F. Restaurant analysis by Fehr & Peers dated May 4, 2012 Appendix F: Additional Rest aurant Sensitivity Analysis
160 West Santa Clara Street, Suite 675, San Jose CA 95113 (408 ) 278 -1700 Fax (408) 278 -1717 www.fehrandpeers.com MEMORANDUM Date: May 4 , 2012 To: Kristy Weis, David J. Powers From: Todd Henry , Fehr & Peers Subject: Main Street Cupertino – Restaurant Mix Refinements SJ11 -1292 .01 The purpose of this memorandum is to present the trip generation and parking forecast s prepared for the restaurant -intensive land use scenarios being considered for the Main Street Cupertino Project (herein the “Proposed Project”). The Proposed Project was previously evaluated in a transportation impact analysis (TIA) and environmental imp act report (EIR) certified in 2008 . Since the certification of the EIR, the project applicant modified the project’s proposed site plan and land use mix with various development schemes and variants, as summarized in Table 1 . The scenarios under 2012 Schem e 1 and 2012 Scheme 2 were analyzed in an addendum to the EIR prepared in March 2012. The purpose of this analysis is identify what level of food service -related uses (i.e., restaurants and small -scale eateries like bakeries and coffee shops) could accomm odated on the project site within the envelope of the transportation analyses conducted to date. The memorandum also evaluate s whether or not the an increase in restaurant uses would potentially result in new or more severe traffic impacts than those discl osed in the 2008 TIA and EIR and 2012 EIR Addendum . LAND USE DESCRIPTION S Table 1 presents the two restaurant -intensive project land use scenarios – “Maximum Office” and “Reduced Office”. These scenarios include the following land uses: Maximum Office: G eneral c ommercial space occupied by a mix of retail uses including up to 75,000 square feet of the following types of uses: o Durable consumer goods o small -scale food -service businesses (e.g., coffee shop, yogurt shop, bakeries), o “incubator”-type space for s maller businesses (e.g., startup offices, real estate offices, dance studios) Sit -Down Restaurant space up to 45,000 square feet, inclusive of the following restaurant types: o 20,000 square feet of low -turnover quality sit -down restaurants typically open f or dinner and potentially lunch o 20,000 square feet of high -turnover sit -down restaurants typically open for dinner and potentially lunch
Kristy Weis, David J. Powers May 4, 2012 Page 2 of 16 o 5,000 square feet of high -turnover sit -down restaurants that could be open for breakfast , lunch, and dinner service Gen eral office space – up to 292,000 sf Residential – up to 143 senior housing units Hotel – 180 -rooms Reduced Office: General commercial space occupied by a mix of retail uses including up to 94,700 square feet of the following types of uses: o Durable consum er goods o small -scale food -service businesses (e.g., coffee shop, yogurt shop, bakeries), o “incubator”-type space for smaller businesses (e.g., startup offices, real estate offices, dance studios) Sit -Down Restaurant space up to 44,000 square feet, inclusi ve of the following restaurant types: o 19 ,5 00 square feet of low -turnover quality sit -down restaurants typically open for dinner and potentially lunch o 19,5 00 square feet of high -turnover sit -down restaurants typically open for dinner and potentially lunch o 5 ,000 square feet of high -turnover sit -down restaurants that could be open for breakfast , lunch, and dinner service General office space – up to 2 60 ,000 sf Residential – up to 143 senior housing units Hotel – 180 -rooms This analysis assumes that the gener al commercial space contains a mix of commercial uses, including general retail shops, restaurants, coffee shops, and anchor stores, similar to other shopping centers and malls. Some commercial uses , particularly full -service restaurants, generate more tra ffic than other general retail uses; however, by assuming a m ix of general commercial uses, the analysis accounts for this . The trip generation rates applied to the retail square foot age , as discussed later, are based on national surveys of shopping cente rs that contain a mix of commercial uses (including restaurants) that generate peak traffic at different times of day and visitors that go to multiple places on the site (e.g. a visitor to a retail shop also stops for coffee, or a lunch guest also goes int o a shop , etc.). A higher intensity of r estaurants than a typical shopping center c ould generate a greater number of trips. Therefore, the City placed a 10 percent “cap” on the amount of general commercial space that could be occupied by restaurant uses w ithin the general retail space . The analysis contained in this memorandum includes a separate “restaurant” category, for which trip generation was calculated at the higher restaurant rate. The breakdown of low -turnover and high -turner restaurants included in this category was provided by the City and applicant. Table 1 includes a column for “Max imum Food Service ” represent ing the amount of general commercial space that could accommodate either general retail or food service uses without exceeding the number of trips analyzed for the commercial space .
