noise consultant (Illingworth and Rodkin) to ensure that all of the recommendations outlined by the noise report dated November 8, 2007 are sufficiently addressed. This includes but not limited to the required noise attenuation properties of the garage perimeter wall (ground level and second level) along Linnet Lane. 5. ODOR ABATEMENT All new restaurants shall install odor filtration system. Odor filtration plan shall be reviewed and approved by the City prior to issuance of any building permits. 15 - 14 Resolution No. ASA-2007-10 March 25, 2008 Page 3 6. LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE BOND A landscaping bond naming the City as beneficiary in the amount of $100,000 shall be provided to the City prior to issuance of any building permits. Said bond shall ensure that the approved landscaping enhancements associated with the project are going to be carried out and properly maintained. The bond shall be released five years from the final occupancy approval of the proposed new buildings with a letter from the City Consulting Arborist confirming that all of the landscaping features are in good standing. 7. DETAILED LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE PLAN A detailed landscaping maintenance plan be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. Said plan shall include details on the irrigation system and the routing schedule of maintenance and the upkeep of the landscaping area along east side of Linnet Lane. 8. TRASH ENCLSURE SIZE AND LOCATION The applicant shall work with a consultant to evaluate the refuse and recycling needs of the center and develop a permanent refuse/recycling improvement plan (including but not limited to provide newly updated versions of trash compactors/enclosures, any necessary grease filtration system upgrades, any necessary sewage facility upgrades and more efficient refuse pick-up schedule). Said plan shall be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. Any new trash facility shall be located away from the residential neighborhood as far as possible. 9. BUS SHELTERS There are currently two bus stops along Wolfe Road. One of the bus stops is located near the intersection of Homestead and Wolfe. This bus stop will be relocated to the south of the entrance drive in front of Starbucks Coffee in order to promote safer vehicular movement. The site plan already reflects this change. In addition, staff suggests that the project be required to design and build appropriate bus stop shelters at the two bus stops. The final bus shelter design and location shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department to the Valley Transportation Authority's (VTA) specification. 10. RECONSTRUCTION OF SIDEWALK In order to prolong the life of the double row of Ash Trees along Wolfe Road and the street trees along Homestead Road, the existing perimeter sidewalk should be replaced with a new at-grade sidewalk to facilitate proper root growth and reduce future uplifting of the sidewalk. All monolithic sidewalks shall be replaced with detached sidewalk (except in situations where trees are in the way or special physical/functional constraints warrants special consideration by the Director of Community Development). Unused driveway curb cuts, unnecessary and unsafe curb features or tree wells shall be eliminated. 15 - 15 Resolution No. ASA-2007-10 March 25, 2008 Page 4 11. CORNER PLAZA ENHANCEMENTS The project shall enhance the corner areas at the intersections of Pruneridge/Wolfe and Wolfe/Homestead. Said areas shall be enhanced with special paving material, appropriate landscaping and sidewalk features and potentially benches or art features as determined by the City in order to improve the pedestrian experience and overall aesthetic of the site. A detailed corner plaza enhancement plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the Design Review Committee prior to issuance of building permits. The proposed site plan already acknowledges the plaza. 12. ENHANCEMENTS TO THE INTERIOR CROSWALKS The applicant shall work with staff to determine areas ~ within the existing shopping center (consistent with the recommendations from Fehr and Peers) that should be better delineated as special pedestrian walks or crossing areas. Such areas shall be enhanced with special semi-pervious paving materials and striping. Detailed plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Design Review Committee prior to issuance of building permits. 13. ENHANCEMENTS TO THE INTERIOR COURTYARDS The applicant shall work with staff to enhance and activate the existing courtyards with the following measures: • New shading trees wherever possible. • Enhancements to benches, sitting areas and lighting features. • Enhancements to the interior plaza and gathering places (including but not limited to upgrades to special semi-pervious paving material, trellis/arbor features, water features and outdoor seating areas). Detailed enhancement plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Design Review Committee. 14. DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE The Design Review Committee shall review and approve the final architecture and site plan of the project. 15. RAIN GARDEN The site drainage and roof drainage shall be directed to the rain gardens and/or similar pervious areas to the maximum extent possible. The final site and roof drainage plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Design Review Committee. 16. TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT Provide a Transportation Demand Management Plan. Such plan shall be permanent and demonstrable and be linked to the leasing strategy (ie. tenant/use controls such as cap on restaurants and/or square footage limits). Said plan shall include but not be limited to incentives for employees carpool or 15-76 Resolution No. ASA-2007-10 March 25, 2008 Page 5 take public transportation such as bus passes, monetary incentives, shuttle services for off-site parking, employee or restaurant valet services, preferential car pool parking etc. The final TDM plan shall be submitted to the Planning Department for review and approval prior to final occupancy approval. 17. PARKING SUPPLY The total percent of increase in the proposed parking capacity shall equal or be greater than the proposed percent of increase in building square footage. Physical measures shall include but not be limited to valet parking, offsite parking and/or other dense types of parking measures (including urban lifts) to meet the parking demand. The final revised parking plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Design Review Committee prior to issuance of building permits. Urban lifts shall require Planning Commission review and approval. 18. SCREEN WALL A minimum eight (8) foot tall wall shall be constructed along the northerly property line between the shopping center and the church property. In addition, a locked gate shall be provided at a mutually (between the shopping center and church) agreed location. The final wall and gate plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Design Review Committee. 19. HOMESTEAD DRIVEWAY The driveway along Homestead Road shall be limited to right-in and right-out only. Appropriate signage and driveway modification to implement the right-in and right-out movement shall be reviewed and approved by Director of Public Works prior to issuance of building permits. ' 20. NEIGHBORHOOD SIGN PROGRAM A sign program shall be provided to address appropriate neighborhood signs to inform and deter the public from parking in the residential streets. Said program shall be reviewed and approved by the City of Sunnyvale. 21. PEDESTRIAN GARAGE ACCESS The parking garage shall either include a second set of stair or an elevator. The parking structure shall be consistent with all pertinent Building and ADA Codes. 22. GARAGE ENTRANCE Consider widening the ground level garage entry at the north end (unless it will serve only as exiting). 23. SHADING TREES Plant additional shading trees and enhance the existing landscaping wherever possible throughout the entire center. 15-17 Resolution No. ASA-2007-10 March 25, 2008 Page 6 24. ARCH ENTRY ELEMENTS Repeat the arch element throughout all of the pedestrian entrances. 25. STUCCO WALL TOP DETAIL Details should be provided on how stucco wall top is finished off (avoid sheet metal cap flashing). 26. MULTI-LANGUAGE SIGNS Require clear multi-language signs at each of the pedestrian entrances along Linnet Lane, informing them not to park in the residential streets. Also, the installation of amulti-language sign to inform truckers of the delivery hours and rules shall be provided. Detailed signage plans shall be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. 27. DISCLOSURE OF CONDITIONS TO TENANTS Require that the conditions of approval (including the City's noise ordinance) be made part of the lease agreements of all new tenants so they will be informed of the conditions and rules that will be enforced. 28. SECURITY CAMERAS Require security cameras to be installed at key delivery areas to assist in monitoring and enforcing delivery hours and noise violators. A detailed security camera plan shall be submitted for review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. 29. SECURITY SERVICES Require the center to enhance patrol service so that they can monitor and prevent spill over parking into the neighborhood and the delivery activities. The center should also provide a hotline to the adjacent residents to report any code violation and unsafe activities. Said patrol service shall also monitor the trash facilities to ensure all tenants are using the facilities properly. A detailed security plan shall be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. 30.ONE YEAR REVIEW PERIOD Require a 1-year review of the use permit from the time the two new buildings receive final occupancy. The Planning Commission may consider and require additional parking remedies (i.e., parking lifts, valet parking and/or other parking demand management measures) if deemed appropriate at the time of the review hearing. 31. NOTICE OF FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS OR OTHER EXACTIONS 15 - 18 Resolution No. ASA-2007-10 March 25, 2008 Page 7 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 ADMIlVISTERED BY THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPT. See attachment 1 PASSED AND ADOPTED this 25th day of March 2008, at a 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: Steve Piasecki Director of Community Development APPROVED: Lisa Giefer, Chair Planning Commission 15 - 19 ATTACHMENT 1 PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - Cuaertino Village 1. OFF SITE IMPROVEMENTS Curbs and gutters, sidewalks, streetlights, street widening, curb ramps, striping and related structures shall be installed in accordance with grades and standards as specified by the City Engineer. 2. TRAFFIC SIGNS Traffic control signs shall be placed at locations specified by the City. 3. STREET TREES Street trees shall be planted within the Public Right of Way and shall be of a type approved by the City in accordance with Ordinance No. 125. 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. * Pre and Post-development calculations must be provided to identify if storm drain facilities need to be constructed or renovated. 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. Ordinance No. 331 requires all overhead lines to be underground whether the lines are new or existing_ 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. 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. Grading Permit Fee: b. Checking and Inspection Fee: c. Development Maintenance Deposit: d. Storm Drainage Fee: $ 6% of On Site Improvement Costs or $ 2,163.00 minimum $ 5% of Off Site Improvement Costs or $ 2,304.00 minimum $ 1,000.00 $ 13,556.40 ~ s - 20 e. Power Cost: N/A f. Map Checking Fees: N/A g. Park Fees: N/A Bonds (Required): a. On-Site Improvements Bond: 100% Performance Bond b. Off-Site Improvements Bond: 100% Performance Bond; 100% Labor/Material Bond -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. ** Developer is required for one-year power cost for streetlights 8. 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. 9. BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES Utilize Best Management Practices (BMP's), as required by the State Water Resources Control Board, for construction activity, which disturbs soil. 10. NPDES CONSTRUCTION GENERAL PERMIT The applicant must file for a NOI (Notice of Intent) and must prepare a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan with the State Water Resources Control Board. The city must obtain documentation that the process has been completed. For copies of the Construction General Permit, the NOI and additional permit information consult the state Water Resources Control Board web site at: http:/www.swrcb.ca.gov/stormwtr/construction.html 11. AMENDED DEVELOPMENT BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMP1 REQUIREMENTS a. Permanent Stormwater Quality BMPs Required In accordance with chapter 9.18, Stormwater Pollution Prevention and Watershed Protection, of the City Code, all development and redevelopment projects shall include permanent BMPs in order to reduce the water quality impacts of stormwater runoff from the entire site for the life of the project. b. Stormwater Management Plan Required The applicant shall submit a Stormwater Management Plan for this project. The permanent storm water quality best management practices (BMPs) included in this plan shall be selected and designed in accordance with chapter 9.18, Stormwater Pollution Prevention and Watershed Protection, of the City Code. c. BMP Agreements The applicant and the City shall enter into a recorded agreement and covenant running with the land for perpetual BMP maintenance by the property owners,~~s).21In addition, the owner(s) and the City shall enter into a recorded easement agreement and covenant running with the land allowing City access at the site for BMP inspection. 12. MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT The applicant will be required to maintain all items, which are non-standard within the City's right of way. The applicant and the City must enter into a recorded agreement for this aforementioned work. 13. GARBAGE AND RECYCLING The applicant will be required to gain approval from the Environmental Programs Department prior to obtaining a building permit for the overall garbage and recycling of the subject development. Please use the following link towards the design of the garbage/recycling facilities: http://www.cupertino.ora/downloads/Pdf/es Non Res Waste Guidelines pdf A refuge truck access plan must be approved by the Environmental Programs Department. 14. TRAFFIC STUDY FOR POTENTIAL CUT-THROUGH TRAFFIC The applicant shall fund a study to examine potential cut through traffic resulting from the proposed development along Wolfe Road between Pruneridge Avenue and Homestead Road. The applicant shall pay for necessary traffic improvements to address this potential traffic impact. Work shall be coordinated with the Public Works Department. 15. TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS The applicant will be required to address, but are not limited to, the following concerns/deficiencies: 1. No left turns shall be permitted into or from Homestead Road driveway. The redesigned driveway must only be designated as a right turn in and right turn out. 2. The applicant shall fund $75,000 towards traffic signal modification improvements at the Homestead/Wolfe intersection. 15-22 Cupertino Planning Commission November 13, 2007 Friendly Amendment to Motion: Com. Kaneda added relative to the LEE cation, add "strive to meet the minimal LEED commercial interior certifi evel:' Com. Wong accepted the friendly amendment. Com. Wong added to motion: Add "the cant shall not use the putting green or any of the landscaped area as a play area ool area:' Second by Com. Miller (Vote: 5-0-0) Chair Giefer declared rt recess. Chair opened the public hearing. 3. U-2007-06, ASA-2007-10 (EA-2007-08) Brian Replinger (Cupertino Village) Homestead & Wolfe Rd. Use Permit and Architectural and Site Approval to construct two, one-story retail buildings totaling 24,455 square feet and a one level parking deck. Tentative City Council date: December 18, 2007 Gary Chao, Senior Planner, presented the staff report: • Reviewed the application for use permit and architectural and site approval to construct two one-story retail buildings totaling 24,455 squaze feet and a two level parking structure at Homestead Road and Wolfe Road. He noted there would be a second public hearing as the Planning Commission cannot take action until ERC provides findings for the environmental considerations and they are scheduled to meet on November 14, 2007. Details of the staff presentation aze outlined in the staff report. • As there are only 5,341 square feet of commercial development allocation remaining for the azea, the applicant is requesting the additional 19,114 square footage be redistributed from the Vallco Park South area which currently has 791,000 square feet available. • He reviewed the site design, neighborhood connectivity, proposed architecture for the two retail buildings, including the architectural consultant's suggestions; other site enhancements to be included in the project and parking requirements. Other enhancements include bus shelters, reconstruction of sidewalk, corner plaza enhancements, enhancements to the interior crosswalks, pazking lot shading trees, and trash enclosure size and location. He noted that the proposed parking demand for the expansion is 800 pazking stalls; the project proposes 782 and fall short of 18 stalls. Relative to the deficit of 18 stalls, the Planning Commission has options to consider in order to avoid pazking shortage at the center. The options are listed on page 7 of the staff report. • Relative to green design, staff suggests that the project be made to required to be LEED certifiable, indicating that they don't have to go through the paperwork and actual certification process, but the property owner would show proof that in terms of going through the checklist of LEED to go through the points and show how they are meeting the minimum in terms of being able to certify the two buildings. • Hexagon Transportation Engineers were retained to provide traffic .analysis which indicated the project will generate a net increase of 55 trips during AM trips peak hour and 154 trips during PM peak hours. According to the traffic engineering in consult with Public Works and data provided by the city Public Works Department, none of the signalized intersections would be significantly impacted by the project; it will not degrade to a point where it is past whatever service level it is at, and the project would not have any significant adverse impact on the existing pedestrian bicycle transit facilities in the area. • Enhancement measures suggested by Public Works are outlined in the staff report. 15-23 Cupertino Planning Commission November 13, 2007 He reported that the noise report by Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc., used the more conservative residential standards which is 60 db daytime and 50 db nighttime as a standazd for comparison. Based on the report, new sources for noise associated with the project would involve air conditioning, heating equipment, parking activities, primarily in the pazking structure. As a suggestion, a qualified noise control engineer shall approve the final design of any of the mechanical equipment plan and to make sure that the operational noise level for any of the mechanical equipment on the new buildings or gazage shall be reduced to a noise level of 40 dba or less at the nearby residential receiver, basically at the property line. In addition, regazding the noise barrier discussed earlier, along the west perimeter garage wall, our noise consultant suggests that the final design be made so that the wall reduce the noise level generated by things such as an auto horn to less than 70 db. The same noise barrier shall provide a minimum of 6 dba of noise reduction and with the above measures in place, the project would not result in a measurable increase in the existing situation. Given the net traffic increase, the parking consultant states that the project would not result in measurable increase from the traffic being generated as measured along the roadways that serve this project. He discussed the issues related to trees as outlined in the staff report, and stated that staff recommends the final tree plan be reviewed and approved by the DRC prior to the issuance of a building permit. He reviewed the neighbors' comments and concerns expressed at another neighborhood meeting, and email correspondence, which included issues related to pazking, landscaping, and pedestrian access. He also reviewed the conditions or mitigation measures that the Planning Commissioners may consider in response to some of the neighbors' concerns. The comments and suggestions are outlined on Pages 11 and 12 of the staff report. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission take the following actions: Take public input, evaluate issues of the project, provide staff and applicant with feedback and continue the item to a date certain to allow sufficient time for staff and the applicant to respond to any concerns or recommendations; and also provide a recommendation to City Council following that. Coin. Kaneda: • Expressed concern that the traffic consultant could do a survey, determine the parking to be 100% full and arrive at a conclusion that they have exactly the convect number of parking spaces. He said that as it exists today, the center does not have adequate parking. Before discussing adding new buildings, there is clearly an issue with pazking. Steve Piasecki: • Said that the traffic consultant went out and found the worst case situation and verified what everyone already knows, they are jammed during the worst case situations. They did some drive-throughs during the not so high demand periods and found there were available parking spaces. There are some concentrated periods where the center is packed; and we spoke about this earlier that this is arguably the most successful shopping center that we have. Discussion continued regarding parking issues wherein staff reviewed the results of the recent consultant's study, and possible mitigation options available to avoid parking shortage at the center. Traffic circulation within the center was also discussed. Brian Replinger, Development Director, Kimco Realty Corp.: • Kimco took ownership of the center in Mazch 2006 and since then has studied expansion of the center to improve it. We do recognize that there are a lot of neighbors' concerns regarding parking and traffic impact on the neighborhood. We have no feelings one way or another on the pedestrian access or no pedestrian access from Linnet. It is what works best for the city and the neighborhood. We were responding to Planning's comments to go with the city's 15-24 Cupertino Planning Commission 9 November 13, 2007 wanting to enhance pedestrian access when they came up with this plan. Nothing we are married to. • We take no exception to anything that staff has come up with in the reports. Architecturally from the azborist, staff comments on transportation, anything; we think that they are good suggestions and don't take issue with any of those. There has been some concern about operational issues tonight and as the city attorney stated, I instructed our legal people after hearing this over the last few meetings, to look into what we can do with existing leases. A lot of leases are ones we inherited with the center that we have to abide by now. I have asked them to reseazch what teeth we can put into existing leases and they are looking at notifying the existing tenants that they will be expected to meet all city ordinances regarding noise and we will put more teeth on those as leases expire and new leases come up. • Regarding parking, he said they had to live with the existing leases. They are looking at providing incentives for new tenants as leases expire and ones that come into the new development that goes forward on how to use the incentive of carpooling and using public transit. We are hesitant to look into offsite uses because we are going to be at the mercy of the offsite people and we would like to pursue permanent things that we have control over but for patchwork things we are going to be at the mercy of, agreements expiring. We understand that and we want this to work well. Typically when we see a parking deficit at a center, the first people to complain are our tenants because they hear from their customers that they cannot pazk there and they are going to go someplace else. We haven't heard that yet, but that does not mean there isn't problems for other people but empirically that is where we typically hear it from. I have looked at our other centers in the western U.S. about this size, they typically park at between 4 and 6 per 1,000 which is fairly common for shopping centers across the country. The ratio that Hexagon arrived at is based upon some higher ones and we are a little shy of it, 18 spaces, of their recommendation and we aze looking for everyone of them, and in fact, getting rid of pedestrian access would pick up 4 or 5 more parking spots. We have had two meetings with the neighbors and you will heaz from them tonight. We have been good listeners; we understand their concerns and we want the center to be successful and we want to be a good neighbor. Com. Miller: • Asked the applicant if they considered adding another level to the garage. Brian Replinger: • The height is something we wanted to be sensitive to; adding a third level, more height for the gazage, gets overpowering, presently the top of the screen would be about 14 to 15 feet; the top of the existing buildings and proposed ones are about 22 feet. • Below grade gets very expensive; we don't have the ability to charge for pazking and when you go below grade, that is typically subsidized by people staying there. There is also a gas easement through the garage and relocating the gas would be problematic. • He said that since they took ownership, prospective tenants have shown interest in the center. Com. Wong: • Said that it is a successful center, but has a parking problem. It is important that there be a positive experience for the customers of the center, which is an important goal of the Planning Commission also. Brian Replinger: • In response to Com. Kaneda's question relative to carpool incentives and use of public transportation, he said they could look at ways to provide incentives to the employees of the 15-25 Cupertino Planning Commission 10 November 13, 2007 center to either use public transit or carpool; which is done by operating a bus or public transit passes at a subsidized rate and similar with carpooling. • Said it was difficult for the property owner to count employees, depending on the shifts and workload of the day. The tenants know, but we typically don't ask that. We have an account of what we think the numbers are and can make that available. (Added text to draft minutes) Com. Kaneda: Asked staff if there was a way of estimating what that number is, what incentives for carpooling and mass transit might reduce the number to? Steve Piasecki: • Cannot provide an accurate number, we could ask the traffic consultant to tell us, but I don't think it is extremely high for retail and for restaurants; it is very good for research and development parks. Apple Computer has a very successful program; they have buses to and from Caltrain. It may be in the 5% to 7% range; we would have to ask the experts. Com. Kaneda: • It seems for some unknown reason that this shopping center has an unusually high ratio of retail space; is that the ratio of square footage of retail space to parking spots? I hear that it is above the ULI recommended ratios. I am curious why that would be. Steve Piasecki: • We could ask the applicant to research those other methods and come back with employee counts, perhaps they could re-engage the traffic engineers to survey a broader range of days and find out if they can find the cars that were lining the street that Chair Giefer talked about. We know there is some spillover, I don't know the degree of it. Com. Miller: • I am still looking at the parking problem; and there is a number of solutions proposed. One, to reduce the number of square feet of retail; you change the use around; add more parking and I was going to propose another one and perhaps on the front building on Wolfe Road; instead of going one story linearly, had you considered doing a two story structure instead? Brian Replinger: • Said that consideration of two story structures in the center was not feasible as everything else in the center is single story,. It was felt that single story additions to the center were more in keeping with the design of the center; and also second story space is difficult to lease. Currently there is approximately 5,000 square feet of second story space that is not leased. Com. Miller • Asked how they planned to address the parking issue. Brian Replinger: • The problem with the first one we do, is we are willing to look at limiting the new use of food to a percentage, or number of seats. Typically restaurants are part on a ratio of so many seats per space and they are willing to work with the city to come up with an agreeable ratio for that. • Said that outside seating counts if you go with a seat count ratio. ff you say that restaurants are going to park at one per four seats, the restaurants are going to be limited to a number of seats, which would be included in the lease. 15-26 Cupertino Planning Commission 11 November 13, 2007 Chair Giefer opened the public hearing. Surachita Bose, City of Sunnyvale Planning Department: • Said that the main issues they feel impact the residents in the vicinity of the Cupertino Village project have been identified in a detailed list of comments provided to the project planner. The City of Sunnyvale's Planning staff has been contacted by several residents of the Linnet Lane neighborhood and the key issues include the potential for traffic and noise in the adjoining residential neighborhood; pazking overflow into the streets; concerns about the amount and condition of landscaping, and code enforcement issues on the project site. We do recognize the challenges posed by commercial development projects in the vicinity of residential neighborhoods. We have reviewed the project plans in detail and have some recommendations that could potentially mitigate the impacts on the residents. • The quantity of parking provided. The shopping complex currently has an extremely high demand for parking and there has been considerable spillover of traffic into the neighboring residential streets. In the past, we recommended that the project be conditioned to limit the required parking demand on site or to reduce the total amount of retail square footage to meet the available parking. • Limiting the total amount of restaurant uses at the site to about 25%. We believe currently the center has 27% of restaurant uses and considering that they aze the high parking demand uses, limiting that and capping that at 25% may be appropriate. I also understand that allowing restaurant users to go in there does not require additional use permits or' going through the public hearing process; that may be a way of limiting the parking impact. • The current traffic study points out that there is no spillover onto the Linnet Lane neighborhood and in driving azound the neighborhood and feedback from the residents it doesn't seem entirely accurate. Also the traffic and circulation patterns that have been studied in the traffic study do not look at the Linnet Lane; it does look at Homestead, Wolfe and a lot of other streets, but not Linnet Lane. Maybe looking at a more detailed traffic study to assess more fully the pazking impacts may be required. • The issue of the location of the two level parking structure adjacent to Linnet Lane. We feel that although the location of the pedestrian entryway at the center of the parking structure may be a logical choice; it may encourage more people to pazk along Linnet Lane. We recommend exploring design options as suggested by the project planner that would de-emphasize pedestrian entry, and one alternative may be to design the project to have the pedestrian access point blocked now, with the potential for it to be opened in the future if the parking situation should change at some point. • The issue of noise; we have already discussed the hours during which deliveries are made at the site. We recommend imposing stronger enforcement measures at the site. It was not clear to us looking at the section on elevation whether a masonry wall was being proposed or it was verified today that there will be one. We aze concerned that the wall may not be tall enough to block noise from two levels of parking structure; we would like to encourage the occupant to explore having a higher masonry wall and having the green screen in front of it to visually soften the impact of the masonry wall. • The project could be conditioned to require a bond to maintain the landscaping; the neighbors pointed out it has been an issue in the past. • The parking structure lighting should incorporate downlighting mechanisms to minimize lighting glaze onto adjacent residential properties. • Incorporating construction impact mitigation measures to minimize impact to the residents during construction phase of the project; and addressing the issue of how the parking during the construction phase would be addressed. • Concluded by stating that she looked forward to working with the city in addressing the neighbors' concerns. 15-27 Cupertino Planning Commission 12 November 13, 2007 Com. Wong: • Asked if the City of Sunnyvale considered implementing a pazking permit program since there is a strong concern by the residents. Ms. Bose: Said that it was an issue explored back in 2003 when the residents were opposed to an aspect of the project. We had looked at the option back then but it my understanding that some or most of the residents were not open to the idea of having permit parking at that time. There was also the issue of having not enough staff available at our Public Safety for enforcement reasons, but it is something we can explore further. She said she was not in a position to comment whether or not it was a viable alternative at this time. Kuldeep Chalihan: • Opposed to project. • Said the traffic in the evening hours from DeAnza/Blaney back toward east Homestead Road is a big mess. Increasing the square footage will make it a nightmaze. • One year to 2 years of construction will create a nuisance for the entire neighborhood; property values will depreciate. Li Li, Parnell Place: • Opposed to the project. • There are many overspill problems on the weekend; when the traffic engineer does his survey, he should definitely look at Linnet Lane and all the side streets. At least 100 more cazs are parked on the streets on the weekend. • Expanding the center will add to the parking problems. Many people stay away from the center because of the shortage of parking spaces already. • Said that the odor from the trash containers at Ranch 99 are very strong in the neighborhood and creates a lot of flies. • Limit the restaurants in the center. • Traffic during construction; will be worse. Mario Garibay, Linnet Lane, read the following into the record: • We the residents of Linnet Lane and surrounding neighborhood of Sunnyvale would like Cupertino Village Shopping Center LLC to consider redesigning their current plans to expand their shopping center. • We continue to experience many negative impacts that have not been resolved since our last public hearing regazding the fence. Deliveries aze still occumng before and after the allotted timeframes; when they should be made between 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. The grease trap recycler still continues to show up at 1:00 a.m. along with the sidewalk pressure washing company and parking lot sweepers. Considering the control on noise violations has not been enforced, building and multi-story parking structures only aze going to add to the existing noise from the construction being done and the continuous traffic throughout our neighborhood. • Building a structure of this size is only going to amact more people to come and visit the already densely populated shopping center. We continue to deal with parking congestion and shopping carts left abandoned in our neighborhood, making the visual presentation of our neighborhood look poor. The towering apartments already impede on our privacy. Therefore this parking structure should be built underground to minimize garbage being thrown from the second parking level; noise reduction and headlights beaming through our windows. 15-28 Cupertino Planning Commission 13 November 13, 2007 A 22 foot acoustic fully engineered soundwall should be constructed as we had asked for in the past. Since the existing fence is now in compliance with the requirements of B 1628030 stating that the fence is separating commercial zones from residential zones should be constructed at a height and with materials designed, (1) acoustically to isolate part or all of noise emitted, and (2) ensure visual privacy for adjoining residential dwelling units. In conclusion, adding a parking structure in this capacity is only going to degenerate our residential and surrounding neighborhoods, making it detrimental for our future. Arvin Jain, Cupertino resident: • Opposed to project. • Said he was surprised from the discussion that they were justifying adding to the same successful complex at the cost of security and safety of the neighborhood. Three years ago his house was burglarized and also the house behind him on Linnet Lane. Adding a two story parking gazage will aggravate that problem and the safety of the neighborhood. • Adding more traffic to the neighborhood not only adds more spillover problems, but it will become sign~cantly worse and reduce the safety of the neighborhood because of the increase of cars in the neighborhood and impacting the safety of the residents and their children. • Take these two important factors into consideration in deliberation of the application. Sai Gummidipudi: • Opposed to the project. • Expressed concern about the entrance into the shopping center from Linnet Lane; it has always been an issue of contention for the Sunnyvale neighbors. • Understand there is a lease issue with Ranch 99; hopefully the legal department for Kimco will come up with something; there is a lot 'of parking space in front of Ranch 99 which could probably be utilized for a pazking structure. Having something right next to Linnet Lane with the noise level and with the possibility of looking into our neighborhood from the pazking lot even though the design says it is 14 feet; I strongly feel there is always some possibility of people hanging around there. Without a pazking structure now, there are always people spending time around that azea even after 11 p.m. I am not sure if a second level will be any different. • The construction will be azound for about 1-2 yeazs and the entire area next to the fence is going to be used for construction. We also have to consider the parking situation during the construction span, and I am not sure where all the cars will go for that time. The obvious choice is spilling onto Linnet Lane and the side streets. • Said he appreciated that the people living next to the Cupertino Village get informed of all meetings. • Said that preventing pedestrian access on the border between the property and Linnet Lane would help with the issues with parking and people walking through the residential area. David Chapman, representing Good Samaritan Methodist Church: • Is one of the nearest neighbors to the shopping center and does not get information about meetings. • Lack of pedestrian access to Linnet Lane would increase the pedestrian traffic through the church property. There is currently a foot access from the church parking lot to the parking lot of the center. • Said because of the increased traffic between the center and our property they were requesting that an 8 foot wall be built to protect against traffic. Said he was also requesting that the pedestrian access be retained. 15-29 Cupertino Planning Commission 14 November 13, 2007 • Closing access onto Wolfe Road would increase even more the traffic going through the narrow passageway, the narrow driveway between the church property, the preschool playground and the shopping center. He said they were concerned about the increased traffic. • Said they need access to shopping center parking spaces as part of the ongoing agreement with the center with previous owners for 200 spaces available for church parking, which is primarily used on Sunday mornings. It does have an effect on other times of the week when meetings are held; and there is currently considerable traffic from Linnet Lane and others in their parking lot. • Said that some of the parishioners do park on Linnet Lane on Sunday mornings or when there are large events such as funerals. • He noted that the church parking lot is heavily used during the week by patrons of the shopping center. Loretta Wong, Preschool Director, Good Samaritan.Methodist Church: • Expressed concern about the driveway between the preschool playground, and the plans to take away some of the driveway off Wolfe Road and put it where Homestead is. If the traffic is increased there, the preschool playground is right there by the throughway to the parking lot. She said they wanted a barrier there for the safety of the children. In its present state, if a car hits the metal fence, it will go right through the playground, endangering the children. • Ensure that there is a safety valve there to prevent anything from happening to the children. Hannah Yu, Linnet Lane: • Opposed to the project. • Said for the developer it is an issue of getting more money, and for the residents it is an issue about quality of life. • The burden the development has placed on the neighborhood and the community is so great and disproportionate. We can all agree that there are extreme parking problems and that parking in the azea, the responsibility of the managers, they are not fulfilling their responsibility in providing enough parking and the overfill parking lot has become our neighborhood. • In addition, parking in the neighborhood is bad and adding new traffic from the development and when Vallco opens; it will overwhelm the streets that are not equipped to handle that many cars. • My biggest concern for my family and the residents on my street is the parking gazage. I am shocked there has been so little discussion that they want to build a parking garage across the street from our houses. It will have a horrendous effect on the neighborhood. It would be detrimental to the health, safety, emotional well being of the residents in the neighborhood. Bob Struk, Kinglet Court: • Opposes the project. • Said that they aze happy for the success of the Cupertino Village; however, it is excessively saturated; and the proposals for the project will saturate it even more. The impact is not linear, but goes up expedientially. Presently the spillover is not only on Linnet Lane; there isn't any parking on Parnell Place or Kinglet Court. • The air pollution is significant from the restaurants; the noise pollution is excessive and the proposals limiting new machinery down to 70 dba is significantly loud. • They consider the barriers they wish to have as mandatory. The impact to the safety of the children of the church is real. • He said the parking spillover was at its highest on weekends and weeknights after 5 p.m. 15-30 Cupertino Planning Commission 15 November 13, 2007 • He distributed a signed paper by the Kinglet Court residents, unanimously requesting that the project be halted based on the reasons listed. Bob Rau: • Opposed to the project. • Said about 15 years ago there was an agreement reached between the residents and the shopping center, they closed the driveway to the parking lot of the center; it was mentioned at that time that the pedestrian access could be closed if the traffic was too excessive. The pedestrian access only encourages parking on the street. • He said the owner should invest in underground parking as the center is successful and it would be a good long term investment. • He said the current center owners started off good, were more responsive and aware than the prior owners. Xin Li: • Opposed to the project. • Said he did not get notice of the first two meetings. • The parking structure is not acceptable and is too close to the residences. • Said the parking lot of the center was full weekdays about noon and always on the weekend. Mu-Ding Li, Parnell Place: • Opposed to the project. • Said he was opposed to the two level parking garage and the parking situation would be worse. • He said the azea before Ranch 99 market could accommodate a multi level pazking garage. • He asked that consideration be given to the depreciation of the property values of the neighboring residents and the privacy impacts of the pazking structure. Jerrie Hyrne: • Opposed to project. • Said that the original shopping center was designed as a neighborhood center and is now a regional center. • She discussed the negative impacts of the odors permeating the neighborhood from the many restaurants; and the heavy traffic in the neighborhood which impacts the safety of the children. She noted that the vacant 4,500 square feet of space would create an additional shortage of parking spaces. • She asked that consideration be given to the quality of life of the residents, and not just consider the tax revenue for the city. May Huang, Linnet Lane: • Opposes the project. • Said that many friends have told her they do not attempt to park in the center pazking lot when shopping at the center; they park on Linnet Lane or Parnell or other nearby streets. • Said that the project would only make the traffic and pazking situations worse, and she would be forced to live across from a huge parking structure. She added that the noise, air pollution and odors from the center negatively impacted the residents. • There is presently a parking space deficit and the proposed project would only increase the need for parking which creates an impossible situation. David Doudna, Parnell Place: • Opposed to the project. 15-31 Cupertino Planning Commission 16 November 13, 2007 • Challenged the notion and report that there is no spillover parking. Said it was his opinion that the consultant's report was unfounded. • He noted that he sent an email with comments also. • Said he supported neighborhood connectivity, however, the reality is that given the inadequate parking, the portal of Linnet Lane will be primarily used by people outside the neighborhood driving their car, parking on our streets and walking to the shopping centers from our street. Unless the parking lot is improved either by number of stalls or larger stalls, there may be other reasons people aren't pazking in the lot. If it is improved so that it is more attractive for people to park there than in the street, open it up, have a pedestrian portal. • He questioned whether the Ranch 99 customers would push a cart of grocers up the ramp to the top level of the parking structure or push it onto Linnet Lane where their caz is parked. When they do, their shopping carts are left on the street. • Regarding other mitigation measures that have been discussed such as incentives for using alternative transportation; great, so demonstrate it; why wait for the expansion; demonstrate them now and show how the parking can be made adequate now and only then when you have established what adequate parking is, and you know what that ratio is, only then can you say we can expand perhaps, keeping that same ratio of pazking spaces. Jennifer Griffin, Rancho Rinconada resident: • Asked that the Ash trees along Wolfe Road be protected, the double row of Ash trees from Stevens Creek Boulevard down to Homestead along Wolfe Road are a hallmark of the Vallco Cupertino shopping district. The greenbelt of Ashes at the intersection of Homestead and Wolfe is a major entrance way to Cupertino; it is a gateway to the city and the lush green ambiance with the lawns and street trees should be retained. Protect as many trees on the property also. • Said she hoped that before the project proceeds, everyone will make certain that there are no parking problems on Homestead/Wolfe and in the parking lot. Doug Durham, Lark Lane: • Opposed to the project. • Said he felt the plan was anon-starter; as it stands today there is no parking; and according to the studies, there will be less parking. • Said he endorsed the idea that the parking should be fixed as it stands today. Will people start commuting if they are given free VTA passes, resulting in many spaces opening up? • If the project goes through, all pedestrian access must be closed off, because without it there is such a draw into the neighborhood to park there, and his neighborhood will become overflow parking. • Looking at the traffic flow outlined, he said he couldn't imagine driving a car into the parking lot once the new retail outlets aze there. Mark McLaughlin: . • Opposed to the project. • Said he agreed with many of the prior speakers. • The parking study suggested that they had already reached 100% capacity; obviously understated. He suggested that long before reaching 100% capacity, people are already trying to avoid that problem by moving into the neighborhoods into overflow parking. • The fence was built at the request of the neighborhood and it was a fight just to get that meager fence that is present now. The landscaping was also a token gesture on their part; and no efforts were made to maintain it. 15-32 Cupertino Planning Commission 17 November 13, 2007 • Some of the things that have been proposed that I would strongly encourage is that barn measure; in order to ensure that the landscaping is maintained, it is absolutely critical. The pedestrian access, the elimination of any pedestrian access onto Linnet is also critical. • The suggested changes to traffic flow in and out of the parking lot will only further increase the problems on Linnet. If it is changed to a right turn only onto Homestead Road, it will encourage people who are going to want to make the left hand turn onto Homestead get back on DeAnza Boulevard, Sazatoga/Sunnyvale and Blaney, they aze going to have to pazk on Linnet in order to make that turn and they are going to choose that convenience over moving into a garage. Putting the garage on the back side of the parking lot; with the traffic patterns already pointed out on the parking lot, people are going to try to avoid that as much as possible; they are going to move to a place that is going to provide the most ready access in and out. • The problems that will be encountered during construction are being overlooked. There will be many parking spaces eliminated during construction; where aze the people going to park while construction is going on; where are the construction workers going to park? • The existing problems need to be fixed before a new set of problems are created. Charles Rogers: • No longer present at the meeting. ' Jason Yu, Linnet Lane: • Opposed to project. • Said that the shopping center owner and the City of Cupertino would benefit .from the expansion of the center at the sacrifice of the property owners' privacy and quality of life. • He questioned how many actual parking spaces would be gained since there would be two new retail spaces built, resulting in a loss of parking spaces. • Asked that the Planning Commissioners consider all the factors before making a decision. Chair Giefer closed the public hearing. Com. Wong: • During construction, what is the construction management plan; while the center is 100% at capacity, where will they park, and while construction is going on? Steve Piasecki: • The applicant will be asked to provide a detailed plan addressing where, when and how, and how to keep them from parking on Linnet. When the contractors are hired, they can be informed that they cannot park on Linnet for construction purposes. They would normally provide an offsite location to stage, and will have to provide pazking measures when they demolish the parking lot, such as a valet system available to the shopping center. They would likely want to demonstrate how they can build the buildings, not in two years, but shorter period of time. • Said the application would be continued to the first meeting in January to address parking, more parking counts, construction management. Said that if the project moves ahead, it will give the city and the neighborhood some kind of control, as presently the city has no control of how they operate, the odors from the center and the other aspects that annoy the neighbors. He said he felt it cannot be done effectively under the current lack of control they have, other than code enforcement. Kimco will do everything they can to control the contractors on site and be as good a neighbor as possible, which would occur in the next two months as completion of more parking analysis is done. The point about 15-33 Cupertino Planning Commission 18 November 13, 2007 access is well taken, it is essential especially when there is a successful shopping center, you want to en- on the side of the neighborhood when that is occurring. The shopping center currently has an old permit that has no conditions on it; eliminating either the percentage of restaurants, hours of operation, any incentives for employees to not take their vehicles; there is nothing to control this. The only issue they have had to deal with in the not too distant past, is they replaced the fence along Linnet, which is a low fence which provides next to no protection for the neighborhood; high visibility into the existing pazking, flat on the surface level parking lot, and it is creating some of the problems that the residents are pointing to. The lack of any kind of a barrier. He said that they could ask the owner to put up a temporary fence to close off the pedestrian access within the next month or so. The Planning Commissioners provided direction to staff relative to outstanding questions based on discussion at the present meeting, in order to be better prepared for the January meeting. Com. Kaneda: My sense is that what is there now is fairly egregious on the residents on Linnet Lane and the neighborhood. ff nothing happens that may not be your best option. One of the things I would encourage the neighborhood to think about is this may create opportunities for you to improve a bad situation .and make it better. Here is a couple of thoughts I think need to be considered and looked at. Cleazly the ratio of parking to retail being suggested, is not on the table. I would expect a large increase in parking and at least from a percentage standpoint, a much smaller increase in retail to get this into a range that can be considered. I understand there are code issues and we will pretend we are meeting the code and the recommendations but code or not, the pazking situation does not work, and needs to be addressed. Said there were comments that a parking gazage is not acceptable, but the residents should consider that the parking gazage could be their friend; it can serve to block sound, block people's views into their neighborhood because of the design of the gazage, which is a solid wall giving a wall that is going to be planted with vines that will act as a privacy and sound screen. If done correctly, it can actually improve the sound problems and improve some of the visual problems. One of the things you need to pay attention to, referring to Linnet Lane, one of the things you need to look at if a caz is parked there and its headlights are on, there is going to be this critical viewing angle that you need to make sure that somebody checks that angle to ensure the headlights aren't going into somebody's home. Potentially that can be done and you can work azound it. Steve Piasecki: • Said it would be helpful to look at the four level Vallco parking structure. The green screen concept and the noise baffling that goes on in that parking structure would be similar and when you see it, it is amazing. Com. Kaneda: • Cleazly the pedestrian access needs to be cut off and I presume there is some way to do it and have fire access; but under normal conditions there is no pedestrian access. Perhaps the church can consider doing something with a lock so that when they need access, they unlock it, but normally it is locked so people don't get in the habit of cutting through the church to get back and forth. • Suggested to the owner to consider doing the mitigation measures now to try them out. 15-34 Cupertino Planning Commission 19 November 13, 2007 Com. Miller: • Agreed that the city did not have a lot of control over what is going on there now. Is there some type of development that can go on there now that would mitigate some of the issues to make it better instead of worse. He encouraged the applicant to consider that and also to talk to the residents some more and see if there is some common ground that the center and residents can meet on for awin/win situation. • Many times people come here and to City Council and they want us to make a decision on something and we do the best we can, but when we make a decision, we don't have the same level of work and effort and ideas that go into it when residents and the developer sit down together and try to work out a solution and work through many of the issues. It is a better way to go and I would encourage the meetings to continue, particulazly now that the issues aze being put on the table. • We want to do something to improve or eliminate the spillover and a number of suggestions were made. The first one was to cut off the pedestrian access, and it may be appropriate to put a sound wall up there; but as pointed out, the garage itself may act as a sound wall. • Said he agreed with speakers that right turn only movements on Homestead would encourage more people to go down Linnett. However, he expressed concern with limiting it to right turn only; and said he was also concerned with eliminating the access on Wolfe Road. Traffic flow in the center itself and parking is two sides of the same coin, and if the traffic flow is not improved in the center and if it gets worse because there is more people trying to fit into this space, there is more motivation for people to look for parking in the neighborhoods because they don't want to deal with the hassle of the queues they encounter when they get into.the center. The traffic flow in the center has to be addressed as much as the parking because they affect one another. • The odor abatement issue is one that we see all over town, and we do address that when we have control over it and when it makes sense to address it. Here again it is an issue we don't have control over now, but if there was some further development there, that is an issue that potentially could get addressed. • Said he was also sensitive to the concern of the church about safety for the children there and we want to make sure we address that. At the same time, the church's request for keeping the pedestrian access is an issue and I think Com. Kaneda may have a good solution in terms of limited access where perhaps the gate is open on Sundays to allow people through if that could be monitored effectively. • Said that if the traffic study did not consider the impact or overflow into the neighborhoods, the traffic study has under-estimated what the real numbers aze and Com. Kaneda's calculations aze on point with respect to that. • Summarized there may be a win/win situation, in that the neighborhood can gain some advantage by having some development going on there and in return for that some of these issues are mitigated in the process. Com. Wong: • Said that Coms. Kaneda and Miller summarized issues appropriately. He said that they have spent two hours at the present meeting, and this is one of two shopping centers that will be discussed. The people of Cupertino want to be good neighbors with Sunnyvale, so I want to thank the people who did attend tonight and that we really do care abut our neighbors and want to fmd a solution to have this awin/win situation. • Instead of having us decide the end result, is to work closely with Kimco and it would behoove Kimco to work closely with the Sunnyvale residents. We don't. want to make these tough decisions and if Kimco and the residents can find some compromise to resolve this, it would make our job easier. 15-35 Cupertino Planning Commission 20 November 13, 2007 I am not going into further direction for staff because I will not be on the Planning Commission in January. I wish good luck to all of you. Com. Rose: Said that she agreed with comments made, and said if you were going to encourage dialog between Kimco and the residents, it is important that everyone be noticed properly. The group goal for both groups is to try to find a common ground and the pazking structure could be attractive and an improvement. She said that the wooden fence did not appear to serve all in a fair way to separate them from the retail space. He said he felt if they worked together moving forward, they could find a common ground that would make the neighborhood more attractive. Chair Giefer: • When we address the pazking again, to be specific on what I would like added to the parking study, I would like to have the adjacent neighborhoods on Linnet and other neighborhood streets, as part of that, looking for overflow traffic, specifically on weekends. Also the church, because we have heazd that because they share back and forth in parking, I would like to understand what the capacity usage is as well. • We have talked about green design and meeting a LEED silver, and I would like to see those on the plan. The tree survey and study plan that is recommended, the DRC can improve that, but in our packet having a larger tree map with readable numbers would be helpful; and trying to get a rough count from the applicant in terms of how many employees there are at the center and coming up with an estimate in terms of what impact a parking management plan may have on this project, would be helpful in the decision making. • Ensure that the parking plan meets the current parking requirement in terms of bioswales etc. • A suggestion about the Fire Department's access in the one area on Linnet Lane; the Fire Department can get through electronic gates or gates with a knoz box lam. It may be a solution for this area as well; it would be a solid gate that would go across there, so there would be no pedestrian access from Linnet. The Fire Department has a special key to unlock the gate. Gary Chao: • Said that flip flopping the parking was discussed. Kimco pointed out that the lease for that building would expire in 2012, and as currently sits, you cannot swap it because the lease is current; and until that time, there may be plans to either enhance the lot on the corner of Pruneridge and Wolfe to provide more parking or reconfigure it so it is more efficiently striped and perhaps relocate the bank building elsewhere onsite. • Said there was no restriction on Retail A to put a parking structure in that particular area in that triangle. There are not any restrictions; we have not talked about having a parking structure there. Chair Giefer: • If there aze other opportunities to relocate the parking structure or underground the parking structure, I think it would be a great idea to investigate those and make us awaze of what the issues might be in either undergrounding or relocating the structure as an alternative and then coming back with the sound wall there as well as blocking the preschool play yazd. Com. Wong: • >f a housing unit can subterrain and the shopping center cannot, it is a matter of how much they want to invest into the property. That is my concern, I think we all share that; is that how much do you want to invest; how much would that break even point for Kimco would be. I just want to push that caliber more; I am not asking for underground because it is very 15-36 Cupertino Planning Commission 21 November 13, 2007 expensive. I am asking for subterrain garage or what Com. Miller suggested is to put shop over a subterrain garage to see if that will work. Steve Piasecki: • Summarized that the Planning Commission would be making a motion to continue the application to the January 8, 2008 meeting. In addition to all comments, request the applicant to come back with additional parking surveys including the Linnet neighborhood and the church. • Said it would be appropriate to have a conceptual construction management plan to identify staging, phasing and a schedule for the construction so we know that it is practical that we can do this; and then re-evaluate the outside circulation, especially the right turnout on Homestead, and the Wolfe access elimination in particular so we have a better comfort level that the overall circulation level will work. Motion: Motion by Com. Wong, second by Com. Kaneda, to continue Item 3 to the first meeting in January 2008. (Vote: 5-0-0) Chair Giefer declared a short recess. U-2007-11, M-2007-02 ~'Vayne Okubo (Evershine) 0 to 19780 Stevens Creek Use Permit approval to allow a food storms`` (Marukai) totaling 28,690 square feet ~cated in the Marketplace Shopping Cent (former Longs Druge site). Modificati to an existing Use Permit (16-U-76) to mo fy the conditions Under which food servic usinesses will be Allowed in the Marke ace Shopping Center Along the rear serv' e corridor. Tentative City Council dat . December 18, 2007 Gary Chao, Senior Planner, prese d the staff report: • Reviewed the application for mode ti under which food service businesses along the rear service corridor. The use be located in the former Longs Drug site. • Explained the schedule for the trash pick pickup they have talked to the Environ Garbage Company. There is a sta g to an ex' mg use permit to modify the condition be all ed in the Marketplace Shopping Center ' pproval is to allow the Marukai food store to and sai ce there are some concerns about trash ntal Services ager who is the liaison to Los Altos franchise agreeme with Los Altos giving them the freedom of picking up the garb e any time. That is just the wording of the trash franchise agreement is. How er, we did get an email response the Los Altos Garbage Company that they are ing to work with a later date if the 'ssion wants to commission something. quick plan of the area, circled in red is the prop trash enclosure location and it is app imately 85 feet away from the nearest residential prope line. We are suggesting a cond' 'on that the detailed trash enclosure plan be approved by the De Review Committee bec se we still need to talk to the Environmental Programs Manager. • The app ' ant hosted a neighborhood meeting on November 2"d at the site and some of the co is involved: older abatement system should be installed Concerns with the process of which fish produce are being shipped Concerns with odor and trash ° Early hour pickup 15-37 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT FORM Application: U-2007-06, ASA-2007-10 (EA-2007-08) Agenda Date: March 25, 2008 Applicant: Brian Replinger (Cupertino Village) Location: Homestead Road and Wolfe Road APPLICATION SUMMARIES: USE PERMIT and ARCHTIECTURAL & SITE APPROVAL to construct tvvo one-story retail buildings totaling 24,455 square feet and a t~vo level parking structure. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the P1aru1u1g Commission review and approve the revised conditions of approval. BACKGROUND: On March 11, 2008 the Planning Commission reviewed the project and recommended approval to the City Council with several new conditions. The Commission directed that the revised conditions return for review and approval as a consent item. DISCUSSION: The following conditions were added based on the Planning Commission's direction (ne~v wording in red): 1. NOISE ABATEMENT The fuzal garage plan shall be re~rie~sed by the project noise consultant (Illula ~~orth and Rodkul) to ensure that all of the recommendations outlined by the note report dated i\To~-ember S, X007 are sufficiently addressed. This uicludes but not limited to the required noise attenuation properties of the garage perimeter wall (ground le~-el and second level) along Lirulet Lane. 2. CONSTRUCTION MANGEMENT PLAN A construction management plan shall be provided to include but not limited to the following measures: • Construction schedule/duration/noise abatement. • Interim offsite employee/contractor parking. • Truck routes. • Onsite construction/traffic signage. • Best management practices. • Dust control. • Specific tree protection measures. • No construction parkuzg or traffic shall occur on the residential streets to the west. 15-38 Applications: U-2007-06, ASA-2007-10 (EA-2007-08) Cupertino Village Shopping Center Page 2 •:• A hotline shall be established during the construction period for the adjacent residents to report any violations or concerns. The hotline information shall be posted on the property ott-ner's t,-ebsite and at appropriate locations at the construction site. 3. ENHANCEMENTS TO THE INTERIOR CROSWALKS The applicant shall work with staff to determine areas within the existing shopping center (consistent with the recommendations from Fehr and Peers) that should be better delineated as special pedestrian walks or crossing areas. Such nets areas shall be enhanced with special semi-pervious paving materials and striping. Detailed plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Design Review Committee prior to issuance of building permits. 4. ENHANCEMENTS TO THE INTERIOR COURTYARDS The applicant shall work with staff to enhance and activate the existing courtyards with the following measures: • New shading trees wherever possible. • Enhancements to benches, sitting areas and lighting features. • Enhancements to the interior plaza and gathering places (including but not limited to upgrades to special semi-pervious paving material, trellis/arbor features, water features and outdoor seating areas). Detailed enhancement plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Design Review Committee. 5. DESIGN REVIEW COR'IA'IITTEE The Design Review Connnnittee shall reviet~> and approve the final architecture and site plan of the project. 6. RAIN GARDEN Tlne site drainage and roof drainage shall be directed to the rain gardens and/or similar pervious areas to the maximum extent possible. Tlne final site and roof drainage plan shall be reviett-ed and approved by the Design Review Conninittee. 7. TRANSPORTATION DEMAND :4ZANAGE~-TENT Provide a Transportation Demand ?Management Plan. Such plan shall be permanent and demonstrable and tie Iin_ked to the leasing strategy (ie. tenant/use controls such as cap on restaurants and/or square footage linnits). Said plan shall include but not be limited to incentives for employees carpool or take public transportation such as bus passes, monetary incentives, shuttle services for off-site parking, emplo~~ee or restaurant ~>alet sett.>ices, preferential car pool parking etc Tlne final TD'~1 plan shall be submitted to the Plaiuning Department for reviet~~ and approval prior to final occupancy approval. 15-39 Applications: U-2007-06, ASA-2007-10 (EA-2007-08) Cupertino Village Shopping Center Page 3 8. PARKING SUPPLY The total percent of increase in the proposed parking supply (stalls) shall equal or be greater than the proposed percent of increase i~ building square footage. The final re~~ised parking plan shall be vet°iez~-ed and approved by the Design Re~-ie~~• Committee prior to issuance of building permits. 9. SCREEN WALL A minimum eight (8} foot tall ~~•all shall be constructed along the northerly property line beti,-een the shopping center and the church property. In addition, a locked gate shall be prot-ided at a mutually (bet<o-een the shopping center and church) agreed location. The final ~~-a11 and Gate plan shall be retie«-ed and approved by the Design Retie«~ Committee. 10. HOMESTEAD DRIVEWAY The driyec~~ay along Homestead 1Zoad shall be limited to right-in and right-out only. Appropriate signage and dri~-e~,ray modification to implement the right-ii and right-out mot-ement shall be reyie~~~ed and approl'ed by Director of Public t4'orks prior to issuance of building permits. 11. NEIGHBORHOOD SIGN PROGRAIl1 .-~ sign program shall be provided to address appropriate neighborhood signs to infornl and deter the public from parking u1 the residential streets. Said program shall be re~-ie~~-ed and appro~-ed by the City of Sunn~-~-ale. 12. PEDESTRIAN GARAGE ACCESS The parking garage shall either include a second set of stair or an ele~-ator. The parking structure shall be consistent ti, ith all pertinent Builduzg and ADA Codes. 13. ONE YEAR REVIEW PERIOD Require a 1-year review of the use permit from the time the t~vo ne~v buildings receive final occupancy. The PIaluZing Commission may consider and require additional parkilg remedies (i.e., parking lifts, valet parking and/or other parking demand management measures) if deemed appropriate at the time of the re~~ie~v hearing. Enclosures: Revised Model Resolutions Submitted by: Gary Chao, Senior Plaruler ~ f ~ ~~ Approved by: Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Development"~ 15-40 ASA-2007-05 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 RESOLUTION N0.6464 OF THE PL?-I~NG COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO APPROVING AN ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE APPROVAL TO CONSTRUCT A 10,582 SQUARE FOOT RETAIL BUILDING AND ONE-LEVEL PARKING GARAGE ON AN EXISTING OFFICE SITE SECTION I: FINDINGS WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application for an Architectural and Site Approval, as described in Section II of this Resolution; and WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given in accordance with the Procedural Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, and the Planning Commission has held one or more public hearings on this matter; and WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application; and has satisfied the following requirements: 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 zoning ordinance, the General Plan and the North Vallco Master Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter, the application for Architectural and Site Approval is hereby approved, subject to the conditions which are enumerated in this Resolution beginning on Page 2 thereof; and That the subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this resolution are based and contained iz the public hearing record concerning Application No. ASA-2007-10 as set forth in the Minutes of the Plaiuung Commission Meeting of March 25, 2008, and are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. SECTION II: PROTECT DESCRIPTION Application No.: ASA-2007-10 Applicant: Brian Replinger (Kimco) Location: Homestead and Wolfe Road 15 - 41 Resolution No. ASA-2007-10 March 25, 2008 Page 2 SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMNSTERED BY THE CO DEVELOPMENT DEPT. 1. APPROVED EXHIBITS The approval is based on Exhibits submitted by MCG titled: "Cupertino Village" consisting of 25 pages, except as may be amended by the Conditions contained in this Resolution. 2. DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL Approval is granted to construct two one-story retail building totalitg 24,455 square feet and a t<~~o level parking structure. 3. CONSTRUCTION MANGEMENT PLAN A construction management plan shall be provided to include but not limited to the following measures: • Construction schedule/duration/noise abatement. • Interim offsite employee/contractor parking. • Truck routes. • Onsite construction/traffic signage. • Best management practices. •'• Dust control. • Specific tree protection measures. • No construction parking or traffic shall occur on the residential streets to the west. :• :~ hotline shall be established during the construction period for the adjacent residents to report an~~ ~-iolations or concerns. The hotline information shall be posted on the property o~,-ner's t~-ebsite and at appropriate locations at the construction site. Said plan shall be reviewed by the Director of Community Development prior to issuance of building permits. ~. NOISE ABATEMENT The fuial garage plan shall be re~-ie~~•ed by the project noise consultant (Illu1g~,-orth and Bodkin) to ensure that all of the recommendations outlined by the noise report dated I~TO~~ember 8,'007 are suffidently addressed. This includes but not limited to the required noise attenuation properties of the garage perimeter ~~-a11(ground le~-el and second le~-el) along Luulet Lane. 5. ODOR ABATEMENT All ne~v restaurants shall install odor filtration system. Odor filtration plan shall be reviewed and approved by the City prior to issuance of any building permits. 15-42 Resolution No. ASA-2007-10 March 25, 2008 Page 3 6. LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE BOND A landscaping bond naming the City as beneficiary in the amount of $100,000 shall be provided to the City prior to issuance of any building permits. Said bond shall ensure that the approved landscaping enhancements associated with the project are going to be carried out and properly maintained. The bond shall be released five years from the final occupancy approval of the proposed ne~v buildings with a letter from the City Consulting Arborist confirming that all of the landscaping features are in good standing. 7. DETAILED LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE PLAN A detailed landscaping maintenance plan be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. Said plan shall include details on the irrigation system and the routing schedule of maintenance and the upkeep of the landscaping area along east side of Lunnet Lane. 8. TRASH ENCLSURE SIZE AND LOCATION The applicant shall work with a consultant to evaluate the refuse and recycling needs of tlne center and develop a permanent refuse/recycling improvement plan (including but not limited to provide newly updated versions of trash compactors/enclosures, any necessary grease filtration system upgrades, any necessary sewage facility upgrades and more efficient refuse pick-up schedule). Said plan shall be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. Any new trash facility shall be located away from the residential neighborhood as far as possible. 9. BUS SHELTERS There are currently t~~vo bus stops along Wolfe Road. One of the bus stops is located near the intersection of Homestead and Wolfe. This bus stop will be relocated to the south of the entrance drive in front of Starbucks Coffee in order to promote safer vehicular movement. The site plan already reflects this change. In addition, staff suggests that the project be required to design and build appropriate bus stop shelters at the t~vo bus stops. The final bus shelter design and location shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department to the Valley Transportation Authority's (VTA) specification. 10. RECONSTRUCTION OF SIDEWALK In order to prolong the life of the double row of Ash Trees along Wolfe Road and the street trees along Homestead Road, the existing perimeter sidewalk should be replaced with a new at-grade sidewalk to facilitate proper root growth and reduce future uplifting of the sidewalk. All monolithic sidewalks shall be replaced with detached sidewalk (except in situations where trees are in the way or special physical/functional constraints warrants special consideration by the Director of Community Development). Unused driveway curb cuts, unnecessary and unsafe curb features or tree wells shall be eliminated. 15-43 Resolution No. ASA-2007-10 March 25, 2008 Page 4 il. CORNER PLAZA ENHANCEMENTS The project shall enhance the corner areas at the intersections of Pruneridge/Wolfe and Wolfe/Homestead. Said areas shall be enhanced with special paving material, appropriate landscaping and sidewalk features and potentially benches or art features as dEtermined by the City in order to improve the pedestrian experience and overall aesthetic of the site. A detailed corner plaza enhancement plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the Design Review Committee prior to issuance of building permits. The proposed site plan already ackno~~vledges the plaza. 12. ENHANCEMENTS TO THE INTERIOR CROSWALKS The applicant shall work with staff to determine areas within the existing shoppilg center (consistent with the recommendations from Fehr and Peers) that should be better delineated as special pedestrian walks or crossing areas. Such areas shall be enhanced with special semi-pervious paving materials and striping. Detailed plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Design Review Committee prior to issuance of building permits. 