Kristy Weis, David J. Powers May 4, 2012 Page 3 of 16 Table 1. Main Street Cupertino Land Use Plan Summary Scheme/Option/Variant Land Uses General Commercial Space Office (sf) Residential (units) Hotel (rooms) Retail (sf)1 Sit -Down Restaurant (sf)2 Maxi mum Food Service 1,2 Senior Market -Rate Maximum Office 75,000 45,000 43.8% 292,000 143 0 180 Reduced Office 94,700 44,000 38.6% 2 60 ,000 143 0 180 Note s : (1) Assumes that 10% percent of general retail space is occupied by smaller food service business es like bakeries, coffee shops and ice cream stands. (2) Assumes the following mix of restaurant types: 44.4% low -turnover quality restaurants with no breakfast service, 44.4% high -turnover restaurants with no breakfast service, and 11.2% high -turnover res taurants with breakfast service . Source: Fehr & Peers, 2012 . TRIP GENERATION T rip generation forecasts for the Proposed Project land uses were developed using the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation, 8 th Edition . Where appropriat e, trip reductions for the mix of use s on the site and nearby bus service were applied according to the Santa Clara V alley T ransportation A uthority Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines (VTA Guidelines ). For this analysis, trip generation rates for sho pping c enter were applied to the space proposed for shops and “incubator”-type uses. This results in a greater number of trips, since the incubator -type uses would likely generate trips at a lower rate similar to the office uses on the site. Table 2 provid es a summary of the total net new trips associated with the new land use schemes. Table 2. Main Street Cupertino Trip Generation Summary Scheme/Option/Variant Weekday AM Peak -Hour Trips PM Peak -Hour Trips Trips In Out Total In Out Total Maximum Offic e 11,621 520 160 680 525 690 1,215 Reduced Office 12,117 496 159 655 546 692 1,238 Source: Fehr & Peers, 2012 . PARKING ANALYSIS Table 3 summarizes the p arking demand estimates for the restaurant -intensive scenarios were prepared using ITE P arking Generation , the Urban Land Institute’s Shared Parking guidance, and the City’s Municipal Code , consistent with the previous analyses . The purpose of this analysis is to determine the amount of parking that the restaurant -intensive schemes should pro vide to accommodate the expected peak demand.
Kristy Weis, David J. Powers May 4, 2012 Page 4 of 16 Table 3 . Main Street Cupertino Parking Demand Summary Scheme/Option/Variant City Code 1 Unshared Parking Demand 2 Shared Parking Demand 3 Maximum Office 2,059 1,957 1,768 Reduced Office 2,017 1,890 1 ,701 Notes: 1. Based on City of Cupertino Municipal Parking Code 2. Based on ITE Parking Generation, 2008 3. Based on ITE Parking Demand, adjusted with time -of -day factors from Urban Land Institute Shared Parking. Assumes that all uses share parking on the site. I f office and residential parking is reserved, the demand would be similar to unshared parking demand, since only hotel and retail uses would share a minimal number of parking spaces. Source: Fehr & Peers, 2012 . INTERSECTION IMPACT ANALYSIS Traffic impac ts associated with the restaurant -intensive scenario s were evaluated to determine whether or not the revised land uses would result in new or more severe traffic impacts than those disclosed in the Proposed Project’s 2008 TIA and EIR and 2012 EIR Addendum . Traffi c impacts are evaluated using intersection levels of service (LOS)1 . This section discusses the LOS operations of the 27 study intersections evaluated in the 2008 studies and identifies both background and cumulative impacts associated with the Proposed Pr oject. Background Conditions comprise existing traffic volumes plus traffic generated from surrounding development projects that have been approved but are not yet constructed or occupied from the 2008 TIA and EIR traffic analysis. In the 2008 TIA and EIR Background Conditions serve as the basis for identifying project impacts. Cumulative Conditions were taken from the 2008 studies and represent intersection operations with the addition of traffic from both approved and unoccupied projects and from pendin g projects in the study area. Cumulative Conditions serve as the basis for identifying cumulative project impacts. Background and Project Conditions Results Vehicle trips generated by the revised land use assumptions were added to Background Conditions tra ffic volumes presented in the 2008 TIA and EIR to represent Project Conditions. The Proposed Project’s trip distribution to the surrounding roadway network was consistent with the 2008 TIA; however, trip assignment to the project’s driveways was adjusted s lightly to account for the revised site plan. 1 The operations of roadway facilities ar e described with the term level of service. Level of Service (LOS) is a qualitative description of traffic flow based on such factors as speed, travel time, delay, and freedom to maneuver. Six levels are defined from LOS A, representing congestion -free con ditions, to LOS F, when volumes exceed capacity and stop -and -go conditions occur. LOS E represents “at -capacity” operations.