13. ENHANCEMENTS TO THE INTERIOR COURTYARDS The applicant shall work with staff to enhance and activate the existing courtyards with the following measures: • New shading trees wherever possible. • Enhancements to benches, sitting areas and lighting features. • Enhancements to the interior plaza and gathering places (including but not limited to upgrades to special semi-pervious paving material, trellis/arbor features, water features and outdoor seating areas). Detailed enhancement plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Design Review Committee. 14. DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE The Design Review Committee shall review and approre the final architecture and site plan of the project. 1~. R_4IN GARDEN Tl1e site drainage and roof drainage shall be directed to the rain gardens and/or similar pervious areas to the maximum extent possible. The final site and roof drainage plan shall be revie~~-ed and approved by the Design Revie~~~ Committee. 16. TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEIlsENT Prot-ide a Transportation Demand ?~sanageinent Plan. Such plan shall be permanent and demonstrable and be 1ulked to the leasing strategy (ie. tenant/use controls such as cap nn restaurants and/or square footage limits). Said plan shall include but not Lie limited to incentives for einplo~-ees carpool or 15-44 Resolution No. ASA-2007-10 March 25, 2008 Page 5 take public transportation such as bus passes, monetary- incenti~-es, shuttle serc-ices for off-site parking, emplo}-ee or restaurant valet sert-ices, preferential car pool parking etc. The final TD'\1 plan shall be submitted to the Planning Department for revieS~• and approval prior to final occupancy approval. 17. PARKING SUPPLY The total percent of increasevn the proposed parking supply (stalls) shall equal or be greater than the proposed percent of increase ii L~uildung square footage. The fi1a1 revised parking plan :hall be revie~,-ed and approved b~~ the Design Review Committee prior to issuance of buildung permits. 18. SCREEN WALL minimum eight (S) foot tall ~,-a11 shall be constructed along the northerly property lice betz~-een the shopping center and the church propert}~. 1.11 addition, a locked gate shall be provided at a mutually (bet"•een the shopping center and churchl agreed location. The final t~~all and gate plan shall be rep°iei~-ed and approved by the Design Revie~~~ Committee. 19. HOMESTEAD DRIVE~'VAY The driveway along Homestead Road shall be limited to right-in and right-out only. Appropriate signage and drive~vav modification to implement the right-in and right-out movement shall be rep-ie~~ ed and approved by Director of Put~lic ~1TOrks prior to issuance of buildin ;permits. Z0. NEIGHBORHOOD SIGN PROGRART A sigh program shall be provided to address appropriate neighborhood sighs to inform and deter the public from parking i~ the residential streets. Said program shall be revie~~-ed and approved by the City of Suivz~-~-ale. 21. PEDESTRIAN GARAGE ACCESS TIZe parking garage shall either include a second set of stair or an elejTator. The parking structure shall be consLtent ~;~~ith all pertinent Building and ADA Codes. 22. GARAGE ENTRANCE Consider widening the ground level garage entry at the north end (unless it will serve only as exiting). 23. SHADING TREES Plant additional shading trees and enhance the existing landscaping wherever possible throughout the entire center. 24. ARCH ENTRY ELEMENTS Repeat the arch element throughout all of tlne pedestrian entrances. 15 - 45 Resolution No. ASA-2007-10 March 25, 2008 Page 6 25. STUCCO WALL TOP DETAIL Details should be provided on ho~v stucco wall top is finished off (avoid sheet metal cap flashing). 26. MULTI-LANGUAGE SIGNS Require clear multi-language s bans at each of the pedestrian entrances along Linnet Lane, informing them not to park in the residential streets. Also, the installation of amulti-language sign to inform truckers of the delivery hours and rules shall be provided. Detailed signage plans shall be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. 27. DISCLOSURE OF CONDITIONS TO TENANTS Require that the conditions of approval (including the City's noise ordinance) be made part of the lease agreements of all new tenants so they will be informed of the conditions and rules that will be enforced. 28. SECURITY CAMERAS Require security cameras to be installed at key delivery areas to assist in monitoring and enforcing delivery hours and noise violators. A detailed security camera plan shall be submitted for review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. 29. SECURITY SERVICES Require the center to enhance patrol service so that they can monitor and prevent spill over parking alto the neighborhood and the delivery activities. The center should also provide a hotline to the adjacent residents to report any code violation and unsafe activities. Said patrol service shall also monitor the trash facilities to ensure all tenants are using the facilities properly. A detailed security plan shall be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to issuance of buildutg permits. 30.ONE YEAR REVIEW PERIOD Require a 1-year review of the use permit from the time the t~vo new buildings receive final occupancy. The Plaiuling Commission may consider and require additional parking remedies (i.e., parking lifts, i•alet parking and/or other parking demand management measures) if deemed appropriate at the time of the re~-iei~• hearing. 31. 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 15-46 Resolution No. ASA-2007-10 March 25, 2008 Page 7 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 ADMIlVISTERED BY THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPT. See attachment 1 PASSED AND ADOPTED this 25th day of March 2008, at a 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: Steve Piasecki Director of Community Development APPROVED: Lisa Giefer, Chair Planning Commission 15-47 U-2007-06 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 RESOLUTION NO. OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO RECOMMENDING APPROVAL TO A USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT TWO ONE- STORY RETAIL BUILDING TOTALING 24,455 SQUARE FEET AND A TWO LEVEL PARIQNG STRUCTURE AT THE CUPERTINO VILLAGE SHOPPING CENTER SECTION I: F]1VDINGS WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application for a Use Permit, as described in Section II of this Resolution; and WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given in accordance with the Procedural Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, and the Planning Commission has held one or more public hearings on this matter; and WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application; and has satisfied the following requirements: 1) The proposed use, 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; and 2) The proposed use will be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the Cupertino Comprehensive General Plan and the purpose of the Conditional Use Permits Chapter of the Cupertino Municipal Code. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That. after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence " submitted in this matter, the application for a Use Permit is hereby approved, subject to' the conditions which are enumerated in this Resolution beginning on Page 2 thereof; 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. U-2007-0.6 as set forth in the Minutes of the P1aruling Commission Meeting of March 25, 2008, and are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. SECTION II: PROTECT DESCRII'TION Application No.: U-2007-06 Applicant: Brian Replinger (Kimco) Location: Homestead Road and Wolfe Road 15-48 Resolution No. U-2007-06 March 25, 2008 Page 2 SECTION IlI: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE CO DEVELOPMENT DEPT. 1. APPROVED EXHIBITS The approval is based on Exhibits submitted by MCG titled: "Cupertino Village" consisting of 25 pages, except as may be amended by the Conditions contained ii this Resolution. 2. DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL Approval is granted to construct ttvo one-story retail building totaling 24,455 square feet and a two level parking structure. 3. CONSTRUCTION MANGEMENT PLAN A construction management plan shall be provided to include but not limited to the following measures: • Construction schedule/duration/noise abatement. • Interim offsite employee/contractor parking. •'• Truck routes. •'• Onsite construction/traffic signage. • Best management practices. • Dust control. • Specific tree protection measures. • No construction parking or traffic shall occur on the residential streets to the west. •: ~ hotline shall be established duruzg the constructirnl period for the adjacent residents to report any ~-iolations or conceals. The hotline information :hall be posted on the property o~~-ner''s ~~-ebsite and at appropriate locations at the construction site. Said plan shall be reviewed by the Director of Community Development prior to issuance of building permits. 1. NOISE ABATEMENT The final garage plan shall be re~~ie~%-ed by the project noise consultant (Illing~~-orth and Bodkin) to ensure that all of the recommendations outl>11ed by the noise report dated 1~'o~-enll~er S, ?007 are sufficiently addressed. This uicludes but not limited to the required noise attenuation properties of the garage perimeter i~~all (ground le~-el and second le~-el) along Liiv~et Lane. 5. ODOR ABATEMENT All new restaurants shall ilstall odor filtration system. Odor filtration plan shall be reviewed and approved by the City prior to issuance of any buildilg permits. 15-49 Resolution No. U-2007-06 March 25, 2008 Page 3 6. LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE BOND A landscaping bond naming the City as beneficiary u1 the amount of $100,000 shall be provided to the City prior to issuance of any building permits. Said bond shall ensure that the approved landscaping enhancements associated with the project are going to be carried out and properly maintained. The bond shall be released five years from the final occupancy approval of the proposed ne~v buildings with a letter from the City Consulting Arborist confirming that all of the landscaping features are in good standing. 7. DETAILED LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE PLAN A detailed landscaping maintenance plan be submitted to tlne City for review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. Said plan shall include details on the irrigation system and the routing schedule of maintenance and tlne upkeep of the landscaping area along east side of Linnet Lane. 8. TRASH ENCLSURE SIZE AND LOCATION The applicant shall work with a consultant to evaluate the refuse and recycling needs of the center and develop a permanent refuse/recycling improvement plan (including but not limited to provide newly updated versions of trash compactors/enclosures, any necessary grease filtration system upgrades, any necessary sewage facility upgrades and more efficient refuse pick-up schedule). Said plan shall be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. Any new trash facility shall be located away from the residential neighborhood as far as possible. 9. BUS SHELTERS There are currently two bus stops along Wolfe Road. One of the bus stops is located near the intersection of Homestead and Wolfe. This bus stop will be relocated to the south of the entrance drive in front of Starbucks Coffee in order to promote safer vehicular movement. The site plan already reflects this change. In addition, staff suggests that the project be required to design and build appropriate bus stop shelters at the two bus stops. The final bus shelter design and location shall be reviet~Ted and approved by tlne Public Works Department to the Valley Transportation Authority's (VTA) specification. 10. RECONSTRUCTION OF SIDEWALK In order to prolong the life of the double row of Ash Trees along Wolfe Road and the street trees along Homestead Road, the existing perimeter sidewalk should be replaced with a ne~v at-grade sidewalk to facilitate proper root growth and reduce future uplifting of the sidewalk. All monolithic sidewalks shall be replaced with detadled side~Talk (except in situations where trees are in the way or special physical/functional constraints warrants special consideration by the Director of Community Development). Unused driveway curb cuts, uiulecessary and unsafe curb features or tree wells shall be eliminated. 15-50 Resolution No. U-2007-06 March 25, 2008 Page 4 m 11. CORNER PLAZA ENHANCEMENTS The project shall enhance the corner areas at the intersections of Pruneridge/Wolfe and Wolfe/Homestead. Said areas shall be enhanced with special paving material, appropriate landscaping and sidewalk features and potentially benches or art features as determined by the City in order to improve the pedestrian experience and overall aesthetic of the site. A detailed corner plaza enhancement plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the Design Review Committee prior to issuance of buildu1g permits. The proposed site plan already acknowledges the plaza. 12. ENHANCEMENTS TO THE INTERIOR CROSWALKS The applicant shall work with staff to determine areas within the existing shopping center (consistent with the recommendations from Fehr and Peers) that should be better delineated as special pedestrian walks or crossing areas. Such areas shall be enhanced with special semi-pen-ious paving materials and striping. Detailed plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Design Review Committee prior to issuance of buildu1g permits. 13. ENHANCEMENTS TO THE INTERIOR COURTYARDS The applicant shall work with staff to enhance and activate the existing courtyards with the follo~vitg measures: • New shading trees wherever possible. • Enhancements to benches, sitting areas and lighting features. • Enhancements to the interior plaza and gathering places (including but not limited to upgrades to special semi-per°ious paving material, trellis/arbor features, water features and outdoor seating areas). Detailed enhancement plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Design Review Committee. 14. DESIGN REVIEW COAT141ITTEE The Design Review Committee shall re~~ie~~• and appro~-e the final architecture and site plan of the project. 13. R.aIN GARDEN The site drainage and roof drainage shall be directed to the rain gardens and/or sinilar 1.>er~-ious areas to the ina~imum extent ~>ossible. The final site and roof drainage plan shall be re~-ie~1•ed and apprat-ed by the Design Re~-ie~,T Committee. 16. TRANSPORTATION DE111~ND I4IANAGEAIENT Prot-ide a Transportation Demand 'Management Plan. Such plan shall be permanent and demonstrable anal be linked to the leasing strategy (ie. tenant/use controls such as cap on restaurants and/or square footage limits}. Said plan shall iulude but not be limited to incenti~-es for emplo~-ees card>ool or 15-51 Resolution No. U-2007-06 March 2S, 2008 Page 5 take public transportation such as bus passes, monetary uncenti~-es, shuttle ser~•ices for off-site parking, employee or restaurant ~-alet sen-ices, preferential car pool parking etc. The fugal TDM plan shall be submitted to the Planning Department for rep°iew and approval prior to final occupancy appro~lal. 17. PARKING SUPPLY The total percent of increase un the proposed parkin; supply (stalls) shall equal or be greater than the proposed percent of increase in building square footage. The final re~-ised parking plan shall be re~-ie~~•ed and appro~-ed b_v the De~igm Re~-iew Committee prior to issuance of buildung permits. 18. SCREEN WALL A minimum eight (8) foot tall ~a~all shall be constructed along the northerly property line beti~-een the shopping center and the church property. In addition, a locked gate shall be pro~-ided at a mutually (betil-een the shopping center and church) agreed location. The final wall and gate plan shall be re~-ie~; ed and appro~-ed by the Design Re~-iew Committee. 19. HOMESTEAD DRIVEWAY The dri~•et~-ay along Homestead Road shall be limited to right-in and right-out only. Appropriate signage and dri~-e~~-ay modification to implement the right-in and right-out nno~-ement shall be rerie~~•ed and approred by Director of Public t1'orks prior to issuance of buildung permits. 20. NEIGHBORHOOD SIGN PROGRAAS :~ sign program shall be prop°ided to address appropriate neighborhood sighs to inform and deter the public from parking u1 tlne residential streets. laid program shall be ret-ie~~•ed and appro~-ed by the City of Suruny-~-ale. 21. PEDESTRIAN GARAGE ACCESS The parking garage shall either include a second set of stair or an ele~~ator. The parkuig structure shall be consistent with all pertinent Buildung and .-FDA Codes. 22. GARAGE ENTRANCE Consider widening the ground level garage entry at the north end (unless it jvill serve only as exiting). 23. SHADING TREES Plant additional shading trees and enhance the existing landscaping wherever possible throughout the entire center. 24. ARCH ENTRY ELEMENTS Repeat the arch element throughout all of the pedestrian entrances. 15-52 Resolution No. U-2007-06 March 25, 2008 Page 6 25. STUCCO WALL TOP DETAIL Details should be provided on ho~v stucco wall top is finished off (avoid sheet metal cap flashing). 26. MULTI-LANGUAGE SIGNS Require clear multi-language signs at each of the pedestrian entrances along Linnet Lane, informing them not to park in the residential streets. Also, the installation of amulti-language sign to inform truckers of the delivery hours and rules shall be provided. Detailed signage plans shall be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. 27. DISCLOSURE OF CONDITIONS TO TENANTS Require that the conditions of approval (including the City's noise ordinance) be made part of the lease agreements of all ne~v tenants so they will be informed of the conditions and rules that jvill be enforced. 28. SECURITY CAMERAS Require security cameras to be installed at key delivery areas to assist in monitoring and enforcing delivery hours and noise violators. A detailed security camera plan shall be submitted for review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. 29. SECURITY SERVICES Require the center to enhance patrol service so that they can monitor and prevent spill over parking into the neighborhood and the delivery activities. The center should also provide a hotlile to the adjacent residents to report any code violation and unsafe activities. Said patrol service shall also monitor the trash facilities to ensure all tenants are using the facilities properly. A detailed security plan shall be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to issuance of buildu1g permits. 30.ONE YEAR REVIEW PERIOD Require a 1-year revietN of the use permit from the time the two ne~v buildings receive final occupancy. The Plaiuling Commission may consider and require additional parking remedies (i.e., parking lift., ~~alet parking and/or other parking demand management measures) if deemed appropriate at the time of the re~-iew hearing. 31. 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 Goverrunent Code Section 66020(d) (1), these Conditions constitute 15-53 Resolution No. U-2007-06 March 25, 2008 Page 7 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 ADMII~TISTERED BY T'HE PUBLIC WORKS DEPT See attachment 1 PASSED AND ADOPTED this 25th day of March 2008, at a 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: Steve Piasecki Director of Community Development APPROVED: Lisa Giefer, Chair Plaruling Commission 15-54 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT FORM Application: U-2007-06, ASA-2007-10 (EA-2007-08) Agenda Date: March 11, 2008 Applicant: Brian Replinger (Cupertino Village) Location: Homestead Road and Wolfe Road APPLICATION SUMMARIES: USE PERMIT and ARCHITECTURAL & SITE APPROVAL to construct two one-story retail buildings totalilg 24,455 square feet and a two level parking structure. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval to the Planning Commission and the City Council per the model resolutions. BACKGROUND: On November 13, 2007 the Planning Commission reviewed the project and directed that a supplemental study be conducted to: 1. Quantify any off-site parking demand. 2. Evaluate the proposed on-site circulation and access. 3. Identify pedestrian paths and/or crossing enhancements. This staff report will provide a brief summary of the supplemental parking study, the comments expressed at the neighborhood meetings and the recommendations from the Environmental Review Committee. With further review, the studies confirmed some parking spillover i1 the residential neighborhood. The spillover will be mitigated with the structured conditions of approval discussed in this staff report. Please refer to the November 13, 2007 staff report and meeting minutes for a detailed description of the project and the previously discussed topics. DISCUSSION: Off-site Parkin~Study In response to the concerns raised by the Planning Commission and the neighbors at the November 13, 2007 hearing, Fehr and Peers, Transportation Consultants, were retained by the City to conduct the supplemental parking analysis. Vehicle counts were collected on Friday and Saturday, January 25 and 26, 2008 from 11 AM to 9 PM. The following adjacent off-site residential streets to the west of the project site were analyzed: • Linnet Lane o from Homestead Road to Lark Lane o from Lark Lane to Pruneridge Avenue (no connection) • Parnell Place o from Linnet Lane to Kinglet Court • Lark Lane o from Selkirk Place to Linnet Lane • Church parking lot at the corner of Homestead Road and Linnet Lane 15-55 Applications: U-2007-06, ASA-2007-10 (EA-2007-08) Cupertino Village Shopping Center Page 2 The following conditions were observed: • Off-site parking demand followed a similar pattern to on-site parking demands, with correlating peak periods. • On Saturday, the entire project site was effectively full for five or more hours of the day (effectively full was identified as 95% or more of capacity to account for circulating demand and handicapped stalls). • Total parking demand peaked at 2 PM Saturday. In order to determine a reasonable off-site demand of the shopping center, the cars observed parking on the residential streets during off-peak hours (baseline) were compared with the peak demand. The difference between the peak and off-peak demand would be a reasonable reflection of the the number of cars that are attributed to the shopping center. Using this methodology, Fehr and Peers found that approximately 32 cars during peak hours were parked on the residential streets that can be attributed to the shopping center. During these hours, patrons were observed walking from their cars to the shopping center. It was also confirmed that during off-peak hours, due to the convenient pedestrian access of the project site, cars were parking off-site even before the shopping center lots were at capacity. . Fehr and Peers suggested the following measures (implemented separately or together) to prevent off-site spillover parking in the residential neighborhood: • Close all pedestrian access along Linnet Lane (the applicant has already revised the plans to eliminate any pedestrian access along Linnet Lane -see revised plan set). • Implement residential permit parking. Since the adjacent residential neighborhood is under the City of Sunnyvale's jurisdiction, Cupertino does not have the authority to implement residential permit parking. In the event that the City of Sunnyvale considers permit parking for the residential neighborhood, the condition requires the applicant to assist that effort (including but not limited to financial assistance for signs etc. and/or temporary enforcement services). The Planning Commission may also explore the option of requiring Kimco to work with the City of Sunnyvale to develop an alternate sign program. Shopping center staff would put out courtesy temporary signs at entry points to the adjacent neighborhood to discourage the public from parking on residential streets. These signs maybe used on an as-needed basis and during peak shopping seasons. This appears to be a reasonably effective strategy used by the City of Santa Clara for the Valley Fair Mall neighborhood. 15-56 Applications: U-2007-06, ASA-2007-10 (EA-2007-08) Cupertino Village Shopping Center Page 3 Site Access and On-site Circulation Several of the key access points (the mid-block drive~~vay entrance along Wolfe Road and driveway entrance along Homestead Road) ~a~ere identified by the Planning Commission at the previous meeting as needing additional discussion and analysis on efficiency and safety. Fehr and Peers conducted observational studies at these locations (see diagram below) and concluded the following: Areas A & B • To better serve the vehicle movements in this area, the driveway along Homestead should be limited to right-in, right-out, and sheltered left-out turn movements only. This would simplify the vehicular movement in the area and alleviate some of the potential conflicts with vehicles queuing on the east bound lanes of Homestead Road. By allowing a sheltered left turn out, vehicles exiting the shopping center would not have to make an excessively circuitous path (U- turn at Homestead and Wolfe) to move westbound on Homestead Road (see schematic below). ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Homestead Road ~~ Pr•~jac1 Accass Homestead Road Right-in, Right-out, Left-out Schematic Applications: U-2007-06, ASA-2007-10 (EA-2007-08) Cupertino Village Shopping Center Page 4 Area C • The new proposed layout at area C will reduce the number of movement conflicts that currently exist at the center. • Stop signs are recommended at each of the internal approaches (as shown on the diagram). Area D Two stalls at the southern end of the second story'of the garage should be eliminated to allow adequate space for vehicles maneuvering in and out of the parking spaces. Eliminating these t<vo stalls will slightly increase the parking deficit to 22 stalls (see Parking discussion below). Wolfe Road Mid-block Left Turn Median Improvement Based on Fehr and Peer's qualitative study, the existing median along Wolfe Road (in between Pruneridge and Homestead) can be modified to allow for amid-block, sheltered left-turn movement into the shopping center (see diagram below). This would help alleviate the Homestead Road and Wolfe intersection by reducing some of the u-turn and left turn movements. The applicant is required to submit a median improvement plan prepared by a professional traffic engineer reflecting the left turn enhancement to be revie~Ned and approved by the City prior to issuance of building permits. Pedestrian Access and Safety Fehr and Peers has identified several locations where pedestrian crossings should be provided to heighten driveway awareness of the presence of pedestrians. The diagram below shows the areas u1 need of identifiable pedestrian crossings in blue. 15-58 Applications: U-2007-06, ASA-2007-10 (EA-2007-08) Cupertino Village Shopping Center Page 5 Staff suggests a condition of approval that requires the revise site plan to be reviejved and approved by the Design Review Committee prior to issuance of building permits for consistency ~~~ith all of the suggestions from Fehr and Peers. Pam Hexagon Transportation Consultants determined during the original parking lot survey that total parking demand for the expanded shopping center is 800 stalls. Factoring in the off-site spillover parking the adjusted parking demand for the project is 832 stalls. However, the project data that Hexagon used to determine the peak parking demand has been slightly updated by the applicant for accuracy. The chart below compares the original project data to the revised and the resulting revised parking demand: Retail i6,1 i6 60o"ao 3D5 3D5 305 88,228 55°io 353 Office 5,50D 5% 2 3 3 13,574 10°0 7 Restaurant 29,505 27°~ 295 592 383 33,934 25°k 44D Otal 111, 1 1 io 6 0 1 13a, 35 1 D io D Parking Provided 8J5 Parking surplus including the rasidentiai demand (32 stalls) 3 Ad'usted Hexa on Study 1Mdh A4ost Recsnt Pro ect Data fisting SF City Coda ULI ULI Ad'ustmani Pro osed S Req'd. arking Retail 80,232 71 % 321 321 321 92,626 57°k 371 Office 2,710 3;6 3 2 2 10,5DD 8% 6 R=staurant 29,605 26% 296 592 39D 33,934 25% 447 Parking Surplus 10 Parking deflciet incuding the rasidentiai demand ~pp~ 15-59 Applications: U-2007-06, A5A-2007-10 (EA-2007-08) Cupertino Village Shopping Center Page 6 Utilizing the same ratio and parking demand formulas from the parking survey in Hexagon's analysis, the revised parking demand study indicates a new total peak parking demand of 855 stalls (823 onsite stalls and 32 offsite). Since the Plaiulilg Commission hearing on November 17, 2008, the proposed parking supply has been increased from 782 to 835 stalls, an additional 53 stalls. This was accomplished by: • Shifting the proposed retail buildu1g B further to the north, thus freeilg up room for additional stalls along the drive aisle to the south. • Rearranging portions of the existing shopping center parking lot snore efficiently. • Restripilg to uni-sized parkng stalls. Please see diagram below for an overview of where the new stalls have been added. _._ _ JI.'N' lArF__- _ -_ ___ __. ~ _~ ~~~( V .; Parking Mitigation Measures With the revised parkilg lot plan, the project still has a net parking deficit of 20 stalls. Staff recommends the P1aruling Commission consider some or all of the followilg options to mitigate the deficit: 1) Modify the site plan to compensate far the parking deficit. • Consider additional parkilg on the bank parcel and along the entrance drivevtTay at Pruneridge Road located at the southeast corner of the shopping center property. • Require "urban-lift" structures for employees (approx. +20 stalls). These urban lifts have been used effectively i1 larger cities such as San Francisco. 2) Provide a Transportation Demand Management Plan. Such plan shall be permanent and demonstrable and be linked to the leasing strategy (ie. tenant/use controls such as cap on restaurants and/or square footage limits) 15-60 Applications: U-2007-06, ASA-2007-10 (EA-2007-08) Cupertino Village Shopping Center Page 7 • Consider incentives for employees carpool or take public transportation such as bus passes, monetary incentives, shuttle services for off-site parking, employee or restaurant valet services, preferential car pool parking etc. This equals approximately 5% or 43 stalls of parking demand reduction). 3) Alternatively, the project maybe approved with a requirement to be reviewed by the Planning Commission a year from the completion of construction or when the project is 50% occupied (whichever is comes first). A parking survey would be conducted by a professional parking consultant to evaluate the parking demand. In the event a deficiency is found, the remaining 50% would not be leased until appropriate measures are taken to address the parking concerns as determined by the Planning Commission. The project is proposing a 22% increase to the square footage and a 17% increase to the total number of parking stalls. If the project satisfies the parking demand of 855 stalls as projected by the parking studies, then the total proposed parking stalls are increased by approximately 20%, which is close to the proposed 22% of increase to square footage. As previously mentioned in the November 17, 2007 staff report, it is extremely difficult to determine the peak parking demand for any successful shopping center since no ratios or formulas exist that could accurately forecast the level of success or the future economic health. From an environmental or green policy perceptive, it is not desirable to over park a center or park at a level that exceeds the demand. Ideally, each property should be parked at the ultimate peak demand or just shy of the peak to ensure the reduction of impervious surfaces, runoff into the bay and potentially provide incentives for the use of alternative means of transportation. The goal of a parking survey/analysis is to provide a best effort in measuring the peak parking demand of the center and utilize the data collected to project future demands. Staff believes that the parking demand survey and analysis conducted by Hexagon and Fehr and Peers have accomplished this goal. It noteworthy that the Fehr and Peers study was conducted during the Lunar New Year -- arguably the busiest season of the center. Miscellaneous Items The following topics are on some of the miscellaneous questions or concerns raised during the previous Planning Commission hearing: Neighborhood connection/inter face As previously mentioned, the project is elunilating all pedestrian access along the . Lunnet Lane frontage to address concerns raised by the Commission and adjacent neighbors. This also includes constructing a new four foot tall concrete block wall with 2 to 3 feet of metal fencing not to exceed seven feet along the northerly property boundary between the church and shopping center. The applicant is also suggesting 15-61 Applications: U-2007-06, ASA-2007-10 (EA-2007-08) Cupertino Village Shopping Center Page 8 that a locked gate along the northerly property boundary be for church access only. The originally proposed detached sidewalk along Linnet Lane has been eliminated and replaced with a landscape berm and bio-swale in response to neighborhood concerns about not wanting to promote pedestrian access to the shopping center. Please see diagram below: Generally, neighborhood connection is desirable and is consistent with the City's General Plan policy. However, in this case staff believes that the benefits of having pedestrian connections between the shopping center and the residential neighborhood are outweighed by the negative impacts. Therefore, staff supports eliminating all pedestrian access directly to the adjacent residential neighborhood. This will serve as a deterrent to the shopping center patrons from parking in the residential streets. Instead of a 10 second walk and direct access, it will take approximately 5 minutes to walk from the residential streets around the church property and along Homestead Road to the shopping center. Fehr and Peers have observed that people were going to the residential streets to park even before the shopping center's lot is at full capacity. Eliminating pedestrian access will limit the amount of spill-over parking into the residential neighborhood. LEED Certificattorl Staff recommends that a condition require the new retail buildings and parking garages be certified at LEED Silver. The applicant has already confirmed that the project will be at least LEED certified (26 pts. minimum) but is expressing concerns at the difficulty in getting commercial retail spaces certified at the silver rating. The applicant will provide additional information on this matter at the hearing. 75-62 Applications: U-2007-06, ASA-2007-10 (EA-2007-08) Cupertino Village Shopping Center Page 9 Refuse Abatement Kimco has retained Synergy (waste management specialist) to provide a best management practice program for the tenants of Cupertino Village Shopping Center. Synergy has already met with all of the tenants and surveyed their refuse needs. In addition, Synergy is also currently working with the Los Altos Garbage company to expand the recycling program for paper, bottles and cans. Staff recommends that a permanent refuse plan (including but not limited to newly updated versions of trash compactors/enclosures, grease filtration and sewage facility upgrades, and a more efficient refuse pick-up schedule) shall be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. Tree Survey A detailed tree survey has been provided to staff/City Arborist for review. Since the plans are in full size, it will be made available for review at the hearing. The applicant did include detailed tree removal and landscaping plans. Please see L1- L6 and Sheet 4. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE (ERC) The ERC reviewed the project and recommended the grating of a mitigated negative declaration with the following conditions added: 1. Modify the site plan to compensate for parking deficit; 2. Provide a Transportation Demand Management Plan. Such plan shall be permanent and demonstrable and be linked to the leasing strategy. Please note that the recommendations from the ERC have been incorporated into the project conditions of approval. COMMUNITY MEETINGS A total of three corrununity meetings were hosted by the Kimco on October 18, 2007, November 8, 2007 and December 13, 2007. The following is a brief summary of the comments or concerns raised at the December 13, 2007 meeting (please refer to the November 17, 2007 staff report for a summary of the October 18th and November 8~ meetings): • Landscaping maintenance is important - consider a landscape bond requirement. • Odor abatement is important. • Ratio of commercial/restaurant is of concern. • Access from church to the shopping center should be eliminated to prevent people from parking u1 the residential neighborhood and walking through the church property to get to the shopping center. • The neighborhood wants complete elimination of any pedestrian access along Linnet. 15-63 Applications: U-2007-06, ASA-2007-10 (EA-2007-08) Cupertino Village Shopping Center Page 10 • The Church desires having a pedestrian connection between the shopping center and the Church's parking lot. • The Church has concerns if pedestrian connection is eliminated and members have to walk around. • Neighborhood wants church members to walk around. • Parking garage should be relocated to the bank parcel at the corner of Pruneridge and Wolfe to be away from residential neighborhood. • Onsite and offsite circulation evaluation needed. • Prefers the garage located along Linnet because it will reduce noise impacts, help screen and buffer the shopping center it will be a big improvement. • Consider providing an elevator to the second level of the garage. • Look at providing more parking at the bank site. • The increase of parking count not proportional to the increase of square footage. • Communicate with HP or the adjacent hotels regarding offsite parking solutions. • Construction management plan should be provided. • This is the best plan since 1970s. Parking garage would improve current situation. • More attractive than what the neighbors have dealt with in more than 35 years. • Better isolation will have a positive impact on property value. • Definitely better solution than past 30 years. • Homestead driveway should allow right-in, right-out and left-out but not left-in. • Minimizing neighborhood overflow parking onto Linnet Lane is important. • Potentially conditional approval and monitor parking demand. If parking problems still exist after a period of time, bank lot then should be converted into a parking lot. Many of the neighbors at the neighborhood meeting spoke in favor of the project and felt that the proposed improvements will be a significant enhancement to the existing center. Summary of the Suggested Conditions of Approval Staff supports the project for the following reasons: • The project exceeds the parking ordinance requirements, and with the suggested mitigation measures, the project will be able to accommodate the center's peak demand. • The project improves the onsite circulation and parking efficiency by enhancing the parking lot and by reducing the percent of high demand use (restaurant and commercial). • The project significantly improves the shopping center interface with the adjacent residential neighborhood along Linnet Lane. • The project provides enhancements to the parking lot landscaping and permeability. 15-64 Applications: U-2007-06, ASA-2007-10 (EA-2007-08) Cupertino Village Shopping Center Page 11 • The project is consistent with the economic development efforts and policies outlined in the General Plan and.the N. Vallco Master Plan. Staff recommends approval of the project with the suggested conditions of approval summarized as follows: OPERATIONAL CONDITIONS Consfi~uction Management Plan A construction management plan shall be provided to include but not limited to the following measures: • Construction schedule/duration/noise abatement. • Interim offsite employee/contractor parking. • Truck routes. • Onsite construction/traffic signage. • Best management practices. • Dust control. • Specific tree protection measures. • No construction parking or traffic shall occur on the residential streets to the west. Said plan shall be reviewed by the Director of Community Development prior to issuance of building permits. Odor Avaterne~zt All new restaurants shall uistall odor filtration systems. Odor filtration plan shall be reviewed and approved by the City prior to issuance of any building permits. Landscape Maintenance Bond A landscaping bond naming the City as beneficiary in the amount of $100,000 shall be provided to the City prior to issuance of any building permits. Said bond shall ensure that the approved landscaping enhancements associated with the project will be carried out and properly maintained. The bond shall be released five years from the final occupancy approval of the proposed ne~v buildings with a letter from the City Consulting Arborist confirming that all of the landscaping features are in good standing. Detailed Landscapi~zg Maintenance Plan A detailed landscaping maintenance plan be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. Said plan shall include details on the irrigation system and the routing schedule of maintenance and the upkeep of the landscaping area along east side of Lirulet Lane. Trash Enclosure Size and Location 15-65 Applications: U-2007-06, ASA-2007-10 (EA-2007-08) Cupertino Village Shopping Center Page 12 The applicant shall work with a consultant to evaluate the refuse and recycling needs of the center and develop a permanent refuse/recycling improvement plan (including but not limited to provide newly updated versions of trash compactors/enclosures, any necessary grease filtration system upgrades, any necessary sewage facility upgrades and snore efficient refuse pick-up schedule). Said plan shall be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. Any new trash facility shall be located away from the residential neighborhood as far as possible. ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE DESIGN RELATED CONDITIONS Bus Shelters There are currently two bus stops along Wolfe Road. One of the bus stops is located near the intersection of Homestead and Wolfe. This bus stop will be relocated to the south of the entrance drive in front of Starbucks Coffee in order to promote safer vehicular movement. The site plan already reflects this change. In addition, staff suggests that the project be required to design and build appropriate bus stop shelters at the two bus stops. The final bus shelter design and location shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department to the Valley Transportation Authority's (VTA) specification. Reconstruction of Sidewalk In order to prolong the life of the double row of Ash Trees along Wolfe Road and the street trees along Homestead Road, the existing perimeter sidewalk should be replaced with a new at-grade sidewalk to facilitate proper root growth and reduce future uplifting of the sidewalk. All monolithic sidewalks shall be replaced with detached sidewalks (except in situations where trees are in the way or special physical/functional constraints warrants special consideration by the Director of Community Development). Unused driveway curb cuts, unnecessary and unsafe curb features or tree wells shall be eliminated. Corner Plaza Enhancements The project shall enhance the corner areas at the intersections of Pruneridge/Wolfe and Wolfe/Homestead. Said areas shall be enhanced with special paving material, appropriate landscaping and sidewalk features and potentially benches or art features as determined by the City in order to improve the pedestrian experience and overall aesthetic of the site. A detailed corner plaza enhancement plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the Design Review Committee prior to issuance of building permits. The proposed site plan already acknowledges the plaza. Enhancements to the Interior Crosswalks The applicant shall work with staff to determine areas within the existing shopping center (consistent with the recommendations from Fehr and Peers) that should be better delineated as special pedestrian walks or crossing areas. Such areas shall be enhanced with special paving materials and striping. Detailed plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Design Review Committee prior to issuance of building permits. 15-66 Applications: U-2007-06, ASA-2007-10 (EA-2007-OS) Cupertino Village Shopping Center Page 13 Enhancements to the I~zterior Courtyards The applicant shall work with staff to enhance and activate the existing courtyards with the following measures: • New shading trees. • Enhancements to benches, sitting areas and lighting features. • Enhancements to the interior plaza and gathering places (includu1g but not limited to upgrades to special paving material, trellis/arbor features, water features and outdoor seating areas). Detailed enhancement plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Design Review Committee. SeC012da1'y Stat1' Consider a second stair from the upper level of the garage to the ground level to discourage pedestrians from using auto ramps at the north end of the garage. Garage Entrance Consider widening the ground level garage entry at the north end (unless it will serve only as exiting). Shading Trees Plant additional shading trees and enhance the existing landscapilg wherever possible throughout the entire center. Arch Entry Elements Repeat the arch element throughout all of the pedestrian entrances. Stucco Wall Top Detail Details should be provided on ho~v stucco wall top is finished off (avoid sheet metal cap flashing). NUISANCE ABATEMENT CONDITIONS Multi-la~zguage Sig~is Require clear multi-language signs at each of the pedestrian entrances along Linnet Lane; informing them not to park i1 the residential streets. Also, the installation of a multi-language sign to inform truckers of the delivery hours and rules shall be provided.. Detailed signage plans shall be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. Disclosure of Colzditions to Tenants Require that the conditions of approval (including the City's noise ordinance) be made part of the lease agreements of all new tenants so they will be informed of the conditions and rules that will be enforced. 15-67 Applications: U-2007-06, ASA-2007-10 (EA-2007-08) Cupertino Village Shopping Center Page 14 Security Cameras Require security cameras to be installed at key delivery areas to assist in monitoring and enforcing delivery hours and noise violators. A detailed security camera plan shall be submitted for review and approval prior to issuance of buildu1g permits. Security Sep vices Require the center to enhance patrol service so that they can monitor and prevent spill over parking into the neighborhood and the delivery activities. The center should also provide a hotline to the adjacent residents to report any code violation and unsafe activities. Said patrol service shall also monitor the trash facilities to ensure all tenants are using the facilities properly. A detailed security plan shall be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. One Year Review Period Require a 1-year review of the use permit from the time the t<vo new buildings receive final occupancy. CONCLUSION The current conditions at Cupertino Village are not working for either the center or the neighborhood. The plaruled improvements and expansion of the Cupertino Village Shopping Center provide a unique and long-a~a~aited opportunity to significantly enhance the relationship between the center and the neighboring residential homes. Access and parking will be closed off, screened and landscaped; circulation improved; and trash collection enhanced. The City also has the opportunity to require operational controls. The updated center will continue to provide much demanded retail and restaurant services to the broader commuiuty. Enclosures: Model Resolutions Initial Study Mitigated Negative Declaration November 13, 2007 Plaruling Commission meeting minutes Neighborhood Petition, received March 6, 2008 Plarululg Commission staff report dated November 13, 2007 (with attachments) Fehr and Peers Parking Analysis, February 20, 2008 Revised Plan Set Submitted by: Gary Chao, Senior Plaiuler Approved by: Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Development ~~~~~ 15-68 U-2007-06 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 RESOLUTION NO. OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO RECOMMENDING APPROVAL TO A USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT TWO ONE- STORY RETAIL BUILDING TOTALING 24,455 SQUARE FEET AND A TWO LEVEL PARKING STRUCTURE AT THE CUPERTINO VILLAGE SHOPPING CENTER SECTION I: FINDINGS WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application for a Use Permit, as described in Section II of this Resolution; and WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given in accordance with the Procedural Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, and the Planning Commission has held one or more public hearings on this matter; and WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application; and has satisfied the following requirements: 1) The proposed use, at the proposed location, will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements u1 the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience; and 2) The proposed use will be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the Cupertino Comprehensive General Plan and the purpose of the Conditional Use Permits Chapter of the Cupertino Municipal Code. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter, the application for a Use Permit is hereby approved, subject to the conditions which are enumerated in this.Resolution beginning on Page 2 thereof; 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. U-2007-06 as set forth in the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of March 11, 2008, and are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. SECTION II: PROTECT DESCRIPTION Application No.: U-2007-06 Applicant: Brian Replinger (Kimco) Location: Homestead Road and Wolfe Road 15-69 Resolution No. U-2007-06 March 11, 2008 Page 2 SECTION III: CONDTI`IONS ADMII~TISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. 1. APPROVED EXHIBITS The approval is based on Exhibits submitted by MCG titled: "Cupertino Village" consisting of 25 pages, except as maybe amended by the Conditions contained in this Resolution. 2. DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL Approval is granted to construct two one-story retail building totaling 24,455 square feet and a two level parking structure. 3. CONSTRUCTION MANGEMENT PLAN A construction management plan shall be provided to include but not limited to the following measures: • Construction schedule/duration/noise abatement. • Interim offsite employee/contractor parking. •'• Truck routes. • Onsite construction/traffic signage. •'• Best management practices. •'• Dust control. • Specific tree protection measures. • No construction parking or traffic shall occur on the residential streets to the west. Said plan shall be reviewed by the Director of Community Development prior to issuance of building permits. 4. ODOR ABATEMENT All new restaurants shall install odor filtration system. Odor filtration plan shall be reviewed and approved by the City prior to issuance of any building permits. 5. LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE BOND A landscaping bond naming the City as beneficiary in the amount of $100,000 shall be provided to the City prior to issuance of any building permits. Said bond shall ensure that the approved landscaping enhancements associated with the project are going to be carried out and properly maintained. The bond shall be released five years from the final occupancy approval of the proposed new buildings with a letter from the City Consulting Arborist confirming that all of the landscaping features are in good standing. 6. DETAILED LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE PLAN A detailed landscaping maintenance plan be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. Said plan shall include 15-70 Resolution No. U-2007-06 March 11, 2008 Page 3 details on the irrigation system and the routing schedule of maintenance and the upkeep of the landscaping area along east side of Linnet Lane. 7. TRASH ENCLSURE SIZE AND LOCATION The applicant shall work with a consultant to evaluate the refuse and recycing needs of the center and develop a permanent refuse/recycling improvement plan (including but not limited to provide newly updated versions of trash compactors/enclosures, any necessary grease filtration system upgrades, any necessary sewage facility upgrades and more efficient refuse pick-up schedule). Said plan shall be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. Any new trash facility shall be located away from the residential neighborhood as far as possible. 8. BUS SHELTERS There are currently two bus stops along Wolfe Road. One of the bus stops is located near the intersection of Homestead and Wolfe. This bus stop will be relocated to the south of the entrance drive in front of Starbucks Coffee in order to promote safer vehicular movement. The site plan already reflects this change. In addition, staff suggests that the project be required to design and build appropriate bus stop shelters at the two bus stops. The final bus shelter design and location shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department to the Valley Transportation Authority's (VTA) specification. 9. RECONSTRUCTION OF SIDEWALK In order to prolong the life of the double row of Ash Trees along-Wolfe Road and the street trees along Homestead Road, the existing perimeter sidewalk should be replaced with a new at-grade sidewalk to facilitate proper root growth and reduce future uplifting of the sidewalk. All monolithic sidewalks shall be replaced with detached sidewalk (except in situations where trees are in the way or special physical/functional constraints warrants special consideration by the Director of Community Development). Unused driveway curb cuts, unnecessary and unsafe curb features or tree wells shall be eliminated. 10. CORNER PLAZA ENHANCEMENTS The project shall enhance tine corner areas at the intersections of Pruneridge/Wolfe and Wolfe/Homestead. Said areas shall be enhanced with special paving material, appropriate landscaping and sidewalk features and potentially benches or art features as determined by the City in order to improve the pedestrian experience and overall aesthetic of the site. A detailed corner plaza enhancement plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the Design Review Committee prior to issuance of buildng permits. The proposed site plan already acknowledges the plaza. 15-71 Resolution No. U-2007-06 March 11, 2008 Page 4 11. ENHANCEMENTS TO THE INTERIOR CROSWALKS The applicant shall work with staff to determine areas within the existing shopping center (consistent with the recommendations from Fehr and Peers) that should be better delineated as special pedestrian walks or crossing areas. Such areas shall be enhanced with special paving materials and striping. Detailed plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Design Review Committee prior to issuance of building permits. 12. ENHANCEMENTS TO THE INTERIOR COURTYARDS The applicant shall work with staff to enhance and activate the existing courtyards with the following measures: • New shading trees wherever possible. • Enhancements to benches, sitting areas and lighting features. • Enhancements to the interior plaza and gathering places (including but not limited to upgrades to special paving material, trellis/arbor features, water features and outdoor seating areas). Detailed enhancement plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Design Review Committee. 13. SECONDARY STAIR Consider a second stair from the upper level of the garage to the ground level to discourage pedestrians from using auto ramps at the north end of the garage. 14. GARAGE ENTRANCE Consider widening the ground level garage entry at the north end (unless it will serve only as exiting). 15. SHADING TREES Plant additional shading trees and enhance the existing landscaping wherever possible throughout the entire center. 16. ARCH ENTRY ELEMENTS Repeat the arch element throughout all of the pedestrian entrances. 17. STUCCO WALL TOP DETAIL Details should be provided on how stucco wall top is finished off (avoid sheet metal cap flashing). 18. MULTI-LANGUAGE SIGNS Require clear multi-language signs at each of the pedestrian entrances along Lirulet Lane, informing them not to park in the residential streets. Also, the installation of amulti-language sign to inform truckers of the delivery hours and rules shall be provided. Detailed signage plans shall be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. 15-72 Resolution No. U-2007-06 March 11, 2008 Page 5 19. DISCLOSURE OF CONDITIONS TO TENANTS Require that the conditions of approval (including the City's noise ordinance) be made part of the lease agreements of all new tenants so they will be informed of the conditions and rules that will be enforced. 20. SECURITY CAMERAS Require security cameras to be installed at key delivery areas to assist in monitoring and enforcing delivery hours and noise violators. A detailed security camera plan shall be submitted for review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. 21. SECURITY SERVICES Require the center to enhance patrol service so that they can monitor and prevent spill over parking into the neighborhood and the delivery activities. The center should also provide a hotline to the adjacent residents to report any code violation and unsafe activities. Said patrol service shall also monitor the trash facilities to ensure all tenants are using the facilities properly. A detailed security plan shall be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. 22. ONE YEAR REVIEW PERIOD Require a 1-year review of the use permit from the time the two new buildings receive final occupancy. 23. 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 DEPT See attachment 1 PASSED AND ADOPTED this 11th day of March 2008, at a Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll call vote: 15-73 Resolution No. U-2007-06 ~ March 11, 2008 Page 6 AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ATTEST: Steve Piasecki Director of Community Development APPROVED: Lisa Giefer, Chair Planning Commission G:~Plattn.ing~PDREPORT~RES~2007\U-2007-03 res.doc 15-74 ASA-2007-05 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 RESOLUTION N0.6464 OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO APPROVING AN ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE APPROVAL TO CONSTRUCT A 10,582 SQUARE FOOT RETAIL BUILDING AND ONE-LEVEL PARKING GARAGE ON AN EXISTING OFFICE SITE SECTION I: FINDINGS WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application for an Architectural and Site Approval, as described in Section II of this Resolution; and WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given in accordance with the Procedural Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, and the Planning Commission has held one or more public hearings on this matter; and WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application; and has satisfied the following requirements: 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 zoning ordinance, the General Plan and the North Vallco Master Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter, the application for Architectural and Site Approval is hereby approved, subject to the conditions which are enumerated in this Resolution beginning on Page 2 thereof; and That the subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this resolution are based and contailed in the public hearing record conceriv.ng Application No. ASA-2007-10 as set forth irl the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of March 11, 2008, and are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. SECTION II: PROTECT DESCRIl'TION Application No.: ASA-2007-10 Applicant: Brian Replinger (Kimco) Location: Homestead and Wolfe Road 15-75 Resolution No. ASA-2007-10 March 11, 2008 Page 2 SECTION III: CONDTI'IONS ADMIl~TISTEREID BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. 1. APPROVED EXHIBITS The approval is based on Exhibits submitted by MCG titled: "Cupertino Village" consisting of 25 pages, except as may be amended by the Conditions contained in this Resolution. 2. DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL Approval is granted to construct two one-story retail building totaling 24,455 square feet and a two level parking structure. 3. CONSTRUCTION MANGEMENT PLAN A construction management plan shall be provided to include but not limited to the following measures: • Construction schedule/duration/noise abatement. • Interim offsite employee/contractor parking. • Truck routes. • Onsite construction/traffic signage. ••• Best management practices. ••• Dust control. •'• Specific tree protection measures. •• No construction parking or traffic shall occur on the residential streets to the west. Said plan shall be reviewed by the Director of Community Development prior to issuance of building permits. 4. ODOR ABATEMENT All new restaurants shall install odor filtration system. Odor filtration plan shall be reviewed and approved by the City prior to issuance of any building permits. 5. LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE BOND A landscaping bond naming the City as beneficiary in the amount of $100,000 shall be provided to the City prior to issuance of any building permits. Said bond shall ensure that the approved landscaping enhancements associated with the project are going to be carried out and properly maintained. The bond shall be released five years from the final occupancy approval of the proposed new buildings with a letter from the City Consultilg Arborist confirmilg that all of the landscaping features are in good standing. 6. DETAILED LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE PLAN A detailed landscaping mailtenance plan be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to issuance of buildu1g permits. Said plan shall include 15-76 Resolution No. ASA-2007-10 March 11, 2008 Page 3 details on the irrigation system and the routing schedule of maintenance and the upkeep of the landscaping area along east side of Linnet Lane. 7. TRASH ENCLSURE SIZE AND LOCATION The applicant shall work with a consultant to evaluate the refuse and recycling needs of the center and develop a permanent refuse/recycling improvement plan (including but not limited to provide newly updated versions of trash compactors/enclosures, any necessary grease filtration system upgrades, any necessary sewage facility upgrades and more efficient refuse pick-up schedule). Said plan shall be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. Any new trash facility shall be located away from the residential neighborhood as far as possible. 8. BUS SHELTERS There are currently two bus stops along Wolfe Road. One of the bus stops is located near the intersection of Homestead and Wolfe. This bus stop will be relocated to the south of the entrance drive in front of Starbucks Coffee in order to promote safer vehicular movement. The site plan already reflects this change. In addition, staff suggests that the project be required to design and build appropriate bus stop shelters at the two bus stops. The final bus shelter design and location shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department to the Valley Transportation Authority's (VTA) specification. 9. RECONSTRUCTION OF SIDEWALK In order to prolong the life of the double row of Ash Trees along Wolfe Road and the street trees along Homestead Road, the existing perimeter sidewalk should be replaced with a new at-grade sidewalk to facilitate proper root growth and reduce future uplifting of the sidewalk. All monolithic sidewalks shall be replaced with detached sidewalk (except in situations where trees are i1 the way or special physical/functional constraints warrants special consideration by the Director of Community Development). Unused driveway curb cuts, unnecessary and unsafe curb features or tree wells shall be eliminated. 10. CORNER PLAZA ENHANCEMENTS The project shall enhance the corner areas at the intersections of Pruneridge/Wolfe and Wolfe/Homestead. Said areas shall be enhanced with special paving material, appropriate landscaping and sidewalk features and potentially benches or art features as determined by the City in order to improve the pedestrian experience and overall aesthetic of the site. A detailed corner plaza enhancement plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the Design Review Committee prior to issuance of building permits. The proposed site plan already acknowledges the plaza. 15-77 Resolution No. ASA-2007-10 March 11, 2008 Page 4 11. ENHANCEMENTS TO THE INTERIOR CROSWALKS The applicant shall work with staff to determine areas within the existing shopping center (consistent with the recommendations from Fehr and Peers) that should be better delineated as special pedestrian walks or crossing areas. Such areas shall be enhanced with special paving materials and striping. Detailed plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Design Review Committee prior to issuance of building permits. 12. ENHANCEMENTS TO THE INTERIOR COURTYARDS The applicant shall work with staff to enhance and activate the existing courtyards with the following measures: • Ne~v shading trees wherever possible. • Enhancements to benches, sitting areas and lighting features. • Enhancements to the interior plaza and gathering places (including but not limited to upgrades to special paving material, trellis/arbor features, water features and outdoor seating areas). Detailed enhancement plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Design Review Committee. 13. SECONDARY STAIR Consider a second stair from the upper level of the garage to the ground level to discourage pedestrians from using auto ramps at the north end of the garage. 14. GARAGE ENTRANCE Consider widening the ground level garage entry at the north end (unless it will serve only as exiting). 15. SHADING TREES Plant additional shading trees and enhance the existing landscaping wherever possible throughout the entire center. 16. ARCH ENTRY ELEMENTS Repeat the arch element throughout all of the pedestrian entrances. 17. STUCCO WALL TOP DETAIL Details should be provided on how stucco wall top is finished off (avoid sheet metal cap flashing). 18. MULTI-LANGUAGE SIGNS Require clear multi-language signs at each of the pedestrian entrances along Linnet Lane, informing them not to park in the residential streets. Also, the installation of amulti-language sign to inform truckers of the delivery hours and rules shall be provided. Detailed signage plans shall be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. 15-78 Resolution No. ASA-2007-10 March 11, 2008 Page 5 19. DISCLOSURE OF CONDITIONS TO TENANTS Require that the conditions of approval (including the City's noise ordinance) be made part of the lease agreements of all new tenants so they ~vill be informed of the conditions and rules that will be enforced. 20. SECURITY CAMERAS Require security cameras to be installed at key delivery areas to assist in monitoring and enforcing delivery hours and noise violators. A detailed security camera plan shall be submitted for review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. 21. SECURITY SERVICES Require the center to enhance patrol service so that they can monitor and prevent spill over parking into the neighborhood and the delivery activities. The center should also provide a hotline to the adjacent residents to report any code violation and unsafe activities. Said patrol service shall also monitor the trash facilities to ensure all tenants are using the facilities properly. A detailed security plan shall be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. 22.ONE YEAR REVIEW PERIOD Require a 1-year review of the use permit from the time the two new buildings receive final occupancy. 23. 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 i1 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 withil 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 ADMII~TISTERED BY THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPT. See attachment 1 PASSED AND ADOPTED this 11th day of March 2008, at a Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll call vote: 15-79 Resolution No. ASA-2007-10 March 11, 2008 Page 6 AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ATTEST: Steve Piasecki Director of Community Development APPROVED: Lisa Giefer, Chair Planning Commission 15-80 ~-tf~na~L~" 1 PUBLIC «'ORKS CONDITIOI~~S OF APPROVAL - Cupertino Village 1. OFF SITE IMPROVEMENTS Curbs and gutters, sidewalks, streetlights, street widening, curb ramps, striping and related structures shall be installed in accordance with grades and standards as specified by the City Engineer. 2. TRAFFIC SIGNS Traffic control signs shall be placed at locations specified by the City. 3. STREET TREES Street trees shall be planted within the Public Right of Way and shall be of a type approved by the City in accordance with Ordinance No. 125. 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.' * Pre and Post-development calculations must be provided to identify if storm drain facilities need to be constructed or renovated. 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. Ordinance No. 331 requires all overhead lines to be underground whether the lines are new or existing. 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. IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT The project developer shall enter into a deve{opment 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. Grading Permit Fee: b. Checkug and Inspection Fee: c. Development Maintenance Deposit: d. Storm Drainage Fee: e. Power Cost: f. Map Checking Fees: $ 6% of On Site Improvement Costs or $ 2,163.00 muumum $ ~°lo of Off Site Improvement Costs or $ 2,304.00 minimum $ 1,000.00 $ 13,56.40 1~T/A N/A 15-81 g. Park Fees: N/A Bonds (Required): a. On-Site Improvements Bond: 100% Performance Bond b. Off-Site Improvements Bond: 100% Performance Bond; 100% Labor/Material Bond -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 «~ill reflect the then current fee schedule. ** Developer is required for one-year power cost for streetlights 8. 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. 9. BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES Utilize Best Management Practices (BMP's), as required by the State Water Resources Control Board, for construction activity, which disturbs soil. 10. NPDES CONSTRUCTION GENERAL PERMIT The applicant must file for a NOI (Notice of Intent) and must prepare a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan with the State Water Resources Control Board. The city must obtain documentation that the process has been completed. For copies of the Construction General Permit, the NOI and additional permit information consult the state Water Resources Control Board web site at: http:lwww.swrcb.ca.gov/stormwtr/construction. html 11. AMENDED DEVELOPMENT BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMP) REQUIREMENTS a. Permanent Stormwater Quality BMPs Required In accordance with chapter 9.18, Stormwater Pollution Prevention and Watershed Protection, of the City Code, all development and redevelopment projects shall include permanent BMPs in order to reduce the water quality impacts of storm~vater runoff from the entire site for the life of the project b. Stormwater Management Plan Required The applicant shall submit a Stormwater Management Plan for this project. The permanent storm water quality best management practices (BMPs} included in this plan shall be selected and designed in accordance with chapter 9.18, Stormwater Pollution Prevention and Watershed Protection, of the City Code. c. BMP Rgreements The applicant and the City shall enter into a recorded agreement and covenant running with the land for perpetual BMP maintenance by the property owners(s). In addition, the owner(s) and the City shall enter into a recorded easement agreement and covenant running with the land allowing City access at the site for BMR`tr~~aection. 12. MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT The applicant will be required to maintain all items, which are non-standard within the City's right of way. The applicant and the City must enter into a recorded agreement for this. aforementioned work. 13. GARBAGE AND RECYCLING The applicant will be required to gain approval from the Environmental Programs Department prior to obtaining a building permit for the overall garbage and recycling of the subject development. Please use the following link towards the design of the garbage/recycling facilities: htt~:/hvww.cupertino.or4/downloads/Pdf/es Non Res Waste Guidelines.gdf A refuge truck access plan must be approved by the Environmental Programs Department. 14. TRAFFIC STUDY FOR POTENTIAL CUT-THROUGH TRAFFIC The applicant shall fund a study to examine potential cut through traffic resulting from the proposed development along Wolfe Road between Pruneridge Avenue and Homestead Road. The applicant shall pay for necessary traffic improvements to address this potential traffic impact. Work shall be coordinated with the Public Works Department. 15. TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS The applicant will be required to address, but are not limited to, the following concerns/deficiencies: 1. No left turns shall be permitted into or from Homestead Road driveway. The redesigned driveway must only be designated as a right turn in and right turn out. 2. At the intersections of both Pruneridge/Homestead and Homestead/Wolfe, the applicant must furnish and install countdown light emitting diode (LED) pedestrian signal heads, ADA pedestrian push buttons, Emergency Vehicle Pre- emption equipment and Audible pedestrian signal heads. 3.. At the ir~te~rsection of~Homestead/V~l~e, the e Enforcemen~egJ.p'ment rr~st ~ie`rem 4. At the intersection of Homesteaci/Wolfe, traffic signal modifications are to be addressed in regards to signal gear, frame ~NOrk and pole deficiencies. A Traffic Improvement plan must be submitted to the City for approval prior to the commencement of all of the aforementioned work. A cost estimate for the traffic improvements within the City's right of way will be used towards determining the amount of bonding needed to ensure the work is completed to the satisfaction of the City, 15-83 City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 CITY OF (408) 777-3251 CUPEf~TINO FAX (408) 777-3333 Community Development Department ,. INITIAL S'I•li©Y - ENVIR~l~IVIE~ITAt EVALUATION CHECKLIST Staff Use Only EA File No.EA-2007-08 Case Fife No.U-2007-06 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: ASA-2007-10 Project Title: Use Permit and Architectural Site Approval to construct two one-stow retail building totaling 24.500 square feet and a two level parking structure. Project Location: Southwest corner of Homestead Road and Wolfe Road Project Description: See project title. Environmental Setting: Commercial shopping center, office center, hotel and residential PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Site Area (ac.) - 12.5 acres Building Coverage - 25% Exist. Building -111.281 s.f. Proposed Bldg. -135.736 s.f. Zone -P(Com. Resl G.P. Designation -Commercial and Residential Assessor's Parcel No. N/A If Residential, Units/Gross Acre - N/A Applicable Special Area Plans: (Check) ^ Monta Vista Design Guidelines ^ ^ N. De Anza Conceptual ^ ^ Stevens Crk Blvd. Conceptual ^ © N. Vallco Master Plan ^ If Non-Residential, Building Area - 24.455 s.f. FAR - N/A Max. N/A Employees/Shift - N/A Parking Required 800 stalls Parking Provided 785 stalls Project Site is Within Cupertino Urban Service Area - YES D NO S. De Anza Conceptual S. Sara-Sunny Conceptual Stevens Creek Blvd. SW & Landscape S. Vallco Master Plan 15-84 INITIAL S~'U©X~SOURCE UST A. CUPERTINO GENERAL PLAN SOURCES 27. County Parks and Recreation Department 1. Land Use Element 28. Cupertino Sanitary District 2. Public Safety Element 29• Fremont Union High School District 3. Housing Element 30. Cupertino Union School District 4. Transportation Element 31. Pacific Gas and Electric 5. Environmental Resources 32. Santa Clara County Fire Department 6. Appendix A; Hillside Development 33. County Sheriff 7. Land Use Map 34. CALTRANS 8. Noise Element Amendment 35. County Transportation Agency 9. City Ridgeline Policy 36. Santa Clara Valley Water District 10. Constraint Maps 36b Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program B. CUPERTiNO SOURCE DOCUMENTS 36c San Jose Water Company 11. Tree Preservation ordinance 778 12. City Aerial Photography Maps E. OUTSIDE AGENCY DOCUMENTS 13. "Cupertino Chronicle" (California History 37. BAAQMD Survey of Contaminant Excesses Center, 1976) 38. FEMA Flood Maps/SCVWD Flood Maps 14. Geological Report (site specific) 39. USDA, "Soils of Santa Clara County" 15. Parking Ordinance 1277 40. County Hazardous Waste Management Plan 16. Zoning Map 41. County Heritage Resources Invento ~Y 17. Zoning Code/Specific Plan Documents 42. Santa Clara Valley Water District Fuel Leak 18. City Noise Ordinance 18b City of Cupertino Urban Runoff Pollution 43. Site CaIEPA Hazardous Waste and Substances Prevention Plan 43b Site National Pollutant Discharge Elimination C. CITY AGENCIES Site System (NPDES) Municipal Stormwater 19. Community Development Dept. List Discharge Permit Issued to the City of 20. Public Works Dept. Cupertino by the San Francisco Bay 21. Parks & Recreation Department Regional Water Quality Control Board 22. Cupertino Water Utility 43c Hydromodification Plan D. OUTSIDE AGENCIES F. OTHER SOURCES 23. County Planning Department 44• Project Plan 5et/Application Materials 24. Adjacent Cities' Plannirg Departments 45. Field Reconnaissance 25. County Departmental of Environmental 46. Experience w/project of similar Health scope/characteristics 47. ABAG Projection Series D. OUTSIDE AGENCIES (Continued) 26. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 1N$3'RUCTIONS A. Complete all 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, label your answer clearly (Example "N - 3 Historical") Please try to respond concisely, and place as many explanatory responses as possible on each Daoe. 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: ISSUES: ~, +,, ~ U V *' •- ca ~ ~, = o ~ V Z ;~ ~ ~' •- ~ .r t V U V [and Supporting Information Sources] d C c ~ ~ C~ .- L ~ ~ = o _ N .= ~ ~ E Z E acn -~cn ~ ~ ~N I. AESTHETICS -- Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a ^ ^ p ^ scenic vista? [5,9,24,41,44] b) Substantially damage scenic resources, ^ ^ ^ p including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? [5,9,11,24,34,41,44] c) Substantially degrade the existing visual ^ ^ p ^ character or quality of the site and its surroundings? [1,17,19,44] d) Create a new source of substantial light or ^ ^ ^ p glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? [1,16,44] With the perimeter wall of the two level garage structure along the westerly property line acting as a noise and screen wall, the project would significantly enhance the shopping center aesthetic when viewed from the residential neighbor along Linnet Lane. In addition, the project is required to provide and maintain improvements such has double rows of trees, landscaping features, green wall, decorative sound wall and the second level shed screen roof. These features will enhance the interface between the adjacent residential neighbors and help screen any source of light, glare or other undesirable commercial activities from the shopping center. 11. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique ^ ^ ^ p Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non- agricultural use? [5,7,39] 15-86 ISSUES: ~.~' R V U ~ ~ ca c~ = o L V~~ R E- ;~ = ~ o o»r L V V E- ._ R V o ~ [and Supporting Information Sources] o~ E ~ 3 ~' `o d N E E - Z E - a cn . -~ cn ~ c ,~ N b) Conflict with existing zoning for ^ ^ ^ p agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? [5,7,23] c) Involve other changes in the existing ^ ^ ^ p environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? [5,7,39] lll. AIR QUALITY -Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of ^ ^ ^ p the applicable air quality plan? [5,37,42,44] b) Violate any air quality standard or ^ ^ ^ p contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? [5,37,42,44] c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net ^ ^ ^ p increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? [4,37,44] d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial ^ ^ O ~ pollutant concentrations? [4,37,44] e) Create objectionable odors affecting a ^ ^ ^ p substantial number of people? [4,37,44] The BAAQMD (Bay Area Air Quality Management District) CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) Guidelines recommend criteria of significance for air quality impacts from development in the San Francisco Area. According to the guidelines a General Plan may be deemed to have a significant impact on air quality if it is inconsistent with the most recently adopted CAP (Clean Air Plan). Under the CAP, cities and other agencies, including counties, BAAQMD, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, Congestion Management Agencies, and school districts, are also required to make a reasonable effort to implement Transportation Control Measures (TCMs), such as promoting pedestrian travel, to offset or reduce air emissions associated with planned growth. The proposed project cannot, individually implement all of the listed TCMs, but the City's General Plan does include all those measures that are consistent with a Cit 's 15-87 ` ~- ~ ~ '- R ° ~" ~ ` .