Kristy Weis, David J. Powers May 4, 2012 Page 5 of 16 Table s 4 and 5 present the intersection LOS calculation results under Background Conditions and Project Conditions for the t he Maximum Office scenario and Reduced Office scenario , respectively . Both t he Maximum Office scenario and Reduced Office scenario would exacerbate unacceptable ope rations at the intersection of Homestead Road/Lawrence Expressway (both AM and PM peak hours). Both scenaros would degrade operations from acceptable to unacceptable LOS at the intersections of Wolfe Road/Vallco Parkway (PM peak hour) and Lawrence Expressw ay/I -280 Southbound Ramps (both AM and PM peak hours). Cumulative Conditions Results Vehicle trips generated by the new l and use assumptions were added to Cumulative Conditions traffic volumes presented in the 2008 TIA and EIR to represent Cumulative Plus Project Conditions. Table s 4 and 5 present the intersection LOS calculation results under Cumulative Plus Project Conditions t he Maximum Office scenario and Reduced Office scenario , respectively . Under Cumulative Condition s, the both scenarios would exacerbate unacceptable operations at the intersection of Homestead Road/La wrence Expr essway (AM and PM peak hours). Both scenarios would degrade operations from acceptable to unacceptable LOS at the intersections of Wolfe Road/Vallco Parkway (PM peak hour), Lawrence Expressway/I -280 Southbound Ramps (AM and PM peak hours), Steve ns Creek/I -280 Southbound Ramps (PM peak hour), and at Lawrence Expressway/Bollinger Road (PM peak hour). Table 4 : Intersection Levels Of Service – Maximum Office Project Intersection Peak Hour 1 2008 Background Maximum Office Project Conditions Maximum Office Cumulative Plus Project Conditions Delay 2 LOS 3 Delay 2 LOS 3 ∆ in Crit V/C 4 ∆ in Crit Delay 5 Delay 2 LOS 3 ∆ in Crit V/C 4 ∆ in Crit Delay 5 1. Wolfe Road / Homestead Road AM PM 27.5 35.1 C D+ 27.6 36.6 C D+ +0.001 +0.039 0.0 3.0 27.8 37.4 C D+ +0.017 +0.045 0.4 3.5 2. Homestead Road / Tantau Avenue AM PM 22.9 26.4 C+ C 23.4 27.8 C C +0.011 +0.019 0.8 1.4 23.5 28.4 C C +0.020 +0.037 1.0 2.3 3. Homestead Road / Lawrence Expy 6 AM PM 86.4 111.1 F F 89.3 118.9 F F +0.012 +0.018 5.5 10.3 92.6 123.0 F F +0.056 +0.080 2.5 11.0 4. Wolfe Road / Pruneridge Avenue AM PM 20.6 38 .8 C+ D+ 20.4 39.3 C+ D +0.006 +0.028 0.0 1.4 20.9 40.3 C+ D +0.016 +0.040 0.8 2.7 5. Pruneridge Avenue / Tantau Avenue AM PM 22.3 21.9 C+ C+ 22.5 22.4 C+ C+ +0.012 +0.060 0.0 0.5 22.6 22.9 C+ C+ +0.021 +0.081 0.2 1.3 6. Wolfe Road / I -280 Northbound Ram ps 6 AM PM 15.2 13.9 B B 15.4 14.3 B B +0.002 +0.026 0.1 0.6 15.4 14.4 B B +0.006 +0.039 0.2 0.9 7. Wolfe Road / I -280 SB Ramps 6 AM PM 14.0 9.4 B A 14.1 9.9 B A +0.012 +0.068 0.2 1.0 14.1 10.0 B A +0.014 +0.074 0.2 1.0 8. Wolfe Road / Vallco Parkway AM PM 17.7 53.1 B D - 21.2 66.5 C+ E +0.059 +0.081 5.1 17.7 21.1 68.3 C+ E +0.060 +0.095 5.1 21.2
Kristy Weis, David J. Powers May 4, 2012 Page 6 of 16 Table 4 : Intersection Levels Of Service – Maximum Office Project Intersection Peak Hour 1 2008 Background Maximum Office Project Conditions Maximum Office Cumulative Plus Project Conditions Delay 2 LOS 3 Delay 2 LOS 3 ∆ in Crit V/C 4 ∆ in Crit Delay 5 Delay 2 LOS 3 ∆ in Crit V/C 4 ∆ in Crit Delay 5 9. Vallco Parkway / Finch Avenue AM PM 11.6 (SB) 15.2 (NB) B C 13.7 26.9 B D 13.7 26.9 B D 10. Vallco Parkway / Tantau Avenue AM PM 18.1 20.2 B - C+ 18.8 22.9 B - C+ +0.003 +0.214 -0.1 3.3 18.8 23.0 B - C+ +0.003 +0.216 -0.1 3.3 11. Stevens Creek Blvd / De Anza Blvd 6 AM PM 31.7 44.9 C D 32.2 46.2 C - D +0.013 +0.012 0.7 1.9 32.6 50.7 C - D +0.028 +0.053 1.2 8.2 12. Stevens Creek Blvd / Blaney Avenue AM PM 29.0 29.9 C C 29.1 30.4 C C +0.010 +0.033 0.4 1.1 29.0 30.5 C C +0.026 +0.066 0.3 1.7 13. Stevens Creek Blvd / Portal Avenue AM PM 14.3 13.2 B B 14.0 12.9 B B +0.006 +0.021 0.0 -0.2 13.6 12.5 B B +0.019 +0.045 -0.3 -0.4 14. Stevens Creek Blvd / Perimeter Road AM P M 10.0 17.4 A B 9.8 16.9 A B +0.001 +0.019 0.0 -0.3 9.7 16.5 A B +0.013 +0.043 0.0 -0.6 15. Stevens Creek Blvd / Wolfe Rd -Miller 6 AM PM 38.7 40.1 D+ D 38.8 41.9 D+ D +0.018 +0.057 0.5 2.8 38.9 43.2 D+ D +0.034 +0.087 0.7 4.6 16. Stevens Creek Blvd / Finc h Avenue AM PM 37.6 27.0 D+ C 38.8 40.3 D+ D +0.027 +0.077 0.6 8.6 38.1 39.1 D+ D +0.041 +0.110 0.0 15.0 17. Stevens Creek Blvd / Tantau Avenue AM PM 23.0 25.0 C+ C 23.9 28.8 C C +0.099 +0.088 2.1 5.1 24.0 30.1 C C +0.115 +0.117 2.3 7.2 18. Stevens Creek Blvd / I -280 Ramps 6 AM PM 28.5 55.2 C E+ 27.2 79.7 C E - +0.013 +0.112 -3.9 51.8 27.4 84.5 C F +0.027 +0.139 -3.6 64.7 19. Stevens Creek Blvd /LawrenceExpy(W) 6 AM PM 23.1 32.4 C C - 24.0 33.1 C C - +0.049 +0.041 1.3 1.7 24.5 34.2 C C - +0.068 +0.076 1.9 3.7 20. Stevens Creek Blvd /Lawrence Expy(E) 6 AM PM 37.9 33.7 D+ C - 38.9 34.7 D+ C - +0.029 +0.037 1.0 0.9 39.4 35.6 D D+ +0.045 +0.076 1.9 2.6 21. Lawrence Expy / I -280 SB Ramps 6 AM PM 53.7 54.2 D - D - 60.7 71.3 E E +0.029 +0.074 8.1 23.1 59.8 126.8 E+ F +0.038 +0.288 7.9 105.4 22. Bollinger Road / De Anza Boulevard 6 AM PM 20.0 24.0 C+ C 19.9 24.1 B - C +0.001 +0.007 -0.1 0.3 19.8 23.9 B - C +0.010 +0.038 0.3 1.3 23. Bollinger Road / Blaney Avenue AM PM 20.0 21.2 B - C+ 21.2 21.6 C+ C+ +0.037 +0.019 1.8 1.2 21.2 22.0 C+ C+ +0.042 +0.029 1.8 1.5 24. Bollinger Road / Miller Avenue AM PM 33.6 38.4 C - D+ 33.9 39.2 C - D +0.015 +0.021 0.6 0.7 34.0 39.4 C - D +0.020 +0.030 0.6 1.0
Kristy Weis, David J. Powers May 4, 2012 Page 7 of 16 Table 4 : Intersection Levels Of Service – Maximum Office Project Intersection Peak Hour 1 2008 Background Maximum Office Project Conditions Maximum Office Cumulative Plus Project Conditions Delay 2 LOS 3 Delay 2 LOS 3 ∆ in Crit V/C 4 ∆ in Crit Delay 5 Delay 2 LOS 3 ∆ in Crit V/C 4 ∆ in Crit Delay 5 25. Bollinger Road / Tantau Avenue AM PM 12.6 16.4 B B 12.7 17.1 B B +0.001 +0.003 0.1 0.7 12.7 17.1 B B +0.002 +0.006 0.1 0.7 26. Bollinger Road / Lawrence Expy 6 AM PM 51.5 54.7 D - D - 53.7 54.8 D - D - +0.014 +0.008 6.1 0.3 54.0 55.9 D - E+ +0.036 +0.066 2.6 2.1 27. Vallco Parkway / Perimeter Road AM PM 19.9 20.4 B - C+ 16.2 20.0 B C+ +0 .027 +0.018 -2.5 -0.4 16.7 20.0 B C+ +0.034 +0.018 -1.9 -0.4 Notes: 1 AM = morning peak -hour, PM = evening peak -hour. 2 Whole intersection weighted average control delay expressed in seconds per vehicle for signalized intersections using method described in the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual , with adjusted saturation flow rates to reflect Santa Clara County Conditions. For two -way stop controlled unsignalized intersections, total control delay for the worst movement, expressed in seconds per vehicle, is pre sented. LOS calculations conducted using the TRAFFIX 7.9 level of service analysis software package. 3 LOS = Level of service 4 Change in the critical volume -to -capacity ratio (V/C) between Background and Project Conditions. 5 Change in critical movement d elay between Background and Project Conditions. A decrease in the critical delay indicates project trips were added to movements with low delays thus causing a decrease in the overall critical delay. 6 Designated CMP intersection. Unacceptable operations a re shown in bold typeface Source: Fehr & Peers, 2012 59.7 126.5 E+ F +0.038 +0.287 7.9 105.0 Table 5 : Intersection Levels Of Service – Reduced Office Project Intersection Peak Hour 1 2008 Background Reduced Office Project Conditions Reduced Office Cumulative Plus Project Conditions Delay 2 LOS 3 Delay 2 LOS 3 ∆ in Crit V/C 4 ∆ in Crit Delay 5 Delay 2 LOS 3 ∆ in Crit V/C 4 ∆ in Crit Delay 5 1. Wolfe Road / Homestead Road AM PM 27.5 35.1 C D+ 27.6 36.7 C D+ +0.001 +0.040 0.0 3.1 27.8 37.4 C D+ +0.017 +0.047 0.4 3.6 2. Homestead Road / Tantau Avenue AM PM 22.9 26.4 C+ C 23.4 27.9 C C +0.011 +0.021 0.8 1.5 23.5 28.5 C C +0.020 +0.039 1.0 2.4 3. Homestead Road / Lawrence Expy 6 AM PM 86.4 111.1 F F 89.2 118.8 F F +0.011 +0.018 5.3 10.0 92.5 123.0 F F +0.056 +0 .080 2.3 10.7 4. Wolfe Road / Pruneridge Avenue AM PM 20.6 38.8 C+ D+ 20.4 39.3 C+ D +0.006 +0.028 0.0 1.4 20.9 40.3 C+ D +0.016 +0.041 0.8 2.7 5. Pruneridge Avenue / Tantau Avenue AM PM 22.3 21.9 C+ C+ 22.5 22.4 C+ C+ +0.012 +0.060 0.0 0.5 22.6 22.9 C+ C+ +0.021 +0.081 0.2 1.3
Kristy Weis, David J. Powers May 4, 2012 Page 8 of 16 Table 5 : Intersection Levels Of Service – Reduced Office Project Intersection Peak Hour 1 2008 Background Reduced Office Project Conditions Reduced Office Cumulative Plus Project Conditions Delay 2 LOS 3 Delay 2 LOS 3 ∆ in Crit V/C 4 ∆ in Crit Delay 5 Delay 2 LOS 3 ∆ in Crit V/C 4 ∆ in Crit Delay 5 6. Wolfe Road / I -280 Northbound Ramps 6 AM PM 15.2 13.9 B B 15.4 14.3 B B +0.002 +0.028 0.1 0.6 15.4 14.4 B B +0.005 +0.041 0.1 0.9 7. Wolfe Road / I -280 SB Ramps 6 AM PM 14.0 9.4 B A 14.1 10.0 B A +0.012 +0.069 0.2 1.0 14.1 10.0 B A +0.014 +0.075 0.2 1.0 8. Wolfe Road / Vallco Parkway AM PM 17.7 53.1 B D - 21.0 66.5 C+ E +0.056 +0.081 4.9 17.6 20.9 68.2 C+ E +0.058 +0.095 4.9 21.1 9. Vallco Parkway / Finch Avenue AM PM 11.6 (SB) 15.2 (NB) B C 13.7 26.9 B D 13.7 26.9 B D 10. Va llco Parkway / Tantau Avenue AM PM 18.1 20.2 B - C+ 18.7 22.7 B - C+ +0.003 +0.208 -0.1 3.0 18.7 22.8 B - C+ +0.003 +0.211 -0.1 3.1 11. Stevens Creek Blvd / De Anza Blvd 6 AM PM 31.7 44.9 C D 32.1 46.3 C - D +0.013 +0.013 0.7 2.0 32.6 50.8 C - D +0.028 +0.053 1 .2 8.3 12. Stevens Creek Blvd / Blaney Avenue AM PM 29.0 29.9 C C 29.1 30.3 C C +0.009 +0.034 0.4 1.1 29.0 30.5 C C +0.026 +0.067 0.3 1.7 13. Stevens Creek Blvd / Portal Avenue AM PM 14.3 13.2 B B 14.0 12.9 B B +0.006 +0.021 0.0 -0.2 13.6 12.5 B B +0.019 +0.046 -0.3 -0.4 14. Stevens Creek Blvd / Perimeter Road AM PM 10.0 17.4 A B 9.8 16.9 A B +0.001 +0.020 0.0 -0.3 9.7 16.5 A B +0.013 +0.044 0.0 -0.6 15. Stevens Creek Blvd / Wolfe Rd -Miller 6 AM PM 38.7 40.1 D+ D 38.8 42.0 D+ D +0.018 +0.060 0.5 3.0 38.9 43.3 D+ D +0.034 +0.089 0.7 4.9 16. Stevens Creek Blvd / Finch Avenue AM PM 37.6 27.0 D+ C 39.0 40.4 D+ D +0.027 +0.096 0.7 16.7 38.2 39.5 D+ D +0.041 +0.119 0.1 15.6 17. Stevens Creek Blvd / Tantau Avenue AM PM 23.0 25.0 C+ C 23.8 28.6 C C +0.091 +0.08 6 1.8 4.9 23.9 29.9 C C +0.107 +0.115 2.0 7.0 18. Stevens Creek Blvd / I -280 Ramps 6 AM PM 28.5 55.2 C E+ 27.2 79.2 C E - +0.011 +0.111 -3.9 50.9 27.4 84.0 C F +0.025 +0.137 -3.6 63.7 19. Stevens Creek Blvd /LawrenceExpy(W) 6 AM PM 23.1 32.4 C C - 24.0 33.2 C C - +0.046 +0.043 1.2 1.8 24.4 34.3 C C - +0.065 +0.077 1.8 3.8 20. Stevens Creek Blvd /Lawrence Expy(E) 6 AM PM 37.9 33.7 D+ C - 38.8 34.7 D+ C - +0.028 +0.038 1.0 0.9 39.3 35.7 D D+ +0.044 +0.078 1.8 2.7 21. Lawrence Expy / I -280 SB Ramps 6 AM PM 53.7 54.2 D - D - 60.6 71.1 E E +0.028 +0.073 8.0 22.7 59.7 126.5 E+ F +0.038 +0.287 7.9 105.0
Kristy Weis, David J. Powers May 4, 2012 Page 9 of 16 Table 5 : Intersection Levels Of Service – Reduced Office Project Intersection Peak Hour 1 2008 Background Reduced Office Project Conditions Reduced Office Cumulative Plus Project Conditions Delay 2 LOS 3 Delay 2 LOS 3 ∆ in Crit V/C 4 ∆ in Crit Delay 5 Delay 2 LOS 3 ∆ in Crit V/C 4 ∆ in Crit Delay 5 22. Bollinger Road / De Anza Boulevard 6 AM PM 20.0 24.0 C+ C 19.9 24.1 B - C -+0.002 +0.008 -0.1 0.3 19.8 23.9 B - C +0.010 +0.038 0.3 1.3 23. Bollinger Road / Blaney Avenue AM PM 20.0 21.2 B - C+ 21.1 21.6 C+ C+ +0.037 +0.020 1.8 1.3 21.2 22.0 C+ C+ +0.042 +0.031 1.8 1.6 24. Bollinger Road / Miller Avenue AM PM 33.6 38.4 C - D+ 33.9 39.2 C - D +0.015 +0.021 0.6 0.7 33.9 39.4 C - D +0.019 +0.030 0.6 1.0 25. Bollinger Road / Tantau Avenue AM PM 12.6 16.4 B B 12.7 17.2 B B +0.001 +0.003 0.1 0.7 12.7 17.1 B B +0.002 +0.006 0.1 0.7 26. Bollinger Road / Lawrence Expy 6 AM PM 51.5 54.7 D - D - 53.7 54.9 D - D - +0.014 +0.009 5.9 0.6 53.9 56.0 D - E+ +0.036 +0.066 2.4 2.3 27. Vallco Parkway / Perimeter Road AM PM 19.9 20.4 B - C+ 16.3 20.0 B C+ +0.026 +0.018 -2.4 -0.4 16.8 20.0 B C+ +0.032 +0.018 -1.9 -0.4 Notes: 1 AM = morning peak -hour, PM = evening peak -hour. 2 Whole intersection weighted average control delay expressed in second s per vehicle for signalized intersections using method described in the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual , with adjusted saturation flow rates to reflect Santa Clara County Conditions. For two -way stop controlled unsignalized intersections, total control delay for the worst movement, expressed in seconds per vehicle, is presented. LOS calculations conducted using the TRAFFIX 7.9 level of service analysis software package. 3 LOS = Level of service 4 Change in the critical volume -to -capacity ratio (V/C) between B ackground and Project Conditions. 5 Change in critical movement delay between Background and Project Conditions. A decrease in the critical delay indicates proje ct trips were added to movements with low delays thus causing a decrease in the overall critica l delay. 6 Designated CMP intersection. Unacceptable operations are shown in bold typeface Source: Fehr & Peers, 2012 59.7 126.5 E+ F +0.038 +0.287 7.9 105.0 Intersection Impact Criteria I ntersection impacts were evaluated by co mparing the results of the level of service calculations under Project Conditions to the results under Background Conditions. Cumulative impacts are identified using the same general criteria as project -level impacts; however, the significance of cumulativ e impacts where the project exacerbates already unacceptable operations would be based on the change in critical delay and volume -to -capacity between Cumulative No Project and Cumulative Plus Project conditions. Criteria to determine significant impacts fr om the 2008 studies are as follows: City of Cupertino, City of San Jose, and City of Santa Clara Intersections A significant project impact to a City of Cupertino, City of San Jose, City of Santa Clara, or County of Santa Clara signalized intersection occ urs if the project results in one of the following:
Kristy Weis, David J. Powers May 4, 2012 Page 10 of 16 Operations at a signalized intersection deteriorate from LOS D or better under Background Conditions to LOS E or F under Project Conditions; or Exacerbation of unacceptable operations (LOS E or F) at a s ignalized intersection by increasing the average critical delay by four seconds or more and increasing the volume -to -capacity (V/C) ratio by 0.01 or more. Operations at the De Anza Boulevard/Stevens Creek Boulevard or De Anza Boulevard/Bollinger Road inte rsection to be LOS E or worse with more than 55.0 seconds of average vehicle weighted delay; or Exacerbation of unacceptable operations (LOS E or F) at the De Anza Boulevard/Stevens Creek Boulevard or De Anza Boulevard/Bollinger Road intersection by increa sing the average critical delay by four seconds or more and increasing the volume -to -capacity (V/C) ratio by 0.01 or more. A significant project impact occurs at an unsignalized intersection when the addition of project traffic causes: Intersection operati ons to deteriorate from an acceptable level under Background Conditions (LOS E or better) to an unacceptable level (LOS F or worse) and the MUTCD Peak Hour Warrant is met under Project Conditions; or The exacerbation of operations at an unsignalized inters ection already operating at an unacceptable level (LOS F or worse) under Background Conditions and the MUTCD Peak Hour Warrant is met under Project Conditions. Valley Transportation Authority (CMP) Intersection A significant impact at a CMP intersection lo cated within the City of Santa Clara occurs when the addition of project traffic causes one of the following 2 : Operations to degrade from an acceptable level (LOS E or better) under Background Conditions to an unacceptable level (LOS F) under Project Condi tions. Unacceptable operations are exacerbated by increasing the critical delay by more than four seconds and increasing the volume -to -capacity (V/C) ratio by 0.01 or more. The V/C ratio increases by 0.01 or more at an intersection with unacceptable operat ions (LOS E or F) when the change in critical delay is negative (i.e., decreases). This can occur if the critical movements change. Intersection Impacts Table 6 summarizes the significant intersection impacts for Project and Cumulative Conditions using the significance criteria discussed in the previous section compared to the 2008 analysis results. The impacted intersections are identical to the project schemes analyzed in the 2009 Final EIR . The new scenario s will have a less -than -significant impact a t th e other study intersections. 2 The Cities of Cupertino and San Jose follow their respective impact criteria for CMP intersections.
Kristy Weis, David J. Powers May 4, 2012 Page 11 of 16 Table 6 : Intersection Impacts Summary Intersection Peak Hour 2008 Project Description 2012 Project Description Scheme 1 Scheme 2 Scheme 1c Scheme 2b Maximum Office Reduced Office Project Conditions Lawrence / Home stead AM PM 89.8 / F 118.6 / F 89.1 / F 117.5 / F 89.5 / F 118.6 / F 89.0 / F 117.4 / F 89.3 / F 118.9 / F 89.2 / F 118.8 / F Wolfe / Vallco AM PM -- 68.4 / E -- 65.6 / E -- 66.2 / E -- 63.5 / E -- 66.5 / E -- 66.5 / E Lawrence / I -280 SB Ramp AM PM 61.4 / E 69.6 / E 60.5 / E 69.6 / E 61.5 / E 71.2 / E 60.2 / E 68.8 / E 60.7 / E 71.3 / E 60.6 / E 71.1 / E Lawrence / Bollinger AM PM -- 55.3 / E+ -- -- -- -- -- 55.2 / E+ -- -- -- -- Cumulative Conditions Lawrence / Homestead AM PM -- 122.8 / F -- 121.9 / F -- 122.7 / F -- 121.6 / F -- 123.0 / F -- 123.0 / F Wolfe / Vallco AM PM -- 73.4 / E -- 71.3 / E -- 67.9 / E -- 65.2 / E -- 68.3 / E -- 68.2 / E Stevens Creek/I -280 SB Ramp AM PM -- 83.3 / F -- 82.7 / F -- 84.6 / F -- 81.8 / F -- 84.5 / F -- 84.0 / F Lawrence / I -280 SB Ramp AM PM 60.2 / E 124.2 / F 59.5 / E+ 124.5 / F 60.7 / E 126.6 / F 59.2 / E+ 123.2 / F 59.8 / E+ 126.8 / F 59.7 / E+ 126.5 / F Lawrence / Bollinger AM PM -- LTS 1 -- LTS 1 -- LTS 1 -- LTS 1 -- LTS 1 -- LTS 1 Note: 1. Less -than -Significant Impact between Cumulative No Project and Plus Project Scenarios Source: Fehr & Peers, 2008 and 2012 Intersection Mitigation Measures Improvements were identified to mitigate intersection impacts to a less -than -significant level. These mitigation measures , which apply to both the Maximum Office and Reduced Office scenarios, are presented below: Project -Level Mitigation Lawrence Expressway / Homestead Road – The scenario s increase the AM and PM peak -hour delays by more than four seconds to this intersection operating at unacceptable LOS F under Background Conditions. The addi tion of a third westbound through lane would improve overall delay and reduce the impact to a less -than -significant level.3 Intersection operations would return to LOS E in the AM peak hour 3 The addition of a third ea stbound lane on Homestead Road was identified as a Tier 1C improvement in the Comprehensive County Expressway Planning Study for Lawrence Expressway completed in 2003. The report footnoted that the improvement would not improve p rojected 2025 LOS from F to LOS E or better.