~ ~ V ~ ~ U ISSUES: and Su ortin Information Sources pp 9 l ~ , ~ _- °~' ~ ~ - _ ,•~ _ N ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~- ; y - ~ ~E o ca Z ~ E a°in iN ~ ~ J ~ ~ J ~ responsibility. The City's General Plan has recently been updated. The amount of commercial development assumed in the build out of the General Plan, including that allowed on the project site, is not greater than assumed in the current CAP. Since the project proposes development that is already accounted for in the General Plan and CAP, the project would not result in new or significant increase in the regional or local air quality impacts not already analyzed and reflected in the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) certified for the General Plan. IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES -- Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either ^ ^ ^ p directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? [5,10,27,44] b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any ^ ^ ^ p riparian habitat or other sensitive natural 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] c) Have a substantial adverse effect on ^ ^ ^ p federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404,of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? [20,36,44] d) Interfere substantially with the movement ^ ^ ^ p of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? [5,10,12,21,26] e) Conflict with any local policies or ^ ^ p ^ ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? [11,12,41] f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural ^ ^ ^ ~ Communit Conservation Plan, or other 15-88 ~ ~ ~ `~ ~ = O -~ ~,~~ i ° = t ~ ~ ~ ~ ISSUES: [and Supporting Information Sources] ~ = c ~ ~ N := ~ a . ~ ~ 3 `o ;~= Q N ~ E o Q, Z E approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? [5,10,26,27] An arborist report was prepared by the City's Arborist Consultant, Arbor Resources. In addition, a tree survey was prepared by Mayne Tree Expert Co. and Kier and Wright Civil Engirieers & Surveyors, Inc. The survey identified 215 trees on the site. According to the City's Arborist Consultant, 53 trees would be considered a loss as a result of implementing the proposed design. None of the trees on site are considered protected specie based on the City's Tree Ordinance. The arborist is recommending the following mitigation measures: 1. Trees #16 to 18 shall be preserved (specific preservation guideline provided in the arborist report). 2. Trees #49 and 50 both are dead and should be removed. 3. Tree #48 requires restaking to professional standards so it has a greater opportunity for survival and stability. 4. Tree #99 and 100 may be removed depending on the final location of the reconstructed detached sidewalk. 5. Removed trees shall be replaced at one 36 inch box size for every removed tree with a trunk diameter greater than 12 inches, and one 24 inch box size tree for every removed tree with a trunk diameter less thari 12 inches. 6. The City Consulting Arborist also provided miscellaneous measures relating to the reconstruction of the existing sidewalk, utility abandonment and improvements, irrigation design, tree protection plan and tree replacement plan shall be incorporated to the project as conditions of approval. 7. The final landscaping plan addressing all of the City Consultant Arborist's recommendations shall be submitted for review and approval by the City Consultant Arborist prior to issuance of building permits. V. CULTURAL RESOURCES -- Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in ^ ^ ^ ~ the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? [5,13,41] b) Cause a substantial adverse change in ^ ^ ^ ~ the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? [5,13,41] c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique ^ ^ ^ D paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? [5,13,41] d) Disturb any human remains, including ^ ^ ~ ~ those interred outside of formal cemeteries? 15-89 A *' ~ c~3 V ''" ~ ~° _ *. ~ O ~ R O t~..L6 f' ~ '~ '~ C ++ .C ~ V ~ V ISSUES: [and Su ortin Information Sources pp 9 1 c o,E °~' ~ r-=co° N ~E ~ ~ ` ~a~ =o F"»=`° `~ ~E ~ E oca z ~ E o ain -yin ~ c dc' ~cn [1,5] V1. GEOLOGY AND SOILS -Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as ^ ^ ^ p delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. [2,14,44] ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? ^ ^ ^ p [2,5,10,44] iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including ^ ^ ^ p liquefaction? [2,5,10,39,44] iv) Landslides? [2,5,10,39,44] ~ ^ ^ ^ p b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the ^ ^ ^ p loss of topsoil? [2,5,10,44] c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is ^ ^ ^ p unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? (2,5,10,39] d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined ^ ^ ^ p in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1997), creating substantial risks to life or property? [2,5,10] e) Have soils incapable of adequately ^ ^ ^ p supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? [6,9,36,39] VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS - Would the project: 15-90 !0 ~ V ~ R O R ~ ~ L~ (~ V ISSUES: and Su ortin Information Sources [ Pp 9 ] ~ ;~ ~ °= ~ a~~ ~ a o : ~' ~_ ~ ~ ° day o F- w ~ ' N 'c o' E y o R z ~ E o a in -~ in ~ c a, ~ 'v~ ^ ^ ^ ~ a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? [32,40,42,43,44] b) Create a significant hazard to the public or ^ ^ ^ p the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? [32,40,42,43,44] c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle ^ ^ ^ . p hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? [2,29,30,40,44] d) Be located on a site which is included on a ^ ^ ^ p list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? [2,42,40,43] e) For a project located within an airport land ^ ^ ^ p 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 result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? [ ] f) For a project within the vicinity of a private ^ ^ ^ p airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? [ ] g) Impair implementation of or physically ^ ^ ^ p interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? [2,32,33,44] h) Expose people or structures to a ^ ^ ^ p significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands?[1,2,44] Even thou h the ro osed ro'ect will not roduce an hazardous materials, the 15-91 ~ ~ o = ISSUES: [and Supporting Information Sources] ~_~ d C ~ ~ ~_-~°Q C$ .- ~ ~ ~ ~ o E-;~Q W .~ ~ E oQ Z E c acn ~cn ~ c ~ ~~ Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) is in the process of conducting environmental investigations of the soil and groundwater around the former Cupertino Village Cleaners site (located on the northeastern side of the 99 Ranch Market). DTSC is the regulatory agency providing oversight of the investigations and the potential future cleanup activities at the project center. The property owner will be required to adhere to the mitigation measures prescribed by the DTSC after the soils investigation concludes. According to the DTSC, mitigation measures may include but not be limited to soil vapor sam lin of the ro'ect area and rovidin ade uate ventilation for the arkin structure. VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY -- Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or ^ ~ ^ ^ waste discharge requirements? [20,36,37] b) Substantially deplete groundwater ^ ^ ^ p supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit 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 level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? [20,36,42) e) Create or contribute runoff water which ^ ^ p ^ would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? [20,36,42] f) Otherwise substantially degrade water ^ ^ ^ p quality? [20,36,37] g) Place housing within a 100-year flood ^ ^ ^ p hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? [2; 38] h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area ^ ^ ^ p structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? [2,38] i) Expose people or structures to a significant ^ ^ ^ p risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, . including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? [2,36,38] ' Inundation b seiche, tsunami, or io-ac =o ~ ISSUES: [and Supporting Information Sources] c = R E y := *= ~ °a L ~ E' »_ ~, N ~ z a E a N ~ _ j N ~ ~ mudflow? [2,36,38] ^ ^ ^ D The project is required to submit a permanent storm water treatment plan for review and approval by the City prior to issuance of building permits. Said plan shall address, but not be limited to, center wide storm water treatment/filtering system, refuse compactor u rades and treatments/facili tease interce tin s stem and refuse mana ement. fX. LAND USE AND PLANNING -Would the project: a) Physically divide an established ^ ^ ^ D community? [7,12,22,41 ] b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, ^ ^ ^ [~ policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? [1,7,8,16;17,18,44] c) Conflict with any applicable habitat ^ ^ ^ (] conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? [1,5,6,9,26] The project property is located in a Planned Development Commercial and Residential Zoning District. The General Plan also permits commercial and residential uses on this site. The proposed commercial development is consistent with the zoning district and the General Plan. The project is also within the recently completed North Vallco Specific Plan Area. Some of the guiding principles from the specific plan are achieved through the project by the following elements: • The project enhances convenient services and promotes interactions to allow for vibrant and engaging working environment. ^ The project provides district identities and visibility by enhancements to the corner plaza area and entry areas to the shopping center (Homestead/Wolfe & . Wolfe/Pruneridge). ^ The project will be required to utilize technology available to help achieve sustainability through energy efficiency and resource conservation to the maximum extent possible. ^ The project site design utilizes existing land efficiently and wisely. ^ The project promotes efficient parking design by utilizing above ground parking structure. ^ The project provides features and enhancements that will reduce impacts on the neighborhoods (light, glare, noise and odor). ^ The project provides features that will help calm traffic and simplify vehicular movements at the homestead drivewa and at the intersections of r ~,~;~-~ 15 -•93 ~ *' ~`~'y C '''.' = O s~s°~ = +' _ ~U ~ ISSUES: and Su ortin Information Sources [ pp 9 ] °= ~ a~~ ~ ~ " ~a~ o _ H ~ E E Z o a 'u~ ~ in ~ c ~~ _ -~ rn Homestead/Wolfe and Prunerid e/Wol fe. X. MINERAL RESOURCES -- Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known ^ ^ ^ p mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? [5,10] b) Result in the loss of availability of a ^ ^ ^ ~ p locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? [5,10J XI. NOISE -- Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to, or generation of, ^ 0 ^ ^ noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? [8,18,44] b) Exposure of persons to or generation of ^ ^ ^ p excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? [8,18,44] c) A substantial permanent increase in ^ O ^ ^ ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? [8,18] d) A substantial temporary or periodic ^ O ^ ^ increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? [8,18,44] e) For a project located within an airport land ^ ^ ^ p 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 excessive noise levels? [8,18, 44] f} For a project within the vicinity of a private ~ ^ ^ ^ p airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? [8,18] An acoustical anal sis of the ro'ect was re ared b Illin worth and Rodkin, Inc., a 15-94 ISSUES: *+ V ~ ~ V ,~ ++ ~ w- *• eo o .C Ci V I- ;~ ~ca V o ca and Su ortin Information Sources [ pp 9 ] c ~E ~' ~ N ~_ ~ ~ `~ ~~ ~o ~no,E ~' ~E ~ z ~ E o acn -~v~ ~ c _ min professional acoustical consulting/engineering firm. The report assessed the fundamentals of environmental acoustics of the project, analyzed the existing ambient noise environment at the residential receivers adjoining to the project site to setup a baseline and provided projections of the project generated noise impacts. The following mitigation measures are recommended: 8. The applicant shall retain a qualified Noise Control Engineer to assist in the final design of the proposed mechanical equipment. The Noise Control Engineer shall be responsible for designing noise reduction measures that would reduce the operational noise levels to 40 dBA Leq or less at the nearby residential receivers. 9. Noise reduction measures could include locating mechanical equipment as far as possible from nearby receivers or shielding such equipment with noise barriers or enclosures. 10. All mechanical equipment shall be specified with the manufactures "low noise" option, if available. 11. Noise barriers shall be designed to reduce noise levels generated by an auto's horn to less than 70 dBA LmaX• The noise barrier would need to provide a minimum of 6 dBA of noise reduction. 12. The final design of the proposed sound barriers and mechanical equipments shall be reviewed and approved by the City's Noise Consultant prior to issuance of building permits. With the implementation of the above measures, the noise generated by the project would not substantially increase ambient noise levels on a permanent basis and would not violate the standards presented in the City's Municipal Code. XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING -- Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an ^ ^ ^ p area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? [3,16,47,44] b) Displace substantial numbers of existing ^ ^ ^ ~ housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? [3,16,44] c) Displace substantial numbers of people, ^ ^ ^ p necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? [3,16,44] XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the project result in substantial 15-95 ~ V V t V L~~ t v V V ISSUES: [and Supporting Information Sources] c = `~ c ~ ~ ~ ° ° ~ ~ ~ ~ `o f';~ ~ N ~ ~ ° ~ Z ~ acn -ern ~ c ~N - adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? [19,32,44] ^ ~ ^ ^ ~ Police protection? [33,44] O ^ ^ D Schools? [29,30,44] ~ ^ ^ ^ ~ Parks? [5,17,19,21,26,27,44] ^ ^ ^ O Other public facilities? [19,20,44] ^ ^ ^ D XiV. RECREATION -- a) Would the project increase the use of ^ ^ ^ ~ existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? [5,17,19,21,26,27,44] b) Does the project include recreational ^ ^ ^ D facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? [5,44] XV. TRANSPORTATlONITRAFFIC -- Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is ^ ^ ~ ^ substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? [4,20,35,44] b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, ^ ^ ^ O a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? [4,20,44] 15-96 ISSUES: ~+ +'' ~~ v *' :° ~ C +'' C ~ =~ o R ~' ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~+ ~ c~a v f- ~ ~ v o ea and Su ortin Information Sources [ pp 9 ] *°•' ~ a~~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~a~ ~o ~' ~ ~ ~~E Z ~ E o am ~~ ~ c min c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, ^ ^ ^ p 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 ^ ^ O O design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? [20,35,44] e) Result in inadequate emergency access? ^ ^ ^ p [2,19,32,33,44] f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? ^ ^ ^ p [17,44] g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or ^ ~ ^ p programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? [4,34] A traffic analysis was prepared by Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc., the City's traffic consultant. Hexagon evaluated the potential impacts of the project in accordance with the standards set froth by the City of Cupertino and the Congestion Management Program (CMP) of the Santa Clara County. The study included an analysis of AM and PM peak-hour traffic conditions for seven signalized intersections. The study also assessed the required or projected parking demand of the project by performing actual parking surveys of the center. The study found the following: ^ 55 AM peak-hour trips and 154 PM peak=hour trips (assuming a 25% reduction for PM pass-by trips) would be generated by the project. ^ The intersection level of service analysis indicated that none of the signalized study intersections would be significantly impacted by the project according to the City of Cupertino and CMP level of service standards. ^ The project would not have any significant adverse impacts on existing pedestrian, bicycle or transit facilities in the project area. The project is required to perform the following traffic improvement measures:. 1. No left turns shall be permitted into or from Homestead Road driveway (only right in and right out allowed). 2. The applicant must furnish and install countdown light emitting diode (LED) pedestrian signal heads, ADA pedestrian push buttons, emergency vehicle pre-emption equipment and audible pedestrian signal heads at the intersections of both Pruneridge/Homestead and Homestead/Wolfe. 3. At the intersection of Homestead/Wolfe, the existin red li ht hoto 15-97 ~ R ~ ~ ~ o f Z~ V V ISSUES: f S d S rti I ti ~ ~ `~ o ~ ~ ~ :~ ~ ~ ° ~ o, a ~ ~ ~ :~ `~ a ~ ~ ~ ° `~ z a ~ orma on ources] [an uppo ng n ~ ~ ~ ~ a cry cn c -~ cn enforcement equipment must be removed. 4. Traffic signal modifications are to be addressed in regards to signal gear, frame work and pole deficiencies at the intersection of Homestead/Wolfe. In addition, the City has retained Fehr and Peers Transportation Consultants to perform additional supplemental studies on neighborhood spill-over parking effects of the shopping center and some onsite/offsite automobile circulation concerns. The conclusion and recommendation of said supplemental report will be provided to the Environmental Review Committee at the next meeting. The project will be required to adhere to all parking mitigation measures recommended by the City's arkin consultants. XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS - Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment ^ ^ ^ • ~ requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? [5,22,28,36,44] b) Require or result in the construction of ^ O ^ ~ new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? [36,22,28,36] c) Require or result in the construction of ^ ^ ^ O new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? [5,22,28,36,44] e) Result in a determination by the ^ ^ ^ O wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? [5,22,28,36,44] f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient ^ ^ ^ D permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local ^ ^ ^ D statutes and regulations related to solid waste? XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE (To be completed by City Staff) 15-98 ~, ~ ~ (,~ V ~ ~. o ~ V C ',-1+ L .L V V V ISSUES: and Su ortin Information Sources pP 5 ] _=~ E °' ~ . h'~•-cao w ~ ~ ~ ~ d F-:~_~ E ~' _ ~ o~ Z ~ E a°cn N ~ ~ '~ C ~ o, J N a) Does the project have the potential to ^ ~ ^ ^ degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examp{es of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are ^ ^ ~ ^ individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c) Does the project have environmental ^ ^ ^ p effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? PREPARER'S AFFIDAVIT hereby certify that the information provided in this Initial Study is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief; I certify that I have used proper diligence in responding accurately to all questions herein, and have consulted appropriate source references when necessary to ensure full and complete disclosure of relevant environmental data. I hereby acknowledge than any substantial errors dated within this Initial Study may cause delay or discontinuance of related project review procedures, and hereby agree to hold harmless the City of Cupertino, its staff and authorized agents, from the consequences of such delay or discontinuance. i _ _..-, ,, Preparer's Signatures ~ `"~ .- '.- ~-~r - (. ~G ~~~ . Print Preparer's Name 15-99 ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION (To be Completed by City Staff) ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ^ Aesthetics ^ Agriculture Resources ^ Air Quality ^ Biological Resources ^ Cultural Resources ^ Geology /Soils ^ Hazards & Hazardous Materials ^ Hydrology /Water Quality ^' Land Use /Planning ^ Mineral Resources ^ Noise ^ Population /Housing O 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. 0 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 proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant 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. An 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 alt 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 that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Staff Evaluator ERC Chairperson Date Date 15 - 100 CITY OF CUPERTINO RECOMMENDATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE February 20, 2008 As provided by the Environmental Assessment Procedure, adopted by 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 February 20, 2008. PROTECT DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION Application No.: U-2007-06, ASA-2007-10 (EA-2007-08) Applicant: Brian Replinger (Cupertino Village) Location: Homestead Road & Wolfe Road DISCRETIONARY ACTION RE UEST Use Permit and Architectural Site Approval to construct two one-story retail buildings totaling 24,455 square feet and a two level parking structure 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 has no significant environmental impacts. The mitigating conditions are identified in the Initial Study (dated February 20, 2008) with the following added conditions (in order of preference): • 1) Modify site plan to compensate for the parking deficit; 2) Provide a Transportation Demand Management Plan. Such plan shall be permanent and demonstrable and be linked to the leasing strategy (ie; tenant/use controls such as cap on restaurants and/or square footage limits) /s/Steve Piasecki Steve Piasecki Director of Community Development g/erc/REC EA-2007-OS 15 - 101 Cupertino Planning Commission 7 November 13, 2007 'endly Amendment to Motion: Com. Kaneda added relative to the certification, add "striv meet the minimal LEED commercial interior c 'cation level:' Com. Wong accepted the 'redly amendment. Com. Wong added to mo Add "th plicant shall not use the putting green or any of the landscaped area as a play area clut~l area:' Second by Com. Miller (Vote: 5-0-0) Chair Giefer declared a Chair Gief pened the public hearing. 3. U-2007-06, ASA-2007-10 Use Permit and Architectural and Site Approval (EA-2007-08) Brian Replinger to construct two, one-story retail buildings (Cupertino Village) totaling 24,455 square feet and a one level Homestead & Wolfe Rd. parking deck. Te~atative City Council date: December 18, 2007 Gary Chao, Senior Planner, presented the staff report: • Reviewed the application for use permit and architectural and site approval to construct two one-story retail builduigs totaling 24,455 square feet and a two level parking structure at Homestead Road and Wolfe Road. He noted there would be a second public hearing as the Planning Commission cannot take action until ERC provides findings for the environmental considerations and they are scheduled to meet on November 14, 2007. Details of the staff presentation are outlined in the staff report. • As there are only 5,34.1 square feet of commercial development allocation remaining for the area, the applicant is requesting the additional 19,114 square footage be redistributed from the Vallco Park South area which currently has 791,000 square feet available. • He reviewed the site design, neighborhood connectivity, proposed architecture for the two retail buildings, including the architectural consultant's suggestions; other site enhancements to be included in the project and parking requirements. Other enhancements include bus shelters, reconstruction of sidewalk, corner plaza enhancements, enhancements to the interior crosswalks, parking lot shading trees, and trash enclosure size and location. He noted that the proposed parking demand for the expansion is 800 parking stalls; the project proposes 782 and fall short of 18 stalls. Relative to the deficit of 18 stalls, the Planning Commission has options to consider in order to avoid parking shortage at the center. The options are listed on page 7 of the staff report. • Relative to green design, staff suggests that the project be made to required to be LEED certifiable, indicating that they don't have to go through the paperwork and actual cert~cation process, but the property owner would show proof that in terms of going through the checklist of LEED to go through the points and show how they are meeting the minimum in terms of beuig able to certify the two buildings. • Hexagon Transportation Engineers were retained to provide traffic analysis which indicated the project will generate a net increase of 55 trips during AM trips peak hour and 154 trips during PM peak hours. According to the traffic engineering in consult with Public Works and data provided by the city Public Works Department, none of the signalized intersections would be significantly impacted by the project; it will not degrade to a point where it is past whatever service level it is at, and the project would not have any significant adverse impact on the existing pedestrian bicycle transit facilities in the azea. • Enhancement measures suggested by Public Works are outlined in the staff report. 15 - 102 Cupertino Planning Commission 8 November 13, 2007 He reported that the noise report by Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc., used the more conservative residential standards v/hich is 60 db daytime and 50 db nighttime as a standard for comparison. Based on the report, new sources for noise associated with the project would involve air conditioning, heating equipment, parking activities, primarily in the parking structure. As a suggestion, a qualified noise control engineer shall approve the final design of any of the mechanical equipment plan and to make sure that the operational noise level for any of the mechanical equipment on the new buildings or garage shall be reduced to a noise level of 40 dba or less at the nearby residential receiver, basically at the property line. In addition, regarding the noise barrier discussed earlier, along the west perimeter garage wall, our noise consultant suggests that the final design be made so that the wall reduce the noise level generated by things such as an auto horn to less than 70 db. The same noise barrier shall provide a minimum of 6 dba of noise reduction and with the above measures in place, the project would not result in a measurable increase in the existing situation. Given the net traffic increase, the parking consultant states that the project would not result in measurable increase from the traffic being generated as measured along the roadways that serve this project. He discussed the issues related- to trees as outlined in the staff report, and stated that staff recommends the final tree plan be reviewed and approved by the DRC prior to the issuance of a building permit. He reviewed the neighbors' comments and concerns expressed at another neighborhood meeting, and email correspondence, which included issues related to parking, landscaping, and pedestrian access. He also reviewed the conditions or mitigation measures that the Planning Commissioners may consider in response to some of the neighbors' concerns. The comments and suggestions are outlined on Pages 11 and 12 of the staff report. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission take the following actions: Take public input, evaluate issues of the project, provide staff and applicant with feedback and continue the item to a date certain to allow sufficient time for staff and the applicant to respond to any concerns or recommendations; and also provide a recommendation to City Council following that. Coin. Kaneda: ~ Expressed concern that the traffic consultant could do a survey, determine the parking to be 100% full and arrive at a conclusion that they have exactly the correct number of parking spaces. He said that as it exists today, the center does not Have adequate parking. Before discussing adding new buildings, there is clearly an issue with parking. Steve Piasecki: Said that the traffic consultant went out and found the worst case situation and verified what everyone already knows, they are jammed during the worst case situations. They did some drive-throughs during the not so high demand periods and found there were available parking spaces. There are some concentrated periods where the center is packed; and we spoke about this earlier that this is arguably the most successful shopping center that we have. Discussion continued regarding parking issues wherein staff reviewed the results of the recent consultant's study, and possible mitigation options available to avoid parking shortage at the center. Traffic circulation within the center was also discussed. Brian Replinger, Development Director, Kimco Realty Corp.: Kimco took ownership of the center in March 2006 and since then has studied expansion of the center to improve it. We do recognize that there aze a lot of neighbors' concems regarding pazking and traffic impact on the neighborhood. We have no feelings one way or another on the pedestrian access or no pedestrian access from Linnet. It is what works best for the city and the neighborhood. We were responding to Planning's comments to go with the city's 15 - 103 Cupertino Planning Commission November 13, 2007 wanting to enhance pedestrian access when they came up with this plan. Nothing we are married to. We take no exception to anything that staff has come up with in the reports. Architecturally from the arborist, staff comments on transportation, anything; we think that they are good suggestions and don't take issue with any of those. There has been some concern about operational issues tonight and as the city attorney stated, I instructed our legal people after hearing this over the last few meetings, to look into what we can do with existing leases. A lot of leases are ones we inherited with the center that we have to abide by now. I have asked them to research what teeth we can put into existing leases and they are looking at notifying the existing tenants that they will be expected to meet all city ordinances regarding noise and we will put more teeth on those as leases expire and new leases come up. Regarding parking, he said they had to live with the existing leases. They are looking at providing incentives for new tenants as leases expire and ones that come into the new development that goes forward on how to use the incentive of carpooling and using public transit. We are hesitant to look into offsite uses because we are going to be at the mercy of the offsite people and we would like to pursue permanent things that we have control over but for patchwork things we are going to be at the mercy of, agreements expiring. We understand that and we want this to work well. Typically when we see a parking deficit at a center, the first people to complain are our tenants because they hear from their customers that they cannot park there and they are going to go someplace else. We haven't heard that yet, but that does not mean there isn't problems for other people but empirically that is where we typically hear it from. I have looked at our other centers in the western U.S. about this size, they typically park at between 4 and 6 per 1,000 which is fairly common for shopping centers across the country. The ratio that, Hexagon arrived at is based upon some higher ones and we are a little shy of it, 18 spaces, of their recommendation and we are looking for everyone of them, and in fact, getting rid of pedestrian access would pick up 4 or 5 more parking spots. We have had two meetings with the neighbors and you will hear from them tonight. We have been good listeners; we understand their concerns and we want the center to be successful and we want to be a good neighbor. Com. Miller: • asked the applicant if they considered adding another level to the garage. Brian Replinger: • The height is something we wanted to be sensitive to; adding a third level, more height for the garage, gets overpowering, presently the top of the screen would be about 14 to 15 feet; the top of the existing buildings and proposed ones are about 22 feet. • Below grade gets very expensive; we don't have the ability to charge for parking and when you go below grade, that is typically subsidized by people staying there. There is also a gas easement through the garage and relocating the gas would be problematic. • He said that since they took ownership, prospective tenants have shown interest in the center. Com. Wong: • Said that it is a successful center, but has a parking problem. It is important that there be a positive experience for the customers of the center, which is an important goal of the Planning Commission also. Brian Replinger: • I~t respo~rse to Coin. Ka~teda's questio~t relative to carpool incentives and use of public transportation, he said they could look at ways to provide incentives to the employees of the 15 - 104 Cupertino Planning Commission 10 November 13, 2007 center to either use public transit or carpool; which is done by operating a bus or public transit passes at a subsidized rate and similar with carpooling- • Said it was difficult for the property owner to count employees, depending on the shifts and workload of the day. The tenants know, but we typically don't ask that. We have an account of what we think the numbers are and can make that available. (Added text to draft minutes) Corn. Kameda: • Asked staff if there was a way of estimating what that nurnber is, what incentives for carpooling arzd mass transit rniglzt reduce the nurnber to? Steve Piasecki: • Cannot provide arz accurate number, we could ask the traffic consultant to tell us, but I don't think it is extremely high for retail mtd for restaurants; it is very good for research and developrnerzt parks. Apple Computer has a very successful program; they have buses to acrd from Caltrain. It may be in the 5% to 7% range; we would have to ask the experts. Corn. Kaneda: • It seems for Bonze urzk~zown reason t)zat this shopping center has an unusually high ratio of retail space; is that the ratio of square footage of retail space to parking spots? I hear that it is above the ULI recommended ratios. I am curious wlty that would be. Steve Piasecki: • We could ask the applicant to research those other methods and come back with employee counts, perhaps they could re-engage the traffic engineers to survey a broader range of days arzd find out if they carz fznd the cars that were lirzirtg the street that Chair Giefer talked about. We know there is some spillover, I don't know the degree of it. Conz. Miller: • 1 am still looking at the parking problem; arzd there is a nurnber of solutions proposed. Orte, to reduce the number of square feet of retail; you change the use around; add more parking arzd I was going to propose another orte and perhaps on the front building on Wolfe Road, instead of going one story linearly, had you considered doing a two story structure instead? Brian Replinger: • Said that consideration of two story structures in the center was not feasible as everything else in the center is single story. It was felt that single story additions to the center were more in keepuig with the design of the center; and also second story space is difficult to lease. Currently there is approximately 5,000 square feet of second story space that is not leased. Com. Miller • Asked how they planned to address the parking issue. Brian Replinger: • The problem with the first one we do, is we are willing to look at limiting the new use of food to a percentage, or number of seats. Typically restaurants are part on a ratio of so many seats per space and they are willing to work with the city to come up with an agreeable ratio for that. • Said that outside seating counts if you go with a seat count ratio. If you say that restaurants are going to park at one per four seats, the restaurants are going to be limited to a number of seats, which would be included in the lease. 15 - 105 Cupertino Planning Commission 11 November 13, 2007 Chair Giefer opened the public hearing. Surachita Bose, City of Sunnyvale Planning Department: • Said that the main issues they feel impact the residents in the vicinity of the Cupertino Village project have been identified in a detailed list of comments provided to the project planner. The City of Sunnyvale's Planning staff has been contacted by several residents of the Linnet Lane neighborhood and the key issues include the potential for traffic and noise in the adjoining residential neighborhood; parking overflow into the streets; concerns about the amount and condition of landscaping, and code enforcement issues on the project site. We do recognize the challenges posed by commercial development projects in the vicinity of residential neighborhoods. We have reviewed the project plans in detail and have some recommendations that could potentially nutigate the impacts on the residents. • The quantity of parking provided. The shopping complex currently has an extremely high demand for parking and there has been considerable spillover of traffic into the neighboring residential streets. In the past, we recommended that the project be conditioned to limit the required parking demand on site or to reduce the total amount of retail square footage to meet the available parking. • Limiting the total amount of restaurant uses at the site to about 25%. We believe currently the center has 27% of restaurant uses and considering that they are the high parking demand uses, limiting that and capping that at 25% may be appropriate. I also understand that allowing restaurant users to go in there does not require additional use permits or going through the public hearing process; that may be a way of limiting the parking impact. • The current traffic study points out that there is no spillover onto the Linnet Lane neighborhood and in driving around the neighborhood and feedback from the residents it doesn't seem entirely accurate. Also the traffic and circulation patterns that have been studied in the traffic study do not look at the Linnet Lane; it does look at Homestead, Wolfe and a lot of other streets, but not Linnet Lane. Maybe looking at a more detailed traffic study to assess more fully the parking impacts may be required. • The issue of the location of the two level parking structure adjacent to Linnet Lane. We feel that although the location of the pedestrian entryway at the center of the parking structure may be a logical choice; it may encourage more people to park along Linnet Lane. We recommend exploring design options as suggested by the project planner that would de-emphasize pedestrian entry, and one alternative may be to design the project to have the pedestrian access point blocked now, with the potential for it to be opened in the future if the parking situation should change at some point. • The issue of noise; we have already discussed the hours during which deliveries are made at the site. We recommend imposing stronger enforcement measures at the site. It was not clear to us looking at the section on elevation whether a masonry wall was being proposed or it was verified today that there will be one. We are concerned that the wall may not be tall enough to block noise from two levels of parking structure; we would like to encourage the occupant to explore having a higher masonry wall and having the green screen in front of it to visually soften the impact of the masonry wall. • The project could be conditioned to require a bond to maintain the landscaping; the neighbors pointed out it has been an issue in the past. • The parking structure lighting should incorporate downlighting mechanisms to minimize lighting glare onto adjacent residential properties. • Incorporating construction impact mitigation measures to minimize impact to the residents during construction phase of the project; and addressing the issue of how the parking during the construction phase would be addressed. • Concluded by stating that she looked forward to working with the city in addressing the neighbors' concerns. 15 - 106 Cupertino Planning Commission 12 November 13, 2007 Com. Wong: • Asked if the City of Sunnyvale considered implementing a parking permit program since there is a strong concern by the residents. Ms. Bose: Said that it was an issue explored back in 2003 when the residents were opposed to an aspect of the project. We had looked at the option back then but it my understanding that some or most of the residents were not open to the idea of having permit parking at that time. There was also the issue of having not enough staff available at our Public Safety for enforcement reasons, but it is something we can explore further. She said she was not in a position to comment whether or not it was a viable alternative at this time. Kuldeep Chalihan: • Opposed to project. • Said the traffic in the evening hours from DeAnza/Blaney back toward east Homestead Road is a big mess. Increasing the square footage will make it a nightmare. • One year to 2 years of construction will create a nuisance for the entire neighborhood; property values will depreciate. Li Li, Parnell Place: • Opposed to the project. • There are many overspill problems on the weekend; when the traffic engineer does his sun~ey, he should definitely look at Linnet Lane and all the side streets. At least 100 more cars are parked on the streets on the weekend. • Expanding the center will add to the parking problems. Many people stay away from the center because of the shortage of parking spaces already. • Said that the odor from the trash containers at Ranch 99 are very strong in the neighborhood and creates a lot of flies. _ • Limit the restaurants in the center. • Traffic during construction; will be worse. Mario Garibay, Linnet Lane, read the following into the record: • We the residents of Linnet Lane and surrounding neighborhood of Sunnyvale would like Cupertino Village Shopping Center LLC to consider redesigning their current plans to expand their shopping center. • We continue to experience many negative impacts that have not been resolved since our last public hearing regarding the fence. Deliveries are still occurring before and after the allotted timeframes; when they should be made between 9 a.m, to 5 p.m. The grease trap recycler still continues to show up at 1.:00 a.m. along with the sidewalk pressure washing company and parking lot s«~eepers. Considering the control on noise violations has not been enforced, building and multi-story parking structures only are going to add to the existing noise from the construction being done and the continuous traffic throughout our neighborhood. • Building a structure of this size is only going to attract more people to come and visit the already densely populated shopping center. We continue to deal with parking congestion and shopping carts left abandoned in our neighborhood, making the visual presentation of our neighborhood look poor. The towering apartments already impede on our privacy. Therefore this parking structure should be built underground to minimize garbage being thrown from the second parking level; noise reduction and headlights beaming through our windows. 15 - 107 Cupertino PIanning Commission 13 November 13, 2007 A 22 foot acoustic fully engineered soundwall should be constructed as we had asked for in the past. Since the existing fence is now in compliance with the requirements of B 1628030 stating that the fence is separating commercial zones from residential zones should be constructed at a height and with materials designed, (1) acoustically to isolate part or all of noise emitted, and (2) ensure visual privacy for adjoinuig residential dwelling units. In conclusion, adding a parking structure in this capacity is only going to degenerate our residential and surrounding neighborhoods, making it detrimental for our future. Arvin Jain, Cupertino resident: • Opposed to project. • Said he was surprised from the discussion that they were justifying adding to the same successful complex at the cost of security and safety of the neighborhood. Three years ago his house was burglarized and also the house behind him on Linnet Lane. Adding a two story parking garage will aggravate that problem and the safety of the neighborhood. • Adding more traffic to the neighborhood not only adds more spillover problems, but it will become significantly worse and reduce the safety of the neighborhood because of the increase of cars in the neighborhood and impacting the safety of the residents and their children. • Take these two important factors into consideration in deliberation of the application. Sai Gummidipudi: • Opposed to the project. • Expressed concern about the entrance into the shopping center from Linnet Lane; it has always been an issue of contention for the Sunnyvale neighbors. • Understand there is a lease issue with Ranch 99; hopefully the legal department for Kimco will come up with something; there is a lot of parking space in front of Ranch 99 which could probably be utilized for a parking structure. Having something right next to Linnet Lane with the noise level and with the possibility of looking into our neighborhood from the parking lot even though the design says it is 14 feet; I strongly feel there is always some possibility of people hanging around there. Without a pazking structure now, there aze always people spending time around that azea even after 11 p.m. I am not sure if a second level will be any different. • The construction will be around for about 1-2 years and the entire area next to the fence is going to be used for construction. We also have to consider the parking situation during the construction span, and I am not sure where all the cars will go for that time. The obvious choice is spilling onto Linnet Lane and the side streets. • Said he appreciated that the people living next to the Cupertino Village get informed of all meetings. • Said that preventing pedestrian access on the border between the property and Linnet Lane would help with the issues with parking and people walking through the residential area. David Chapman, representing Good Samaritan AZethodist Church: • Is one of the nearest neighbors to the shopping center and does not get information about meetings. • Lack of pedestrian access to Linnet Lane would increase the pedestrian traffic through the church property. There is currently a foot access from the church pazking lot to the parking lot of the center. • Said because of the increased traffic between the center and our property they were requesting that an 8 foot wall be built to protect against traffic. Said he was also requesting that the pedestrian access be retained. 15 - 108 Cupertino Planning Commission 14 November 13, 2007 • Closing access onto Wolfe Road would increase even more the traffic going through the narrow passageway, the narrow driveway between the church property, the preschool playground and the shopping center. He said they were concerned about the increased traffic. • Said they need access to shopping center parking spaces as part of the ongoing agreement with the center with previous owners for 200 spaces available for church parking, which is primarily used on Sunday mornings. It does have an effect on other times of the week when meetings are held; and there is currently considerable traffic from Linnet Lane and others in their parking lot. • Said that some of the parishioners do park on Linnet Lane on Sunday mornings or when there are large events such as funerals. • He noted that the church parking lot is heavily used during the week by patrons of the shopping center. Loretta Wong, Preschool Director, Good Samaritan Methodist Church: • Expressed concern about the driveway between the preschool playground, and the plans to take away some of the driveway off Wolfe Road and put it where Homestead is. ff the traffic is increased there, the preschool playground is right there by the throughway to the parking lot. She said they wanted a bamer there for the safety of the children. In its present state, if a car hits the metal fence, it will go right through the playground, endangering the children. • Ensure that there is a safety valve there to prevent anything from happening to the children. Hannah Yu, Linnet Lane: • Opposed to the project. • Said for the developer it is an issue of getting.more money, and for the residents it is an issue about quality of life. • The burden the development has placed on the neighborhood and the community is so great and disproportionate. We can all agree that there are extreme parking problems and that parking in the area, the responsibility of the managers, they are not fulfilling their responsibility in providing enough parking and the overfill parking lot has become our neighborhood. • Tn addition, parking in the neighborhood is bad and adding new traffic from the development and when Vallco opens; it will overwhelm the streets that aze not equipped to handle that many cars. • My biggest concern for my family and the residents on my street is the parking garage. I am shocked there has been so little discussion that they want to build a parking garage across the street from our houses. It will have a horrendous effect on the neighborhood. It would be detrimental to the health, safety, emotional well being of the residents in the neighborhood. Bob Struk, Kinglet Court: • Opposes the project. • Said that they aze happy for the success of the Cupertino Village; however, it is excessively saturated; and the proposals for the project will saturate it even more. The impact is not linear, but goes up expedientially. Presently the spillover is not only on Linnet Lane; there isn't any parking on Parnell Place or Kinglet Court. • The air pollution is sign~cant from the restaurants; the noise pollution is excessive and the proposals limiting new machinery down to 70 dba is significantly loud. • They consider the barriers they wish to have as mandatory. The impact to the safety of the children of the church is real. • He said the parking spillover was at its highest on weekends and weeknights after 5 p.m. 15 - 109 Cupertino Planning Commission 15 November 13, 2007 • He distributed a signed paper by the Kinglet Court residents, unanimously requesting that the project be halted based on the reasons listed. Bob Rau: • Opposed to the project. • Said about 15 years ago there was an agreement reached between the residents and the shopping center, they closed the driveway to the parking lot of the center; it was mentioned at that time that the pedestrian access could be closed if the traffic was too excessive. The pedestrian access only encourages parking on the street. • He said the owner should invest in underground parking as the center is successful and it would be a good long term investment. • He said the current center owners started off good, were more responsive and aware than the prior owners. Xin Li: • Opposed to the project. • Said he did not get notice of the first two meetings. • The parking structure is not acceptable and is too close to the residences. • Said the parking lot of the center was full weekdays about noon and always on the weekend. Mu-Ding Li, Parnell Place: • Opposed to the project. • Said he was opposed to the two level parking garage and the parking situation would be worse. • He said the area before Ranch 99 market could accommodate a multi level parking garage. • He asked that consideration be given to the depreciation of the property values of the neighboring residents and the privacy impacts of the parking structure. Jerrie Hyrne: • Opposed to project. • Said that the original shopping center was designed as a neighborhood center and is now a regional center. • She discussed the negative impacts of the odors permeating the neighborhood from the many restaurants; and the heavy traffic in the neighborhood which impacts the safety of the children. She noted that the vacant 4,500 square feet of space would create an additional shortage of parking spaces. • She asked that consideration be given to the quality of life of the residents, and not just consider the tax revenue for the city. May Huang, Linnet Lane: • Opposes the project. • Said that many friends have told her they do not attempt to park in the center parking lot when shopping at the center; they park on Linnet Lane or Parnell or other nearby streets. • Said that the project would only make the traffic and parking situations worse, and she would be forced to live across from a huge parking structure. She added that the noise, air pollution and odors from the center negatively impacted the residents. • There is presently a parking space deficit and the proposed project would only increase the need for parking which creates an impossible situation. David Doudna, Parnell Place: • Opposed to the project. 15 - 110 Cupertino Planning Commission 16 November 13, ?007 • Challenged the notion and report that there is no spillover parking. Said it was his opinion that the consultant's report was unfounded. • He noted that he sent an email with comments also. • Said he supported neighborhood connectivity, however, the reality is that given the inadequate parking, the portal of Linnet Lane will be primarily used by people outside the neighborhood driving their car, parking on our streets and walking to the shopping centers from our street. Unless the parking lot is improved either by number of stalls or larger stalls, there may be other reasons people aren't parking in the lot. If it is improved so that it is more attractive for people to park there than in the street, open it up, have a pedestrian portal. • He questioned whether the Ranch 99 customers would push a cart of grocers up the ramp to the top level of the parking structure or push it onto Linnet Lane where their car is parked. When they do, their shopping carts are left on the street. • Regarding other mitigation measures that have been discussed such as incentives for using alternative transportation; great, so demonstrate it; why wait for the expansion; demonstrate them now and show how the parking can be made adequate now and only then when you have established what adequate parking is, and you know what that ratio is, only then can you say we can expand perhaps, keeping that same ratio of parking spaces. Jennifer Griffin, Rancho Rinconada resident: • Asked that the Ash trees along Wolfe Road be protected, the double row of Ash trees from Stevens Creek Boulevard down to Homestead along Wolfe Road are a hallmark of the Vallco Cupertino shopping district. The greenbelt of Ashes at the intersection of Homestead and Wolfe is a major entrance «~ay to Cupertino; it is a gateway to the city and the lush green ambiance with the lawns and street trees should be retained. Protect as many trees on the property also. • Said she hoped that before the project proceeds, everyone will make certain that there are no parking problems on Homestead/Wolfe and in the parking lot. Doug Durham,'Lark Lane: • Opposed to the project. • Said he felt the plan was anon-starter; as it stands today there is no parking; and according to the studies, there will be less parking. • Said he endorsed the idea that the parking should be fixed as it stands today. Will people start commuting if they are given free VTA passes, resulting in many spaces opening up? • If the project goes through, all pedestrian access must be closed off, because without it there is such a draw into the neighborhood to park there, and his neighborhood will become overflow parking. • Looking at the traffic flow outlined, he said he couldn't imagine driving a car into the parking lot once the new retail outlets are there. Mark McLaughlin: • Opposed to the project. • Said he agreed with many of the prior speakers. • The parking study suggested that they had already reached 100% capacity; obviously understated. He suggested that long before reaching 100% capacity, people are already trying to avoid that problem by moving into the neighborhoods into overflow parking. • The fence was built at the request of the neighborhood and it was a fight just to get that meager fence that is present now. The landscaping was also a token gesture on their part; and no efforts were made to maintain it. 15 - 111 Cupertino Planning Commission 17 November 13, 2007 • Some of the things that have been proposed that I would strongly encourage is that barn measure; in order to ensure that the landscaping is maintained, it is absolutely critical. The pedestrian access, the elimination of any pedestrian access onto Linnet is also critical. • The suggested changes to traffic flow in and out of the pazking lot will only further increase the problems on Linnet. If it is changed to a right turn only onto Homestead Road, it will encourage people who are going to want to make the left hand turn onto Homestead get back on DeAnza Boulevard, Sazatoga/Sunnyvale and Blaney, they are going to have to park on Linnet in order to make that turn and they are going to choose that convenience over moving into a garage. Putting the garage on the back side of the parking lot; with the traffic patterns already pointed out on the parking lot, people are going to try to avoid that as much as possible; they are going to move to a place that is going to provide the most ready access in and out. • The problems that will be encountered during construction are being overldoked. There will be many parking spaces eliminated during construction; where are the people going to park while construction is going on; where are the construction workers going to park? • The existing problems need to be fixed before a new set of problems are created. Charles Rogers: • No longer present at the meeting. Jason Yu, Linnet Lane: • Opposed to project. • Said that the shopping center owner and the City of Cupertino would benefit from the expansion of the center at the sacrifice of the property owners' privacy and quality of life. • He questioned how many actual parking spaces would be gained since there would be two new retail spaces built, resulting in a loss of parking spaces. • Asked that the Planning Commissioners consider all the factors before making a decision. Chair Giefer closed the public hearing. Com. Wong: • During construction, what is the construction management plan; while the center is 100% at capacity, where will they park, and while construction is going on? Steve Piasecki: • The applicant will be asked to provide a detailed plan addressing where, when and how, and how to keep them from parking on Linnet. When the contractors are hired, they can be informed that they cannot park on Linnet for construction purposes. They would normally provide an offsite location to stage, and will have to provide parking measures when they demolish the parking lot, such as a valet system available to the shopping center. They would likely want to demonstrate how they can build the buildings, not in two years, but shorter period of time. • Said the application would be continued to the first meeting in January to address parking, more parking counts, construction management. • Said that if the project moves ahead, it will give the city and the neighborhood some kind of control, as presently the city has no control of how they operate, the odors from the center and the other aspects that amioy the neighbors. He said he felt it cannot be done effectively under the current lack of control they have, other than code enforcement. Kimco will do everything they can to control the contractors on site and be as good a neighbor as possible, «~hich would occur in the next two months as completion of more parking analysis is done. The point about 15 - 112 Cupertino Planning Commission 18 November 13, 2007 access is well taken, it is essential especially when there is a successful shopping center, you want to err on the side of the neighborhood when that is occurring. The shopping center currently has an old permit that has no conditions on it; eliminating either the percentage of restaurants, hours of operation, any incentives for employees to not take their vehicles; there is nothing to control this. The only issue they have had to deal with in the not too distant past, is they replaced the fence along Linnet, which is a low fence which provides next to no protection for the neighborhood; high visibility into the existing parking, flat on the surface level parking lot, and it is creating some of the problems that the residents are pointing to. The lack of any kind of a barrier. He said that they could ask the owner to put up a temporary fence to close off the pedestrian access within the next month or so. The Planning Commissioners provided direction to staff relative to outstanding questions based on discussion at the present meeting, in order to be better prepared for the January meeting. Coin. Kaneda: My sense is that what is there now is fairly egregious on the residents on Linnet Lane and the neighborhood. If nothing happens that may not be your best option. One of the things I would encourage the neighborhood to think about is this may create opportunities for you to improve a bad situation and make it better. Here is a couple of thoughts I think need to be considered and looked at. Clearly the ratio of parking to retail being suggested, is not on the table. I would expect a large increase in parking and at least from a percentage standpoint, a much smaller increase in retail to get this into a range that can be considered. I understand there are code issues and we will pretend we are meeting the code and the recommendations but code or not, the parking situation does not work, and needs to be addressed. Said there were comments that a parking garage is not acceptable, but the residents should consider that the parking garage could be their friend; it can serve to block sound, block people's views into their neighborhood because of the design of the garage, which is a solid wall giving a wall that is going to be planted with vines that will act as a privacy and sound screen. If done correctly, it can actually improve the sound problems and improve some of the visual problems. One of the things you need to pay attention to, referring to Linnet Lane, one of the things you need to look at if a car is parked there and its headlights are on, there is going to be this critical viewing angle that you need to make sure that somebody checks that angle to ensure the headlights aren't going into somebody's home. Potentially that can be done and you can work around it. Steve Piasecki: • Said it would be helpful to look at the four level Vallco parking structure. The green screen concept and the noise baffling that goes on in that parking structure would be similar and when you see it, It is amazing. Coin. Kaneda: • Clearly the pedestrian access needs to be cut off and I presume there is some way to do it and have fire access, but under normal conditions there is no pedestrian access. Perhaps the church can consider doing something with a lock so that when they need access, they unlock it, but normally it is locked so people don't get ui the habit of cutting through the church to get back and forth. • Suggested to the owner to consider doing the mitigation measures now to try them out. 15 - 113 Cupertino Planning Commission 19 November 13, 2007 Com. Miller: • Agreed that the city did not have a lot of control over what is going on there now. Is there some type of development that can go on there now that would mitigate some of the issues to make it better instead of worse. He encouraged the applicant to consider that and also to talk to the residents some more and see if there is some common ground that the center and residents can meet on for awin/win situation. • Many times people come here and to City Council and they want us to make a decision on something and we do the best we can, but.when we make a decision, we don't have the same level of work and effort and ideas that go into it when. residents and the developer sit down together and try to work out a solution and work through many of the issues. It is a better way to go and I would encourage the meetings to continue, particularly now that the issues are being put on the table. • We want to do something to improve or eliminate the spillover and a number of suggestions were made. The first one was to cut off the pedestrian access, and it may be appropriate to put a sound wall up there; but as pointed out, the garage itself may act as a sound wall. • Said he agreed with speakers that right turn only movements on Homestead would encourage more people to go down Linnett. However, he expressed concern with limiting it to right turn only; and said he was also concerned with eliminating the access on Wolfe Road. Traffic flow in the center itself and parking is two sides of the same coin, and if the traffic flow is not improved in the center and if it gets worse because there is more people trying to fit into this space, there is more motivation for people to look for parking in the neighborhoods because they don't want to deal with the hassle of the queues they encounter when they get into the center. The traffic flow in the center has to be addressed as much as the parking because they affect one another. • The odor abatement issue is one that we see all over town, and we do address that when we have control over it and when it makes sense to address it. Here again it is an issue we don't have control over now, but if there was some further development there, that is an issue that potentially could get addressed. • Said he was also sensitive to the concern of the church about safety for the children there and we want to make sure we address that. At the same time, the church's request for keeping the pedestrian access is an issue and I think Com. Kaneda may have a good solution in terms of limited access where perhaps the gate is open on Sundays to allow people through if that could be monitored effectively. • Said that if the traffic study did not consider the impact or overflow into the neighborhoods, the traffic study has under-estimated what the real numbers are and Com. Kaneda's calculations are on point with respect to that. • Summarized there may be a wu~/win situation, in that the neighborhood can gain some advantage by having some development going on there and in return for that some of these issues are mitigated in the process. Com. Wong: • Said that Coms. Kaneda and Miller summarized issues appropriately. He said that they have spent two hours at the present meeting, and this is one of two shopping centers that will be discussed. The people of Cupertino want to be good neighbors with Sunnyvale, so I want to thank the people who did attend tonight and that we really do care abut our neighbors and want to find a solution to have this awin/win situation. • Instead of having us decide the end result, is to work closely with Kimco and it would behoove Kimco to work closely with the Sunnyvale residents. We don't want to make these tough decisions and if Kimco and the residents can find some compromise to resolve this, it would snake our job easier. 15 - 114 Cupertino Planning Commission 20 November 13, 2007 I am not going into further direction for staff because I will not be on the Planning Commission in January. I wish good luck to all of you. Com. Rose: • Said that she agreed with comments made, and said if you were going to encourage dialog between Kimco and the residents, it is important that everyone be noticed properly. • The group goal for both groups is to try to find a common ground and the parking structure . could be attractive and an improvement. ~ She said that the wooden fence did not appear to serve all in a fair way to separate them from the retail space. He said he felt if they worked together moving forward, they could find a common ground that would make the neighborhood more attractive. Chair Giefer: • When we address the parking again, to be specifzc o~z what I would like added to the parki~zg study, I would like to have the adjacent neighborhoods on Linnet and other neighborhood streets, as part of that, looking for overflow traffic, specifically on weekends. Also the church, because we have heard that because they share back and forth in parking, I would like to understand what the capacity usage is as well. • We have talked about green design and meeting a LEED silver, and I would like to see those on the plan. The tree survey and study plan that is recommended, the DRC can improve that, but in our packet having a larger tree map with readable numbers would be helpful; and trying to get a rough count from the applicant in terms of how many employees there are at the center and coming up with an estimate in terms of what impact a parking management plan may have on this project, would be helpful in the decision making. • Ensure that the parking plan meets the current parking requirement in terms of bioswales etc. • A suggestion about the Fire Department's access in the one area on Linnet Lane; the Fire Department can get through electronic gates or gates with a knox box lam. It may be a solution for this area as well; it would be a solid gate that would go across there, so there would be no pedestrian access from Linnet. The Fire Department has a special key to unlock the gate. Gary Chao: • Said that flip flopping the parking was discussed. Kimco pointed out that the lease for that building would expire in 2012, and as currently sits, you cannot swap it because the lease is current; and until that time, there may be plans to either enhance the lot on the comer of Pruneridge and Wolfe to provide more parking or reconfigure it so it is more efficiently striped and perhaps relocate the bank building elsewhere onsite. • Said there was no restriction on Retail A to put a parking structure in that particular area in that triangle. There are not any restrictions; we have not talked about having a parking structure there. Chair Giefer: • If there are other opportunities to relocate the parking structure or undergrom~d the parking structure, I think it would be a great idea to investigate those and make us aware of what the issues might be in either undergrounding or relocating the structure as an alternative and then coming back with the sound wall there as well as blocking the preschool play yard. Com. Wong: • If a housing unit can subterrain and the shopping center cannot, it is a matter of how much they want to invest into the property. That is my concern, I think we all share that; is that how much do you want to invest; how much would that break even point for Kimco would be. I just want to push that caliber more; I am not asking for underground because it is very 15 - 115 Cupertino Planning Commission 21 November 13, 2007 expensive. I am asking for subterram garage or what Com. Miller suggested is'to put shop over a subterrain garage to see if that will work. Steve Piasecki: • Summarized that the Planning Commission would be making a motion to continue the application to the January 8, 2008 meeting. In addition to all comments, request the applicant to come back with additional parking surveys including the Linnet neighborhood and the church. • Said it would be appropriate to have a conceptual construction management plan to identify staging, phasing and a schedule for the construction so we know that it is practical that we can do this; and then re-evaluate the outside circulation, especially the right turnout on Homestead, and the Wolfe access elimination in particular so we have a better comfort level that the overall circulation level will work. Motion: Motion by Com. Wong, second by Com. Kaneda, to continue Item 3 to the first meeting in January 2008. (Vote: 5-0-0) Giefer declared a short recess. 4. L7~~007-11, M-2007-02 VVa a Okubo (Evershine) 19620 t 9780 Stevens Creek '~. ~~. Gary Chao, Senior Planner, presen''t d the staff report: Use Permit approval to allow a food store (Marukai) totaling 28,690 square feet to ted in the Marketplace Shopping Center ormer Longs Druge site). Modification t an existing Use Permit (16-U-76) to modif e conditions Under which food services b finesses will be Allowed in the Marketpla Shopping Center Along the rear service c 'dor. Te~ztative City Couatcil date: D,~e~nber 18, 2007 • Reviewed the application for modation to an under which food service businesses ill be al along the rear service corridor. The use rmit a be located in the former Longs Drug site. • Explained the schedule for the trash pickup pickup they have talked to the Environmen Ser Garbage Company. There is a standin ranchis ;rGse permit to modify the condition n the Marketplace Shopping Center is to allow the Marukai food store to since there are some concerns about trash :s Manager who is the liaison to Los Altos ement with Los Altos giving them the freedom of picking up the garbage y time. That ' just how the wording of the trash franchise agreement is. However a did get an email r ' onse from the Los Altos Garbage Company that they are Willi to work with a later da if the Commission wants to commission something. A ck plan of the area, circled in red ~~,the proposed trash enclosure location and it is appro ately 85 feet away from the nearest resid itial property line. We are suggesting a conditio at the detailed trash enclosure plan be appro d by the Design Review Committee becaus we still need to talk to the Environmental Programs anager. • The applica hosted a neighborhood meeting on November 2°d at the site some of the commen involved: abatement system should be installed rns with the process of which fish produce are being shipped Concerns with odor and trash Early hour pickup 15 - 116 March 6, 2008 TO: Cupertino City Council Cupertino Planning Commission Sunnyvale City Council p'ROM: Residents of Cupertino Village Adjacent PTeighborhood SUBJECT: Petition Package Enclosed please find the petition package object-~ng the Cupertino Village Proposed Redevelopment (U-2007-06 ASA-2007-10). Tbis petition is from residents of the Cupertino Village neighborhood, namely Linnet Lane, Parnell Place, Kinglet Court, Lark Lane, Killdeer Court, Prestwick Court, Selkirk Place, Heron Avenue, Shetland, Homestead (section between Linnet and Heron), Parkview Court. Out of 164 homes in the neighborhood, 118 object to the proposed redevelopment and have signed the petition, 35 homes are unable to contact, 11 are undecided or do not want to participate. The last two signature sheets contain signatures of people who do not live in the neighborhood "but visit and shop at the Cupertino Village Center. They see the traffic and parking problem and join in our petition. 15 - 117 February 20, 2008 To: Cupertino City Council: Mayor -Dolly Sandoval Vice Mayor -Orrin Mahoney Council Members -Kris Wang, Gilbert Wong, Mark Santoro Sunnyvale City Council Mayor -Tony Spitaleri Vice Mayor -Melinda Hamilton Council Members -Sohn Howe, Ron Swegles, Otto Lee, Christopher Moylan; David Whittum CC: Cupertino Planning Commission From: Residents of Cupertino Village Adjacent Neighborhood Subject: PETITION Object U-2007-06 ASA-2007-10 Cupertino Village Proposed Redevelopment We object to the proposed redevelopment plan of the Cupertino V illage. The plan will intensify tremendously the existing problems of the neighborhood caused by the shopping center, namely: - 'TRAFFIC /VEHICLE CIRCULATION - PARKING - NOISE - AIR POLLUTION - SAFETY /LOITERING - ODOR We all recognize the existing 1) txaff c jam at the coiner of Homestead and Wolfe and along Wolfe, especially along the shopping. center, heading south, 2) parking problems posted by the subject shopping center upon the neighborhood. An accurate destination study of cars currently parked at the neighborhood streets during lunch and dinner hours will clearly show the current shortage of parking spaces. The neighborhood streets have been accommodating the overflow of cars from the shopping center. With the proposed redevelopment plan to increase 24,500 sq. ft. of retail space and a parking garage, the net gain of parking spaces is only 91 stalls which is far short in accommodating the increase in retail space. In addition to traffic and parking problem, the proposed two-level parking structure is unsafe and dangerous to pedestrians walking through from the Good Samaritan Chwrch/Linnet or from the parking garage to the shopping center. Signed by Residents of the Cupertino Village Adjacent Neighborhood (Signatures on attached pages) 15 - 118 ~~~ ~x~ ~ ~ ~ zgr 15 - 119 ~~ ~. ~ ~a.~~ ~ ~ s~a~-~ ~ a~ A,-~ ..~ ~ ~G'1 ~ ~ `. ~' ~ t i ~ ~RS _ 1 '~ ~ 1 ~ - ./ .. F ~. _ ~ ~ Y t5~ ~# ~f14-V`1 #.ti 6 i.~ ~'1 j~ ! 1 fTi'" v~ E...r/'-j ' i ~'~ ~ ~ c'~/t~ {j~/''~~f. s jj ~~qq G- q~ ~~ ,i'~AFCf IR J ~. FS ~- ~ /Y>r~V ~ ~~9~r l~ ~~~ •/~~~~"~~""~i. ~f~`-~ 1 ' ` ~ ~ ~ _ . ~ i . . i ~. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 4 ] i f # t i . ~ s 3 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~. 75-120 f *~ V ~'~ 1 $€ _ _ ~7 /~~ ~~ y - ~ ~ty r G,~ L ~ ~- t Q ~ 9 ~ y • ~ ~~~ s4~ { ~T! ~ - ~~ s-~ ~ ~ ~~~.f o~ ~-f~ ~ 'er.~ G~ ~ ~ ~ F ~ ~ ~ ~b~r ~ , r 6~ f f ' [fJ~A`~ ~ ~ ~L~p• f p i ~~ ~~ ~j'~~~ yi `'1 - ~~ - ~~~ i ~ { . ~ g , ~ ~ ~ E .~ i ' i ~ • f L ~ F )i S t L - ~~ sw+"'~"~ 15 - 121 15 - 122 . ~~ f~ . .. _, _.,, .,. - ~~ ~~< .. ~. - 15 - 'l23 • ~ ~' . ~ Sys ~ ~ ~F..~.Y•st.Y A~~TJ3 ~f~V~l ~,~iC1SAC,~~i`i!V f~~~:' ~~ ~ ~ ~ .. ._ ._ . .- ~ _ i. ,~ r .. .+. .. ..S ~ .. C £ ~,.~ {~~~ +~ - - c .~ _yi%"- .. ~~ . ~ ~ e-~ .. ! ~ ~ .. ~ v ~j ~'` f~ G/ E" S -~~~ 3 1 .' E~ ~~ 1 ~/ . Y ~ °t~ ® t~ ~~~~// E ~ m ~ ~ f ~ ~ ~ C..~- s E , ~( .F . ' ' ~ - 1 ¢ ~ - ~r n ~~ -. # . . f ~ I€ p f . ~ i. .: ~- ~~ . _ ..- .. 15-124. ~ t ~ ~ ~ £34,x. _ _: ~ ' .~ . ' .-r~~~~s - ... ~~~ ~ .~~~+~ ~CaiA ~ ~~E~ x.'46 ~ ! . .. ' _ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r ~ ~~ F ~~~~ ,~ ' 3 . ~~~~ ~- ~ ,~ ~' ~ r ...1i~ ,~(/F ./' ~ f \ 4 ~f F ~ ~' °~F~ ice. ~ ~~ ° ~./ s ~ ( s ~ V' . p ~~ ~ ~t~~ mil„ _ ~ ~ .~ ~ ~~~~ s~. - ~~; ~- ~ ~~ - _/ f .r '~~~ ~ '~ ice" - ~ ~^ L' " 'f ~~ f ~ ~ °i' ~ ~ f ; ? ~ ~y ~( r ~ Q pE ~]! ({{pp/ !~~ '~~... ~' f ~`~ ~t t . ~ s~ t.~ 15-925.. :;~:.. .` . ~. .. .. ~~ .,.:~. Y'i . .. , ~ :.• ; t. ~.~ ~ ; . ~, ; • ,.~ • , . .i , ~ ~' l' ~~.' , J . M'.,'~' • .i ~ r . :~~ + ~ ~* i ,; ~ ' ~::. ... i ~:. • . . i~~'.~ •' ' . . .. tt Q~ ~~ `~ ~4' ~. ~4,i . ~, F E ~ .: _ : ::: _,.-- .. ,;•.: •-~~ ?'. .. _.... ,. ... ..,, . '. '. _ . ~ ,. ~. - . .... .. .r: f a, - ::; ~.. ~' y'Y. _ . >' :^ ~ - I .- ~~ ~ . ~ ~ _ ~£ i F ~ i ~ `AFC ff r ~ / •.~ ~~ _ ~tj+~ ~[~~ t ~~ ~ c ~ ~ ~~~ c-. ~ ~ n $ ~~ "~O~(.~ ~t tif~~u~~+4 ~ r--~.[.f ~• ~~.- <'i~~~'i~'friny. ~ Eg 5,~~~~ f 6~4'~ ~ 1f ii~ i . . ~~ ~. ~'" ~ k ,FF.s V L _ ~ ~ ~ ~.V ..[ ~ i - t ~ ~r F ~ ~ r . ~ N'T s ~ E ~~ { ~'~~a~,~~ ~ C y { * • ~ j~ Y tq . _ t . • ~ 15-129 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT FORM Application: U-2007-06, ASA-2007-10 (EA-2007-08) Agenda Date: November 13, 2007 Applicant: Brian Replinger (Cupertino Village) Location: Homestead Road and Wolf Road APPLICATION SUMMARIES: USE PERMIT and ARCHITECTURAL & SITE APPROVAL to construct two one-story retail buildings totaling 24,455 square feet and a two level parking structure. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission should take the following actions: 1. Take public input and evaluate the issues of the project; and 2. Provide feedback to the applicant and staff; and 3. Continue the item to a date certain to allow sufficient time for the applicant to respond to the Planning Commission input and provide a recommendation to the City Council. The project will be reviewed by the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) on November 14, 2007. The Planning Commission can not take action until ERC provides findings for the environmental considerations. BACKGROUND: Kimco Realty was founded in 1960 and is the nation's largest publicly traded owner and operator of neighborhood and community shopping centers with more than 1,500 properties through out 45 states and several countries. Kimco recently acquired the Cupertino Village Shopping Center from the former owner, Sand Hill Properti s Company. The Cupertino Village Shopping Center is located at the southe ~~ corner of Homestead and Wolfe Road. The applicant, Brian Replinger of Kimco, is requesting approval to construct two one-story retail buildings and a two level parking structure at the existing shopping center. GENERAL PLAN: The project site is located in the Vallco Park North area. According to the General Plan, there are only 5,341 square feet of commercial development allocation left for this area. This means that the project still needs 19,114 square feet in order to facilitate the proposed expansion. According to the General Plan Policy 2-20 (strategy 4), allocations maybe redistributed from one geographical area to another if necessary and if no significant environmental impacts, particularly traffic, are identified. The applicant is requesting that the remaining 19,114 square feet of commercial square feet be 15 - 132 Applications: U-2007-0~, ASA-2007-10 (EA-2007-08) Cupertino Village Shopping Center Page 2 redistributed from the Vallco Park South area, which currently has 791,846 square feet of commercial development allocation available. DISCUSSION: Site Design The shopping center comprises three parcels with seven existing retail/commercial office buildings. Four of the main buildings are connected by an interior court yard system and the remaining satellite buildings are at the perimeter of the center along Wolfe Road. The project proposes two new retail buildings (buildings. A and B), 14,000 sq. ft. and 10,500 sq. ft. in size, respectively. The project also proposes to delete one of the existing driveways along Wolfe Road to accommodate Building A. Building B will be located at the southwest corner of the shopping center, approximately 50 feet from the existing apartment development (Avalon). The proposed two-level new parking garage will be located along the westerly property line acting as a buffer between the Linnet Lane residential neighborhood and the shopping center (see diagram below). 2-Level Parking -, ! .,, ~, Garage ~ ~ ' a - ~ ---~-.~-r..~.,..~... .,~+w 1C PNNttSi^.aLLt OT:PMRl SI~l'SS 96is16IV11C~Li QSCY. ~a~~ CURERTINO VILLAGE 1 '= 1 _i u T r~ '_ y -:- ~ ~'. C =: ~y, I I ~' ~ - I _ NeiglTborizood Connection Enhancilg neighborhood connectivity and creating a walkable city are guidu1g principles in the City of Cupertino General Plan (Guiding Principles 3 and 4). In addition, providing pedestrian access via paths and trails also enhances the community interface between uses and encourages alternatives means of transportation resulting in reduced number of automobile trips (General Plan Policy 4-2, Strategy 1; Policy 5-1). Currently there are two pedestrian access points along the westerly property boundary from the adjacent residential neighborhood to the west (see diagram below). 15 - 133 Applications: U-2007-Ob, ASA-2007-10 (EA-2007-08) Cupertino Village. Shopping Center Page 3 -- ... . __u ~= ~. %~ ~ - - - __ _ __ _ t. ---`- --`'~ ~ 'I i '~}~ •- i ._ -_ - - I The project proposes to delete the access closest to the church (north) and provide an enhanced pedestrian entrance at the center of the garage (through a tunnel passage way) near mid-block of Linnet Lane where Lark Lane intersects with Linnet Lane. A second pedestrian entry is proposed near the southwest corner of the center designed to serve as an emergency fire truck access with break away bollards at the request of the Fire Department. The proposed pedestrian access points along the westerly property boundary are desirable and consistent with the City's General Plan goal of promoting neighborhood connectivity. Emergency Fire Access -=` --~' Ped. Access ~~ Only L .. ~ ?. _. MO!pf[D pmyq tiTY K.kDO.viw :~M.ub.'OMC. 111Q~FMtIf i:4lt m! 1'NRl, C.Klb ~tY1 F WO>!: t/: Archite~~K,G ___ .-i ~~ t ~ II a ~ _ .--_ __ s _ Y .~ .yam i.` (~ t I ^~ "'iI ', _ r .. - -._ s. _ __ ---- - ~. 15 - 134 Applications: U-2007-06, ASA-2007-10 (EA-2007-08) Cupertino Village Shopping Center Page 4 The design and the general architectural detailing of the new buildings will compliment and enhance the existing center. The City's architectural consultant has reviewed the project and provides the following minor suggestions: 1. Consider a second stair from the upper level of the garage to the ground level to discourage pedestrians from using auto ramps at the north end of the garage. 2. Consider widening the ground level garage entry at the north end (unless it ~vill serve only as exiting). 3. Plant additional shadu1g trees and enhance the existing landscaping wherever possible throughout the entire center. 4. Repeat the arch element through out all of the pedestrian entrances. 5. Add pedestrian walk (special paving material) between building A and existing buildings. 6. Details should be provided on how stucco wall top is finished off (avoid sheet metal cap flashing). If the Planning Commission finds merits in these suggestions, staff recommends that they be incorporated as conditions of the project and that revised plans be reviewed and approved by Design Review Committee prior to issuance of building permits. OtJzer Enhalzceme~tts Other site enhancements that should be incorporated into the project are as follows: Bus Shelters: There are currently two bus stops along Wolfe Road. One of the bus stops is located near the intersection of Homestead and Wolfe. This bus stop will be relocated to the south of the entrance drive in front of Starbucks Coffee in order to promote safer vehicular movement. The site plan already reflects this change. In addition, staff suggests that the project be required to design and build appropriate bus stop shelters at the two bus stops. The final bus shelter design and location shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department to the Valley Transportation Authority's (VTA) specification. Reconstruction of Sidewalk: Iz1 order to prolong the life of the double row of Ash Trees along Wolfe Road and the street trees along Homestead Road, the existing perimeter sidewalk should be replaced with a new at-grade sidewalk to facilitate proper root growth and reduce future uplifting of the sidewalk. All monolithic sidewalks shall be replaced with detached sidewalk (except in situations where trees are in the way or special physical/functional constraints warrants special consideration by the Director of Community Development). Unused driveway curb cuts, urulecessary and unsafe curb features or tree wells shall be eliminated. Corner Plaza Enhancements: The project shall enhance the corner areas at the intersections of Pruneridge/Wolfe and Wolfe/Homestead. Said areas shall be 15 - 135 Applications: U-2007-06, ASA-2007-10 (EA-2007-08) Cupertino Village Shopping Center Page 5 enhanced with special paving material, appropriate landscaping and sidewalk features and potentially benches or art features as determined by the City in order to improve the pedestrian experience and overall aesthetic of the site. A detailed corner plaza enhancement plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the Design Review Committee prior to issuance of building permits. The proposed site plan already acknowledges the plaza. Enhancements to the Interior Crosswalks: The applicant shall work with staff to determine areas within the existing shopping center that should be better delineated as special pedestrian walks or crossing areas. Such areas shall be enhanced with special paving materials and striping. Detailed plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Design Review Committee prior to issuance of building permits. Parking Lot Shadin Tg rees: The applicant shall work with staff to provide new parking lot shading trees to the maximum extent possible through out the entire shopping center. Detailed parking lot landscaping plan shall be approved by Design Review Committee prior to issuance of building permits. Trash Enclosure Size and Location: A detailed trash enclosure plans shall be submitted to the City for review prior to issuance of building permits. New trash enclosures shall be located away from the residential neighborhood as far as possible. The final trash enclosure plan shall be reviewed by the City prior to issuance of building permits. Parking Cupertino Village Shopping Center is an extremely successful shopping center. As with any successful center, determining the appropriate amount of parking to meet the demand is always a challenging task since parking ratios in general do not account for success. From anenvironmental/smart growth perspective, shopping centers should not be over-parked in order to minimize excessive paving area, reduce urban run-off, and promote alternative means of traitisportation to benefit air quality. Also, the parking demand of a shopping center may fluctuate depending on the time of day, season of the year, weather and even by the economy (since retail/restaurant demand has a strong correlation with the health of the economy). The City's parkng ordinance provides general guidelines to address parking demands for individual uses such as office, general retail and different types of food services. Generally, these ratios are acceptable on individual applications but tend to be inaccurate when applied to larger projects with complicated mixture of uses. As a result, when large shopping centers propose site changes, the City retains a third parking professional parking engineer to evaluate parking demand on a case-by-case basis. Hexagon Transportation Consultants were retained by the City to evaluate the traffic and parking impacts of the project. Hexagon performed a parking occupancy survey on Saturday, July 21, between 1:00 and 3:00 PM and on Thursday, August 23, between 12:00 to 2:00 PM. The parking occupancy surveys focuses on the times of peak 15 - 136 Applications: U-2007-06, ASA-2007-10 (EA-2007-08) Cupertino Village Shopping Center Page 6 demand. The logic is that if enough parking is provided based on peak hour demand, demand at other times would not exceed supply. T11e following is a summary of the survey results: Stalls Occu ied (Ca aci ) Consultant Comments July 21, 2007 -Saturday (1 to 691 (100%) There were vehicles 3 PM) continually entering and existing parking stalls, and there were vehicles waiting for each space that was bein vacated. August 23, 2007 -Thursday 589 (85%) N/A (12 to 2 PM) *No spill-over parking was observed on surrounding streets or properties in both instances. Based on the survey, the supply (691 stalls) exactly meets the demand (691 stalls) at the peak usage of the shopping center. To determine the parking demand for the expansion, Hexagon used both the City parking code and the parking industry standard. The City's code shows that the existing center needs 307 spaces for the retail/office use and 296 stalls for restaurants for a total of 603 stalls (see table below). Existing s.f. Cit y Code Spaces Retail 76,176 4.00 305 Office 5,500 0.36 2 Restaurant 29,605 10.00 296 TOTAL 603 'per 1,000 square feet Please note that for the restaurant use, Hexagon took a more conservative approach and used the industry standard ratio (10 stalls per 1,000 sq. ft.), which is more restrictive than the City's ratio (1/4 seats plus 1 per each employee). This exercise indicates that the City's parking code is insufficient (691 > 603) for determining the number of spaces needed for the expansion. Hexagon then used the survey results and calculated that the actual restaurant rate at the center is approximately 13 stalls per 1,000 square feet. By using this rate it resulted in a total demand of 691 spaces for the existing center, which matches the actual count data. Therefore based on the rates determined during the survey, the total parking demand for the shopping center after the expansion is projected to be at 800 stalls. There may be various other type studies that may show ratios that may produce more or less projected stalls. However, Hexagon believes that 15 - 137 Applications: U-2007-06, ASA-2007-10 (EA-2007-OS) Cupertino Village Shopping Center Page 7 using the parking ratios that were derived from the actual survey data is an appropriate way of projecting accurate parking demands for the expansion project. The following table summarizes what the project is proposing: Surface # of stalls # of stalls Net gain Total arkin lot dis laced added Pro osed 602 89 180 91 782 Existin 691 n/a n/a n/a 691 *Re aired 800 Net (18) *Based on Hexagon's Parking Survey Projection. The currently site plan sho~vs 782 stalls, which is 18 spaces short of the estimated demand (800 stalls). The Planning Commission has the following mitigation options to avoid parking shortage at the center: 1. Provide 18 more stalls in order to meet the parking demand. 2. Reduce the proposed expansion, which in turn reduces the parking demand. 3. Limit the proposed ne~v restaurant square footage to 2,165 sq. ft. (a 50% reduction from what is being proposed) or the total restaurant square footage of the center to 31,770 sq. ft. in order to balance parking supply (782 stalls) with parking demand (781 stalls) until such time when 18 more stalls could be provided. 4. Consider implementing parking demand mitigation measures such as: - Offsite employee parking arrangements with adjacent property owners (i.e., HP, Hilton Garden Inn and the Church). - Carpool or vanpool incentives for employees, including preferential parking. - Transit subsidization for employees. - Valet Parking. If the Planning Commission finds merit in any of the above options (it may be a combination of several options), it should direct the applicant to revise the plans or provide a detailed parking plan to confirm that sufficient parking stalls have been provided based on Hexagon's recommendation. Staff received a letter from the abutting church property (located near the northwest corner of the project) stating that there is a private agreement allowing them to use some of the shoppilg center's parking lot. In general the City does not get involved in interpreting private agreements between two private property owners. In this case, there are no references of any reciprocal access or parking easement for the church on 15-138 Applications: U-2007-06, ASA-2007-10 (EA-2007-08) Cupertino Village Shopping Center Page 8 the shopping center's property title. In spite of that, normal church activities are usually at off-peak times (Sunday morning) of the shopping center; therefore the impact of any parking share should be insignificant. Visual Over the past several years, one the main suggestions expressed by the adjacent residents is the desire to enhance ho~v the shopping center interfaces with the adjacent residential homes on Liruiet Lane. Currently, there is a relatively new 5-foot wood fence located on a berm along the westerly boundary of the shopping center (along Linnet Lane) with minimal landscaping or screen trees along the fence. The proposed parking garage is approximately 48 feet away from the residential properties. In consideration for the neighbors, the applicant is proposing a linear park along the entire westerly boundary with a new detached side~valk and double rows of screening trees along Linnet Lane (see diagram below). ,~~~ ,~' :~-., '~~~L. s~mwr% •wPy~.~~ A S[CFION L~JF:L}JG NO•t i ri kLUNG LINNET lhhlE ~- . _~ __r~ r.~~vr.c _ .z. - fi r~rw.t ~.--- h ~ __ ~-""-.- I ~ ~d~'r ~ -- sc:iaa~{-. n..erz ana• H SECTION LOOKIr.G NOFTH ALOl.IG UNMET LANE -~w.~~w+ S+R%k ~, ~_~ ti .. ~ ~ ~ ~a _Ji It YiYOc _i; ~ Similar to the treatments that were required on the Macy's parking garage, the west perimeter wall of the garage will act both as the visual screen wall and a sound wall 15 - 139 Applications: U-2007-06, ASA-2007-10 (EA-2007-08) Cupertino Village Shopping Center Page 9 (see illustration below). The wall will also be sided by a green screen system similar to the one on the Macy's garage. In addition a short decorative parapet /roof wall is placed around the perimeter of the garage to prevent any views of the cars and their head lights from the residential neighbors. Noise The City has retained Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc. to prepare a noise assessment on the project and provide recommendations on any required noise mitigation measures. The report is being finalized at the time of preparation for this staff report. A detailed summary of the noise consultant's findings and recommendations will be made available at the Planning Commission hearing. Lighting The applicant has been requested to prepare a lighting plan and provide details on the location and intensity of the parking lot lights (especially on top of the garage). Proper screening of light sources and light pole heights may need to be evaluated at the next Plannng Commission hearing. Trees A preliminary arborist report has been prepared by Mayne Tree Expert Company, Inc (see exhibit B) indicating there are 203 trees currently located withil or around the perimeter of the shopping center site. None of the trees on the site are defined as protected trees in the City's Tree Ordinance. According to the arborist report, 26 trees 15 - 140 Applications: U-2007-06, ASA-2007-10 (EA-2007-08) Cupertino Village Shopping Center Page 10 (#60-62, 74, 77, 78,130-132,151,152,180,182,188-198, 200 and 201) are identified for removal. After reviewing the conceptual landscaping plan, the City's Arborist Consultant is anticipating an additional seven trees that maybe affected by the project (#38, 76, 79,183-186). In addition, the City Consulting Arborist is recommending that trees #183 to 186 be considered for removal due to their poor health and decluning condition. A summary of the City Arborist's suggestions are summarized below: 1. A detailed tree survey with a corresponding accurate landscaping plan (existing and proposed) should be provided. 2. The tree survey should all of the street trees in the vicinity of the project. 3. Prior to final approval, a topographic map, detailed site map with accurate tree locations, grading and drainage plan and utility plan should be reviewed in order to determine if any additional trees will be affected by the project. 4. A detailed tree replacement should be provided indicating replacement strategies consistent with the City's tree replacement guidelines (Section 14.18.180, Table A) If the Planning Commission agrees, the applicant shall address the above City Arborist's recommendations and the revised landscaping plan/report shall be reviewed and approved by the Design Review Committee prior to issuance of building permits. Alternatively, the Planning Commission may require that the applicant address all of the landscaping concerns prior to an action is taken at the next public hearing. Green Building Measures The two new buildings will be required as a condition to be Leadership in Environmental and Engineering Design (LEED) certifiable (meeting at least 26 points out of 69 points). Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall demonstrate to the City how the project will meet the LEED certification requirements. The LEED certification check list is attached for reference (Exhibit C). NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS A neighborhood meeting was held at City Hall on October 18, 2007. Over 1,000 notices were sent out by the applicant and a total of 18 neighbors attended the meeting. The meeting was a voluntarily attempt on the applicant's part to reach out to the surrounding neighbors regarding the proposed project. Kelly Kline, Economic Development Manager of the City along with applicant (Brian Replinger) and the project architect (Young Wong and David Blair) were present at the meeting. Some of the key issues and comments expressed are summarized as follows: • Landscaping along Linnet Lane in the past has not been maintained. • Parking garage roof treatment and lighting design. • Parking in the residential neighborhood. Perhaps pedestrian access should be eliminated. 15 - 141 Applications: U-2007-06, ASA-2007-10 (EA-2007-08) Cupertino Village Shopping Center Page 11 • Pedestrian access is convenient for residents, and addresses a safety issue for everyone. • Parking permits might need to be considered in the future. • The proposal is a definite enhancement of Linnet Lane. • Consider posting signs discouraging patrons from parking in the residential neighborhood. • People like stayilg at the center. Hope it says that way. • Thank you for including the neighborhood early in the process. Please refer to Exhibit D for a detaied account of the neighborhood meeting. The applicant is planning on hosting a second neighborhood meeting on November 8, 2007 at City Hall (room 100 starting at 6:30 p.m.) in order to give the residential neighbors that live immediately adjacent to the shopping center another opportunity to better understand the project arid express ilput. Since the meeting will occur after the preparation of this staff report, a detailed summary of the meeting will be reported to the Planning Commission at the hearing. Staff also has received one email correspondence from a residential neighbor who lives on Parnell Place (see exhibit E) regarding concerns on parking. In addition, staff has met with a neighbor living on Linnet Lane. The following is a brief summary of the comments that v~Tere expressed: • Landscaping along Linnet Land should be enhanced and maintained. • The pedestrian access along Linnet Land should be eliminated in order to discourage shopping center patrons from parking in the residential neighborhood. • If the pedestriari access can not be eliminated, then it should be de-emphasized. • Spill over parking into the residential neighborhood is a concern. • A fence should be erected between the church and the shopping center in order to prevent patrons of the shopping center using Lirulet Lane to get to the church property and park in its parking lot. • Prohibit the openings of nightclubs or bars in the shopping center to avoid additional late night nuisance and noise impacts to the adjacent residential neighborhood. • The noise abatement and enforcement measures should be improved. • The construction activities and noise impacts are concerns. • The new trash bin location should be identified. • Undesirable late night activities (delivery, stream blast and pumping truck activities) occur occasionally at the center late at night or early in the morning. Staff response: 15 - 142 Applications: U-2007-06, ASA-2007-10 (EA-2007-08) Cupertino Village Shopping Center Page 12 The Planning Commission may consider incorporating the following conditions or mitigation measures in response to some of the neighbors concerns: 1. Require that a detailed landscaping maintenance plan be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. Said plan shall include details on the irrigation system and the routing schedule of maintenance and the upkeep of the landscaping area along east side of Linnet Lane. 2. Require clear multi-language signs at each of the pedestrian entrances along Linnet Lane, informing them not to park in the residential streets. 3. Require that the conditions of approval (including the City's noise ordinance) be made part of the lease agreements of all new tenants so they will be informed of the conditions and rules that will be enforced. 4. Require that the trash enclosure plan be submitted for review and approval by the Design Review Committee prior to issuance of building permits. All new trash enclosures shall be located as far away from the residential neighborhood as possible and shall be appropriately screened from public views. 5. Require that a detailed construction management plan be submitted to the City for review prior to issuance of building permit. Said plan shall include but not be limited to construction hours, truck routes, staging area, contractor parking area, tree protection measures, dust control and best management practices. No construction related vehicles shall use Linnet Lane to park or access the construction site. 6. Require that a. detailed truck delivery schedule and truck routing plan be submitted for review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. The applicant should also communicate with existing tenants of the City's regulations on delivery hours and noise limitations. 7. Require security cameras to be ilstalled at key delivery areas to assist in monitoring and enforcing delivery hours and noise violators. 8. Require the installation of multi-language sign to inform truckers of the delivery hours and rules. 9. Require the center to enhance patrol service so that they can monitor and prevent spill over parking into the neighborhood and the delivery activities. The center should also provide a hotline to the adjacent residents to report any code violation and unsafe activities. 10. Require a 1-year review of the use permit from the time the two new buildings receive final occupancy. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE (ERC) The project will be considered by the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) on November 14, 2007. The final ERC recommendations and findings will be made available to the Planning Commission at the next public hearing. 15 - 143 Applications: U-2007-06, ASA-2007-10 (EA-2007-08) Cupertino Village Shopping Center Page 13 Enclosures: Exhibit A: Parking and Traffic Report Exhibit B: Tree Report Exhibit C: LEED Certification Checklist Exhibit D: October 18, 2007 Neighborhood Meeting Minutes Exhibit E: Email Correspondence from Neighbors Plan Set Submitted by: Gary Chao, Senior Planner Approved by: Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Developme 15-144 Exhibit A Cupertino Village Final Traffic and Parking Study Prepared for City of Cupertino Prepared by. Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. Sandi Domingue, Project Manager Updated October 22, 2007 15 - 145 Table of Contents ... Executive Summary ..............................................................................~...................................................... iu 1. Introduction .................................:..........................................................................................................1 2. Existing Conditions ................................................................................................................................6 3. Background Conditions .....................:..................................................................................................12 4. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures ............................................................................................15 5. Future Growth Conditions ....................................................................................................................26 6. Conclusions ..........................................................................................................................................29 Appendices Appendix A: Traffic Counts Appendix B: Level of Service Calculations Appendix C: Approved Trips List of Tables Table ES 1 Intersection Level of Service Summary ..............................................................................v Table 1 Intersection Level of Service Definitions ...........................................................................5 Table 2 Study Area Bus Routes .......................................................................................................7 Table 3 Existing Intersection Levels of Service ............................................................................11 Table 4 Background Intersection Levels of Service ......................................................................14 Table 5 Project Trip Estimates ............................................................................ ...........................17 Table 6 Project Intersection Levels of Service .............:..................................... ...........................21 Table 7 City Code Parking Rates ........................................................................ ...........................24 Table 8 ULI Study Parking Rates ........................................................................ ...........................25 Table 9 CMP Intersection Levels of Service Under Future Growth Conditions ...........................28 List of Figures Figure 1 Site Location .......................................................................................................................2 Figure 2 Existing Transit Facilities ...................................................................................................8 Figure 3 Existing Lane Configurations ...................... .......................................................................9 Figure 4 Existing Traffic Volumes ............................. .....................................................................10 Figure 5 Background Traffic Volumes ....................... ............:........................................................13 Figure 6 Distribution of Project Trips ........................ .....................................................................18 Figure 7 Assignment of Primary Project Trips ........... .....................................................................19 Figure 8 Pass-By Trip Assignment ............................. .....................................................................20 F bwire 9 Project Conditions Traffic Volumes ............ .....................................................................22 Figure 10 Site Plan ....................................................... .....................................................................23 Figure 11 Future Growth Conditions Traffic Volumes .....................................................................27 Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. 15 - 146 Cupertino Village Expansion ii Executive Summary This report presents the results of the traffic impact analysis conducted for the proposed Cupertino Village Expansion. The project is located in the southwest quadrant of the Wolfe Road/Homestead Road intersection in Cupertino, California. The project site currently contains 76,176 s.f. of retail space, 5,500 s.f. of office space and 29,605 s.f. of restaurant space. The project as proposed would add three new commercial buildings (24,455 s.f.) and atwo-story open parking structure. The site currently has three driveways on Wolfe Road, an entrance via Pruneridge Avenue and one driveway on Homestead Road. The proposed site plan includes the removal of the southernmost Wolfe Road driveway. The potential impacts of the project were evaluated in accordance with the standards set forth by the City of Cupertino and the Congestion Management Program (CMP) of Santa Clara County. The study included an analysis of AM and PM peak-hour traffic conditions for seven signalized intersections. An analysis of freeway levels of service was not performed because project trips on freeway segments would not be greater than one percent of the capacity of the segments. Project Trip Estimates The traffic generated by the existing shopping center was determined from a field survey. The number of trips generated by the proposed expansion was estimated using the trip generation rates calculated from the survey of the existing center. Daily project trips and AM peak hour trips were extrapolated from the peak-hour project trip estimates. Using the observed trip rate, the proposed 24,455 s.f. expansion would generate 55 AM peak-hour trips and 205 PM peak-hour trips. The existing shopping center generates 334 vehicle trips during the AM peak hour, 929 vehicle trips during the PM peak hour and 10,637 daily vehicle trips. The proposed retail trip estimates also reflect a 25 percent reduction for PM pass-by trips. Pass-by trips already pass directly by the project site and would stop at the project site while en route to their ultimate destination. Excluding pass-by trips, the project would add 55 trips during the AM peak hour and 154 trips during the PM peak hour. The project trip distribution pattern was estimated based on existing travel patterns in the area and the locations of complementary land uses. Hexagon Transportation Consultants, lnc. 15 -147 Cupertino Village Expansion iii Project Findings Table ES-1 presents a summary of the intersection level of service analysis. The findings of this analysis are summarized below: • The results of the intersection level of service analysis show that none of the signalized study intersections would be significantly impacted by the project according to City of Cupertino and CMP level of service standards. • The proposed project would not have any significant adverse impacts on existing pedestrian, bicycle or transit facilities in the project area. Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. 15 -148 Cupertino Village Expansion {y Table ES 1 Intersection Level of Service Summary Existing Background Project Conditions Peak Count Ave. Ave. Ave. Incr.ln Incr.ln Intersection Hour Date Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Crit Delay Crit V/C De Anza Blvd & Homestead Rd' AM 10/3/2006 34.7 C 35.6 D 35.7 D +0.0 +0.000 PM 10/3/2006 45.8 D 47.9 D 48.2 D +0.3 +0.001 Homestead Rd & Blaney Av AM 7/17/2007 15.8 B 15.9 B 15.8 B -0.1 +0.001 PM 7/17/2007 13.5 B 13.6 B 13.5 B -0.1 +0.003 Homestead Rd & Wolfe Rd AM 7/17/2007 32.1 C 32.2 C 32.4 C +0.2 +0.004 PM 7/17/2007 33.5 C 34.3 C 34.7 C +0.4 +0.010 Wolfe Rd & Pruneridge AM 7/17/2007 16.4 B 17.6 B 18.4 B +0.6 +0.007 PM 7/17/2007 24.7 C 29.8 C 31.6 C +2.0 +0.035 Wolfe Rd & I-280 NB Ramp` AM 10/3/2006 10.1 B 10.2 B 10.2 B +0.0 +0.004 PM 10/3/2006 7.2 A 8.7 A 8.7 A +0.1 +0.007 Wolfe Rd & I-280 SB Ramp" AM 10/3/2006 7.9 A 7.6 A 7.6 A +0.0 +0.003 PM 10/3/2006 7.1 A 8.6 A 8.6 A -0.6 +0.001 Wolfe Rd & Stevens Creek Blvd' AM 10/3/2006 35.4 D 37.6 D 37.7 D +0.1 +0.003 PM 10/3/2006 32.8 C 50.5 D 51.8 D +3.4 +0.011 * Denotes CMP Intersections A f0 Hexagon Transportation Consultants, lnc. Cupertino Village Expansion v 1. Introduction This report presents the results of the traffic and parking study conducted for the proposed Cupertino Village expansion located in the southeast quadrant of the Wolfe Road/Homestead Road intersection in Cupertino, California. The project site currently contains 76,176 s.f. of retail space, 5,500 s.f. of office space and 29,605 s.f. of restaurant space. The project as proposed would add three new commercial buildings (24,455 s.f.) and atwo-story open parking structure. The site currently has three driveways on Wolfe Road, an entrance via Pruneridge Avenue and one driveway on Homestead Road. The proposed site plan includes the removal of the southernmost Wolfe Road driveway. The site location is shown on Figure 1. This study was conducted for the purpose of identifying the potential traffic impacts related to the proposed development. The impacts of the project were evaluated following the standards and methodologies set forth by the City of Cupertino and the Congestion Management Program (CMP) of Santa Clara County. The study includes an analysis of traffic conditions at seven signalized intersections. An analysis of freeway levels of service was not performed because project trips on freeway segments would not be greater than one percent of the capacity of the segments. Scope of Study This study was conducted for the purpose of identifying the potential traffic impacts related to the proposed development. The impacts of the project were evaluated following the standards and methodologies set forth by the City of Cupertino and the Congestion Management Program (CMP) of Santa Clara County. The traffic analysis is based on peak-hour levels of service for seven signalized intersections. The traffic analysis also includes an evaluation of vehicle queuing at high-demand turning movements at study intersections. The study intersections identified by City staff are listed below. Wolfe Road and Homestead Road Wolfe Road and Pruneridge Avenue Wolfe Road and I-280 NB Ramp* Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. 15 -1501 Cupertino Village Expansion Figure 1 Site Location Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. 15 - 1512 Cupertino Village Expansion Wolfe Road and I-280 SB Ramp* Wolfe Road and Stevens Creek Boulevard* Homestead Road and Blaney Avenue Homestead Road and De Anza Boulevard* Asterisk (*) denotes CMP intersections. Traffic conditions at the study intersections were analyzed for the typical weekday AM and PM peak commute hours of traffic. The AM peak hour of traffic is generally between 7:00 and 9:00 AM, and the PM peak hour is typically between 4:00 and 6:00 PM. It is during these periods that the most congested traffic conditions occur on an average day. Traffic conditions were evaluated for the following scenarios: • Existi~tg Conditions: Existing traffic volumes were obtained from recent traffic counts. • Background Conditio~ts: Background traffic volumes were estimated by adding to existing volumes the projected volumes from approved but not yet completed developments. • Project Co~tditions: Future traffic volumes with the project (hereafter called project traffic volumes) were estimated by adding to background traffic volumes the net additional traffic generated by the project. Project conditions were evaluated relative to background conditions in order to determine potential project impacts. • Future Growth Co~tditions: Traffic volumes under future growth conditions were estimated by applying a growth factor to existing volumes, adding trips from approved developments, and adding project trips. This scenario is evaluated in fulfillment of CMP requirements. Methodology 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, field reconnaissance and the City of Cupertino. The following data were collected from these sources: • existing traffic volumes • lane configurations • signal timing and phasing • approved project trips Analysis Methodologies and Level of Service Standards 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 little or no delay, to LOS F, or jammed conditions with excessive delays. The analysis method is described below. Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. 15 -1523 Cupertino Village Expansion All the study intersections are subject to the City of Cupertino level of service standards. The City of Cupertino level of service methodology is based on the 2000 Highx~ay Capacity Marzual (HCM) method for signalized intersections using the TRAFFIX software. This method evaluates signalized intersection operations on the basis of average delay time for all vehicles at the intersection. The City of Cupertino methodology employs the CMP default values for the analysis parameters. The City of Cupertino level of service standard for signalized intersections is LOS D or better. The correlation between average stopped delay and level of service is shown in Table 1. Report Organization The remainder of this report is divided into five chapters. Chapter 2 describes existing conditions in terms of the existing roadway network, transit service, and existing bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Chapter 3 presents the intersection operations under background conditions. Chapter 4 describes the method used to estimate project traffic and its impacts on the transportation system. Chapter 5 discusses the traffic conditions resulting from additional future growth. Chapter 6 presents the conclusions of the traffic and parking study. Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. 15 -153'l Cupertino Village Expansion Table 1 Intersection Level of Service Definitions Level of Average Stopped Delay Per Vehicle Service Description (Sec.) A Operations with very low delay occurring with favorable progression Less than 10.0 and/or short cycle lengths. B Operations with low delay occurring with good progression and/or 10.1 to 20.0 short cycle lengths. C Operations with average delays resulting from fair progression 20.1 to 35.0 and/or longer cycle lengths. Individual cycle failures begin to appear. D Operations with longer delays due to a combination of unfavorable 35.1 to 55.0 progression, long cycle lengths, or high V/C ratios. Many vehicles stop and individual cycle failures are noticeable. E Operations with high delay values indicating poor progression, long 55.1 to 80.0 cycle lengths, and high V/C ratios. Individual cycle failures are frequent occurrences. This is considered to be the limit of acceptable delay. F Operation with delays unacceptable to most drivers occurring due .Greater than 80.0 _ _ to oversaturation, poor progression, or very long cycle len ths. Source: Transportation Research Board, Highway Capacity Manual (2000). Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. 15 - 1545 Cupertino Village Expansion 2. Existing Conditions This chapter describes the existing conditions for all of the major transportation facilities in the vicinity of the site, including the roadway network, transit service, and bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Existing Roadway Network Local and regional access to the site is provided by the following roadways: I-280 is an eight-lane, north-south highway that extends from the U.S. 101/I-680 interchange in San Jose north to the South of Market area in San Francisco. The peak direction on I-280 is northbound in the morning and .southbound in the evening. In the project vicinity, I-280 operates in an east-west direction. Wolfe Road is a six-lane arterial that runs in a north-south direction through Cupertino. It extends from Stevens Creek Boulevard in the south to the north where it operates as Fair Oaks Avenue. Left-turn pockets are provided at major intersections. Wolfe Road is lined with a mix of commercial, residential and public uses. In the vicinity of the site, there are bike lanes and on-street parking is not permitted. Two project driveways would connect to Wolfe Road. There is a landscaped median on Wolfe Road that prohibits left turns into and out of the site. Homestead Road is a four-lane, east-west arterial that runs adjacent to the northern border of the proposed project site. Homestead Road is lined with a mix of commercial and residential uses. There is intermittent on-street parking permitted in the project vicinity. There are bike lanes and one project driveway on Homestead Road. Existing Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Wolfe Road, Homestead Road and Pnmeridge Avenue are designated as bike routes in the vicinity of the site. On these streets, bicyclists share the roadway with motor vehicles. Although not specifically Hexagon Transportation Consultants, /nc. 15 -1596 Cupertino Village Expansion designated as bike routes, most neighborhood streets are suitable for bicycle travel due to the low traffic volumes and low vehicle speeds. Pedestrian facilities in the study area consist primarily of sidewalks, pedestrian push buttons and signal heads at intersections. Sidewalks are found along Wolfe Road and Homestead Road: Existing Transit Service Existing transit service within the study area is provided by the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA). The project site is served directly by bus routes 26,36,51 and 81, which run along Wolfe Road adjacent to the project site. These bus routes are shown in Figure 2. Table 2 describes the route terminus points and commute hour headways. Table 2 Study Area Bus Routes Peak Hour Bus Lines Route Description Headways (min.) 26 Eastridge Transit Center to Sunnyvale/Lockheed Martin 20 to 30 36 Penitencia Creek Transit Center to Valley FairNallco Park 30 51 Vallco Park to Moffett Field/Ames Center 20 to 60 81 McKee & Capitol to Vallco Park 10 to 60 Lane Configurations & Traffic Volumes The existing lane configurations at the study intersections were provided by City staff and confirmed by observations in the field (See Figure 3). Existing AM and PM peak commute-hour traffic volumes were obtained from the City of Cupertino and supplemented with manual turning-movement counts at intersections where counts were unavailable. The existing AM and PM peak commute-hour intersection volumes are shown on Figure 4. The traffic count data are included in Appendix A. Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. 15 - 1567 Cupertino Village Expansion. Figure 2 Existing Transit Facilities Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. 15 -1578 Cupertino Village Expansion Figure 3 Existing Lane Configurations Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. 15 -1589 Cupertino Village Expansion Figure 4 Existing Traffic Volumes Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. 15 - 199' Cupertino Village Expansion Existing Intersection Levels of Service The results of the level of service analysis under existing AM and PM peak commute-hour volumes are summarized in Table 3. All of the signalized study intersections currently operate at an acceptable level of service (LOS D or better) during both peak hours, according to City of Cupertino standards and CMP standards. The calculation sheets are included in Appendix B. Table 3 Existing Intersection Levets of Service Intersection Peak Count Hour Date Existing Ave. Delay LOS De Anza Blvd & Homestead Rd* AM 10/3/2006 34.7 C PM 10/3/2006 45.8 D Homestead Rd & Blaney Av AM 7/17/2007 15.8 B PM 7/17/2007 13.5 B Homestead Rd & Wolfe Rd AM 7/17/2007 32.1 C PM 7/17/2007 33.5 C Wolfe Rd & Pruneridge AM 7/17/2007 16.4 B PM 7/17/2007 24.7 C Wolfe Rd & I-280 NB Ramp* AM 10/3/2006 10.1 B PM 10/3/2006 7.2 A Wolfe Rd & I-280 SB Ramp* AM 10/3/2006 7.9 A PM 10/3/2006 7.1 A Wolfe Rd & Stevens Creek Blvd* AM 10/3/2006 35.4 D PM 10/3/2006 32.8 C * Denotes CMP Intersections Observed Existing Traffic Conditions Traffic conditions in the field were observed in order to identify existing operational deficiencies and to confirm the accuracy of calculated levels of service. The purpose of this effort was (1) to identify any existing traffic problems that may not be directly related to intersection level of service, and (2) to identify any locations where the level of service calculation does not accurately reflect level of service in the field. The field observations revealed that for the most part, level of service calculations accurately reflect existing conditions. Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. ~ ~ 5 - ~ dd Cupertino Village Expansion 3. Background Conditions This chapter describes background traffic conditions. Background conditions are defined as conditions just prior to completion of the proposed development. Traffic volumes for background conditions comprise volumes from the existing traffic counts, plus traffic generated by other approved developments in the vicinity of the site. This chapter describes the procedure used to determine background traffic volumes and the resulting traffic conditions. Roadway Network & Traffic Volumes It is assumed in this analysis that the transportation network under background conditions, including bicycle and pedestrian facilities, transit service, roadways and intersection lane configurations, would be unchanged from existing conditions. Background peak-hour traffic volumes were calculated by adding to the existing volumes the estimated traffic from approved but not yet constructed developments in the vicinity of the site. Information to determine the added traffic from approved but not yet constructed developments was provided by the City in the form of project size, location, land use and distribution (see Appendix C for approved trip list). This information was used to determine the amount of traffic that each project added to the Cupertino study intersections. Background traffic volumes are shown on Figure 5. Background Intersection Levels of Service The results of the level of service analysis under background conditions are summarized in Table 4. All of the signalized study intersections would operate at an acceptable level of service (LOS D or better) according to City of Cupertino standards. The calculation sheets are included in Appendix B. Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. 15 -161f2 Cupertino Village Expansion Figure 5 Background Traffic Volumes Hexagon Transporfation Consultants, Inc. 15 - 163 Cupertino Village Expansion Table 4 Background Intersection Levels of Service Background Peak Count Ave. Intersection Hour Date Delay LOS De Anza Blvd & Homestead Rd* Homestead Rd & Blaney Av Homestead Rd & Wolfe Rd Wolfe Rd & Pruneridge Wolfe Rd & I-280 NB Ramp* Wolfe Rd & I-280 SB Ramp* Wolfe Rd & Stevens Creek Blvd' AM 10/3/2006 35.6 D PM 10/3/2006 47.9 D AM 7/17/2007 15.9 B PM 7/17/2007 13.6 B AM 7/17/2007 32.2 C PM 7/17/2007 34.3 C AM 7/17/2007 17.6 B PM 7/17/2007 29.8 C AM 10/3/2006 10.2 B PM 10/3/2006 8.7 A AM 10/3/2006 7.6 A PM 10/3/2006 8.6 A AM 10/3/2006 37.6 D PM 10/3/2006 50.5 D * Denotes CMP Intersections Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. 15 - te~ Cupertino Village Expansion 4. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures This chapter describes traffic conditions under project conditions, any significant project impacts, and measures that are recommended to mitigate any project impacts. Included are descriptions of the significance criteria that define an impact and estimates of project-generated traffic. Project conditions are represented by background traffic conditions with the addition of traffic generated by the project. It is assumed in this analysis that the future transportation network under project conditions would be the same as the existing transportation network. Significant Impact Criteria Significance criteria are used to establish what constitutes an impact. For this analysis the criteria for impacts at intersections are based on the City of Cupertino and the Congestion Management Program (CMP) of Santa Clara County level of service standards. Project impacts on other transportation facilities, such as bicycle facilities and transit, were determined on the basis of engineering judgment. City of Cupertino 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 background 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 background conditions and the addition of project trips causes both the critical-movement delay to increase by four or more seconds and the demand-to-capacity ratio (V/C) to increase by .O1 or more. An exception to this rule applies when the addition of project traffic reduces the amount of average stopped delay for critical movements (i.e., the change in average stopped delay for critical movements is Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. 75 - 165 Cupertino Village Expansion negative). In this case, the threshold of sign~cance is an increase in the critical V/C value by .O1 or more. CMP The definition of a significant impact at a CMP intersection is the same as for the City of Cupertino, except that the CMP standard for acceptable level of service at a CMP intersection is LOS E or better. A sign~cant impact by CMP standards is said to be satisfactorily mitigated when measures are implemented that would restore intersection conditions to LOS E or better. Project Trip Estimates The magnitude of traffic produced by a new development and the locations where that traffic would appear are estimated using athree-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 weekday AM and PM peak hours. 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 further described in the following sections. Trip Generation The trips generated by the existing shopping center were surveyed on Wednesday, July 18, 2007 from 4:00 to 6:00 PM. The trip generation survey consisted of a count of the number of vehicles entering and exiting the six existing site driveways. The peak hour within this period was identified and the hourly trip generation rate was derived. The inbound and outbound volume splits for the proposed project were based upon the existing inbound/outbound trips from the trip generation survey. The ITE Trip Gerieratiora manual Shopping Center land use includes various types of uses that might be found in a typical shopping center (e.g. restaurant, office, retail, etc.). After reviewing Trip Geraer-atiori, Hexagon found that the rates are lower than those collected from the trip generation study performed at the project site. As a result, Hexagon used the rates from the trip generation study to provide a more conservative analysis and to better reflect the conditions at Cupertino Village. Existing Shopping Center The Cupertino Village Shopping Center generated approximately 929 vehicle trips during the PM peak hour. This equates to a rate of 8.37 PM peak-hour vehicle trips per 1,000 square feet (s.f.). The AM and daily traffic generated by the existing shopping center was extrapolated from the observed peak-hour trips. A comparison of shopping center trip rates published in the TTE Trip Gerrer•atiorz manual shows that daily trips typically equal approximately 11 times the number of PM peak-hour trips on a weekday. In addition, Trip Gerieratiorz rates show that AM peak hour trips equate to approximately 27 percent of PM peak hour trips. It is assumed that the same relationship between daily and peak-hour trips holds for the Cupertino Village Shopping Center. Hexagon utilized the Trip Gerier•atiort factors to determine trip generation rates for the AM peak and for daily trips. Thus, the existing shopping center is estimated to generate 10,219 vehicle trips on an average weekday. These net project trip estimates include pass-by trips. Pass-by trips already pass directly by the project site and would stop at the project site while en route to their ultimate destination. For retail uses the proportion of pass-by trips comprise an average of 25% of the site-generated PM peak hour traffic. The remaining 75% of the net project trips are primary trips that are new to the roadway network. Excluding Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. 15 - 16~ Cupertino Village Expansion pass-by trips, the project would add 55 trips during the AM peak hour and 154 trips during the PM peak hour. Trip Distribution and Assignment The project trip distribution pattern was estimated based on existing travel patterns in the area and the locations of complementary land uses. Figure 6 illustrates the distribution of primary and pass-by project trips. Figure 7 shows the assignment of pass-by trips at the project driveways. Figure 8 shows the net assignment of project trips at the study intersections. Table 5 Project Trip Estimates Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Daily Peak-Hr Peak-Hr Use Size Rate Trips Rate In Out Total Rate In Out Total Retail' 24,455 s.f. 95.84 2,344 2.26 34 22 55 8.37 98 106 205 Pass-by Reduction2 (25%) (25) (26) (51) Primary Trips 34 22 55 74 80 154 Notes: 1 Per 1,000 square feet. Source: Cupertino Village Survey, Wednesday, 7/18/2007 4-6 PM. ZA reduction of 25% was applied to the proposed Retail Stores during the PM peak hour. Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. 15 -16~~ Cupertino Village Expansion Figure 6 Distribution of Project Trips Hexagon Transportation Consultants, lnc. 15 -16~g Cupertino Village Expansion Figure 7 Assignment of Primary Project Trips Hexagon Transporfation Consultants, Inc. 15 - 16~ Cupertino Village Expansion Figure 8 Pass-By Project Trips Hexagon Transportation Consultants, lnc. 15 - 1~ Cupertino Village Expansion Project Intersection Analysis Project trips, as represented in the above project trip assignment, were added to background traffic volumes to obtain background plus project traffic volumes. Background traffic volumes plus project trips are typically referred simply as project traffic >>olumes. The project traffic volumes are shown graphically on Figure 9. The intersection level of service results under project conditions are summarized in Table 6. The level of service calculation sheets are included in Appendix B. The results show that none of the study intersections would be impacted by the proposed project according to the Ciry of Cupertino and CMP level of service standards for signalized intersections. All of the study intersections are expected to operate at level of service D or better. Table 6 Project Intersection Levels of Service Intersection Peak Hour Count Date Background Ave. Delay LOS Ave. Delay Project Conditions Incr.ln LOS Crit Delay Incr.ln Crit V/C De Anza Blvd $ Homestead Rd' AM 10/3/2006 35.6 D 35.7 D +D.O +0.000 PM 10/3/2006 47.9 D 48.2 D +0.3 +0.001 Homestead Rd & Blaney Av AM 7/17/2007 15.9 B 15.8 B -0.1 +0.001 PM 7/17/2007 13.6 B 13.5 B -0.1 +0.003 Homestead Rd ~ Wolfe Rd AM 7/17/2007 32.2 C 32.4 C +0.2 +0.004 PM 7/17/2007 34.3 C 34.7 C +0.4 +0.01 D Wolfe Rd & Prunaridge AM 7!17/2007 17.6 B 18.4 B +0.6 +0.007 PM 7/17/2007 29.8 C 31.6 C +2.0 +0.035 Wolfe Rd & I-260 NB Ramp' AM 10/3/2006 10.2 B 10.2 B +0.0 +0.004 PM 10/3/2006 8.7 A 8.7 A +0.1 +0.007 Wolie Rd & I-260 SB Ramp' AM 10/3/2006 7.6 A 7.6 A +0.0 +0.003 PM 10/3/2006 8.6 A 8.6 A -0.6 +0.001 Wolfe Rd & Stevens Creek Blvd' AM 10/3/2006 37.6 D 37.7 D +0.1 +0.003 PM 10/3/2006 50.5 D 51.6 D +3.4 +0.011 ' Denotes CMP Intersections Other Transportation Issues Site Access & Circulation Figure 10 presents the project site plan. Circulation within the parking lot is generally adequate. The majority of the parking stalls would be at 90 degrees to the main drive aisles, including the stalls in the parking deck. The parking stalls located between the existing Ranch 99 market and the building containing Starbucks will remain at 45 degrees. The drive aisles, are sufficiently wide to allow vehicles to back up or turn. There are currently five driveways into the project site, including three on Wolfe Road. As part of the proposed project, the southernmost driveway on Wolfe Road will be removed. The current middle Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. 15 - 1'11 Cupertino Village Expansion Figure 9 Project Conditions Traffic Volumes Hexagon Transportation Consultants, lnc. 15 - 192 Cupertino Village Expansion Figure 10 Site Plan Hexagon Transportation Consultanfs, Inc. 15 - 1 Cupertino Village Expansion driveway on Wolfe Road will be relocated approximately 30 feet to the north. The location of the three remaining project driveways will stay the same. The proposed project would have vehicular access via one driveway on Homestead Road, two right-turn only driveways on Wolfe Road, and one entrance via Pruneridge Avenue just west of the Homestead/De Anna intersection. The driveway on Homestead would be reconfigured as aright-turn only entrance as required by the City of Cupertino. All of the project driveways would be sufficiently designed to accommodate the shopping center traffic. Parking The proposed project includes the construction of a two-story open parking structure. There are currently 691 parking stalls on the project site. After proposed project completion, there would be a total of 787 parking spaces. To determine the adequacy of the existing and proposed parking supply, Hexagon conducted parking occupancy surveys on Saturday, July 21 between 1:00 and 3:00 PM and on Thursday, August 23 between 12:00 noon and 2:00 PM. The parking occupancy surveys focused on the times of peak demand. Thus, if enough parking is provided based on peak hour demand, demand at other times would not exceed supply. The counts were conducted for the entire parking lot for all areas of the shopping center. On Saturday July 21, one hundred percent of the parking stalls were occupied (691 stalls). There were vehicles continually entering and exiting parking stalls, and there were vehicles waiting for each space that was being vacated. However, no spill-over parking was observed on surrounding streets or properties. On Thursday August 23, the peak parking occupancy count was at 85 percent of capacity (589 stalls occupied). It can be concluded that the existing parking supply of 691 spaces exactly matches the size of •the center. To determine the parking demand for the expansion, Hexagon checked both the City parking code and parking industry research. The city parking code shows that the existing center needs 603 parking spaces (see Table 7). The actual demand, however, is 691 spaces, as noted above. Therefore, the city code is insufficient for determining the number of spaces needed for the expansion. Table 7 City Code Parking Rates Existing s.f. City Code Spaces Retail 76,176 4.00 305 Office 5,500 0.36 2 Restaurant 29,605 10.00 296 TOTAL 603 'per 1,000 square feet One widely used and industry accepted source of parking data is the Urban Land Institute (IJLl) publication Sluzred Parki~ig. This publication is a compilation of parking surveys at numerous locations throughout the United States. Based upon their research, ULI has published recommended parking ratios for different types of land uses. Table 8 shows the existing shopping center's land use square footage along with the expected parking demand based on Shared Pay king suggested parking ratios. Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. 15 - 1~ Cupertino Village Expansion Table 8 ULI Study Parking Rates Required Parkins Existing s.f. Rate' Low' Rate2 Hight Rate3 Retail 76,176 4.00 305 4.00 305 4.00 Office 5,500 0.55 3 0.55 3 0.55 Restaurant 29,605 15.00 444 20.00 592 12.94 TOTAL 111,281 752 900 'Includes ULI's Famfly Restaurant Use Zlncludes ULI's Fine/Casual Dining Use 3Based on parking survey The number of spaces would range from 444 to 592 depending on the assumed type of restaurants. The LTLI data show a range of parking rates for restaurants. IJLI's recommended ratio is 15.0 spaces per 1,000 s.f. for family restaurants and 20.0 spaces per 1,000 s.f. for fine/casual dining. Based on the existing demand found in the parking surveys described above, the actual parking demand for the restaurant portion of the shopping center is lower than the lowest iTLI rate. The measured restaurant rate at the center is estimated to be 13.0 spaces per 1,000 s.f. This would result in a calculated demand of 691 spaces, which matches the actual count data. Based on the parking rates determined during the surveys, the expanded Cupertino Village would require 800 parking spaces (see Table 8). The current site~plan shows 787 spaces, which is 13 spaces short of the estimated demand. Possible mitigation measures to avoid parking shortages at Cupertino Village with the expansion include the following: " • revised site plan to pick up 13 spaces • agreement with nearby entity to share parking (adjacent church, etc.) • valet parking • off site parking with a shuttle for employees • carpool or vanpool incentives for employees, including preferential parking • transit subsidization for employees Bicycle, Pedestrian and Transit Facilities The project would not change or alter pedestrian, bike or transit facilities in the area. In addition, the project would not create a demand for these facilities greater than what is currently provided. For these reasons, the project would not result in a significant impact on bicycle, pedestrian, and transit facilities. Proposed Required ted3 s.f. Rate Parking 305 88,228 4.00 353 3 13,574 0.52 7 383 33,934 12.97 440 691 135,736 800 Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. 15 - 1?~45 Cupertino Village Expansion 5. Future Growth Conditions This chapter presents a summary of the traffic conditions that would occur under future growth conditions. The purpose of analyzing future growth conditions is to assess the traffic conditions that would occur at the time that the proposed development becomes occupied. For this analysis, the assumed occupancy is 2010. The analysis of future growth conditions is required by the CMP and includes an analysis of level of service for CMP intersections only. Roadway Network & Traffic Volumes The intersection lane configurations under future growth conditions were assumed to be the same as described under project conditions. Traffic volumes under future growth conditions were estimated by applying to the existing volumes an annual growth rate of 1.2 percent, then adding the trips from approved developments and the project trips. The traffic volumes under future growth conditions are shown in Figure 10. Levels of Service The level of service results for the CMP intersections under future growth conditions are summarized in Table 9. The results show that all of the CMP study intersections would operate at LOS D or better under future growth conditions. The intersection level of service calculations are included in Appendix B. Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. 15 - 17~ Cupertino Village Expansion Figure 11 Future Growth Traffic Volumes Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. ~ 5 _ ~ ~'7 Cupertino Village Expansion Table 9 CMP Intersection Levels of Service Under Future Growth Conditions Intersection Peak Hour Ave. Delay LOS De Anza Blvd & Homestead Rd` AM 36.6 D PM 52.0 D Wolfe Rd & I-280 NB Ramp` AM 10.5 B PM 8.9 A Wolfe Rd & 1-280 SB Ramp" AM 7.7 A PM 8.7 A Wolfe Rd & Stevens Creek Blvd' AM 38.3 D PM 54.8 D ` Denotes CMP Intersection Hexagon Transportation Consultants, lnc. 15 - 1 ~g Cupertino Village Expansion 6. Conclusion The fmdings of this analysis are summarized below: • Excluding pass-by trips, the proposed project is estimated to generate a net increase of 55 trips during the AM peak hour and 154 trips during the PM peak hour. • The results of the intersection level of service analysis show that none of the signalized study intersections would be significantly impacted by the project according to City of Cupertuio and CMP level of service standards. • The proposed project would not have any significant adverse impacts on existing pedestrian, bicycle or transit facilities in the project azea. • The project would not provide sufficient parking on site to meet the demand during the Saturday peak. Possible mitigation measures include provision of off-site parking, implementation of valet parking or employee rideshaze programs. Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. ~ 5 _ ~ ~g Cupertino Village Expansion 29 Appendix A Traffic Counts 15 - 179 Appendix B Level of Service Calculations Appendix C Approved Trips Appendix A Traffic Counts 15 - 182 Traffic Data Service 1368 White Oaks Road, Suite 1. Campbell, CA 95008 Greuas Printed- Vehicles File Name : 1AMFINAL Site Code :00000001 -Start Date : 10!3/2006 Page No : 1 . WOLFE RD t-280 NB RAMPS WOLFE RD So uthbo und Westbound Northbound Eastbound Start'Time Ri M ThN Left Peds A 7xa R~ m ThN Left Peds ^wi •Ri hI Thru' Left Peds t.,,, Righl ThN Left Peds ~, .rwi ~rt.7o~ai Factor 1.0 1.0 1.D 1.0 1.0 1.D 1,D 1.0 1.0 1.D 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 07:00 AM 82 94 0 0 176 119 0 61 0 180 52 9D 0 0 142 0 0 0 2 2 500 07:15 AM 127 142 0 0 269 136 0 53 3 192 62 146 0 0 208 0 0 0' 1 1 670 07:30 AM 200 160 0 0 360 132 0 78 0 ~ 210 110 213 0 0 323 0 0 0 0 0 893 07:45 AM 146 152 0 2 300 172 D 123 1 296 89. 289 0 0 378 0 0 D 1 1 975 Total 555 548 -0 2 9105 559 0 315 4 878 313 738 0 0 1051 0 D 0 4 4 3038 08:00 AM 136 134 0 0 270 206 0 136 2 344. 94 314 0 0 406 0 0 0 1 1 1023 08:15 AM 185 153 0 0 336 156 0 79 2 237 78 317 D 0 395 0 0 0 0 0 970 08:30 AM 136 168 0 0 304 180 0 $6 2 26B 42 305 D 0 347 0 0 0 2 2 921 06:45 AM 116 174 0 0 290 778 0 62 0 260 42 384 D 0 426 0 0 0 0 0 976 Total 573 629 0 0 1202 720 0 383 6 1109 256 ~3zo D 0 1576 0 0 0 3 3 3890 Grand Total 112tt 1177 0 2 2307 1279 0 698 101987 569 toss 0 0 2627 0 D D 7 '7 6928 A Total %, 16.3 17 0 0 0 33.3 )18.5 0 1 D.1 0.1 28.7 126.2 29.7 0 0 37.9 ( 0 0 0 - 0.10 0.1 J WOLFE RD Southbound I-280 NB RAMPS `4/estbound WOLFE RD Northbound Eastbound Start Time Rim Thru Left Peds rxr Rim Thru Left Peds ~ rm Rf h! ThN Left Pads rw Ri Thru Left Peds ~.Txr YeaK HDUf HnalySlS t rDtTt Ul:uu HIVI tv uts:4D HIVE --reaK i vi i De~L t-lnnr Fnr Cn+Sm 1n+er~nn+inn Rnninc ~+ nR•nn QAII )K. Sofa! OB:00 AM 136 934 0 0~ 270 206 0 136 2 344 94 314 0 0 406 0 0 0 1 1 1023 08:15 AM 185 153 0 0 338 156 0 79 2 237 78 317 0~ 0 395 0 0 0 D D 970 OB:30 AM 136 168 0 0 304 1 BD . 0 86 . 2 268 42 305 0 0 347 0 0 0 2 2 921 08:45 AM 116 174 0 D 290 178 0 62 0 260 42 384 0 0 426 0 0 0 0 0 976 7ota1 Vohane 573 629 0 0 1202 720 D . 383 6 1109 256 1320 0 0 _ 1576 0 0 0 3 3 3890 %no Tael 47.7 52.3 0 0 64.9 0 34.5 0.5 16.2 63.8 0 0 0 0 0 100 PHF .774 ,904 .DOD .000 .889 .874 .000 .704 .750 .806 .681 .859 .ODD ,ODD .925 .DDD .OOD .DDO .375 .375 .951 11/30/2008 13:37 FAg 4083771. d i TRAFFIC DATA SBRVICB Traffic Dada Service Campbell, CA (408)377-2985 idsb¢J~cs com rMUntr Ot•iwl~~i_ \/aAZ.,lew X002 File Name ; 1PMFINAL site Code : OooOOOO'i St;~rt Date :11/29/2006 Page Na ; 9 WOLFE RD I-280 NB RAMPS WOLFE RD Southbound Westbound _ Northtsound Ea&tbound _ Start Tirne RI nt ThN Left Pests ~,d., Rlsanl Thru Left Peae ~ ~ ~ ~ ~' ° " "' "' ___,,, _Ay~rar. Rlphl~f Thtu Left Peet ew.nm Rlehl ThN Left P.BeB ,,r,.ta,, I~,~ Factor 1.0 1.,0 .,1.0, 1,0. „ _.....1,D. _._Z 0 _.1.:0 1_0, _ 1.01 ~1.0 ~ 1.0;1.0 1 0 1.01_10'~L o 1_.. ......_.. 05:00 PM 87 273 0 0 360 115 0 56 0 173 30 175 0 0 205 0 0' 0 1 1 7 05;15 PM 72 23B 0 0 309 126 0 101 0 227 49 153 0 0 202 0 0 0 0 0 7 05:30 PM 71 238 0 0 309 .116 0 79 2 197 27 118 0 0 148 0 0 0 0 0 8 05:48 PM 87 . , 284 0 „ , 0„ , X71, , ~ 27 ,,,,,, 0,._ , 68 __ Q 195 20 ' 150. _ _ 0 p _ 17p „0 , , 0,. 0 2 2 7 Tote! 317 toss ~~ ~~~~ D D 1346 484 0 306 2 792 126 $'97 ~ ~ p~-" ~ 0 ~ ~ 723 0 0 ~0 ~ ~ 3 3 28 06:00 PM. 146 340 0 0 06;15 PM 152 340 0 0 06:30 PM 146 253 0 0 06:45 PM 158 362 • 0 0 Note{ S02 t2e5 ~~ 0 •~ 0 Grand Tot91 919 2326 0 0 Apprch % 28,3 71.7 D 0 Total % 14.5 36,7 0 0 ELI 39 37 52 38 ~6 48B 102 0 69. 3 174 38~ 167. 0 0 205 0 0 0 0 0 665 482 145 0 72 0 217 19 166 0 0 207 0 0 0 0 0 916 399 63 0 •90 0 153 28 174 0 0 200 0 0 0 0 0 762 520 130 ~ _ ~ ~ 0 . 94 ~ ~ 0 224 18 180 0 0 186 0 0 0 0 0 840 1897 440 b 325 3 768 88 708 0 0 808 0 0 0 0 _ ~ Q "3473 3245 924 0 631 5 1560 225 iaos 0 0 1531 0 0 0 3 3 6339 1 4 1 1 I 10 51.2 14.6 0 9 0 0.7 24.6 3.5 20.8 0 0 24.2 0 0 0 D 0 WOLFE RD ~~~--~ l-260 N9 RAlVIP3 ~ ~ •WOLFE Rb Southbound_ Westbound isorthhound Eastbound StBrtTirife Rlphl Thni• Left Peet •m Ten^~Rlpht Tftry L@fT; POee .ypTw I R{phl Thfv L6ft Post rwar+r ~ Riphl ThM ' Peak Hour ~.. ~ • ~. _. _.L.__ ~.. ~- ~.._ ~_ . i ... . i. i ~ .) i (. ~ Left ~ Poch i ,~,.Mr_ ~ ~,. rol.~ i Anaiysta From a5:bD PM fa 06:x5 PM -Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hpurfor Entire Int~rsec8on f3agins s{ 06:D0 PM 06:00 PM 14S 340 D 0 466 102 0 S9 3 174 38 167 0 0 205 0 0 0 0 0 665 ' 06:15 PM 152 340 0 0 492 145 0 72 0 217 19 186 0 0 207 0 0 0 0 0 91 fi 06:30 PM 146 263 0 0 389 63 0 90 0 153 26 174 0 0 200 0 0 0 D 0 752 06:45 PM 1b6 362 0 0 620 130 0 94 0, .224 18 180 0 0 198, ,.. 0 0 0 _ 0 0 940 02 1285 ~-'~ ' Tolelvolume 0 0 1897 440 0 32~ ~~~ ~3 768 99 ~ 708 0 0 808 0 ~ 0 0 ~~ ~ ~• ~~'~• - - SApp. Totel 31.7 66.3 0 0 57.3 0 42.3 0.4 12.3 87.7 p 0 0 3 ............_... 0 0 0 PHF •.953 ' .894 •.000 ':OOb,' ,g{2 ,759 ,000 ~.884~~ •2~0 ,651 ,943 '.000 .ObD ',000 .000 .000' :oDO' ..... _... _ ... DO .. .. •857 ~ 4 .... .. .. .. ..... .... ...... , .976.. .. ... 0. ,92 -, \ ` ~' \• t~ ~~ ~ , .. ~ V ., `, 15 - 184 Traffic Data Service 1386 White Oaks Road, Suite 1 Campbell, CA 95008 ldsbrq r~Z cs.cum Groups Pr[nted. Vehic{es File Name : 2AMFfNAL Site Code :00000002 Start Date :10/3/2006 Page No : 1 WOLFE RD WOLFE RD 1-280 SB RAMPS Southbound Westbo und Northbound Eastbound Start Time Ri ht Thtu Left Peds • w~ Ri hl Thtu Left Peds ~ ,.m Ri hl Thru Left Peds ~ ~,,, Ri ht Thru Left Peds a iw Irl Tolel Factor ~ d.0 1.0 1.D 1.0• 1.0 1.0 1.0 1,0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 07:00 AM ' S5 59 0 0 114 0 0 0 0 0 40 BB 0 0 128 30 0 39 0 69 311 07:15 AM 78 136 0 0 214 0 D 0 0 0 52 128 0 0 1 BO 44 0 87 0 131 525 07:30 AM 97 139 0 0 236 0 D 0 0 0 82 200 0 0 282 41 0 1 1 5 0 156 674 07:45 AM 92 171 ~ 0 0 263 0 0 0 0 0 92 208 0 0 300 38 0 141 0 179 742 Total 322 505 0 0 627 0 0 0 0 0 266 624 0 0 B90 153 0 362 0 535 2252 08:00 AM 76 152 0 0 228 0 0 0 0 0 83 212 0 1 296 30 0 126 0 156 680 08:15 AM 77 191 0 0 268 0 0 0 0 0 82 226 0 1 309 42 0 145 0 187 764 08:30 AM 24 174 0 0 198 0 0 0 0 0 76 240 0 0 316 . 38 0 105 0 143 657 08:45 AM 71 214 0 0 285 0 0 0 0 0 BO 2B7 0 0 367 44 0 1 B5 0 229 881 Total 248 731 0 0 979 0 0 0 •0 0 321 965 0 2 1288 154 0 581 0 715 2982 Grand Totoal 1570 1236 0 0 1806 ~ 0 0 0 0 O 1587 15es 0 2 2178 1307 0 943 0 1250 ( 5234 Apprch /° 31.6 68.4 0 D 0 0 0 0 27 73 0 0.1 24.6 0 75.4 0 Total % 10.9 23.6 0 0 34.5 D 0 0 0 0 11.2 30.4 D 0 41.6 5.9 0 18 0 23.9 WOLFE RD Southbound Westbound WOLFE RD - Northbound I-260 5B RAMPS Eastbound Start Time Ri hl Thru Lett Peds ~.al R' ht Thru Lett Peds .lea, Ri ht Thru Left Peds Txa Ri M 'Thru Left Peda ..,,~ reaK hour Hrtarysts morn ui:uu Nnn to urs:~+o Hm - reatc { or { Do~4 41ni.r fnr CnFirc {n4crennFinn Rnnine ~f (1R•r1n GRIT IrL 7o1tI 08:00 AM 76 152 0 0 228 0 0 0 0 0 83 212 0 1 296 30 0 126 0 156 660 06:15 AM 771 91 0 •D 268 D D 0 0 0 82, 226 D i 309 42 0 145 0 187 764 08:30 AM 24 174 0 0 198 0 0 D 0 0 76 240 0 0 316 38 0 1 D5 0 143 657 08:45 AM 71 214 0 0 285 0 0 0 0 0 80 287 0 0 367 44 D 185 0 229 BB1 ToiatVotume. 248 731 0 0 979 0 0 0 0 0 321 965 D 2 1288 154 0 561 0 715 2982 %A .Total 25.3 74.7 0 0 0 0 0 0 24.9 . 74.9 0 0.2 21.5 D 78.5 0 ' PHF .605 .854 .ODD .DOD .B59 •.000 .000 .ODD .DDO .000 .967 .841 .DDO .500 .877 .875 .ODO .758 .DOD ..781 .646 2~3' ~)'~;. ~~ t• a..~ Traffic Data Service 1386 White Oaks Road, Suite 1 Campbell, CA 95008 Idsba~+(rz~s. cvm C~muns Printed. VP6ir_tnc File Name : 2PMFINAL Site Code :00000002 Start Date :10/3/2006 Page No ; 1 WOLFS RD - WOLFS RD 1-280 SB RAMP$ So uthbound Westbound Northbo und Eastbound Start Time Rim Thru Left Peds ~ rw+t Rim Thru. Left Pads rwt R' ht Thru Left Peds ,. rw R• rit Thru Left Peds rwt IM.T°ial Factor 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.D 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 - 05:00 PM 64 225 0 0 289 0 0 0 0 0 113 202 0 0 315 70 0 131 0 201 BD5 • 05:15 PM 72 268 0 0 340 0 0 0 0 0 115 136 0 . 0 251 65 0 106 0 171 762 05:30 PM 65 265 0 1 331. 0 0 0 0 0 121 216 . 0 0 337 93 0 111 0 204 . 872 05:45 PM 94 209 0 0 303 0 0 0 0 0 123 211 0 0 334 130 0 109 0 239 876 . Total 295 967 0 1 1263 0 0 .0 0 Q 472 765 0 0 1237 358 0 457 0 ' 815 3315 06:00 PM 73 261 0 0 334 0 0 0 0 0 80 191 0 0• 271 116 0 90 '0 206 811 06:15 PM 83 331 0 2 416 0 0 0 0 0 103 193 D 0 296 95 0 95 0 190 902 06:30 PM 43 312 0' 0 355 0 0 0 ~ 0 0 99 184 0 0 283 77 0 105 0 182 620 06:45 PM 103 384 0 0 487 0 0 0 0 0 103 171 0 0 274 62 0 170 0 252 1013 Total 302 1266 0 2 1592 0 0 0 0 0 365 739 0 0 1124 370 0 460 0 630 3546 Grand Total 597 2255 0 3 2855 0~ D 0 D 0 i~ 857 1504 0 0 726 2361 D 917 0 1645 6661 1 Apprch % 20.9 79 0 1 0.1 0 0 0 0 36.3 63.7 0 0 1 44.3 0 55.7 0 ~ Total % 8.7 32.9 0 0 41.6 0 0 0 0 1 0 12.5 21.9 0 0 34.4 10.6 0 13.4 0 24 WOLFS RD Southbound Westbound WOLFS RR Northbound {-280 SB RAMPS .Eastbound Start Time Ri M Thru Left Peds rw Ri t Thru Left Peds raw Ri ht Thru Left Peds i,..»w Ri hl Thru Left Peds ~e. re. YeaK flour Analysis I-fOn'1 US:UU YM t0 UEi:45 YM - YeaK 7 of 7 Pack Hnnr Fnr Fnfira Iniwrcarfinn Raninc of nR•M PM IA, Tolel 06:00 PM 73 261 0 0 334 0 D 0 0 0 BD 191 0 0 271 116 0 90 0 .206 811 06:15 PM B3 331 0• 2 416 D D . 0 0 0 103 193 0 0 298 95 0 95 0 190 902 06:30 PM 43 312 0 0 355 0 0 0 0 0 99 184 0 0 263 77 D 105 0 182 820 06:45 PJ~7 103 364 0 0 467 0 0 0 0 0 103 171 0 0 274 82 0 170 0 252 1013 Total Volume 302 1288 0 2 1592 0 0 0 D 0 385 739, 0 0 1124 370 0 460 0 630 3546 x h o. Tae1 19 80.9 0 0.1 0 0 0 0 34.3 65.7 0 0 44.6 0 55.4 ~ 0 PHF .733 .839 .000 .250 .877 .DOD .DOD .ODO .000 .000 .934 .957 .000 .DDO .949 .797 .ODO .676 .000 .823 .675 ~F. ~t• . ~-: • ~- '~~,~i~~ ~~~~~ Traffic Data S ervice 1386 White Oaks Road, Suite 1 Campbell, CA 95008 ldsba~~cs. com File Name : 3AMFiNAL Site Code :00000003 Start Date :1013/2006 Page i~o : 1 WOLFE ~RD ~ STEVENS ~ CREEK BLVD MILLER AVE STEVENS CREEK BLVD Southbound Westbound Northbo und Eastbound Start Time Ri hl Thiu Lett Peds ,,,t Ri hl Thru Left Peds twt Ri f>! ThN left Peds iwi Ri hl Thru Left Peds twt In.7om Factor 1.D 1.0 1.0 1.0 1 D 1.0 1.0 1.0 1,0 1,0 1.0 i.0 i.D 7.0 .0 1.0 I 07:00 AM 22 58 34 0 114 57 34 0 121 20 .47 15 D 82 15 40 7 0 62 379 07:15 AM 39 75 42 7 163 ,42 ~ 119 21 2 184 6 ~ 84 25 1 116 22 63 33 3 141 6D4 07:30 AM 53 63 16 2 134 491 160 20 2 231 ~ 32 !`140 49 1 • 222 25 90 691 1 165 772 07:45 AM 83 88 39 4 214 i 68. 192 24 1 285 17 i 160 40 2 219 20 86 72 ~ 5 163 90i • Total 197 284 131 13 625 169i 528 99 5 621 75~ 431 129 4 639 62 299 181 •9 571 2656 06:00 AM •66 66 49 0 183 1 36ffi 231 14 0 263 25 187 56 0 268 12 126 67 ~ 3 206 942 08:15 AM 110 56 31 2 199 55( 196 23 ' 0 276 21 ~ 152 27 _ • 1 201 . $2 150 56~ 1 239 915 06:30 AM 9D 50 55 0 195 6~ 168 8 1 239 ~ 33 195 51 0 279 32 122 11 0 270 963 OB:45 AM 114 90 61 0 265 4 243 17 0 309 46 ' 168 80 6 300 37 79 8 5 1 B5 1 D59 Total 380 264 196 2 842 20. 840 62 1 1107 125 702 214 7 1048 113 477 3.3 9 9D2 3699 1 S9 3~ '~12 s'} 3 :~ Grand ToDal 577 548 327 15 1467 393 18s8 161 6 1928 200 1133 343 11 1687 195 776 464 18 1473 6555 ~ Apprch /0 39,3 37.4 22.3 1 1 20.4 71 8.4 D.3 1 i 1.9 67.2 20.3 0.7 1 13.2 52.7 32.9 1 1.2 . Total % B.B 8.4 5 0.2' 22.4 6 2D.9 2.5 D.1 29,4 3.1 17.3 5.2 0.2 25.7 3 11.8 7.4 0.3 22.5 WOLFE RD STEVENS CREEK BLVD MILLER AVE STEVENS CREEK BLVD Southbound Westbound Northbound Eastbound Start Time Ri fv Thin Left Peds rw Ri ht Thru Left Peds ,,,,.~.m Ri hl Thtu Left Peds 1.m Ai hl Thru Left Peds rat . vcu~..VU. rv,o~J.~~a t will Vl.VV I'11V1 W VV."1V f11Y1 ~ x0011 1 VI 1 Peak Hour for Entire lntersactinn Rlxnins at nR•nn AM Iri Toth 08:00 AM 66. 66 49 0 183 38 231 14 0 283 25 187 56 0 266 12 126 67 3 208 942 06:15 AM 110 56 31 2 199 55 196 23 0 276 21 152 27 1 201 32 150 56 1 239 915 08:30 AM 90 50 55 0 195 62 166 8 1 239 33 185 51 0 279 32 122 116 0 270 883 06:45 AM 114 90 61 0 265 49 243 17 0 3D9 4fi 166 BD 6 3D0 37 79 •64 6 185 1D59 Tolalvoiume 3B0 264 196 2 842 204 840 62 1 1107 125 702 214 7 1048 113 477 303 9 902 3899 ^,6 A .Taal 45.1 31.4 23.3 0.2 18.4 75.9 5.6 0.1 11.9 67 20.4 0.7 12.5 52.9 33.6 1 PHF .833 .733 .603 .250 ,794 .823 .864 .674 .250 •896 .679 ~.90D .669 .292 .873 .764 .795 .653 .450 .835 .920 T Traffic Data Service y .. 1386 White Oaks Road, Suite 1 Campbell, CA 95008 crtsbn~~cs.com File Name : 3PMFINAL Site Code :00000003 Start Date :10/3/2006 ' ~ ~ Page No : 1 C~rnrma P~infwri. VwFTieiwc WOLFE RD STEVENS CREEK BLVD MILLER AVE STEVENS CREEK BLVD So uthbound Westbo und Northbo und Eastbound Start Time Riahl Thru Leff Peds Taa Ri hi Thru Left Peds Tan Ri hl l hN Left Peds r. Teb, Ri hl ThtU Left Peds Tan i,t. To,ai Factor 1.0 1.D 1.0 1.0 1,0 1.0 1.0 '1.D 1.0 :0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 05:00 PM 64 145 71 0 2B0~ 19b';~ 176 26 0 292 17 '50 52 0 119 53 251 / 97, 2 403 1094 05:15 PM 118 182 100 1 401' 62 •196 4D 0 320 12 73 ~ 26 0 111 67 1061 285 1 45~ 1291 05:3D PM 75 216 60 0 351 71 X20 39 0 33D 11 93 ; 26 1 131 •32 f 249/ 1D8 ~s 1 390 1202 D5:45 PM 94 216 83 0 395 71 225 51 0 347 15 _ 109 f 49 1 174 25 264r 116 0 407 1323 Total 351 761 314 1 1427 (314 819 156 0 1289 55 325 ;153 2 535 177 1oa~' 429 4 1659 4910 , 06:00 PM 102 215 54 10 381 ' 67 172 42 4 285 19 107 43 6 175 45 29j 113 2 457 1298 06:15 PM 115 226 78 0 419 74 198 26 1 299 13 90 51 1 155 43 26 97 i 404 7277 06:30 PM 104 239 63 0 406 ; 66 177 35 ,0 _ 278 8 92 34 0 134 19 13~ BD 2 232 1050 06:45 PM 121 205 49 0 375 ~ 63 164 42 0 269 25 116 37 • 2 18D 35 164 103' D 302 1146 Total 442 685 244 10 1561 ~70.~ 731 145 5 1151 65 405, 165• 9 644 142 85 ~ 393 5 1395 4771 Grand7otal 793 1s4s b56 11 3006 584 1550 301 5 2440 120 730 316 11 1179 319 19D4 822 9 3054 9661 A~oi I % ~ ?8.2 517 X5:8 0.1 31.1 (23.6 616 13.1 0.1 25.2 111 2 67S 3 3 D.1 12.2 1 13.3 19:7 28.5 0.1 31.5 WOLFS RD Southbound STEVENS CREEK BLVD Westbound MILLER AVE Northbound STEVENS CREEK BLVD Eastbound Start Time Ri td Thru Left Peas no, Ri hi Thru Left Peds T.Y, Ri hl Thru Left Peds Twi R' ht Thru Left Petlt ~w YeaK HOUr ATialySlS From Ub:UU. ~f M IO Ut):4b YM - YB9K 7 oT 1 Peak Hour for Frltire Intersection Beoins at D5~15 PM tn. rmn 05:15 PM 118 182 10D 1 401 82 198 40 0 320 12 73 26 0 111 67 285 100 1 459 1291 05:3D PM • 75 216 60 0' 351 71 220 39 0 330 11 93 26 '1 131 32 249 106 1 39D 1202 05:45 PM 94 21863 D 395 71 225 51 0 347 15 1D94 9 1 174 25 264 116 0 407 1323 06:OD PM 1D2 215 54 10 361 67 172 42 4 285 19 107 43 6 175 45 297 113 2 457 1298 Totalvotume 369 831 297 11 1528 291 615' 172 4 1282 57 382 144 8 591 169 1095 445 4 1713 5114 %A .Total 25.5' 54.4. 19.4 0,7 22.7 63.6 13.4 0.3 9.6 64.6 24.4 1.4 9.9 63.9 26 0.2. PHF .824 .953.743 .275 .953 .887 .9D6 .843 .25D .924 .750 .87fi .735 .333 .644 .631 .922 .943 .SDD .933 .966 204 ~-~~96~ 1 ~ Z3~ ~G 1 Z?•2 29.c~ ~~ixy~` Zc~ Z3~ ?y ~ Traffic Data Service 1386 White Oaks Road, Suite 1 Campbell, CA 95006 tdsba~~xs.com ~.,..,..~ o~s.,tna_ vehhte~ File Name : 11AMFINAL Site Code :00000011 Start Date :1013/2006 Page No : 1 DE ANZA BLVD HOMESTEAD RD DE ANZA BLVD HOMESTEAD RD Southbound Westbound Northbound Eastbound SfartTlme R' m Thru Left Peds Tnn _ Rim Thru Left Peas ,~ Riaht Thru Left Peds r. .Tan Ri rn Thru Left Peds ., Tar ~a.Tmei Faclor 1 0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.D 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 07:00 AM . 56 181 26 1 264 24 40 45 0 109 16 . 195 59 3 273 46 34 16 3 99 745 07:15 AM 74 175 28 2 279 43 61 60 1 165 20 228 71 3 322 49 26 24 0 99 865 07:30 AM 88 226 31 D 345 48 ~ 109 82 0 239 23 321 81 11 436 93 69 41 2 205 1225 07:45 AM 111 321' 35 0 467 65 134 92 0 291 29 378 96 0 503 106 72 66 3 247 1508 Total 329 903 120 3 1355 180 344 279 1 804 68 1122 307 17 1534 294 201 147 8 650 4343 08:00 AM 94 251 48 3 396 75 118 104' 0 ~ 297 103 316 72 2 493 77 96 5D 0 223 1409 08:15 AM 112 287 47 2 448 65 111 121 0 297 34 440 114 2 590 109 69 60 1 239 1574 08:30 AM 81 276 46 0 403 55 78 91 0 224 32 467• 67 2 608 77 108 5D 2 237 1472 06:45 AM . 86 189 52 0 327 69 131 124 D 324 52 385 96 3 538 79 92 61 0 232 1421 Total 373 10D3. 193 5 1574 264 438 440 0 1142 221 ~szs 371 9 2229 342 365 221 3 931 5876 crandTaBi 702 tsos 313 8 2929 444 782 719 1 1946 309 27sn 678 26 3763 636 566 366. 11 158 10219 Apprch % 24 ~ 65.1 10.7. 0.3 1 22.8 40.2 •36.9 0.1 8.2 73.1 18 0.7 1 4D.2 35.8 23.3 0.7 1 Total % 6.9 18.7 3.1 0.1 28.7 4.3 7.7 7 0 19 3 26.9 6.6 0.3 36.8 6.2 5.5 3 ;6 0.1 15.5 DE Al32A BLVD ' HOMESTEAD, RD DE ANZA BLVD HOMESTEAD RD Southbound Westbound Northbound Eastbound Stan T1Rle Ri hl Thru Leff Peds TeY1 Ri hl Thn) Left Peds Tan Riohl Thru Left Peds MaTaal Ri ht Thru Left Peds TWI PeaK rtourAnatysts i-rorn ui:w ~ivt iv.vo.yoniw - ~~o~ ~ ~~ • wL AAA ucT°tat roan nuui ~ 07:45 AM w u~u~c ~~~.~~~~......,~ ....y... 111 32135 0 ..... _. 46T .._. 65 .... 134 92 0 291 29 378 9S 0 5i]3 106 72 66 ~ 3 247 15 08:00 AM 94 251 46 3 396 75 118 104 0 297 103 316 72 2 493 77 96 50 0 223 1409 08:15Q,M 112 287 47 2 448 65 111 121 0 297 34. 440 114 2 590 iD9 69 6D 1 239 1574 06:30 AM 81 276 46 0' 4D3 55 78 91 D 224 32 487 87 ~ 2 6D8 77 108 50 2 237 1472 7otatvoh,me . 398 1135 176 5 1714 260 441 4D8 D 1109 198 1621 369 6 ~ 2194 369 345 226 6 946 5963 °G Ac . Tdal 23.2 66.2 10.3 0.3 23.4 39.8 36.8 3 8 0 000 934 9 ' 73.9 16.8 SD9 832 461 0.3 750 902 39 .646 36.5 23.9 .799 .656 0.6 ' .5D0 .957 .947 PHF .868 .684 .917 .417 .918 .667 .823 . 4 . . . . . . . ~~~~~~ Traffic Data Service 7386 White Oaks Road, Suite 1 Campbell, CA 95008 [asbay was colas r......... ~.i..4~J ~r_~s_.__ File Name : 11 PMFINAL Site Code :00000011 Start Date : 10!3/2006 Page No : 1 DE ANZA BLVD - - ------ HOMESTEAD RD - -- ------- DE ANZA BLVD HOMESTEAD RD Southbound Westbound Northbound Eastbourid SfartTime RI hl Thru Left Peds ,... R' hl Thru Left Peds ,.m R hl Thru Lett Peds t.., Ri ~ Thru Left Peds u`~ m.Tm.~ Factor 1.D 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.D 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.D 1.0 1.0 1.0 05:00 PM 63 395 78 0 536 17 76 64 0 157 97 192 61 1 351 77 110 37 8 232 1276 05:15 PM 67 441 .75 0 583 45 125 73 0 243 162 328 128 0 616 B6 123 47 3 259 1703 05:3D PM 52 456 68 0 576 41 !21 92 0 254 162 321 137 1 621 82 128 32~ 1 243 1694 05;45 PM 74 487 91 0 652 42 i13 67 0 222 168 327 131 4 630 83 142 41 6 272 1776 Total 256 1779 312 0 2347 145 435 296 0 876 589 11s3 457 6 2220 328 503 157 18 1006 6449 06:00 PM 81 471 84 0 636 37 120 85 0 242 172 323 171 2 668 93 146 46 1 286 1832 06:15 PM 95 487 101 0 683 31 113 85 0 229 201 3D8' 139 19 667 61 166 47 5 299 1878 06:30 PM 96 526 96 0 718 40 102 B6 0 228 131 319 140 0 590 76 107 49 1 233 1769 06:45 PM 97 457 112 0 666 42 118 72 0 232 103 293 108 7 511 75 99 43 0 217 1626 Total 369 1941 393 0 2703 150 453 326 0 931 607 1243 556 28 2436 325 518 185 7 1035 7105 Grand Tol al 625 3720 705 0 505D 295 688 624 0 1807 1166 2411 1015 34 4656 653 lozt 342 25 2D41 13554 ~ ( ApprCh /0 124 73.7 14 0 ~ 18.3 49,1 34.5 D ~ 25,7 51.8 21.8 0.7 ~ 32 5D 16.8 ~ 1.2 Total % 4.6 27.4 5.2 0 37.3 2.2 6.6 4.6 0 13.3 6:8 17.8 7.5 0.3 34.4 4.8 7.5 2.5 02 75.1 DE ANZA reaK rlourAnaiysts From 05:00 PM to D6:45 PM -Peak 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Seains at D5~45 PM RD I DE ANZA 05:45 PM 74 487 91 0 652 42 113 67 0 222 168 327 131 4 630 83 142 41 6 272 1776 D6:00 PM 61 ~ 471 84 0 636 37 120 B5 D 242 172 323 171 2 668 93 146 46 1 266 1832 06:15 PM 95 487 101 0 683' 31 113 85. 0 229 2D1 306 139 19 667 81 166 47 5 299 7876 06:3D PM 96 526 96 0 716 40 102 BB 0 228 131 319 140 0 590 76 107 49 1 233 1769 Tolal Voliane 346 1971 372 0 2689 ~ 150 448 323 0 921 672 1zn 581 25 2555 333 561 183 13 1090 7255 s:noa.7ae1 12.9 73.3 13.8: 0 16.3 46.6 35.1 0 28.3 50 227 1 30.6 51.5 16.6 1.2 PHF .901 .937 .921 .000 .936 .893 .833 .939 .DOD .951 .836 .976 .849 .329 .956 .895 .845 .934 .542 .911 .966 AM Peak-Hour Volume Count Worksheet Date: 7/17/07 Counter. Patti and Byron Intersection Name: liomeslead Rd. and N. Blaney Ave. Weather. Clear .Nnne Flnme~fuarl Start Time 7:00 7:15 7:30 7:45 8:00 8:15 8:30 8:45 9:00 N Rhnnv 17x1 AUTO-CENSUS Tragic Monitoring and Analysis 870 Castlewood Dr. #1 Los Gatos, CA 95032 Phone 408-826-9673 .Fax 408-677-162 ' ~ ••._No[th~A roach' : .__ _. •East'A roach_ . ~_ ~ ~ .:` SoUth~A- ',roach' _: __' _`__ _;Qllest:9 roacb;_ i._:~._.~." Ri ht Thru Left Total Ri ht Thru Left Total Ri ht Thru Left Total Ri ht Thru Left Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0_ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 66 9 75 20 0 18 38 8 48 0 56 0 0 0 0 0 173 19 192 36 0 39 75 23 100 0 123 0 0 D 0 0 297 31 328 67 0 73 14l) 33 176 0 208 0 0 0 0 0 434 53 487 105 0 122 227 41 282 0 323 0 0 0 0 0 592 78 670 143 0 200 343 56 385 0 441 0 0 0 0 0 742 98 841 183 0 238 421 81 496 0 577 0 0 0 0 0 914 125 1,039 243 0 310 553__ 100 863 0 763 0 0 0 0 0 1,159 151 1,310 287 0 353 G40 124 813 0 937 Peak~Hour -R.~ght ',Thru:. • ; Left: 'Total .; ~ .Right "~ ~.Thru~ Ceft~ ~ Total `Right': Thru ~ LGftC ' ` -Total `Right ' Th[u' ~ 'Left' TotaP PK Hour 7:00 - 8:00 0 0 0 d 0 434 53 487 105 0 122 227 41 282 0 323 1,037 7;15 - 8:15 0 0 0 0 0 52G 69 595 123 0 182 305 48 337 0 385 1,285 730 - 8:30 0 0 0 0 0 569 80 649 147 0 199 346 58 396 0 454 1,449 7:45 - 8:45 0 0 0 0 0 617 94 711 176 0 237 413 67 d88 0 555 1,679 8:00 - 9:00 0 0 0 0 0 725 98 823 182 0 231 413 83 531 0 614 1,850 Peak Volumes: 0 0 0 0 D 725 98 823 182 0 231 413 83 531 0 614 1,850 c~ Cut and Paste ~ `, " N64_; .. 'NBT ~:.•_°_NBR i; ' ' BC.:. {-.$85"'' ..56R~''~ _"'EBL:; : ' .'EBT ' .:'EBR.':..:..W..t3L~; `__WBI~ _ '.° W..BR_.`. 231 0 182 0 0 0 0 531 83 98 725 0 None' ro w N E 0 x Ous In Tota 0 0 0 Right T ru Left D. 0 0 o t•- 0 ~ v1 '- JI o N o ~ ~ w -I Im w I ~ a ;, ~ .- ~ v ~ -~ 2 eo w~ (s OI m °, ~ w m x I~ ~ w to 231 0 182 LefS Thru Ri lit 181 413 594 Out In Total 2 0 m to a N. Blaney Rd. PM Peak-Hour Volume Count Worksheet Date: 7117/07 Counter. Matt andJavme Intersection Name: Homestead Rd. and N. Blanev Ave, Weather. Clear Nnn u..».....~....-~ o.~ Start Time 4:00 4:15 4:30 4:45 5:00 5:15 5:30 5:45 6:00 AUTO-C~IVSUS Traffic MoniCor/ng and Ana/ysis 870 Castlewood Dr, # 1 Los Gatos, CA 95032 Phone 408-826-9673 Fax 408-877-162: `• _ ~;•North~A ':roach . ,~:.. _,._.East~A'`" roach; _ ~~~-SouthA toach:_:~_ __:~~'_; • .. _ WestA roach_.__' ', Ri ht Thru Left Total Ri ht Thru Left Total Ri ht Thru Left Total Ri ht Thru Left Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 125 26 151 20 0 35 55 36 142 0 778 0 0 0 0 0 264 49 313 41 0 60 101 68 27b 0 343 0 0 0 0 0 367 76 463 78 0 93 171 114 429 0 543 0 0 0 0 0 521 112 633 119 0 125 244 155 603 0 758 0 0 0 0 0 683 151 834 189 0 1.45 314 207 860 0 1,067 0 0 0 0 0 845 182 1,027 203 0 175 378 250 1,052 0 1,302 0 0 0 0 0 1039 236 1,275 246 0 203 449 294 1,303 0 1,597 0 0 0 0 0 1,202 290 1,492 277 0 233 510 348 1517 0 1,865 P„eak:Hour ', ~~,~tighb' Thru:. "" '-Leif. ''TptalT ;`. ;Right Thai i'6eft,~'~ 'Total •-~;Rlgfif' =Thru~:" ';Leff::', •ifotaf: :Right '~T.hru' "' `heft' Total PKHo 4:00 - 5:00 0 0 0 0 0 521 112 633 119 0 125 244 155 G03 0 758 1,63°. 4:15 - 5:15 0 0 0 0 0 556 125 683 149 0 110 259 171 718 0 889 1,831 4:30.5:30 0 0 0 0 0 581 133 71d 162 0 115 277 182 777 0 959 1,95( 4:45-5:45 0 0 0 0 0 652 160 812 168 0 110 278 180 874 0 1,054 2,144 5:00-6:00 0 0 0 0 0 681 178 859 158 0 108 Z6G 193 914 0 1,107 2,231 ak Volumes: 0 0 0 0 0 681 178 859 158 0 108 266 193 914 0 1 107 2 237 N .. _ Cut and Paste ~ 'NBL' ~ '` NBT ""NBR't. ,'BdL- ~; <'~SBT' ~ i:56R i ~ s"EB -~*': ~;''EBT~~- :`.EBR: ' :..WBL :_ __'YVB:I` ,° ,'~WBR~ :~ 108 0 158 0 0 0 0 914 193 178 681 0 None ti a v d E x 1D ~ JI o ~ r r F- ~ ~ m .c c~ ) ~ ~ ~ R' r O ~7 j I ~ ~ I ~ ~ I7 r- V I~ lO O D N Ous In Tota 0 0 0 Right hru eft 0 0 0 N 108 0 156 Left Thru Rialit 371 266 637 Out Total North Blanev Ave. x 3 N d a a AM Peak-Hour Volume Count Worksheet . Date:7/17/07 Counter. Jane and Lonan Intersection Name: Homestead and Wolfe Weather. Clear Wnifo Rri Hmm~efo~rl Rrl Start Time 7:00 7:15 7:30 7:45 8:00 8:15 8:30 8:45 9:00 Wnlfo Rr1 AUTO-CLsIYSUS Trahic Monitoring and Ana/ysis 870 Castlewood Dr. # i Los Gatos, CA 95032 Phone 408-826-9673 Fax 408-877-162 Nmm~efmd Rd . _ ..North A _ . roach! ' _ .. :?Ea~t'A roach • " .:. __._:. __.:...... ,:S.buth.A roach'.' . .. _.:,~ . ~_ _._~_tNest A _ .. roach___. -~ _ _ Ri ht Thru Left Total Ri ht Thru Left Total Ri ht Thru Left Total Ri lit Thru Left Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 102 .6 115 6 48 30 84 25 115 35 175 24 39 16 79 16 232 _ 16 264 21 109 72 202 67 254 69 390 46 85 27 158 26 422 36 _484 42 202 123 367 118 406 128 652 78 158 49 285 45 574 61 670 57 282 164 503 180 557 167 904 122 255 65 442 62 777 80 9.19 73 364 216 873 237 779 215 1,231 180 340 90 610 74 921 106 1,101 92 477 252 821 288 _ 972. 280 1,540 213 436 113 762 97 1,122 140 1,359 119 569 314 1,022 360 1.,219 352 1,931 271 665 149 985 113 1289 164 1,566 132 733 357 1,222 432 1,411 406 2,249 310 G88 188 1,18G P.eali;Hour'-` , '-Right '•TtiPu 'Left . ,."TotaP :;':.Right .:" Thru ' ' 'Left,,; ~ :. .Total RighF ThPU,; ~ :,Left '. 'Total ,~, Right Thru L-eft Total PK Hour 7:00 - 8:00 45 574 51 670 57 262 164 503 180 557 167 904 122 255 65 442 2,519 7:15 - 8:15 55 675 74 804 67 336 186 589 212 664 180 1,056 156 301 74 531 2,980 7:30 - 8:30 58 689 90 837 71 368 180 619 221 718 211 1,150 167 351 8G 604 3,210 7:45 - 8:45 71 700 104 875 77 387 191 655 242 813 224 1,279 193 407 100 700 3,509 8:00 - 9:00 68 715 113 896 75 451 193 719 252 854 239 1,345 188 433 123 744 3,704 Peak Volumes: G8 715 113 896 75 451 193 719 252 854 239 1 345 188 433 123 744 3 704 CO w Cut and Paste ~.'NBL• ..;_NBt`.c`NBR_.::~°$Bt:'_._'+SBT;',~`:SBR'e:_.~.~EBk•°".`i~:EBT~.~::.EBR' -WBL,."_ WB_7=;: ~WBR.. 239 854 252 113 715 68 123 433 188 193 451 75 'O v ro w E 0 2 Wolfe Rd. ' Out I~r o a 1,D52 89G 1,948 Right ~ G8 775 113 r v io of ~ ~ t~ ~ ~ w ~, I~ W (O C 239 854 252 Left Thru Right ' 1,096 1,345 2,441 Out In otal Wolfe Rd. S O 3 d a a PM Peak-Hour Volume Count Worksheet Dale: 7/17/07 Counter. Kevin So and Huy Iniersecllon Name: Wolfe Rd. and Homestead. Rd. Weather. Clear Wnlfw RA- HnmaefaarL Rd Start Time 4:00 4:15 4:30 4:45 5:00 5:16 5:30 5:45 6:00 Wnlfo RrI AUTO-CENSUS Tretfrc Monilnring and Ana/ysis 870 Castlewood Dr. /E1 Los Gatos, CA 95032 Phone 408-826-9673 Fax 406-877-162: Nnmoefoarl Rrl .:: North_A _ _ .= roach:. ~ ' . : '~ _~_.__'East A . roach ._ , ..~ __.... _ , _ :___ ,_$outh~A oaCh_ • ...:_ __. ~ ' .... _ . ~WesCA roach::.. _....._.. Ri ht Thru Lett Total Ri ht Thru Left ~ Total Ri ht Thru Left Total Ri ht Thru Left Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 26 188 23 237 17 114 42 173 37 120 39 196 38 109 31 170 45 405 57 507 41 227 98 366 55 221 106 382 72 20G 50 328 63 638 99 8.00 66 317 151• 534 84 367 159 610 122 316 76 514 83 845 132 1060 85 407 194 686 114 509 ZO6 829 16G 414 110 690 98 1 087 171 1,356 109 530 278 917 140 657 267 1,064 218 553 156 827 136 1389 203 1,728 131 677 357 1,165 179 844 345 1,368 279 700 192 1,171 193 1,663 247 2103 146 816 436 1398 210 1,002 414 .1,626 328 844 225 1,397 229 1,972 290 2,491 174 981 525 1,680 232 1162 466 1,860 378 970 268 1,616 Peak,Houi•. ' : -'Right . - Thru• Left" . `Totah RighE Thru, _' Left :Total. 'Right - . Thru " "":.Left: - ° Total " .Right Thru Left 'Total PK Hour 4:00 - 5:00 83 845 132 1,060 85 407 194 686 114 509 20G 829 166 414 110 690 3,265 4:15 - 5:15 72 899 148 1,119 92 416 236 744 103 537 228 868 160 444 125 749 3,480 4:30 - 5:30 91 984 146 1,221 90 450 259 799 124 623 239 986 207 494 142 843 3,849 4:d5-5:45 130 1,025 148 1,303 80 499 285 884 126 635 255 1,016 206 528 149 883 4,066 5:00-8:00 14G 1,127 158 1,431 89 574 331 994 118 653 260 1,031 212 556 158 926 4,382 Peak Volumes: 146 1 127 158 1 431 89 574 331 994 118 653 260 1 031 212 556 158 926 4 362 (V1 Cut and Paste - ';NBL ` •' 'NBT ..: NB13_:' ; :SBL _ ~.SBt .: ,"SBR..' : ' EBL;_. : _~BT; .::EBR. ..WBI: ; ?_' WBT'..' = WBR_ 260 653 118 158 1 127 148 158 556 212 331 674 89 Wolfe Rd. v m N d E O Z O~ In Total 900 1431 2,331 Right vu Left 146 1127 158 ~I ~ O ~ $ ~I ~ ~ N ~ ~ ~ J ~ i I~ ~ C~ ~ t I ~ a IC a Ij h - OI L~ j IN W IO ~ ~ N ''~' N C 260 653 118 Left Thru i h 1,670 1,031 2,701 Out Total Wolfe ttd. x 0 9 m N d {1 a AM Peak-Hour Volume Count Worksheet Date: 7/17107 Counter. Alvan and Nooc Inlerseclion Name: Wolfe and Pruneridae Weather. Clear Wolfe Pnmarirtnn Start Time 7:00 7:15 7:30 7:45 8:00 8:15 8:30 8:45 9:00 Wnifn nu•ro-cr.NSUs Trellic Monitoring and Ana/ysis 870 Castlewood Dr. #1 Los Gatos, CA 95032 Phone 408-826-9673 Fax 408-877-162 PrunaridnP ._ .._,North'A roach .". _..;. ... _: _ EaStA roach.. _ , _ ..,_ _ ___ South A ". [oacb._:__ _._'~:: ~` . _V,IIetaA roach... Ri ht Thru Lett Total Ri ht Thru Left Total Ri ht Thru Left Total Ri ht Thru Left Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 _ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 170 7 178 6 3 21 30 _ 40 161 10 231 12 4 4 20 6 351 14 371 23 7 37 67 •79 414 19 512 20 9 11 40 11 607 21 639 37 9 70 116 135 651 31 817 35 15 14 64 18 867 39 924 57 11 116 184 206 940. 55-_.. 1,200 62 24 21 107 19 1,111 58 1,188 80 13 158 251 286 1 229 67 1,b81 79 41 29 149 • 22 1,393 71 1,486 103 17 198 318 386.. 1,536 90. .2,012 102 51 40 183 27 1.,695 90 1,812 124 23 238 385 476 1903 118 .2,497 134 54 51 239 30 1,961 103 2,094 138 32 280 450 590 2,289 145 3,024 152 65 G5 272 Peaki_ our. " .. ,: Right. -Thru ': eft ":Total ` ; Rlght ,-::.Thru "''';Left.. Total'.. , Rlght . ' .Thru" • ; Left -` Total • • Right " "Thru' t_eft: Total PK Hour 7:00 - 8:00 18 867 _ 39 924 57 19 116 184 205 940 55 1,200 62 24 21 107 2,415 7:15-8:15 18 941 51 1,010 74 10 137 221 245 1,048 57 1,350 G7 37 25 129 2,710 7:30 - 8:30 i6 1,042 57 1,115 80 10 161 251 307 1,122 71 1,500 82 42 28 153 3,019 7:45-8:45 i6 1,088 69 1,173 87 14 168 269 341 1,252 87 1,680 99 39 37 175 3,297 8:00-9:00 12 1,094 64 1,170 81 21 164 266 385 1,349 90 1,824 90 31 44 165 3,425 Peak Volumes: 12 1 094 64 1 170 81 21 164 266 305 1 349 90 1 824 90 31 44 1115 3 425 cn cc _ Cut and Pasle ~~_ EBL":: :: ~.:., :__ R~ . .` WBL_. ' -:WBT~ . ~• WBR:.: NBL ' : NBT _: BR " SBL ;_ ~;: 5 7:::,' '_ SBR 90 1 349 385 64 1 094 12 44 31 90 164 Z1 81 Wolfe b C 7 a Out In Tota 1,474 1170 2,644 Ri Thru Left 12 1094 64 CI to ~ L hl ~ 07 N -a I2 N Obi _ '~ C 7 7 Q I r ~{ ~ I I IO ~p O ~ a p ~ o ~ 90 1349 385 Left Thru Rialit 1,348 1,824 3,172 " Out In Total Wolfe PM Peak-Hour Volume Count Worksheet Date: 7/17/07 Counter: Shaun and Kristen Intersection Name: Wolfe Rd. and Pruneridoe Ave. Weather: Clear w.,1re a~~~.,o~a.~„e Start Time -0:00 4:15 4:30 4:45 5:00 5:15 5:30 5:45 6:00 w..ire AUTO-census Traffic Moni[aring and Ana/ysis 870 Castlewood Dr. S1 Los Gatos, CA 95032 Phone 408-826-9673 Fax 408-877-162 o~.....,~:,~.. " _ NortH~A roach,. _ , _ , . _ _..' •East A , roach _ _ " South A roach- .. : We9t A ", roach:. . Ri ht Thru Left Total Ri ht Thru Left Total Ri ht Thru Left Total Ri ht Thru Left Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 237 22 265 14 4 72 90 ~9 207 41 277 27 3 7 37 11 484 35 530 25 11 131 167 53 392 94 539 60 5 15 80 19 723 49 791 34 18 183 235 85 601 132 818 84 8 22 114 22 968 82 1072 46 31 274 351 119 808 181, 1,108 118 9 28 165 27 1 293 102 1,422 54 36 380 472 157 1,008 -225 1,390 144 10 34 188 32 1,664 117 1,813 70 50 487 607 208 1,247 2fi2 1,717 171 13 41 225 39 1,931 151 2,121 7Ci 59 596 731 257 1,497 307 2,061 207 18 47 272 46 2,283 200 2,529 83 72 689 844 296 1,750 352 2,398 234 23 52 309 ~.F'eaR:Hpur : :,Right ;:Thru' Leff Totai 'Right 'Thru. •:. Left: Total Right Thru Left .Total Righh Thru Left :Total PK Hour 4:00-5:00 22 968 82 1,072 46 31 274 351 119 808 181 1,108 118 9 28 155 2,686 4:15-5:15 21 1,05G 80 1,157 40 34 308 382 128 801 184 1,113 117 7 27 151 2,803 4:30 - 5:30 21 1,180 82 1,283 45 39 356 440 155 855 168 1,178 111 8 28 145 3,046 4:45-5:45 20 1,208 102 1,330 42 41 413 496 172 896 175 1,243 123 10 25 158 3,227 5:00-6:00 24 1,315 118 1,457 37 41 415 493 177 942 171 1,290 ~ it6 14 24 164 3,394 Peak Volumes: 24 1 315 116 1 457 37 41 415 493 177 942 171 1 290 116 14 24 154 3 394 (O rn Cut and Paste ..NFL. ' _ . NBT :: '_'NBR : ' 'SBI:: ,:56T:'.. . SBR ` `.' 'EBL. :EBT._ `.. EAR _ WBL_ • . W87.. . •W.BR'.. 171 942 177 118 1 315 24 24 14 116 415 41 37 Wolfe OI V w a In Tota 1,003 1457 2,460 i ht Thru Left 24 1315 118 F-I ,y JI N N V ~S N (0~ . ~ '. c ~ ~ ~I v ~ ~ I~ ~ w ~~ , m h d OI ~O N ~I 0 1 to T js, ' I W ID ~ 21 N .Y ~ 171 942 177 Lets Thru Ri ht 1,846 1,290 3,136 Out Total Wolfe Appendix B Level of Service Calculations 15 - 197 COMPARE Fri Od OS 1 2-0 2 3 0 2007 Page 31 Level Of Service Computation Reporf 2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Allemalive) E~dsfing AM Intersection #1: De AnzalHomestead Signal=ProtecURi ghis=lndude Final Vol: 398 1135"' 176 La nes: 0 1 2 0 2 Signal=ProteG Signal=Prated Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include VoI Cnt Date: 10rb12006 Rights=lndude Lanes: Final Vol: ~ Cyc le Time ( sec): 116 226 2 1 260 ~ Lo ss Time ( sec): 0 0 ~ ~ 0 345 2 ~ Critical V/C: 0.758 ~ 2 441 0 Avg Cril Del {secN eh): 40.1 0 369"' 1 ~ Avg Delay {serJveh): 347 ~ 2 40B"' LOS: C 7 Lanes: 2 0 3 0 1 Final Vol: 369^' 1621 196 Sigoal=Proted/Rights=lndude Street Name: De Anza Boulevard Homestead Roa d Approach: Nor th Bou nd South Bound East Bound We st Bound Movement : L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Volume Module: » Count Date: 3 Oct 2006 « AM Peak Base Vol: 369 1621 198 176 1135 398 226 345 369 408 441 260 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.DD 1.00 Initial Bse: 369 1621 198 176 1135 398 226 345 369 408 441 260 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 369 1621 198 176 1135 398 226 345 369 408 441 260 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: 369 1621 198 176 1135 398 226 345 369 408 441 260 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 369 1621 198 176 1135 398 226 345 369 408 441 260 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 Final Vol.: 369 1621 198 176 1135 398 226 345 369 408 441 260 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 0.91 0.85 0.92 0.87 0.87 0.92 0.95 0.85 0.92 0.95 0.85 Lanes• 2.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 2.22 0.78 2.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 3502 5187 1615 3502 3691 1294 3502 3610 1615 3502 3610 1615 Capacity P.nalysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.21 0.31 0.12 0.05 0.31 0.31 0.06 0.10 0.23 0.12 0.12 0.16 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.14 0.47 0.47 0.08 0.41 0.41 0.13 0.30 0.30 0.15 0.32 0.32 Volume/Cap: 0.76 0.67 0.26 0.67 0.76 0.76 0.50 0.32 0.76 0.76 0.38 0.50 Uniform Del: 48.9 24.2 18.9 53.1 30.1 30.1 47.7 31.8 37.3 47,8 30.6 32.0 IncremntDel: 6.8 D.7 0.2 6.3 1.7 1.7 0.8 0.2 6.8 6.2 0.2 0.7 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay 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 Delay/Veh: 55.7 24.9 19.1 59.4 31.8 31.8 48.6 32.0 44.1 54.0 30.8 32.8 IIser 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: 55.7 29.9 19.1 59.4 31.8 31.8 48.6 32.0 44.1, 54.0 30.8 32.8 LOS by Move: E C B E C C D C D D C C HCM2kAvgQ: 8 17 4 4 19 19 4 5 14 9 6 8 15 - 198 Traffix 7.8.0915 Copyright (c) 2005 Dowling Associates, loc. Licensed to Hexagm Trans. San Jose COMPARE Fri Od OS 12:02:80 2007 Page 3.2 Level Ot Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative) Background AM Intersection #1: De Anza/Homestead Final Vol: Lanes: Signal=Proled Final Vol: Lanes: Rig~hits=lndude 232 2 J 0 348 2 D 399'^ 1 Signal=ProlecURlghts=lndude 400 1166"' 176 0 1 2 D 2 ~~~ Vol Cnt Date: 10!312000 Cyde Time (ssc): 118 Loss Tims (sec): 0 Critical V/C: 0.787 Avg Crll Dsl (serJveh): 41.7 Avg Defay (sec/veh); 35.6 LOS: D Lanes: ~ 2 D 3 D 1 Final Vol: 375^' 1634 200 Signal=ProtecURights=lndude Street Name: De Anza Boulevard Approach: North Bound South Bound Movement: L- T- R L- T- R Min. Green: 0 D 0 0 0 0 ------------~---------------~f--------------- Volume Module: » Count Date: 3 Oct 2006 « P_' Base Vol: 369 1621 198 176 1135 398 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 369 1621 198 176 1135 398 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 Approved Tr: 6 13 2 2 33 2 Initial Fut: 375 1634 200 178 1168 400 User Adj: 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 PHF Volume: 375 1634 200 178 1168 400 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 375 1634 200 178 1168 400 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.OD 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 375 1634 200 178 1168 400 ------------ --------------- Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 0.91 0.85 0.92 0.88 0.88 Lanes: 2.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 2.23 0.77 Final Sat.: 3502 5187 1615 3502 3717 1273 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.11 0.32 0.12 0.05 0.31 0.31 Crit Moves: **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.14 0.46 0.46 0.07 0.40 0.40 Volume/Cap: 0.79 0.66 0.27 0.68 0.79 0.79 Uniform Del: 49.3 25.0 19.6 53.3 31.1 31.1 IncremntDel: 8.5 0.8 0.2 7.3 2.2 2.2 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 57.8 25.9 19.8 60.6 33.2 33.2 User DelAdj: 1.OD 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 57.8 25.9 19.8 60.6 33.2 33.2 LOS by Move: E C B E C C HCP'2 kAvgQ : 9 17 4 5 2 0 2 0 Signal=Protect Rights=lndude Lanes: Final Vol: 1 261 D 2 442 0 2 416"' Homestead Road East Bound West B L - T - R L - T ~j---------------~~--------- 0 D 0 0 0 Peak 226 345 369 408 441 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 226 345 369 408 441 0 0 0 0 0 6 3 30 8 1 232 348 399 416 442 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 232 348 399 416 442 0 0 D 0 0 232 348 399 416 442 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 232 348 399 416 442 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 0.92 0.95 0.85 0.92 0.95 2.00 2.OD 1.00 2.00 2.00 3502 3610 1615 3502 3610 0.07 0.10 0.25 0.12 0.12 **** **** 0.14 0.31 0.31 0.15 0.33 0.49 0.31 0.79 0.79 0.37 47.3 30.7 36.9 48.3 30.2 0.8 0:2 8.0 7.7 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 48.1 30.9 44.9 56.0 30.4 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 48.1 30.9 44.9 56.0 30.4 D C D E C 5 5 15 9 6 Fund - R ------~ 0 ------~ 260 1.00 260 0 1 261 1.00 1.00 261 0 261 1.00_ 1.00 261 ------~ 1900 0.85 1.00 1615 -----~ 0.16 0.33 0.49 31.6 0.7 0.0 1.00 32.3 1.00 32.3 C 8 15 - 199 Trarfix 7.8.0915 Copyright (c) 2005 DowUng Associates, Inc Licensed to Hexagon Trans. San Jose COMPARE Fri Dd 0512:02:5D 2007 Page 3- 3 Level Of Service Computation RepoA 20D0 HCM Operations (Future Volurn: Alternative) Project AM Intersection #i: De Anza/Homestead Signal=Proled/Rigttts=lndude Anal Vol: 40D 1168"' 18D lanes: 0 1 2 0 2 Signal=Protect Signal=Protect Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include VoI Cnl Date 10!32006 Rights=lndude Lanes: Anal Vol: 1 " Cyde Time (sec): 118 232 2 ,J - 1 262 Loss Time (sec): 0 0 350 2 ~ Crifipl V/C: 0,787 0 Avg Crit Del (serJveh): 41.7 399"' 1 ~ Avg Delay (seUveh): 35.7 LOS: D ~~~ Lanes: 2 0 3 0 1 Anal Vol: 375•" 16.34 2D2 Signal=ProtecVRigtrts=lndude Street Name: De Anza Boulevard Approach: North Bound South Bound Movement : L - T - R L - T - R ------------~---------------I~--------------- Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 Volume Module: » Count Date: 3 Oct 2006 « A) Base Vol: 375 1634 200 178 1168 400 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 375 1634 200 178 1168 900 Added Vol: 0 0 2 2 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 375 1634 202 180 1168 400 User Adj: 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 PHF Volume: 375 1634 202 180 1168 400 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 D 0 Reduced Vol: 375 1634 202 180 1168 400 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.06 Final Vol.: 375 1634 202 180 1168 400 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 0.91 0.85 0.92 0.88 0.88 Lanes: 2.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 2.23 0.77 Final Sat.: 3502 5187 1615 3502 3717 1273 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.11 0.32 0.13 0.05 0.31 0.31 Crit Moves: **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.14 0.46 0.46 0.08 0.40 0.40 Volume/Cap: 0.79 0.68 0.27 0.68 0.79 0.79 Uniform Del: 49.3 25.1 19.7 53.2 31.1 31.1 IncremntDel: 8.5 0.8 0.2 7.3 2.2 2.2 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 57.8 26.0 19.9 60.5 33.2 33.2 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 57.8 26.0 19.9 60.5 33.2 33.2 LOS by Move: E C B E C C HCN2kAvgQ: 9 18 4 5 20 20 D , 2 443 0 2 417"' Homestead Road East Bound West Bt L - T - R L - T ---------------~I---------• 0 0 0 0 0 2 Peak 232 348 399 416 442 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 232 348 399 416 442 0 2 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 232 350 399 417 443 1.00'1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 232 350 399 417 443 0 0 0 0 0 232 350 399 417 443 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 232 350 399 417 443 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 0.92 0.95 0.85 0.92 0.95 2.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 3502 3610 1615 3502 3610 0.07 0.10 0.25 0.12 0.12 **** **** 0.13 0.31 0.31 0.15 0.33 0:49 0.31 0.79 0.79 0.37 47.3 30.8 36.9 48.3 30.2 0.6 0.2 8.0 7.7 0.2 0.0 0.0 '0.0 0.0 0.0 1.D0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 48.1 30.9 44.9 56.0 30.4 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 48.1 30.9 44.9 56.0 30.4 D C D E C 5 5 15 9 6 >und - R ------ 0 ------ ~ 261 1.00 261 1 0 262 1.00 1.00 262 0 262 1.00 1.00 262 ------ 1900 0.85 1.00 1615 ------~ 0.16 0.33 0.49 31.6 0.7 o.o 1.00 32.3 1.00 32.3 C 815-200 Tratfrx 7.8.0915 Copyright (c) 2005 Dowling Assodates, Inc. Licensed fo Hexagon Trans. San Jose COMPARE Fri Od 05 12:02:50 2007 Page 3.4 Level Of Service Computaiion Report 2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Allemalive) Future Growth AM Intersection #1: De Anz~/Homestead Final Vol: Lanes: Signal=Prated Final Vol: Lans : Rights=lndude 240 2 0 `~ 362 2 ~ 0 412"' 1 Lanes: Final Voi: Signal=Prof ecVRi g hts =1nd u d e 414 1209"' 186 D 1 2 0 2 ~~~ Vof Cnf Date: n!a Cyde Time (sec): 11 B Loss Time (sec): 0 Cdfical VlC: O.BiS Avg Crit Del (sedveh): 43.2 Avg Delay (sedveh): 36.6 LOS: D ~~~ 2 0 3 0 1 366'« 1692 209 Signal=Proted/Rights=lndude Street Name: De Anza i Approach: North Bound Movement: L - T - R Min. Green: 0 0 0 Volume Module: Base Vol: 388 1692 209 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.OD 1.00 Initial Bs e,: 388 1692 209 Added Vol: 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 388 1692 209 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 388 1692 209 Redact Vol: 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 388 1692 209 PCS Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 388 1692 209 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 0.91 0.85 Lanes: 2.00 3.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 3502 5187 1615 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.11 0.33 0.13 Crit Moves: **** Green/Cycle: 0.14 0.46 0.46 Volume/Cap: 0.81 0.71 0.28 Uniform Del: 49.5 25.5 19.7 IncretnntDel: 10.4 1.0 0.2 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 59.9 26.5 19.9 User.DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 59.9 26.5 19.9 LOS by Move: E C B HCM2kAvgQ: 9 19 5 Signal=Prated Rights=lndude ~_ Lanes: Final Vof: 1 271 D 2 459 0 2 432'« Boulevard South Bound L - T - R 0 0 0 186 1209 414 1.0o i.oo l.oo 186 1209 414 0 0 D 0 0 0 186 1209 414 1.00 1.00 1.OD 1.00 1.00 1.00 186 1209 414 0 0 0 186 1209 414 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 l.oo l.oo 186 1209 414 1900 1900 1900 0.92 0.88 0.88 2.00 2.23 0.77 3502,3717 1273 0.05 0.33 0.33 **** 0.07 0.40 0.40 0.71 0.81 0.81 53.3 31.6 31.6 8.6 2.7 2.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 62.0 34.3 34.3 1.00 1.00 1.00 62.0 34.3 34.3 E C C 5 21 21 Homestead Road East Bound V7est Bc L- T- R L- T 0 0 0 0 0 240 362 412 432 459 l.oo l.o0 1.oa l.o0 1.00 240 362 412 432 459 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 240 362 412 432 459 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 240 362 412 432 459 0 0 0 0 0 240 362 912 432 459 l.oo l.o0 1.00 l.o0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 240 362 412 432 459 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 0.92 0.95 0.85 0.92 0.95 2.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 3502 3610 1615 3502 3610 0:07 0.10 0.26 0.12 0.13 **** **:* 0.13 0.31 0.31 0.15 0.33 0.51 0.32 0.81 0.81 0.39 47.4 30.9 37.4 48.5 30.4 0.9 0.2 9.8 9.4 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 48.3 31.1 47.2 57.9 30.6 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 48.3 31.1 47.2 57.9 30.6 D C D E C 5 5 16 10 7 >und - R ------ 0 ------ 271 l.oo 271 0 0 271 1.00 1.00 271 0 271 l.oo 1.00 271 ------~ 1900 0.85 1.00 1615 ------~ 0.17 0.33 0.51 31.8 0.8 0.0 1.00 32.6 1.00 32.6 C 815 - 201 Traffix 7.8.0915 Copyright (c) 2005 Dowling Associates, inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans. San Jose COMPARE Fri Od 0512:02:50 2007 Page 3- 5 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM OperaOOns (FuWre Volume Alternative) 6dsfing AM Intersection;+12: Homestead/Bianey Signal=ProtecURighls=lndude Final Vd: D 0 0 La nes: 0 0 D 0 0 Signal=Protect Signal=Protect Final Vd: Lanes: Rights=lndude Vol Cnl Dale: 7/172007 Rightslnclude Lanes: Final Vd: Cy cle Time (s ec): 100 0 0 ~ 0 D ~ Lo ss Time (s ecj: 0 0 ~ ~ D 531'° 1 ~ Critical VlC: 0.356 ~ 2 725 1 Avg Cdl Dal (sedv eh): 20.3 0 83 0 ~ Avg Delay(serheh): 15.B ~ 1 96"' LOS: H "~ 1 "~ 1 lanes: 1 0 0 0 1 Rnal Vol: 231^' 0 182 Signal=ProtecURights=lnrJude Street Name: Bl aney Avenue Homestead Road Approach: Nor th Bou nd Sou th Bound East Bound West Bound Movement : L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Volume Module: » Count Date: 17 Ju l 2007 « AM Peak Base Vol: 231 0 182 0 0 0 0 531 83 98 725 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: 231 0 182 0 0 0 D 531 83 98 725 0 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 231 0 182 0 0 0 0 531 83 98 725 0 user 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 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: 231 0 182 0 0 0 0 531 83 98 725 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 231 0 182 0 0 0 0 531 83 98 725 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 Final Vol.: 231 0 182 0 0 0 0 531 83 98 725 0 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.95 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.93 0.93 0.95 0.95 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 0.00 1.00 O.DO 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.73 0.27 1.00 2.00 0.00 Final Sat.: 1805 0 1615 0 0 0 0 3060 478 1805 3610 0 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.13 0.00 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 O.OD 0.17 0.17 0.05 0.20 0.00 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.3G 0.00 0.36 0.00 0.00 0.00 O.DO 0.49 0.49 0.15 0.64 0.00 Volume/Cap: 0.36 0.00 0.31 O.DO 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.31 0.00 Uniform Del: 23.5 0.0 23.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 15.9 15.9 38.0 8.1 0.0 IncremntDel: 0.3 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.8 0.1 0,0 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay Adj: 1.00 0.00 1.00 O.DO 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Delay/Veh: 23.8 0.0 23.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 16.0 16.0 38.8 8.2 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 Adj Del/Veh: 23.8 _ 0.0 23.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 16.0 16.0 38.8 8.2 0.0 LOS by Move : C A C A A A A B B D A A HCM2kAvgQ: 5 0 4 0 0 0 0 6 6 3 5 015-202 Traffix 7.6.0915 Copyright {c) 2005 Dowling Assodates, Inc Licensed to Hexagon Trans. San Jose COMPARE Fri Oct D5 12:02:50 2007 Page 3.6 Leve! Of Swice Computation RepoA 2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative) Background AM Intersection #2: Homestead/Blaney Signal=ProtecURights=Include Final Vol: 0 0 D L anes: 0 0 0 0 0 Signal=Protect Signal=Protect Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=lnGude Vol Cnl Dale: 7/172007 RighlS=Include Lanes: Final Vol: 0 D Cycle Time (sec): 100 0 D Loss Time (see): D j 533"' 1 ~ Crilical WC: 0.358 L 2 726 1 Avg Cril Del (sec/veh): 20.3 -#-~ 0 84 0 ~ Avg Delay {seGveh): 15.9 ~ 1 98••• LOS: B "~ Lanes: 1 0 0 0 1 Rnal Vol: 233'^ 0 162 Signal ~rolecl/Righls=Include Street Name: Blaney Avenu e Homestead Road Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement : L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 Volume Module: » Count Date: 17 Jul 2007 « AM Peak Base Vol: 231 0 182 0 0 0 0 531 83 98 725 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00' 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.OD 1.00 1.00 1.OD 1.00 Initial Bse: 231 0 182 0 D 0 0 531 83 98 725 0 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 Approved Tr: 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 1 D Initial Fut: 233 0 162 0 0 0 0 533 84 98 726 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 PA'r Volume: 233 0 182 0 0 0 0 533 84 98 726 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 D D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 233 0 182 0 0 0 0 533 84 98 726 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 Final Vol.: 233 0 182 0 0 0 0 533' 84 93 726 0 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.95 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.93 0.93 0.95 0.95 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.73 0.27 1.00 2.00 0.00 Final Sat.: 1805 0 1615 0 0 0 0 3056 482 1805 3610 0 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.13 0.00 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.17 0.17 0.05 0.20 0.00 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.36 0.00 0.36 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.49 0.49 0.15 0.64 0.00 Volume/Cap: 0.36 0.00 0.31 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.31 0.00 . Uniform Del: 23.5 0.0 23.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 15.9 15.9 38.0 8.1 0.0 IncremntDel: 0.3 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.8 0.1 0.0 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay Adj: 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Delay/Veh: 23.8 0.0 23.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 16.0 16.0 38.8 8.2 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: 23.8 0.0 23.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 16.0 16.0 38.8 8.2 0.0 LOS by Move: C A C A A A A B B D A A HCM2kAvgQ: 5 0 4 0 0 0 0 6 6 3 5 0 15-203 Traffix 7.8.0915 - Copyright {c) 2005 Dowling Associates, Ina Licensed to Hexagon Trens.. San Jose COMPARE Fri Od 0512:02:50 2007 Page 3.7 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations {Future Votume Alternative) Project AM Intersection #2: Signal=ProtecURights=lndude Fnal Vot: 0 0 0 Lan es: 0 0 0 0 0 Signal=Protect Signal=Protect Fria) Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: 7/1 72007 Rights=lndutle Lanes: Final Vol: Cyde Time (sac): 1 DO 0 0 0 0 Lo ss Time (s ec): 0 ~~ 0 ~` 0 536'^ i ~ Critical V/C: 0.359 ~ 2 729 1 ~ Avg Cdt Del (sedveh): 20.2 ~ - 0 84 D ~ Avg Dalay(sedveh): 15.8 ~ 1 96"' LOS: B " 1 Lanes: 1 0 0 0 1 Final Vol: 233"' 0 162 Signal=ProteeVRights=lndude Street Name: Bl aney Avenue Homestead Roa d Approach: 1Qor th Bound Sou th Bound East Bound We st Bo und Movement : L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Volume Module: » Count Date: 17 Ju l 2007 « AM Peak Base Vol: 233 0 182 0 0 0 0 533 84 98 726 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: 233 0 182 0 0 0 0 533 84 98 726 0 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 3 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 233 0 182 0 0 0 0 538 84 98 729 0 IIser 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 Adjs. 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: 233 0 182 0 0 0 0 538 84 98 729 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 233 0 182 0 0 0 0 538 84 98 729 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 NiLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.OD 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 233 0 182 0 0 0 0 538 84 98 729 0 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.95 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.93 0.93 0.95 0.95 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.73 0.27 1.00 2.00 0.00 Final Sat.: 1805 0 1615 0 0 0 0 3060 478 1805 3610 0 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: .0.13 0.00 0.11 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.18 0.16 0.05 0.20 0.00 Crit Moves: **** **** ***" Green/Cycle: 0.36 0.00 0.36 0.00 0.00 O.OD 0.00 0.49 0.49 0.15 0.64 0.00 Volume/Cap: 0.36 0.00 0.31 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.32 0.00 Uniform Del: 23.b D.0 23.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 15.8 15.8 38.1 8.1 0.0 IncremntDel: 0.3 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.8 0.1 0.0 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 D.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay Adj: 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 DelaylVeh: 23.9 0.0 23.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 15.9 15.9 38.9 8.2 0.0 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.OD 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 23.9 0.0 23.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 15.9 15.9 38.9 8.2 0.0 L05 by Move: C A C A A A A B B D A A HCM2kAvgQ: 5 0 4 0 0 D 0 6 6 3 5 015-204 Trafirx 7.8.0915 Copyright (c) 2005 Dowling Assodates, Inc. Licensed la Hexagon Trans. San Jose COMPARE Fri Od O5 72:0250 2007 Page 3.8 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Ailemative) Future Growth AM Intersection #2: Homestead/Blaney Signa I=ProleeURights=lncl ude Final Vol: 0 0 0 L anes: 0 0 0 0 0 Signal=Protect Signal=Protect Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=lndude Vol Cnt Date: Na Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol: Cyde Time (sec): tOD 0 0 D 0 0 Loss Time (sec): 0 p 557'^ 1 ~ Cdtipi V/C: 0.372 ~ 2 755 1 Avg Crit Del (sedveh): 20.4 0 B7 0 ~ qvg Delay (seGveh): 78.0 ~ 1 702"' LOS: 8 Lanes: 7 0 0 0 1 Flna lV01: 241"' 0 189 Signal=ProlecURights=lndude Street IJame: B laney Avenue Homestead Road Approach: North Sound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement : L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Min. Green: D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Volume Module: Base Vol: 241 0 189 0 0 0 0 557 87 102 755 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: 241 0 189 0 0 0 0 557 87 102 755 0 Added Vol: 0 0 0 D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0' PasserByVol: 0 0 .0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 0' Initial Fut: 241 0 189 0 0 0 0 557 87 102 755 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: 241 0 189 0 0 0 D 557 87 102 755 0 Reduct Vol: D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 241 0 189 D 0 0 0 557 87 102 755 D 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 Final Vol.: 241 0 189 0 0 0 0 557 87 102 755 0 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.95 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.93 0.93 0.95 0.95 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.73 0.27 1.00 2.00 0.00 Final~Sat.: 1805 0 1615 0 0 0 0 3060 478 1805 3610 0 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.13 D.DO 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.18 0.18 0.06 0.21 0.00 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.36 0.00 0.36 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.49 0.49 0.15 0.64 0.00 Volume/Cap: 0.37 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.00' 0.00 0.00 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.33 0.00 Uniform Del: 23.7 0.0 23.3 0.0 0.0 D.0 0.0 15.9 15.9 38.1 8.1 0.0 IncremntDel: 0.4 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 D.9 0.1 0.0 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay Adj: 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0:00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Delay/Veh: 24.1 0.0 23.6 D.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 16.1 16.1 39.0 8.2 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 Adj Del/Veh: 24.1 0.0 23.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 16.1 16.1 39.0 8.2 0.0 LOS by Move: C A C A A A A B B D A A HCM2kAvgQ: 6 0 4 0 0 0 0 6 6 3 5 0 15-205 Traffuc 7.8.0915 Copyright (c) 2005 Dowling A<_sociales, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans. San Jose CAMPARE Fri Od 0512:02:50 20D7 Page 3- 9 Leve! OI Service Computation Report 2DDD HCM Operations (Future Volurre Alternative) Existing AM Intersection #3: Homestead/VJolfe Signal=PratecURights=lndude Final Vol: b'B 715 1 i3"' Lanes: D 1 2 D 2 Signal=Ported Signal=Prted Final Vol: lanes: Rights=lndude Vol Cnt Date: 7/ 17/2007 Rights=lndude Lanes: Final Vot: Cy cle Time (sec): 120 123 1 ~ 0 75 Lo ss Terre (sec): 0 ~ 0 1 433"' 2 ~ Critical V/C: 0.496 ~ 1 451 0 Avg Cri1 Del (serJveh): 31.5 ~- 0 1 BB 1 ~ Avg Delay (serJveh): 32.1 ~ 1 193"' LOS: C '"~ 1 Lanes: 2 0 2 0 1 Final Vol: 239 854"' 252 Signal=ProlecVRighls=Include Street Name: Wolfe Road Homestead Road Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Volume Module: » Count Date: 17 Jul 2007 « AM Peak Base Vol: 239 854 252 113 715 68 123 433 188 193 451 75 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: 239 854 252 113 715 68 123 433 188 193 451 75 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 239 854 252 113 715 68 123 433 188 193 a_51 75 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00.1.00 1.00 1.D0 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: 239 854 252 113 715 68 123 433 188' 193 451 75 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 239 854 252 113 715 68 123 433 186 193 451 75 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1..00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.D0 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 Final Vol.: 239 854 252 113 715 66 123 433 188 193 451 75 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 0.95 0.85 0.92 0.90 0.90 0.95 0.95 0.85 D.95 0.93 0.93 Lanes: 2.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 2.74 0.26 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.71 0.29 Final Sat.: 3502 3610 1615 3502 4675 445 1805 3610 1615 1805 3030 504 Capacity Analysis Modul e: Vol/Sat: 0.07 0.24 0.16 0.03 0.15 0.15 0.07 0.12 0.12 0.11 0.15 0.15 Crit Moves• **** **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.17 0.48 0.48 0.07 0.37 0.37 0.14 0.24 0.24 0.22 0.31 0.31 Volume/Cap: 0.41 0.50 0.33 0.50 0.41 0.41 0.47 0.50 0.48 0.50 0.47 0.47 Uniform Del: 44.6 21.5 19.4 54.2 27.7 27.7 47.2 39.2 39.0 41.3 33.2 33.2 IncremntDel: 0.5 D.2 0.2 1.7 0.1 0.1 1.4 0.4' 0.9 1.0 0.3 D.3 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay 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 Delay/Veh: 45.1 21.7 19.7 55.9 27.8 27.6 48.6 39.6 40.0 42.3 33.5 33.5 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: 45.1 21.7 19.7 55.9 27.8 27.8 48.6 39.6 40.0 42.3 33.5 33.5 LOS by Move: D C B E C C D D D D C C HCN12 kAvgQ : 4 11 6 3 8 8 5 7 6 7 8 8 15 - 206 Traffix 7.8.D915 Copyright (c) 2005 Dowling Assodales, Inc. Licensed to Hezagan Trans. San Jose COMPARE Fri Oct D512:02:SD 2D07 Page 3.10 Level Of Service Compulagon Report 200D HCM Operations (Future Vdume Alternative) Background AM intersection #3: Homestead/Wolfe Final Vol: Lanes: Signal=Proted Final Vd: Lanes: Rights=Include 123 1 o _ J~ 433"` 2 0 194 1 Signal=Protect/Rights=Include 66 721 113"' 0 1 2 0 2 ~~~-~. Vd Cnf Date: 7117/2DD7 Cycle Time (sec): 12D Loss Time (sec): 0 Critical V/C: O.SDO Avg Crit Del (seclveh): 31.6 Avg Dalay (serJveh): 32.2 LOS: C ~,?~~ Lanes: 2 D 2 0 1 FlnalVd: 242 858"' 25b Signal=Proled/Righls=lndude Street Name: Wolfe Road Approach: North Bound South Bound Movement : L - T - R L - T - R ------------I---------------II--------------- Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 ------------I---------------II--------------- Volvme Module: » Count Date: 17 Jul 2007 « Base Vol: 239 854 252 113 715 68 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 239 854 252 113 715 68 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 Approved Tr: 3 4 4 0 6 0 Initial Fut: 242 658 256 113 721 68 User Adj: 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 PHF Volume: 242 858 256 113 721 68 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 242 858 256 113 721 68 PCE Adj: 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 Final vol.: 242 858 256 113 721 68 ------------I---------------II--------------- Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 0.95 0.85 0.92 0.90 0.90 Lanes: 2.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 2.74 0.26 Final Sat.: 3502 3610 1615 3502 4678 441 ------------I---------------II--------------- Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.07 0.24 0.16 0.03 0.15 0.15 Crit Moves: **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.17 0.48 0.48 0.06 0.37 0.37 Volume/Cap: 0.41 0.50 0.33 0.50 0.41 0.41 Uniform Del: 44.7 21.7 19.6 54.3 27.9 27.9 IncremntDel: 0.5 0.2 0.3 1.7 0.1 0.1 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 45.2 21.9 19.9 56.0 28.1 28.1 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 45.2 21.9 19.9 56.0 28.1 28.1 LOS by Move: D C B E C C HCM2kAvgQ: 4 11 6 3 8 8 Signal=Prated Rights=lndude Lanes: Final Vd: 0 75 1 1 451 ~- D 1 199"' Homest East Bound L - T - R II--------------- 0 0 0 II--------------- 4M Peak 123 433 188 1.00 1.00 1.00 123 433 188 0 0 0 0 D 6 123 433 194 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 123 433 194 0 0 0 123 433 194 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 123 433 194 11--------------- 1900 1900 1900 0.95 0.95 0.85 1.00 2.00 1.00 1805 3610 1615 11--------------- 0.07 0.12 0.12 **** 0.14 0.24 0.24 0.47 0.50 0.50 47.1 39.4 39.4 1.3 0.5 1.0 o.o o.o o.o 1.00 1.00 1.00 48.5 39.9 40.4 1.00 1.OD 1.00 48.5 39.9 40.4 D D D 5 8 7 'ad Road West Bound L - T - R II---------------I 0 0 0 II---------------I 193 451 75 1.00 1.00 1.00 193 451 75 0 0 0 6 0 0' 199 451 75 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 199 451 75 0 0 0 199 451 75 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 199 451 75 II---------------I 1900 1900 1900 0.95 0.93 0.93 1.00 1.71 0.29 1805 3030 504 0.11 0.15 0.15 ***v: 0.22 0.32 0.32 0.50 0.47 0.47 41.0 33.0 33.0 1.0 0.3 0.3 o.o o.o o.o 1.00 1.OD 1.00 42.0 33.3 33.3 1.00 1.00 1.00 42,0 33.3 33.3 D C C 7 8 8 15 - 207 TsfBx 7.8.D915 Copyright (c) 2005 Dowling Assoaates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans. San Jose COMPARE Fri Oct 0512:02.•50 2007 Page 3-17 Level Ot Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Dperations (FuWre Volume Altemalive) Projed AM Intersection #3: Homestead/Wojfe Signal=ProtacVRigMs=1 n cl ude Fnal Vol: 68 728 113^' Lanes: 0 1 2 0 2 Signal=ProteG Signal=Protect Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnl Date: 7/17/2007 Rights=lndude Lanes: Final Vol: ~ Cyde Time (sec): 120 128 1 D 75 Lo ss Time (s ec): 0 0 ~1 1 435^' 2 ~~ Critical VlC: 0.504 ~ 1 451 D Avg Cril Del (secN eh): 31.8 ~ 0 i44 1 ~ Avg Delay (seclveh): 32.4 ~ 1 204"' L OS: C I Lanes 2 0 2 D 1 Final Vol: 242 860"' 258 Signal=Proted/RigMs~n dud e Street Name: Wolfe Road Homestea d Roa d Approach: )for th Bound Sou th Bound Ea st Bound We st Bound Movement : L - T - R L - T - R ~ L - ~----- T - ------ R ----~~ L - ----- T ----- - R -----~ ------------~----- Min. Green: 0 ----- 0 -----~I 0 ----- 0 ---- 0 ------ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Volume Module: » Count Date: 17 Ju l 2007 « AM Peak Base Vol: 242 858 256 113 721 68 123 433 194 199 451 75 Growth Adj: 1.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 242 858 256 113 721 68 123 933 194 199 451 75 Added Vol: 0 2 2 0 5 0 5 2 0 5 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 Initial Fut: 242 860 258 113 726 68 128 435 194 204 451 75 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: 242 860 258 113 726 58 128 435 194 204 451 75 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 242 860 258 113 726 68 128 435 194 204 451 75 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 NiLF 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 Final Vol.: 242 860 258 113 726 68 128 435 194 204 451 75 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 0.95 0.85 0.92 0.90 0.90 0.95 0.95 0.85 0.95 0.93 0.93 Lanes: 2.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 2.74 0.26 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.71 0.29 Final Sat.: 3502 3610 .1615 3502 4681 436 - ~ 1805 1----- 3610 ----- 1615 -----~~ 1805 ----- 3030 ----- 504 -----~ ------------~---------- Capacity Analysis Modul -----~ e: ~----- ---- ----- Vol/Sat: 0.07 0.24 0.16 0.03 0.16 0.16 0.07 0.12 0.12 0.11 0.15 0.15 Crit Moves• **** **** *''** **** Green/Cycle: 0.17 0.47 0.47 0.06 0.37 0.37 0.15 0.24 0.24 0.22 0.31 0.31 Volume/Cap: 0.42 0.50 0.34 0.50 0.42 0.42 0.47 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.47 0.47 Uniform Del: 44.9 21.9 19.9 54.3 28.1 28.1 46.7 39.5 39.5 40.7 33.2 33.2 IncremntDel: 0.5 0.2 0.3 1.8 0.1 0.1 1.3 0.5 1.0 1.0 0.3 0.3 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay 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 Delay/Veh: 45.4 22.1 20.1 56.1 28.2 28.2 48.0 40.0 40.5 41.7 33.5 33.5 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 P.djDel/Veh: 45.4 22.1 20.1 56.1 28.2 28.2 48.0 40.0 40.5 41.7 33.5 33.5 LOS by Move: D C C E C C D D D D C C HCM2 k_~vgQ : 4 11 6 3 8 8 5 8 7 7 8 815 - 208 Traffix 7.8.0915 Copyright (c) 2005 Dowling Assodates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans. San Jose COMPARE Fri Oct 0512:02:50 20D7 Page 312 Level Of Service CompulaGOn Report 200D HCM Operelions (Future Volume Al temalive) Fulu2 Growth AM Intersection #3: Nomestead/Wolfe Signal=ProtecVRights=Include Final Vol: 70 752 117'•' Lanes: 0 1 2 0 2 Signal=Prolecl ~ Signal=Protect Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: nta Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol: ~ CyGe Time (sec): 120 132 1 D 76 Lo ss Time (sec): 0 0 ~~ ~ i 451•'• 2 ~ Critical WC: 0.522 ~ 1 467 0 Avg Grit Del (sedveh): 32.1 ~- D 201 1 ~ Avg Delay (secNeh): 32.6 ~ 1 211'° LOS: C Lanes: 2 0 2 D 1 Final Vol: 251 891"' 267 Signal=ProlecURigMs=lndude Street Name: Wolfe Road Homestead Road P_pproach: Nor th Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Volume Module: Base Vol: 251 891 267 117 752 70 132 451 201 211 467 78 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.OD 1.OD 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 251 891 267 117 752 70 132 451 201 211 467 78 Added Vol: 0 D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 251 891 267 117 752 70 132 451 201 211 467 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: 251 891 267 117 752 70 132 451 201 211 467 78 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 251 891 267 117 752 70 132 451 201 211 467 78 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.D0 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 Final Vol.: 251 891 267 117 752 70 132 451 201 211 467 78 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 190D 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 0.95 0.85 0.92 0.90 0.90 0.95 0.95 0.85 0.95 D.93 0.93 Lanes: 2.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 2.74 0.26 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.71 0.29 Final Sat.: 3502 3610 1615 3502 4684 436 1805 3610 1615 1805 3028 506 . ------------~----- Capacity Analysis ----- Nodul -----~~ e: ---- ------ ----- ~~---- ------- ----~~ ----- ----- -----I Vol/Sat: 0.07 0.25 0.17 0.03 0.16 0.16 0.07 0.12 0.12 D.12 0.15 0.15 Crit Moves: **** *** * **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.17 0.47 0.47 0.06 0.37 0.37 0.15 0.24 0.24 0.22 0.31 0.31 Volume/Cap: 0.43 0.52 0.35 0.52 0.43 0.43 0.49 0.52 D.52 0..52 0.49 0.49 Uniform Del: 45.0 22.1 20.0 54.4 28.3 28.3 46.9 39.7 39.7 40.9 33.4 33.4 IncremntDel: 0.5 0.3 0.3 2.2 0.2 0.2 1.4 0.6 1.3 1.2 0.3 0.3 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 O.D 0.0 0.0 Delay 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 Delay/Veh: 45.5 22.4 20.3 56.6 28.4 28.4 48.3 40.3 40.9 42.2 33.7 33.7 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.OD 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00. 1.00 1.D0 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 45.5 22.4 20.3 56.6 28.4 28.4 48.3 40.3 40.9 42.2 33.7 33.7 LOS by Move: D C C E C C D D D D C C HCM2kAvgQ: 5 12 6 3 8 8 5 8 7 7 9 915-209 Traffix 7.6.0915 Copyright (c) 2005 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans. San Jose COMPARE Fri Oct 0612.02:60 2007 Page 3.13 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCIJI Operations (Future Volume Alternative) Existing AM Intersection #4: WolfelPruneridge Signal=ProtecURights=lndude Final Vol: 12 1094 64"' Lan es: 0 1 2 0 1 Signal=Prolecl Signal=Protect Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=lndude ~ Vol Cnt Dale: 7/172007 cycle Time (sec): 120 Rights=lndude Lanes: Final Vol: 44 1 1 61 Lo ss Tirrw_ (sec): 0 0 ~~ 0 31"' 0 ~ Critical V/C: 0.528 ~ 1 21 1 -.-~- Avg Cril Del (serJveh): 17.7 ~f 0 90 0 ~ Avg Deley (seclveh): 16.4 ~ 2 164^' LOS: 8 Lanes: 2 0 2 0 1 Final Vd: 90 1349"' 0 Signal=Proled/Riphls=Ignore Street Name: Wolfe Road Pruneridge Approach: Nor th Bound South Bound East Bound West So und Movement : L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Nin. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 0 0 0 0 Volume Module: » Count Date: 17 Jul 2007 « AM Peak Base Vol: 90 1349 385 64 1094 12 44 31 90 164 21 81 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: 90 1349 385 64 1094 12 44 31 90 164 21 81 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 90 1349 385 64 1094 12 44 31 90 164 21 81 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00.1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 90 1349 D 64 1094 12 44 31 90 164 21 81 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 90 1349 0 64 1094 12 44 31 90 164 21 81 PCE Adj: 1.00. 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.OD 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 90 1349 0 64 1094 12 44 31 90 164 21 81 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: Adjustment: Lanes: Final Sat.: Capacity Ana Vol/Sat: Crit Moves: Green/Cycle: Volume/Cap: Uniform Del: IncremntDel: InitQueuDel: Delay Adj: Delay/Veh: User DelAdj: AdjDel/Veh: LOS by Move: HCM2kAvgQ: 1900 1900 0.92 0.95 2.00 2.00 3502 3610 lysis Modul 0.03 0.37 **** 0.08 0.71 0.31 0.53 51.8 8.2 0.6 0.2 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 52.4 8.4 1.00 1.00 52.4 8.4 D A 2 12 1900 1.00 1.00 1900 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 1.00 D.0 A 0 1900 1900 1900 0.95 0.91 0.91 1.00 2.97 0.03 1805 5120 56 0.04 0.21 0.21 *,~** 0.07 0.69 0.69 0.53 0.31 0.31 54.1 7.2 7.2 4.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 58.4 7.3 7.3 1.00 1.00 1.00 58.4 7.3 ?.3 E A A 3 6 6 1900 1900 0.95 0.89 1.00 0.26 1805 432 0.02 0.07 ,r**~ 0.07 0.14 0.33 0.53 52.8 46.3 1.5 2.3 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 54.3 50.6 1.00 1.00 54.3 50.6 D D 1900 0.89 0.74 1255 0.07 0.14 0.53 48.3 2.3 0.0 1.00 50.6 1.00 50.6 D 1900 1900 0.92 1.00 2.00 1.00 3502 1900 0.05 0.01 x*** 0.09 0.15 0.53 0.07 52.3 43.7 1.7 0.1 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 54.0 43.8 1.00 1.00 54.0 43.8 D D 1900 0.85 1.00 1615 0.05 0.15 0.33 45.5 0.8 0.0 1.00 46.3 1.00 46.3 D 2 5 5 4 1 315-210 Traffix 7.8.0915 Copyright (c) 2005 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans. San Jose COMPARE Fri OG 0512:02:50 2007 Page 3.74 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations (Future Volums Altemalive) Background AM Intersection #?4:1Nolfe/Pruneridge ' Sgnal=Prolect/Rights=lndude Final Vol: 12 1112 64"' Lanes: D 1 2 0 7 Signal=ProfeG Signal=Prated Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Dale: 7/17/2007 Rights=lndude Lanes: Final Vol: Cy de Time (s ec): 120 44 1 1 61 Lo ss Time (s ec): 0 D „~,_ ' 0 31 "' D ~- CrlUCal V/C: 0.545 ~ 1 21 1 - ~ Avg Cdt Del (sedveh): 19.0 ~ 0 105 D ~ Avg Delay (serJveh): 17.6 ~ 2 180`^ LOS: 8 Lanes: 2 0 2 0 1 Final Vol: 100 1361 "' 0 Signal=P roted/PJghts=lgnwe Street Name: Wolfe Road Pruneridge Approach: Nor th Bound South Bound E ast Bound West Bound Movement : L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 D 0 Volume Module: » Count Date: 17 Jul 2007 « AM Pea k Base Vol: 90 1349 365 64 1094 12 44 31 90 164 21 81 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: 90 1349 385 64 1094 12 44 31 90 164 21 81 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Approved Tr: 10 12 73 0 18 0 0 0 15 16 0 0 Initial Fut: 100 1361 458 64 1112 12 44 31 105 180 21 81 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 100 1361 0 64 1112 12 44 31 105 180 21 81 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 100 1361 0 64 1112 12 44 31 105 180 21 81 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 100 1361 0 64 1112 12 44 31 105 180 21 81 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.91 0.91 0.95 0.88 0.88 0.92 1.00 0.85 Lanes: 2.00 2.00 1.OD 1.00 2.97 O.D3 1.00 0.23 0.77 2.00 1.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 3502 3610 1900 1805 5121 55 1805 383 1297 3502 1900 1615 Capacity Analysis Modul e: Vol/Sat: 0.03 0.38 0.00 0.04 0.22 0.22 0.02 0:08 0.08 0.05 0.01 0.05 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.09 0.69 0.00 0.07 0.67 0.67 0.08 0.15 0.15 0.09 0.16 0.16 Volume/Cap: 0.32 0.54 0.00 0.54 0.32 0.32 0.31 0.54 0.54 0.54 0.07 0.31 Uniform Del: 51.4 9.1 D.0 54.4 8.4 8.4 52.1 47.3 47.3 51.9 42.5 44.2 IncremntDel: 0.6 0.3 0.0 5.2 0.1 0.1 1.2 2.5 2.5 1.9 0.1 0.7 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.OQ 1.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 52.0 9.4 0.0 59.6 8.4 8.4 53.3 49.6 49.8 53.8 42.5 44.9 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.OD 1.00 1.00 Adj Del/Veh: 52.0 9.4 0.0 59.6 8.4 8.4 53.3 49.8 49.8 53.8, 42.5 44.9 LOS by Move: D A A E A A D D D D p D Ht~ kAvgQ : 2 13 0 3 6 6 2 5 5 4 1 3 15 - 211 Tratfix 7.6.0915 Copyright (c) 2005 Dowling Assodates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans. San Jose COMPARE Fri Od 051202:50 2007 Page 3-15 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative) ProjeM AM Intersection #4: Wolfe/Pruneridge Signal=ProtecVRights=lndude Final Vol: 12 1112 64"' Lanes: 0 1 2 0' 1 Signal~roled Signal=Protect Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=lndude Vol Cnt Date: 7/17/20(17 Rights=lndude Lanes: Final Vol: Cyde Time (sec): 120 47 1 ~ 1 61 ~ Lo ss Time (s ec): 0 D _`~ 0 34'^ 0 ~ Critical V/C: 0.552 ~ 1 26 1 Avg Cril Del (seUv eh): 19.6 D 114 0 ~ Avg Delay (serJveh): 16.4 ~ 2 160"' LOS: 9 Lanes: 2 0 2 0 1 Final Vol: 114 1361"' 0 Signal~ProtecURights=Ignore Street Name: Wolfe Road Pruneridge Approach: North Bound Sou th Bound East Bound West Bo und Movement : L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 ------------ i---------- Volume Module: » Count ----- i i Date: ----- 17 Ju ---------- i i----------- l 2007 « AM Peak ---- t i ----- ----- ----- i Base Vol: 100 1361 458 64 1112 12 44 31 105 180 21 81 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: 100 1361 458 64 1112 12 94 31 105 180 21 81 Added Vol: 14 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 9 0 5 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 114 1361 456 64 1112 12 47 34 114 180 26 81 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 114 1361 0 64 1112 12 47 34 114 180 26 81 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 114 1361 0 64 1112 12 47 34 114 180 26 81 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 114 1361 0 64 1112 12 47 34 114 180 26 81 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.91 0.91 0.95 0.89 0.89 0.92 1.00 0.85 Lanes: 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.97 0.03 1.00 0.23 0.77 2.00 1.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 3502 3610 1900 1605 5121 55 1805 386 1295 3502 1900 1615 Capacity Analysis Modul e: Vol/Sat: 0.03 0.38 0.00 0.04 0.22 0.22 0.03 0.09 0.09 0.05 0.01 0.05 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.10 0.68 0.00 0.06 0.65 0.65 0.09 0.16 0.16 0.09 0.17 0.17 Volume/Cap: 0.33 0.55 0.00 0.55 0.33 0.33 0.30 0.55 • 0.55 0.55 0.08 0.30 Uniform Del: 50.5 9.7 0.0 54.5 9.4 9.4 51.4 46.5 4b.5 52.0 42.3 43.9 IncremntDel: 0.6 0.3 0.0 5.6 0.1 0.1 1.1 2.5 2.5 2.0 0.1 0.6 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 O.D 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 51.1 9.9 0.0 60.1 9.5 9.5 52.5 49.0 49.0 54.1 42.4 44.5 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: 51.1 9.9 0.0 60.1 9.5 9.5 52.5 49.0 49.0 54.1 42.4 44.5 LOS by Move: D A A E A A D D D D D D HCM2 kAvgQ : 2 13 0 3 7 7 2 6 6 4 1 3 15 - 212 Trafrix 7.6.0915 Copyright (c) 2006 Dowling Associates, Inc, Licensetl to Hexagon Trans. San Jose COMPARE Fri Oc10512:02:502DD7 Page 3.16 Level OF Service Computation RepoA 20D0 HCM Operations (Future Volume Allemative) Future Growth AM Intersection #4: Wolfe/Pruneridge Final Vol: Lanes: Signal=Protect Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=lndude 49 1 0 35^' 0 1 117 0 Lanes: Final Vol: Sigoal=ProlecVRights=Include 12 1151 66"' 0 1 2 0 1 ~~~ Vol Cnl Date: Na Cycle Time (sec): 120 Loss Time (sec): 0 Critical V/C: 0.571 Avg Crit Del (sedveh): 19.9 Avg Delay (serNeh): 16.6 LOS: B ~~~ 2 0 2 0 , 117 1410•'• 0 Signal=ProtecURights=lgnwe Street Name: Wolfe Road Approach: North Bound South Bc Movement: L- T- R L- T Min. Green: D 0 0 0 0 Volume Module: Base Vol: 117 1410 472 66 1151 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 117 1410 472 66 1151 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 117 1410 472 66 1151 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 117 1410 0 66 1151 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 117 1410 0 66 1151 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 117 1410 0 66 1151 ------------~---------------~f--------- Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: D.92 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.91 Lanes: 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.97 Final Sat.: 3502 3610 1900 1805 5128 Capacity Psialysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.03 0.39 0.00 0.04 0.22 Crit Moves: **** **** Green/Cycle: D.10 0.68 0.00 0.06 0.65 Volume/Cap: D.34 0.57 0.00 0.57 0.34 Uniform Del: 50.6 9.B 0.0 54.6 9.4 IncremntDel: 0.6 0.3 O.D 6.7 0.1 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 D.0 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 51.2 10.1 0.0 61.2 9.5 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 51.2 10.1 0.0 61.2 9.5 LOS by Move: D B A E A HCM2kAvgQ: 2 14 0 3 7 Signal=Protect Rights=lnGude ~~1~. T Lanes: Final Vol: 1 84 D 1 27 0 2 166"' >und - R 0 12 1.00 12 0 0 12 1.00 1.00 12 0 12 1.00 1.00 12 1900 0.91 0.03 53 0.22 0.65 0.34 9.4 0.1 0.0 1.00 9.5 1.00 9.5 A 7 Prune East Bound L - T - R 0 0 0 49 35 117 1.00 1.00 1.00 49 35 117 0 0 0 0 0 0 49 35 117 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 49 35 117 0 0 0 49 35 117 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 49. 35 117 1900 1900 1900 0.95 0.89 0.89 1.00 0.23 0.77 1805 387 1294 --------------- 0.03 0.09 0.09 **** 0.09 0.16 0.16 0.31 0.57 0.57 51.5 46.7 96.7 1.2 2.9 2.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 52.7 49.7 49.7 1.00 1.00 1.00 52.7 49.7 49.7 D D D 2 6 6 aridge West Bound L - T - R 0 0 0 186 27 84 1.00 1.00 1.00 186 27 84 0 0 ~0 0 0 0 186 27 84 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 186 27 64 0 0 0 186 27 64 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 186 27 84 1900 1900 1900 0.92 1.00 0.85 2.00 1.00 1.00 3502 1900 1615 0.05 0.01 0.05 **** 0.09 0.17 0.17 0.57 0.09 0.31 52.1 42.4 44.1 2.4 0.1 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 54.5 42.5 44.8 1.00 1.00 1.00 54.5 42.5 44.8 D D D 4 1 3 15-213 Traffa 7.6.D915 Copyright (c) 20D5 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans. San Jose COMPARE Fri Od 06 121)2SD 2007 Page 317 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operagons (FUiure Voluma Aitemapve) E>osting AAA Intersection #5: Wolfe/I-280 NB Ramp Signal=ProtecVRighls=Ignore Fnal Vol: D 629 0"' Lanes: D 0 2 0 0 Signal=Proled Signal=ProteG Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=lndude Vol Cnt Date: 10/32006 Rights=Include Lanes: Final \rol: Cyde Time (sec): 60 0 D 1 720^ ' D Loss Time (sec): D ,#~ 0 0 0 ~ Critipl V/C: 0.624 ~ 1! 0 0 Avg Cril Del (ser Jveh): 11.4 ~ 0 0 0 ~ Avg Delay (sec/veh): f 0.1 ~ 1 363 LOS: B L anes: 0 0 2 0 D Final Vol: 0 1320•" 0 ' Signal=Protect/Rights=Ignore Street Name: Wolfe Road I-280 NB Ramp Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound W est Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - ~R Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Volume Module: » Count Date: 3 Oct 2006 « AM Peak Base Vol: 0 1320 0 0 629 0 0 0 0 383 0 720 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 1320 0 0 629 D 0 0 0 383 0 720 Added Vol; 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 0 1320 0 0 629 0 0 0 0 383 0 720 User Adj: 1.00 1,00 0.00 1.00 1.00 O.DO 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 0 1320 0 0 629 0 0 0 0 383 0 720 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 1320 0 0 629 0 0 D 0 383 0 720 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 0 1320 0 0 629 0 0 0 0 383 0 720 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 1.00 0.95 1.OD 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 D. 89 1.00 0.89 Lanes: 0.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.35 0.00 1.65 Final Sat.: 0 3610 0 0 3610 0 0 0 0 2270 0 2784 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.37 0.00 0.00 0.17 D.OD 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.17 0.00 0.26 Crit Moves: **** **** ***: Green/Cycle: 0.00 0.59 0.00 0.00 0.59 0.00 0.00 O.OD . 0.00 0.41 O.OD 0.41 Volume/Cap: 0.00 0.62 0.00 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.41 0.00 0.62 Uniform Del: 0.0 8.1 0.0 0.0 6.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.4 O.D 13.9 IncremntDel: 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 O.D 0.0 D.1 0.0 0.7 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 D.0 0.0 0.0 Delay Adj: 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 0.0 8.7 0.0 0.0 6.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.5 0.0 14.6 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: 0.0 8.7 0.0 0.0 6.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.5 0.0 14.6 LOS by Move: A A A A A A A A A B A B HCM2kAvgQ;• 0 9 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 4 0 7 15 - 214 TraKz 7.8.0815 Copyright (c) 2005 Dowling Assodales, Inc Licensed to Hexagon Trans. San Jose COMPARE Fri Od OS 12:02:50 2D07 Page 3.18 Level Of Service Computation Report 2DD0 HCM Operations (Future Volume Altemafive) Background AM Intersection #5: Wolfe/I-280 NB Ramp Signal=ProlecURighis=Ignore Finat Vot: 0 678 0"' L anes: 0 0 2 D 0 Signal=Protect Signal=Proled Fnal Vol: Lanes: Rights=lndude Vol Cnt Date: 10/3/2D06 Rights=lndude Lanes: Final Vol: Cy cle Time (sec): 60 0 0 ~ 1 72D"' ~ Lo ss Tine; (sec): 0 0 ~ 0 0 0 ~ Cdtieal V/C: 0.638 ~ 1! 0 0 Avg Cril Del (sed veh): 11.6 0 0 0 ~ Avg D elay (sec/veh): 10.2 ~ 1 444 LOS: B "~'~ 1 lines: 0 0 2 0 0 Final Vol: 0 1352'° 0 Signal=ProlecURights=Ignore Street Name: Wolfe Road I-280 NB Ramp Approach: IJorth Bound So uth Bound East Bound West Bound Movement : L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Volume Module: » Count Date: 3 Oc t 2006 « AM Peak Base Vol: 0 1320 0 D 629 0 0 0 0 383 0 720 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.OD 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 1320 0 0 629 0 0 0 0 383 0 720 Added Vol: 0 0 D 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 0 0 Approved Tr: 0 32 0 0 49 0 0 0 0 61 0 0 Initial Fut: 0 1352 0 0 678 0 0 0 0 444 0 720 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 0 1352 0 0 678 0 0 0 0 444 0 720 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 1352 0 0 678 0 0 0 D 444 0 720 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 0 1352 0 0 678 0 0 0 0 444 0 720 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 190D 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1..00 1.00 0.89 1.00 0.89 Lanes: 0.00 2..00 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.38 0.00 1.62 Final Sat.: 0 3610 0 0 3610 0 0 0 0 2335 0 2736 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.37 0.00 0.00 0.19 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.19 0.00 0.26 Crit Moves: **** *** * **** Green/Cycle: 0.00 0.59 0.00 0.00 0.59 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.41 0.00 0.41 Volume/Cap: 0.00 0.64 0.00 0.00 0.32 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.46 0.00 0.64 Uniform Del: 0.0 8.2 0.0 0.0 6.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.8 ~0.0 14.0 IncremntDel: 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.8 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay Adj: 0.00 1.00 O.OD 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 0.0 8.8 0.0 0.0 6.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.9 0.0 14.8 .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: 0.0 8.8 0.0 0.0 6.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.9 0.0 14.8 L05 by Move: A A A A A A A A A B A 3 HCM2kAvgQ : 0 10 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 5 0 B 15 - 215 Traffix 7.8.0915 Copyright (c) 2005 Dowling Associates. Inc Licensed to Hexagon Trans. San Jose COMPARE FA Ocl 0512:0750 2DD7 Page 3-19 Level Of Service COmputalion RepoA 2000 HCM Operations (Future Vdume Alternative) Project AM Intellection #5: Wolfe/I-280 NB Ramp Signal=ProtecURights=Ignore Final Vol: D 6B5 D••• L anes: D O0 2 0 D + + ~ Signal~roted T T Signal=ProteU Fnal Vd: Lanes: Rights=lndude Vd Gnl Date: 10l3/2DD6 Rights~nclude Lanes: Rnal Vd; Cyde Time (sec): 60 0 0 1 723" ' Loss Time (sec): D 0 ,~_ 0 0 D ~ Criliwl V/C: 0.641 ~ 11 0 D ~ Avg Grit Del (sed veh): 11.6 ~ D 0 0 ~ Avg D elay (sedveh): 10.2 ~ 1 444 LOS: B L anes: 0 0 2 0 0 Final Vd: 0 1362"• 0 Signal=Proted/Rights=Ignore Street Name: Wolfe Road I-280 NB Ramp Approach: North Bo und South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement : L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Min. Green: 0 0 0 D 0 0 D 0 0 0 0 0 Volume Module: » Count Date: 3 Oct 2006 « AM Peak Base Vol: 0 1352 0 D 678 D 0 0 0 444 0 720 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 1352 0 0 678 0 0 0 0 444 0 720 Added Vol: 0 10 0 0 7 2 0 0 0 D 0 3 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 0 1362 0 0 685 2 0 D 0 444 0 723 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.OD 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 0 1362 0 D 685 0 0 0 0 444 0' 723 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 Reduced Vol: 0 1362 0 0 685 0 0 0 0 444 0 723 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.D0 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.D0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 0 1362 0 0 685 0 0 0 0 444 0 723 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 19D0 190D 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.89 1.D0 0.89 Lanes: 0.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.38 0.00 1.62 Final Sat.: 0 3610 0 0 3610 0 0 0 0 2334 0 2738 Capacity Psialysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.38 0.00 0.00 0.19 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.19 0.00 0.26 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.00 0.59 0.00 O.OD 0.59 0.00 0.00 O.DO 0.00 0.41 D.00 0.41 Volume/Cap: O.DO 0.64 0.00 0.00 0.32 O.OD 0.00 0.00 D.00 0.46 0.00 0.64 Uniform Del: 0.0 8.2 0.0 0.0 6.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.8 0.0 14.1 IncremntDel: 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.1 D.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.6 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay Adj: 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.D0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 0.0 8.8 0.0 0.0 6.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 13.0 0.0 14.9 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 Adj Del/Veh: 0.0 8.8 0.0 0.0 6.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 D.0 13.0 0.0 14.9 LOS by Move: A A A A A A A A A B A B FICM2kAvgQ: 0 10 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 5 0 8 15 - 216 Traffix 7.B.D915 Copyright (c) 2D05 Doffing Associates, lnc Licensed to Hexagon Trans. San Jose COMPARE Fri Od 0512:0250 2007 Page 3-2D Level Of Service Computation Repori 2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Al ternative) F uture Growth AM Intersection #5: Wolfe/1-280 NB Ramp Signal=ProtecURights=lgnore Final Vol: 0 70B 0"' Lanes: 0 0 T 2 0 0 Signal=Proted Signal=Prolea Final Vol: Lanes: Ri9h15=lndude j' Vol Cnl Cycle Time Dale: (sec): Na 60 Rights=lndude Lanes: Final Vol: J D 0 1 749" ' Lo ss Time (sec} 0 j 0 0 ' D o _~ Critical vic: os64 ~'- 1l 0 D Avg Crit Del (sed vehr 12.0 ~ D 0 0 ~ Avg Delay (serlvah): 10.5 ~ 1 456 LOS: B ~~ L anes: 0 0 2 0 D Final Vol: 0 1410"' 0 Signal=ProtecURights=Ignore Street Name: Wolfe Road I-280 NB Ramp Approach: IJorth Bound South Bound East Bound W est Bound Movement : L ------------~ - - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R --- Min. Green: 0 ------ 0 -----I~ 0 ---- 0 ------ 0 ----- 0 ~~---- 0 ------- 0 ----~~ 0 ---- 0 ------ 0 -----~ 0 Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 1410 265 0 708 594 0 0 0 458 0 749 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.OD 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 1410 265 0 708 594 0 0 0 458 0 749 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 Initial Fut: 0 1410 265 0 708 594 0 0 0 458 0 749 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 O.DO 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.OD 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 0 1410 0 0 708 0 0 0 0 458 0 749 Reduct Vol: 0 0 D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 1410 0 0 708 0 0 0 0 458 0 749 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: D 1910 0 0 708 0 0 0 0 458 0 749 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.89 1.00 0.89 Lanes: O.DO 2.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 D.DO 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.38 0.00 1.62 Final Sat.: 0 3610 0 0 3610 0 0 0 0 2332 0 2740 Capacity P.nalysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.39 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.00 0.27 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.00 0.59 0.00 0.00 0.59 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.41 0.00 0.41 Volume/Cap: O.DO 0.66 0.00 0.00 0.33 O.DO 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.48 0.00 0.66 Uniform Del: D.0 8.3 0.0 O.D 6.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.9 0.0 14.3 IncremntDel: 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.9 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 O.D 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay Adj: 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 O.DO 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: D.0 9.1 0.0 0.0 6.4 0.~0 0.0 0.0 0.0 13.1 D.0 15.2 User De_lAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ac1jDe1/Veh: 0.0 9.1 0.0 0.0 6.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 13.1 0.0 15.2 LOS by Move: A A A A A A A A A B A B xCM2kAvgQ: 0 10 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 5 0 8 15-217 Traifix 7.6.0915 Copyright (c) 2005 Dowling Assodates. Ine. Licensed to Hexagon Trans. San Jose COMPARE Fri Od 051202:SD 2007 Page 3-21 Level Ot Service Computa0on Report 20D0 HCM Operations {Future Vdume Alternative) Existing AM Intersection #6: Wolfe/1-280 SB Ramp Signal=ProlecUlZghls=Ignore Final Vd: D 731 0^' Lanes: D D 3 0 0 Signal=Proled Signal=Pled Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=lndude Vol Cni Dale: 10!312006 Rights=fndude Lanes: Final Vol: Cy cle Time ( sec): 60 561"' 2 '~ D D Lo ss Time ( sec): 0 ~ 0 D 0 0 ~ Crifiral V/C: 0.428 ~ 0 "' ~ D 0 ~~1. Avg Crit Del (serJveh): 8.9 ~ 0 154 2 ~ Avg Delay {sedveh): 7.9 ~ 0 0 LOS: A Lanes: 0 0 2 0 0 Final Vol: 0 965'^ 0 Signal=P~ted/Rights=Ignore Street Name: i4olfe Road I-280 SB Ramp Approach: IJorth Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement : L ---------- - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R --~---- Min . Green : 0 ------ D -----I~ D ---- 0 ------ 0 ----- 0 ~~---- 0 ------- 0 ----~ 0 ~---- 0 ------ 0 -----~ 0 Volume Nodule: » Count Date: 3 Oct 2006 « AM Peak Base Vol: 0 965 0 0 731 0 561 0 154 0 0 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.OD 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 965 0 0 731 0 561 0 154 0 0 0 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 0 965 0 0 731 0 561 0 154 0 0 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 O.OD 1.00 1.00 D.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 0 965 0 0 731 0 561 0 154 0 0 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 965 0 0 731 0 561 0 154 D 0 0 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 N1LF Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 D.DO 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 0 965 0 0 731 0 561 0 154 0 0 0 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 D.91 1.00 0.92 1.00 0.75 1.OD 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 0.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 3.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Final Sat.: 0 3610 0 0 5187 0 3502 0 2842 D 0 0 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.27 0.00 0.00 0.14 0.00 0.16 0.00 0.05 0.00 O.DO 0.00 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.00 0.63 0.00 0.00 0.63 0.00 0.37 0.00 0.37 0.00 0.00 0.00 Volume/Cap: O.DO 0.43 0.00 D.00 0.23 O.DO 0.43 0.00 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Del: 0,0 5.7 0.0 0.0 4.9 0.0 14.0 0.0 12.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 IncremntDel: 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 D.0 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 D.0 0.0 0.0 D.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay Adj: O.DO 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 D.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Delay/Veh: 0.0 5.9 0.0 0.0 4.9 0.0 14.2 0.0 12.5 0.0 0.0 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: D.0 5.9 0.0 0.0 4.9 D.0 14.2 0.0 12.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 LOS by Move: A A A A A A B ?~ B A A A HCM2kAVgQ: 0 5 0 0 2 0 4 0 1 0 D 0 15-218 Traffix 7.8.0915 Copyright (c) 2005 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans. San Jose ~MPARE Fri Oc10612:02:50 2007 Page 322 Leval Of Service Compub[ion Report ' 2000 HCM Operations (FuWre VoWme Alternative) Background AM intersection #6: Wolfe/I-280 SB Ramp Final Voi: Lanes: Signal=Profecl Final Voi: Lanes: Rights--Incude "' ~ 561 2 0 ` 0 D 0 210 2 Signal=ProtedlRights=Ignore 0 1121 0'-' 0 0 3 0 0 ~~~ Signal=Protect Vol Cnt Date: 10/32006 Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol: CyGe Time (sec): 60 0 D Loss Time {sec): D 0 Cri6ca1 V/C: 0.462 ~ 0 0 Avg Cril Del (sedveh): 6.6 0 Avg Delay {serJveh): 7.6 ~ 0 D LOS: A ~~~~>~ Lanes: 0 D 2 0 0 Final Vol: 0 1089"' 0 Signal=ProtecURignts=Ignore Street Name: Wolfe Road I-280 Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound Movement : L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------I---------------)I---------------II--------------- Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D ------------I---------------II---------------~~--------------- Volume Module: » Count Date: 3 Oct 2006 « a.M Peak Base Vol: 0 965 0 0 731 0 561 0 154 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.OD Initial Bse: ~ 0 965 0 0 731 0 561 0 154 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Approved Tr: 0 124 0 0 390 0 0 0 56 Initial Fut: 0 1089 0 0 1121 0 561 0 210 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1,00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 0 1089 0 0 1121 0 561 0 210 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 1089 0 0 1121 0 561 0 210 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 0 1089 0 0 1121 0 561 D 210 ------------I---------------II---------------II--------------- Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.92 1.00 0.75 Lanes: 0.