Kristy Weis, David J. Powers May 4, 2012 Page 12 of 16 under both option s. During the PM peak hour overall delay would be reduced to less than Background Conditions in both option s but the intersection would still operate at LOS F. This mitigation would require significant right -of -way acquisition and the relocation of existing utilities at the intersection. This intersectio n is controlled and maintained by the County of Santa Clara and any improvements need to be approved and implemented by the County. Therefore, the impact at this intersection is considered significant and unavoidable . Vallco Parkway / Wolfe Road – The sce nario s degrade the level of service at this intersection to LOS E during the PM peak hour. The following two mitigation measures were identified as potential improvements to return intersection operations to acceptable levels of service. Mitigation Option #1 – Maintaining the existing intersection configuration, but installing a westbound right -turn overlap phase would mitigate the project -level impact under both schemes to a less -than -significant level. The intersection would operate at LOS D under either scheme. Mitigation Option #2 – The addition of a second, westbound right -turn lane would improve project -level intersection operations to an acceptable level of service and mitigate the project -level impact to a less -than -significant level. The additional turn lane could be accommodated by re -striping the existing westbound through lane as a shared through/right -turn lane. The intersection would operate at LOS D under either scheme. Lawrence Expressway / I -280 Southbound Ramps – Major improvements at this i ntersection were identified in the Comprehensive County Expressway Planning Study for Lawrence Expressway completed in 2008, including a Caltrans Project Study Report (PSR) for this interchange (Tier 1A project). The completion of a PSR, however, would not mitigate the project’s impact at this location to a less -than -significant level, since no physical changes would occur at the intersection to either increase capacity or improve traffic operations. This intersection is controlled by the County and the app licant will need to coordinate with the lead agency to determine the appropriate mitigation at this location. Therefore, this impact would be considered significant and unavoidable because the City of Cupertino has no authority to implement any improvement s at this location. Bollinger Road -Moorpark Avenue/Lawrence Expressway – The Comprehensive County Expressway Planning Study for Lawrence Expressway identified the widening of Lawrence Expressway from six lanes to eight lanes between Moor park/Bollinger and Calvert as a Tier 1A improvement. This improvement would mitigate the project’s impact to a less -than -significant level of service. However, this intersection is controlled by the County of Santa Clara and the applicant will need to coor dinate with the lead agency to determine the appropriate mitigation at this location. Therefore, this impact would be considered significant and unavoidable because the City of Cupertino has no authority to implement any improvements at this location. Cum ulative Level Mitigation Measures Improvements were identified at the impacted intersections to mitigate Cumulative Plus Project impacts to less -than -significant levels. The following mitigation measures identified under Project Conditions mitigate the cu mulative impact to less -than -significant levels:
Kristy Weis, David J. Powers May 4, 2012 Page 13 of 16 Lawrence Expressway/Homestead Road – The addition of a third westbound or a third eastbound through lane would improve Cumulative Plus Project intersection levels of service to acceptable LOS E; however, thi s improvement would require significant right -of -way acquisition. This intersection is controlled and maintained by the County of Santa Clara and any improvements need to be approved and implemented by the County. Therefore, the impact at this intersection is considered significant and unavoidable . Vallco Parkway / Wolfe Road – The mitigation measures identified under Project Conditions (a westbound right overlap phase; a second westbound right -turn lane; or permitted phasing on the eastbound and westbound approaches) also mitigate the potential Cumulative Plus Project impact to less -than -significant Stevens Creek Boulevard / I -280 Southbound Ramps – Addition of an eastbound right -turn overlap phase mitigates the impact to a less -than -significant level. Thi s intersection is not located within the City of Cupertino; therefore, the applicant will need to coordinate with the lead agency to determine the appropriate mitigation at this location. Therefore, this impact would be considered significant and unavoidab le because the City of Cupertino has no authority to implement any improvements at this location. Lawrence Expressway/I -280 Southbound Ramps – An additional northbound and southbound through lane would improve overall delay; however, the intersection would still operate unacceptably. Therefore the impact is considered significant and unavoidable . This intersection is not controlled by the City of Cupertino and the applicant will need to coordinate with the lead agency to determine the appropriate mitigation at this location. Therefore, this impact would be considered significant and unavoidable because the City of Cupertino has no authority to implement any improvements at this location. FREEWAY SEGMENT LEVE LS OF SERVICE Vehicle trips generated by the restau rant -intensive scenarios were added to the existing traffic volumes for each freeway mainline segment from the 2008 studies . These volumes were then used to estimate density for each segment under Project Conditions. The resulting freeway segment operation s are presented in Table 7 . All t raffic associated with the s cenarios w as assumed to use the mixed -flow lanes on the freeway .