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 3.00 0.00 2,00 0.00 2.00 Final Sat.: 0 3610 0 0 5187 0 3502 0 2842 ------------I---------------II---------------II--------------- Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.22 0.00 0.16 0.00 0.07 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.00 0.65 0.00 0.00 0.65 0.00 0.35 0.00 0.35 Volume/Cap: 0.00 0.46 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.46 0.00 0.21 Uniform Del: 0.0 5.2 D.0 0.0 4.6 0.0 15.2 0.0 13.8 IncremntDel: 0.0 0.1 D.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.1 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0,0 D.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay Adj: 0,00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1,00 Delay/Veh: 0.0 5.3 0.0 0.0 4.7 0.0 15.5 0.0 13.9 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Del/Veh: 0.0 5.3 0.0 0.0 4.7 0.0 15.5 0.0 13.9 LOS by Move: A A A A A A B A B HCM2kAvgQ: 0 6 0 0 4 0 5 0 2 5B Ramp west Bound L - T - R II---------------~ 0 0 0 II---------------~ 0 0 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0 0 0 ~I---------------I 1900 1900 1900 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 I---------------I O,OD 0.00 0.00 0.00 D.DO 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 O.D o.o o.o o.o D.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 A A A 0 D 0 15-219 Traffix 7.8.0915 Copyright (c) 2006 Dowling Associates, Inc. Ucensed to He>agon Trans. San Jose COMPARE Fri Od 0512:02:50 2007 Page 3.23 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations (Future Voltmw_ Allerna6ve) Projed AM Intersection ~6: Wolfe/I-28D SB Ramp Signal=Protect/Rights=Ignore Fnal Vol: 0 1125 D"' Lanes: D 0 3 D 0 Signal=ProleG Signal=Profed Final Vol: lanes: Rights=lndude Vol Cnl Dale: 1 D/32006 Rights=Jnclude Lanes: Fnal Vol: Cy de Time ( sec): 6D 564"' 2 ~ 0 D Lo ss Tirr>r ( sec): 0 0 ~ 0 """ "" D 0 ~ Critical V/C: D.465 iii~ ~ 0 0 0 Avg Crit Del (sec/ vah): 8.8 ~ 0 21 D 2 ~ Avg Delay (sedveh): 7.6 ~ 0 0 LOS: A 1 ~ ~ ~ I Lanes: 0 0 2 0 D Final Vot: 0 1096"' 0 Signal=Proted/Righls=Ignore Street Name: Wolfe Road I-280 SB Ramn Approach: North Bound South Bo und East Bound West Bound Movement : L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 0 0 0 0 Volume Module: » Count Date: 3 Oct 2D06 « AM Peak Base Vol: 0 1089 0 0 1121 0 561_ 0 210 0 0 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.OD 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 1089 0 0 1121 0 561 0 210 0 0 0 Added Vol: 0 7 0 0 4 2 3 D 0 D 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 0 1096 0 0 1125 2 564 0 210 0 0 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.OD 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.D0 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 D.00 1.00 1.00 D.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 0 1096 0 0 1125 0 564 0 210 0 0 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 1096 0 0 1125 0 564 0 210 D 0 0 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.D0 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 0 1096 0 D 1125 0 564 0 210 0 0 0 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.91 0.91 0.92 1.00 0.75 1.00 1.OD 1.00 Lanes: 0.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 3.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Final Sat.: 0 3610 0 0 5187 0 3502 0 2842 0 0 0 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.22 0.00 0.16 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.00 0.65 0.00 0.00 0.65 0.00 0.35 0.00 0.35 0.00 0.00 0.00 Volume/Cap: 0.00 0.'46 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.46 O.OD 0.21 0.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Del: 0.0 5.2 0.0 0.0 4.6 0.0 15.3 0.0 13.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 IncremntDel: 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 O.D 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay Adj: O.DO 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Delay/Veh: 0.0 5.3 0.0 0.0 4.7 0.0 15.5 D.0 13.9 0.0 0.0 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 5.3 0.0 0.0 4.7 0.0 15.5 0.0 13.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 LOS by Move: A A A A A A B A B A A A HCM2 kP.vgQ : 0 6 0 0 4 0 5 0 2 0 D 0 15 - 220 Traffix 7.8.0915 Copyright (c) 2005 Dowling Assodates, Inc, License0 to Hexagon Trans. San Jese COMPARE Fri Oct 0512:02.50 2007 Page 3.24 level OF Service Computation Repoli 2000 iicM OperaOOns (Future Volume Allemative} Future Growth AM Intersection #6: Wolfe/I-280 SB Ramp Signal=ProtecURighls~gnore Final Vol: 0 1151 0"' L anes: D 0 3 D 0 ~~ Signal=Protect Signal=Protect Rnal Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Cy Vol Cnl GeTime Dale: (sec): nfa 6D Rights=include Lanes: Final Vot: 584"' 2 D 0 ~ Lo u Time (sec): 0 D ~ 0 D 0 ~ Crigpl V/C: 0.480 ~ D 0 D Avg Cril Del (sed veh): B.9 D 218 2 ~ Avg Delay (serJveh): 7.7 ~ D 0 LOS : A "~ 1 I ~ ~ !'~' I Lanes: 0 0 2 0 0 Fnat Vol: D 1131"' 0 Signal=ProtecURigMS=Ignore Street Name: Wolfe Road I-280 S3 Ramp Approach: North Bou nd South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement : L ------------I-- - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R -- Min. Green: 0 ------- 0 ----~~ 0 ---- D ------ 0 ----- D I~----------- 0 0 ----~ 0 ~---- 0 ------ 0 -----~ 0 Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 1131 333 D 1151 257 584 0 216 0 0 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.OD 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.OD 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 1131 333 0 1151 257 584 0 216 0 0 0 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 0 1131 333 0 1151 257 584 0 216 0 0 0 User Adj: 1.OD 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 0 1131 0 0 1151 D 584 0 216 0 0 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 1131 0 0 1151 0 584 0 216 0 0 0 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 O.DO 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.OD 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 0 1131 0 D 1151 0 584 0 216 0 0 0 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.91 0.91 0.92 1.00 0.75 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 0.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 3.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 O.OD 0.00 0.00 Final Sat.: 0 3610 0 0 5187 0 3502 0 2842 0 D 0 Capacity Analysis Module : Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.31 0.00 0.00 0.22 0.00 0.17 0.00 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.00 0.65 0.00 0.00 0.65 0.00 0.35 0.00 0.35 0.00 0.00 0.00 Volume/Cap: 0.00 0.48 0.00 0.00 0.34 0.00 0.48 0.00 0.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Del: 0.0 5.3 0.0 0.0 4.7 0.0 15.3 0.0 13.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 IncremntDel: 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 D.3 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 InitQueuDel: 0. 0, 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay Adj: 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Delay/Veh: D.0 5.4 D.0 0.0 4.7 O.D 15.6 0.0 13.9 0.0 0.0 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 5.4 0.0 0.0 4.7 0.0 15.6 0.0 13.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 LOS by Move: A A A A A A B A B A A A HCM2kAvgQ: 0 6 0 0 4 0 5 0 2 0 0 0 15-221 Trafrix 7.8.0975 Copyright (c) 2005 Dowling Assoclales, Inc. Licensetl to riexagon Trans. San Jose COMPARE Fri Ott 0512:0250 2007 Page 3-25 Leve! Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative) Existing AM Intersection #7: Wolfe/Stevens Creek Signal=Proled/Ri ghts=lndude Rnal Vol: 380"' 264 196 La nes: 1 0 2 0 1 Signal=Protect Slgnal=Proteet Fnal Vot: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol CM Dale: 10l3r20D6 Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol: ~ Cy de Time (s ec): 120 303"' 2 0 20d Lo ss Time (s ec): D ~ D 1 ~- 477 3 ~ Critical V/C: 0.646 ~ 2 640^' 0 Avg Crtl De! (seGv ah): 39.7 ~ D 113 1 ~ Avg Delay (seGveh): 35.4 ~ 2 62 L OS: D 1 La nes: 1 0 2 1 0 Final Vol: 214"' 702 125 Signal=ProtecURights=lndude Street Name: Wolfe Road Stevens Creek 3oulevard Approach: Nor th Bou nd Sou th Bound East Bound West Sound Movement : L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T' - R Min . Green : 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Volume Module: » Count Date: 3 Oct 200b « AM Peak Base Vol: 214 702 125 196 264 380 303 477 113 62 840 204 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: 214 702 125 196 264 380 303 477 113 62 840 204 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 D D 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 214 702 125 196 264 380 303 477 113 62 840 204 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: 214 702 125 196 264 380 303 477 113 62 840 204 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 214 702 125 196 Z64 380 303 477 113 62 840 204 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 Final Vol.: 214 702 125 196 264 380 303 477 113 62 840 204 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.95 0.89 0.89 0.95 0.95 0.85 0.92 0.91 0.85 0.92 0.88 0.88 Lanes: 1.00 2.55 0.45 1.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 2.41 0.59 Final Sat.: 1805 4302 766 1805 3510 1615 3502 5167 1615 3502 4052 984 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.12 0.16 0.16 0.11 0.07 0.24 0.09 0.09 0.07 0.02 0.21 0.21 Crit N.oves: **** **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.18 0.33 0.33 0.22 0.36 0.36- 0.13 0.36 0.38 0.07 0.32 0.32 Volume/Cap: 0.65 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.20 0.65 0.65 0.24 0.18 0.24 0.65 0.65 Uniform Del: 45.4 32.4 32.4 41.1 26.2 31.8 49.3 25.4 24.8 52.5 35.0 35.0 IncremntDel: 4.4 0.2 0.2 1.0 D.1 2.5 3.2 0.1 0.1 0.5 0.9 0.9 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0, 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay 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 Delay/Veh: 49.9 32.6 32.6 42.1 26.3 34.3 52.5 25.4 24.9 53.0 35.9 35.9 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.OD 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 49.9 32.6 32.6 42.1 26.3 34.3 52.5 25.4 24.9 53.0 35.9 35.9 LOS by Move: D C C D C C D C C D D D HCM2kAvgQ: 8 9 9 7 3 12 7 4 3 1 13 13 15 - 222 TrafDx 7.8.0915 Copyright (c) 2005 Dowling Associates. Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans. San Jose COMPARE Fri Od 0512:02:50 2007 Page 3-20 Level Of Senrice Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations (Future Volum_ Alternative) Background AM Intersection #7: Wolfe/Stevens Creek Signal=Proted/Ri ghts=Include Fnal Vol: 432"' 272 250 La nes: 1 D 2 0 1' ~~ Signal=Protect Signal=Proted Rnal Vol: Lanes: Rights=Includ e Vol Cnt Date: 10/3/2006 Ri ghts=lndude Lanes: Final Vol: Cy cle Time ( sec): 120 3fi6•" 2 ~ D 251 Lo ss Time ( sec): 0 SD4 3 ~ Critical V/C: 0.716 ~ 2 877" ' 0 ~ Avg Cril Del {serJ veh): 42.1 ~ 0 113 1 ~ Avg Delay{seclvah~ 37.6 ~ 2 77 LOS: D 1 ~ I Lanes: 1 0 2 1 0 Final Vol: 21 4"' 714 125 Signal=ProlecURights=lndude Street Name: Wolfe Road Stevens Creek Boulevard Approach: North Bound South Sound East Bound West Bound Movement : L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------~----- Min. Green: 0 ----- 0 -----I~ 0 ---- 0 ------ 0 -----~ 0 ~----------- 0 0 ----~ 0 ~---- D ------ 0 -----~ 0 Volume Module: » Count Date: 3 Oct 2006 « AM Peak Base~Vol: 214 702 125 196 264 380 303 477 113 62 840 204 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: 214 702 125 196 264 380 303 477 113 62 840 204 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Approved Tr: 0 '12 0 54 8 52 65 27 D 15 37 47 Initial Fut: 214 714 125 250 272 432 368 504 113 77 877 251 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: 214 714 125 250 272 432 368 504 113 77 877 251 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 214 714 125 250 272 432 368 504 113 77 877 251 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 Final Vol.: 214 714 125 250 272 432 368 504 113 77 877 251 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.95 0.89 0.89 0.95 0.95 0.85 0.92 0.91 0.85 0.92 0.88 0.88 Lanes: 1.00 2.55 0.45 1.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 2.33 0.67 Final Sat.: 1605 4317 756 1805 3610 1615 3502 5167 1615 3502 3900 1116 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.12 0.17 0.17 0.14 0.08 0.27 0.11 0.10 0.07 0.02 0.22 0.22 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.17 0.29 0.29 0.25 0.37 0.37 0.15 0.38 0.38 0.09 0.31 0.31 Volume/Cap: 0.72 0.56 0.56 0.56 0.20 0.72 0.72 0.26 0.19 0.26 0.72 0.72 Uniform Del: 47.4 35.9 35.9 39.6 25.5 32.1 48.8 25.9 25.1 51.4 36.4 36.4 IncremntDel: 8.0 0.5 0.5 1.7 0.1 4.1 4.8 0.1 0.1 0.5 1.6 1.6 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay 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 Delay/Veh: 55.4 36.4 36.4 41.3 25.5 36.2 53.6 26.0 25.3 51.8 38.0 38.0 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: 55.4 36.4 36.,4 41.3 25.5 36.2 53.6 26.0 25.3 51.8 38.0 38.0 LOS by Move: ~ D D D C D D C C D D D HCM2kAvgQ: 9 10 10 9 3 15 B 5 3 2 14 14 15-223 Traitx 7.8.0915 Copyright (c) 2005 Dowling Associates, lnc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans. San Jose COMPARE Fri Oc10512:0250 2007 Page 3.27 Level Of Service Computation Report 2D00 HAM Opere6ons (futon Volume Alternative) Project AM Intersection #7: Wolfe/Stevens Creek Signal=Proted/Rights=lndude Final Vol: 434 •'• 272 252 La nes: 1 0 2 0 1 T Signal=Prolad Signal=Protect Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=lndude Vol Cnt Date: 10!312006 Rights=Include Lanes: Fnal Vol: ~ Cy de Tines ( sec): 120 371"' 2 0 254 Lo ss Time ( sec): 0 0 ~ 1 504 3 ~ Crilipl V/C: 0.719 ~ 2 877•" D Avg Crit Del (sed veh): 42.2 0 113 1 ~ Avg Delay (sedveh): 37.7 ~ 2 77 LOS: D Lanes: 1 D 2 1 0 Fnal Vol: 214 "' 714 125 Signal=Proted/Rights=Include Street Name: Wolfe Road Stevens Creek Boulevard P_pproach: Nor th Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement : L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Volume Module: » Count Date: 3 Oct 2006 « AM Peak Base Vol: 214 714 125 250 272 432 368 504 113 77 877 251 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.D0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 214 714 125 250 272 432 368 504 113 77 877 251 Added Vol: 0 0 0 2 0 2 3 0 D 0 0 3 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 214 714 125 252 272 434 371 504 113 77 877 254 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: 214 714 125 252 272 434 371 504 113 77 877 254 Reduct Vol: 0 0 D 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 214 714 125 252 272 434 371 504 113 77 877 254 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.OD N~LF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.U0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 214 714 125 252 272 434 371 504 113 77 877 254 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.95 0.89 0.89 0.95 0.95 0.85 0.92 0.91 0.85 0.92 0.88 0.88 Lanes: 1.00 2.55 0.45 1.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 2.33 0.67 Final Sat.: 1805 4317 756 1805 3610 1615 3502 5187 1615 3502 3885 1125 Capacity PsLalysis Module : Vol/Sat: 0.12 0,17 0.17 0.14 0.08 0.27 0.11 0.10 0.07 0.02 0.23 0.23 Crit Moves: **** **** *** * **** Green/Cycle: 0.16 0.29 0.29 0.25 0.37 0.37 0.15 0.38 0.38 0.09 0.31 0.31 Volume/Cap: 0.72 0.57 0.57 0.57 0.20 0.72 0.72 0.26 0.19 0.26 0.72 0.72 Uniform Del: 47.5 36.0 36.0 39.6 25.4 32.2 48.8 25.9 25.1 51.3 36.5 36.5 IncremntDel: 8.2 0.5 0.5 1.7 0.1 4.2 4.9 0.1 0.1 0.5 1.6 1.6 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay 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 Delay/Veh: 55.7 36.5 36.5 41.3 25.5 36.4 53.7 25.9 25.3 51.8 38.1 38.1 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.OD 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 55.7 36.5 36.5 41.3 25.5 36.4 53.7 25.9 25.3 51.8 38.1 38.1 LOS by Move: E D. D D C D D C C D D D HCM2kAvgQ : 9 10 10 9 3 15 8 5 3 2 15 15 15 - 224 Traffiz 7.8.0915 Copyright (c) 2D05 Davling Assodales, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans. San Jose COMPARE Fri Od 0512:02:50 2007 Page 3-29 Level Ot Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Allemative) Future Growth AM Intersection #7: Wolfe/Stevens Creek Signal=ProtecURights=Include Final VoI: 448^` 262 259 Lanes: 1 D 2 0 1 Signal=Protect Signal=Protect Final Vot: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Dale: n7a Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol: 362'^ 2 Cycle Time (sec): 120 ~ D 261 D ~ Loss Time (sec): 0 1 " 521 3 ~ Critical V/C: 0.74 2 2 907^' 0 ~ Avg Crit Del (secNeh): 43.1 +#T- D 117 1 ~ Avg Delay (sedveh): 36.3 ~ 2 79 LOS : D ,~yl# /•( ~~~ 1 ~ I /'~ f Lanes: 1 0 2 1 0 Final Vol: 222^' 739 130 Signal=ProlecURights=lnUude Street Name: Wolfe Road Approach: North Bound South B Movement: L- T- R L- T Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 Volume Module: Base Vol: 222 739 130 259 282 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 222 739 130 259 282 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 D PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 222 739 130 259 282 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 222 739 130 259 282 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 222 739 130 259 282 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 222 739 130 259 282 Saturation Flow ldodule: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.95 0.89 0.89 0.95 0.95 Lanes: 1.00 2.55 0.45 1.00 2.00 Final Sat.: 1805 4314 759 1805 3610 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.12 0.17 0.17 0.14 0.08 Crit Moves: **** Green/Cycle: 0.17 0.29 0.29 0.25 0.37 Volume/Cap: 0.74 0.58 0.56 0.58 0.21 Uniform Del: 47.6 36.1 36.1 39.8 25.5 IncremntDel: 9.6 0.6 0.6 2.0 0.1 InitQueuDel: 0.0 D.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 57.2 36.7 36.7 41.8 25.6 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 '1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 57.2 36.7 36.7 41.8 25.6 LOS by Move: E D D D C HCM2 k_wgQ : 9 10 10 9 4 Fund - R ------~ 0 ------~ 448 1.00 446 0 0 448 1.00 1.00 448 0 4d_8 1.00 1.00 448 ------~ 1900 0.85 1.00 1615 ------~ 0.28 **** 0.37 0.74 32.6 4.9 0.0 1.00 37.5 1.00 37.5 D 15 Stevens Cre East Bound L - T - R --------------- 0 0 0 382 521 117 1.00 1.00 1.00 382 521 117 0 0 0 0 0 0 382 521 117 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 382 521 117 0 0 0 382 521 117 1.00 1.00 1.00 l:oo l.oo l.oo 382 521 117 --------------- 1900 1900 1900 0.92 0.91 0.85 2.00 3.00 1.00 3502 5187 1615 0.11 0.10 0.07 **** 0.15 0.38 0.38 0.74 0.27 0.19 49.0 26.0 25.2 5.8 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 54.8 26.0 25.3 1.00 1.00 1.00 54.8 26.0 25.3 D C C 9 5 3 >k Boulevard West Bound L - T - R 0 0 0 79 907 261 1.00 1.00 1.00 79 907 261 0 0 0 0 0 0 79 907 261 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 79 907 261 0 0 0 79 907 261 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 79 907 261 1900 1900 1900 0.92 0.88 0.88 2.00 2.33 0.67 3502 3895 1121 0.02 0.23 0.23 **** 0.08 0.31 0.31 0.27 0.74 0.74 51.5 36.8 36.8 D.5 1.9 1.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 51.9 38.8 38.8 l.oo l.o0 1.00 51.9 38.8 .38.8 D D D 2 15 15 15-225 T210x 7.6.0915 Copyright (c) 2005 Dowling Assoaales, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans. San Jose COMPARE Fri Od OS 12:01:43 2007 Page 3-1 Level Of Service Computation Report 20D0 FiCM Operations {Future Volume Allemafive) Existing PM Intersection #1: De Anz:a/Homestead Signa)=ProlecVRighls=lndude Final Vol: 346 1971"' 372 Lanes: 0 1 2 0 2 Signal=Proled Signal=Proled Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=lndude Vol Cnt Dale: 10132006 Rights=Inclu de Lanes: Final Vol: Cy de Time ( sec): 140 183 2 ~ 7 150 Lo ss Time ( sec): 0 0 ~~ ~ 0 561 2 ~ Critical V/C: 0.921 ~ 2 448 0 ~ Avg Crit Det (serJv eh): 53.6 D 333"' 1 ~ Avg Delay (seclveh): 45.8 ~ 2 3Z3°' LOS: D Lanes: 2 D 3 0 1 Final Vol; 58 1"' 1277 672 Signal=ProtecURights=lncl ud e Street Name: De P.nza Boulevard Homestead Road Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement : L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 0 Volume Module: » Count Date: 3 Oct 2006 « PM Peak Base Vol: 581 1277 672 372 1971 346 183 561 333 323 448 150 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: 581 1277 672 372 1971 346 183 561 333 323 448 150 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 581 1277 672 372 1971 346 183 561 333 323 448 150 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: 581 1277 672 372 1971 346 183 561 333 323 448 150. Reduct Vol: D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 581 1277 672 372 1971 346 183 561 333 323 448 150 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 MS,F 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 Final Vol.: 581 1277 672 372 1971 346 183 561 333 323 448 150 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 '190'0 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 0.91 0.85 0.92 0.89 O.B9 0.92 0.95 0.85 0.92 0.95 0.85 Lanes: 2.00 3.00 1.00 2.OD 2.55 0.45 2.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 3502 5187 1615 3502 4315 756 3502 3610 1615 3502 3610 1615 Capacity Analysis Modul e: Vol/Sat: 0.17 0.25 0.42 D.11 0.46 0.46 0.05 0.16 0.21 0.09 0.12 0.09 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.16 0.54 0.54 0.14 0.50 0.50 0.10 0.22 0.22 0.10 0.23 0.23 Volume/Cap: 0.92 0.46 0.77 0.77 0.92 0.92 0.54 0.69 0.92 0.92 0.54 0.41 Uniform Del: 56.4 19.8 25.5 58.3 32.7 32.7 60.4 49.9 53.1 62.4 47.6 46.0 IncremntDel: 19.0 0.1 4.3 7.6 6.2 6.2 1.8 2.6 28.3 28.9 0.8 0.7 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 D.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay 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 Delay/Veh: 75.4 19.9 29.9 65.9 39.0 39.0 62.2 52.6 81.4 91.3 48.4 46.7 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 Adj Del/Veh: 75.4 19.9 29.9 65.9 39.0 39.0 62.2 52.6 81.4 91.3 48.4 46.7 LOS by Move: E B C E D D E D F F D D HCM2kAvgQ: 16 12 24 10 37 37 5 13 18 10 9 6 15 - 226 Tratfix 7.8.0915 Copyright {c) 2005 Dowling Assodates, Inc. Ucensed to Hexagon Trans San Jose coMPARe Fri Od OS 12:01:43 2D07 Page 3.2 level Of Ssrvice Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations [Future Volume Alternative) Background PM Intersection #1: De Anza/Homestead Signal=Proted/Rights=lndude Final Vol: 352 1993"` 373 Lanes: D 1 2 0 2 Signal=Prated Signal=ProteG Final Voi: Lanes: Rights=Includ e Vol Cnt Dale: 1D13/20D6 Rights=lndude Lanes: Final Vol: CydeTlme (sec): 14D 166 2 ~ 1 152 ~ Loss Time (sec): 0 ~ 0 0 562 2 ~ Cdtical V/C: 0.946 ~ 2 454 0 Avg Crit Del [ser Jveh): 57.9 0 349'^ 1 ~ Avg Delay (sedveh): 47.9 ~ 2 325'» LOS: D >~ Lanes: 2 0 3 0 1 Final Vd: 61 3^' 1312 660 Si goal=Prated/Rights=lndude Street Name: De Anza Boulevard Homestead Road Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: ------------ L - ~----- T ---- - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Min. Green: 0 - 0 -----I~ 0 ---- 0 ------ 0 ----- 0 ~~----------- 0 0 ---=~~ 0 ---- 0 ------ D -----~ 0 Volume Module: » Count Date: 3 Oc t 2006 « PM Peak Base Vol: 581 1277 672 372 1971 346 183 561 333 323 446 150 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.OD 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 581 1277 672 372 1971 346 183 561 333 323 446 150 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Approved Tr: 32 35 8 1 22 6 5 1 16 2 6 2 Initial Fut: 613 1312 680 373 1993 352 188 562 349 325 454 152 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 l.OD 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: 613 1312 680 373 1993 352 188 562 349 325 454 152 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 613 13.12 680 373 1993 352 188 562 349 325 454 152 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 Final Vol.: 613 1312 680 373 1993 352 188 562 349 325 454 152 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 0.91 0.85 0.92 0.89 0.89 0.92 0.95 0.85 0.92 0.95 0.8.5 Lanes: 2.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 2.55 0.45 2.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 3502 5187 1615 3502 4311 761 3502 3610 1615 3502 361D 1615 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.18 0.25 0.42 0.11 0.46 0.46 0.05 0.16 0.22 0.09 0.13 0.09 Crit Moves• **** **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.19 0.54 0.54 0.14 0.49 0.49 0.10 0.23 D.23 0.10 0.23 0.23 Volume/Cap: 0.95 0.47 0.78 0.78 0.95 0'.95 0.55 0.68 0.95 0.95 D.55 0.41 Uniform Del: 56.4 20.0 25.9 58.5 34.1 34.1 6D.2 49.4 53.2 62.8 47.6 46.0 IncremntDel: 22.9 0.1 4.7 8.3 8.6 8.6 1.9 2.3 33.1 - 34.7 0.'8 0.7• InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 O.D 0.0 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.OD 1.00 Delay/Veh: 79.3 20.2 30.6 66.8 42.7 42.7 62.1 51.7 86.3 97.4 48.4 46.7 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 Adj Del/Veh: 79.3 20.2 30.6 66.8 42.7 42.7 62.1 51.7 86.3 97.4 48.4 46.7 LOS by Move: E C C E D D E D F F D D HCM2kAvgQ: 17 12 24 10 40 40 5 12 19 10 9 6 15-227 7ratix 7.8.0915 Copyright (cj 2005 Drnvling Associates, Ina ~ Ucensed to Hexagon Trans. San Jose COMPARE Fri Oct 0512:01:43 2007 Pape 3.3 Level Of Service Computation Report 20D0 HCM Operations (future Volume Alternative) Project PM Intersection #1: De Anza/Homestead Signal=Protect/Ri ghts=lndude Finaf Vol: 352 1993"' 377 Lanes: 0 1 2 0 2 Signal=Profed Signal=Proted Final VoI: Lanes: Rights=lndude Vol Cnt Date: 1D13/2006 Rights=Include Lanes: Rnal Vol: Cycle Time (sec): 140 "• 168 2 J ~ 1 15b L oss Time (sec): 0 0 ~ ~ p 565 2 ~ Critipl V/C: D.947 ~ 2 456 D Avg Cril Del (sec /veh): 58.2 0 349^' 1 ~ Avg Delay (seclveh): 48.2 ~ 2 329"' LOS: D lanes: 2 0 3 0 1 Final Vot: 613•" 1312 684 Signal=Proled/Righislndude Street Name: De Anza Boulev ard Homestead Road Approach: iJorth Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement : L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Volume Module: » Count Date: 3 Oc t 2D06 « PM Peak Base Vol: 613 1312 680 373 1993 352 188 562 349 325 454 152 Growth Adj: 1.OD 1.D0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 initial Bse: 613 1312 680 373 1993 352 188 562 349 325 454 152 Added Vol: 0 0 4 4 0 0 0 4 0 4 4 4 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 613 1312 684 377 1993 352 188 566 349 329 458 156 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.D0 1.OD PHF Volume: 613 1312 684 377 1993 352 188 566 349 329 458 156 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D Reduced Vol: 613 1312 684 377 1993 352 188 566 349 329 458 156 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 Final Vol.: 613 ------------~----- 1312 ----- 684 --- ~ 377 1993 352 188 566 349 329 458 156 Saturation Flow Module: -- ~ ---- ------ ----- 11----- ------ ----~~ ----- ----- -----~ Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 0.91 0..85 0.92 0.89 0.89 0.92 0.95 0.85 D.92 0.95 0.85 Lanes: 2.00 3.00 1.00 2,00 2.55 0.45 2.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 3502 5187 1615 3502 4311 761 3502 361D 1615 3502 3610 1615 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.18 0.25 0.42 D.11 0.46 0.46 0.05 0.16 0.22 0.09 0.13 0.10 Crit Moves• **** **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.18 0.54 0.54 0.14 0.49 0.49 0.10 0.23 0.23 0.10 0.23 0.23 Volume/Cap: 0.95 0.47 0.79 0.79 0.95 0.95 0.55 0.69 0.95 0.95 0.55 0'.42 Uniform Del: 56.4 20.1 26.1 58.5 34.1 34.1 60.3 49.5 53.2 62.7 47.5 45.9 IncremntDel: 23.2 0.1 4.9 8.6 8.8 8.8 1.9 2.5 33.4 34.7 0.8 0.8 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.D0 1.00 1.OD 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 79.6 20.3 31.0 67.1 42.9 42.9 62.2 51.9 86.6 97.4 48.3 46.7 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.D0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 79.6 20.3 31.0 67.1 42.9 42.9 62.2 51.9 86.6 97.4 48.3 4b.7 LOS by Move: E C C E D D E D F F D D HCM2kAvgQ: 17 12 25 10 40 40 5 13 19 11 9 6 75-228 Traffuc 7.8.0915 Copyright (c) 2005 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans. San Jose COMPARE Fri Od D512:01:43 20D7 Page 3.4 Level Of Servire Computation Report 20DD HCM Operations (Future Volume Attemative) Future Growth PM Intersection #1: De Anz:a/Homestead Signal=ProtecURights=lndude Final Vd: 364 2D64" ' 39D Lanes: 0 1 2 0 2 Signal=Protect Signal=Prated Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=lndude Vd Cnl Date: Na Rlghls=Include Lanes: Final VoI: Cyde Time (secj: 140 195 2 1 161 Loss Time (sec): 0 D ~ ~ - p 566 2 ~ Crilipl WC: 0.961 ~ 2 474 0 ~ Avg Cril Dal (sed veh): 65.0 D 361"' 1 ~ Avg Delay (sedveh): 52.0 ~ 2 341" ' LOS: D L anes: 2 0 3 0 1 Rnal Vol: 634"• 1356 708 Signal=Pr otecURi ghls=lndude Street Name: De Anza Boulev ard Homestead Road Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement; L ------------~---- - T ------ - R -- L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Min. Green: 0 0 ---~I 0 ---- 0 ------ 0 ----- 0 II---- 0 ------- 0 ----~~ 0 ---- 0 ------ 0 -----~ 0 Volume Module: Base Vol: 634 1358 708 390 2064 364 195 586 361 341 474 161 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: 634 1358 708 390 2064 364 195 586 361 341 474 161 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 634 1358 708 390 2064 364 195 586 361 341 474 161 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: 634 1358 708 390 2064 364 195 586 361 341 474 161 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 634 1358 708 390 2064 364 195 586 361 341 474 161 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 Final Vol.: 634 1358 708 390 2064 364 195 586 361 341 474 161 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 19D0 19D0 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 0.91 0.85 0.92 0.89 0.89 0.92 0.95 0.85 0.92 0.95 0.85 Lanes: 2.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 2.55 0.45 2.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 3502 5187 1615 3502 4312 761 3502 3610 1615 3502 3610 1615 Capacity Analysis Modul e: Vol/Sat: 0.18 0.26 0.44 0.11 0.48 0.48 0.06 0.16 0.22 0.10 0.13 0.10 Crit Moves• **** **** **** ~**+: Green/Cycle: 0.18 0.54 0.54 0.14 0.49 0.49 0.10 0.23 0.23 0.10 0.23 0.23 Volume/Cap: 0.98 0.49 0.82 0.82 0.98 0.98 0.57 0.71 0.98 0.98 0.57 0.43 Uniform Del: 56.8 20.4 26.8 58.8 35.2 35.2 60.4 49.8 53.7 62.9 47.8 46.1 IncremntDel: 30.4 0.1 6.1 10.6 13.8 13.8 2.3 2.9 41.6 42.9 1.0 0.8 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay 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 Delay/Veh: 87.2 20.5 32.9 69.3 49.0 49.0 62.7 52.8 95.3 1 05.8 48.8 46.9 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: 87.2 20.5 32.9 69.3 49.0 49.0 62.7 52.8 95.3 1 05.8 48.8 46.9 LOS by Move: F C C E D D E D F F D D HCN12kAvgQ: 19 13 26 11 43 43 5 13 20 11 10 6 15-229 Tra(fu: 7.8.0915 Copyright (c) 20D5 Dowling Assodates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans. San Jose COMPARE Fri Od 0512:01:43 2007 Page 3.5 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Allemafive) F~dsting PM Intersection ~2: Homestead/Blaney . Signal=ProtecVRighls=Include Final Vol: 0 0 0 Lanes: D 0 ~~ 0 D 0 Signal=Protect Signal=Prated Rnal Val: Lanes: Rights=lndude Vol Cnt Dale: 7/17/2007 Rights=lndude Lanes: Final Vol: ~ Cy de Time (sec): 100 0 0 '~ 0 0 Lo ss Tirr>r (sec): 0 0 ~~ ~ 0 914'•• 1 ~ Critical VlC: 0.511 ~ 2 661 1 Avg Cril Del (seM veh): 172 ~j- 0 : 193 0 ~ Avg Delay (seclvah): 13.5 ~ 1 176"` LOS 8 Lanes: 1 0 0 0 1 Final Vol: 1 06 0 156'^ Signal=Prolect/Rights=lndude Street Name: Blaney Avenu e Homestead Road Approach: North Bound South Bound mast Bound West Bound Movement : L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Volume Module: » Count Date: 17 J ul 2007 « PM Peak Base Vol: 108 0 158 0 0 0 0 914 193 178 681 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: 108 0 158 0 0 0 0 914 193 178 681 0 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 0 0 0 D PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 108 0 158 0 0 D 0 914 193 178 681 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.OD 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.OD 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 108 0 158 0 0 0 0 914 193 178 681 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 108 0 158 0 0 0 0 914 193 178 681 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 N1LF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 i.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 108 0 158 0 0 0 0 914 193 178 681 0 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.95 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.93 0.93 0.95 0.95 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 O.OD 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.65 0.35 1.00 2.00 0.00 Final Sat.: 1805 0 1615 0 0 D 0 2903 613 1805 3610 0 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.06 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.31 0.31 0.10 0.19 0.00 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.19 0.00 0.19 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.62 0.62 0.19 0.81 O.DO Volume/Cap: 0.31 0.00 0.51 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.23 0.00 Uniform Del: 34.8 0.0 36.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.8 10.8 36.1 2.3 D.0 -' IncremntDel: 0.5 0.0 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 1.3 0.0 0.0 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 O.D D.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . Delay Adj: 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 O.DO 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Delay/Veh: 35.3 0.0 37.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.0 11.0 37.4 2.3 0.0 User DelAdj: 1.OD 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 35.3 0.0 37.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.0 11.0 37.4 2.3 0.0 LOS by Move: D A D A A A A B B D A A HC1Jf2 kAvgQ : 3 0 5 0 0 0 0 10 10 5 3 0 15 - 230 Traf6x 7.8.0915 Copyright (c) 2005 Dowling Assodates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans. San Jose I COMPARE Fri Oct 0512:01:43 2007 Page 3- 6 Level 0) Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative) Background PM Intersection #2: Homestead/Blaney Signal=ProtecURights=lnGude Final Vol: D 0 D Lanes: 0 0 0 0 0 Signal=ProteG Signal=ProteG Fnal Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include VoI Cnt Date: 7/172007 Rights=lnGude Lanes: Final Vol: ` Cycle Time (sec): 100 D D J 0 0 Loss Time (sec): 0 1 924•'• ~ Critical V/C: 0.518 ~ 2 692 1~ Avg Cril Del (secNeh): 17.3 ~ D 195 0 Avg Delay (setlveh): 13.6 ~ 1 161"' LO S B "~ 1 ~ + l~y,F~ ~ I Lanes: 1 0 0 D 1 Final Vol: 1 08 D 161•'• Signal ~ProtecVRights=include Street Name: Blaney Avenue Homestead Road Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L ------------~ - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ---- Min. Green: 0 ------- 0 ----~~ 0 ---------- 0 0 ----- 0 I~----------- 0 0 ----~~ 0 ----- 0 ----- 0 -----~ 0 Volume Module: » Count Date: 17 Jul 2007 « PM Peak Base Vol: 108 0 158 0 0 0 0 914 193 176 681 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: 108 0 158 0 0 0 0 914 193 178 681 0 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Approved Tr: 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 10 2 3 11 0 Initial Fut: 108 0 161 0 0 0 0 924 195 181 692 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: 108 0 161 ~0 0 0 0 924 195 181 692 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 108 0 161 0 0 0 0 924 195 181 692 0 PCE Adj: 1.OD 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 NiLF 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 Final Vol.: 108 0 161 0 0 D 0 924 195 181 692 0 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.95 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.93 0.93 0.95 0.95 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.65 0.35 1.0'0 2.00 0.00 Final Sat.: 1805 0 1615 0 0 0 0 2903 613 1805 3610 0 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.06 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.32 0.32 0.10 0.19 0.00 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.19 0.00 0.19 0.00 0.00 O.OD 0.00 0.61 0.61 0.19 0.81 0.00 Volume/Cap: 0.31 0.00 0.52 0.00 0.00 O.OD 0.00 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.24 0.00 Uniform Del: 34.7 0.0 36.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.9 10.9 36.1 2.3 0.0 IncremntDel: 0.5 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 D.0 0.2 0.2 1.4 0.0 0.0 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 D.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay Adj: 1.00 0.00 1.00 O.Ob 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Delay/Veh: 35.2 0.0 37.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.1 11.1 37.5 2.3 0.0 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.OD 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 35.2 0.0 37.8 0:0 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.1 11.1 37.5 2.3 0.0 LOS by Move: D A D A A A A B B D A A HCM2kAvgQ: 3 0 5 0 0 0 0 10 10 6 3 0 15-231 Traffix 7.8.0915 Copydghl (c) 2005 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans. San Jose COMPARE Fri Oct O5 ! 2:01:43 2D07 Pape 3.7 Level Of Service Computation Report 20D0 HCM OperaOans (Future Volume Alternative) Project PM Intersection #l2: Homestead/Blaney Signal=Prolect/Rights=Include Final Vol: 0 ~ D 0 L anes: D 0 0 0 0 Signal=Protect Signal=ProteG Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=lnGude Vol Cnl Dale: 7/ 77/20D7 Rlghis=Include Lanes: Final VDI: Cy Ge Time (secj: 100 0 0 0 0 Lo ss Time (sec): 0 D ~ 0 935"' 1 ~ Critical V/C: OS21 ~ 2 704 1 Avg Crit Del (setl veh): 17.3 0 195 0 ~ Avg Delay (sedveh): 13.5 ~ 1 161"' LOS: B Lanes: 1 0 0 0 1 Final Vol: 108 0 !61"' Signal=ProtecURights=Include Street Name: Blaney Avenue Homestead Road Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement : L - T - R L - T - R L - T. - R L - T - R ------------~----- Min. Green: 0 ----- 0 -----~I 0 ---- 0 ------ 0 ----- 0 I~----------- 0 D ----~~ 0 ----- 0 ----- 0 -----) 0 Volume Module: » Count Date: 17 Jul 2007 « PM Peak Base Vol: 108 0 161 0 0 0 0 924 195 181 692 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: 108 0 161 0 0 0 0 924 195 181 692 0 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 11 0 0 12 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 D 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 108 0 161 0 0 0 0 935 195 181 704 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.OD 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 l.OD 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: 106 0 161 0 0 0 0 935 195 181 704 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 Reduced Vol: 108 0 161 0 0 0 0 935 195 181 704 0 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 l.OD 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 N1LF 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 Final Vol.: 108 0 161 0 0 D 0 935 195 181 704 0 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.95 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.93 0.93 0.95 0.95 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 D.DO 0.00 1.65 0.35 1.00 2.00 0.00 Final Sat.: 1805 0 1615 0 0 0 0 2909 607 1805 3610 0 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.06 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.32 0.32 0.10 0.20 O.OD Crit Noves: **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.19 0.00 0.19 0•.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.62 0.62 0.19 0.61 0.00 Volume/Cap: 0.31 0.00. 0.52 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.24 0.00 Uniform Del: 34.8 0.0 36.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.8 10.8 36.3 2.3 0.0 IncremntDel: D.5 0.0 1.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 1.4 0.0 0.0 InitQueuDel: D.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay Adj: 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Delay/Veh: 35.3 0.0 37.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.1 11.1 37.7 2.3 0.0 User DelAdj: 1.D0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.D0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 35.3 0.0 37.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.1 11.1 37.7 2.3 .0.0 LOS by Move : D A D A A A A B B D A A HCM2kAvgQ: 3 0 5 0 0 0 0 10 10 6 3 015-232 Treffix 7.6.0915 Copyright (c) 2DD5 Dowling Assoaales, Inc. Licensed fo Hexagon Trans. San Jose COldPARE Fri Od D5 72:01:43 2007 Page 3- B Level Of Service Computation RepoN •2000 HCM Operations (future Volume Allemative) Future Growth PM Intersection #2: HomesteadiBlaney Signal=Profed/Rights~ndude Final Vol: 0 0 0 Lanes: 0 0 0 0 0 Signal=Profed Signal=Protect Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n!a RighLS=lndude Lanes: Final Vol: ~ Cy de Time (s ac): 100 _ 0 0 ~ 0 0 Lo ss 71me (s ec): 0 0 ~ 0 966`^ 1 y~ Critical V/C: 0.540 ~ 2 729 1 Avg Crit Del (serJv eh): 17.6 D 202 0 ~ Avg Delay (seclvah): 13.7 ~ 1 787'•• L OS: B Lanes: 1 0 0 0 1 Final Vol: 112 0 167"' Signal=Profed/Ri ghts=lndude Street Name: B laney Avenue Homestead Roa d Approach: North Bound Sou th Bound East Bound West Bound Movement : L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 Volume Module: Base Vol: 112 0 167 0 0 0 0 966 202 187 729 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: 112 0 167 0 0 0 0 968 202 167 729 0 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 112 0 167 0 0 0 0 968 202 187 729 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: 112 0 167 D 0 0 0 968 202 187 729 0 Reduct Vol.: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 112 0 167 0 0 0 0 968 202 187 729 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 Final Vol.: 112 0 167 0 0 0 0 968 202 187 729 0 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.95 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.93 0.93 0.95 0.95 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.65 0.35 1.00 2.00 0.00 Final Sat.: 1805 0 1615 0 0 0 0 2909 607 1805 3610 0 Capacity Analysis Modul e: Vol/Sat: 0.06 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.33 0.10 0.20 0.00 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.19 0.00 0.19 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.62 0.62 0.19 0.81 0.00 Volume/Cap: 0.32 0.00 0.54 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.54 0.54 0.54 0.25 O.DO Uniform Del: 34.8 0.0 36.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.0 11.0 36.4 2.3 0.0 IncremntDel: 0.5 0.0 1.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.3 1.7 0:0 0.0 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay Adj: 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Delay/Veh: 35.4 0.0 36.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.3 11.3 38.1 2.3 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: 35.4 0.0 38.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.3 11.3 38.1 2.3 0.0 LOS by Move: D A D A A A A B B D A A HCM2kAvgQ; 3 0 5 0 0 0 0 11 11 6 3 015-233 TraTfix 7.6.0915 Copyright (c) 2005 Drnviing Associates, Ine. Licensed fo Hexagon Trans. San Jose COMPARE Fri Oct 0512:D1:43 20D7 Page 3- 9 Level OI Service Computation Report 20D0 HCM Operations (Future Volurr~ Altemafive) Existing PM Intersection #3: Homestead/Wolfe Signal=ProtecURights=Include Final Vol: 146 1127^' 156 Lanes: 0 1 2 D 2 Signal=Proted Signal=Proled Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=lndude Vol Cnf Date: 7/17/2D07 Rights=lndude Lanes: Final Vol: Cycle Time (sec): 110 156 1 ~ D 69 L oss Time (sec): 0 0 ~ 1 556°' 2 ~ CrlUca l V/C: 0.661 ~ 1 574 0 Avg Cril Del (sec /veh): 35.4 0 212 1 ~ Avg Delay (secNeh): 33.5 ~ 1 331'^ LOS: C 1 1 i ~ f Lanes: 2 0 2 0 1 Final Vol: 260"' 653 116 Signal=ProtecVRighls=Indud e Street Name: Wolfe Road Homestead Road Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - ------------~ T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ----- Min . Green : 0 ----- 0 -----~~ 0 ---- 0 ------ 0 ----- 0 ~~---- 0 ------- 0 ----~I 0 ----- 0 ----- 0 -----~ 0 Volume Module: » Count Date: 17 Jul 2007 « PM Peak Base Vol: 260 653 118 158 1127 146 158 556 212 331 574 89 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: 260 653 118 158 1127 146 158 556 212 331 574 89 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D PasserByVOl: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 260 653 118 158 1127 146 158 556 212 331 574 89 User 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 PHF Adj: 1.OD 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 260 653 118 158 1127 146 158 556 212 331 574 89 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 260 653 118 158 1127 146 158 556 212 331 574 89 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.OD 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 NLF 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 Final Vol.: 260 653 118 158 1127 146 158 556 212 331 574 89 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 0.95 0.85 0.92 0.89 0.89 0.95 0.95 0.65 0.95 0.93 0.93 Lanes: 2.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 2.66 0.34 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.73 0.27 Final Sat.: 3502 3610 1615 3502 4514 585 1805 3610 1615 1805 3063 475 Capacity Analysis Modul e: Vol/sat: 0.07 0.18 0.07 0.05 0.25 0.25 0.09 0.15 0.13 0.18 0.19 0.19 Crit Moves• **** **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.11 0.39 0.39 0.10 0.38 0.38 0.16 0.23 0.23 0.28 0.35 0.35 Volume/Cap: 0.66 0.46 0.19 0.46 0.66 0.66 0.54 0.66 0.56 0.66 0:54 0.54 Uniform Del: 46.8 24.8 21.9 46.9 28.4 28.4 42.3 38.3 37.3 35.2 28.8 28.8 IncremntDel: 4.2 0.2 0.1 1.0 0.9 .0.9 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.3 0.5 0.5 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay 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 Delay/Veh: 51.0 25.1 22.1 47.9 29.3 29.3 44.3 40.2 39.2 38.5 29.3 29.3 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 Adj Del/Veh: 51.0 25.1 22.1 47.9 29.3 29.3 44.3 40.2 39.2 38.5 29.3 29.3 LOS by Move: D C C D C C D D D D C C HCM2kAVgQ: 6 9 3 3 14 14 6 10 7 11 10 105-234 Trafflx 7.6.0915 Copyright (c) 2005 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Tens. San Jose COMPARE Fri Od 05 12:01:43 2007 Page 3.10 Level Of Service Comp:rtation Report 20D0 HCM Operations (FuWre Volume Alternative) Background PM Intersection #3: Homestead/VJolfe Signal=ProtecURights=Include Final Vol: 146 1159"` 158 Lanes: 0 1 2 D 2 Signal=Protect Signal=Protect Final Vd: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnl Date: 7/17/20D7 Rights=lndude Lanes: Final Val: Cycle Time (sec): 110 158 1 ~ 0 89 L oss Time (sec): 0 0 ~ 1 556"' 2 ~ Cdtical VlC: 0.689 ~__ _ 1 574 0 ~~ Avg Crit Del (serJveh): 36.5 0 239 1 ~ Avg Delay (seGveh): 34.3 ~ 1 356"' LOS: C Lanes: 2 0 2 0 1 Final Vol: 287'^ 661 146 Signal=Proled/Rights=lndude Street Name: Wolfe Road Homestead Road Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Sound Movement : L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Min. Green: D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Volume Module: » Count Date: 17 Jul 200 7 « PM Peak Base Vol: 260 653 118 158 1127 146 158 556 212 331 574 89 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.OD 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 260 653 118 158 1127 146 158 556 212 331 574 69 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Approved Tr: 27 28 28 D 32 0 0 0 27 25 0 0 Initial Fut: 287 b61 146 158 1159 146 158 556 239 356 574 89 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.D0 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: 287 681 146 158 1159 146 158 556 239 356 574 89 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 287 681 146 158 1159 146 158 556 239 356 574 89 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.D0 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.D0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 287 681 146 158 1159 146 158 556 239 356 574 89 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 0.95 0.85 0.92 0.89 0.89 '0.95 0.95 0.85 0.95 0.93 0.93 Lanes: 2.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 2.66 0.34 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.73 0.27 Final Sat.: 35D2 3610 1615 3502 4528 570 1805 3610. 1615 1605 3063 475 Capacity Analysis Modul e: Vol/Sat: 0.08 0.19 0.09 0.05 0.26 0.26 0.09 0.15 0.15 0.20 0.19 0.19 Crit Moves **** **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.12 0.40 0.40 0.09 0.37 0.37 0.16 0.22 0.22 0.29 0.35 0.35 Volume/Cap: 0.69 0.46 0.23 0.48 0.69 0.69 0.54 0.69 0.66 0.69 0.54 0.54 Uniform Del: 46.5 24.8 22.1 97.2 29.2 29.2 42.3 39.2 38.9 34.9 28.8 28.8 Incre;nntDel: 4.6 0.3 0.2 1.1 1.1 1.1 2.0 2.5 4.6 3.9 0.5 0.5 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay 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 Delay/Veh: 51.3 25.0 22.3 48.3 30.3 3D.3 44.3 41.7 43.5 38.8 29.3 29.3 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: 51.3 25.0 22.3 48.3 30.3 30.3 44.3 41.7 43.5 38.8 29.3 29.3 LOS by Move: D C C D C C D D D D C C HCM2kAvgQ: 6 9 3 3 14 14 6 1D 8 12 10 10 15-235 TrafTix 7.8.0915 Copyright (c) 21)05 Dowling Associates, Inc Licensed to Hexagon Trans. San Jose COMPARE Fri Oct 0512:01:43 2007 Page 3-11 Level Of Senrice Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume AllernaGve) Projep PM Intersection #3: HomesteadNVolfe Signal=ProlecVRights=lnGude Final Vot: 146 1170"` 158 Lanes: D 1 2 D 2 Signal=Protect Signal=Proled Final Vol: Lanes: RighlS=Include Vol Cnl Dale: 7/172007 Rights~nclude Lanes: Final Vol: CyGe Time (sec): 110 176 1 0 89 Lo ss Tune ( sec): 0 ~ 0 ~ 1 582"' 2 ~ Critical V/C: 0.699 ~ 1 574 0 -~-~• Avg Cril Dal (sedveh): 36.8 ~ 0 239 1 ~ Avg Delay (seGveh): 34.7 ~ 1 367"' LOS: C 1 ~ ~~ Lanes: 2 0 2 0 1 Rnal Vol: 267"' 687 152 Signal=ProfecURights=Include Street Name: Wolfe Road Homestead Road Approach: 1Qor th Bound South Bound East Bound West Bo und Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 L 0 0 0 0 - -- . - .. _ - .. - I - - - - - Volume Module: » - - ~- ~ - - - - - I I Count Date: - ~ - - - - - - - ~ - - ~ ~ - 17 Jul 2007 « I I _ . - - - - - - - - PM Peak - - - - I f - - - .. _ _ _ . - - - - - - Base Vol: 287 681 146 158 1159 146 158 556 239 356 574 89 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: 287 681 146 156 1159 146 158 556 239 356 574 89 Added Vol: 0 6 6 0 11 0 18 6 0 11 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 287 687 152 158 T170 146 176 562 239 367 574 89 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: 287 687 152 158 1170 146 176 562 239 367 574 89 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 287 687 152 158 1170 146 176 562 239 367 574 89 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.OD 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 N1LF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.OD 1.00 1.00 1.00.1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 287 687 152 158 1170 146 176 562 239 367 574 89 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 0.95 0.85 0.92 0.89 0.89 0.95 0.95 0.65 0.95 0.93 0.93 Lanes: 2.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 2.67 0.33 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.73 0.27 Final Sat.: 3502 3610 1615 3502 4533 566 1805 3610 1615 1805 3063 475 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.08 0.19 0.09 0.05 0:26 0.26 0.10 0.16 0.15 0.20 0.19 0.19 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.12 0.39 0.39 0.09 0.37 0.37 0.18 0.22 0.22 0.29 0.34 0.34 Volume/Cap: 0.70 0.48 0.24 0.48 0.70 0.70 0.55 0.70 0.66 0.70 0.55 0.55 Uniform Del: 46.7 25.0 22.4 47.4 29.5 29.5 41.4 39.4 39.0 34.7 29.7 29.7 IncremntDel: 5.3 0.3 0.2 1.1 1.2 1.2 2.2 2.7 4.6 4.2 0.6 0.6 InitQueuDel: D.0 0.0 0:0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay 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 Delay/Veh: 52.0 25.3 22.6 48.5 30.7 30.7 43.6 42.1 43.7 38.9 30.3 30.3 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: 52.0 25.3 22.6 48.5 30.7 30.7 43.6 42.1 43.7 38.9 30.3 30.3 LOS by Move: D C C D C C D D D D C C HCM2kAvgQ: 6 9 3 3 15 15 6 10 8 12 10 10 15-236 Tratfix 7.8.0915 Copyright (c) 2005 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans. San Joss COMPARE Fri Od 0512:01:43 2007 Page 3.12 Level Of Service Computation Reporl 2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Allemative) Future Growth PM Intersection #3: Homestead/Wolfe Signal=P.rofedlRighls=NGud e Final Vol: 151 1211'-' 164 L anes: D 1 2 0 2 Signal=Profecl Signal=Protect Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include `_ Vol Cn1 Dale: Cycle Time (sec): nla 110 Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol: J 162 1 0 92 Lo ss Time (sec): 0 ~~ 0 1 562°' 2 _~ CritiralV/C: 0,723 J_____ 1 sss 0 Avg Cril Del (serJveh): 37.5 0 247 1 ~ Avg Detay (serJveh): 35.3 ~ 1 379•" LOS: D Lanes: 2 0 2 D 1 Final Vol: 296"' 711 156 Signal=ProleeVRights=lnel u de Street Name: Wolfe Road Homestead Road Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Sound Movement : L - ------------~----- T -- - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Min. Green: 0 --- 0 -----~~ 0 ---- 0 ------ 0 ----- 0 ~~---------- 0 0 -----l 0 ~----- 0 ----- 0 -----~ 0 Volume Module: Base Vol: 296 711 156 164 1211 151 182 582 247 379 595 92 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: 296 711 156 164 1211 151 182 582 247 379 595 92 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 Initial Fut: 296 711 156 164 1211 151 182 582 247 379 595 92 User Adj: 1.00 1.OD 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.OD 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: 296 711 156 164 1211 151 182 582 247 379 595 92 Reduct Vol: 0 0 D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 296 711 156 164 1211 151 182 582 247 379 595 92 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 Final Vol.: 296 711 156 164 1211 151 182 582 247 379 595 92 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 0.95 0.85 0.92 0.89 0.89 0.95 0.95 0.85 0.95 0.93 0.93 Lanes: 2.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 2.67 0.33 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.73 0.27 Final Sat.: 3502 3610 1615 3502 4534 565 1805 3610 1615 1805 3064 474 Capacity Analysis Modul e: Vol/Sat: 0.08 0.20 0.10 0.05 0.27 0.27 0.10 0.16 0.15 0.21 0.19 0.19 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.12 0.39 0.39 0.09 0.37 0.37 0.18 0.22 0.22 0.29 0.34 0.34 Volume/Cap: 0.72 0.50 0.25 0.50 0.72 0.72 0.57 0.72 0.69 0.72 0.57 0.57 Uniform Del: 46.8 25.2 22.4 47.4 29.8 29.8 41.6 39.6 39.2 35.0 29.9 29.9 IncremntDel: 6.2 0.3 0.2 1.2 1.4 1.4 2.6 3.3 5.4 4.9 0.7 0.7 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay 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 Delay/Veh: 53.1 25.5 22.6 48.6 31.2 31.2 44.1 42.8 44.6 40.0 30.6 30.6 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 Adj Del/Veh: 53.1 25.5 22.6 48.6 31.2 31.2 44.1 42.8 44.6 40.0 30.6 30.6 LOS by Move: D C C D C C D D D D C C HCM2kAVgQ: 7 10 4 3 15 15 6 11 9 13 10 10 15-237 TraFix 7.6J)915 Copyright (c) 2005 Dowling Assoaates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans. San Joss COMPARE Fri Ocl D512:D1:43 20D7 Page 313 Level Ot Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations (Future Vdume Allema0ve) 6dsting PM Intersection #4: Signal=Proled/Rights=lndude Final Vot: 24 1315 116'^ lanes: 0 1 2 0 1 ~~~ Signal=Protect Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include 24 1 ~i` 0 J~ 14••• 0 1 116 0 Vol Cnl Dale: 7117f2DD7 Cyde Time (sec): 110 Loss Time (sec): 0 Critical V/C: 0.524 Avg Crit Del (seclveh): 26.1 Avg Delay (sedveh): 24.7 LOS: C ~~~~ lanes: 2 0 2 0 1 Final Vol: 171 942•" 0 . Signal=ProtecURights=Ignore Street Name: Wolfe Road Approach: North Sound South Bound Movement : L - T - R L - T - R Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 Volume Module: » Count Date: 17 Jul 2007 « Base Vol: 171 942 i77 118 1315 24 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 171 942 177 118 1315 24 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 Passer3yVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 171 942 177 118 1315 24 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 171 942 0 116 1315 24 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 171 942 0 118 1315 24 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 171 942 0 118 1315 24 Saturation Flow module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.91 0.91 Lanes: 2.D0 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.95 0.05 Final Sat.: 3502 3610 1900 1805 5079 93 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.05 0.26 0.00 0.07 0.26 0.26 Crit Moves: **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.10 0.50 0.00 0.12 0.52 0.52 Volume/Cap: 0.49 0.52 0.00 0.52 0.49 0.49 Uniform Del: 47.0 18.7 0.0 45.1 16.8 16.8 IncremntDel: 1.1 0.3 0.0 2.2 0.3 0.1 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 48.1 19.0 0.0 47.3 17.0 17.0 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh:' 48.1 19.0 0.0 47.3 17.0 17.0 LOS by Move: D B A D B B HCM2kAVgQ: 3 11 0 4 it 11 Signal=Prated Rights=lndude Lanes; Final Vol: 1 37 ~_ 0 1 41 0 2 415«' Prun East Bound L - T - R 0 0 0 ?M Peak 24 14 116 1.D0 1.OD 1.00 24 14 116 0 0 0 0 0 D 24 14 116 1.00 1.00 l.oo 1.00 1.00 1.00 24 14 116 0 0 0 24 14 116 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.OD 1.OD 24 14 116 1900 1900 1900 D.95 0.87 0.87 1.00 0.11 0.89 1805 177 1468 0.01 0.08 0.08 **** 0.14 0.15 0.15 0.10 0.52 0.52 41.4 43.1 43.1 0.2 2.0 2.0 o.o o.o o.o 1.00 1.OD 1.00 41.5 45.1 45.1 1.00 1.OD 1.00 41.5 45.1 45.1 D D D 1 5 5 :ridge west Bound L - T - R 0 0 0 415 41 37 1.00 1.00 1.00 415 41 37 0 '0 D 0 0 0 415 41 37 l.o0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 415 41 37 0 0 0 415 41 37 1.00 1.00 l.oo 1.00 1.00 1.00 415 41 37 1900 1900 1900 0.92 1.00 0.85 2.00 1.00 1.00 3502 1900 1615 0.12 0.02 0.02 **** 0.23 0.24 0.24 0.52 0.09 0.10 37.4 32.6 32.6 0.~6 0.l 0.1 D.0 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 36.0 32.7 32.7 1.00 1.00 1.00 38.0 32.7 32.7 D C C 7 1 1 15-238 Trai<z 7.6.0915 Copyright (c) 2005 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hezagan Trans. San Jose COMPARE Fri Od 0512:01:43 2007 Page 3.14 Level Of Servire Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Allematrve) Background Pld Intersection #4: Wolfe/Pruneridge Signal=Proted/Rights=lndude Final VOt: 24 1399"' 116 L anes: 0 1 2 0 1 Signal=Protect Signal=Proled Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=lndude Vol Cnt Dale: 7/172007 Rights=Include Lanes: Fnal Vol: ~ 4 Cyde Terre (sec): 110 2 1 1 37 Lo ss Tine: (sec): 0 0 .~~„ 0 14"' D ~ Critical V/C: 0.616 ~ 1 41 1 ~ Avg Crit Del (seG veh): 31.4 0 195 0 ~ Avg Delay (seGveh): 29.6 ~ 2 494"' LOS: C Lanes: 2 0 2 0 1 Final Vol: 252^' 1026 0 Sign a1=ProtecURights=lgn ore Street Name: Wolfe Road Pruneridge Approach: 1Qorth Sound So uth Bound East Bound West Bound Movement : L - ------------~----- T ----- - R ---- ~ L - T - R L - T - R L - T - ?? Min. Green: D 0 - ~ 0 ---- D ------ 0 ----- 0 ~~----------- 0 0 ----~ 0 I---- 0 ------ 0 -----~ 0 Volume Module: » Count Date: 17 Jul 2007 « PM Peak Base Vol: 171 942 177 118 1315 24 24 14 116 415 41 37 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: 171 942 177 118 1315 24 24 14 116 415 41 37 Added Vol: 0 0 ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Approved Tr: 81 84 84 0 84 0 0 0 79 79 0 0 Initial Fut: 252 1026 261 118 1399 24 24 14 195 494 41 37 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 252 1026 0 118 1399 24 24 14 195 494 41 37 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 252 1026 0 118 1399 24 24 14 195 494 41 37 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 N1LF Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.OD 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 252 1026 0 118 1399 24 24 14 195 494 41 37 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.91 0.91 0.95 0.86 0.86 0.92 1.00 0.85 Lanes: 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.OD 2.95 0.05 1.00 0.07 0.93 2.00 1.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 3502 3610 1900 1805 5084 87 1805 109 1525 3502 1900 1615 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.07 0.26 0.00 0.07 0.28 0.28 0.01 0.13 0.13 0.14 0.02 0.02 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green/Cyr~le: 0.12 0.46 0.00 0.11 0.45 0.45 0.16 0.21 0.21 0.23 0.28 0.28 Volume/Cap: 0.62 0.62 0.00 0.62 0.62 0.62 0.08 0.62 0.62 0.62 0.08 0.08 Uniform Del: 46.2 22.6 0.0 47.1 23.2 23.2 39.3 39.6 39.6 36.1 29.4 29.5 IncremntDel: 2.6 0.7 0.0 6.2 0.5 0.5 0.1 3.4 3.4 1.4 0.1 0.1 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 D.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 49.0 23.3 D.0 53.3 23.7 23.7 39.4 43.0 43.0 39.5 29.5 29.6 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.OD 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 49.0 23.3 0.0 53.3 23.7 23.7 39.4 43.0 43.0 39.5 29.5 29.6 LOS by Move: D C A D C C D D D D C C HCM2kAvgQ: 5 14 0 5 14 14 1 7 7 8 1 1 15-239 7raffix 7.6.0915 Copyright (c) 2005 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans. San Jose COIdPARE Fri Oct 0512:01:43 2007 Page 3-15 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM OparaGons (Future Volume Altemalive) Project PM Intersection #4: Wolfe/Pruneridge Signal=P rotecVRights--Include Final Vol: 24 1399^' 116 Lanes: _ 1 0 1 i I2 TTT 0 1 Signal=Protetl Signal=Protect Final Vol; Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: 7/ 1712007 Rights=lndude Lanes: Final Vol: 3 Cycle Tune (sec): 110 5 1 1 37 D ~.~„ Loss Tlrr~ (sec): 0 o 26'^ 0 ~y,~ Crilipt V/C: 0.651 ~ 1 52 1 Avg Crit Del (sedveh): 33.4 ~ 0 227 0 ~ Avg Delay (secNeh): 31.6 ~ 2 494"• LOS: C Lanes: 2 0 2 0 1 Final Vol: 282"' 1025 0 Signal=Proted/RighlS=Ignore Street Name: Wolfe Road Pruneridge Approach: North Bound So uth Bound East Bound West Bound Movement : L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Volume Module: » Count Date: 17 Cul 2007 « PM Peak Base Vol: 252 1026 261 118 1399 24 24 14 195 494 41 37 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: 252 1026 261 118 1399 24 24 14 195 494 41 37 Added Vol: 30 0 0 0 0 0 12 12 32 0 11 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 282 1026 261 118 1399 24 36 26 227 494 52 37 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 282 1026 0 118 1399 24 36 26 227 494 52 37 Redact Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 282 1026 0 118 1399 24 36 26 227 494 52 37 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 282 1026 0 118 1399 24 36 26 227 494 52 37 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 3900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.91 0.91 0.95 0.87 0.87 0.92 1.00 0.85 Lanes: 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.95 0.05 1.00 0.10 0.90 2.00 1.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 3502 3610 1900 1805 5084 87 1805 169 1475 3502 1900 1615 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: O.OB 0.28 0.00 0.07 0.28 0.28 0.02 0.15 0.15 0.14 0.03 0.02 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.12 0.44 0.00 0.10 0.42 0.42 0.19 0.24 0.24 0.22 0.26 0.26 Volume/Cap: 0.65 0.64 0.00 0.64 0.65 0.65 0.10 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.10 0.09 Uniform Del: 45.9 23.7 0.0 47.4 25.3 25.3 36.7 37.9 37.9 39.3 30.8 30.6 IncremntDel: 3.5 0.9 0.0 7.3 0.7 0.7 0.1 3.9 3.9 2.0 0.1 0.1 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 D.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 49.4 24.6 0.0 54.8 26.0 26.0 36.9 41.8 41.8 41.3 30.9 30.7 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: 49.4 24.6 0.0 54.8 26.0 26.0 36.9 41.8 41.8 41.3 30.9 30.7 LOS by Move: D C A D C C D D D D C C HCM2kAvgQ: 6 15 0 5 14 14 1 9 9 g 1 1 15 - 240 Traffix 7.8.0915 Copyright (c) 2005 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans. San Jose COMPARE Fri Od OS 12'01:432007 Page 3.1fi Level OI Service Computation Report 2DD0 HCM Operations {Future Volume Allemative) F uture Growth PM Infersecfion #4: WDIfelPruneridge Signal=ProlacVRights=lndude Final Vol: 25 1446"' 122 Lanes: D 1 2 +~0'~ 1 Signal~roled 7 Signal=Prolecl Firtal Vol: Lanes: Rights=lnctude Vol Cnt Date: Na Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol: 37 Cyde Time (sec): 110 1 1 36 Loss Time (sec): 0 27~ 0 ~ Critiral V/C: 0.669 ~ 1 53 1 ~~- Avg Cril Del (sedvehj: 33.7 D 231 D ~ Avg Delay (sedvehj: 320 ~ 2 509"' LOS: C 1 Lanes: 2 0 2 D 1 Final Vol: 286"' 1060 0 Signal=ProtecURights=Ignore Street Name: Wolf e Road Pruneridge Approach: No rth Bound South Bound East Bound W est Bound Movement.: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Min . Green : 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Volume Module: Base Vol: 288 1050 267 122 1446 25 37 27 231 509 53 38 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.D0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.OD 1.00 Initial Bse: 288 1060 267 122 1446 25 37 27 231 509 53 38 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol:- D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 288 1060 267 122 1446 25 37 27 231 509 53 38 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.DD 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.D0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 ' PHF Volume: 288 1060 0 122 1446 25 37 27 231 509 53 38 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 288 1060 0 122 1446 25 37 27 231 509 53 38 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.D0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1_.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 268 1060 0 122 1446 25 37 27 231 509 53 38 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.91 0.91 0.95 0.87 0.87 0.92 1.00 0.85 Lanes: 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.95 0.05 1.00 0.10 .0.90 2.00 1.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 3502 3610 1900 1805 5084 88 1805 172 1473 3502 1900 1615 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.08 0.29 0.00 0.07 0.28 0.28 0.02 0.16 0.16 0.15 O.D3 0.02 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.12 0.45 0.00 0.10 0.43 0.43 0.19 0.23 0.23 0.22 0.26 0.26 Volume/Cap: 0.67 0.66 D.00 0:66 0.67 0.67 0.11 0.67 0.67 0.67 D.11 0.09 Uniform Del: 46.1 23.9 0.0 47.5 25.4 25.4 36.7 38.2 38.2 39.4 30.9 30.8 IncremntDel: 4.0 1.0 0.0 8.4 0.8 0.8 0.1 4.5 4.5 2.3 0.1 0.1 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 D.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 5D.1 24.9 0.0 55.9 26.2 26.2 36.9 42.7 42.7 41.7 31.0 30.9 User De1Adj: 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: 50.1 24.9 0.0 55.9 26.2 26.2 36.9 42.7 42.7 41.7 31.0 30.9 LOS by Move: D C A E C C D D D D C C HCM2kAvgQ: 6 15 0 5 15 15 1 9 9 9 1 1 15-241 Traira 7.8.0915 Copyright {c) 2005 Dowling Assodales, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Tens. San Jose COMPARE Fri OG 0512:01:43 2007 Page 3.17 Leval Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Ope:afions (Future Volurtr_ Allernafive) Existing PM Intersection +/5: Wolfe/I-280 NB Ramp Signal=Proted/Righls=Ignore Final Vol; 0 1295"' 0 Lanes: 0 0 2 0 0 Signal=Proietl Signal=Prated Final Vof: Lanes: R ts=lndude Vol Cnt Date: 10!32006 Rights=lndude Lanes: Final Vol: ~ CyGe Time (sec} 55 0 0 1 440^ • Loss Time (sec): 0 D .~~ ; D '~ -`- 0 0 _- 4 Critical V/C: 0.523 ~ 1! D 0 ~ Avg Cri1 Del (sed veh): 8.7 D 0 0 ~ Avg Delay (serNeh): 7.2 ~ 1 325 LOS: A 1 ~ I Lanes: 0 0 2 0 D Final Vol: D•" 709 0 Signal=Prof eulRighls~lgnore Street Name: Wolfe Road I-280 NB Ramp Approach: North Bo und South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement : L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Volume Module: » Count Date: 3 Oct 2006 « PM Peak Base Vol: 0 709 0 0 1295 0 0 0 0 325 0 440 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: 0 709 0 0 1295 0 0 0 0 325 0 440 Added Vol: 0 0 0 D 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 p 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 0 709 0 0 1295 0 0 0 0 325 0 440 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 0 709 0 0 1295 0 0 0 0 325 0 440 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 709 0 0 1295 0 0 0 0 325 0 440 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 O.OD 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 0 709 0 0 1295 0 0 0 0 325 0 440 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.89 1.00 0.89 Lanes: 0.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.42 0.00 1.58 Final Sat.: 0 3610 0 0 3610 D 0 0 0 2422 0 2678 Capacity Analysis Modul e: Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.36 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.13 0,00 0.16 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.00 0.69 0.00 0.00 0.69 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.31 0.00 0.31 Volume/Cap: 0.00 0.29 0.00 0.00 0.52 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.43 0.00 0.52 Uniform Del: 0.0 3.4 0.0 0.0 4.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 14.9 0.0 15.5 IncremntDel: 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.3 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay Adj: 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 0.0 3.4 0.0 0.0 4.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 15.1 0.0 15.8 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: 0.0 3.4 D.0 0.0 4.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 15.1 0.0 15.8 LOS by Move: A A A A A A A A A B A B HCM2kAvgQ: 0 3 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 3 0 5 15-242 Traffix 7.8.17915 Copyright (c} 2005 Dowling Assodates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans. San Jose COMPARE Fri Od 0512:01:43 2007 Page 3.18 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM OpereOons (Future Volume Alternative) Backgrountl PM Intersection #5: Wolfe/I-280 NB Ramp Signal=ProtecVRi ghts=Ignore Final Vol: D 1537'^ 0 Lanes: 0 D 2 0 0 ~ :`~ ~• Signal=Protect Signal=Proted Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=lndude Vol Cnt Date: 10/3f2006 Rights=lndude Lanes: Final Vot: Cycle Tirr~ (sec): 55 0 0 1 440 Loss Time (sec): 0 0 ~1 0 D 0 ~ Critical V/C: 0.654 ~ 1! 0 0 Avg Crit Del (seclvehj: 10.4 0 0 0 ~ Avg Delay (sedveh): 8.7 ~ 1 626'•• LOS: A -~ t ~*~ ~ Lanes: 0 0 2 D 0 Final Vd: 0^' 958 0 Signal=ProlecURighls=Ignore Street Name: Wolfe Road I-280 Approach: North Sound South Bound East Bound Movement : L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------I---------------II---------------II--------------- Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 0 ------------I---------------II---------------II--------------- Volume Module: » Count Date: 3 Oct 2006 « PM Peak Base Vol: 0 709 0 0 1295 0 0 0 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 709 0 0 1295 0 0 0 0 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 P.pproved Tr: 0 249 0 0 242 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 0 958 0 0 1537 D 0 0 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.OD 1.00 PHF Volume: 0 958 0 0 1537 0 0 0 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 958 0 0 1537 0 0 0 0 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 0 958 0 0 1537 0 0 0 0 ------------I---------------II---------------II--------------- Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: O.DO 2.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 O.DO Final Sat.: 0 3610 0 0 3610 0 0 0 0 ---------=--I---------------II---------------II--------------- Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.27 0.00 0.00 0.43 O.OD 0.00 0.00 O.OD Crit Moves: **** **** Green/Cycle: O.DO 0.65 0.00 0.00 0.65 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Volu_*De/Cap: 0.00 0.41 0.00 0.00 0.65 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Del: 0.0 4.6 0.0 0.0 5.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 IncremntDel: 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.7 D.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay Adj: 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Delay/Veh: 0.0 4.7 0.0 0.0 6.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 0.0 4.7 0.0 0.0 6.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 LOS by Move: A A A A A A A A A HCM2kAvgQ: 0 4 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 VB Ramp West Sound L - T - R II---------------I 0 0 D II---------------I 325 0 440 1.00 1.00 1.00 325 0 440 0 0 0 303 0 0 628 0 440 1.00 1.00 1.Do 1.00 1.00 1.00 628 0 440 0 0 0 628 0 440 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 628 0 440 II---------------I 1900 1900 1900 0.91 1.00 0.91 1.59 0.00 1.41 2748 0 2443 II---------------I 0.23 0.00 0.18 **** 0.35 0.00 0.35 0.65 0.00 0.52 15.1 0.0 14.2 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.00 0.00 1.00 16.1 0.0 14.4 1.00 1.00 1.00 16.1 0.0 14.4 B A B 7 0 5 15 - 243 Tretfix 7.8.0915 Copyright (c) 2005 DowLng Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans. San Jose COIdPARE Fri OIX OS 12:01:43 2007 Page 319 Leval Of Service Cort~rutation Report 2000 HCM Operations {Future Vdume Al temafive) Project PM Intersection #5: Wolfe/I-280 NB Ramp Signal=Prate WRi ghts=Ignore Final Vol: 0 1561'^ 0 L anes: 0 0 2 0 D Signal=Protect Signal=Proled Fnal Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vd Cnt Date: 10/3/2006 Rights=lndude Lanes: Final Vol: Cyde Tim (sec): 55 0 0 1 447 La ss Time (sec): 0 0 ~~ p 0 0 ~ Critical V/C: 0.661 ~ 1! D 0 Avg Crit Del (seG veh): 10.5 0 0 0 ~ Avg Delay (sedvah): 6.7 ~ 1 626^• LOS: A 1 ~ 1 Lanes: 0 0 2 0 0 Final Vd: 0^' 980 0 Sign al =ProtectlRi ghls Ignore Street Name: Wolfe Road I-280 NB Ramp Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement : L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Volume Nodule: » Count Date: 3 Oct 2006 « PM Peak Base Vol: 0 958 0 0 1537 0 0 0 0 628 D 440 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: 0 958 0 0 1537 0 0 0 0 628 0 440 Added Vol: 0 22 0 0 24 8 D 0 0 0 0 7 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 0 980 0 0 1561 8 0 0 0 628 0 447 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.OD 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 0 980 0 D 1561 0 0 0 0 628 0 447 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 980 0 0 1561 0 0 0 0 628 0 447 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.OD 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 0 980 0 0 1561 0 0 0 0 628 0 447 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.91 Lanes: 0.00 2.00, 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.58 0.00 1.92 Final Sat.: 0 ------------~----- 3610 ----- 0 D 3610 0 0 D 0 2744 0 2453 Capacity Analysis Modul -----~~ e: ----- ----- ----- ~~----- ------ ----f~ ----- ----- -----~ Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.27 0.00 0.0.0 0.43 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.23 0.00 0.18 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.00 0.65 0.00 0.00 0.65 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,35 0.00 0.35 ~tlolume/Cap: 0.00 0.42 0.00 0.00 0.66 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.66 0.00 0.53 Uniform Del: 0.0 4.5 0.0 0.0 5.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 15.2 0.0 14.4 IncremntDel: 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.3 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 D.0 Delay Adj: O.DO 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 0.0 4.6 0.0 0.0 6.5 0.0 0.0 O.D 0.0 16.3 0.0 14.6 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: 0.0 4.6 0.0 0.0 6.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 16.3 0.0 14.6 LOS by Move: A A A A A A A A A B A B HCM2 kAvgQ : 0 4 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 7 0 5 15 - 244 Tratfix 7.6.0915 Copyright (c) 2005 Dowling Assodales, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans. San Jose COMPARE Fri Od OS ~2:D1:43 2007 Page 3.20 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations (Future VolumeAltemative) Future Growth PM Intersection #5: Wo)fe/1-280 NB Ramp Signal=Proled/Righls=Ignore Final UW: 0 1606°' D Lanes: 0 0 2 D 0 Signal=ProteG Signal=Protect Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnl Cycle Time Date: (sac): nla 55 Rights=lnGude Lanes: Final Vol: 0 0 ~ 1 463 ~ Lo ss Time (sec): 0 ~ 0 p D 0 _y~ Cdfical V/C: 0.679 ~ 1! 0 0 ~ Avg Cdl Del (serJveh~ 10.7 0 0 D ~ Avg Delay (seclveh): 6.9 ~ 1 640"' LOS: A Lanes: 0 0 2 0 0 Final Vol: 0"' 10D6 D Signal=ProfecURighis=Ignore Street Name: Wolfe Road I-280 N"B Ramp Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement : L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 0 0 0 0 Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 1006 103 0 1608 624 0 0 0 640 0 463 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.D0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 1006 103 0 1608 624 0 0 0 640 0 463 Added Vol: 0 ' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ 0 0 0 D 0 0 Initial Fut: 0 1006 103 0 1608 624 0 0 0 640 0 463 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 0 1006 0 0 1608 0 0 0 0 640 0 463 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 1006 0 0 1608 D 0 0 0 640 0 463 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1,00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.D0 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 0 1006 0 0 1608 0 0 0 0 640 0 463 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.91 Lanes: 0.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.58 0.00 1.42 Final Sat.: 0 3610 0 0 3610 0 0 0 0 2735 0 2457 Capacity Analysis Modul e: Vol/Sat: O.DO 0.28 0.00 0.00 0.45 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.23 0.00 0.19 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.00 0.66 0.00 0.00 0.66 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.34 0.00 0,34 Volume/Cap: 0.00 0.43 0.00 0.00 0.68 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.68 '0.00 0.55 Uniform Del: 0.0 4.5 D.0 0.0 5.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 15.4 0.0 14.6 IncremntDel: 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.2 0.0 0.3 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay Adj: 0.00 1,00 0.00 0.-00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 0.0 4.6 Q.0 0.0 6.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 16.6 0.0 14.9 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.D0 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: D.0 4.6 D.0 0.0 6.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 16.6 0.0 14.9 LOS by Move: A A A A A A A A A B A B HCM2kAvgQ : 0 5 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 7 0 5 15 - 245 Traffix 7.8.0915 Copyright (c) 2005 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans. San Jose COMPARE Fri Od 0512:01:43 2007 Page 3-21 Levet Of Service Computation Report 20D0 HCM Operations (Future Volume Attemative) Frosting PM Intersecfio~ #6: Wolfe/I-280 SB Ramp Signal=Protecf/Rights=Ignore Fnal Vol: 0 1286' D Lanes: 0 0 3 0 D ~~~-~ Signa)=Prated Signal=Prated Final Vd: Lanes: Righls~nclude Vol Cnl Dale: 10/3f20D6 Rights=lndude Lanes: Final Vol: Cytle Time (sec): 55 460"' 2 ~ D 0 0 ~ Loss Tune (sec): 0 + 0 0 0 ~ Critical V/C: 0.360 '~•Ti" 0 0 0 Avg Cril Del (seGveh): 6.9 ~ 0 370 2 ~ Avg Delay (serJveh): 7.1 ~ D D. LOS: A Lanes: 0 0 2 0 0 Final Vol: 0"' 739 D Signal=ProlecURights=lgnwe Street Name: Wolfe Road I-280 Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound Movement : L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------I---------------II---------------II--------------- Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ------------I---------------II---------------II--------------- Volume Module: » Count Date: 3 Oct 2006 « PM Peak Base Vol: 0 739 0 0 1288 0 460 0 370 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 739 0 0 1288 0 460 0 370 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 D 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 0 739 0 0 1288 0 460 0 370 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.D0 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 0 739 0 0 1288 0 460 0 370 Redact Vol: 0 0 D 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 739 0 0 1288 0 460 0 370 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 0 739 0 0 1288 0 460 0 370 ------------I---------------II---------------II--------------- Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 19D0 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.92 1.00 0.75 Lanes: 0.00 2.00 D.00 0.00 3.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 Final Sat.: 0 3610 .0 0 5187 0 3502 0 2842 ------------I---------------II---------------II--------------- Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.13 0.00 0.13 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.00 0.65 0.00 0.00 0.65 0.00 0.35 0.00 0.35 Volume/Cap: 0.00 0.31 0.00 0.00 0.38 0.00 0.38 0.00 0.38 Uniform Del: D.0 4.1 0.0 0.0 4.4 0.0 13.5 0.0 13.5 IncremntDel: 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.2 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay Adj: 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 0.0 4.2 0.0 0.0 4.5 0.0 13.7 0.0 13.8 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 0.0 4.2 0.0 0.0 4.5 0.0 13.7 0.0 13.8 LOS by Move: A A A A A A B A B HCM2kAvgQ: 0 3 0 0 4 0 3 0 3 5B Ramp West Bound L - T - R II---------------I 0 0 0 I1---------------I 0 0 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0 0 0 II---------------I 1900 1900 1900 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 II---------------i 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 A A A 0 0 0 15 - 246 7raffix 7.8A915 Copyright (c) 2005 Dowling Assoaates, tnc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans. San Jose COMPARE Fri Od OS 12:01:43 2007 Page 322 Level Of Service Computation Repoli 20D0 HCM Operations (Future Volume Allemative) Background PM Intersection #6: Wolfe/I-280 SB Ramp - Signal=ProlecURights=Ignore Final Vol: D 1635 0^• Lanes: 0 0 3 0 0 ~~ Signal=Proled Signal=Prated Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=include Vol Cnl Daie: 10l3l2D06 Rights=lndude Lanes: Fnal Vol: 460 CydeTime(sec): ~ 55 2 0 D D ~~ Loss Tim=_ (sec): 0 0 0 0 ~ CriDcaIVIC: 0-568 ~ ~ D D D Avg Grit Del (sedveh): 9.4 0 661"' 2 ~ Avg Delay {sedveh): 8.6 ~ 0 0 LOS: A Lanes: 0 0 2 0 D Fnal Vol: 0 1284^• 0 Signal=ProfecURighis--Ignore Street Name: Wolfe Road I-280 S B Ramp Approach: No rth Bound South Bound Sast Bound West Bound Movement : L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Volume Module: » Count Date: 3 Oct 2006 « PM Peak Base Vol: 0 .739 0 0 1288 D 460 0 370 0 0 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.OD 1.00 1.00 1.OD 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 739 0 0 1286 0 460 0 370 0 0 0 Added Vol: 0 D 0 0 0. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 P.pproved Tr: 0 545 0 0 547 0 0 0 291 0 0 0 Initial rut: D 1284 _ 0 0 1835 0 460 0 661 0 D 0 User Adj: 1.D0 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.D0 1.OD 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 0 1284 0 0 1835 0 460 0 661 0 0 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 1284 0 0 1835 0 460 0 661 0 0 0 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.D0 1.00 1.00 l.OD 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 0 1284 0 0 1835 0 460 0 661 0 0 0 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 19D0 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.92 1.00 0.75 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 0.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 3.00 0.00 2.00 D.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Final Sat.: 0 3610 0 0 5187 0 3502 0 2842 0 0 0 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.36 0.00 0.00 0.35 0.00 0.13 O.DO 0,23 0.00 0.00 0.00 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.00 0.60 0.00 0.00 0,60 0.00 0.40 0.00 0:40 0.00 0.00 0.00 Volume/Cap: 0.00 0.59 0.00 0.00 D.59 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.59 0.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Del: 0.0 6.7 O.D 0.0 6.7 0.0 11.6 0.0 13.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 IncremntDel: D,0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.1 0.0 0,8 0.0 0.0 0.0 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 D.0 0.0 0.0 Delay Adj: _0.00 1.00 D.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - Delay/Veh: 0.0 7.1 0.0 0.0 6.9 0.0 11.7 0.0 13.9 0.0 0.0 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: O.D 7.1 0.0 0.0 6.9 0.0 11.7 0.0 13.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 LOS by Move: A A A A A A B A B A A A HCM2kAvgQ: D 8 0 0 8 0 3 0 6 0 0 0 15 - 247 Traffix 7.B.DB75 Copyright (c) 2005 Dowlin Assodates, Inc. 9 Licensed to Hexagon Trans. Sen Jose COMPARE Fri Oct 051201:43 2007 Page 3-23 Level Of Service Computation Report 20D0 HCM Operati ons {FuWre Vdume Alfernafive) Project PM Intersection #6: Wolfe/I-280 SB f2amp Signal=ProtecURights=Ignore Final Vd: 0 7651"' 0 Lanes: 0 0 3 D 0 Signal=Prolecl Signal=Protect Fnal Vol: Lanes: Rights=lndude Vol Cni Date: 10/3l2DD6 Rights-Indude Lanes: Final Vd: Cy de Time { sec): 55 467 2 ~ 0 D j Lo ss Tirrr (s ec): 0 D - T'~- ~ 0 0 0 ~ Critipl V1C: 0.589 ~ 0 D 0 Avg Cdt Del (sedv eh): B.B ~ 0 6fi1"' 2 ~ Avg Delay (sedveh): 8.6 ~ D D LOS: A Lanes: 0 0 2 0 0 Final Vol: 0•" 1299 0 Signal=Proled/Rights=Ignore Street Name: Wolfe Road I-280 SB Ramp . Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bou nd West Bot.7_nd Movement : L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Volume Module: » Count Date: 3 Oct 2006 « PM Peak Base Vol: 0 1284 0 0 1835 0 460 0 661 0 0 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.OD 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 1284 0 0 1835 0 460 0 661 0 0 D Added Vol: 0 15 0 0 16 8 7 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 0 1299 0 0 1851 8 467 0 661 0 0 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 0 1299 0 0 1851 0 467 0 661 0 0 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D Reduced Vol: 0 1299 0 0 1851 0 467 0 661 0 0 0 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 O.DO 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 O.DO 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 0 1299 0 0 1851 0 467 0 661 0 0 0 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 190D 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.91 0.91 0.92 1.00 0.75 1.D0 1.00 1.00 Lanes: O.OD 2.00 0.00 0.00 3.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Final Sat.: 0 ------------~ 3610 0 0 5187 0 3502 0 2842 0 0 0 ---------- Capacity Analysis Modul -----~~ e: ----- ----- -----~f ----------- ----~ ~----- ----- -----~ Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.36 O.OD 0.00 0.36 0.00 0.13 0.00 0.23 0.00 0.00 0.00 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.00 0.61 0.00 0.00 0.61 0.00 0.39 0.00 0.39 O.DO 0.00 0.00 Volume/Cap: 0.00 0.59 0.00 0.00 0.59 0.00 0.34 0.00 0.59 0.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Del: 0.0 6.7 0.0 0.0 6.7 0.0 11.6 0.0 13.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 IncremntDel: 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 D.0 0.0 0.0 Delay Adj: 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 D.00 Delay/Veh: 0.0 7.1 0.0 O.D 7.0 0.0 11.8 0.0 14.0 0.0 0.0 D.0 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.D0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 0.0 7.1 0.0 0.0 7.0 0.0 11.8 0.0 14.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 LOS by Move: A A A A A A B A B A A A HCM2kAvgQ: 0 8 0 0 8 0 3 0 6 0 0 0 15-248 TratFx 7.8.0915 Copyright (c) 20D5 Dowling Assodates, Inc Licensed io Hexagon Trans. San Jose COMPARE Fri Od 0512:01:43 2DD7 Page 3-24 Leval Of Service Computation Report 20D0 HCM Operations {Future Volume Atiema0ve) Future Growth PM Intersection #6: Wolfe/1-280 S8 Ramp Sign al=ProtecVRighls=Ignore Final Vol: 0 1897•'• 0 Lanes: 0 0 3 0 0 Signal=Proled Signal=Protect Final Vol: Lanes: Righ45=lndude Vol Cnt Date: n!a Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol: 484 Cycle Time (sec): 55 2 0 D L oss Time (sec): 0 D ~____ 0 0 0 ~ Critical WC: O.ii03 ~ 0 0 D ~ Avg Cri t Det (ser Neh): B.9 0 b74"' 2 ~ Avg Detay (serJvPh): 8.7 ~ 0 0 LOS: A Lanes: 0 0 2 0 D Final Vol: 0"' 1326 D Signal=ProledlRights=Ignore Street Name: Wolfe Road I-280 SB Ramp Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement : L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 0 0 0 Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 1326 399 0 1897 313 484 0 674 0 0 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 i.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.OD 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 1326 399 0 1897 313 484 0 674. 0 0 0 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 D' 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 0 1326 399 0 1897 313 484 0 674 0 0 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 0 1326 0 0 1897 0 484 0 674 0 0 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 1326 0 0 1897 0 484 D 674 0 0 0 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 D.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 0 1326 0 0 1897 0 484 0 674' 0 0 0 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.91 0.91 0.92 1.00 0.75 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 0.00 2.00 0.00 O.DO 3.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Final Sat.: 0 3610 0 0 5187 0 3502 0 2842 0 0 0 Capacity Analysis Modul e: Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.37 0.00 0.00 0.37 0.00 0.14 0.00 0.24 0.00 0.00 D.00 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.00 0.61 0.00 0.00 0.61 0.00 0.39 0.00 0.39 0.00 0.00 0.00 Volume/Cap: 0.00 0.61 0.00 0.00 0.60 0.00 0..35 0.00 0.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Del: 0.0 b.7 0.0 0.0 6.7 0.0 11.7 0.0 13.3 0.0 D.0 0.0 IncremntDel: 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay Adj: 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 D.00 0.00 0.00 Delay/Veh: 0.0 7.2 0.0 0.0 7.0 0.0 11.9 0.0 14.2 0.0 0.0 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 7.2 0.0 0.0 7.0 0.0 11.9 0.0 14.2 0.0 0.0 D.0 LOS by Move: A A A A A A B A B A A A I3CM2kAvgQ: 0 8 0 0 8 0 3 0 6 0 0 0 15-249 Tratfix 7.8.0975 Copyright (c) 2005 Drnvling Associates, inc. Licensed to Hexagan Trans. San Jose COMPARE Fri Ocl 0512:01:43 2007 Page 3-25 Level Of Service ComputaGOn RapoA 2Dl>D HCM Operations (Future Volume A@emative) Existing PM Intersection #7: Wolfe/Stevens Creek Signal=ProfecURights=lncl ude Final Vol: 369'^ 631 297 Lanes: 1 0 2 0 1 Signal=Pmtad Signal=ProteU Fine{ Vol: Lanes: Riphls=Include Vol Cnl Dale: 10/32006 RighlS=lnGude Lanes: Final Vol: ~ GY Ge Time (sec): 110 445"' 2 0 291 # Lo ss Time (sec): 0 0 - ~ - 1 1095 3 ~ Criligl V/C: 0.670 ~ 2 815"' 0 Avg Cril Del (sed veh): 36.6 0 169 1 ~ Avg Delay (sec/veh): 32.6 ~ 2 172 LOS: C Lanes: 1 0 2 1 D Final Vol: 14 4"' 362 57 Signal=ProlecURighls=Include Street Name: Wolfe Road Stevens Creek Boulevard Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement : L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Volume Module: » Count Date: 3 Oct 2006 « PM Peak Base Vol: 144 382 57 297 831 389 445 1095 169 172 815 291 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: 144 382 57 297 831 369 445 1095 169 172 815 291 Added Vol: D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 144 382 57 297 831 389 445 1095 169 172 815 291 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: 144 382 57 297 831 389 445 1095 169 172 815 291 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol:. 144 382 57 297 831 389 445 1095 169 172 815 291 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 Final Vol.: 144 382 57 297 831 389 445 1095 169 172 815 291 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.95 0.89 0.89 0.95 0.95 0.85 0.92 0.91 0.85 0.92 0.87 0.87 Lanes: 1.OD 2.61 0.39 1.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 2.21 0.79 Final Sat.: 1805 4428 .661 1805 3610 1615 3502 5187 1615 3502 3673 1312 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.08 0.09 0.09 0.16 0.23 0.24 0.13 0.21 0.10 0.05 0.22 0.22 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.12 0.16 0.16 0.31 0.36 0.36 0.19 0.42 0.42 0.10 0.33 0.33 Volume/Cap: 0.67 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.69 0.67 0.67 0.50 0.25 0.50 0.67 0.67 Uniform Del: 46.4 42.0 42.0 31.0 29.3 29.7 41.4 23.2 20.5 47.0 31.6 31.6 IncremntDel: 7.9 0.6 D.6 0.9 1.1 3.0 2.7 0.2 0.2 1.1 1.1 1.1 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 D.0 0.0 0.0 Delay 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 Delay/Veh: 54.3 42.6 42.6 31.9 30.4 32.7 44.0 23.4 20.7 48.2 32.7 32.7 User DelAdj: 1.OD 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.OD AdjDel/Veh: 54,3 42.6 42.6 31.9 30.4 32.7 44.0 23.4 20.7 48.2 32.7 32.7 L05 by Move: D D D C C C D. C C D C C HCM2kAVgQ: b 6 6 9 13 12 8 10 4 3 13 13 15-250 T2fiiz 7.8.0915 Copyright (c) 2005 Dowling Associates. Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans. San Jose COMPARE Fri OG 051201:43 2DD7 Page 3-26 Level Of Service Computation Report 20D0 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative) Background PM Intersection #7: Wolfe/5tevens Creek Signal=ProtecURighls=Include Fnal Vol: 691"' B92 SB3 Lanes: 1 0 2 0 1 Signal=ProteG Signal=ProteG Flnal Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include ~ Vol Gnl Dale: 10!32006 Rights=Include Lanes: Finaf Vol Cycie Time (sec): 11D : 703"' 2 D 528^` Lo ss Time [s ec): D o ~ ~ 1153 3 ~ Critical VlC: 1.032 ~ 2 896 0 ~•~• Avg Crit Del (sedveh): 78.8 +~-- 0 169 1 ~ Avg Delay (sedveh): SD.S ~ 2 161 LOS: D lanes: 1 0 2 1 0 Final Vol: 144"' 441 57 Signal=Protect/Rights=lnGude Street Name: Wolfe Road Stevens Creek Boulevard Approach: Nor th Bovnd South Bound. East Bound West Bound Novemen t: L - T - R = L - T - R L - T - R - L - - T - - R ------------~----- Min . Green : 0 ------ 0 --- 11 0 ----- 0 ----- 0 -----~~ 0 ----------- 0 0 ---~~ 0 - ---- 0 ----- 0 --- ----) 0 ~ ------------~----- Volume Module: » ------ Count ----~~ Date: ---------------f~ 3 Oct 2006 « PM ----------- Peak -- -~~ ----- - -- ---- Base Vol: 144 382 57 297 831 389 445 1D95 169 172 815 291 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.OD 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.D0 1.00 1.OD 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 144 382 57 297 831 389 445 1095 169 172 815 291 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Approved Tr: 0 59 0 286 61 302 258 58 0 9 B1 237 Initial Fut: 144 441 57 583 892 691 703 1153 169 181 896 528 User 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 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: 144 441 57 583 892 691 703 1153 •169 181 896 528 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 144 441 57 583 892 691 703 1153 169 181 896 528 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.D0 1.00 1.00 '1 .OD 1.00 N'LF 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 Final Vol.: 144 441 57 583 892 691 703 1153 169 181 896 528 Saturation Flow ldodule: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.95 0.89 0.89 0.95 0.95 0.85 0.92 0.91 0.85 0.92 0.86 0.86 Lanes: 1.D0 2.66 0.34 1.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1805 4515 584 1805 3610 1615 3502 5187 1615 3502 3264 1632 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.08 0.10 0.10 0.32 0.25 0.43 0.20 0.22 0.10 0..05 0.27 0.32 Crit Moves• **** **** **** **"* Green/Cycle: 0.08 0.11 0.11 0.38 0.41 0.41 0.19 0.41 0.41 0.10 0.31 D.31 Volume/Cap: 1.03 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.60 1.03 1.03 0.54 0.25 0.54 0.88 1.03 Uniform Del: 50.7 47.8 47.6 3.1.5 25.0 32.2 44.3 24.4 21.2 47.4 35.7 37.8 IncremntDel: 84.9 11.9 11.9 10.3 0.7 43.2 42.9 0.3 0.2 1.8 5.7 32.8 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 D.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay 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 Delay/Veh: 135.6 59.7 59.7 41.8 25.7 75.4 87.2 24.7 21.4 49.2 41.4 70.6 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: 135.6 59.7 59.7 41.8 25.7 75.4 87.2 24.7 21.4 49.2 41.4 70.6 LOS by Move : F E E D C E F C C D D E HCM2kAvgQ: 9 9 9 21 13 32 19 11 4 4 19 27 15-251 Traffix 7.8.D915 Copyright (c) 2D05 Dowling Assodales, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans. San Jose COMPARE Fri Od 051201:43 2007 Page 3-27 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations (FuWre Volume Allemative) Project PM Intersection #7: Wolfe/Stevens Creek Signal=ProlectlRightS=lnGude Final Vol: 699'^ 892 591 Lanes: 1 0 2 D 1 Signal=Protect T Signal=Protect Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: 10C3C2DD6 Rights=lnqude Lanes: Fnal Vol: 7 0"' CyGe Time (sec): 110 1 2 0 535"` 0 Loss Tirre (sec): D 1 1153 3 ~ Critical V/C: 1.043 ~ 2 896 D ~ Avg Crit Del (se Gveh): 62.2 0 169 1 ~ Avg Delay (sarJveh): 51.8 ~ 2 181 LOS: D Lanes: 1 0 2 1 D Final Vol: 144"' 441 57 Signal=Proled/Rights=lnctude Street Name: Wolfe Road Stevens Creek Bou levard Approach: North Bound South Bound East Sound W est Bound Movement : L ------------~---- - T ------ - R L - - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Min. Green: 0 0 ----~I---- 0 0 ------ 0 ----- 0 ~~--------- 0 0 ------~ 0 ~---- 0 ------ 0 -----~ 0 Volume Module: » Count Date: 3 Oct 2006 « PM Peak Base Vol: 144 441 57 583 892 691 703 1153 169 181 896 528 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: 144 441 57 583 892 691 703 1153 169 181 896 528 Added Vol: 0 0 0 8 0 8 7 D 0 0 0 7 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 144 441 57 591 892 699 710 1153 169 181 896 535 User Adj: 1.0.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.OD 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: 144 441 ~ 57 591 892 699 710 1153 169 181 896 535 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 144 441 57 591 892 699 710 1153 169 181 896 535 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 Final Vol.: 144 441 57 591 692 699 710 1153 169 181 896 535 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0'.95 0.89 0.89 0.95 0.95 0.85 0.92 0.91 0.85 0.92 0.86 0.66 Lanes: 1.00 2.66 0.34 1.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1805 4515 584 1805 3610 1615 3502 5187 1615 3502 3264 1632 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.06 0.10 0.10 0.33 0.25 0.43 0.20 0.22 0.10 0.05 0.27 0.33 Crit Moves: **** ***~ +*** **** Green/Cycle: 0.08 0.11 0.11 0.38 0.41 0.41 0.19 0.41 0.41 0.10 0.31 0.31 Volume/Cap: 1.04 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.60 1.04 1.04 0.54 0.25 0.54 0.87 1.04 Uniform Del: 50.8 48.0 48.0 31.6 25.0 32.2 44.3 24.4 21.2 47.4 35.7 37.7 IncremntDel: 88.5 13.0 13.0 11.2 0.7 46.5 46.3 0.3 0.2 1.7 5.5 36.4 InitQueuDel: 0.0 O.D 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 D.0 0.0 Delay Adj: 1.OD 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 139.3 60.9 60.9 42.8 25.7 78.7 90.6 24.7 21.4 49.2 41.2 74.1 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.DD 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 139.3 60.9 60.9 42,8 25.7 78.7 90.6 24.7 21.4 49.2 41.2 74.1 LOS by Move: F E E D C E F C C D D E HCM2kAvgQ: 9 9 9 21 13 33 i9 11 4 4 19 28 15 - 252 Traffix 7.8.0915 Copyright (c) 2005 Dowling Assoaales, Ina Licensed to Hexagon Trans. San Jose COMPARE Fri Od D512:D1:43 2DD7 Page 3.26 Level Of Service Computation Report 20D0 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative) Future Growth PM Intersection #7: Wolfe/Stevens Creek Signal=Proled/Rights=Include Final Vol: 713"^ 922 602 Lanes: 1 0 2 D 1 Signal=Profed Signal=Prated Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vof Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol: Cy de Time (sac): 110 726"` 2 ~ 0 545'^ lo ss Time (sec): 0 0 ~ 1 1192 3 ~ Critical V/C: 1.Oo5 ~ 2 925 0 Avg Grit Del (sed veh): 89.4 ~ 0 175 1 ~ ~ Avg Delay (sedveh): 54.8 ~ 2 167 LOS: D I~ La nes: 1 0 2 1 0 Final Vol: 149"' 455 59 Signal=ProlecVRights=lndude Street Name: Wolfe Road Stevens Creek Boulevard Approach: Nor th Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T' - R L - T - R Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Volume Module: Base Vol: 149 455 59 602 922 713 726 1192 175 187 925 545 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: 149 455 59 602 922 713 726 1192 175 187 925 545 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 149 455 59 602 922 713 726 1192 175 187 925 545 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.OD 1.00 1.00 1.D0 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: 149 455 59 602 922 713 726 1192 175 187 925 545 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 149 455 59 602 922 713 726 1192 175 187 925 545 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 NiI,F 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 Final Vol.: 149 455 59 602 922 713 726 1192 375 187 925 545 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/•Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.95 0.89 0.89 0:95 0.95 0.85 0.92 0.91 0.85 0.92 0.86 0.86 Lanes: 1.D0 2.66 0.34 1.00 2.00 1.00 2,00 3.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1805 4514 585 1805 3610 1615 3502 5187 1615 3502 3264 1632 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.08 0.10 0.10 0.33 0.26 0.44 0.21 0.23 0.11 0.05 0.28 0.33 Crit Moves• **** **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.08 0.11 0.11 0.38 0.41 0.41 0.19 0.41 0.41 0.10 0.31 0.31 Volume/Cap: 1.07 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.62 1.07 1.07 0.56 0.26 0.56 0.9D 1.07 Uniform Del: 50.7 48.0 46.0 32.0 25.3 32.2 44.3 24.7 21.3 47.5 36.2 37.8 IncremntDel: 94.6 14.8 14.8 13.0 0.8 53.5 53.2 0.3 0.2 2.1 7.5 43.7 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ~ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay 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 Delay/Veh: 145.3 62.8 62.8 44.9 26.1 85.7 97.5 25.D 21.5 49.6 43.7 81.4 User DelAdj: 1.DD 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.OD AdjDel/Veh: 145.3 62.8 62.8 94.9 26.1 85.7 97.5 25.0 21.5 49.6 43.7 81.4 LOS by Move: F E E D C F F C C D D F HCM2kAvgQ: 9 9 9 22 13 34 20 11 4 4 20 30 15-253 Traffix 7.8.0915 Copyright (c) 2005 Dowling Assodafes. Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans. San Jose Appendix C Approved Trips 15 - 254 t7•• ';I;':~' Cu ertino end Sunn+valc A rvs•N and Pcndin Pro « 1 Trl Generation Wao hd AJE. Peak Heur P.M, Pvek Hour Devel n)evl Lantl Use Si a Ralc Trl s Rase In pus Tv1al Ra1c In Oat Talal Lwr•10.sv.Ik,.I~nAUeylv.lk„pwtJ.mrWIUI Comb 204 d.u. .. 43 _ ~ 61 1. N.I n: nmm mN. •MI law n•rF r„rF vui,pcl Condo 44 d.u. 3.84 170 0.49 J 17 20 032 I4 8 24 l.1n1[a tilrY+nr r.erk ^h+l. IAd4aTmur+1 COrdo 23 d.u. 4.72 ISS O.SI 2 10 I2 0.41 9 S la Rclall 2.400 a.C 42.94 103 I.0! i I 2 3.73 4 9 9 +. 1773 F.Ik Ann InN.1W'nllt'erxraNll .. :+}s}" Y. M ~~i ~ .• .`.~ ~ 'S .1.. rik J~:;`v ....F;. Ai~~ ' ~ Ni~ ti 'f $:~~. ,ym~': 1.. . i•F i ' ,;:~ ~:. .." .. •: ,y aky i.. ~,.... ~ :.: ' ^i~ll'. x: ; uz ~'; 117 Rcail LB35 a f C` :`: : r.; t ^ U A . .r ; '(ter,., j: c ~ a L ` ''F~ i t'~ ::ne: s. . . r .kF".' •, r '}~) ' . . . '::.:1;:~ • . ` ~: . . 3 'Ct '= ,. . ._._ , _ , ~ ;.•.. :'_ Tout . 4 - 51 7. IVrnl ak+vm orcek l0at laurk<rrlwr UUp t'1 RaaH 34.J008.Ef. 41.94 1.383 1 20 I) 33 3.75 SB GJ 121 (19.000 a.(. ncU ' n.Ik.Mn111N,RN.+Iry;eex Mx.lt'hk l'mkhil MISN UFC ~OJ )- Cj $, F?~ - - 234 - 230 7,We.arus'nd&W,d0. HrwJ l•\7mF~llyuhlml C oaloa 107 d.u, •.•` ~ `'-•3}i Y ;i;. t r t -•~,+. •P.' "~'• ''•gtf~•T.. x ''Ji"a'.:,, r .ttr..: ~. .c,... ~ti~~ll s^ `x•~. a.y L ~' ri ~ >,w.'+::T' -cn~ ^r,; ..: • .~_„ ,.~ yri!' r!f ^`, :'» F •.. ~r• x.;`r t. -0; Retail 6.400 f. a' .Sri +.5.•^• - 'iii:' r;Fi t.r i~;; ' - t 'lv ~ { r rn!i'.c '7' h. ,. ,`.~ :` •~;1•;•i .},.-F..j; r, a,- r.•: 34:.: N : yn If',R~" if ~ 'Ir.* Total - . ! : ` .. - , _ - 94 , - - 103 F.N',4&tlvIIn. P.rkn.ynko.dVnwnaiw.xEll Rcrail 200.000 a.f. - - - - 2GG - - - Lv9J n.\erlk a: Vwfla•r..kw.y N•11.,, 14..rurn,:.R11 Rdai1 294.000EG :f. :+-' }rGC: `' ; „~fc, , ~`.: i.~ rdAt -.?ie":w ~ ..^. ,y;')+:4~ +' t .+)~'?'. . r~+fi 0 •' '.a ..'_...s ~ '-- +! J! :: r(.~., ... .r::;frC;~' 1 • a+ s. ~ i '' 'P' i!.v .rm. 0.r~'~I:.~ l~ ` ~ ' .. a:r, ; : " i' ~~~. Rauumnl 32.000 i.C , ,'1;:, ~:~ ; C r~ M .x t.*'e::? + ,i~ 4: ; t ~?,•• } 'r` e .' isii'sl•'•x r nw'fit_ ~. / ~ _ :, ire "w%• .. , i t.y ;~ 1: ~i . .,%„•:;. ,; .~,. .yd;: i~C; _ , . .; :I ~1;~"~'F;i~ 1 Thplcr 3300 aeala : :• . ~ (~i."^. v1t`Ji. r v... ? fe, "_,a n.,;+.JY F~•e- ;?C ~':ff;~,~}.. a • ;a=` ;~ 'Y' -f~: ~:.~ ~ ~ ~ . ~, ¢, ~ :•y ., ,!:;i:;!- -4:{ Tvlal ... . r . .. - 137 u .._~. . ~ _. "}1323 m.aa.vurvkOl+dvnktx.pOS•umrr4leF x+r+ro,FnrN31 Jr.CalkBe 7.000emdrnu I,Sq 10.780 0.14 892 88 980 0.14 728 J92 1.120 u. +a"4r IF.J4l) Retell GE.000 ysf. 42.94 2.920 - 23 32 37 - I79 149 ]ZB Il nk.ant'neNxlFmd lk. n'hwkli.rtr+s.rN+l Rauumnl 14.432 a.f. II7.IS 1.847 _ 98 G2 IGD Ie.a4wl,.inr..HN.lkn,m.IM,yMmunN"1 Of(tt G0.000s.f.8roas 11.01 GGI LSS 62 11 9J 1,49 IS 74 69 I+. ]3lAr.a111unxpeN llJ.ll Mrrinpxml , ,~ Rcail 1.774 a. f. ie.ar.+le v,Ikyikem H.h~.lnJ,n. au,mp.l Warchowc IOLJGO S. f. ncl u.mnnn.m•A+mwlximk„axwun'tmwwl S.F,hvuaa S3d.a. 9.37 526 0.73 10 J1 41 1.01 35 21 34 17. ;ro 11.11anraukuJ ltJ.IIM14FIrnumWr Ter+xm) S.F. hanla 8d.v. 9.57 77 0.75 I S G L01 3 3 B PENVINC mnroN.Tnrem:Mmrm Reuil . IO.SBIs.C I "'~ rf' I 1 ~,~ S ~0 ~ 2ra -j-.;;. ?rinrro lhuruxewFnmd7 n. arrnFrp lVak~ Nut ADJnments IlT mdls 7.3 654 0,52 12 49 GI 0.7 S3 29 82 IIMl3 N. RkI1Mp nd Il.r~•I lar!(yl ^ Qj S.F. Rousts 19 tl.u. nct - - - - 1.33 I7 10 27 thk•Nlr,ryy,Frpt'<molamsm r'raekniltn3l Ilotcl 14J ro01R Si'•~'?e •r:e•:: ~ih.lY" a ~'i s~y~~~ ~iNyM^••~l• ~-~~; - ' 'r•; ,i•.;.u;•- .r;nx ';,,J.::'x. ` ` •,n•.:r,, ;, •:r:~: ~;\' .,, ;r',):,;~,n ~': , .~•_~;1 ; •:~'•i1,Yt;'• Y ~- .. Rcuii 20.000 s.f. . t IV~e..~r .r '-:,~. . I:~ $I:;i. 'T.•S. ! t' ~':4t..7 ~ ~,r'rt. ;' a e. :~1:, '% 'i'• x i f-~ ii%'• - . , . 7 ., a M ' R ' _.S `i~ - ^ . = ti'.~~:~ y vt: . ~'^: '1 ^ r i. - •a% . F ' ~ , :i~; • ~ _ ;'!~ i« ttl mg nla 10.000 a.f. - . ~ 1 ; < .: •~~ ; : c; - ~~ , y - i ~~ j i . y - Total 2.107 77 SJ IJO - 40 131- 171 Ik nua nh,LU4IFrprr NJ Y., smr l.+.Nv) Rcrail 19.000 a.f. - 14.77 - 49 II GO - B2 B2 164 Notxs: Trip ~cncrulion avcrn8e mla from ITG'a 1'r1p flrrt•mrfan. 7"' Gdilioa (I) Peak Irour trip grncml'ron pmvidN Oy Cily of Cuperlbro. R) Trip Ecllcalion tram DKS. llc Anza Collcgc GlR (CwNy 20021. (J) Trip Ercncrnliou prosidN by COy ofCupenina(Wlplc Foals TlA) U) Trip gcIKm110n rote fmm ITG Hi811 Tummtr Sil Dmm Rquumnl19J2). (S) Trip gencmtivn mla fmm IT6 Quality Ra)mrram 19] I1. (G) 1'riy 8enemlion rrla from felrr R Peas. TIA IMay 2007) (71 Trip grncrnivn rasa Rom Fclu R Pcers. TIA (Alxil 2007) (81 Trip gcncrotivn mla from Pun86npjnnr5.71A (Jnnc 2004) (91 Trip 8cncrativn m16 from Fdx R Pcers. TIA (F+b 2007) (101 Trip gcncmlion rata from Rsyublic ITS Iaill draR). Exhibit B Mayne Tree Expert Company, Inc. ESTABLISHED 1931 STATE CONTRACTOR"S LICENSE N0. 276793 GRADUATE FORESTER CEP.TIFIED ARBORISTS PEST CONTROL ADVISORS AND OPERATORS RICHARD L. HUNTINGTON PRESIDENT KEVIN R. KIELTY OPERATIONS MANAGER September 20, 2006 535 BRAGATO ROAD, STE. A SAN CARLOS, CA 94070-6228 TELEPHONE: (650) 593-4400 FACSIMILE: (650) 593-4443 EMAIL: infoQmaynevee.com Mr. William Brown Kimco Realty Corp. 4055 Factoria Mall SE Bellevue, WA 98066 Dear Mr. Brown, RE: CUPERTINO VILLAGE This report is essentially an addendum to the tree survey report of August 25, 2006. The original report did not include any proposed development/construction or tree removal for development or construction. I have now received a scope of development opportunity locations. Each of the three areas will be addressed along with a synopsis of trees on the smaller sites, in tight of removal and potential development. Area I is between Building D and the English Pub. The only trees within this area are numbers 1, 58, ~59, 60, 61, and 62. All of these trees have a 60 percent or less rating or fair condition. All are, or will be, causing damage with roots uplifting nearby curbs or paving. Atso, there will always be risks to pedestrians and parked cars-from limb drop. Mitigating these will result in support loss or a program of pruning every 2 years. The trees along Wolfe Road have roots under the parking lot. Therefore, any excavation will impact tree health and/or support. These are trees numbered 38, 63, 65, 68, 70, and 72. These trees will require a minimum of 10 feet of open space free of excavation to give them a reasonable level of acceptable risk. Protective fencing can be installed along the curb if paving is kept. Fencing can be placed further if paving is removed to reduce soil compaction and keep excavation away from root zone 15 - 256 Cupertino Village - 2 - September 20, 2006 Area II is in the northwest corner and again is all parking area. There are 19 trees numbered 165 and 181- 198 within the site plus Z0 perimeter trees numbered, 157 - 164 and 166 -177. All of the inside trees have a condition rating in the fair range, 50 - 69, or less. Trees numbered 196 and 198 have a higher fair percent ofi 65 percent. Paving surrounds all trees so they have a very high chance of uplifting paving and curbs as was stated for most trees. They also have a high risk of falling limbs onto cars and tripping hazards fior pedestrians. The. perimeter trees on the northerly side can stay except numbers 160 & 161. Both trees are about 3 feet from the curb with many roots below the paving. It is prudent to remove both trees due to sap on cars and limited life spans. Excavation along the curb would impact roots and removal would be recommended. Install protective fencing along the curb. The trees along the westerly side, numbers 164 -177 are mostly ginkgos. Number 168 is a hawthorn that'has poor form. All of the other trees are small and about 3 feet from the curb. Excavation would cause only minor impacts. I do recommend deep root fertilizing. Install protective fencing along the curb. Area III is very small with only 5 or 6 trees. The 2 locusts, numbers 149 and 150, have ample room to grow, but are potentially in the footprint of any construction. Tree number 151, a ginkgo, has a nuisance fruit issue and should be removed regardless of any proposed work. Tree number 152 is a Monterey pine, which is heavily infected with Sequoia pitch moth larval activity and also is in potential construction footprint. Tree number 152 has roots uplifting the curb and below the paving. Excavation along the curb would cause damage. If tree is retained it will need at least a 10 foot distance from any construction. Deep root fertilizing will help offset potential impacts. It, however, is prudent to remove the pines due to a variety of health issues, are short- lived, insect prone, easily stressed. Photographs are included to give a visual picture of each site. Individual trees were not photographed but all are in the fair condition range or below. There are no high-value trees in the three sites discussed in this report. Sincerely, ^~~ -zlYL ~ j/ ` ` ~ ~ ~ G1ETY q SO F q /.\o~PP~O ~„ NLJNT7~'G'BO~/o Richard L. Huntington Q ~ ~ _ ~ o r Certified Arborist WE #0119A ~ ~ z -~ Certified Forester #1925 z No.wE-0119A m RLH: pmd cF'~/PIED ARR~~\S~ 15 - 257 Cupertino Village - 3 - September 20, 2006 Tree on right is #58. 15 - 258 AREA I -Looking north Cupertino Village - 4 - September 20, 2006 Tree in front is #187. 15 - 259 AREA II -Looking northwest Cupertino Village - 5 - September 20, 2006 AREA II -Looking west Tree in front is #181. 15 - 260 ~. -~ .~.~: ~ ~~` ~ 15 ~ X01 Phi ,. ~ - Y. Cupertino Village - 6 - September 20, 2006 F~ ~ t 4.. ... _.. _ r ' J k .a A~ Y s r ~ r ,, E AREA III - hooking east Tree on right is #152. Tree centered in back is #149. 15 - 261 MAP T~E~, ~~ c~otrlv~, SP~~~LS ' ..,~\ ~- (~~) ASH '~' ~- X12') R~r?~IC~:OD 'FREES • ~• T- ~3 ) 'T'ULT~' '~'RE~~ ~ ~ - . :s T~ ~j~ T ~t~T~~ rye, r~ ilr- (~,2) Lr~k~l.lS1 A,~S 164' F•; . i6~~ A 1f„~ ~ ~ ~- ~~~ Laa~tA~r ~:ES. ~~2 ~ ~ _5~` 173 . '~ '.,,. 174i ' 5 ` v $ .~•~ 17 i i~~' ,"'r. ~~;~ s\ic.' .~. ~'-' 1• 11 pr ~N~"r ,~O'' ~` ~ ~. .~ 52i• ' ~ ~ • ;~ cn G ~ . 51 i~~. ~ ~ ~ .~ , j ~ 13+ -:i 7~ ~. h y~ yI"" ~`~ = JL _°1 ice"' w~: ~ i 1a•~~~ Rr~ ~ ~ .: Z i~• ~ 1'r1•. ~" ii' ~'... i L: •.~ar .~ i(LV~ F~.: ~ "R~ R R \~ ~i . + C/~~ ~~ ~,. F ~ ~ =- u~ v> uF ~ _ 2 =..er~ - .-. • ~ ~' _ ti h rh~~ : ~ S .r.~.~ "`E` ~ ~: ~ ~•' .11.4.3 ~' 1. ~ NN' ~ ''` r -r .w ~,-•136- n,~U `~ ~~ 'L,y'r'. ,~.~'~. ~j ~F N '` !1,jT~`I 1 ' ~' X135 ~~•`~•- - 51~A.~rt(.~':~ -y,~"r,~-r_ ,,yr ~:rr v- ~1.,1;) ~ , 1~7,~ ~• r.r; T,[ . , ~.. '4d S~ r"/ YIP ~` 4 ~J'~ •140•. +,. - ~~ ~w,m,~'..: ~R.}1`i.. ~. i~ t'. fi~~.~~. i r•1 ~'~~~" ~} I vcy~" ~' ~ h fS •`cl,lr~' ~ i7 S ~"° '~ . r ~:;.-~i;' ,~;~:tiM~• s is :.~ ''i°'~' ~ II .~. 1.31• ~'r ~~ .r;. r E""~e.-rr• -r ~ `~ ~ ~ ~'~~ `'.. • ~. ~ r ~~ . !` •-p` '107 ~y~ti1, /74 ~ I ~.r .- ri30 /`-,:.tom'-z`~ .~c~ ~~ ~ /r':~,r: ' ~n ~` , _ ~..-~ r.Y~. t~^~. ~~ .. - •N vios .. 1 i• r~s o. s IIt• ~.r.~ )x,r?~.1~' ~ d dl ~ .+irl~-~ ~!e @ I~~,fi~'~+ ~`~`*1=~``;?~r~ ~~_ ~ 0'•O., ©~ Nth t0I4aQ.~0 r Nf0 ~!"•tn {O..•.P~_~yy,, CJ•.'~: p~N.M ~f -A '~0 ~ pY OQ'r:• ,:. D::(p '-~ ~ h h h Y~?+~OD ~ aD G0 W.. OD 60 , Gi q~ bGY ~• ~ to O> (Y! OT T+ N N Report on Cupertino village, Wolte Road and Homestead Prepared for IGmm Realty Corporation Prepared by Richard Huntington Mayne Tree Expert Company, Inc. REPORT ON 203 trees at Cupertino Village Wolfe Road and Homestead, Cupertino, California Prepared For; Kimco Realty Corporation 4055 Factoria Mall SE Bellevue, Washington 98066 Contact: William Brown Telephone: (425) 041-9716 _ Prepared By:- Mayne Tree Expert Company, Incorporated ..535 Bragato Road, Suite A Contact: Richard l-iuntington - Telephone: (650)- 593-4400 Facsimile; (650) 593=4443 August 25, 2006 15 - 263 Report on Cupertino Village, Wore Woad and Homestead Prepared for IGmco Realty Corporation Prepared try Richard Huntington Mayne Tree Expert Company, Inc. TABLE OF CONTENTS SITE: ASSIGNMENT: METHODOLOGY: TREE SURVEY: FINDINGS: Parse No. 2-13 14 15 - 264 Report on Cupertino village, Woi~~ rcoad and Homestead Prepared for Kimco Realty Corporation Prepared by Richard Huntington Mayne Tree Expert Company, Inc. SITE: The site is a shopping center, mostly covered with paving, walkways and structures. There is a lot of vehicular and pedestrian traffic, so uneven surtaces are a problem. There are 203 trees on the site, most of which are in planting strips, peninsulas or islands. The majority do not have adequate room for root growth or canopy spread. The trees are along the streets, Wolfe Road and Homestead (major thoroughfares), parking stalls or sidewalks. The only exception is the area where there are redwoods and alders. Tree species and sizes vary from large ashes, redwoods and pines to small, recently planted plums, Chinese pistaches and crape myrtles. The trees also vary in the amount of care and inspections they have had and in their longevity. The redwoods are long lived and require very little care. The pines are relatively short lived and require little care, but do need to be inspected for insects and disease. The ash trees need lots of care and inspections, due to their inherently weak structures. ASSIGNMENT: Each tree was to be identified as to species and then measured, as all trees on this site are significant. The trees were to be given numbers, which coordinate on the Report and the Site Plan. Each tree was to be inspected for general health and structure. This is to include the presence of insects and diseases, longevity and hazardous conditions. Mitigating Measures will be included, but not Tree Protection. METHODOLOGY: The trees were measured at 54 inches above grade; trees with multiple trunks were measured separately. Smaller, multiple-trunked trees were measured at the base and so noted. Small trees under 4 feet tall are not included in this report, nor were the oleander trees. Trees along the north fence are included, as are the trees along the west parking area by the apartments. Each tree was affixed with a one inch round metal, sequentially numbered tag which was attached about 6 feet high on the northerly side, if possible. Trees on the northerly side were tagged on the southerly side. The inspection process included insect and disease presence or the trees' inherent susceptibility to these pests. Trunk orientation is also included, as is branch structure, past failures, past care, root pruning for sidewalk repair, foliar density and/or color, seasonal shoot growth, trunk damage, growing space and potential problems with roots and/or fruit. Page i 15 - 265 Report on Cupertino Vllage, Woi.~ rcoad and Homestead Prepared for IGmco Realty Corporation Prepared by Richard Huntington Mayne Tree Expert Company, Inc. The Condition rating takes into account and notes them as a percentage as compared to a perfect tree, using the following scale: 1 - 29 Very Poor 30 - 49 Poor 50 - 69 Fair 70 - 89 Good 90 - 100 Excellent The final section (entitled "Comments' gives information to help explain the condition rating and recommendations to help offset health and/or structural conditions. This includes irrigation, fertilization, pruning, spraying or removal. Photographs were taken to depict the diverse growing area on this site. They show the unique ambiance of the arching effect along Wolfe Road and the bareness in the parking lots. They also show the areas of potential hazard to cars, both on the streets and in the parking lots. In addition, they show the pedestrian hazards from root damage to the sidewalks and curbs. Also, heavy limbs could fall on cars or pedestrians. TREE SURVEY Tree No. S ties DBH Condition Comments (Inches) (Percent) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Monterey pine 26.7 50 Tree has been topped and leans. Limbs are heavy and it has very weak structure. Tree is . also uplifting curb. Ash tree 29.2 35 Forks at 10', with included bark and no center top. Significant decay at crotch. Weak structure and is uplifting curb. Removal is recommended. Ash tree 14.2 60 . Minor dieback. Ash tree 13.7 50 Slight lean and has included bark. Tree is sunburned due summer or late spring pruning. Ash tree 21.2 55 Weak structure and included bark. Tree is uplifting curb. Ash tree 22.7 55 Tree is uplifting curb and has included bark. Ash tree 11.3 55 Uplifting curb. Lighten. Page 2 15 - 266 Report on Cupertino Village, Woife Road ana Homestead Prepared for IGmco Realty Corporation Prepared by Richard Huntington Mayne Tree Expert Company, Inc. TREE SURVEY Tree No. Species DBH Condition Comments (Inches) (Percent) 8 Ash tree 13.3 60 Tree uplifting curb and has decayed crotch. Lighten and clear light, 9 Ash tree 11.1 65 Clear light. 10 Ash tree 19.4 60 Minor weak structure and bark damage. 11 Ash tree 15.1 50 Included bark. 12 Ash tree 14.7 50 Tree is next to several utilities. Lighten. 13 Ash tree 20.4 45 Included bark and thin foliage. Prudent to remove. 14 Ash tree 23.1 50 Many tops, with included bark. 15 Ash tree 20.1 55 Tree has surface roots and lawnmower damage. 16 Redwood 22.6 80 Thin by 1/a. 17 Redwood 24.9 80 Next to the flag pole. Thin by 1/a. 18 Redwood 27.7 80 Thin by 1/a. 19 Ash tree 20.1 50 All growth on south side. 20 Redwood 25.5 80 Next to flagpole. Thin by 1/a. 21 Redwood 24.5 80 Roots are uplifting driveway. Thin by 1/4. 22 Redwood 19.9 70 Twist in trunk. Thin by 1/a. 23 Ash tree 19.6 55 Potential risk to street. 24 Ash tree 18.9 40 Ali growth on west side, recommend removal. 25 Ash tree 26.4 55 Broken limb resting on Tree No. 24. Tree has included bark and is girdled by rope. Roots cut to repair walk. 26 Ash tree 17.5 40 All growth to west. Recommend removal. Page 3 15 - 267 Report on Cupertino Village, Wolfe Road ai~~ homestead Prepared for I~mco Realty Corporation Prepared ny Richard Huntington Mayne Tree Expert Company, Inc, TREE SURVEY Tree No. S ies DBH Condition Comments {Inches) (Percent) 27 Ash tree 24.3 45 Tree is risk to street with most growth on south 28 Ash tree 24.3 45 29 Ash tree 19.1 40 30 Ash tree 27.7 50 31 Ash tree 26.2 50 32 Ash tree 8.9 35 33 Ash tree 36.9 50 34 Ash tree 29.2 55 35 Ash tree 24.1 45 36 Ash tree 25.6 60 37 Ash tree 24.7 50 38 Ash tree 31.3 60 39 Redwood 31.3 80 40 Alder 15.8 40 41 Alder 21.1 45 42 Redwood 30.2 80 43 Redwood 23.5 80 44 Redwood 23.1 70 side. Included bark. Removal is recommended. All growth at top, clear No. 27, if tree is kept. All growth on street side next to hydrant. Removal recommended. All growth at top, tree is uplifting concrete and past sidewalk repair. Clear the redwood. All growth on street side. Lighten. Suppressed by other trees. Removal recommended. Is uplifting sidewalk. Weak structure, lighten street side. All growth on west and north sides, has included bark. Thin. All growth on street side, uplifting sidewalk. Lighten. Tree has included bark, thin. Uplifting sidewalk, lighten over street. Tree has had roots cut for sidewalk repair, lighten. Too close to building. All growth on one side, lighten. Prudent to remove. All growth on one side, lighten. Prudent to remove. Thin by ~/a. Thin by ~/a. Most growth on north side, thin by ~/a.. Page 4 15 - 268 Report on Cupertino Village, Wolfe Road ana homestead Prepared for Kimco Realty Corporation Prepared by Richard Huntington Mayne Tree Expert Company, Inc. Tree No. Species 45 Redwood 46 Redwood 47 Locust 48 Locust 49 Locust 50 Locust 51 Locust TREE SURVEY DBH Condition Comments (Inches) (Percent) 24.8 80 Thin by ~/4. 31.2 80 Thin by ~/4. 7.7 60 Top dieback, clear roof. 6.7 40 Top dieback, bark damage. Recommend removal. 7.9 55 Top dieback, growing over bricks. 7.0 60 Top dieback. 6.9 35 Significant trunk decay and top dieback Recom- 52 Locust 8.0 45 53 Loquat 12.4 60 54 Redwood 33.5 70 55 Ginkgo 11.4 65 56 Ginkgo 7.3 50 57 Ginkgo 6.1 70 58 Monterey pine 14.8 40 59 Ash 19.0 60 60 Ash 20.6 55 61 Ash 26.7 50 62 Ash 22.1 50 63 Ash 21.6 50 64 Ash 29.0 55 mend removal. Bark damage, tree is stressed. Prudent to remove. Lower trunk wound. Pushing over retaining wall and uplifting sidewalk. Tree has included bark. Remove secondary top. Tree leans and is suppressed. Cut back Tree No. 1 for clearance. Significant trunk oozing. Removal recommended. Tree is in peninsula. Uplifting curb, lighten. Damage to curb, crotch decay. Slight lean and included bark. Causing curb damage, most growth on west. Included bark, uplifting sidewalk. Lighten. Page 5 15 - 269 Report on Cupertino Village, Wolfe Road anu Homestead Prepared for iGmco Realty Corporation Prepared by Richard Huntington Mayne Tree F~cpert Company, Inc. TREE SURVEY Tree No. S ecies DBH Condition Comments (Inches) (Percent) 65 Ash ~ 22.3 45 Basal cavity decay on west side and included 66 Ash 18.4 55 67 Ash 31.2 35 68 Ash 18.2 60 69 Ash 20.1 50 70 Ash 27.1 50 71 Ash 27.8 50 72 Ash 29.9 45 73 Ash ~ ~ 35.0 45 74 Chinese pistache 4.0 70 75 Chinese pistache 3.5 70 76 Chinese pistache 3.4 60 77 Ash 26.4 55 78 Ash 35.5 45 79 Ash 25.1 50 80 Ash 27.6 50 bark. Install cable. Keep thin. Past root cutting for sidewalk repair. Intermittent dieback in canopy and included bark. Prudent to remove. 'Keep light over parking. All growth on west side, included bark. All growth on north side. Has had past root cutting for curb and sidewalk repair. Lighten. Tree is next to utilities, with all growth on west side. Lighten over street. Sidewalk, curb and utility damage. Cavity at cuts. Lighten over parking. Tree next to utility, bark damage. Has had root cutting to repair sidewalk. Install cable on south- east limb. Newly planted, keep thin. Newly planted, keep thin. Deformed. Weak structure, lighten over street. Significant included bark, keep thin. Root damage, weak structure. Included bark, broken limbs. Keep lightened over parking. Page 6 15 - 270 Report on Cupertino village, Wolfe Road anu Homestead Prepared for IGmco Realty Corporation Prepared by Richard Huntington Mayne Tree F~cpert Company, Inc. TREE SURVEY Tree No. S ecies DBH Condition Comments (Inches) (Percent) 81 Chinese pistache 3.0 70 New tree 82 Ash 23.8 65 Root cutting for walkway repairs recently 83 Ash 18.9 60 84 Ash 21.2 55 85 Ash 19.2 60 86 Ash 19.2 60 87 Ash 17.4 60 88 Ash 18.6 55 89 Ash 18.2 60 90 ~ Ash 15.9 60 91 Ash 7.2 50 92 Ash 20.0 50 93 Ash 24.9 50 94 Ash 18.5 50 95 Ash 25.7 55 96 Ash 34.6 60 97 Ash 35.1 55 pruned. All growth on south and west sides, broken limb over street. Lighten. Stressed, lighten over parking. Has had root cutting for sidewalk repair. Included bark and is uplifting sidewalk. Lighten over parking. Recently pruned. Appears overly pruned. Thin in 2 years. Recent root cutting for sidewalk repair. Leans over street. Tree has included bark. Install a cable. Most growth on west side, has included bark. Lighten over parking. Uplifting sidewalk. Uplifting sidewalk and has included bark. Lighten over parking. Next to utility and has included bark. Lighten and cable. Uplifting sidewalk and has included bark. Lighten and cable. Page 7 15 - 271 Report on Cupertino Village, Wolfe Road anu homestead Prepared for IGmco Realty Corporation Prepared by Richard Huntington Mayne Tree Expert Company, Inc. TREE SURVEY Tree No. S ies DBH Condition Comments (Inches) (Percent) 98 Ash 4.1 55 99 Ash 21.1 50 100 Ash 33.4 55 101 Ash 4.5 45 102 Crape myrtle 2.5 70 103 Crape myrtle 2.4 70 104 Crape myrtle 3.0 70 105 Crape myrtle 2.0 70 106 Ash 4.4 60 107 Ash 36.4 65 108 Ash 4.0 65 109 Ash 20.7 50 110 ~ Ash 2.9 45 111 Ash 27.5 55 112 Chinese pistache 3.2 75 113 Chinese pistache 2.6 75 114 Ash 24.4 60 115 Ash 27.8 60 Newly planted, has included bark. Significant visible root plate. Lighten. Significant visible root plate and significant curb damage. Lighten. Newly planted, deformed. Newly planted. Newly planted. Newly planted. Newly planted. Newly planted. Too many tops. In 4' wide island, pushing out curb, utility at base. Has included bark. Lighten. Newly planted, growing over parking. In 4' wide planter, has bark loss, limb girdled by cable and tip dieback. New tree, has tip dieback. In 4' wide planter, has weak upper structure. Lighten over street and parking. New tree. New tree. Recently pruned. Recently pruned. Page 8 15 - 272 Report on Cupertino Vllage, Wolfe Road anu homestead Prepared for IGmco Realty Corporation Prepared by Richard Huntington Mayne Tree Expert Company, Inc. TREE SURVEY Tree No. Species DBH Condition Comments (Inches) (Percent) 116 Ash 34.7 50 Significant root cutting on east side for sidewalk 117 Ginkgo 7.1 50 118 Ginkgo 3.0 70 119 Ginkgo 8.5 70 120 Ginkgo 7.1 60 121 Ginkgo 11.0 40 122 Ginkgo 11.2 70 123 Ginkgo 6.1 60 124 Monterey pine 17.6 65 125 Monterey pine 24.7, 15.6 60 126 Crab apple 4.1 75 127 Crab apple 2.9 70 128 Nectarine 1.5 Est. 60 129 Nectarine 1.5 Est. 60 130 Plum 1.5 Est. 65 131 Plum 3.3 60 132 Plum 5.1 65 133 Chinese pistache 5.3 75 repair. Lighten west side. Leans west, has tip dieback. New tree. Wind swept. Slight lower basal wound. Slight lower basal wound. Fruit developing is a significant nuisance. Basal wound. Surface roots, weak upper structure. Possibly has pine pitch canker. Forks at 2 feet, most growth on west side. Trunk is oozing; may be pine pitch canker. Lighten in winter. Has ample room to grow. Has ample room to grow. Newly planted, recently leafed out. Has peach leaf curl. Newly planted, has peach leaf curl. Newly planted. Leans. Leans, curb damage. Ample room to grow. Page 9 15 - 273 Report on Cupertino ~Ilage, Wolfe Road ana Homestead Prepared for IGmm Realty Corporation Prepared by Richard Huntington Mayne Tree Expert Company, Inc. TREE SURVEY Tree No. S ecies DBH Condition Comments (Inches) (Percent) 134 Chinese pistache 5.1 75 Ample room to grow. 135 Crape myrtle 5.1 75 Utility box near tree. 136 Crape myrtle 2.0 Est. 75 Utility box near tree. 137 Crape myrtle 1.5 Est. 70 Broken limb. 138 Crape myrtle 1.5 Est. 75 Ample room to grow. 139 Crape myrtle 3.0 Est. 75 Ample room to grow. 140 Fan palm 8.0 Est. 80 Thorns are risk to public. 141 Japanese maple Multi 70 Trimmed to a ball. 142 Japanese maple Multi 70 Trimmed to a ball. 143 Japanese maple 7.0,5.8,5.5 55 Has included bark, split-off limb and sunburn. 144 Japanese maple 3.4,4.2,3.5 65 Leaning, has included bark. i45 Plum 4.3 65 Slight lean. 146 Plum 4.0 65 Most growth on south side. 147 Tulip tree 17.0 70 Uplifting bricks on north and west side. 148 Plum 6.0 65 Slight lean, included bark. 149 Locust 5.3 65 Ample growing room. Thin. 150 Locust 5.2 65 Ample growing room. Thin. 151 Ginkgo 5.7 50 Nuisance fruit, trunk decay. 152 Monterey pine 15.1 50 Significant Sequoia pitch moth infestation. Tree has slight lean. 153 Monterey pine 14.6 60 Pushing curb. Page 10 15 - 274 Report on Cupertino ~flage, Wolfe Road an,. Homestead Prepared for Kimco Realty Corporation Prepared by Richard Huntington Mayne Tree Expert Company, Inc. TREE SURVEY Tree No. Species DBH Condition Comments (Inches) (Percent) 154 Monterey pine 17.2, 19.2 55 Forks at 3 feet, pushing curb. Sequoia pitch moth. 155 Locust 5.2 65 4 feet from curb. 156 Locust 4.6 65 4 feet from curb. 157 Locust 5.1 65 4 feet from curb. 158 Locust 4.2 65 4 feet from curb. 159 Locust 5.8 60 4 feet from curb, broken limb. 160 Monterey pine 17.6 65 Lighten over parking and driveway. Dropping pitch on cars. 16i Monterey pine 24.5 55 Forks at 6 feet with most growth on west side. 162 Locust 5.3 65 4 feet from curb. 163 Locust 5.2 60 Irrigate. 164 Redwood 8.1 80 Irrigate. 165 Hawthorn 6.0 50 Leans and is stressed. 166 Ginkgo 4.7 60 Poor form, leans. 167 Ginkgo 3.7 50 Significant trunk decay. 168 Ginkgo 7.0 65 Multiple tops. 169 Ginkgo 5.3 65 Two tops. 170 Ginkgo 6.5 60 Leans, has been topped. 171 Ginkgo 5.2 60 Leans, has been topped. 172 Ginkgo 7.0 60 Leans, has been topped. Page 11 15 - 275 Report on Cupertino ~Ilage, Wolfe Road any homestead Prepared for Kimco Realty Corporation Prepared by Richard Huntington Mayne Tree Expert Company, Inc. Tree No. .Species 173 Ginkgo 174 Ginkgo 175 Ginkgo 176 Ginkgo 177 Ginkgo 178 Tulip tree TREE SURVEY DBH Condition Comments (inches) (Percent) 5.8 55 Leans, poor form 7.0 65 Has 3 tops. 7.5 70 Leans. 6.2 60 Leans, has weak form. 6.0 70 Irrigate. 25.1 70 Uplifting bricks possible aphis problem Li hten 179 Tulip tree 20.3 65 180 Evergreen pear 7.1 50 181 Ash 25.2 50 182 Ash 22.4 60 183 Ash 25.1 60 184 Ash 22.6 55 185 Ash 16.6 60 186 Locust 4.4 50 187 Locust 4.7 50 188 Ash 24.6 50 . g for safety in winter. 3 tops with included bark, lawnmower damage. Thin and cable in winter. Possible aphis problem. Cracking bricks, has significant leaf spot. Growing around support pipes. Prudent to remove. Recently pruned, uplifting curb. Has girdling root and significant included bark. Install cable. Recently pruned, uplifting curb. Has trunk wound with decay. Recently pruned, uplifting curb. Surrounded by paving, has included bark. Surrounded by paving, uplifting curb. Canopy all sprouts. Surrounded by paving, recently pruned. Planted too deep, roots exposed. Has included bark. Planted too deep, roots exposed. Has included bark. Near sewer meter. Surrounded by paving, uplifting curb. Recently pruned, has included bark and girdling roots. Page 12 15 - 276 Report on Cupertino Village, Wolfe Road anu Homestead Prepared for IGmm Realty Corporation Prepared by Richard Huntington Mayne Tree Expert Company, Inc. TREE SURVEY Tree No. S Gies DBH Condition Comments (Inches) (Percent) 189 Ash 19.2 50 Surrounded by paving uplifting curb Recently 190 Ash 14.7 45 191 Ash 23.8 30 192 Ash 23.6 50 193 Ash 23.9 60 194 Ash 18.5 60 195 Ash 16.7 60 196 Ash 19.1 65 197 Ash 14.0 40 198 Ash 24.3 65 199 Loquat 6.6 40 200 Loquat 4.7 @ 12' 60 201 Loquat 6.5 @ 4' 60 202 Magnolia 8.4 70 203 Magnolia 7.2 40 Page 13 pruned, has included bark and canopy is all sprouts. Surrounded by paving, significantly stressed, very thin canopy. Prudent to remove. Surrounded by paving. Tops stubbed off, with many small sprouts. Significant dieback. Recently pruned. Removal recommended., Recently pruned, surrounded by paving. Girdling roots and included bark. Newly pruned, surrounded by paving, pushing curb. Recently pruned, surrounded by paving. Root growing around sprinkler. Recently pruned, 3 feet from curb. Recently pruned, 3 feet from curb. Leans, with all growth over road. 4 feet from curb and has included bark. Prudent to remove. Uplifting curb, 4 trunks at 10'. Thin. Leans, tip dieback. Recommend removal. Leans. Leans, has basal wound. Uplifting curb, minor dieback, limited room. Major limb cut, limited room. 15 - 277 Report on Cupertino Village, Woltc woad and Homestead Prepared for Kimm Realty Corporation Prepared by Richard Huntington Mayne Tree F~ert Company, Inc. FINDINGS: The majority of larger trees are in areas that are too small for adequate root growth. There is limited water, nutrients and space. Most of these trees have roots that have, or are causing damage to surrounding hardscape, i.e. sidewalks, curbs and paving. The sidewalk along Wolfe Road has been repaired in several places and this has required root cutting. In other areas the uplifted edges have been temporarily ground down level to adjacent hardscape. Mitigating these areas is not possible or prudent without signi-ficant changes in pedestrian traffic or parking spaces. The only practical solution is to continue pruning to reduce risks of limb failure, root pruning to keep hardscape uplift minimized and grinding down concrete where possible. These processes require routine inspections, or it could be done as an annual inspection. The smaller trees are species that do not grow large and therefore have smaller, less invasive root systems. These are the crape myrtles, Chinese pistache, maples, locusts, plums, crabapples and hawthorns. The only area where trees have room to grow is the redwood grove in the southwest comer. Parts of this area have new curbs, so uplift may occur again. As stated previously, maintaining routine monitoring and pruning is the only way to reduce the chance of this happening to the sidewalks. The other area of concern is the pear tree, No. 180, with its annual leaf spot; I recom- mend replacing it. I also noted the ginkgo that had developing fruit. These two trees should be removed and replaced with non-fruiting types. Any trees recommended for removal should be replaced. There should be a long range planting plan, which would include expanding the growing areas at the same time. Changing the sidewalk surfaces may help; rubber is one option. I think this report is accurate and based on sound arboricultural principles and practices. Sincerely, (,. ,.-G~ Richard L. Huntington Certified Arborist WE #0119A Certified Forester # 1925 RLH:dcr Rage 14 15 - 278 Report on Cupertino ~Itage, Wo~~ _ Koad and Homestead Prepared for IGmco Realty Corporation Prepared by Richard Huntington Mayne Tree Expert Company, Inc. ~~J~I': Parking lot example with overhanging limbs. 15 - 279 Report on Cupertino Vllage, Wort toad and Homestead Prepared for Kimm Realty Corporation Prepared by Richard Huntington Mayne Tree Expert Company, Inc. 15 - 280 Trees overhanging Wolfe Rd. and sidewalk. Report on Cupertino ~Ilage, Wolin rcoad and Homestead Prepared far Kimco Realty Corporation Prepared by Richard Huntington Mayne Tree r~cpert Company, Inc. 15 - 281 Open space with redwood group. N N _ t~y.e as. i .+a~:.Jt.. • `i 1 r t0 10 ~ 7~ •t0 ~! fp ~.:~ pD OD OD:OD OD ~'~~1~! V. V'~I ~1~ ~•dl. Of CI .~ (,J+ N~ ,~; N o ~'~ sn .~~ _dfl ut A caN~o_-ctt. p .;i• rn ,.p, w~n~ ~ o~o~+a,rn :w:N~~~ ~~;,'~~ rn ur'~~ ~ .~.~ii; .~a• ~ ~. --J' ~ _, '- •'' k g~e ~~ •~T at ~ 1 l~ i• i ~ -I •,r • 1l w t~lV l .a.L r'-gat t ~~1 ' A Q -.Y'~ .~ < .~ ~:..d~1 ~~•( 1"~1~:. .y~ fr-j. ; . t 1 i~ j; ~fti~.. tM• ~ ~ ~ /4 ~i r'-: ~[~~' ~'fr. r 1 .; -- ;'I ' j ` 9?'Y f+~f t ..Ln~~ . i i - c •~' .»C~ ' ~ :..~,:. •'~ i., i t i ~ ."~ t I i ~ ~. ~ _ t , ~~fN~~ i'ttL 5 Y` -'`. ~ :.:n~~.Xp~"+.,."'.t`a -ern r uA~i !• i` ~ ~. r'~y~• ~\L9 -r 1t ~A~ ~ •~T LO± ; ~ ..•~. 3.:c ,.._'-• ' ` .a-.30S~~+' 1 s,• 1 ~ • W L , ~ ,,Ir,, . 7lrf,* ~ ~,_ 1 'LIE i"~j Y1,/~'l5 ~~ /<_ ry ; 4 ;I w'S "~t(' •" ' t~ r~,,.~'' T X4•"1 -~.`~ ' 1~i \ V ~~i~iL •~~ ' ~ &g! ~s a` r ~ ~~y//~~, ~! fD 8a.~•: t,• O fI"„~^~' 1 , ~, ' t j t.-1.~ 5~~+(y ~a ~~~:,' ~1 ~ t~7 r~~S:~Yi sOL;~:_ ~~.(~ ~t~ - ~L rff~~ .'ate '~'-, - +~ :LFL Vy ,4' ~~•,~.-~~~ '~~~'~', ~~s ` ••~ fit. _"` ~~~ ~iu ~`C.~, ,I t7 _ 3~~'. .II, g. ' ~f J-'J+.4-T~ ~ '~ ' • ma~yy~. •I~~iyyI.F •••Y '~~ .Yti~~: y~ -• 19L~, - `r~ ~ 4, :r-- ` 70L .~~P"~iy ~ ~ ""1, t~lr L ~ `~~bk L ` ~~~ - 58[~~,,:: :• ;SLL ~ j .:. ~. .~ ~~1~`z~ : ••~-•••.~• s8~ till ~-- ~~.. -..>=~:-r r~ ~...~~~ ~1-BL'.c4~ • ti:~~ x£14 I!~•~~ ~~r-~ -~---- ~ •, ~~~~ L7 E`~~`•' ~•~~yy ~' ,'•~, ~ , jA. .~. ,''i ~K~•. t~'•.nk~` p I f~JL.L ~1.1 a,..........ti.~ T ~~/ 1 . J •'` • J ~`` ^. n- ,'•'}lf`! ~ .~~~ D~ L ~~ ~ ._ •:,"i ~ LW{y~'h.K ~ • ~O~{~ (0M.7 F (y'~l1'+~~''1F-•~, Jam' ~f~ '~)~ ~~Tr{h^] /`/ _!(~'~~ ~,' !I I ~ SMY~. ~j~ :J /~ ~~~~` - ttitP~~ ,~ ~ ; Y V~C.C ~4 ')~6LlOYL 1:7 Y-•ti t~.~ •~~ V ii.L V¢?.IS '\L~ 1J 1 -`~i = x.e ~~ ~. ~~ a~~~• - fe~:. ' f L;~B~ ~~BL,' _ ~6L ~ S6C =-.~99L 7.~ ~J-~•+ ~'~f~ ~ ~~ CL .,l. ~~~~~.•• t ..~,. r).it}n i!.: t t 1: SI~ q!~.9 ~• ~~.t.l.~~.~ ~1:4!. 1*1~~ `'~w Lf~ -~ _; ~ .r ~ ; s~~t~ Qo+a~ac Cat) ~~ • ~ 4L ~ ~• T 7ry{~~ ~ ~._ f~`~~~~W t~1ri.11~~ ti.L.:1~'~ tl]:~~ l.l.~~ _ '~~ ARE,JR RESOURCES Professional Arboricultural Consulting & Tree Care July 26, 2007 Gary Chao Community Development Department City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014-3255 RE: PRELIMINARY REVIEW Cupertino Village, Cupertino Dear Mr. Chao: I have reviewed the following documents in connection with the proposed development at the above-referenced site: [1] the set of plans (Sheets 1 and 3-11) by MCG, dated 6/29/07; [2] the Land Title Survey by Kier & Wright, dated October 2005; and [3] the arborist reports by Mr. Richard L. Huffmgton of Mayne Tree expert Company, Inc., dated 8/25/06 and 9/20/06. I visited the site on 7/23/07, and this letter presents my comments and is intended to serve as a preliminary review until more detailed plans can be reviewed. 1. Mr. Huffiugton's report provides an inventory and evaluation of 203 trees located within or in the immediate vicinity of the subject site. The trees are sequentially numbered as 1 thin 203, and none within the site are defined as "protected trees." There is a significant amount of trees, primarily all shamel ash (Fraxinus uhdei), situated within the public right-of--way (i.e. "street trees"); the amount and specific numbers can be provided upon review of more detailed plans (see further in letter). 2. The locations of trees shown on the Tree Plan (Sheet 4) or map within the arborist report do not represent the locations of trees around the perimeter, nor are they necessarily accurate for trees within the interior. Sheet 4 and the report map identify trees along Wolfe Road as being in a row, when in actuality there are two rows (most or all being shamel ash), one between the curb and sidewalk, and the other between the sidewalk and parking lot. P.O. Box 25295, San Mateo, California 94402 Email: arborresources@comcast.net Phone: 650.654.3351 • Fax: 650.240.0777 • Licensed Contractor #796763 t5-283 .~-< - ~ ARI~JR RESOURCES Proressioi~al ~rboriculturdl Co~7sulting & Tree Care July 26, 2007 Cupertino Village page 2 of 4 3. More detailed plans showing existing and proposed conditions should also be created and supplied for review, to include a topographic map, site plan, grading & drainage, utility and landscaping. The limits of work should also be outlined on the site plan. 4. A professional survey of the site and trees is necessary and essential to accurately assess the tree-related impacts that can be expected through implementation of the proposed project. In doing so, I recommend the following information is obtained during the survey (to be performed by a licensed surveyor) and presented on a topographic map (or existing conditions plan): a. The existing grades throughout the site. b. The trunk locations (representing the horizontal elevation) of all trees on-site, as well as those overhanging the site from neighboring properties (namely five Monterey pines along Linnet Lane). The trunks locations should be exemplified by a circle to scale based on its diameter. c. The vertical trunk elevation of each tree. d. The accurate canopy dimensions of trees (these can be represented by one canopy where a group or cluster exist). e. The tag/number of each tree (round, aluminum tags with engraved numbers representing the tree numbers were found on nearly all of the trees' trunks). 5. All site-related plans (e.g. site plan, grading and drainage, utilities, and landscape) should contain information specified in the previous recommendation, as well as plan scale and bearing. Canopies of the trees, which will change for conformance to the future topographic map, should not be shaded to allow for visibility of existing/proposed elements or features beneath the trees. For trees to be removed, an "X" should be shown through their trunks. P.O. Box 25295, San Mateo, California 94402 Email: arborresources@comcast.net Phone: 650.654.3351 • Fax: 650.240.0777 • Licensed Contractor #796763 15'284 "- ARBOR RESOURCES Professio~7a1.4rboricz~ltural Co~TSUlting & Tree Care July 26, 2007 Cupertino Village page 3 of 4 6. The proposed design should conform to setbacks specified within Mr. Huffmgton's 9/20/06 report. 7. There are numerous large redwood trees that are situated at the corner of Pruneridge Avenue and Wolfe Road (southeast corner of the property) but not shown on the Tree Plan (Sheet 4). I recommend this area is redesigned to consider retention of the redwoods by achieving a minimum setback from their trunks of five times their diameter for any excavation, fill or trenching (e.g. a tree with trunk diameter of 24 inches will have a 10-foot setback). 8. Sheet 4 identifies the removal of the following 26 trees: #60-62, 74, 77, 78, 130-132, 151, 152, 180, 182, 188-198, 200 and 201. Based on the proposed design, I anticipated the following additional trees will require removal: #38, 76, 79, 183-186, and numerous at the southeast corner of the property. Note that these numbers are only estimates, and a more accurate assessment can be provided upon reviewing the information requested previously in this letter. 9. Trees #183 thru 186. are indicated for retention on the plans. During my site visit, I found trees #183 (ash), 184 (ash) and 186 (locust) to be in overall poor and declining condition, and #185 (ash) to be in only fair overall condition. When considering this information, their short remaining life-expectancy, propensity for limb failure, and aggressive root system, I suggest their removal is considered rather than investing resources towards protecting their compromised condition. 10. A tree protection plan is necessary and can be prepared upon the information requested in this letter being supplied to the City for review. P.O. Box 2~29~, San Mateo, California 94402 Email: arborresourc.es@comcast.net Phone: 650.64.3351 Fax: 60.240.0777 Licensed Contractor #796763 15-285 ARI~JR RESOURCES Pr•ofessior7al .4rbor"rczrltzrr"al Consulting & Tree Care July 26, 2007 Cupertino Village page 4 of 4 11. Trees #74-76, 81, 112, 113, 133 and 134 are identified as Chinese pistache within the report. Trees #74-76, 81, 112 and 113 are actually Raywood ash, and #133 and 134 are crape myrtles. 12. Trees #49 and 50, both relatively small honey locusts, are dead and should be removed. 13. Tree #48 is a flowering plum that has been recently installed to apparently replace the removal of a dying honey locust at the same location. It requires restaking so it has a greater opportunity for survival and stability (the current staking is not to professional industry standards). 14. Regarding replacement trees, Table A of Section 14.18.185 of the City Code should be used as the basis for determining the size and amounts of trees to mitigate those approved for removal. The landscape plans should identify the type; size and amount of trees that will be installed. Should you have any questions or would like additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me at your convenience. Sincerely, David L. Babby, RCA Consulting Arborist CF~~ r ~ c - ~~ { = =' t1 ~CO"s~ltin? ~~~ P.O. Boa 25295, San 1\4ateo, California 94402 Email: arborresources@coincast.net Phone: 6~0.654.33~1 • Faa: 650.240.0777 Licensed Contractor #79676315-286 Prereq 1 Construction Activity Pollution Prevention Required credit ~ Site Selection t credit 2 Development Density & Community Connectivity ~ credits Brownfield Redevelopment ~ 1 Credit 4.1 Alternative Transportation, Public Transportation Access 1 credit a.2 Alternative Transportation, Bicycle Storage & Changing Rooms i Credit 4.3 Alternative Transportation, Low-Emitting &Fuel-Efficient Vehicles t Credit 4.4 Alternative Transportation, Parking Capacity t Credits.t Site Development, Protect or Restore Habitat ~ credit 5.2 Site Development, Maximize Open Space 7 credit s.t Stormwater Design, Quantity Control i credit s.2 Stormwater Design, Quality Control ~ Credit 7.1 Heat Island Effect, Non-Roof t credit 7.2 Heat Island Effect, Roof 1 Credit 8 Light Pollution Reduction t Yes 7 No °,a Credit 1.1 Water Efficient Landscaping, Reduce by 50% Credit 1.2 Water Efficient Landscaping, No Potable Use or No Irrigation Credit 2 Innovative Wastewater Technologies Credit 3.1 Water Use Reduction, 20% Reduction Credit 3.2 Water Use Reduction, 30% Reduction r F` -. Prereq ~ Fundamental Commissioning of the Building Energy Systems Required Prereq 2 Minimum Energy Performance Required Prereq 3 Fundamental Refrigerant Management Required `Note for EAc1: All LEED for New Construction projects registered after June 26"', 2007 are required to achieve at least two (2) points under EAc1. ®Credit 1 O timize Energy Performance t to io 10.5% New Buildings or 3.5% Existing Building Renovations ~ 14% New Buildings or 7% Existing Building Renovations 2 17.5% New Buildings or 10.5% Existing Building Renovations s 21 % New Buildings or 14% Existing Building Renovations a 24.5% New Buildings or 17.5% Existing Building Renovations s 28% New Buildings or 21 % Existing Building Renovations s 31.5% New Buildings or 24.5% Existing Building Renovations ~ 35% New Buildings or 28% Existing Building Renovations a 38.5% New Buildings or 31.5% Existing Building Renovations s 42% New Buildings or 35% Existing Building Renovations 10 ®Credit 2 On-Site Renewable Energy ~ to 3 2.5% Renewable Energy 7 7.5% Renewable Energy 2 12.5% Renewable Energy ~ 3 Credit 3 Enhanced Commissioning ~ Credit a Enhanced Refrigerant Management ~ credits Measurement & Verification t Credits Green Power t continued... 15 - 287 Yes ? No Prereq 1 Storage & Collection of Recyclables Required Credit 1.1 Building Reuse, Maintain 75% of Existing Walls, Floors & Roof t Credit 1.2 Building Reuse, Maintain 100% of Existing Walls, Floors & Roof ~ Credit 1.3 Building Reuse, Maintain 50% of Interior Non-Structural Elements t credit 2.1 Construction Waste Management, Divert 50% from Disposal t Credit 2.2 Construction Waste Management, Divert 75% from Disposal 1 Credit 3.1 Materials Reuse, 5% ~ Credit 3.2 Materials Reuse,l0% 1 Credit 4.1 Recycled Content, 10% (post-consumer + YZ pre-consumer) t Credit 4.2 Recycled Content, 20% (post-consumer + ~/z pre-consumer) 1 credit 5.1 Regional Materials, 10% Extracted, Processed & Manufactured Regic 1 credit 5.2 Regional Materials, 20% Extracted, Processed & Manufactured Regic 1 credits Rapidly Renewable Materials 1 credit 7 Certified Wood 1 Yes 7 No . t. c r.. ! `e c. ' Prereq 1 Minimum IAGI Performance Required Prereq 2 Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS) Control Required Credit 1 Outdoor Air Delivery Monitoring 1 Credit 2 Increased Ventilation 1 Credit 3.1 Construction IAQ Management Plan, During Construction 1 Credit 3.2 Construction IAQ Management Plan, Before Occupancy 1 Credit 4.t Low-Emitting Materials, Adhesives & Sealants 1 credit a.2 Low-Emitting Materials, Paints & Coatings ~ Credit 4.3 Low-Emitting Materials, Carpet Systems 1 credit a.a Low-Emitting Materials, Composite Wood & Agrifiber Products 1 credit 5 . Indoor Chemical & Pollutant Source Control 1 credit s.1 Controllability of Systems, Lighting 1 Credit 6.2 Controllability of Systems, Thermal Comfort 1 Credit 7.1 Thermal Comfort, Design 1 Credit 7.2 Thermal Comfort, Verification 1 Credit 8.1 Daylight & Views, Daylight 75% of Spaces 1 credit 8.2 Daylight & Views, Views for 90% of Spaces 1 Yes ? No Credit 1.1 Innovation in Design: Provide Specific Title 1 Credit 1.2 Innovation in Design: Provide Specific Title 1 Credit 1.3 Innovation in Design: Provide Specific Title 1 credit 1.4 Innovation in Design: Provide Specific Title 1 Credit2 LEED®Accredited Professional 1 Yes ? No --_ _ a • - a • • ~• ^• ^ Certified: 26-32 points, Silver: 33-38 points, Gold: 39-51 points, Platinum: 52-69 p 15 - 288 Cuuertino Village Community Meeting: 10/18/07 Exhibit D Present: Brian Replinger, Kimco Development Young Wong and David Blair, MCG Architecture Kelly Kline, City of Cupertino (18) Werner Gans, 1015 Lanark Ct., Sunnyvale Jeryuan Luo, 807 Kilbirnie Court, Sunnyvale Barbara Ireland, 807 Selkirk Place, Sunnyvale . Charles & Charlene Cox, 1741 Killdeer Ct., Sunnyvale Eugene & Birgit Boklund, 1770 Killdeer Ct., Sunnyvale Paul Finnegan & Carolyn Bircher, 1663 Martin Ave., Sunnyvale Helen & Ron Nowicki, 722 Kenley Way, Sunnyvale Dan Iverson & Laima Baltusis, 19872 Memtt Dr., Cupertino Bernadette Vergara, 912 Leighton Way, San Jose Warren Mine, 10630 Bezker Lane, Cupertino Roger Riffenburgh, 1630-F Roadrunner Ter., Sunnyvale Stanley Lee, 1698 S. Wolfe Rod., #108, Sunnyvale Good Samaritan UMC, 19624 Homestead Rd., Cupertino Presentation Overview: ^ 28,129 sf total new retail - 2 buildings along Wolfe, and 1 in the southwest corner ^ 70-100 new parking spaces ^ New retail on Wolfe will include plaza area to connect to the Duke of Edinburgh as well as an outdoor space on the right. Plan attempts to improve internal circulation, and to be more pedestrian friendly along Wolfe. ^ Linnet Treatment will include: o double row of trees (the second row being added), o new sidewalk o pedestrian access o new architecturally detailed and green-screened wall (back of parking structure) ^ Parking Structure elements: o sloped roof treatment to screen the lot from view o green screen on back and side will be similar to what was done at the new Vallco garage behind Macy's ^ New Amenities include a main plaza, enhanced paving elements at auto entries, and enhanced outdoor space. ^ New Design Elements enhanced archways with more color, new directory signs, lantern style gateways at auto entries, and enhancements at the Pruneridge corner. 15 - 289 uestions: Q: Can you get people to park in the new garage? A: New and existing businesses will be incentivized to have employees use the garage. Q: What is the timeframe for the total project? A: Ground breaking -- late first quarter, 2008; completion -end of 2008. Q: Will Ranch 99 stay in the project? How about the Duke of Edinburgh? A: Yes. Many tenants have long-term leases and renewal options. There are plans to dress up existing storefronts so they will match new buildings. Q: Is the new plan fire truck accessible? A: Yes. Developer has met with Fire Department to ensure that all requirements are met for fire trucks to get through the center. Q: How much bigger will the center be with a$er new retail added? A: Approximately 20%. Q: Does the developer have potential tenants for the new space? A: Yes, wouldn't pursue project if there wasn't good interest already. Developer will pursue a mix of new tenants, recognizing that restaurants should not comprise more than the current 30% due to parking needs. Q: Will the Linnet landscaping use existing trees, or new trees? A: Will keep the existing trees and will add more. Q: Where do you enter or exit with the new design? A: Everything remains the same except that one Wolfe entry will be removed. All construction staging and movement will occur on-site. Q: What will the size of the trees be on Linnet? A: They will be "substantial caliber trees" - 3" trunk or better. The size will be influenced by the need to protect the existing trees from damage. Q: Will there still be access to the playground at the church? (currently an opening with a sidewalk) A: Needs to be examined. Q: What is the parking garage roof treatment? A: Roofing materials will be a neutral color, and will effectively bade car lights from neighborhood. 15-290 Q: What happens to the existing fence on Linnet? A: It disappears, and will be replaced by the solid wall of the garage. Q: What is the purpose of the new sidewalk on Linnet? A: This was the City's idea to make the east side of Linnet more inviting. (Some discussion about whether or not sidewalk should be added, most felt it would alleviate a current hazard.) Q: How will lighting be handled on the 2"d level of the garage? A: Lighting will be pointed down. Q: Will Linnet landscaping be irrigated? A: Yes. Q: Will parking be allowed on the east side of Linnet? A: No, this won't change. Q: Where will trash be located? A: Haven't decided the exact location, but will probably be more interior because of parking garage placement. Q: Will exhaust levels increase because of extra parking? (may affect preschool) A: This will be considered in EIR process. Q: I like shopping at the center. Will it retain the same flavor? A: Yes. Q: What happened to Charles Schwab? A: Doesn't know. Q: How many compact spaces will be in the new parking plan? A: None. (Compact spaces are not allowed by the City of Cupertino.) Q: What are the next steps? A: Schedule apre-planning meeting with City Departments, followed by environmental review and a design approval meeting. There will be several more opportunities for public comment. The goal was to meet with neighborhood early in the process, before the formal submittal took place. Q: I'm excited! How long will the project take? A' 10 months, but might hold off on the Wolfe building so as not to disturb '08 holiday season. 15 - 291 Community Comments: . ^ Landscaping along Linnet has not been maintained in the past. ^ People park in residential area even if parking is available in the parking lot (employees too.) Perhaps pedestrian access should be eliminated. ^ The pedestrian access is convenient for residents, and addresses a safety issue for everyone. ^ Parking permits might need to be considered in the future even though they haven't had support in the past. ^ ,The proposal is a definite enhancement of Linnet. . ^ A great improvement -much better than previous owners. ^ Consider posting signs discouraging patrons from parking in the residential neighborhood. ^ People like staying at the center - it is active even later in the evening. Hope it stays that way. ^ Thank you for including the neighborhood early in the process. ^ The view from the multi-family side will be exactly the same as Linnet. Meeting adjourned at 7:45 p.m. 15 - 292 Gary Chao From: David Doudna [daveC~3doudna.comj Exhibit E Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 200710:14 PM To: Gary Chao Cc: Kelly Kline; Noemi Doudna Subject: Re: Cupertino Village Shopping Center redevelopment questions Dear Mr. Chao, I'm glad the City of Cupertino has conducted parking surveys, but also curious if the parking consultant observed the related traffic on our neighborhood streets. And if he conducted any of this survey on the weekend. When the parking lot is "at capacity," where do you suppose arriving patrons search for parking? I can tell you that many try to park on Linnet Lane. Then the street parking on Linnet Lane becomes "at capacity," and they start parking up and down Parnell Place and doubtless other nearby neighborhood streets. This is a regular situation on the weekends here, occasionally compounded by church traffic on some Sundays. However at least the church goers don't try to leave shopping carts... You see, prior to the installation of a barrier post at the pedestrian portal on Linnet Lane, patrons of the 99 Ranch Market used the shopping carts to carry groceries to their car, and then often just left the cart at the curb, sidewalk, or lawn, and drove off. By keeping the current ratio of parking stalls to retail area, our neighborhood streets will continue to serve as an auxiliary parking lot for Cupertino Village's businesses. Worse, the proposal I saw added a large portal to Linnet Lane which will bring back the stream of abandoned shopping carts. Other nearby shopping centers (e.g. Safeway at Homestead and Hollenbeck, Target on Stevens Creek) are able to maintain a balance of parking to retail space such that we've never seen evidence of anyone forced to park in nearby neighborhoods. With this redevelopment, we have the opportunity to ensure that Cupertino Village Shopping Center handles all of their parking needs without dumping their problem on the neighboring community. With regards to the other mitigation measures (e.g. incentives for using alternative transportation), that sounds great.., but if they're really effective they'd have been implemented and we wouldn't have the problem. The parking is inadequate now before the proposed redevelopment. Regards, -David Doudna 810 Parnell Place Sunnyvale On Nov 6, 2007, at 5:34 PM, Gary Chao wrote: > Mr. Doudna, > Thank you for your email. We are aware of the key issues that will > need to be addressed as this project moves forward such as traffic, > parking and noise impacts. The City has retained outside consultants > to evaluate the traffic, parking and potential noise impacts from the > project. The conclusions of these reports will be made available to > the public and will be considered by the Planning Commission and City > Council at their upcoming hearings (the first Planning Commission > hearing is scheduled on November 13, 2007). > The center currently has 691 stalls. As part of this project, the > applicant proposes to add about 91 stalls to the site (through the new > parking structure and through more efficient usage of their existing > parking lot). Along with the extra parking stalls, new parking lot > shading trees will be added through out the entire shopping center. A 15 - 293 1 > new linear park with doub~e rows of trees, a detached sidewalk and a > new masonry screen wall (with green screen system) will be provided > along .the Linnet Lane. Hopefully with some of the proposed > improvements, most of the shopping center activities will be > completely screened from the folks living along Linnet and the > interface between the residential neighborhood and the shopping center > will be significantly enhanced and beautified. > Our parking consultant has been out at the site to perform parking > demand surveys. Basically, the parking lot was found to be right at > capacity and therefore we are requesting that the project maintain > their current parking ratio (stall/square footage) with the new > proposed project. Most likely, you will see some form of parking > management plan implemented where mitigation measures such as offsite > employee parking, incentive program for employees to use alternative > means of transportation, parking agreement with adjacent land owners > (HP, Hotel or Church), potentially limitations on the restaurant > square footage or opening timing and even reduction of square footage > if necessary. Of course the final conditions relating to parking > mitigation will be made by the City Council with careful > considerations of the facts of the projects and any input received > from the neighbors. > If you have additional questions, feel free to contact me. I'll be > glad to discuss any other comments or inputs that you may have on this > subject matter or the project in general. Thanks! > Gary Chao > Senior Planner > City of Cupertino > 408.777.3247 (Direct) > 408.777.3333 (Fax) » -----Original Message----- » From: David Doudna [mailto:dave@doudna.com] _ » Sent: Friday, October 19, 2007 11:52 AM » To: Sarver, Shekinah » Cc: Noemi Doudna » Subject: Cupertino Village Shopping Center redevelopment questions » Hi, » Neither my wife nor I were able to attend your presentation at the » Cupertino City Hall yesterday, however I did find some information » online in » http://www.kimcoredevelopmentgroup.com/projects_view.asp?proid=l » Our main concern is whether the shopping center will have sufficient » parking for the customers. For years, the parking has been clearly » insufficient, forcing shoppers to park in our neighborhood. It is » better now since the shopping-cart blockers were installed. However » we would certainly prefer not to have the extra traffic in our » neighborhood, using our driveways as turnarounds, and consuming our » street parking. » * Are you aware that the current parking is inadequate? » * Will the new parking structure have enough room to accommodate all » of your customers on the busiest days? » Regards, » -David Doudna » 810 Parnell Place » Sunnyvale 7 5 - 294 2 > -----Original Message----- > From: David Doudna [mailto:daveQdoudna.com] > Sent: Friday, October 19, 2007 11:52 AM > To: Sarver, Shekinah > Cc: Noemi Doudna > Subject: Cupertino Village Shopping Center redevelopment questions > Hi, > Neither my wife nor I were able to attend your presentation at the > Cupertino City Hall yesterday, however I did find some information > online in > http://www.kimcoredevelopmentgroup.com/projects_view.asp?proid=l > Our main concern is whether the shopping center will have sufficient > parking for the customers. For years, the parking has been clearly > insufficient, forcing shoppers to park in our neighborhood. It is > better now since the shopping-cart blockers were installed. However > we would certainly prefer not to have the extra traffic in our > neighborhood, using our driveways as turnarounds, and consuming our > street parking. > * Are you aware that the current parking is inadequate? > * Will the new parking structure have enough room to accommodate all > of your customers on the busiest days? > Regards, > -David Doudna > 810 Parnell Place > Sunnyvale 15-295 Page 1 of 2 Steve Piasecki From: Greg Casteel Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2007 7:37 AM To: Steve Piasecki Cc: Ciddy Wordell; Kelly Kline Subject: FW: Concerns from residents of Linnet Ln, Sunnyvale, CA It doesn't look like you received this, so here ya go. Greg -----Original Message----- From: akashpai@gmail.com [mailto:akashpai@gmail.com]On Behalf Of Akash Pai Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2007 9:17 PM To: cityatty@ci.sunnyvale.ca.us; citymgr@ci.sunnyvale.ca.us; otto@ottolee.org; Building; Cupertino City Manager's Office Subject: Concerns from residents of Linnet Ln, Sunnyvale, CA From the residents of Linnet Ln, Sunnyvale, CA 94087 and adjoining neighborhood. We apologize for the wide distribution of this email but we were not sure which department it should be addressed to. We want to bring to attention the proposed work on Cupertino Village shopping complex by Kimko Realty Corp. As per our current understanding this involves construction of a multi story parking complex (visible from Linnet Ln) and the opening of boundary separating Linnet Ln from Cupertino Village. We would like to strongly object to these changes as it will: • Significantly increase the traffic pattern on Linnet Ln. The proposed change will allow automobiles to enter the Cupertino Village parking complex from Linnet Ln. This gravely impacts our privacy and security. • As you may be aware, there have been multiple thefts in the neighborhood. Adding additional traffic flow will likely increase the probability of thefts. . Residents of Linnet Ln purchased houses with the premise that this road is a "dead-end", according us significant privacy. This is reflected in our home value and property taxes. Changes in traffic pattern will reduce our home values and thus is anon-starter. • Our children today play freely in front of the houses with the knowledge that this street has very low traffic with neighborhood residents driving at low speeds. This will change with the proposed development. We cannot accept these risks. • The proposed multi-story parking lot will be visible from Linnet Ln, this is a significant "eye- sore". The current shopping structure is a single story and the boundary separating us provides a decent amount of privacy. Any changes to that is an issue and not acceptable to the residents. • We currently suffer significantly from increased parking on weekends when Cupertino Village patrons park their cars next to our houses. This increased traffic is not acceptable to us but we live with it. Any additional traffic as a result of new development work will test our patience to the tipping point, i.e. is not acceptable. We strongly urge the mayors of Cupertino and Sunnyvale to take the view of their residents into account and maintain the sanctity of Linnet Ln and adjoining neighborhoods. We are collecting signatures from the residents to register our protest. 15 - 296 11/8/2007 Page 2 of 2 Sincerely. The Concerned Residents of Linnet Ln, Sunnyvale, CA and adjoining neighborhood. (sent by Akash Pai, 1761 Linnet Ln, Sunnyvale, CA. 408 255 771 1) 15-297 11 /8/2007 Date: Nov. 8, 2007 Notice to: Cupertino Planning Commission, Mayor, Vice Mayor, and Council Members Subject: Objection to U-2007-06, ASA-2007-10 -Cupertino Village Proposed Re- Development. To: Steve Piasecki -Community Development Department, Mayor, Vice Mayor and City Council Members I am a resident living on 1725 Linnet Lane, right next to the proposed re-development of Cupertino Village shopping center. I will be directly impacted. I cannot be at the Public Hearing on Nov. 13, 2007. I would like to summit my concerns officially. I OPPOSE the further development of the shopping center. The shopping center is already beyond its parking needs. I understand that a parking study was done recently and has concluded that there is 100% usage of the parking at peak times. Also I have found out that in this study, off street parking was not taken into account. Let me assure you that during peak hours there is 100% plus usage of the parking in the center. Many people park in front of my residence then walk across the street to eat lunch, dinner and shop when the parking lot is full. The peak times are normally Saturday and Sunday during lunch and dinner hours, on Friday at dinner time a*~d during the lunch hour during the week. Kimco Realty Corporation (the owners) want to add more buildings totaling 24,455 square feet of new retail (restaurant) space on existing parking spaces. A new two story parking structure is being proposed. The parking structure is replacing lost parking spaces due to the new building plus 71 parking spaces. There is not enough parking now. Where are the new workers and new customer going to park? In the 71 parking spaces? The developer is proposing a 15 FEET pedestrian walkway through the bottom level of the parking structure on to Linnet Lane, Sunnyvale streets for further parking needs. THIS IS UNACCEPTABLE. More parking spaces must be made in the shopping center complex. The local residences petitioned the City of Cupertino, before the city council on Sept. 2, 2003 to close the opening to the shopping center along with other concerns of the neighborhood. If this re-development goes ahead I would like to bring up these issues and have the issues added into the building use permit and or construction permit requirements. 1) Close all entrances to the shopping center on Linnet Lane except for those required by the fire department emergency requirements. This issue has be discussed at the Sept. 2, 2003 Council Meeting. 15 - 298 2) Build a wall or fence around the Church property. Have a keypad entry doorway in the wall so that the church members have access to the deeded parking access. 3) There should be a condition of use that there would be no bazs, night clubs or any activity that goes beyond 10 PM at the new retail structure and any new tenants at the existing buildings. An open air parking structure is being built facing residential streets and the noise from the parking structure will disturb the neighborhood. . 4) A planned trellis fence is being planned for the rear of the parking structure along Linnet Lane. The fence will be higher than the parking structure and the length (600 feet or so) along Linnet Lane. Vines will be planted to grow on the trellis to make a solid green foliage covering. Sounds really nice if properly done and maintained. Over the last 20 years, through 2 previous owners of the shopping complex the landscaping on the Linnet side of the fence has NEVER been maintained properly. We will have DEAD vines on the trellis. If a trellis is to proceed, a condition of use permit would be needed so that a 10 year bond issued to make sure the landscaping is installed and maintained. 5) As a requirement of Construction -there should be no construction vehicles, delivery vehicles or construction worker's vehicles on the streets of Sunnyvale surrounding the construction site. A further requirement would be that the developer make arrangements to have an off site parking and storage area for the construction worker parking and equipment. The men and material can be bussed to the construction site. 6) Delivery time laws of the City of Cupertino should be strictly enforced and ticket given, not warnings for any violations, enforced by the Santa Clara Sheriff's department. In short deliveries are from 8AM to 8PM on week days and from 9 AM to b PM on Weekends and holidays. 7) Noise laws of the City of Cupertino should be strictly enforced and any violation ticked without warning given. No noise greater then 55 DBA during the night and the commercial noise level of the day time of 65 DBA with brief daytime incidents given in 92.25 of the Cupertino Municipal codes. Which allows the sum of excess noise duration and the excess noise level does not exceed 20 in a 2 hour period. Example an extra 5 DBA for 15 minutes or an extra 10 DBA for 10 minutes during a 2 hour period. 8) As a requirement of construction the developer is to install an automated recording (computerized) noise monitoring system that the City of Cupertino noise enforcement monitors to make sure that noise levels are not exceeded. This device will be able to inform the construction company when it is about to exceed the noise and so they can comply with the noise laws. The sheriff's department will not have to come out due to noise complaints. Note sheriff's department may not have sound measure devices and the officers will not want to stick around for 2 hours at a time to monitor the excess noise levels. The computerized system would have a digital or hard copy report or graphs so enforce can be made and tickets issued for violations. Also the reports should be public records. 9) All current Cupertino Municipal ordinances are enforced. 15 - 299 10) A sound wall should be constructed first so the surrounding neighborhood is not disturbed during construction and this'will also prevent accidents from children getting to construction site. 11) Dust prevention should be implementing and required during construction. 12) Residence privacy should be respected. Meaning there should be no view from the shopping center complex into the residence windows, garages, doors under any circumstances. 13) Requirement under condition of use permit that a person representing the ownership of the shopping center be present at the shopping center at all business times. Interface for the residences, city, tenants and customers. 14) All up to date codes and requirements be added to the condition of use. Update all code statures. 15) Hide the roof air conditions for all view of the roof tops. 16) Hide view of the trash cans from surrounding neighborhood. 17) Add to the condition of use permit -Prevent any smell (odor) problem escaping to the neighborhood or within the center. 18) Prevent car headlights from shining into the neighborhood for the parking areas. 19) Construction hours should be from 8 Am to 5 PM weekdays only. 20) Prevent car headlights from shining into the neighborhood for the parking areas. 21) Prevent noise from parking areas from getting into the neighborhood. 22) Prevent shopping carts from getting into the surrounding neighborhood 23) All toxic clean up be done. 24) Rear property building set back is 20.00 feet to adjacent residential street. Plus any other issues that the neighborhood brings up. Dean Fujiwara ~/ ~g/~ `] 1725 Linnet Lane / Sunnyvale, California 94087 d.fu j i wara @ comcast. net 15 - 300 The Good Samaritan United Methodist Church 19624 HOMESTEAD ROAD CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA 95014-0607 TELEPHONE: 408/253-0751 www.goodsam.info October 29, 2007 Rev. Kristie Olah Senior Pastor Pastor Gail Chiew Associate Pastor Chinese Ministry (408)253-3620 Mark Teagle Director of Music and Family Ministries Carolyn Robbins Youth Director Estacie Brooks Helen Kung Office Managers Loretta Wong Preschool Director (408)996-8290 Gary Chao, senior planner City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014-3255 Dear Mr. Chao: RECEIVED Nov o s ~o .~Y: FAX: 408/996-2621 GSUMCAO@Prodigy.net RECEIVED BY: Thank you for hosting the neighborhood meeting regarding the redevelopment of Cupertino Village Shopping Center. We greatly appreciate being informed about the proposed plans so early in the process. As neighbors to the shopping center, we are concerned about the proposed parking structure. In order to protect the safety of the children in our preschool and to preserve our parking agreement with the shopping center, we are asking you to add the following conditions for approving this redevelopment project. First, we are concerned that the added parking in the back of the center will substantially increase traffic on the driveway between the former dry cleaner and our preschool playground. There is currently only a lightweight fence between the playground and that driveway. We feel that adding an 8-foot, solid wall would alleviate our fear of a potential disaster if a car should lose control and would protect the children from the auto exhaust fumes. This wall should extend all along the diagonal side and south end of our property. (See enclosed diagram) Secondly, the enclosed parking agreement states that the church has rights to use 200 parking spaces at the shopping center. We appreciate that they are maintaining and even increasing the available parking spaces close to the church. However, there must be reasonable access for church attendees to get to the church entrances from their cars in the back lots and parking deck. Currently, there is a walkway on the south side of our property. It has raised paving to keep cars from blocking it and posts to keep 15-301 Page 2 grocery carts from passing through it. Please be sure that the proposed wall includes a pedestrian passageway. Thank you in advance for your attention ~to these issues. We look forward to working with you and being a part of the future of Cupertino Village. Please keep us informed about future design reviews. If you have questions, please contact David Chapman at (408) 739-9332 or chaponegret@yahoo.com. Sincerely, D``a~~vid Ch.. apmfan, Tru ee President Bill Hutchinson, Trustee VP f~~ 'i~~ Cindy Pelle o, Trustee Secretary U Cliff L d ig, Administrative oard Chair ~r Carolyn Bircher, Church Treasurer ~~~ ~~~~ Rev. Kristie Olah, Senior Pastor Enc. 15 - 302 ~. ~ .. .. tn~uu Tura nvcuuo GupulLiu; LniIIUIIIIJ 'JSni'1 TctL')IIIIIIIL' (4i1u~ Z51-•ISaS , ' UI:I'nillhll:N7 Ul• I'LnIVNING nNU nI:V1~L•UI'AtL'NI ~ April 10, 1975 • • u r Mr. 1•)urrcu Rilbert, A.I.A. ~ ~ ' 1G0 Jackson St. '•' Sun Jase, CA 95112 • SuL~ect: Isxclluul;e Agreuweut Date) January 24, 19GG - Vallco Purk and ' ' • Cuud Sumarl.t:un Church /'\ Uear Plr. (,'ilburt: . f ~~. TI)is letter ie u briuf follow-up to our ruceut- rliscussiun concerning tl)e.;sub-. jeer exchungu agre~mc:ut. , • ~ •~ !ta we dlecuubeJ,.it.appeur5 that in 19GG, upon cunsidurntion of a use perutit~' to develop the Vallco Vl.llage Shopping Center, this agruunent way filed with,,, • the City indicating that upon cun~tructiun of the paYkinU.facilitiea wltltiu the: Center, the Church,wuuld 11aVL rights to utilize those fucilitles in con- , h junction wlth Church-related activities. T acsunlc your inquiry is rclatud ru the official utatua of said agreement in , view of pussibl~ development un the Church siee. ,• , ' Itry my opinion that in 19GG, official recognition o~,this u~reement wao known to Ute City•aud co souls dcl;rce sunctiunud upon the grunting of the u;~ permit far the shupplug center. however, it would appear that in order to offici.tilly , recognize the. riUht to utllize cbe parking hpaae;t ns apart of Church-related construction, this will have ro be nmde a p~rt• of nlty fµture u~r: perpdts for `~ Church cunsl-ruetion. '1'hcrefure, inaswucit a3 you haqu iudieuted that the Church is now cuncuuplatinl; addltiunai cunstructiun on the situ, is will bL neceeuary to file the signed agreement with ~thc u~c penuit application, so thut• the; •• Cuttylli;:oion may Ua assured taut parlcing is :tvailuble on Vallco t'urk pYoperty.., ... .... ~I hope this ittfbrntatiun will be helpful, If you have any queetions••concerning Chia mutter, do not hesitate to contact me. -' `~~' 1 Sincerely, CITY OF CUl'131t1'INO 1'lmuring Director ~ .. • ~ ,1IlS:fr 15-303 > o4~<~m ~ ~„4 ~ ~ `.Y... nr .0 ..., ?. ` CITX OF CUj']ERTINO~ '~~ ~~ •k~ ~ALII~`ORI`7IA- k TELEPHONE ALPINE 2-4505 10321 S. Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road ~,~ , ti~ Cupertino, California 95014 ~' ".° ~''~ February 7, 1966 Mr. Richard C. Morris Attorney at Law " 2413"1 Summerhill Avenue Los Altos, California Dear Sir: >~eference your letter of January 25, 1966, per- taining to a parki2zg .agreement between the Good " Samaritan Church and Vallco Park. . TY~e City staff :has reviewed the proposed agree- ment along with Mr. Walter Ward o#' Vallco .Raxlc and we are satisfied that the wording ~ of• the . ~• • agreement is such that~it would enable .us to grant permits to the church for .expansion as far as parking requirements are concerned. - . _ Very. truly yours, ~ ~ ~ '. ..... f. ~~~_.-- . ~ _ =• • . _.--~ , ~ 271 ~ Z tkA1 .. r- • .;: . .. .. .. ~ .~/~ . A~s s"'~ : ",Ci:~y' Planner - - .. . J' ' ~~. ~ ~ - - - - - - ..._ ~ .. .RIOFiadaRD C. MO.RFLIS ~~ .. ~ •: ~ - - .. - ~ ATTOR•N CY AT LAW - .. - •. - • - ~talil sUMMLANILL AVCNU[ ~ ~ - - • • - ~: LOe ALTO>s~ OALID'OY2fL ~ . ~ - • _ M/F117ietlf/ •-it~a - - - -~ •• - .. • - • - • , • •_ .. • . Janu~ti'Y-~!25r 1966 . _• . ' -, ' •: r_ •. " City of Cupertino ~- • '':`' .. ,, 10321 S. Se.ratoga-Sunnyvale Road . • . ' • . • • Cupertino, California 95011} - - -~ • .. - • , ~ - .Res Good Samaritan Chuch,. 'United. ~ •••~ . . .• ' • •' Evangelical: Brethern - Va]:lacj Park.. . ~• • ~• •.- • • Attn: J. Nuzum, ~ ~ ~ - •- • •'.• .• Aaeista`nt• P3anrier - ~ • '• '. •• '. : - Gentlemen: ~ .. ~ ~ . • .• • ' .• I enclose herewith a copy of an exchange agreement • •• -.. negotiated' between The Good Samaritan Church United ~ - • , Evangelical Brettiern, and Vall•c~o Park, involving the • - • ~ • • exchange of properties and proviaioris for church parking ~ ' :. •• ; in your 'city. : Mr. J. ~Nu~zum and, I am sure, other members ~ ~ ' • •~ of your planning•commission• are familis~r with the t•enative - • . - • • . arrangements fob~ the exchange and parking accomodations. ••• ..' - • . Mr. Walter P. ~Wa7rd of Vallco Perk has been, or ,shortly will •.. •~ • - be, in touch with you concerning these matters; ' : .• • .. ~ • •- -• - •, As you are aware th6 Church intends as -soon as - ~ ~ ' • •it is able to make application to the City of Cupertino - -~ ~ ••. - ••• ~ ' ~ for a permit or permits which will enable it to make: ad- ~ - - .• .. ~: •• - ditional improvements on its property at Linnet Lane and •• ' : ' Homestead Road with the purpose, in -mind of accomodating a .. .- .. " . ~ . ~ larger membership. At such time the Church will rely on . • • "• : ' off' Church property parking, not to exceed 100 :9te:lls, ' as • • `.:'-:: • made available t_o the Church by the agreement, expres•aed • -~ • . ~°- - ~•~~ •` •' • in the enclosed document. •' '• •. • ' ~ If,, in.•your judgment, the enclosed document does •. - ••~ • •'~• ''' + '' ~ ~ not s~afficiently insure that the Church will have the available • : ' • parking to support the contemplated applications for permits - '; : ~. ple&se advise at your early convenience. Tf', as. we feel, . - • • ~ _ the document ie sufficient for that purpose; please eo - ~ . • • • ~• • •. ~. • indicate. ~ Aa I understand it neither the Church nor •Vallco •• ' ; - •- Park will proceed xith their planning pending an expx~easion -~ • - ~ ' : -- from you. - . ~ .• _ • . . , - • - - • . -• Very truly yours, - • ' :: ~• ',' ~ .- Enc; Copy, • •"Exchange Agreement" . • • ~ - - • • - .Y .. ••. .. - - - .. •~ `••• -'• -15-305 r ... - - EXCIUWCE AGREEMENT AGREEMENT, as of February 7, 1966, between VALLCO PARK, i ~ a California corporation (hereinafter called "VALLCO") and THE GOOD• SAhWIITAN CiIURCH, EVANGI;[.ICAL UNITED IIRETIIREN, a corporation (hereinafter referred to as "CIIURCII") W1iEREAS, VALLCO is a general partner•of VALLCO PARK, LTD., a limited partnership formed pursuant to tl~e lows of tine State of California; ~,nd ~\diIERTJtS, VALLCO otiins Parcnl No. 1 and ClR1RC11 owns Parcel • No. 2, each of which is more particularly described in Exhibit A nttacliad hereto; and - ' f''•'~J ~ WHEREAS, VALLCO proposes t-o construct Vallco Village Square Shopping Center on property adjacent to'tlie real property hereinabove - referred to (a preliminary plot plan of said Center is annexed Hereto ~~ as Exhibit B and by reference made a part Hereof), which shopping ' center will provide in excess of 20p' parking stalls with in a distance of 300 feet•of a church entrance; and ' WHEREAS, the parties-hereto are desirous of exchanging said parcels of real property upon clue terms and conditions hr:reinafter set forth, ' IT IS TILEREFORE AGREED: 1. VALLCO shall promptly open an escrow with Western Title Guaranty Company, Santa Clara County Division, for the purpose of• consummating said exchange. All costs of escrow, including documentary• stamps and recording, shall be nt tl~e sole cost and expense of VALLCO • and be paid by it. • 2. Eaclt of the parties hereto shall therealtc:r cause to be deposited in escrow Grant Deeds coriv~ying the properties to be exc}iangc•o hereunder tree and clear of ali encwnbrarices, save and except covenants, conditions, restrictions and public utility easements of record and current properly taxes a lien not yet poyable, to wit; , VA7.7.C0 7'A11}:, LTD, shall deed Parcel No. 1 to C}IURCIi and C11UKC11 shall deed Parcel No, 2 to VALLCO PARY., L'1'll, 1 -1-' . T 4 .~ 3. As a further consideration for the w~rhin exchange, VALLCO hereby grants to CHURCH, or a successor C1IUlt~H, the non- . exclusive right to permit persons attending the C1iURC11 or participating i , in CHURCH affairs to use the parking facilities of the center described in Exhibit D so long as the CHURCH'S property remaining after the conveyance of Parcels No. 1 and 2 is devoted to a church use, which right shall not be construed or deemed to be a covenant running with the land, If any use other than a "church use occurs on the existing CIIURCII property, such right shall terminate. C11URC11 covenants that . it will not permit such inviteus to unduly interfere with the operation of the shopping center by its tenants or otherwise violate the parking rules thereof. - -~ ~_ 4. In consideration of the granting by CIiURCII of the \ option referred to in Paragraph 5 hereof, VALLCO will provide n strip of paving 8 feet in width or more as required by the appropriate government bodies on Linnet Lane and landscaping~in an B-foot strip - to be installed at the time VALLCO contracts for paving and landscaping-" the shopping center and•of the same quality and kind as that provided for the shopping center. The area to be paved is cross-hatched in • green on Exhibit II, and the area to be landscaped id~ntif fed thereon in red, VALLCO covenants further that it will proceed forthwith to ' 'develop and improve its properties in the manner describ ed herein. 5. Contemporaneously upon depositing the Deed referred . to in Paragraph 2 hereof, CHURCH shall deposit an Agreement whereunder it grants to VALLCO an option of first refusal to purchase the real' property owned by CIiURCIi situated in the County of Santa tiara, • State of•California, described in Dook 4615, Page 749, Dfficial Records, County of Santa Clara, excepting tlierefroio Parcel No. 2, . ••• 5ai8 right of first refusal shall be in form approved by counsel for VALLCO, 6. Tl~e interest, rights, and obligations herein incurred shall accrue to and be binding upon the assigns and transferees of~ the parties Hereto. _2_ ._ __. i ~ ~ IN 'FITNESS WIiEREOF, the parties hereto through their duly ` authorized officers acting pursuant to their respec..ive Bylaws or Resolutions duly adopted by their Boards of Directors, hnve executed i ~ the within Exchange Agreement as of the day and year first above .' written. • VALLCO ARK, a California corporation i Authorized Officer Auti~orizcd Officer • _ - THE GOOD Snl•IAFII'tAN CHURCH, • EVn21GIiLICAL , UNITED BRLT}UIEN, a corporation Autl~orfz fficer / AutF~ized Ufi'ic • - ~'''1 -3- ~T 15 - 308 ' ~ •• ~Ci~1 .. ... GRANT D :: 3: D ..... _ .. •- .. -~~~ ' FOR A VALUADL~ C02iSIUL'Rr~TION, reeeiPt~ or v~hich is horeby . .- acknowledged, CALIFORNIA L'ONb'LRi1ICE; I'sVAIiGL'L.ICAL UNI'.Cr=1~ B%1L~~~IREN ~ ' CHU:3C:1 , a corporation, grants to lii1; GOOD 5ATIARITAt•1 CIiUIZCH,. M A11Gr.LICAL UNI'1'El) FiRlTiiiilrTi, a corporation, tho 'r©al property in ~ ,.ho 'County of Santa. Clara, Stat•o of California, described as ' follows : ~ ~ , ; , • ~ ~ 23T~~TNMZ]~Q aL• L-1~~ ?ntF,x'nootiS.an of tyouizoll~oad)y ' ' _ lino of I•Iomastead Road (iornerly Q ' ~ • ~'== ~-'•'- vritl'i the Lnsterly line of Becker Lane as shovrn d of Sur- . -:.~='•? :: upon that certain i•Sr:p entitled "Recor . ' ~~ the Land of Burrell Leonard ~'~liich 'iSap' - ' .~ '•vey of tho • ••" ~ =1M~ , { = the off ico of •. "''~'•• ~ ~' •• ' tiYBa filed for recorii ~in "'••~•+' 4~:;•~' •• Ttecordcr. of tho County oS Santa Clara, S•L-2te • _~~;~~~;~:;;.~'~ ~ ].955 in 13oolt 60 of . :,~-,_•~:: ;'•' ;~ . of California oi? July 8, ~ the Lnsterly line • ".::~" ' 1~4a~~s, pa Q° J0; thencts alon„ • n `(~~"~ "''="'`'~ of Backer Lane South 326./0 feet; thonce 11. f .. • ,vri~;,;''`.'~'- 0 4l' L, Arid parallel .rich the. Southerly k, • - "'"" 49 • thence . ~ . • • • • ' ~ • •1•ine of'fiomestesd Road 216.00 feet; .- ' `• • •" parallel' with the Easterly line of B•cc`~.er Lane .; • • ~ . • ~' . - '' North 3?.6.70 feet to the Southerly •11ne of . .• •• lioynestead Road; thonce along Bald Southerly _ ,.• ' ~ ..line S. f59° 41'. ~1 • 216.00 feet to the point of , . . ~ beginning. COlt`r1:INI1~G~'aaoroxi~~ately 1.620 . • • . • • acres of land r~:nd beings portion of that eer- ' •• fain 164.52 acre parcel of land conveyed by S. • G , de• prQuello, et a1.., to Loauder r.. Gardner, r • ' by~ced .dated April 2, 1670 rand recordod. in • . •Bj~ok 17 of vends, at page 346, Santa Clara • . • ••County Records: • ' IN 1~ITNESS .11iI11Itir01'; .said corporation has 'caused its cox- • ~ porate seal to be affixed hbreto and thi~hercuntoe•duly nut-. •,i executed by•its ?'resident and Secretary -,.. horizad. • . • • li ,L,r :.S 19 59 . .. • • DgTED : ~ 1l v ~: v-- . • - •• •' • . CALIFORNIA ~CO1~~LR1:TICE, LVANGT.LTCAL ' ~ . ' UlIITI?D. &~LT3Rlly Ch-(TRCH, a corpora- -. ••. tion Prc3lden Secretary • • • ~ .". • . 1 ~ ~d~u .... .. • •'. '. ~~ ,. • FORA VALUABLE COi15IUL'i3/;TION, receipt' oL' vi hick is. horeby • .• acknovrledS CALII~ORNIA CONr'LRL1iCE; T'VAWGL'LICAL Ui~I'P};l~ DRL"P;ICtEN • ed , ' CHU13C:1, a corporation, grants to TiiE ~OOD 51u11ARITATi CIiU1ZCIi,. rho goal property in . oration a cor U;N i ' ' • rVANGnLICA • rho 'County , p , l Ell F3R1sTi 1 L U19I oS 5nnta. Clara, Stat•o of Cnliforni.a, described as ' follo~vs.• ~ .. •i .~ ' ~ ' }3I.O71~TIZl~U at tlln 3ntr~r,+uootiion ai' tl~o So~zt;hor~.y ~' -. os fond Road (i ornerly Young H oad) - ' f H . ~,;~,;~~.:~"~~s "• om lino o viith the Easterly line of Becker Lane as shovrn . upon that cortsin i.tap entitled "Record o.f Sur- :}' ' ' ~ ''•' ~ ' ' ... ~ ~•rh:ich'?;ap ~ vey of the Land of Burrell Loonard ' 1s"' +° ~ r ~'•:•:..•:,'-;i; ~ i ~ '• • ' lvas ;fled for recorii 'in the oi'Tico of tiro _• . State r •3ant;~ Clara t • • = '~•~'~~••,~•fl'• • ••• , y o .. 1'tecordcr.oT thc~ Coun f • •'•i~ - ~•'.;.•' • ~ , of California on. July 8, 1f~5J in 13oolc 60 o ~ ' ' •-' ~' =` ~ °' ~' '' ~"~~ ago vO thence alor;~ the En3terly line 6 ~!0 feat; thonce N uth 3? S L ~~~-~ . ' :, . '~~!~~!:•.=• '`=j • . o anc of Boclcer gg~ ql~ L, and parallel ••rith the. southerly _ ' • • •1'ine oi'fiomestean Road 216.00 feet; thence - . ; •, • - ~ ~ •" ;~arallol' with the Easterly line of Bcel:er Lane :: . ~~ ~ '~ •'~'North 326.70 feet to the Southerly line of •.~?'•~. ' ~ liomastead Road; thonce alonS said Sou•t;herly ' . • ~ line S. f19° 41~. X51. 21G.OO feet to the point of %• ~.;, i• - ' • . • . boGinrin~. CO12`P1:ZNI1~G'approximately 1.620 ' ' acres o1' land and beinT; s portion of that cer- ;..: ~ • . • •• 64.52 acrd parcel of land conveyed by S. •~ rain 1 . . 0. do•ArRucllo, of al., to Loauder i. Gardner, • b Doed ,dated April 2, 1870 and recordod. in s ' •Bpok 17 of voods. at pa6e 340, Santa Clara .. •• ~• • , . 'County Records : - ~ . - ZN•1'TITNiSS 11iI s~t;sOb~; .said corporation has 'cau:.ed its cor•- - • . ~, .~ porate seal to be affixed heroto and this instrument to bo aut- rlul unt th exocuted •• g o ere by•its ?'resident and Secretary ~ ~. horizod. ~ . - ~ • DATED : ~~n ~.r +,~~ `r S 1959. ' ~ ~ - • -• - Cd-LI OR1~IA CO1~F~E1`TCE, LVANGT~' ICAL • . ' U1•IITED, BRTHREN Cl-i-iJRCH, a corpora- • •• ~ Lion .•. Yresident ~ • ~ Secretary . - ~ - aocr, 4E~~J ~ ~ . , .. 75 - 310 ~ ~ r J ~%~~ ~~~-~ipr~o~ .~ C~r~ ~M,~~~T~ ~~~is7 G,~~,e~, p~42 G ~Z 2 = n . o / 95 ~~~ sr,~rP DF,L.~D ,~~ED To ~~ ~-0M VA~~LCv ~,~-~ ~ ~ a~ ~ ~~ ~- . ~~ ~ ~-c,,r~ -~,~,~-~ Gc.r- pry aF ,L,~ n ,D~ T r/,ar-~c~ /~,~uL P~ ~A-Er2~~iu EI~7 a~ 7 ~~?3 ~ G P,~2c~z ~G `'-- ~i~ P~P~ ~y o ~~' ~ g~ C~frJi2G1~ ~-r '7~"'~"L ~'~- L ~i~-~S~ ~~``- ~,A~cEG - ~ ` ~,~- _ ~ -- 2 p~~T ~~ . 15 - 311 w J I'ARCFL• ` All that curL'ain real prc:pert~• situate in the Cit~• of Cu}~c~rti~:o, County of Santa Clara, State of California and being more particularly described as follu:;s: Beginning at a granite monument at thr intersection of Hun:cstearl Road as said ]lumestcacl Roacl furmerl~~ existed, 40 feet wide, ~s shoc:n on the map of that certain Trace No. 190b, Verde C,ardens, Unit 2 a map of c~hich i.s filyd in Bc~nlc cJi+ of Maps at Page 36, in the Ottict of the County Recorder o1 said Santa- Clara County; thence from s;{i.d Joint of beginnin}; S~`1°24'02" W alonL. tl-.c ce.ntcrlin~ of 1•Inmestead Rond 410..12 feet; thence ]~• •ins said centerline S 0°17'22" E 20.00 feet to L-he TRUE POINT OF lli~.~~iNINC, also knocan 1s tl~e Northeast corner of that certain parcel of land conve~•ed I,y. California Conference, Evangelical United Llrethr.en Church a corporation to the Cood Samaritan Church, Evun~elical United.);rethren, a corporation, by deecl dated Npven:ber 5, 1.95) ,~nci rec•ordc~d in B1c.4615 of Deeds at Page 749, Santa Clara County Rucords; thenuo continuing'~5.0"17'22" E along the East line of staid lands of Cood Samaritnn Church, et al, 214.74 feet; thenca leaving said •East line N 44°33'19" L•' 5.57 feet; thence N 0°17'22" LJ 210.74 feet to a• pulnt in tl~e South marlin of Homestead Road; thence S 89°24'02" IJ along the southerly martin ~f llomesteacl Road 4.00 f e~~ t t o the TRUE POINT Of' BEGINNING . Containing 0.0145 acres more or less. PARCEL 2 All that certain real property situate in tl•~e City of Cupcrti.i:~, County of Santa Clara, State cif California and being more p.~icularly described as follu~.~s : } . Beginning at a granite monument at the intersection of fivm~~:'e~i~l Riiad as said Homestead Ro<~d formerly existed, 40 feet t.~ide, as sliow~: un the map of that certain Tract No•, t906, Verde C:arclens, Unit 2 a map of c:hich is fil~.d in Boole 98 of Maps at Pa•~e 36, in the Office of the County Recorder of said Santa Clara. County; thence from said point of beginning S 89°24'02" W along the centerline of Nomesteacl Road 416.12 feel'; tlluncc leaving said centerline S 0°17'22" E along the East line of that certain Marcel of land conveyed by California Conference, Evangelicai United Brethren Church, a corporation, to The Cood Samaritan Church, Evangelical United Brethren, a corporation, by decd dated November 5, 1959 and recorded in IiH..4515 of Deeds at Page 749, Santa Clara :C.ounty Records,..234..74 Eeet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; thence continuing S 0°17'22" E along said East line 112.00 foci to the southeast corner oL• said lanUs oL Cood Samaritan C17urch, et al, thence S 89°24'02" W along the south llne of said 1:-nds ui Goocl Samaritan Cliurclr; ct al, 1.12.00 feet; thenca.t :1 44°33'1')" E 158.F2 feet to the TRUE POINT Or BEGINNING. ~;ont~nining 0.144 acres more or loss. 15 - 312 ,r 1. ~ 3ao', .. • • T 7~.oi • 6 *.~• a1`oz'w ~ ..5 •a:~:ca' - _' _ ~ U~ o( m r~ I; .1 ~ I T~ b'• I.l Lim 111T11~11~IT1LT ; n A L ~ ~ I r ~~• 7P.UGY flP.ly~ ~ PFif-4+C-: 'L ~ ' p rn r D'~ ;~ ~ ~ ~'~ /~~~ - it '/j~ F - i Z J ~ (>7 .i ••_ .~•~~ yw. ~~ ND'1'TA~U1G•!oe .t • • ~, :~ ~ ~. I li `. _ b a i ,• ~; I 6'V ~ ~I / Cs'~ 1 t 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ n ~ to ~P ~ ~ i D oyF s>° •, , i ~~ I'' ~ ` ~i • . m N ~ i N ~ in ~ L ~~ n .~ ~i I ~ r. - o i ~'^ ~ i ' ~ Z W ~ ~ S•I:D ~ V 1Z 0.00' 1~c,,ll' ~ 2io.v9 ~. ' -- ~.-P •- .~•y_ .-_- c, n.n'7~1'e'eZ ii•-f X111.4 ^ ' `~~ 9 Yg Y .516. /O- Ll~T LAIC t •a : PARCEL "A" M ORIGINAL CHURCH PARCEL GRANT DEED (4615 OR 749) PARCEL 1 DEEDED TO CHURCH FROM ' VALLi • • ' PARCEL 2 • • .:'•'.. ~ DEEDED FROM CHURCH TO VALLC LINE TABLE: LINE BEARING DISTANCE L,1 N B9' 24' 02' E 4. 00' L2 N 00'•17' 22" 1M 2 00' 'L3 N 69' 42' 38' E 9.00' L4 N 00' 17' 22' W 30. 00' CURVE TABLE',• CURVE RADIUS DELTA , LENGTN C1 20. 00' 89' 41' 24' ' 31.31" C2 B. 50' 43' 20' 29' s. 43' .C3 8, 00' 43' 20' 29' B. 05' FEHR ~ PEERS TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Date: February 20, 2008 To: Mr. Gary Chao, City of Cupertino From: Ben Larson, Fehr & Peers Subjecf: Cupertino Village Parking Study RS08-2540 Fehr & Peers has completed a Parking Study for Cupertino Village; a supplemental study to the Cupertino Village Final Traffic and Parking Study, prepared for the City of Cupertino by Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. As directed by City of Cupertino staff, this memorandum uses the Hexagon study as a baseline for all on-site numbers. The purpose of this study was to identify off-site parking demand, qualitatively address site access and on-site circulation, and identify parking solutions. PARKING OBSERVATIONS We conducted counts for the adjacent off-site locations listed below: • Linnet Lane o from Homestead Road to Lark Lane o from Lark Lane to Pruneridge Avenue {no connection) • Parnell Place o from Linnet Lane to Kinglet Court • Lark Lane o from Selkirk Place to Linnet Lane • Church parking lot at the corner of Homestead Road and Linnet Lane Counts were conducted on Friday and Saturday, January 25 and 26, 2008 from 11:00 AM to 9:00 PM. Our observations are listed below and expressed on Figures 1 and 2: 1. Saturday was observed to have the peak parking demand 2. On Saturday, the entire project site was effectively full for five or more hours of the day (effectively full was identified as 95% or more to account for circulating demand and handicapped stalls) 3. Off-site demand (adjacent streets and the church parking lot) followed similar pattern as demand for on-site parking with correlating peak periods 2990 Lava Ridge Court, #200 Roseville, CA 95661 (916) 773-1900 Fax (916) 773-2015 15 - 315 www.fehrandpeers.com Mr. Gary Chao February 20, 2008 Page 2 of 10 FEHR & PEERS TRANSPORTATION [ONSUl1ANT5 4. Total parking demand peaked at 2:00 PM on Saturday when the on-site lots were effectively full and off-site parking totaled 73 vehicles (includes all counted vehicles on identified off-site locations) OFF-SITE PARKING DEMAND To determine the contribution of the Cupertino Village shopping center to off-site parking demand, parking trends at the off-site locations were compared to peak parking times of the on-site lots (also see Figure 3). Home type and the presence of garages and driveways were also taken into consideration. City staff confirmed with church staff that activity in the church lot site specific and is not considered as part of the off-site parking demand. The following observations were made to determine off-site demand (Saturday calculations). ^ Total off-peak demand (11:00 AM & 4:00-6:00 PM) o • Adjacent Streets = 18 to 20 vehicles ^ Total peak demand (2:00 PM) o Adjacent Streets = 52 vehicles • Total Shopping Center Off-site Demand (Peak Demand -Off-peak demand): o Total Offsite Vehicles = 32 vehicles A reasonableness check was completed by comparing the off-peak parking demand to the single- family dwelling units counted in the study area. Along the study segments, there were 35 homes. The off-peak demand to homes ratio would then be approximately four on-street cars for every seven homes. Although this ratio is higher than would be expected for homes that have garages and driveways, it was within a reasonable range to use as background traffic demand when determining the shopping center off-site demand. Because the lot was at capacity for a majority of the business day, patrons were observed walking from their vehicles off-site to the shopping center. Due to the access of the project site, vehicles were also observed parking off-site even before the lot was at capacity. SITE ACCESS AND ON-SITE CIRCULATION This section addresses issues with site-access and on-site circulation and addresses topics identified by City of Cupertino Staff. 15 - 316 Mr. Gary Chao February 20, 2008 Page3of10 FEHRSZ PEERS TRRNSPO RTATION CONSULTANTS Limif Access from Homestead Road City of Cupertino Public Works suggested that the northern driveway on Homestead road be limited to right-in, right-out access (identified as "A" on Figure 4). This suggestion was recommended to benefit conflicts on Homestead Road. In the photo below, two opposing vehicles have to maneuver around each other to use the two-way left-turn lane. Additionally, this results in limited sight-distance for motorists exiting the project site and traveling westbound. While this would simplify turning movements at the access, motorists wishing to exit and travel westbound on Homestead would be rerouted through an exceedingly circuitous path. Restricting the left-turn ingress would have less of an impact as these motorists can be served easily be the driveways along Wolfe Road. Vehicles maneuver around each other to use the two- way left-turn lane on Homestead Road The occasional motorist that does not frequent the center would have to perform a u-turn at Linnet Lane if expecting to execute left-turn ingress at the northern entrance, but this would not be an expected route choice over the Wolfe Road accesses when considering travel distance and travel time. Utilizing the configuration presented in the schematic below would allow restricted left-turn ingress while allowing left-turn egress. Existing pavement markings in front of the driveway indicating to "keep clear" should be maintained. We recommend that the City retains a civil engineer to conduct the feasibility of a raised median within the existing geometric restraints. This design would facilitate .existing conflicts during the peak period by physically directing opposing movements and removing a third. This would allow westbound traffic on Homestead 15 - 317 Mr. Gary Chao February 20, 2008 Page 4 of 10 FEHR ~t PEERS TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS Road to flow uninterrupted while giving the outbound traffic from the project site an intermediate refuge to travel westbound. This configuration would also reduce the on-site queuing due to the removal of a conflicting movement. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Homestead Road ~~ Project Access Homestead Road Right-in, Right-out, Left-out Schematic Parking Lof Modification The proposed project introduces a parking lot modification at the north end of the project site (identified as "B" on Figure 4). This layout provides more onsite parking than the existing parking lot; however, access to the center aisle may occasionally be blocked by queuing at the driveway on Homestead Road resulting in additional traffic being diverted along the first drive aisle fronting the 99 Ranch Market. Improvements to this driveway access, as discussed above, may facilitate queuing frequency. This modification would have no significant impact on the public street system. Wolfe Road Access Relocation The project proposes to relocate the southernmost unsignalized driveway access approximately 80 feet to the north (identified as "C" on Figure 4). This would reduce the existing number of conflicts by intersecting three identifiable legs; however, the parking stalls opposite the driveway entrance may cause congestion, thus queuing onto Wolfe Road. We recommend that stop- control be implemented for the two internal approaches (stop-sign location identified on Figure 4) allowing the inbound traffic to move without restraint. We also recommend that parking stalls directly adjacent to the entrance (fronting the building and the roadway) be removed to further reduce the conflict. Proposed Strucfure The project proposes to construct an open-air two-story structure (identified at "D" on Figure 4). The two stalls at the southern end of the second story would have to be eliminated to allow 15 - 318 Mr. Gary Chao February 20, 2008 Page 5 of 10 FEHR & PEERS TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS adequate space for vehicles maneuvering in and out of the parking spaces. We also recommend that the city check the proposed ramp on the north side of the structure for slope requirements. Pedestrian Connections and Safety Pedestrian crossings should be identified throughout the parking lot to heighten driver awareness of the presence of pedestrians (identified as dual blue striping on Figure 4). The large lot in front of the 99 Ranch Market would benefit from apainted/stamped walkway connecting the market to the retail in the northeast corner (currently Starbucks). This would improve connectivity and would also relieve patrons who must maneuver shopping carts through parked cars. A walkway should also be identified between the proposed retail along Wolfe Road and the existing central retail buildings. This can be implemented across the proposed drive aisle without the removal of parking spaces. A similar crossing should be constructed in the northwest corner of the project site. ALTERNATIVE PARKING SOLUTIONS This section identifies alternative parking solutions to take into consideration as part of a parking management plan. Leased Off-site Parking Some alternatives that would involve the applicant leasing parking lots from off-site entities are as follows: ^ Employee shuttling -provide shuttle for employees to/from the project site during business hours. Can be on-call or scheduled. According to information provided by an "hours of occupancy" survey conducted by The Transpo Group on February 14, 2008, approximately a 5% reduction could be achieved through this measure. ^ Valet Parking -useful for restaurant tenants. Can be run by individual tenants or shopping center. Off-site parking required due to limited on-site availability. Adjacent Side-street Deterrent We have identified the following measures to prevent spillover parking into adjacent residential streets: ^ On-street Permitted Parking -permits only provided to residents; violators would be ticketed. This requires enforcement through City. ^ Close Pedestrian Access -pedestrian entrances currently provided in fence along Linnet Lane allow direct access to the project site for patrons parking offsite. These entrances 15 - 319 Mr. Gary Chao February 20, 2008 Page 6 of 10 `r FEHR & PEERS TRAN$P(IRTATION CON$U IiA NT$ can be closed off or gated. If closed, residents who currently -walk to the site would now have to walk around to access the shopping center or drive, which would possibly result in more vehicles entering the site. Amore expensive alternative to this solution is to install gates with apass-code that could be delivered to the surrounding residences. The two deterrents explained above can be implemented separately or together; each provides a level of effectiveness in preventing offsite parking from occurring on Linnet Lane, Parnell Place, and Lark Lane. These results are based on parking counts collected at the offsite locations previously identified and field observations conducted during the peak demand periods. On-site parking demand and utilization was previously determined in the Hexagon Study. If you have any question, please do not hesitate to call us at (916) 773-1900. 15 - 320 Lot Peak Demand Y. Utilized A 7:00 PM 90% B _C D _ E - 1:00 PM 1:OD PM _ _ 7:00-8:00 PM_ 1:00 PM, 8:00 PM 99% ___100% _ 100°k _ 100°k F 1:00 PM 100°/. G 1:00 PM 88% Total 2:00 PM 96Y. Church Lot 1:00-2:00 PM 41% -~ . ~. ~'~ ,~ irr ' ~~ ` ~ _ i '. C~~: #," `;' i+ . ~.:k,. ~. rte? {~.. a f i r ,~,,. . , ~„ , ..-tom l.,~~ ,,, ~ j`' a-^ . '~'idiid~t A y~«~„. °'o. tb _ ;, : '-~} , -3,~.,,,, r. t'+c,, Peak Parking Demand ~ ~, * ~-~ ~ ~ "ry~, ~; r^4.-~ Peak Parking Demand ~ ; rx '~'; ~e ~. 6Vehicles -1:00-3:00 PM ~, .. ~. ! 9 Vehicles - 8:00-900 PM ~`~""'* _ ... , .I •. , ~ k. ;'` ~) ,~.- ti ~: , ~. Peak Parking Demand ~ ?t,~ i 17 Vehicles-8:00 PM ., 4~p"'ik+'^ .rte r •,i ~ ;~ Note: Counts conducted on Friday, January 25, 2008 between 11:00 AM and 9:00 PM. t B ~~~,Ylr',r'~,' '.. r~ ~ ' '`~~ y ~., ll ,. '~~, ~ j. .°~~, r ~. ` ' '`~` ci, w PARKING UTILIZATION (FRIDAY) - FEHR & PEERS TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS EXISTING CONDITIONS N:\2008Projec{s\2540_CuperlinoYllages1G15\Chafl\fig0l~ark ulil_FRI 3.mzd - FIGURE 1 Lot Peak Demand °/. Utilized A 8:00 PM 97°k B - 100°~ _C D -___ - 100% 100'Ye E - 100% F - 100% G - 100% Total Church Lot - 2:00 PM 99Y. 72% #;'=~'~ ... >to ~ ~ ''~ . ~;,~, _ ~. '~ z. .. °. ~„ t. ~ _ , ., ~'~ ~ Peak Parking Demand ~, : ~ + ; y /c _:;; 31 Vehicles - 2:00 PM ... ~ .~1 *~_. "_ . -- .~ +R Note: Counts conducted on Saturday, January 26, 2008 between 11:00 AM and 9:00 PM. Dash indicates lot is effectively full five or more '~ ''"' hours of the day. _ ~+~ •• ~~~ - ~ - " -" '~ Peak Parking Oemand Peak Parking Demand 17 Vehicles -1:00 PM 6Vehicles - 2:00 PM ~, ~.A, . t '' r ~ y ~ ' ~4' ~' '3 ° x~ " ~ -: 4R f.y~, .'`. A^ r . "~ , n•r ~ )~~ °~ ! :. 1 , 1. / {.`i *! . { "tk- .~.. ~,~ , i ~" r+ ,~ f+;` r 1r ~~ r L'ot-o. f,~i ~ ;:~~ ~ ~ . ~~ D '~ " `~, ~ ~ C ~; q,; E, t x. V ~~ N ~~ ~ Lot G ~-- ~~''~~ ~, ~ t_ LEGEND !~- , ., ; t ~ Peak Parking Utilization . - ~. «. ' > ,' ' ` : ~ ~=~; 85% - 959'0 r ~~ ~~ ,wt' "" i ~ ~ A• ~~ t,~ ~~~ N ~,: '~ NOT TO SCALE w N F E H R~ P E E RS PARKING UTILIZATION (SATURDAY) - TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS EXISTING CONDITIONS N:\2008Projecls\2540 CuperlktoVillageslGlS\Draft\Og02~ark_uUl_SAT_3.mxd FIC;URE 2 750 • 650 ' 550 rn a 450 - - - •Estimated Total Demand plus Offsite Demand - Saturday -~-Total Lot Demand" - Saturday - - - •Estimated Total Demand plus Offsite Demand - Friday ->~Total Lot Demand' - Friday Total Lot Supply • 350 t F. '>~ i ~~~~~;I .5~p fro. i k~~(~: ~1. ~~i ~ ~' _ ~ +~~k~k . 4 .:.-'F N`t, 5 _ :lip}~3 ~y' "S ~: ;S.•* 3 "74v ~, F-~"-,! t "~ ` _ ~+ ~ . r a f;h -.s 4 t ~"r 4. ~.~ itr ~' ~' ; ~ ' ; .. ~; ~~- ~~ f i. ~ ~ .~ ~~ ~.. -•. ,- • `~. 250 11:00 AM 12:00 PM 1:00 PM 2:00 PM 3:00 PM 4:00 PM 6:00 PM 6:00 PM 7:00 PM 8:00 PM 9:00 PM Time Notes: `Total Lot Supply identified in fine/ Traffic and Parking Study prepared by Hexagon Transportation Consultants. Total lot demand curves based on W PARKING DEMAND OVER TIME - ' F ~ H R & P >: ~ RS EXISTING CONDITIONS TRhNSPORTATIpN C(INSIIIThNTS r ec _ uce la apes ra es urpose ap is FIGURE 3 ~~ t. rt p f } •!f. C~ w N A ~EHR & PEERS 7tdpliMtTATxoN CQtf7iLTAL7i Fah 14. 2008 CEC N.\YOOBPropch\260 Ctq~fiMOWptlget\Graphlca\(YXpox\OY~\FIC04 SIIEdwg PROPOSED RECOMMENDATIONS - PROJECT CONDITIONS Kimco Realty Corporation MARCH 11, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING VI LLAG E X' SHEET INDEX COVER SHEET 1 SITE SURVEY 2.1 CONCEPTUAL GRADING PLAN 2.2 CONCEPTUAL GRADING PLAN 3A PROPOSED SITE PLAN 36- PARKING RE-STRIPING PLAN 4 TREE PLAN 5 BUILDING ELEVATIONS 6 BUILDING ELEVATIONS 7 BUILDING ELEVATIONS 8 SITE SECTIONS 9 SITE SECTIONS 10 ENLARGED PLAZA PLANS 11 SITE ELEMENTS 12 SCREENING DETAILS 13 ENLARGED ELEVATIONSISECTIONS L1 LANDSCAPE CONCEPTS L2 PLANT LIST L3 LANDSCAPE ELEMENTS L4 LANDSCAPE SECTIONS L5 TREE REMOVAL PLAN E1 PHOTOMETRIC E2 LIGHTING CUT SHEETS ~ I ; ~ ~ - -- ~ I'RUNEf11DGE AVE. ~~~ n ,~_------- ,.L,, AuuU I IC; ~ I \ ~ ,.J 1 --~-- ~ < I r ~ 1 i \~ c .. tI I -_ ~ i__ .. I ~ I ~ .,,,IAd,,, , - s,w n ,Le ,o ,i,ll„ I .' I ~ I ~. ~ I I I ~~ x ~ ''0I r'" I~ 'I I ~ ~~~ I ~' •r11 1 I ~. ' r 1 1 I __ ~ r-_I _ ~_._ __ - -_ ~ l~ I I 1 r I II rl ~ I. ~ ,~, i b~ :` _; _~> ~ ~~ ~.. a°~ I 1 ~~~ µ~r ` ~~~ yb-il III ~m ~~ l~ I .e 1 I ~ I ~ ~ i ! 'il -1 \" i . I, / _ _ I ~~~ ~ ~ - \~\I ~' ~ I I I ~ ~' ~ L/r ~ IS) , ~ ~ 1 II I I I 1 ~I ~ 1~) r i. I I tl i 1'al 1'~ lol d / ~I -I- I I ~ ~ ;n1 ' I F° ~ I fI t;l / i _1 ~ I / \`~ /' ~ i ` `I c\ ~ I 1 I ~I I ~ I I \ ~ I 1 ~, G'~ ~ / ~ I ~ I I ~ ~~~ 1i ~~ I ~ .. IA i ~ ~. I) I I 1, ( ,~\ a~ I 1 , ' I 1 . \\ ~ ~ I L .. ~ L,. r Id I Il I ~/~) ~~ ll`'` ~ 4~~2 d I AfIK I ANL 1. 1 , ~ ~~• ' .~ I I ~ x ~ ~ i I • I I I ~a~ ~ ~ ~/ ~ I I /' 1:1 - I l_ ~ )~ 1 ~ ~ - I - ~ ~ ~~ ,~ i, ;"~ ~'I IK'I . > I\ ~ -~ ~. I ,_ ~ \ , `r~ `, I I 1~~ I a ~ r 1 G'~ ' '. v ,. ' II I O)a \~ ~ I I ~~ , I ~, ., I ~ ' I- .' - I ' I i ..- - r Y el £~p ^ I 1 i ~I( I I / a~x .JI I ~ 1 Ira„r111~ % ~ ~ 1 I F'L AIL I ~' ~_I to I -1 I I.I I I _ .I i% ~ III <<:, e•~ ;% i ~ - ~ ~ I I I` `'I; r II ' I ~ ~ l4, 1 ~ ~1 ~~ ~~ ~ 11.1 I , 0 m i~.-_ „ ~ , %:.' .\ \ ` _. / . D Z n • c n ~ I v ~ 1 .. I / 1-1 \ I=1 Q . N/ I ~ o ~ O r I ~ I I U ~ ~ N I I I . I 1 , ~\ ~ ,. ' li:l / ~:: Y I 1 I ~ t ial .. I m I ,I ~ ~ : / I I '1 ~ .... li I l) 1~ v . ~f~ I_ I III ~I 1 lF m ~ (~~1 ~~ V I 1 1 11 I icl 1 1 __ ~s~ ~~~ ..~~ ~ ~ T f ~ ` l-1 1 I i I .I. 1'~ " - p ~~ ;7@ 1 ~ _ ~i ~'I I "I I - _: .I. C fiI ~~) I_ _ ... _ ~~ I I 1 ,' I) I .,r... I 1 ~I, l I I 1 V - ' , _ ' . , I I I ,Y,) . i .1 1 - L )_ _ ~ ~ ) I e ~ ~~ ' ~ .. - ~ ~ _ J I ~ I _.___ ____ _ -------'J _1 -~__. _ _ _-___ ___-_I- _ a n,n r n.rl ' ~ ` L. , ~ ( ~ \ ~ j "` ;,,~aj,a ~i' k W KIER & WRIGHT %•v ......,_,,.,,,, -1 ..,. _ ' , ' IIJ FOR: CUPERTINO VILLAGE ASSOCIATES, LLG CIVIL ENGINCERS $ SURVEYORS, INC. 3\ ",;;,^" ;~~,,; ~;~~,";;~"` ~,1 - i Y. k ~ I I,. ).15U Scutl UI_ulc;m J, Uu1lJing 2't (~fU9)72/ uUGa ~~ ;`~ .a ~ ~: ~.~I'I I; L.,., ,.AI.1Itl,l0A ~....,., r•. .. ,, ,-_I:1.... ., n~ncl fAYldOa \~91.SRA :1 i ~, ~ _ LNNcTIANE 1 ~ ~ I i I I! ~ - I I i I I -' 1 I - - --~---~ --~ - I h'?it, _~ _ - - I I I I ~I I ~~: _I,- 1 I I I I I~ ~ i I I _- --- -- it 11 ~ - - - 1 _ `~~ :o I 1 i `1-- -- -'' r:~r,' I , ° ~~ ~ I~ ~~ ~~ ~_ ~ _~I. ~~ '~'~ ~ N -~1 ~ 1 -- -- ~ --- - ~ ~ UI ,~ F- ~~• ~ ' W ~ > ..~ I 2 1 ,: ~ ~ i ~ ~ i i ~ " IL~ (AI ~ '' ~~ __ . . ~% er-uc ~i i' - .t ~I~- 4elJ r'- i ~ '-- -- W ~`. ;~~. ~ ~ ~ -----_-'_~~~.~~ . - Z ' ~ ' ~ ~ ~ , - -,.,~ ~ i ~ ~_- I ~~ --. - _ f,. Q - ~.~,i~Ci__,.~ _ - - - --_ ---- ~ ~ ~~ ~~;~ - _ _ __ y ~ ~ _ ----__-- _ ~ ~~ I _ ~, ~ -- _ - ~-_ - ~ __- ~ '~ 1 _ S N O x 3 1 1 1 ~In r ~ ~ ~ Q r: vc ~~`~i u -- - - - --- -----~ ; ~ -~j~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ 1 \l - ~ - - ~- -_- - - - _ __ _- - - - - - r~ ~" _- __~ 1 __. , _ _. _ _ 4~. a ~- ~~r ~ ~;~~ _ ~ ~;~ - ~ ~+r+x - - - ~:,~ _~ ~~ WOLFS ROAD ~ ~' i ~ . ~. qci- ~~ _ _ ~ 1 ~ :smooucus~w. r~vb~n;goa vets; _ ~s~s~ni ~s<s ~'o Q D D I\ CUPERTINO VILLAGE WOLFS AND HOMES i EAD RD CUPERTINO, CA --~I ~ ~sar~:~c _~.~ u_ >• . ~ i ~~, - o r. NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION PRELIMINARY GRADING AND DRAINAGE C-22 -POOP SCIgDI ~~ PROPOSED EXISTING 137,062 SF BLDG AREA 112,607 SF BLDG AREA 835 PARKING STALLS (6,111000) 691 PARKING STALLS (6.1 J1000) 21 HC AND 814 REG. 36,564 SF PARKING DECK ~Illi DAiE: MARCH 3, 2008 MCG JOB: 06.102.07 DATE REVISIONS ~ MCG MCHffeCI520gT ALL PoGNTS i16FAVE0 NDTE Ttis Inimmetlon 4 concepoyl N ~antl a suhle¢m M~nenb paidup NMsverRmtlen mtl plant Tenemend Gwenmemal Agenq eppwda. Norvmtie arg~entiesb eirydne ere gran m hnpllee hy0ro AiNdbG UPPER LEVEL PARKING DECK sGNace "~ roNeuws~ e?ta~s"' - ~~~ ~v......,.,,,,~ -_ ~caNSrRUCTm~ xadc"Tm J ~-wH~,vcti4"vuaG"r -""Ewu~rmr"v~ "~"~`" _ WOLFE ROAD sroswwc eussmc Lgf ~"' "rconNm 0 0 0 D Q w w 0 CUPERTINOVILLAGE SITE PLAN CUPERTINO, CA SHEET 3A Scale : r = so' 765 Cularket Street z. ~~~ Realry ban Francisco, C~ffomia 94103-261fi 0 2s sa too ~ ~.T T 415.974.62 F 415,974,1556 CQI~}Ol'8.~10I1 mcgarchhecture.com ee~eee~ 11 ------ +3 ---- ---- ------ -- ------ PROPOSED EXISTING 137,Ofi2 SF BLDG AREA 112,fi07 SF BLDG AREA f2 835 PARKING STALLS (6.111000) 691 PARKING STALLS (6.111000) - _ - __ _ _ ~ _ _ _ I _ - _ - 21 HC AND 814 REG. 36,564 SF PARKING DECK - --- --- ~_ I - _- _ ." -~~. ~ ~. - ~ - ~ ~.5 _ --_ -- ;~ -- --- ----- --- --- 1 ~ O 4 , ' - ~ - " ~ - _ _ \ `~ M1\~e:. - - _- I --- - - - -----__ --- ~--_~_ _ }~ _5 DATE: MAP,CH3,200B PARKING RE-STRIPING PLAN MCGJOBs os.ia2.ai USING 8'-6" x 18' STALL DATE RE4ISIONS Scale : 1 ° = 50' Z 0 25 50' 100' CG MUa AAQiITECfS aTgi ALLAGNi5 flE5BNm NOTE This mlonnasnn d mncepWal'm n®aeaM'e; wb~ec m adJusfine~ pmdNg NMVSSd4otlm~ and (SeK Tench and GwernmaMel /genry ippnTialt No V-rtand6 mgiemnse:b airy kn0 ue gwen m'enpOh bytM Arti~ibxl CUPERTINOVILLAGE CUPERTINO, CA SHEET 3B (~ Kimco Realty _ Corporation 765 Market Street San francisca, Cal'rfomia 94103-2016 r 415.914.6002 F 415.974.1556 mcgarchitecture.com I I^\ ~ \ r-• j ~\ LEGEND: r 'i - \ I` \ 1 • r~ ` I . t I I r` \ \l ~:•''4 : ~ (E) TREE TO REMAIN :'% i ;t i • ~t ,^. r'~ '\ r~ p ~ (E} TREE TO BE REMOVED ~~; i~} ,~ r ;') \ , ,\ (N) TREE r ~ t ~ ~ \~- r o ~~ - ~. \1 :': r`i '\-rr ~ Ir r` y-. '~~ ~ , I:, •l r'. ~, \ r r; ;~, ~~ r:; .~; ~~ ~~ ,,\, ~' ~ = ,-, ~'~ ~ I 1 \` / r-\ t.1 `.~ r:yr /~ ~~ r t/ Cy ,~I Jt ) y i \ ! y CUPERTINO VILLAGE TREE PLAN DATE MARCH 9,2GOS CUPERTINO, CA SHEET 4 MCG JOB : 0&1 @.OS DATE REVISIONS Kimco Realty ~~Aa~RE`T5~°r~A'~A~~,m Coy.~oration Nor muinpm,ausi.smncepnreiinrenneanazr~bje¢m 1I / a~uaone~penEing Miner rcrif®AOn anE flint Tmmt an0 ~ iii~~~ Gwnnmmtal Agmry approvals. No warrvNn or guaranties N any IonG art glum or Impeetl by Ne ArOidez - ; 1,{ 'k. a~ ~ ~ ~++4 ~k~ r*s~ 1• i ~ r ~~ ^aF^ -v ~ I ~[ ~ a '' - ;,~ ~ x ".-11 - - ~ ~~~ ~.r~~'~~h'~I I^'.r. ~ ,~ ems, ~ ` ti ~. '~ ~ ~ "~, - : a '' ;, ~ ~ ; " `'`-k " ~F" tis`.k "* ~jr,' ~~'r~,-7,., .`STUCCO FlNISH ,~ - L~ ~ y/' S70REFRONr : fF `'~ WDDD SIDING - ; f ~ ~ _ 1 ~ * •~' - - ~ ;, - .. ~ P. . I - ~d .~ .. I GREEN SCREEN LATTICE ~---- IIL WITH VINES 125 EAST ELEVATION AT RETAIL A ALONG WOLFE ROAD I PRIMED STllCC0 -OPRDIIETnANSFORMER SCREEN f -FASRIC AWNINGS ~ WITH MOLDWG DETAIL 1 - ~ ,-WDDD D_IAILING I I , WOOD SIDING-~ 1 II t I I . ~r ~ i II . . ~r. ~ _ , ar I ; `~ I r----~ 1 ~~-- J V r----y LI---J r- -- ~ I ` ~ '---J ~ ~ ! I '~. i ,~. WEST ELEVATION AT RETAIL A DATE MARCH 3, 2008 MCG J09 ;r: Dfi.1@.OS DATE REVISIONS '.~ MCG AIiCHITELTS 7-07 ALL PIGMS NESERV5l NDTE This InI0n11eA0n 6 LnmptYel a'. naWR NE 6,WhjaGla atljusimen6 Derbliry IuMervady~tWon antl CdML Teneirt, end Gwemmmpl Agmry eppmvak No wzna6es or gue(amas of airy Innd are given almpPetl by Ne A~dthet EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS PASSAGEWAY 15' CUPERTINO VILLAGE CUPERTINO, CA ,25• WOOD SIDING .\ SIICCD OVERHANG '-t ~\ II I ~ L--_-- -___.~ -_ I d 1, n __ e, 6' ~ I n !'~ - SHEET 5 Scale : 3132"=~.-0" o s to l ~~ - . t '? I r 1 I H ~_ ~ ~~ ~ I~,~ ' 11', ~,.'`~~ - ~' ut f - __~'1} ~.f t S 3 ` r~ r~d•~'"' ~ I I I --- ~T I L.____J III, I PASSAGEWAY it IIe~ 4,~ 1 I~c ~~~ '1 I 1 I -- l7^ - "'_'_ t-_ J ~ J -_- , rl Kimco Realty Corporation - _ ry n ~ aFi ~ - '~• Q e ~~ 1. 9. .y,~ pJ,.y_. ,V1 ~s ~ ay..u ~. "~1 ~. V~ n C-"II~FA I.:• yaa^. -n ~. ry. i~ p -. ,..~ D - mss,. ~ ~r~ .>' - F.~ 'w.. _ ~ wooo sIDING WOOD DETAILING t~; ~ ~ ~ ~ x>`~N 1, .w tC / -_-.~Tf r ~r ~ - j -- ---~ ~ ~ ----~ ~-----~-' I ~ ~_ '----~ - ----~ I-----~ II ~~~ ~ ~~~ II ,~, u ~`~ ~ ~" ~~f~~ l I ~ (• II r, I fI I i L~~~ v~', li ~A,"`+tt`~.\ ~'o-t:a .`.±~I IAA .~4..'~~. ~I GREtT' SCREEN LATTICE J ~ ~~ WDDD CANOPY ---- --1 I ~J~~ ', zz far p lr/_4~1 _ -~ -..J I q ~ --1 I L -__J ~ ~ r----~ ..-_-_J _ r f III I 1 •____ I I SOUTH ELEVATION AT RETAIL A T~, ~ --- PAINTED 570000 } 1 j FABP,IC AWNINGS I ti ~ I~ 11,: 4 ~ r - . ~~ _I11 i,l - ¢I~----fin .,i- J~Y,I ._ -~ T-- I _ ~_ - - _ ~~. ~,- I __ }~...':~. ~;,? to ~:. !II~`~ ~I~I'_ II ~'JI-II ~~ ~ ~~ ~~~I I~~ !II a' it NORTH ELEVATION AT RETAIL A rcsl r ~ b> ~ ~ - WOOD SIDING --- -- ~ , ~''9 ~T~ r~Y {-.. ~ ,11 r 1 l ~"~ .~~ i+, ,~~ ~ ,t .WOOD CANOPY - J ~- ~ 11; r{n z` ~ wf~ ~~ " wood DErvur>G - ~~~ r ~ ~ ~+~~ y ~~ ,' /~~Tl C ~ --1 J _-~ C M J11 ~ I'i~ ~I"e! I I+f '^~;~~~ if MIS I~.~ii,~I, f~i~' I „w~S~t'~`?o z°°' NORTHEAST ELEVATION AT RETAIL B °"~ MA~~H3,z°~ EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS ' J°6 ~~ MCG J09:: Dfi.1D2.D5 ` DATE REVI51°NS Scale: 3132" =1'-D" .'~ MCG AFCHRECi5400T ALLPIGH75 P6ERJEO NOTE Thia nbmmlpn Is ppn2pluel N n~re antl 3 aeJes n adJu tnen6 pendng Authaf vodloEOi entl CIIenC Tenurt, ab GortmmentM Agenry eppipys, No.errann¢or gumamiesd Ny Wna are yen or:rwom cy me~xe¢ CUPERTINO VILLAGE CUPERTINO, CA SHEET6 Kimco Realty Corporation PEDESTRIAN GATEWAY CUPERTINO VILLAGE h a G DATE: MARCH 3, 2008 MCG JOB :: 06.102.05 DATE REVISIONS ^~ MCG ARCNRECIS 20Pi AtLPIGHTS PESErTTc0 NQiE: Tnu mbmamn u CMCepNV in neNre antl s sudjE]tp etljue4nema pending NNe vedA~On antl Cxenl Tenere, and GwemmmMl Aaen~7 epprwals No sarrerroes a pardNes W oily lontl Ye gNen orinp0etl'ry Ne kNeeS SITE ELEMENTS CUPERTINO, CA PROPOSED ENTRY LANTERN SHEET 11 Kimco Realty _ Corporation T .:LZ j:. ~~~~~~scree~© ~A't MARC"3.28 MCG JOB #: Ofi. i fi2.05 SCREENING DETAILS DATE REVISIONS y NCG APCHRECiS 2001 ALLPoGHfS F681VfD NOTE This uimmuiim a mnrspual In nawm ma'e vb~e aqusvaems pendFg tuMa veMi¢Epn antl CfmC imam, mtl GwemmenW Agmry appmvLa Npammues ar_ amiss o~ arty kind are given pr implied by Ne A~IiBG ~, _-~~ ,,~ ,~ ,~ - ~, P i ~ ~ ,. ~:, ', , ^L :, v "~~~ :: t: h'i ~~ ' k ~ '" ~n A ' . T i CUPERTINO VILLAGE CUPERTINO, CA ~€~ ~.' `" ~~ '~ Tr ~1_ i r ~ . `~ ~~( • f 1~ w 'y..~ Q .~' xe ~ +i F r ~ ~ ~. ~ , /~~ t r . \\ ~ ~ "`~ ter.. ~~' ~~„ __ ~ ~ e ~' , ;1 `,. ~Z G ~_ ~ ~~ ~1 ~, ~~.~ _ N.% .. .~ SHEET 12 Kimco Realty _ Corporation ~fP~NDING sr-~1i~ IVl~tfc! iY~`rSGF*~ G~'.~ 1~17DYJF~T WtPr'r 4x4 ~~~ Ti~LU~G~~ ~--- i ~ 311 T-V~< -~ I Wig ,~ h v GONG~i'_ - ~~Gr W~ i 0 i~ \\ ~~1 I ~ , r,~ ~ o ,' `.l. ~~ V~~~ ~~L"~ ~ ~ ~ t ..m~ ; ~ -""~- WALL SEC I ION DATE: MARCH 3, 2D08 MCG JOB ~: 06.10201 DATE REVISIONS uc~ r~cNrr poor ui wc~rrs a~sEtvm .v0 ~E. ln5 inlpmiahpn a mncepNal in nalwe and s willed, b aausimen[5 pnndlnp Iunnet ueilhallpn an0 Gxml. 7uwn;, and man®I Rgeny dppmvala No wmmnaes p~ guamniee of any hmd ace given m implied dy the A fAe1 II~,i~i=lil=iff 9 n1_ul; 5 , !~i~lii_ '!1= I ~II,II ~~ ~ J ~ . a 1 ELEVATIONS & SECTIONS AT GARAGE WALL I~ a ~ I I ~~I.~I~~~~ ~u~~ II ~.---r-~i ~ _ I~ I , it --- ~- I GREEN SCREEN WALL PANEL ~~ -~ _ ~~il ji .1L _ ~1a, -~~ ,--~, -i ~I li r I - ~.n~ ~ ~y li I I'i__ I ~ I~L Ii INTERMEDIATE ACCENT PANEL ~~~f~SG~~1'r11~F'r I~Ivt= y" ~+~! ~k'iR~- 514 P0515~ 4K4 f~amt'I (cXl2 ' smN~irl~ ~,m ~~L!~~ l~ ~ I . r L~ I ~ I , l ~ ~~ - ar - ~ i ~~~ ~ ~ ~~ II ~ ~ ~ ~ , ~~. . - ~Ij i'.I I Ih. ~ ~I ~'~~II!, ~ ~ nnL! ~J~~~~ ~~r'~ I . . . . '.I. _ I I 1 ~I. ~. ~ILI ~ ~ PhIM1~b 1,^,='pcLGRVItUI~~f` G6NG!~ G ~iLG+L ~S,'ri i I CUPERTINO VILLAGE CUPERTINO, CA ' ~I ~~- ~9 ~- ~ t n,_l ~T!~ 81.~aiZ ~~b ~~ STf1Gfd PI13yi'r!26 dGR~1J ~'~tolg ~~ IN~IG~' SW~~1~Tr,! SHEET 13 5c21e : 1 ° = 50' Z 0 ?5' S0' 100' Kimca Realt~1 _, Ca~orat~on ~ :~ ~= ~- ~~, J•~_ _~ DATE; MARCH 3, 2008 MCGJOE: D&102.01 DATE REVISIONS m MLG AFCI4TECi5?OPT ALLiWHiS RESEflvED NCTE: iris nlPmutipn k roncePeW In naWre antl 6 subl%"I m edrysenenM pmdmg lusher reiilioECn me CfmL iemnf, and Gwvnmmdl Fgency appwals No wmmees nguvanlies of any pMare grvm v hnPUee b/ Ne Aidued. CUPERTINO VILLAGE LANDSCAPE CONCEPT CUPERTINO, CA SHEET L1 GATES 6 ASSOCIATES Scale : 1" = 40' Z D 2D aD eo (~ I~imco Realty _ Corporation 1~ Yarket Strzet San Francisco, Calriomia34103-216 ~15.saa.~oz ®~1;;.s~a.1~s tnC9af CIIIfEE~IIfE.C INn PLANT LEST r~Es -LI Laaers;oemia I. 'Tuscarora' Gape Myrtle 5 Gallon As Shawn ~LG Lophostemon con{ertus arlsbane aox 6 Gallon As Shawn hl4 hMR Melaleuca rhaphlopFuall Swamp Paperback 15 Gallon As Shown -MO Melaleuca quingenervia GaJeput tree G Gallon As Shown a: PG Pis:acla chlnensls Chinese Pis:ache Ei Gallon As Shown PA Platanus a. 'Columbia' Landon Plane Tree 15 Galion As Shawn °5 5equo!a sempervirens'Soquel' Coast Redwood 15 G-anon As 5h~wn sHRUas AD Arctostaphylos 'Howard McMinn' McMinn's Marcanlta 5 Gallon As 5'rown DY Dietes vege;a For,night Ltly 5 Gallon As Shown HS Hemerocallis sp. Orange + Red Day Lily 5 Gallon As Shown HM Heuchera mtuantha 'Palace Purple' Purple Neuchera 5 Gallon As Shown LT Leva:era thurtnglaca 'Roseus' Tree Mallow 5 Gallon As 5'rown Pi Phormlum t. 'Duet' New Zealand Flaz 5 Gallon As Shown RI Rhaphiolepis i. 'Jack Evans' Indian Hawthorn 5 Fallon As Shown VF Westringia Fruticosa Coast Rosemaru 5 Gallon As Shown G-ROUNDCO~RS AN Anigczanthos -Hybrids 'aush Gold' t aush Ranger Kangaroo Paw 1 Gellon AU Arctostaphylos uva-ursl 'Point Reyes' aearberry 1 Gallon GT Carex tumlcola aerkely Sedge 1 Gallon G5 Geranium sanguineum Cranesbill 1 Gallon JS Juncos sp. Rush I Fallon LA Lanpranihus aurartlcum Ice Plant I Gallon LP Llmonlum Perezll Sea Lavender I Gallon TA irad-elospennum zslaticum Asiatic Jasmine I Gallon VINES BD aougalnvillea 'Barbara Karst' aougalnvlllea 15 Gellon As Shown D3 Dlstldis buminatorle 31ood-red trumpet vine 15 Gellon As Shown PLANT LIST Llmonlum pere211 Dietes vegeta Prormlum t.'Duet' Geranium sanguineum Carex tumicola HemerOGB III! sp. RAIN GARDENS Melaleuca rhaphiophylia JUnCU$ 6p. Garex tumlcola DATE: MARCH 3, 2D08 MCG JOB k: Ofi.102.01 DATE REVISIONS ® MCG APCHIiECTa 20~i ALL fllGHla PESEAVE[l YGr-_nae mnrmenpp ie ppxapwY m pmae ana a:pgept w adlusmeNa gentling wnnerveramipn entl Chem 7eoent. end GwemmamY Agenry appmvYa Np xarnneea or pwvanoesW arty knd are pnm pr impG ldy me MChiMm. CUPERTINO VILLAGE PLANT USE BREAK DOWN SGccN TR=_-5 Sequoia sempervirens 'Soquel' Lophostemon canFertus Melaleuca auinquenervla S~E7 TrZ-'.ES Sequoia sempervirens'Soquel' Posiada chinensis PARKING FIELD Tc_5 Platanus a.'Columbia' Melaleuca quinquenervla Pl6taala ahlnena l! ~~=5 AT aUILDMGS Melaleuca quinquenervia Lagers;oemla t.'Tuscarora' Lophostemon canfe'tus Pistada chinensis SCREEN 5HRUa5 Rhaphiolespis L'Jack Evans' Arctostaphylos d'Howard McMinn' Lavatera thuringlaca 'Roseus' SHRUBS AT 5i'REE Rhaphiolespis L'Jack Evans' Arctostaphrylos d'Howard McMinn' tUestringia fru;ICOSa Coast Redwood arlsbane Box Gafeput free Coast Redwood Chinese Plstache London Plane Tree CaJeput Tree Chinese PI!:ache CaJeput free Gape Myrtle arlsbane Box Chinese Pls!ache Indian Hawthorn McMlnns Manzani:a Tree Mallow Indian Hawthorn McMinns Manzanita Coast Rosemary Coast Rosemary For'.nighd Llly Day Lly New Zealand Fizx Day Lily New Zealand Flax Purple Heucrera Indian Hawtham PLANTING NOTES I. All work shall be perFOrmed by persons iamlhar with planting work and under tl>r supewlslon of a qualirfed planting Foreman ~. Plant materlsl locations shown are diagrammatic and may be subject to change In that Field by the Landscape Architect. 3. In case of dlsaepandes, the plan Biro!! govern. 4. Plant locations sFr111 be adJus:ed in the field as necessary to screen utilities but not to block windows nor impede access. g, The Landscape Ar,hltect reserves the right to mak, substitutions, additions and dale!ions in the plaM.ing scheme, as necessary while work is In progress. Such changes are to be accompanied by equitable adJustments In the contract price If /when necessary. p, Ail planting areas shall be tap-dressed with 3" layer of Flr bark chips having a maximum size of I° diameter over Permath~e poluthylene weed barrier. G. All street trees to be installed In accordance with tl~ standards and sped fi canons of the Gity of Cupe .ino. 14. All trees within 4' of paving areas sF>ztl have deep root barriers Installed. Deep root barrier Model No. UDi+".?. 1415)334.1464 15. All slopes greater than 2.5:1 shall be covered with Jute netting per the manufacturer's speciflcatlons. Overlap all edges a minimum of 2" and secure as required wHh metal staples. Ib. All trees, skubs, groundcovers and accent plantings shall ve maimalned above 6' and below 30" ai all sigh vlangle location io allow vehicle view. 5HRUa5 M PARKING FIE! D Westringla fru:icosa Dietes vegeta Hemerocallis sp. Phormlum t 'Duet' SHRUaS AT aUILDMGS Hemerocallts sp. Phnnnlum t boat' Heuchera micantha RhapMolepls I. 'Jade Evans' GROUNDCO~RSAi SitZ'--=i irachelospermum aslaticum Arc!ostaphylos uva-ursl'Poird Reyes' Lampranthus auranticus GROUNDGO~RS IN PARKING FIELD Llmonlum pereal Hemerocallis sp. G-ROUNDGO~RS 4T BUILDING CUPERTINO, CA Asiatic Jasmine aearberry Ice Plant Sea Lavender Day Lily Sea Lavender Fortnight Llly New Zealand Flax Ganesbi II aerkely Sedge Day Llly Swamp Paperback Rush Berkely Sedge 6. The caniradar is to severe all vines to wails and columns with approved fas!emers, allowing For two l2J years growth ~, Branching height of trees shall be a 6'-O" minimum above Flnish grade. 8. All :reel In a formal group planting shall be me,.ching in size and shape. 3 Landscape contractor shall hire an accredited Bolls analysis Flrm to test loll percolation rates and wrtrlents and abide by recommendatins conained within for proper plant growth IO.On grade planing backFill mix shill consist of 50`a imposed topsoil, 50`e native sot l !with no rocks larger than ?" diameter!. IL All on-grade planting areas are to red eve Iron and nitrogen stabilized redwood soil conditioner at tht: rate or b o, hlc yards/I000 square feet, evenly idled 6" deep Into the soil to finish grade. SHEET L2 NTS Z 0 25' S0' 100' ~~im~~a .~at~ 165 ~8ri~ uuCCt San Francisco, Califomia94103-2016 ~ 415.914.6002 ®415,914.1556 mcgarchitectura.com GATES b ASSOCIATES T~~~ ~.~'' ,~.~~ n ~ ,rl` ~~ 1 ~ ~n ' ~ ~- ~ K 4[a ~'- 7 +;~~ i`_ _ ~ ~: I y ~>, Ii~ .. _. CRAPE MYRTLE BRISBANE BOX GAJEPJT TREE CHINESE PISTACI;E LONDON PLANE COAST REDLUOOD -~ - - e ~~~ 6 ai"~`ti. ' +a v ` V ~~ _ ,~ / ~~ •-p McMINN MANZANITA RUSH FORTNIG~IT LILT NEUJ ZEALAND FLAX INDIAN NAUJTI~ORN CRANESBILL TREE MALLOUJ ~~~~~~~~~ ~L~L~T~ .;~: -- ..a ..,.: Fy' r k ~ '",=t i ., ,.. - _... KINC~SE1' BENCH KTS TRASH RECEPTICr^-.L LIG-+-ITED BOLLA~2D BOLLARD BIKE R>;CK LHR~...VE POT -GATESSASSOCIATES CUPERTINO VILLAGE ~~~ ..T::~:~~o~:~~:o:n~~~~ DAB: MaRCH3 zoos LANDSCAPE ELEMENTS CUPERTINO, CA SHEET L3 MCGJOBn: os.~ozoi DATE REVISIONS NTS 7~ , ~ Z KllSICO Realty ~ ~ ~c ~ ~- ~s o u' sa i ro~ ® MCG 0.PCHfiEC 152007 ALL RGHi5 flE5ERJ'cD ^- COi'~}GT'3tIOt'1 ~~~ N01E Th4mtOmrtm k gnCapNa~ N nLYrt antl i95llCja1 W l 1 12 adryntmxas pen6ng IuMaventiWfiOn antl Cllmc Tenant ane GOVarvnermlpgmry appmvals. No warannes w guaranties b anp Mn0 art given w'mptie0 Cy Ne A,cfYeC n LINNET LANE STREET SCAPE ~ RAIN GARDEN DRAM PIF_ _~"~ DATE: MARCH 3, 2D08 MCG JDB :: 06.10201 DATE REVISIONS © MCG ANCHfiELT53~R1 ALL AIGHR REAEAVB) NDTE 7hs iNmmeem o mncepwN n oases 3ntl is subjeC to edlunmsnts pending Amder vedNation Nm Client TemnL and GovemmeMal ppenry appmaels NO wananEes orguNVmes W any wind me giren or implied by Ne wcnimct LANDSCAPE SECTIONS CUPERTINO, Cpl GREEN 5CR31 Y6TN VINE PARKING ET,2ICNR: BIO f~'1cN i ION Af~A WTH 4MENp@j SAIL t PYD DRAINLINE GR6y~i ENV=Y CUPERTINO VILLAGE SHEET L4 r~rs ~~ Z 0 2s' ao~ ioo~ ~A~3fJ~'~~41~ 185 Market Street San Francisco, CaBfomia 94103.2A16 0415.974,6002 0415.974.1556 mcgarchifeeiure.cam GATES fi ASSOCIATES X T ZE TO BE ~~ iO~D ' FOR TR=E sPECiE AND aUaLITY s_E ' ARBORIST REPORT ' B7 M,^,TNE TREE GOilP.4NY D.",TED .^,'JG'JST 2b 2006 LINNET L.^,NE -----~°~~ ~~ ---"' --------- ------------- e ~ --------~-- i. -~~c-j~1~-Rx ~ -era- ~ ~.~ ~c ~~,~ ~ -~i~ i ~ ~ II IIII~~ ~ ~ I ICI ~~ ~I~I ~~' ~ ; I ~ I i ; ~ ~ I ~ I 5= ~ LN I I I, I ' i I ~ ~ ', i ~ ~ ~ ri I I c o _ I x- ~ ~ 1C~ 7 `~,' 1(~° ?E`er I I~~ I I i~ ~ I I I~ I I] L' 1~ 0 I / / I~ - - - - 4~P '~~ / ~ -------- \\ 'I.e ~/ / ~ .\ ~ ~~. v , ,, ,~ ,~ ,- 111 il,l i;~ EXISTINC~.lILDING 'u _. _ Q¢ ~: , -- \ I~b . _- I Lp °„- - ~\\tb q~ ~„ . / ~~ . _ `~ / \,, / \.~. / ~ ~ ~I.;~ \~ \ IGz a ~__.I~~ I.~ ~i`4~Ii',~ N EXiSiNG ~rl ~~~ ~ ~ ~\ i ~ tE ~"_ \ 7 ~I \`//~' >r.", v ;`.~ ~:r ~ ~ ~ DATE: MARCH 3, 20D8 MCG J08 ~: 06.102.01 GATE REVISIONS 0 NCG AACHReCfS ~ Fl1 AIGH75 AESEAVEO HoTE mtl mramaew 6 m~cwmel In nsue antl u s~elenm adpumenu pantlvq Lmw vuifiofion uei gim(TeMI ar4 Govonmauel Agenry epgcrals ab xertan6ea ar guuanlies of eery Mintl are gven oranpfCl %' Ne PvNAeq TREE REMOVAL PLAN CUPERTINO VILLAGE CUPERTINQ, CA SHEET L5 Scale : 1" = 40' Z o za w so BU1 LD ING // ~ ~ - -_ - 'd ~--------- EXISTING- oUILDING .~ // ~ / ~~ ~ / ~ ~, // / 1~ ~ ~. / J / ~ ~~ ~ / , / / / ~ / ~ /~ / / // / ~~ / / / / / / / ~ / / ~ // EXISTING I 1, / / BUILDING / / / ~ // / J L_______________~ '~~ ,': ~ -: II II ' illll l~l i_.w VIII I~IIII~ ~~r~, ;~;, .;~ ~ - ~ e .~ ~ ~---- J ~- - R -- ~ ~ uoL~E RoaD '~ ~ ~ xY~"~ I \ ,^,IL A -- il_L_ 1 I I '~ r - ~I /- Y ~~~ ~~ ,.~.~, Ca~~~~~~n 795 Nallmt Sheet Sall Frallciscq Califorroa 94103-2016 ®415.974.6002 ®415.974.1556 mcgarchihecture.com D I ~ '~ \\ 6ATE5 6 ASSOCIATES -_ _ = v~H GOPUiiiUn l.u-Incrvib GO'IMENTS INCHES PERCENT ARSORIST GAi.S 55 GINKL-0 11.4 65 HAS INGLUDED BARK. rZ-'M01- SECONDAR7 TOP 56 G-INK:O i.3 50 TAE LEANS AND 15 SUPFRE55ED 55 MONTEREY PME 14.8 40 iRIJNK OOZING. REMOVAL REGOMENDED 59 A5H 19.0 60 T^R5E IS M PcNINSULA THESE TREES MUST BE REMOVED i 0 MAK= WAY 60 ^ .SH ?O.6 55 UPLIFTING-G1RB,LIGHTEK FOR PROPOSED BUILDING A 61 ASH 26.1 50 DAMAGE i0 CURB CROTCH DECAY MOST A~ CURRENALY LOCATED IN FI1TUtZ--' LANE 62 ASH 2?.I 50 . , SLIGHT LEAN AND INCLUDED BARC OF TRdrrIC AND P.,RCING AI~..S T4 CHINESE PISTACHE d.0 70 NEWLY PLANTED, ILEP THIN l5 CHIN'c5"c PISTACHE 3.5 10 NEWLY PLANTED, KEEP THM 11 ASH 26.4 55 IUEAK STRUGNRE, LIGH i cN OVER STR=ET. 18 ASH 35.5 45 SIGNIFICANT INCLUDED eARK K=.EP THIN iiZES AID IN THE WAT OF THE PROPOSED 19 A5H 25.1 50 ROOT DAMAGE, WEAK STRUCTURE ENTRANCE ALONG WOLF RD. 102 CRAPE MYRTLE 2b 10 NEWLT PLANicD 103 GRAPE M7RTL'c 2.A 10 NEWLT PLANTED 104 GRAPE MYRTLE 3.0 i0 N'cWLT PLANTED i0 6E REMOY'eD FORA 5TRONG- CORNER DESIG-N 105 GRAPE MYRTL'e 2.0 10 NEWLT PLANTED AT WOLrc RD t HOMESTEAD RD I26 GRAB APPLE 4.1 15 HAS AMPLE ROOM i0 G-ROtU 121 GRAB APPLE 2.9 10 HAS AMPLE ROOM TO GROW i~ES Aft LOGAicD IN THE PARKING LOT O'r i28 NECTARINE L5 EST 60 NEWLT PLANTED HAS PEACH LEAF CURL RANCH 99 AND MUS i BE Rc?10V=D i 0 COMPLE i ' 129 NECTARINE . L5 EST. 60 , NEWLT PLANicD, HAS PEACH LEAF CURL i HE ADJUS i~'I cN i OF THE PARKING r OW 149 ! OCUST 5.3 65 AMPLE GROWNG- ROOM. THIK 60 LOCUS i 5.2 65 AMPLE G-ROUTING ROOM, THIK THESE i tZrS MUST 6E RE`10VED TO MAIL WAY 151 G-INKCA 5.1 50 NUISANCE FRLII i, TRJNK DECAY. FOR TH'c PARKING STRJCNtZ^' AND THE NEW 152 MONici~Y PINE 15.1 50 SIG-NIFICANT SEQUOIA PITCH MOTH Mr'cSTATIOK SWALE/LANDSCAPE AXIS ALONG LINNET LANE 153 MON i'cR=1' PINE 14.6 60 Pi:5HIN6 CURB 15-". MONTEFZT PINE 1 i.2, Iri2 55 FORKS, PUSMG- CURS, 5E000IA PITCH MOTFI 155 LOCUS i 5.? 65 d rcET FROM CURB 156 LOCUST =,.6 65 4 FccT FROM CURB 151 LOCUS i 5.1 65 d FEET FROM CURB 158 LOCUS i 4.2 65 4 FEET FROM CURB 159 LOCUST 5.8 60 4 rccT FROM CURB, oR0!`-TI LIl'1a 160 MON i c~7 PINE 11.6 65 LIGHTEN OVER PAVING, DROPPMG PI i CH ON CARS 161 MON i cR_-'Y PINE 2d.5 55 FORKS AT 6', MOST G-ROWTH ON WES i SIDE 162 LOCUST 5.3 65 4 FEET FROM CURS 163 LOCUST 5.2 60 IRRIGATE 165 HAWTHORN 6. 50 LEANS AND IS STRESSED Ibb GINKGO 4.l 60 POOR FORM, LEANS THESE TREES MU5 i 9E rt-1'10VED FOR i HE I61 G-INKGO 3.1 50 51C~lIFIGANi TR~1NK DECAT REPLANTING OF A LANDSCAPE SCrZ-'TI Oi~ THE 168 GINKGO T O 65 MULTIPLE TOPS APARTMENTS BOARDERING THE SOUTH . 60UNDARY LIPS. ib9 GINKGO 5.3 65 TWO TOPS Il0 GINK10 6.5 60 L'cANS, AH5 BEEN i OPPED Ili GINKGO 5.2 60 LEANS, HA5 BEc_T! i OPPED I i2 GINKsO 1.0 60 LEANS HAS BEEN TOPPED I i3 GINKGO 5.5 55 LEANS, POOR FORM I i4 GINKGO 1.0 65 HAS 3 TOPS. h5 GINKGO iS l0 LEANS lib GINKGO 6.2 60 LEANS, HAS WEAK FORM lil GINKGO 6.0 10 IRRIGAi~ 118 TULIP TRcE 25.1 10 UPLIFTING BRICKS, POSSIBLE APHIS rR03LE`I, LTG-IHTEN'rOR WINTER 119 TULIP TREE 20.3 65 3 TOPS WITH MCLUDED BARK THIN AND CABLE M WIN i.R POSSIBLE APHIS PROBLEM THES'c iZES MUST BE REf10VED i0 MAIL WAY I80 EVERG-KEEN PEAR 1.1 50 CRACKING oRIGKS, HAS SIGNIFICANT LEAF SPOT. GROWING AROUND SUPPORT PIPES. PRUDENT i0 i'Z?10VE FOR THE GOHE51v= DE51CaJ OF THE PROPOSED I81 ASH 25.2 50 UPLIFTNG CURB. HAS GIRDLING- 8007 AND SIGKFIGAN7 MCLUDED BARK MSTALL CA6LE. BUILDING B Ib2 ASH 22.4 60 UPLIFTING- CURB. HAS TRWNK WOUND WITH DECAY. 183 ASH 25.1 60 UPLIFTING CURS. SURROUNDED BY PAVING, HA5 MCUDED 6ARK 184 ASH 22.6 55 ,UPLIFTING LURE. CANOPY ALL SPROUTS. 185 ASH ib,b 60 SURROUNDED BY PAVING, RECENIY PRUNED. 186 LOCUST 4.4 50 PLANicD T00 DEEP, ROOTS EXPOS'cD. HA5 INCWDED BART 18l LOCU5T 4. i 50 PLANTED T00 DEEP, ROOTS EXPOSED. HA5 INGLUDED BART NEAR SEWER METER I86 ASH 2d.6 50 UPLIFTING- CUB. RECENTLY PRJNED, HA5 INCLUDED BARK AND G-IRDLING ROOTS. 189 ASH 19.2 50 UPLIFTNG CURB. RECENTLY FRJNED, HAS INGLUDED 6ARK AND CANOPY IS ALL SPROUTS. 190 ASH I4.i 45 SIG-NIFICANTLY STRESSED, VERY THM CANOPY. PRUDENT TO R~ IOVE 191 ASH 23.5 50 i OPS 5 iUB6ED Orr, WITH MANY SMALL SPROUTS. SIGNIFICAN i DIEBAGC R_R10VAL RECOMMEKDED. 192 ASH 23b 50 F~GENTLY F`RUNED, SURROUNDED 67 PAVING. GIRDLMG ROOTS AND INCLUDED 6ARC I93 fi5H 23.9 60 NEWLY PRUNED, SURROUNDED 6Y PAVING, PJSNING CURB. 194 ASH 18.5 60 ft°GENTLY PRUNED, SURROUNDED 6Y PAVING. R00 i GROWING AROJND SPRINI~ER 195 ASH Ib.i 60 GENTLY PRUNED, 3 FEET FROM CI1R3. 196 ASH 19.1 65 RECENTLY PRUNED, 3 F`ET FROM CURS, 19l ASH 14,0 40 LEANS, WITH ALL GROWTH OV~_R ROAD. PRUDENT TO REMOYc. 198 ASH 24.3 65 UPLIFTING CURS, 4 TRUMC5 AT ID'. THIK CUPERTINO VILLAGE DATE: MARCH 3, 20D8 MCG JOB R: O6.t02.01 DATE REVISIONS TREE REMOVAL NOTES CUPERTINO, CA TREE REPLACEMENT DESIGNATION A TOTAL Oi= 8~ TREES TO BE REMOVED. TNE1' llJILL BE REPLACED AS FOLLOUJS. 38 = 3~0" BOX 4T = 2411 BOX SHEET L6 ® NIXi APCHIiECfS 2bP! ALL PIGHiS PEGEAV© NOTc: Th's InlnmeYm'u mncepWY N naWrt ab iz subj¢I to a Guabnerds pendng IuMar vm6¢EOn antl ~'imC Tenml antl Govemmemel Apmry appmvds tb emmnes or guartmia of eny MinO are given or bnpGetl W Na ArNAea Scale : 1" = 40' Z o zo ao Bo ~~~~~ ~~~ TREE ND. D'oH COMMENTS INCHES GATES 523 6 IN NEW LANE OF i IZ^_YL 524 18 NEAR EXISTING BUILDING 540 4 NEEDS TO BE REMO~F_D FOR THE CREATION GF A NEW 541 d LANDSCAPE SGR~c'N 30RDERIN@ EXISTING APTS. 543 6 IN DESIGNING A NEIU GOHE5IVE TRAN5iTION oETUF_Eil PROPOSED BUILDNG B AND THE EXISTING CLUSTER OF 3UILDINGS THIS TIZ-'E MU5i BE MOVED 54s' 28 TREES TO BE REMOV'eD FOR THE CATION OF A STROrJG- 545 18 NEW LANDSCAPE BORDER OF THE PARTING STRUCTUR-'. WITH 546 12 DRAINAGE SWALE 541 Ib 548 20 549 24 550 b 554 6 :55 6 TRBJKS 6 551 6 185 uadcet street San Frrmcisce, C~ifamia 94183-2016 0415,974,6002 ®415,914,1556 mcgarchitecture.com GATES 8 ASSOCIATES CUPERTlNO VILLAGE DATE: MARC>is,2ooe MCG JOB n: Ofi.102.01 UPPER LEVEL PARKING DECK PHOTOMETRIC DATE REVISIONS Scale : 1" = 30' Z o is so' so' ~ MCG ARLHI7'eCf520GT ALLAIGHB RESERVED NEE This infsma6¢n is cP„repnNl In I¢Wre an¢ 6 sua~en m anrysunena pwmiaq mmr,NnnrLaooa wltl Lrem ~ eam Mla GovemmeNml Agenry aPPV+aIN No waxNtieS n 9uamNe6 b W7 kum art guen m Implietl M tle AicNlect CUPERTINO, CA LUMINAIRE SC4EDULE sv„a La6N pv Caw„p uwPUr GooIPNn '-P„P nP Lmwm w wam IITxONV NiCHIFCTIIMLPAK ONE ITSWRRCLE4N R ttl 0.5f 119A SR65G MONV~CIIiOFF Ep.fi METPL NFtIOE 1a1006B.ie AB00 OT6 2t3 v MLLIM LN IP WNP141REWm15ReSC NORQpRPL POSITION. POL IP IFF ~~~~ OEVa/F LIGMIxG STEPLIGM-HE9VY CLEAR &WATT Q L ~ LY.52fi45tlai OIIfY OPbi NETPt MEDIGM 615E NIGH itl]i]60.iE6 fifi60 e,i6 fib NGIINflAFF XWSING. SPXIILAR ME1P1 xuDE R:}LCT00.51JGHM1i olPPUSIxG Gvss ENCL0.5LRE STATISTICS L®mIN~ sy„m n.p ,, w~Nw ayau, PMKING OELK t.fik 19.ik a.ak NIA Nl4 SHEET E1 765 Wefl~t Sheet $611 fT'deCI5C0a C~I101111e 94103-2016 ~ 415.914.6002 ®415.974.1556 mcgarchifecfure.com 'nfi 'aa '6.fi 'm 'na 'm 'nE 'fi.fi 'o.o 'm 'm 'fia 'no 'fi.fi 's.a 'm '¢o 'm 'no 's.s 'm 'm 'm 'm 'm 'm 'm 'm 'fia 'no 'o.a 'm 's.o 'm '6a 'fi.s '¢.fi 'm 'ao 'm 'ss 'P.o ba '¢s 'afi 'n6 'o.o 'm 'no 'fia '0.6 'ns 'no 'aa 'P.o 'fi.6 'o.fi 'fi.fi 'm '¢fi 'm 'o.o 'fi.fi 'fi.a 'm 'no 'm 'ao 'fi.fi 'nfi 'm '¢o 'm 'nfi 'o.s 'm 'fia 'm 'm bo 'as 'fi.a 'P.s 'fia hfi 'o.a 'aa 's.s 'o.fi 'oa 'ns 'fi.fi 'ns 'm hP '6.s 'Pa 'm 's.6 'afi 'm 'm 'aa 'm 'ns 'm '6a 'a.o 'a.a b.s '6s '¢fi bs 'm 'm 'm 'o.a 'ns 'a.fi 'nP 'm 'm 'm 'm 'm 'm 'so 'm 'fi.fi '9s 'm 'm 'm '¢fi bo 'm 'm bs 'm 'fis 'm 'm 'm 'fi.fi '¢fi 'oa 'fia 'm '¢P 'm 'm '¢6 'm 'm 'm 'm 'm 'm 'm 'm 'Pa 'fis 'o.o 'm 'Ps 'm 'm 's.6 'nfi 'nfi '¢fi b.o 'm 'fi.6 'm 'aa 'm 'oa 'm hs 'Pn 'm 'm 'fi.fi bs 'm 'm 'm 'm bD 'm 'm 'PP 'sa 's.9 'm 'm 'm 'fi.fi 'm 'fis 'ea 'm '¢o 'm '6a 'o,o bn 'm 'm 'nP 'm 'm 'fi.fi 'm 'ns bs 'm 'm 'ss 'm 'm 'm 'm 'm ho 'a9 hP 'm '¢fi '¢o 'm 'oa 'm 'o.o 'm 'm ho 'fi.fi '60 'm 'm 'm 'o.o 'm 'P.o 'm 'm ha 'm 'm 'm 'nP 'm '¢fi 'sa 'PS 'm 'fi.c ho 'm '6a 'm 'P.o 'm 'n6 'm 'm '¢fi be b6 'fia 'm 'm 'm ae:umwA~ utooka mwwDS®w OUWIWN - -aID Dw61m4D1C ~ Iwo Drwltl8wl6 Rpi®aeos ~ ASD YIIga3Mx ruD OlY~0.w mm DU+Ma.Mlk MD MtD]Otwl6 aumsvnadss.~ aRO Oummimlcs I,tD QYmgAAX pdtl DurESmimlWt nGD DIAPwmwtl6 0e1a.7 e IDJSm.TmYC KD AANb11DY3IfGC OvtOe alm oar PDw D 2T1 a~ aMYe wu 010Em as Cao QUY DY7 11.6mpaNA INdX De r,AwprYapxem amz wxllome oan naawme rout OSK BUtlt I]mW 1111mm NE D WNI WMG wmgA WIG awl Swn YUnaun OF HWIy 9e6~mmNm REVHm ® ~w'e~•wlw e"ir.`~mw.A•m~••••• .wbr«rovAar`~nlWiioYSYne m o"°r..~;°ara+ua'~rK m.ww..a +.ea.e rAmM1m UPPER LEVEL PARKING DECK CUT SHEETS 1 Ir' `wWr' w~ t r Y~E1100A10N G DESCAIpipN NI[fwGnay9Nm0e7p9Nm1CA,W maYawzR~ lN6'Im lAemD 1 L ZW1GSq J ~ A>oa ~_~ L?HONL4 4Gf~f/NG FEATURES & SPEpFlCA710NS 11yNe[0 wF -Soren atlN,p MNq as aw mmvraot ww mmenaY Awpm a-ea agi.rea~ mwb..IwYw Mn #nGW s,P e~mw pl K ArwA Jour YAr AY Im#aavaM tee, ~ m, IN6~ nal Dov Nee le w wW+M ~ .,oR m=e mmr 1N<uw,W nes rWaq wrtm nwelw. e. Pmm X¢ OtY.BI [nW lrGer Yo.Ilwt iwml- 7anwm IrMD s Berl Men wMWn pNnr mvs AaNmW Yrmmanl .rr waanc Y<,mwtwMauuuermbigrs. pPASII w11wA -Amoral wN#mM Wwrbn ar surynm vmnmvM wra spnnph AYmpn Ya<a MN apH,s Irmngs ew ae mYYm W asoarpwm fun la amM WmuN,pa mlam IY# II ImeMa. iYw p11,rAmmma. imY W IAmwm mpxl eb lY# V NsA~rnr au,ml. Y[CwMlBwim ee aY IIM mroe m arm IEDA. bnrun a orb wpgwanmr Nr fiM'. lWtl Awtb ISPN e tl Ems w mmam re mw wn ImY aq,bAWY NNv Wua am lu; a<amgmaapuem wpaa w: nabs vw tln Imapa a M W Nw ew aA P a e.ana wes. Swot. brnmn. mwwDlNsuaW rpeesA aw vxw MN ulNgr Wa. nW4NJ s[wG NW aM saraa wmrl. eslauWm - leanm ew mr pm, m wa mrwu.P ppuaGn mbeee swam lenw-ulUVN.w#Pmk uA[mNJleeDpaPwl. u[mmmbc emNal na vm prremrm NPe.ymwM.mbwararemlpMwol Mrp. ArcflaGmwl Are d Aetlwly lminim AS1 P ARTAI XAllOE 91Y~iN0W NNAI PAEfAUAESOOIUM: iRY~1SOW AERIS 10' EP N MDUnbna .a t#am~,w tff a^m Lwga EIS wI ]I N wlam asm~l - DbPm'EiIIEW [ I weM D11N np ql Yae a rappYw s e.mwm Y ewwv m,erw aommmn I . mrm mo' im ORDFRINGINFOANIAi10N krsh6rmwwlDEGnm,:olABNnPrPa~]flYOgteWuYagpogeptan:YqlY~. fiwmpW:A5117YdBA71B SPA LPI Aw YNYDPGW wF ~I;pN ImnYl MtlewMk NYY amer..r. r.m.. IplpnM trove [wYP wA w' eA MYY a Yui r yul wf De[ elm fbl fYY p m. ~ aeeliy Iw # ~w Y ~ ma Y lw,nn amar ~ ~ lNrml W ler, N" i6PY 1T11` yl Aw wbnmdn rwa tw PY~i ~ ~~ ~ M m4unnY N aB YMIe Irpvr p )(vim R HEI ~mmrlxr~ GYd 4mbr Hll ~ POm~~mO°~~~ DM YYwm A' ~rmeW' ~;n TL'lp P Y aX.m4rFNIPR9fl:~ esI h lepwen Yp mu~ wmr >r,am' cs wW rtwmN DwN mW :mram c.aJ. a ~ea 15e wIAWa p,-Amp Np„G,,,~.,r .m.wam MPW' Mtl Mm4ala awm~m..m it rn Emn l Yw lA a W Pw.bvMrm.l Nn w Ne,w AM m wy.rwr few rw n wl,mam ~ . a , . ti x]Mai. Mlrtgw~. mMPHAma rYrtxm~. Yrw. eYP tlrYl re,~F.Ih6iNi ~ L6 6bewYNroY#a W r Y . z NwYa rw NI']NIWF near . WwA ns ,. e mv.. n. m. a. ~.mneu rm, lGmlWmLaG, ~'~tl~*m. eaT'tlw:n.mns. nu u.ur~ m ei Gmial mr m.a nor norm s ~ .iti+~ lwm.wbiw YMtx ^r w. n r.. mn ,n. ., a r m.rmp wn. momr ,.-..,. m rbm~INera ... a AIM •w ]N ASIID mu um". ^• rq L'sbm Wiwa ac4]f braID Outlgw Sleatk ASf-N~S ALim CUPERTINO VILLAGE DATE MARCH 3, 2008 MCG J00 M: 06.102.01 DATE REVISIONS ®tlcc uACwrECrs z7m Au NlcNrs r1EBNwJED NOIE'.lilw NaDnnaNm a Cprg9pllltl in nwlmm u YrbjGGm aquamprcW pmG p NrAWr erifutionantl Cpent TGrrw1S GM Ggmmnlflmw Agmry epRDbwb. Ngwwrmtle m quwmmaof m7larla YugMm wimRND Dy tle ArdJm2 -~ SOURCES :N3" tlN IC fl' _aa m AD 7. 70 7D 73 17 1p0 7D0~ w0 1YP __ 26 EEANRFS 1 Nomwc CGa Glnrxwmeraana eannang wGeleya.]m pYwGYro Mw's !muss 2 amsa warNrt f011w7SpmledlYlYN1019tmt EDID W.AID iAr[YYYrsY]a.AWg110. 3 IIAGAA7elc ienpYaaga.tauumunaz 4 AA:PCY: ND DPIMr YGDigr 7[ww lACw,walftl! Imla Rem pAaee6 b AuImYD Prune Dacae Dv a clwffi nnmt. 6 New! 9iAYgapY.a. PN row, DYN Ilrtrl, mo.,wra,aman a]mmm Ye amgaY. 0~ =i AwsNltlk SJIyrMGIC AiNrPrelk a RY UIB)))NS4numla Plmaquaae lYYwrryaWn A ]NA CUPERTINO, CA ~_~ L/THDNL4 LlGH77NG' FEANAES 8 SPECIFICATIONS Ylamm wF -(m Wmrq~ aIY napirwwrA rppluvwi mMi1Pp110N - NppA, its-seA. JrgluNxsb tlurwn Dpan4 Os ~, A1rw YhA•YwNa IilYlw vv Jobnamc Nf rpan~amvem arwnaa ww Ims Ommae a M aMa Mm. mveFN Jlimm pawl ~ _ nex - ww,m abM q a.ma mn aau~ room ptlamA M+.ma . ASV111 t.n Anp rmr mamm mr•a am.m DP]IGl alliFlt XqA#amrmu bMrw+ba Maran pwYbw ~ /.~ unm lY eM a, ml ,Amerehr anaua Lwelmn tPr mtl Oren opo rw ,, mmm.evtl.on w immaubm wm nor as s ~, ~ " °"4°" i;~. Pmrennrq w#pmy w m la wlavL rmn Aursaq slim, wr arum _ ~ . ~ RETAL HAl1DE a mans uwrwm vapors mwrlmu luau rmnipm •rr r HCN PAEfSUAE3001UY wnomwtue EIFDfYGI SISTEY - XID 1m~ISP1Y uN4M a Algarearanw. MNr ~ 0.DOAFSCEMf nYpr ararneuan nW. mlu.er mrma un,w pb vraeMrer bllP4 Cm a fl m JN tl l rv M1 p P lai ""~'°""°' ~~ wmsv m pp u m s menry al w P mbn.oaae.n Nuw wJly a'u#n=t rmXaa law e#a.m nYm -~ ~~ 1e ~„ wrtl 1Warq Ar, mYgNaAeY W N~ ,mw Yqm A b x0 pramp aaa mx wnk msAPn amr. ASaYpe ra ~ R I .S. mw tlYp ,m anm Puun. Crown ImrMSam n rowan warm J IYanw ewmPlmxs JI aWq Nsrmunbn - uMarsN more NeY Mn ~mwm mraaw pan SYMUdwmmNrr#SNe ergPmY h Iwue m utt. P#'#rAm meY,m loam IS' un I Y61ND-Nlmep uaaL lmMlpuppa nWwewn wibmaPpn JL APVl t1w f]rgl . DmNm lla,w burble uMT aeMws;Wn Dp,nm~. HOMfxmlvrr 0.uatl INYu 411<'I'dml me DpaYl Yin e.x rA PoIYa Nb. Ow,99. amapp Ham Mu Mw WaWG 9NaSwNI IOIIY. w aanrn a room kewwrem - r - wm nnA.w rwma ORDERING INFORMATION m rmr. rmM awn. A.m r an ma w.m .! w. t ~~. m EAPrrryle ASWI t7W sA2171sPIPl wu,waw 1nmNaxG vPlr,w DYYw Rawl rr,m an"" Gemmct w swa,m.a lw aea,+~aaa~Maa,a CSA ca cbnnmE wY Au'J'r.C qwa le w YrglnlYm ll$1T,%W. No mY NDM UmMa lql LlDtl ~ aY,y ]! 1d RY! VI Nrq maaY 11N1 Rf11 w aemwbp ~ III DI pam lmlNl, YW.tm', ne qV aw bmp . 11EY Nw ]Anm~ ,YmmM< ]I1 ~' ~ mWA y#r CYA pwr Ntm.ml]rve tilAf Wwt IMm~ ulmmap tor' DMi enlrl9waav now pre wrn MYDU. wamp wa mIM IIWY , rSam ~°w 10' ti E[ bAxgensy wsYr IIOPw mw per N6 M N J" ]w smr ~ wan, re' 1Y! /Pitt R scull tlwlr n wl IaiWeur Flew fmogwrp rimy wrA' nbn.pEn f m pM1wM mrmnlrl, _ lya G3 Wu prparp~' FuW1 force wM mpy ler A]mlaW]ulare YMnIUJ I W.m.amy. m lpm SWP bMm• ¢S pNNn wa nz Nth Ya r on,owrmmeNw.ber,Mm. mn. w,renao Nmr"' utnwc wrrb wrm EuwlParpMA wmreeayla nu Awnl¢rra Pwro 1 tub 6P[Tlmwma marwaavMraMn +P morn bllm pwk AsWnabu nor' rYmn rMgml nmPl"'~ 5aarml anxnl ..~aN.rarorm], Drn NmRwY aam vvar ' mn wn Dara nlJl r.wt+.na...Np.]rn:ra.m,vw.r...r.rw,ern Iwrp nawaw^ ~ Dsrr s,mmw~ ]pnl Namn<y arcu lzxwlm $Y mNr rnslWNy^" eAi Xtla9l elunltm nYAwm brGlwliMrNanrW evdv YacnnW Ol mWa#eaa n 1011 FMw,mY nrtMi lPxl]I gWNG WaW sm.ryse.r]marv e DPR aM1 adumW" Dtl1 91ut v aGmwmrar w.m.ea rw aNNmma ]aln.Wmrr Pmn. mow] EnMwnR arcu lh'Np Iron DWr®I mmm,r e~ ~~ .a..em„wmmmsmm~ue NW amP]NeIWMy'"" De mqm ruw snGm coax DINX Arma Dan o.k Par w.mn.a~~.+,YCrrr.rwwaYaa ~ ~ ra,Iw miulwYlr pro 4m Pm II .r..r vA mba s: "' Dmm,wmm]mrt.. V FeN w mrorrmw DaPE 6r#v ..wW Y.Wa R. ~ DtK DYkm A teuarlmrm,mroaVamwpvngsmNm.AneWmran ~m.u. tlrf Nm.sxa pmxsora sbwnp Wa MYI PM Aur .inatmrrKeaWms M ~ PE mammms aLNwn n# Da1N AR YA bnRm.MYDli atG'i' OpYew SMGV.ASWIaI-iF Atl~gO SHEET E2 Scale : NTS ~ ~1 San F>mlaaco, Caifanie 94103.4016 u ®415914x9002 m 415.9T4b1559