Kristy Weis, David J. Powers May 4, 2012 Page 14 of 16 Table 7 : Freeway Segment Levels Of Service From To Peak Hour 2008 Existing Maximum Office Scenario Reduced Office Scenario Density 1 LOS 2 Added Trips 3 Density 1 LOS 2 % Impact 4 Added Trips 3 Density 1 LOS 2 % Impact 4 Eastbound I -280 SR 85 De Anza AM PM 27 32 D D 71 56 27 32 D D 1.03 % 0.8 1 % 67 58 27 32 D D 0.97 % 0.84 % De Anza Wolfe AM PM 32 67 D F 64 50 32 68 D F 0.93 % 0.7 2 % 60 52 32 68 D F 0.87 % 0.75 % Wolfe Lawrence AM PM 22 76 C F 4 16 22 76 C F 0.06 % 0.23% 4 16 22 76 C F 0.06 % 0.23% Lawrence Saratoga AM PM 38 98 D F 29 137 38 101 D F 0.42 % 1.9 9 % 26 134 38 101 D F 0.38% 1.94 % Saratoga Winchester AM PM 43 86 D F 25 116 43 88 D F 0.36 % 1.6 9 % 22 111 43 88 D F 0.31 % 1.61 % Winchester I -880 AM PM 27 104 D F 21 99 27 107 D F 0.30 % 1.4 3 % 1 9 96 27 107 D F 0.27 % 1.40 % Westbound I -280 I -880 Winchester AM PM 94 73 F F 84 62 96 74 F F 1.21 % 0.9 0 % 78 63 96 74 F F 1.14 % 0.92 % Winchester Saratoga AM PM 65 55 F E 9 9 73 66 56 F E 1.43 % 1.06 % 90 73 66 56 F E 1.31 % 1.06 % Saratoga Lawrence AM PM 74 29 F D 116 86 76 29 F D 1.68 % 1.2 5 % 109 88 76 29 F D 1.58 % 1.28 % Lawrence Wolfe AM PM 68 27 F D 26 11 68 27 F D 0.38 % 0.16 % 24 11 68 27 F D 0.35 % 0.16 % Wolfe De Anza AM PM 50 37 E D 18 82 50 37 E D 0.26 % 1.1 9 % 17 80 50 37 E D 0.25 % 1.16 % De Anza SR 85 AM PM 60 25 F C 19 86 60 25 F C 0.28 % 1.2 5 % 18 84 60 25 F C 0.26 % 1.22 % Notes: 1 Measured in passenger cars per mile per lane. Density is calculated by using the travel speed from the adjacent segment, as well as the volume (flow) from the adjacent segment adjusted by the volume entering/exiting the freeway a t the interchange. 2 LOS = level of service. 3 Project trips added during the peak hour. 4 Added volume compared to segment capacity. Significant impacts are shown in bold typeface. Source: VTA, April 2008; and Fehr & Peers, 2012
Kristy Weis, David J. Powers May 4, 2012 Page 15 of 16 Project Freeway Impacts and Mit igation Measures Freeway impacts were evaluated by comparing the results of the level of service calculations under Projects Conditions to the results under Existing Conditions. Significant impacts to freeway segments are defined to occur when the addition of project -related traffic causes one of the following: A segment to drop below its acceptable CMP operating standard (LOS E); or, The project traffic added to a segment opera ting at LOS F is more than one percent of its capacity. Based on the signi ficanc e criteria, the proposed s cenarios will have significant impacts on several freeway segments summarized in Table 8 . The freeway segments impact ed are not greater than the 2008 project . TABLE 8 : FREEWAY IMPACTS Segment Limits 2008 Project Description 2012 Project Description Scheme 1 Scheme 2 Scheme 1c Scheme 2b Maximum Office Reduced Off i ce Eastbound I -280 Lawrence Expressway to Saratoga PM PM PM PM PM PM Saratoga to Winchester PM PM PM PM PM PM Winchester to I -880 PM PM PM PM PM PM Westbound I -280 I -880 and Win chester Boulevard PM AM AM/PM AM AM AM Winchester Boulevard to Saratoga AM AM AM -- AM AM Saratoga to Lawrence AM AM AM AM AM AM Source: Fehr & Peers, 2008 and 201 2 According to VTA policy direction, the mitigation measure for regional freeway impacts is partic ipation in the Countywide Deficiency Plan (CDP) prepared by the VTA. The CDP has not received final approval; therefore, the mitigation of freeway impacts cannot be guaranteed since Cupertino does not have legal authority to mitigate freeway impacts. Pendi ng adoption of the CDP, the Lead Agency for a development project must include programs or facilities delineated in the “Immediate Implementation Action List” (Appendix D to the Draft CDP) as part of the project’s approval if the freeway impact cannot be r educed to a less -than -significant level. Measures from the list that are appropriate for this project include : Improve Pedestrian Facilities (A -4) Bus Stop Improvements (B -8) HOV parking preference program (G -1) Bike facilities at development projects (G -2 ) Pedestrian circulation system (G -4)
Kristy Weis, David J. Powers May 4, 2012 Page 16 of 16 While implementation of these measures would incrementally reduce traffic, they would not reduce the identified impact to a less -than -significant level. Full mitigation of freeway impacts is considered beyond the scope of an individual project; thus, the addition of project traffic results in a significant and unavoidable impact to the all of the freeway segments listed above. CONCLUSION The restaurant -intensive scenarios would have similar or slightly lower trip genera tion than the schemes, options, and variants analyzed to date. During the PM peak hour, the inbound trip volume would be slightly higher; however, the change would not result in new or substantially more severe significant intersection and freeway impacts tha n were identified in the 2008 TIA and EIR or 2012 EIR Addendum . We hope that you have found the data contained in this memorandum helpful. If you have any questions, please contact Todd Henry at (415) 348 -0300 .